Richmond Road Turbine Splatters

The height of the splatters, most over 90m from the base along with their size virtually eliminate the possibility of casual vandalism. It occurred to me that there may have been some sort of machine failure that caused something to leak from the nacelle pivot and splash, in globs on the support column. Upon examination of the direction and distribution of the splatters, I concluded that this was unlikely. There was nothing to indicate this on the ground as well.

It appears likely, that the splatters are the result of avian or bat collisions either during a single event or a longer period of time. The variation in splatter sizes could indicate various species. Concentrations on the South-Southwest column would indicate flight from that direction. Concentrations of splatters, close to the nacelle could be explained by noise avoidance of the blade tips, which because of their velocity, produce the loudest air noise. This would have a “funneling” effect that would produce results, conforming to the observed density.

If mortality occurred, solely as a result of collision with the column, then the low range, not accounting for the homogenous smear at the top would be about 100. If mortality occurred as a result of blade collision, then the upper limit, assuming multiple events, based on this simple method from this observation would be about 2400. The correct number is somewhere in between.

Turbine%20Splatter%20Report%20Ken%20Bell%203-9-08.pdf

Democracy in action in Meredith

During the past year, several towns in the region have grappled with the issue of wind power, but none perhaps more contentiously than Meredith in Delaware County.

Regardless of how you stand on wind power, Meredith has become a great example of townspeople with the legal right to control their fate actually exercising their democratic powers to take charge of their lives.

A year ago, Meredith planners were working on an ordinance to regulate industrial wind turbines. After their work was completed, the town board made changes to their proposal, held hearings and passed a law many thought too lenient to wind-power developers.

So, in July, when it was time to file to run for town offices in the November election, the planning chairman and others who opposed the town board's action decided to use the ballot box to get the power to rescind the ordinance they opposed.

In November, the anti-industrial turbine candidates were elected in fairly close votes, presumably with a mandate to proceed to change course on the law the town board had passed. And, indeed, that is what is happening,

New town board members, keeping their campaign promise, are proposing to rescind Meredith's wind-energy law and ban industrial wind turbines.

Less than a month after the board overturned the ordinance adopted by the town board last summer, a public hearing on the proposed ban was scheduled for last week, but weather forced postponement until March 18.

Supervisor Keitha Capouya, who chaired the planning board last year, cited what she thought was a mandate for the board's action.

There had "a great deal of feeling about banning industrial wind turbines in the town," she said, noting that more than 800 people signed a petition opposing industrial wind, and of the dozens of people who spoke at last year's hearing on the original law, only six or seven were in favor of permitting industrial wind.

She said the proposed law does not ban small wind projects.

"We are very much in favor of alternative energy," Capouya said. "We are putting together a task force to explore small wind, solar, geo-thermal and private bio-mass energy projects.''

Capouya and her allied councilmen Ron Bailey and Dan Birnbaum readily acknowledge that they ran for office for a cause and are going to fulfill their pledges.

Though we generally have been in favor of wind development as an alternative energy source, we also respect the rights of citizens to democratically control the policies of their communities.

And the new leaders in the town of Meredith are doing just that.

Spitzer Is Linked to Prostitution Ring

ALBANY - Gov. Eliot Spitzer has informed his most senior administration officials that he had been involved in a prostitution ring, an administration official said this morning.

Mr. Spitzer, who was huddled with his top aides inside his Fifth Avenue apartment early this afternoon, had hours earlier abruptly canceled his scheduled public events for the day. He scheduled an announcement for 2:15 after inquiries from the Times.

Mr. Spitzer, a first term Democrat who pledged to bring ethics reform an end the often seamy ways of Albany, is married with three children.

Just last week, federal prosecutors arrested four people in connection with an expensive prostitution operation. Administration officials would not say that this was the ring with which the governor had become involved.

But a person with knowledge of the governor’s role said that the person believes the governor is one of the men identified as clients in court papers.

(Click to read entire NY Times article)

HOW WILL THIS CHANGE THE WIND POLITICS IN NYS ???

Wind Groups need to focus on Lieutenant Governor David A. Paterson.

Everyone urged to put maximum pressure on Paterson to void his pro wind report and support a full state wide investigation into the conduct of the wind industry. Start the letter writing campaign ASAP.

The Windmobile by Jon Boone

Demand for electricity, a cornerstone of modern society, accounts for about 39 % of all energy use in the United States, even though electricity accounts for 30% of the energy used for heating. Electricity demand doubled from 1970-2000 and is on pace to increase another 20% by 2009. We expect electricity to be highly reliable, affordable, and secure, made more difficult because it must be used immediately at industrial levels; unlike the water supply, it can’t be stored. The key to success turns on providing power to supply demand precisely when consumers desire it, second by second. The goal is to forecast demand as accurately as possible, then assemble the most dependable, controllable supply in order to achieve confidant reliability, or capacity.

It is crucial to know how energy experts understand the difference among the terms rated capacity, capacity factor, capacity credit, and capacity value, in order to ensure reliability at the lowest cost. The first describes the optimal performance of a machine; the second is the actual performance over time expressed as a percentage of the rated capacity; the third is a statistical average of the percentage of the rated capacity of the energy expected to be available at any peak demand time (for planning purposes—by ordering supply well ahead of the time it is used, grid operators can lessen the cost by purchasing bulk supplies); and the fourth is the percentage of a machine's rated capacity that grid operators can be confidant will be available at any 15 minute time-ahead interval.

Conventional generators--coal, natural gas, nuclear, and hydro—typically produce their rated capacities when asked to do so—or, in the case of large coal and nuclear plants, within a well understood time period, and maintain a steady energy level throughout their capacity factor time; wind generation produces only a percentage of its rated capacity, rarely, if ever, at its rated capacity (an expert analysis of over 7000 wind turbines in Germany revealed that none produced more than 80% of their rated capacity over a year).

Wind's variability means that its output varies continuously between zero and (rarely) 90% of its rated capacity, always skittering. Collectively, this fluctuating output is averaged over the course of a year to produce a capacity factor of between 20% and 33%. However, more than 50% of the time over the course of a year, a wind plant is unlikely to produce more than 15% of its rated capacity By contrast, conventional generators produce nearly 100% of their rated capacity at a steady level throughout the time they are chosen to be deployed.

In most wind rich areas of the world, the wind blows hardest at times of least demand while, conversely, it typically blows least, if at all, during times of highest demand; by contrast most conventional generators work independently of external factors (the exception perhaps being for hydro, in times of drought). This has grave implications for wind's capacity value, that is, for reliable expectations for its availability at any future time in a peak demand cycle. This is largely why NYSERDA's capacity credit for wind of 20% is so fictitious. Statistically, one might be able to show a history of wind availability at any critical point in time. Operationally, however, because wind behavior is randomly unique for any future time (in much the same fashion as a baseball player's batting average can't foretell the outcome of his next at bat), statistical history will not be good enough to ensure firm reliability. Consequently, wind' technology’s capacity value will approach zero for any wind facility.

Wind's skittering flux also has thermal implications, since the grid must balance supply and demand precisely on a less than second-to-second basis. In a system complicated by economic dispatch considerations (where the choice of power units typically is a function of selecting power supply with the lowest fixed price), it's not at all clear what fuel(s) wind power might erratically displace and what fuels would be deployed to follow and balance the wind flux. Tom Tanton, an energy expert in California, has suggested a protocol that could test this, but it would have to be applied to specific grids; it would not be a one size fits all formula. Wind flux behaves much like demand flux (though it is much less predictable). However, wind flux is in addition to demand flux. Consequently, it creates additional instability that must be compensated for.

It is likely the same conventional units used to balance demand flux will also be used to balance wind flux—but this will be on top of—in additional to—the operations necessary to balance demand flux, at increased costs in dollars and CO2 emissions. (Consumers must pay twice—once for the wind energy and once again for the compensatory generation.) System-wide, wind energy, on most grids, cannot contribute much as a method for abating significant levels of CO2, since it is unclear what volume of coal-fired CO2 wind might displace over time (it is more than likely to displace hydro or natural gas, with either no carbon abatement or very little) and to what extent the increased thermal activity flowing from fossil-fired compensatory generation would offset any CO2 savings wrought by the wind energy.

To illustrate how these concepts apply to wind technology, let’s use the Meyersdale wind facility in Pennsylvania as an example, and plug in the numbers: with 20-1.5MW turbines, the plant has a rated capacity of 35MW. It has a proven capacity factor, over three years, of about 27%—meaning that over a year's time it erratically produces about 9MW for the PJM grid (which produces up to 140,000MW during the year). More than half the time, however, it generates less than 15% of its rated capacity—about 2MW. At peak demand on the hottest summer days, it often produces nothing. It has a capacity credit of about 10% (3.5MW), which is an average. Statistically, one might be able to show a history of wind availability at any critical point in time—the capacity credit—of 3.5MW from this plant. Operationally, however, because wind behavior is randomly unique for any future time (in much the same fashion as a baseball player's batting average can't foretell the outcome of his next at bat), statistical history will not be good enough to ensure firm reliability. Consequently, wind's capacity value approaches zero for the Meyersdale plant--and all other such wind plants.

Consider the internal combustion automobile. It, too, like wind, has a capacity factor of about 25%-30%, limited by a combination of operator choice (people generally don't them 24 hours a day each day of the year) and by the need for ongoing maintenance and continual refueling. However, when it is asked to work, it will do so with a high rate of reliability, which is well beyond 99.9% of the time. This is its capacity value. Contrast this with the windmobile, where one can never be sure if it will start or not—or where most of the time it's speed lurches between extremes, often stopping in mid-traffic without warning and requiring a host of new traffic systems and patterns to enable it, not to mention the borrowed cars, buses, taxis, and late appointments involved in going hither and yon. This activity corresponds to the way the grid must provide special means to integrate wind’s unreliability.

A 1600MW coal farm produces a steady stream of 1600MW about 80% of the time--day and night throughout the year with high degrees of reliability. It is also contained within a relatively small area and can be equipped with scrubbers to virtually eliminate noxious emissions, such as SO2, NOx and mercury. Contrast this with a 1600MW wind plant, with its 2000 wind turbines stretched out for hundreds of miles and delivering its energy in skittering bursts--one minute 1400MW, the next 80MW, the next 1000MW, the next zero MW--all the time accompanied by conventional generation working overtime and more inefficiently to balance this volatility. Wind energy cannot stand alone; it necessarily is a minor ingredient in a larger fuel mix. It can, by itself, power no homes.

Jon Boone
Oakland, MD
March 10, 2008

"If there is such a thing as a clever fool, she is one!" -- Geoff Leventhall, PhD

... why is Nina Pierpont, a country doctor, doing the work of the Centers for Disease Control, the NYS Department of Health, the US Dept. of Health & Human Services, innumerable schools of public health affiliated with medical schools, etc.? I'd like a realistic answer, please. (I fear the real answer is devastating.)

Why is she spending her time and treasure interviewing the physician beside himself from the Wind Turbine Syndrome he suffers living on the farm he and his wife labored over for years? (When I say “suffering,” I mean suffering.) This evening she interviews a family that raises prize horses, the other day it was farmers in Norway, last week families in Ireland. Before that, England & Wales. And don't forget the people she interviews throughout Canada, the American Midwest, the Northeast, and so forth. It's endless. It's only beginning.

They all have the symptoms. They all wish to leave their homes, or have left them (read: abandoned them or been bought out at absurdly low prices by the wind developers). I am not a clinician, as you know. I took the call last evening from the desperate father who sent this email:

The noise is overwhelming.
The shadows are more than annoying.
Our equity has been destroyed.
Our dreams of building a new home have been crushed.
We have attorneys working on a settlement, and/or a lawsuit.
Can you all help us ?
Do you have any suggestions ?

I did a preliminary interview, to see if he was a candidate for Nina’s study. It was amazing how I could go down the checklist of symptoms and know what he had before he told me. He seemed surprised, relieved, and somewhat embarrassed (when it gets to the part about feeling their guts vibrating, people think they might be making it up: they're not). I didn't press him on memory loss; that's always the most painful revelation, Nina tells me.

Again, why is it a country doctor in upstate New York doing this? On no budget. In her "spare" time. (Hint: country doctors don't have spare time.)

The wind developers hire a man named Geoff Leventhall, PhD (physics, University of London), who presumes to pronounce judgment on Nina’s handling of clinical medicine. (She’s a Johns Hopkins-trained physician, not to mention a Princeton PhD in population biology.) He writes in a recent, widely circulated email, "If there is such a thing as a clever fool, she is one!" The man with no training (we are aware of) in anything clinical. The paid consultant to wind developers.

Nina Pierpont, the “clever fool” who stands up to the multi-billion-dollar global wind industry. Why? Where's the support?

Calvin Luther Martin

Criterion MDPSC Public Hearing Comments-March 6, 2008

Criterion PSC Public Hearing Comments-March 6, 2008

How marvelous is the theme of Garrett County's Board of Education: "Knowledge will forever govern ignorance, and a people who mean to be their own governors must arm themselves with the power knowledge gives." James Madison's grand notion requires a leap of faith and a strong commitment to the better idea, for it's never certain knowledge will prevail. In this hurley-burley, attention-deficit world, sustained inquiry often falls victim to wishful thinking or the notion that one opinion is as good as any other, as if monsters still await over the edge of the world or George Washington had crossed the Rubicon in 1492. Or that industrial wind is an effective and meaningful producer of anything other than massive tax avoidance mechanisms.

In a world where knowledge governs ignorance, those behind Criterion's limited liability scheme would be prosecuted for consumer fraud, while the Public Service Commission, the administration of the Department of Natural Resources, and the Office of the People's Counsel would be implicated for enabling a bunco operation. This so-called energy project, with its 28-sky-scrapper sized turbines extending for miles atop the state's tallest ridgeline, might sporadically produce an annual average of only 18MW to a grid that generates up to 140,000MW. At peak demand times, the project would often produce nothing. Since it can't be depended upon to produce on demand, it cannot replace any reliable power plant, or prevent any new conventional power plants, including coal, from being built to satisfy increased demand. Given its volatility, it's not clear what fuels it could erratically replace, and how much increased thermal activity would occur on the grid in order to stabilize that volatility. Consequently, the project would not likely offset significant carbon emissions-if any. Even if Western Maryland were saturated with a dozen similar projects, no coal plants would close and the effect on greenhouse gasses would be miniscule.

What this particular outsized monster will do is create unlawful noise, devalue neighboring properties, create a multitude of nuisances, threaten many species of wildlife, some already very vulnerable, subvert the county Heritage Plan, ridicule protections afforded by scenic highways and the state Historic Trust, clearcut hundreds of acres, dynamiting much of this area, and produce little revenues and few permanent local jobs. These phenomena are well documented, as is the questionable financial portfolio of Criterion's Clipper connection and the miserable performance of the Liberty turbines proposed for this project. But all this will almost surely be ignored by the present PSC review.

How did we arrive at such a sordid state of affairs? How could so many people believe the inaccurate claims this oafish technology makes for itself-that more wind plants would mean less coal farms; that such projects would reduce reliance on foreign oil; or provide power for 70,000 homes; or make the air cleaner and improve public health? All this is gibberish, contrived nonsense. The press bears a portion of the blame as it regurgitates "he said, she said" bromides, often reproducing verbatim corporate wind propaganda as if it were truth-and not advertising. The People's Counsel, moreover, has participated in three prior PSC wind hearings and has done nothing to protect the interests of ratepayers throughout those hearings, not even asking basic questions. It was not clear anyone from that office knew anything about electricity, let alone had thought to ask about how those projects would affect people's lives.

Garrett County's Commissioners also share a large portion of blame by pimping our mountains for elusive, unsecured wind revenues. They have a business relationship with wind developers, leasing county land to them, putting at risk much of what citizens hold dear-and they do so ignorant not only of what this project would do to people and property but also of the incivility inherent in this scale of development.

As for the PSC, it has been a pass through for the goals of pandering politicians and wildcat wind operators hoping to make a quick buck on the public's dime. At PSC evidentiary hearings, wind developers could not substantiate a single one of their claims, yet the hearing examiners consistently refused to make them accountable. When asked what remedies existed for citizens who experienced unlawful noise and deleterious health effects, for wildlife mortality, for property devaluations, for taxes promised but not delivered, for income promised but not delivered, for energy promised and not delivered-the PSC response was deafening: there was no response. The PSC is a political organization, its commissioners appointed by the governor; it is funded by fees collected from the companies it regulates. And it shows.

We gather this evening for the purpose of dressing the PSC's window, so that its bureaucrats can say they upheld the law-a law dedicated to the pursuit of ignorance, made for a politically connected wind developer and a prominent wind lobbyist expressly to eliminate public inquiry and a systematic search for relevant information that could protect citizens, consumers, and the environment. Is it any wonder that people have become so cynical about their government-when its regulatory agencies hide behind a contemptible law to avoid doing their jobs, deceptively securing political ends while ignoring the public they are chartered to serve? We should speak plainly here: the PSC is engaged in a sham, a charade, where bullshit governs knowledge and snake oil usurps effective government. Don't persist on this course.

Jon Boone
Friends of Backbone Mountain
503 East Alder Street
Oakland, MD 2155

Warsaw Country Courier 3/6/08 - "Common Sense Gone as we're "s-WIND-led" again!" by Mary Kay Barton

Editor,

I continue to be amazed, and alarmed, by decisions being made in regard to industrial wind installations without the foreign-owned developers first being required to provide proof of all of their claims. It has always been my understanding that good common sense business practices dictate that responsible persons first demand proof of claims being made before jumping into business with anyone, and then seek competitive bids in order to assure the absolute best service, goods, and financial agreement possible for the person, community, and/or entire region entering into these business deals. To date, neither has happened in the case of industrial wind energy development in Western New York. Sadly, what we are left with is the looming industrialization of our countrysides, the apparent indifference as to whether wind actually does what it claims or not, and many other unanswered questions.

Questions like:

1.) Since we know that wind can never provide RELIABLE, base load power, the very basis of the industry's existence are their claims that wind energy will reduce CO2 emissions, our dependence on fossil fuels, and thereby reduce global warming. Proving these claims then demands asking: What independent, transparent measurement has been done anywhere in the world, showing the fuels, and CO2 emissions that wind energy actually displaces?

2.) Have elected officials asked industrial wind salespeople to provide any actual output numbers from existing projects? If not, why not?

3.) Why aren't our townships demanding competitive bids, as is required for all other purchases and business deals, to assure themselves and their townspeople that they are getting the absolute best deal possible?

4.) Who's really running the show here? Us, or them? If these projects are to be pursued at all, shouldn't developers be made to follow existing rules and recommendations, instead of being allowed to craft and restructure laws to suit themselves? (i.e. - zoning laws which have always determined setbacks from property lines, not foundations of people's homes - which is nothing less than back-door eminent domain!)

5.) Horizon Wind salesperson, Anne Humphrey, confirmed in her 2/18/08 letter to the editor, that the proposed Dairy Hills Wind Project is only a "Class 2 project." The industry's own trade association, the American Wind Energy Association, and both the U.S. Dept. of Energy and the National Renewable Energy Laboratory, all state that on a scale of 1 - 7, a Class 4 wind resource is necessary to be considered suitable for the development of wind energy projects. So, why then, are our tax dollars being spent on projects that their own numbers prove can never be economically viable here?

6.) Isn't it a moral and ethical obligation of our elected officials to care whether a product actually works or not, when it is all of OUR money that is being used to pay for it?

7.) When decision makers freely admit that "It is all about the money," and don't care to investigate whether it really works or not, isn't the sad but true analysis then, that they are allowing themselves to be bribed with our own tax dollars? (It was Ben Franklin who said that if the taxpayers can vote themselves other taxpayers money, that will be the end of the republic.)

8.) Due to the complete well-thought out planning & marketing genius of industrial wind energy developers, "industrial wind energy complexes" have been termed wind "farms". In the proposed Dairy Hills project alone, 96 separate locally-owned "farms" and parcels are encompassed within their 7,950 acre wind "farm", and this doesn't include the non-participating homeowners now stuck living within the project's footprint. The developers haven't had to purchase, or pay appropriate taxes on, a single acre of this land. Do you actually think anyone other than the wind energy corporation will have control over this land going forward?

I think we've all heard the saying, "Those who don't learn from history are doomed to repeat it." I know that many have referred to the industrial wind salespeople as "snake-oil salesmen." But, have you ever really stopped to think about how unbelievably reminiscent of the old Wild West Traveling Medicine Shows, the whole "Industrial Wind Road Show" really is? Consider the historical facts that a friend of mine recently wrote about, which truly clarify how we are being "sWINDled" again.

We've all seen the old westerns that included in their story lines the charlatan doctors who came to town peddling their absurd remedies to the unsuspecting, trusting townspeople. We'd sit and wonder as we watched that old flick, "How could anyone be so gullible? If I was there, I would speak up and expose those frauds!"

In reality, these scams were actually quite sophisticated. Most people were taken in by a series of very clever, well-planned tricks and stunts used by these medicine peddlers. The larger traveling shows employed advance men to work the area before they actually arrived in town. (Sound familiar?)

When the show actually entered town for all to see, there was a circus-like fanfare, typically with a band leading a procession of professionally-decorated wagons. Skits and other diversions were used to attract audiences, and to lower their sales resistance. The crowd gathering was eventually treated to the "Lecture" (now called a "commercial" or "advertisement").

While the Lecture was going on, some assistants moved through the crowd garbed as Quakers to lend an air of moral respectability to the whole affair. "Shills" were paid people who stood up and gave enthusiastic testimony as to the effectiveness of the phony product.

Native Americans were frequently recruited to promote the notion of "natural", or environmentally-friendly medicines, which were given names like Wright's Indian Vegetable Pills, Seminole Cough Balsam, or Kickapoo Juice.

Here we are, many years later, and supposedly so much more intelligent and worldly-wise. Yet, here we go again! Are we really going to allow ourselves to be "sWINDled" by these snake-oil salesmen - the hucksters of the early 21st Century?

Mary Kay Barton, Castile, NY

Town of Cohocton Zoning Officer February 5, 2008 Letter to UPC Wind

February 5, 2008

Jack Zigenfus - Supervisor
15 S Main St.
P0 Box 327
Cohocton NY 14826

Ph. 585/534-5101
Fax 585/534-5472

Mr. Lawrence Mott
UPC Wind Management, LLC
50 State Street
Montpelier, VT 05602

Re: Cohocton and Dutch Hill Wind Power Projects
Canandaigua Power Partners, LLC and Canandaigua Power Partners II, LLC Town of Cohocton

Dear Mr. Mott:

The purpose of this letter is to notify you of Canandaigua Power Partners, LLC (CPP) and Canandaigua Power Partners II, LLC (CPP lI)’s remaining, obligations under the SUP. This list is not exhaustive. These issues are related to the conditions set forth in the Special Use Permit and other executed agreements that govern your work. It is important for you to recognize that compliance with these conditions are essential and that they must be completed in a timely fashion and to the satisfaction of the Town. Please address your responses to me, the Town’s Designee. Responses will be in writing on CPP or UPC letterhead (no E-Mail), with copies to LaBella. Please call me at your earliest convenience so that we can establish a schedule for complying with these requirements.

The following list identifies the outstanding. issues that have been identified to date:

I. SPECIAL USE PERMIT (SUP):

Condition 3: Permittee’s Contractual Interest in Project Parcels of Land

• CPP and CPP II must document to the Town Designee proof of Permittee’s contractual interest in parcels of land identified on the site plans. The form of proof has been previously agreed upon and must include acknowledgement by UPC and the landowner.
• CPP and CPP II must document to the Town Designee compliance with the setback requirements of Local Law Nos. 1 and 2 of 2006. It is the Town’s intent to utilize LaBella Associates to conduct an instrument survey to verify construction compliance with the site plans. We anticipate checking several critical turbine setbacks. Labella’s surveyor is willing to work with your surveyor to accomplish this “spot check”. Corrective action will be taken should setbacks be determined to be in violation of our ordinances.
• CPP and CPP II must provide setback releases from the owners of record of the parcels of land identified in Schedule 3.

Conditions 4 &5: Federal State & Local Permits and approvals

• Provide written acknowledgment that any work undertaken prior to obtaining all federal, state, and local permits and approvals shall be undertaken at the permitee’s sole risk.

Condition 9G: Construction Requirement

• Provide the Town with a written plan describing how the Permittee intends to implement a Survey and Avoidance Plan whose purpose is to identify nesting grassland bird species and avoid any species of concern. To date this has not been an issue due to the season of construction however Spring is approaching.

Condition 13 & 23: Immaterial Alterations

• We request that CPP and CPP II copy all alteration requests to LaBella Associates per SUP Condition 23A.
• Please submit appropriate drawings and written descriptions for each instance identified below.
• Lent Hill, T-3 0 &3 1: Access Road Changes from Site Plan.
• Lent Hill, T-9: Access Road alignment changed from site plan.

II. PERMIT OVERSIGHT AGREEMENT

Article VI Section 6.3: Fire Protection and Control

• It is not clear whether the meeting with the Fire Chief has taken place and whether the Fire Protection Plan been instituted.
Exhibit C: Complaint Resolution Protocol .

• The Town requests that the weekly complaint log be submitted to the Town Designee. Please submit the log to date and submit timely logs hereafter.
• Submit weekly construction schedules to the Town’s designee and LaBella Associates outlining your anticipated work for that week. Weekly scheduled meetings may also be required.

Thanks you for your consideration of these matters,

Sincerely,

Town of Cohocton

Joseph Bob

Zoning Officer and Town Designee

Cc: Jack Zigenfiis, Supervisor Town of Cohocton
Ray Schrader, Town of Cohocton Planning Board
Eric Henderson, Code Enforcement Officer
Wayne Hunt, own Councilman
Doug Hastings, LaBella Associates, PC
Todd Mathes, White Osterman and Hanna
Ruth E. Leistensnider, Nixon Peabody
Chris Swartley, UPC
John Pelczar, UPC
Josh Bagnato, UPC
Jim Goodman, UPC

Impact of Article X on local governments

Senator George H. Winner, Jr.
Chairman, Legislative Commission on Rural Resources

Dear Senator Winner, Jr.:

This letter is an answer to the questionnaire regarding the impact of proposed Article X regulations on local governments. I am a member of the Planning Board in the Town of Lyme and I also, prior to joining the Planning Board, organized a Citizen's Advisory Committee for the purpose of gathering information about wind turbines and their effects. Lyme's Planning Board recently developed a set of proposed modifications to our local land use regulations to govern the siting of wind turbines in the town of Lyme. We have reviewed our proposed law with several public hearings and subsequently with the Jefferson County Planning Board. We are currently proceeding to modify the proposed law to incorporate the County's comments, prior to its adoption.

I am concerned that in your letter of January 31, requesting comments of local government officials, you state that your commission has been a strong proponent of responsible wind energy development. This statement concerns me because my research as to the efficacy of wind energy supplied by large industrial wind turbines has not convinced me that these devices contribute significantly to either our energy independence or to a reduction in greenhouse gases.

We find ourselves in the position of being aggressively pursued by wind developers who are, of course strong advocates of these large wind turbines. In my extensive research of the effects of these large wind turbine installations, it seems to me that the principal beneficiaries are the large wind developers and wealthy investors who reap significant tax relief from their ownership of these devices. The State should offer us protection when dealing with these financially and, it appears, politically powerful wind turbine developers. I would hope, that as citizens of New York, we could count on the State to assist us in resisting these large corporations who do not care or appreciate the damage these large wind installations would do to the scenic beauty of the Thousand Islands area and the consequent damage to our largely tourist/vacationer based economy.

In general we have not found the State to be helpful in our situation. The literature provided on NYSERDA's website for municipalities appears to have been taken nearly verbatim from the press releases of the AWEA or the individual wind developers.

NYSERDA, in its paper titled, "Other Potential Environmental Impacts," (October 2005, www.powernaturally.org) characterizes these large industrial turbines as devices producing sound levels comparable to a "kitchen refrigerator," at a setback of 750 to 1,000 feet. This is pure nonsense as there are documented studies of people residing several miles from these devices experiencing annoying sound levels. If the State is going to put out materials for guidance of local officials through NYSERDA or other agencies, it should be researched, compiled, and vetted by independent experts from our universities and not by the wind developers and their paid consultants. Senator George H. Winner, Jr.

The wind developers in this and surrounding communities have utilized unethical approaches that are virtually tearing communities apart. I have attached a letter I recently sent to the editor of the Watertown Daily Times protesting this tactic of approaching the poor farmers in the area years before making their intentions known to the community.

I am particularly concerned about the penultimate paragraph of your summary of the law wherein it is stated that, "The siting board would be required to determine if the proposed facility is in compliance with local laws and regulations, unless it finds those local requirements are unreasonably restrictive..." Our planning Board has devoted considerable effort to researching and defining noise restrictions in our local law. This is particularly important in Lyme as a large portion of our residents own property on or near Lake Ontario, which they value for its peaceful quiet atmosphere and beautiful vistas. The establishment of wind turbine facilities here in Lyme and in the neighboring towns of Cape Vincent, Clayton, and Hounsfield would adversely affect the desirability of the area to vacationers and tourists. I would not want to see our carefully crafted and reasonable local regulations overridden by a State Board and it appears the proposed modifications to Article X would make that a possibility.

In summary, I would like to see the State provide some assistance to the local governments of our towns to resist these aggressive and powerful developers who are determined to reap the benefits currently available for wind turbine owners, regardless of disastrous consequences to our communities, our economy and our way of life. The developers should not be getting assistance from the State as we are already engaged in a David and Goliath struggle. I would be pleased to further discuss this situation with you and your Senate Committee.

Very truly yours,
Albert H. Bowers III

cc: Darrel Aubertine
William Barclay
Governor Eliot Spitzer

John Terry's Wind Cartoons

Town of Cohocton, 2 Steuben school districts to get payments in lieu of taxes by Larry Wilson

COHOCTON -- UPC Wind, developer of two Steuben County wind farms, has agreed to pay $14.5 million in lieu of taxes over the next 20 years.

The company announced the agreement with the Steuben County Industrial Development Agency on Monday.

The county agency will administer the payments, which will go to the town of Cohocton, the Wayland-Cohocton Central School District and the Avoca School District, UPC Wind said in a news release.

The agreement covers payments in lieu of taxes on the developer's Cohocton and Dutch Hill wind power projects.

Construction of the Cohocton project began last fall. When the Dutch Hill project is completed, a total of 50 2.5-megawatt wind turbines will produce enough power annually to supply 54,000 homes.

"We are pleased to have finalized our agreement with (Steuben County IDA) putting in place the second major component of our economic package for the town of Cohocton and surrounding communities," said Chris Swartley, director of business development for UPC Wind.

Swartley said the company also will pay the town of Cohocton $11.5 million over the first 20 years of the project as part of a "host" agreement.

James P. Sherron, chairman of the Industrial Development Agency, said the new agreement will help reduce pressure on property taxes, support the region's schools, strengthen local services and contribute to the overall welfare of the community.

"It is through agreements such as this that we can secure the new investment and job opportunities that will contribute to advancing the general prosperity of Steuben County," Sherron said.

UPC Wind said it made its first $725,000 payment under the host agreement to the town of Cohocton in January. The company said that offset about 30 percent of the town property tax levy.

"We applaud the completion of the second major component of the economic agreement between UPC Wind and the community," said Jack Ziegenfus, Cohocton town supervisor.

James Hall, a spokesman for windmill project opponent Cohocton Wind Watch, said the figures in the new agreement conflict with earlier information provided to the group by the Industrial Development Agency.

"A quick calculation on my part (from provided figures) shows the pilot comes to about $5.7 million," Hall said. "That's quite a stretch from the $14 million in their press release."

Hall said there is also an escape clause in the host community agreement that allows UPC Wind to pull out without paying under certain conditions.

Cohocton Wind Watch has gone to Steuben County Court in an effort to block both projects.

"We feel very confident ... special use permits issued by the Cohocton Planning Board will be revoked and the entire project will have to halt all construction," Hall said.

The wind farm developer is based in Newton, Mass.

NYSEG critic to get his say by LARRY RULISON

ALBANY -- A former New York State Electric & Gas executive who is crying foul about the company has been allowed to join the company's merger proceeding before state regulators.

The New Jersey man, Mark Corbett, says he is the former director of human resources for NYSEG, a Rochester-based utility that is part of Energy East Corp. of Maine. NYSEG has about 45,000 customers in the Capital Region.

Energy East, which also owns Rochester Gas & Electric, is poised to become part of Iberdrola SA of Spain in a $4.5 billion merger once the state Public Service Commission approves the deal. The PSC, which is made up of a five-person board of political appointees, regulates electric utilities in the state.

Staff at the PSC, which does the day-to-day work of the PSC board, are currently involved in negotiations with the companies to come to a settlement agreement on the merger.

Such a settlement would likely include concessions from Iberdrola to provide the public with benefits from the merger that would be acceptable to the PSC commissioners.

Other entities such as state agencies and business and consumer groups are involved in the talks as what the PSC calls "active parties" in the case.

In a ruling made Friday, the administrative law judge in the case, Rafael Epstein, ruled that Corbett could be granted active party status despite the objections of Energy East, RG&E and NYSEG.

Epstein said that Corbett has sued NYSEG. He also says Corbett has alleged that Energy East "falsely represented" that it had met its obligations under the federal Employee Retirement Income Security Act.

"He says this alleged misrepresentation, in turn, has affected Energy East's economic value and liabilities," the judge wrote in his ruling.

Iberdrola would not comment on the ruling. Spokesmen for Energy East, NYSEG and RG&E could not be reached.

But Energy East, at least, believes Corbett will hamper the settlement talks, which are expected to be completed by this month.

"They conclude that his participation, rather than contributing to the record, would have the opposite effect by impeding the efficient conduct of the proceeding," the judge wrote.

LETTER TO N.Y. TOWN SUPERVISORS RE: ARTICLE X THREAT TO HOME RULE

The New York State Coalition of Concerned Citizens have come together to get the word out to all NYS municipality officials and citizens regarding the upcoming legislation, known as Article X, and the importance of maintaining Home Rule in our state. We have sent a letter to all NYS Supervisors, encouraging them and their respective boards and citizens, to contact and inform Governor Spitzer, Senate Majority Leader Bruno, Senate Energy Chairman Wright, and all their representatives that we simply refuse to have our right of Home Rule stripped away through the adoption of Article X.

New York State has always prided itself on being a Home Rule State. The fact is that citizens can only create the kinds of communities they want to live in 20, 40, & 60 years down the road, if they remain authorized and empowered to make decisions for themselves as to what is best for their communities. We simply can not allow what would be a gross loss of our freedoms, nor the massive land grab of our countryside that is the driving force behind the whole issue. Please write your representatives
today and tell them to say NO to Article X and the loss of Home Rule.

February 22, 2008

Dear Town Supervisors, Town Board Members, & Interested Members of the Public,

As you know, Governor Eliot Spitzer, has called for the New York State Legislature to revise and re-establish Article X (10) of the NYS Public Service Law, which would establish a new siting and permitting process for energy facilities in our state. It appears that bills to be introduced in the 2008 legislative session will over-ride current “Home Rule” authority, wherein the State of New York will acquire the authority to supersede municipal planning, zoning, and decision-making regarding the siting of these energy facilities. Therefore, it is imperative that you immediately contact your NYS representatives, and let them know that you vehemently oppose the loss of Home Rule.

Once the New York State budget is finalized, we expect Article X to emerge as a prominent political issue in Albany. To counter the looming threat that our municipality’s right to make decisions for themselves will be stripped away with the passage of Article X, we are strongly encouraging all NYS municipalities to take the following actions:

1.) Protest the threatened loss of Home Rule by contacting your State Senator and Assemblyperson, and demand that they DO NOT SUPPORT Article X legislation which would over-ride Home Rule.
(www.nysl.nysed.gov/ils/legislature/legis.html )

2.) Contact the Association of Towns to notify them of your concerns so that they can represent you in Albany in regards to this issue.
(www.nytowns.org )

3.) Adopt and/or strengthen your local zoning ordinances for utilities, emphasizing local planning jurisdiction.

4.) Most importantly, in order to protect our right to self-governance under Home Rule, adopt legislation that refuses to recognize Constitutional “Rights of Personhood” — which were instituted by our founding fathers and intended solely for individuals who are citizens of these United States, to any & all corporations thinking they can do business in our communities by usurping our right to decide for ourselves. (Community Environmental Legal Defense Fund:
www.celdf.org - see ordinances)

The question is: Who gets to decide? New York State has always prided itself on the fact that it is a Home Rule State. Citizens can only create the the kinds of communities they want to live in 20, 40, & 60 years down the road, if they are authorized and empowered to make decisions for themselves regarding what’s best for their communities. To allow NYS representatives, who were elected to protect and serve us, to suddenly strip away Home Rule, thus enabling this immense land grab, is a blatant continuation of a downward spiral of rights removal.

Please — do not delay! Contact Governor Spitzer, Senate Majority Leader Bruno, Senate Energy Chairman Wright, and all your elected representatives, and let them know we simply refuse to have our right of Home Rule stripped away!

Sincerely,

New York State Coalition of Concerned Citizens


Examples of effective legislation already adopted in New York & other U.S. townships, that were specifically designed to safeguard their communities’ rural heritage, safety, quality of life, and right to maintain local control can be viewed at:
www.celdf.org
(see ordinances).

NY comptroller faults IDA reports on project costs, jobs creation

idareport08.pdf

ida022708.mp3

Officials: NY renewable energy program needs money

New York's ambitious plan to rely on windmills, hydropower and other renewable energy sources for a quarter of its electricity by 2013 is a bit behind schedule and short on funds.

The money consumers pay through their electric bills to help support projects like wind farms is simply not enough to meet the goals set out in 2004, according to Spitzer administration officials. They say they want to see the program fully funded -- a move that would likely cost consumers slightly more.

New York State Energy and Research Development Authority head Paul Tonko stressed that money spent on developing a clean and diverse energy supply in New York is an investment in the state's security and economy.

"It strengthens our energy security," said Tonko. "To rely on fossil-based fuels, which oftentimes are imported from the most trouble-prone spots in the world, is not an energy-secure place to be."

Then-Gov. George Pataki announced in 2004 that New York would try to rely on renewable resources for 25 percent of its electricity by 2013 under a so-called renewable portfolio standard, or RPS. The state at that time already received about 19 percent of its energy mix from renewables, most of it from two massive hydro projects at Niagara Falls and on the St. Lawrence River.

Under the plan, NYSERDA was charged with contracting for renewable energy. Money is raised through a consumer surcharge that costs residential customers from 26 to 44 cents a month, depending on which utility serves their area, according to the Public Service Commission.

A renewable energy task force headed by Lt. Gov. David Paterson noted in a report this week that the $782 million raised by the surcharge "will not be sufficient to meet New York's targeted 2013 goal." Money for the program was too little to begin with and became even more inadequate when prices for wind turbines and raw materials increased, according to the report.

The task force said state regulators should consider boosting funding for the program. Tonko, a member of the task force, said his agency is working on forecasts to determine how much money the program will need.

While the state lags in meeting its incremental year-by-year goals, Tonko said the state is more than a third of the way there, once pending contracts are considered. He said with proper resources "I think we can get very close" to the 2013 goal, if not achieve it.

"But funding will definitely be required in order for us to keep climbing," he said.

Gavin Donohue, executive director of the Independent Power Producers of New York, said that though any increase in customers' bill is likely to be modest, it would be added to other charges at a time when energy costs are rising.

Donohue, reflecting the views of many in the energy business, said New York needs more generation and transmission to keep supplies adequate and prices down. He said Gov. Eliot Spitzer is left trying to meet an aggressive target set by his predecessor that is both complicated and expensive.

"I don't think we should give up striving for it," he said. "But I don't think we're as far along as some would paint the picture."

To reach the 25-percent threshold, state energy officials are counting on 1 percent of electricity customers to choose so-called green energy by 2013. Public Service Commission spokesman James Denn said the state is "on track" to reach the goal by 2013.