LONDON - With the political winds now apparently blowing in Electricite de France's favor, attention on Friday turned yet again to the company's plans for a foray into the Spanish energy market.
The French government-owned utility has made no secret of its wish to enter the Spanish market, nor of its discussions with potential bidding partner Actividades de Construccion (ACS). But whereas the two companies had been reportedly planning a break-up bid for Spanish utility Iberdrola (other-otc: IBDSF - news - people ), a press report claimed on Friday that the pair would also make a simultaneous offer for utility Union Fenosa.
(Click to read entire article)
Friday, March 21, 2008
Thursday, March 20, 2008
David C. Amsler March 20, 2008 letter to the PSC
March 20, 2008
To: Hon. Jaclyn A. Brilling
Secretary to the Commission
New York State Public Service Commission
Agency Building 3
Albany, NY 12223-1350
From: David C. Amsler
VP Concerned Citizens of Cattaraugus County
417 Bush Hill Rd.
Franklinville, NY 14737
Ref: Case 07-M-0906-Iberdrola Merger.
Secretary Brilling:
As a holder of Energy East stock, it pains me that I must join in supporting the blocking of Iberdrola’s take over of Energy East’s assets in New York State. Any short term financial gain I would receive from the takeover will be outweighed by the long term damage done to this state and its residents.
Iberdrola owning both energy producing and distributing facilities in this state creates a monopoly situation that will be bad for New York’s residents and its economy.
Iberdrola has already been sited and fined for abusing its dominant market position elsewhere, and there is little reason to think they will not do so here.
Iberdrola stock is not directly available to US investors, nor is Iberdrola subject to any financial oversight by U.S. regulation. Further Iberdrola is itself subject to much speculation about pending takeover by larger companies leaving the PSC even less able to foresee the consequences of this takeover.
Iberdrola’s ownership of wind turbine facilities in this state is particularly troubling. Wind energy is more expensive than that from conventional sources, and Iberdrola would be able to pass the costs on to their captive customers without any competition or check by economic realities.
Higher electrical energy costs will only make this state less able to compete with other states and the in the global economy.
Higher electrical rates also inhibit progress on the two technologies that can drastically reduce our dependency on foreign energy and help reduce greenhouse gas production, specifically the new batteries which make the electric automobile feasible, and electrically powered heat pumps for heating homes and businesses. The typical automotive internal combustion engine only converts about 20% of the energy it consumes into motive power, while electric motors operate at near 90%, and in automobiles they can recapture energy during braking.. Heat pumps can move several times more heat energy than they consume, while conventional combustion furnaces can only deliver less than the energy they consume.
The advent of these technologies just as the price for imported energy rises gives this country, with its entrepreneurial culture, a golden opportunity to take leadership in these fields, creating real jobs.
There are many ways to produce electrical energy that are clean, economical, and largely CO2 free. Allowing, let alone encouraging, uneconomical electrical energy will only rob us of the opportunity these emerging technologies present.
PSC’s responsibility is to the people of this state, and their economic well being. I strongly support blocking of this takeover.
Thank you for your consideration.
David C. Amsler
To: Hon. Jaclyn A. Brilling
Secretary to the Commission
New York State Public Service Commission
Agency Building 3
Albany, NY 12223-1350
From: David C. Amsler
VP Concerned Citizens of Cattaraugus County
417 Bush Hill Rd.
Franklinville, NY 14737
Ref: Case 07-M-0906-Iberdrola Merger.
Secretary Brilling:
As a holder of Energy East stock, it pains me that I must join in supporting the blocking of Iberdrola’s take over of Energy East’s assets in New York State. Any short term financial gain I would receive from the takeover will be outweighed by the long term damage done to this state and its residents.
Iberdrola owning both energy producing and distributing facilities in this state creates a monopoly situation that will be bad for New York’s residents and its economy.
Iberdrola has already been sited and fined for abusing its dominant market position elsewhere, and there is little reason to think they will not do so here.
Iberdrola stock is not directly available to US investors, nor is Iberdrola subject to any financial oversight by U.S. regulation. Further Iberdrola is itself subject to much speculation about pending takeover by larger companies leaving the PSC even less able to foresee the consequences of this takeover.
Iberdrola’s ownership of wind turbine facilities in this state is particularly troubling. Wind energy is more expensive than that from conventional sources, and Iberdrola would be able to pass the costs on to their captive customers without any competition or check by economic realities.
Higher electrical energy costs will only make this state less able to compete with other states and the in the global economy.
Higher electrical rates also inhibit progress on the two technologies that can drastically reduce our dependency on foreign energy and help reduce greenhouse gas production, specifically the new batteries which make the electric automobile feasible, and electrically powered heat pumps for heating homes and businesses. The typical automotive internal combustion engine only converts about 20% of the energy it consumes into motive power, while electric motors operate at near 90%, and in automobiles they can recapture energy during braking.. Heat pumps can move several times more heat energy than they consume, while conventional combustion furnaces can only deliver less than the energy they consume.
The advent of these technologies just as the price for imported energy rises gives this country, with its entrepreneurial culture, a golden opportunity to take leadership in these fields, creating real jobs.
There are many ways to produce electrical energy that are clean, economical, and largely CO2 free. Allowing, let alone encouraging, uneconomical electrical energy will only rob us of the opportunity these emerging technologies present.
PSC’s responsibility is to the people of this state, and their economic well being. I strongly support blocking of this takeover.
Thank you for your consideration.
David C. Amsler
Mr. Brad Jones Statement to PSC Public Hearing on Iberdrola Energy East - 2/20/08 pages 11 - 16
MR. JONES’ WRITTEN STATEMENT:
We are, however, as current NYSEG CASE NUMBER 08017/07-M—0906 customers, deeply opposed to this proposed acquisition and we urge that the Public Service Commission not allow it to proceed. The reasons for our opposition are as follow. There will be six of these.
The first is Energy Security. We do not believe it is in the best interest of utility customers for our electrical generation infrastructure to be in the hands of foreign investors and under the influence of foreign governments that may not always have our best interests in mind.
Our second issue is with regard to energy reliability. Iberdrola has made this bid not because they wish to provide a superior service and value to utility customers, but because they want to make a superior return on their investment. Maximizing these returns may encourage them to inappropriately reduce expenditures for maintenance and repair and thus risk reliability of the supply. With a parallel abiding interest in maximizing cash flow they may be tempted to postpone or cancel capital improvements and thus put future supply at risk. The objectives of maximizing their profits while also providing reliable affordable service are in direct conflict and cannot be reconciled. Less value for us simply means more value for them. Acting in their interests of their majority foreign shareholders they will choose more value, less service.
Our third concern is with energy cost. Iberdrola can give no assurance, nor is there anything in their history to indicate that utility customers will not be facing significant increases for energy as price increases are a direct contributor to increased profits for Iberdrola.
Our fourth concern has to do with long-term commitment. We believe that Iberdrola and any other foreign investors are rapidly buying into the U.S. infrastructure sectors for only one reason: that is that our dollar is weak compared to other currencies and their Euro buys much more than at any time in the past. We are concerned that this deal does not constitute a long-term commitment to utility customers and that it is a matter of convenient opportunity for Iberdrola to buy Energy East at a bargain basement price. We fear that after several rounds of cost cutting that Iberdrola will break up the assets of Energy East and resell them for a quick profit.
Our fifth concern has to do with continuity of ownership. On February 5, 11 2008, it was reported that Energie de France SA was working with a Spanish builder, ACS, on a plan for hostile takeover of Iberdrola. Such a consecutive change in ownership would be further step away from the interest of utility customers and put the government of France in a majority position in that organization.
Our sixth and perhaps one of our most important issues has to deal with business ethics. We do not believe that Iberdrola has demonstrated a sufficiently high level of business ethics and respect for the law 24 to be allowed to control our energy infrastructure.
On February 15th, 2008, it was reported that Iberdrola has been fined 15.4 million Euros for (quote) “abusing its dominant position in the electricity generally market” (unquote). The fine was levied by the Nacional Comision de law Competencia, and followed a complaint from Endesa SA, a smaller Spanish utility.
In April of 1007, an Antitrust Complaint was filed with the U.S. Department of Justice, targeting the industrial wind energy industry in New York, in which Iberdrola is trying to become a major player. It is alleged that wind energy developers and their associates, including Iberdrola, conspired to geographically allocate the market for wind energy projects and fix prices for leases, payments of taxes and other payments.
Additionally, there are criminal allegations that include bribery, larceny, false instruments, mail fraud, conspiracy to deprive taxing authorities and attorney misconduct.
The New York State Attorney General’s Office has several active investigations underway as per those allegations.
We believe that our objections to the proposed acquisition are serious and substantive and we strongly urge the Public Service Commission to prevent Iberdrola’s takeover of our energy supplier.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this matter.
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Thank you very much.
We are, however, as current NYSEG CASE NUMBER 08017/07-M—0906 customers, deeply opposed to this proposed acquisition and we urge that the Public Service Commission not allow it to proceed. The reasons for our opposition are as follow. There will be six of these.
The first is Energy Security. We do not believe it is in the best interest of utility customers for our electrical generation infrastructure to be in the hands of foreign investors and under the influence of foreign governments that may not always have our best interests in mind.
Our second issue is with regard to energy reliability. Iberdrola has made this bid not because they wish to provide a superior service and value to utility customers, but because they want to make a superior return on their investment. Maximizing these returns may encourage them to inappropriately reduce expenditures for maintenance and repair and thus risk reliability of the supply. With a parallel abiding interest in maximizing cash flow they may be tempted to postpone or cancel capital improvements and thus put future supply at risk. The objectives of maximizing their profits while also providing reliable affordable service are in direct conflict and cannot be reconciled. Less value for us simply means more value for them. Acting in their interests of their majority foreign shareholders they will choose more value, less service.
Our third concern is with energy cost. Iberdrola can give no assurance, nor is there anything in their history to indicate that utility customers will not be facing significant increases for energy as price increases are a direct contributor to increased profits for Iberdrola.
Our fourth concern has to do with long-term commitment. We believe that Iberdrola and any other foreign investors are rapidly buying into the U.S. infrastructure sectors for only one reason: that is that our dollar is weak compared to other currencies and their Euro buys much more than at any time in the past. We are concerned that this deal does not constitute a long-term commitment to utility customers and that it is a matter of convenient opportunity for Iberdrola to buy Energy East at a bargain basement price. We fear that after several rounds of cost cutting that Iberdrola will break up the assets of Energy East and resell them for a quick profit.
Our fifth concern has to do with continuity of ownership. On February 5, 11 2008, it was reported that Energie de France SA was working with a Spanish builder, ACS, on a plan for hostile takeover of Iberdrola. Such a consecutive change in ownership would be further step away from the interest of utility customers and put the government of France in a majority position in that organization.
Our sixth and perhaps one of our most important issues has to deal with business ethics. We do not believe that Iberdrola has demonstrated a sufficiently high level of business ethics and respect for the law 24 to be allowed to control our energy infrastructure.
On February 15th, 2008, it was reported that Iberdrola has been fined 15.4 million Euros for (quote) “abusing its dominant position in the electricity generally market” (unquote). The fine was levied by the Nacional Comision de law Competencia, and followed a complaint from Endesa SA, a smaller Spanish utility.
In April of 1007, an Antitrust Complaint was filed with the U.S. Department of Justice, targeting the industrial wind energy industry in New York, in which Iberdrola is trying to become a major player. It is alleged that wind energy developers and their associates, including Iberdrola, conspired to geographically allocate the market for wind energy projects and fix prices for leases, payments of taxes and other payments.
Additionally, there are criminal allegations that include bribery, larceny, false instruments, mail fraud, conspiracy to deprive taxing authorities and attorney misconduct.
The New York State Attorney General’s Office has several active investigations underway as per those allegations.
We believe that our objections to the proposed acquisition are serious and substantive and we strongly urge the Public Service Commission to prevent Iberdrola’s takeover of our energy supplier.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this matter.
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Thank you very much.
Wind Turbine Law for Lyme
The Lyme planning board is meeting in joint session tonight with the town board to consider the changes advocated by Jefferson County planners to our proposed law. I am considering drafting an amendment to require the wind developer to provide, prior to obtaining any approvals to proceed, a detailed analysis demonstrating the net energy savings and the net reduction in greenhouse gas emissions that they estimate might be achieved by the proposed installation. The amendment will also require an estimate of the full cost per KW and the total amount invested per KW to achieve such claimed benefits including the value of all direct subsidies and tax breaks received from federal, state, and local governments. In addition it would include the investment and operating costs for facilities provided by or operated by the utility such as transmission facilities for wind energy and standby equipment to supply power when the wind turbines do not provide the required capacity.
Wind developers claim all sorts of advantages for the public good, but unless these are quantified, neither the public or its elected officials can make a reasoned judgement as to the balance between such claimed advantages and the known disadvantages of wind power including the use of large amounts of land, destruction of wildlife and its habitat, spoiling of scenic views, interference with air traffic, noise, and flicker effects. The onus should be placed on the developers to prove the value of these facilities. We should not be placed in the position of having to disprove their widely accepted general statements as to the value of these facilities. Wind energy facilities should be subjected to the same rigorous cost/benefit analyses as any other major investment.
Tonight's meeting is for the specific purpose of incorporating the county's comments in our proposed law and may not be the best time for such an amendment. What are your thoughts about this idea?
Bert
Albert H. Bowers III
Naval Architect & Maritime Consultant
PO Box 177
11891 Academy Street
Chaumont, NY 13622-0177
315-649-2191
315-408-8507 cellular
bertna@twcny.rr.com
Wind developers claim all sorts of advantages for the public good, but unless these are quantified, neither the public or its elected officials can make a reasoned judgement as to the balance between such claimed advantages and the known disadvantages of wind power including the use of large amounts of land, destruction of wildlife and its habitat, spoiling of scenic views, interference with air traffic, noise, and flicker effects. The onus should be placed on the developers to prove the value of these facilities. We should not be placed in the position of having to disprove their widely accepted general statements as to the value of these facilities. Wind energy facilities should be subjected to the same rigorous cost/benefit analyses as any other major investment.
Tonight's meeting is for the specific purpose of incorporating the county's comments in our proposed law and may not be the best time for such an amendment. What are your thoughts about this idea?
Bert
Albert H. Bowers III
Naval Architect & Maritime Consultant
PO Box 177
11891 Academy Street
Chaumont, NY 13622-0177
315-649-2191
315-408-8507 cellular
bertna@twcny.rr.com
Wednesday, March 19, 2008
Meredith passes law banning turbines by Patricia Breakey
Applause filled the room Tuesday night after a vote by the Meredith Town Board to adopt a local law banning industrial wind turbines.
About 50 people were at the Delaware County Office Building boardroom for a public hearing on the proposed law, but the comments were generally in favor of the ordinance.
Meredith residents went to the polls in November and elected three board members who ran on a campaign promise of rescinding the town's wind-energy law and adopting a law banning industrial wind.
Officials Tuesday night and previously have said small wind projects would not be banned.
After the public hearing, the new board members, Supervisor Keitha Capouya and councilmen Ron Bailey and Daniel Birnbaum, voted "yes" on the new law, while Councilman Roger Hamilton voted "no" and Councilman Paul Menke abstained because of a possible conflict of interest. Menke serves on the Delaware County Electric Cooperative Board of Directors.
Before the vote was taken but after the public hearing, Hamilton said he had expressed a concern to board members that "it isn't legal to pass a law banning something if you don't have zoning in place."
Capouya said she was "a little baffled" by Hamilton's concern because the Meredith town attorney had read and approved the law. She said she wondered if they should pose the question to the attorney before a vote was taken.
Bailey said he had confidence that if there were questions about the legality of the law, the attorney would have raised them. He then brought forward a resolution to proceed with the adoption of the law.
Bailey made a motion to accept the law, which was seconded by Birnbaum.
After further debate by the board members, Birnbaum said to Capouya, "I would like you to bring up the law."
During the public comment period, Meredith resident Tara Collins praised the board for following through with the promise to revisit the law.
"I want to thank you for respecting the wishes of the people of Meredith," Collins said.
Jan Iszewski questioned whether the proposed law would absolutely rule out a small commercial community wind project.
Capouya said no law was absolute, and it could always be adapted to meet new circumstances.
"This (wind) technology changes all the time," Capouya said. "I fully expect the law to be amended at some time." She said the Meredith Town Board passed a resolution in February overturning the wind law adopted last year.
The revised law incorporates regulations adapted from restrictive wind laws passed by town boards in Andes, Bovina and Malone, she said.
Many of the people attending the public hearing had not had an opportunity to read the proposed law, which prompted Capouya to go through the document highlighting points of interest.
She said the latest wind regulation is much shorter than local law and eliminates the Wind Energy Review Board that was included in the former regulation.
About 50 people were at the Delaware County Office Building boardroom for a public hearing on the proposed law, but the comments were generally in favor of the ordinance.
Meredith residents went to the polls in November and elected three board members who ran on a campaign promise of rescinding the town's wind-energy law and adopting a law banning industrial wind.
Officials Tuesday night and previously have said small wind projects would not be banned.
After the public hearing, the new board members, Supervisor Keitha Capouya and councilmen Ron Bailey and Daniel Birnbaum, voted "yes" on the new law, while Councilman Roger Hamilton voted "no" and Councilman Paul Menke abstained because of a possible conflict of interest. Menke serves on the Delaware County Electric Cooperative Board of Directors.
Before the vote was taken but after the public hearing, Hamilton said he had expressed a concern to board members that "it isn't legal to pass a law banning something if you don't have zoning in place."
Capouya said she was "a little baffled" by Hamilton's concern because the Meredith town attorney had read and approved the law. She said she wondered if they should pose the question to the attorney before a vote was taken.
Bailey said he had confidence that if there were questions about the legality of the law, the attorney would have raised them. He then brought forward a resolution to proceed with the adoption of the law.
Bailey made a motion to accept the law, which was seconded by Birnbaum.
After further debate by the board members, Birnbaum said to Capouya, "I would like you to bring up the law."
During the public comment period, Meredith resident Tara Collins praised the board for following through with the promise to revisit the law.
"I want to thank you for respecting the wishes of the people of Meredith," Collins said.
Jan Iszewski questioned whether the proposed law would absolutely rule out a small commercial community wind project.
Capouya said no law was absolute, and it could always be adapted to meet new circumstances.
"This (wind) technology changes all the time," Capouya said. "I fully expect the law to be amended at some time." She said the Meredith Town Board passed a resolution in February overturning the wind law adopted last year.
The revised law incorporates regulations adapted from restrictive wind laws passed by town boards in Andes, Bovina and Malone, she said.
Many of the people attending the public hearing had not had an opportunity to read the proposed law, which prompted Capouya to go through the document highlighting points of interest.
She said the latest wind regulation is much shorter than local law and eliminates the Wind Energy Review Board that was included in the former regulation.
Mr. Straka Statement to PSC Public Hearing on Iberdrola Energy East - 2/21/08 pages 36 - 45
MR. STRAKA: Your Honor, I have three pages that I'll read and I have hard copy for you and a disc for the court reporter. Good afternoon ladies and gentlemen. My name is Charles Straka and I am an RG&E rate payer, an Energy East shareholder with three shares and an unpaid independent intervenor, active party member, in the current RG&E 5-year rate agreement. I live at 6 Oakwood Lane in Fairport, NY. I am not an intervenor in the current merger case, but I have read over 2,000 pages of testimony and support documentation related to the proposed merger.
(Click to read entire Statement)
(Click to read entire Statement)
Jim Barbour Statement to PSC Public Hearing on Iberdrola Energy East - 2/21/08 pages 53 - 63
MR. BARBER: Hello my name is Jim Barbour. I live in Naples, New York and I only recently came to this question of wind energy back in November. It was always active in my community, but I was one of the people that didn't pay attention because it was beyond me and what do I know about anything and an event took place in my life and I decided to go watch what was happening.
So I attended several meetings, Town Board meetings, wind energy meetings, and came away with the feeling of frustration and anger because every question that got-- the first meeting was a Board of Education meeting where SCIDA, which is Steuben County Industrial Development Agency, came to ask the Board for a pilot program, which is payment in lieu of taxes. Now I was chairman of the Zoning Board of Appeals in Naples for a number of years and whenever anybody came to the Board for a pilot program they were asking for a giant financial favor because they didn't want to pay taxes on whatever, they wanted to pay a certain amount of money to guarantee them money in their project.
These people that showed up before the Board were so filled with disdain and arrogance I was baffled by it, and doing that I started to look into it and found a letter from the State Comptroller's Department that SCIDA had been audited and there were nine recommendations that had been made as they did nothing in their charter that would carry through on their charter, so I went back and asked when would they make these changes and they don't have to make changes, they're above the law.
(Click to read entire Barbour Statement)
So I attended several meetings, Town Board meetings, wind energy meetings, and came away with the feeling of frustration and anger because every question that got-- the first meeting was a Board of Education meeting where SCIDA, which is Steuben County Industrial Development Agency, came to ask the Board for a pilot program, which is payment in lieu of taxes. Now I was chairman of the Zoning Board of Appeals in Naples for a number of years and whenever anybody came to the Board for a pilot program they were asking for a giant financial favor because they didn't want to pay taxes on whatever, they wanted to pay a certain amount of money to guarantee them money in their project.
These people that showed up before the Board were so filled with disdain and arrogance I was baffled by it, and doing that I started to look into it and found a letter from the State Comptroller's Department that SCIDA had been audited and there were nine recommendations that had been made as they did nothing in their charter that would carry through on their charter, so I went back and asked when would they make these changes and they don't have to make changes, they're above the law.
(Click to read entire Barbour Statement)
Dan Wing Statement to PSC Public Hearing on Iberdrola Energy East - 2/21/08 pages 81 - 84
MR. WING: Dan Wing of Rochester, New York. First of all this company, Iberdrola, they're owned by Ationa who owns AES who owns Iberdrola S.A., the Spanish company that is buying Iberdrola and all this renewables, U.S.A., which is headquartered in Pennsylvania, since one January 2006, and is headquartered next to another company in Pennsylvania, but markets and sells into New York and generates electricity in Pennsylvania and CEI, they started out of Wayne, Pennsylvania and went down the road and very shortly thereafter, this is January 2006, Iberdrola owned these guys.
They come to the Public Service Commission 51 weeks ago, Iberdrola did, and stated neither Iberdrola nor its affiliates, the joint petitioners explained, own or control any electrical generators or transmission assets or generator outputs in New York and are non-affiliated with any marketers in New York or adjacent regions. People, this is perjury. CEI has three wind power fields in Pennsylvania operating since 2003. CEI had a director of New York marketing, his name was Mr. Cayman, he was in Buffalo getting the company, Niagara Mohawk, to sell them wind power. New wind energy is the trade mark to Niagara Mohawk and its customers.
They've lied. They should go to jail. The attorney general should be on this and Public Services Commission should say good bye right now. If they do it on the state and higher levels, they're going to screw you guys. Wind power is a panasia. When you look beyond, it's only going to generate about one percent of the nation's electricity by 2050. It does not generate on these huge things, electricity, unless the wind is over eight miles per hour.
It's got to pipe in the public's electric, that's the other way, to these wind fields to keep the things turning to make it look like they're turning and keep them from freezing up, but the tax payers are paying for this. It's called renewable energy credits, and renewable energy service. Your money goes outs the door. That was from federal and state government, it goes outs the door because they don't pay full taxes to the community and rate payers are going to have it controlled at all ends.
I'll give this out to anybody that wants it, but what's happening is that CEI, and any way you want to look at it, Iberdrola is going to control it at the generation end. A lot of it, they're going to market, they're going to transmit it and they're going to be the demander or recipient here and it's going to be supply and demand. Hey, we own RG&E, we own NYSEG, some of us more. They get credits, end tax credits. The fields are built up, more tax credits. They can't operate on a profit and they can't do anything for this country's energy needs.
You're still going to have to build just as many power plants of other types and they're going to be hit both ways and these people that are talking today lower class, middle class and upper class, are going to go why the heck are our rates so high and it's all that money going overseas and into stockholder's hands. I won't go into anything more. Thank you.
07-M-0906_PSH_Roch_022008.pdf
They come to the Public Service Commission 51 weeks ago, Iberdrola did, and stated neither Iberdrola nor its affiliates, the joint petitioners explained, own or control any electrical generators or transmission assets or generator outputs in New York and are non-affiliated with any marketers in New York or adjacent regions. People, this is perjury. CEI has three wind power fields in Pennsylvania operating since 2003. CEI had a director of New York marketing, his name was Mr. Cayman, he was in Buffalo getting the company, Niagara Mohawk, to sell them wind power. New wind energy is the trade mark to Niagara Mohawk and its customers.
They've lied. They should go to jail. The attorney general should be on this and Public Services Commission should say good bye right now. If they do it on the state and higher levels, they're going to screw you guys. Wind power is a panasia. When you look beyond, it's only going to generate about one percent of the nation's electricity by 2050. It does not generate on these huge things, electricity, unless the wind is over eight miles per hour.
It's got to pipe in the public's electric, that's the other way, to these wind fields to keep the things turning to make it look like they're turning and keep them from freezing up, but the tax payers are paying for this. It's called renewable energy credits, and renewable energy service. Your money goes outs the door. That was from federal and state government, it goes outs the door because they don't pay full taxes to the community and rate payers are going to have it controlled at all ends.
I'll give this out to anybody that wants it, but what's happening is that CEI, and any way you want to look at it, Iberdrola is going to control it at the generation end. A lot of it, they're going to market, they're going to transmit it and they're going to be the demander or recipient here and it's going to be supply and demand. Hey, we own RG&E, we own NYSEG, some of us more. They get credits, end tax credits. The fields are built up, more tax credits. They can't operate on a profit and they can't do anything for this country's energy needs.
You're still going to have to build just as many power plants of other types and they're going to be hit both ways and these people that are talking today lower class, middle class and upper class, are going to go why the heck are our rates so high and it's all that money going overseas and into stockholder's hands. I won't go into anything more. Thank you.
07-M-0906_PSH_Roch_022008.pdf
CWW James Hall Statement to PSC Public Hearing on Iberdrola Energy East - 2/21/08 pages 98 - 103
MR. HALL: I am James Hall. I reside with my wife and my daughter at 5029 War Road in Cohocton. I represent Cohocton Wind Watch. I'd like to extend a welcome to the attorney from Nixon Peabody. We appreciate you visiting our website everyday and we certainly hope you pass some of the information on to your clients. In the spirit of full disclosure, I believe in the free market. I had the privilege of selling a business to a Fortune 500 Company who's owned and controlled by a Fortune 400 individual 20 years ago. I'm not against business, but I'm a businessman and I can read a balance sheet, and I know what the merger and acquisition take over is all about, and let's be honest. The media came for their sound bytes. The business community of Rochester vocalized their support. That's what you see on the news tonight, but you don't get the real message.
Some excellent points were made earlier in this day, and I'm going to try to
follow-up on them. Let's be very clear. Iberdrola is not going to be traded in the United States as a stock. It will not be under SEC regulation. Now folks, that's one of the few protections the average human being has in this country, is to get a little regulation from the federal government so you can get financial reporting in a timely way based on standard accounting practices so you can evaluate the financial condition of a company. We have the experience of dealing with a company called Clipper Wind Power, LLC. They're the people that built the turbines for Steel Winds in Lackawanna, Buffalo. Of course they're not working and they have to be taken down because the technology in the gear boxes don't work. They're not traded in the United States. They're traded on the London Stock Exchange with no SEC regulation. The Public Services Commission needs to take this fact into account. It's crucial.
We're giving up infrastructure. This is your homeland security issue in this country. It's not just transferring billions of dollars, let's face it when the Euro first started to trade it was 85 cents to the dollar. It's close to $1.50 now. If I'm an investor over in Europe I'm buying Energy East all day long, folks. It's a bargain. And what are they gonna do? They're going to get that 11 percent return for their investment. And don't let anybody think for a minute that you're not going to be pay substantially higher electric charges. Especially when Iberdrola is one of the largest wind farm developers in the world. Now let's face facts boys and girls, this is just a reality you gotta deal with, it's more expensive to generate electricity with wind turbines. Fact. Nobody has ever disputed that. No attorney has ever disputed that. No representation of an association from the wind industry has ever disputed that.
And what do we have? We have the prospect that everyone will pay more for money to go out of the country with no accountability of any kind from a financial condition standpoint, and what do we have? A company, it's been alluded to, but let's get to it, anti-trust, folks. Do we know what a monopoly is? We were told earlier. Well, you're going see what a monopoly is and it's going to be a foreign monopoly. And why would the Public Services Commission approve a company with a record of predatory pricing and anti-trust? Anti-trust is serious. This is not a small violation.
Didn't we break up the oil companies at the turn of the century? Did we have the term we just got railroaded when they made the railroads? Well folks, you're going to see it in the electric business, in payments, in your bill. The Public Services Commission has the power. We could have packed this auditorium if we just wanted people here. It's been our experience, we talk to groups all the time, and nobody listens. We're appealing to you because you have the authority to get this information back to the Public Services Commission.
It's important that they stick with their recommendations. That wall of separation is so crucial. You cannot let a wind developer own the distribution facilities and rights. That line has to be a wall that's not severed and we don't want to hear about that they formed another LLC and they put it down in the Cayman Islands and they're now controlling all the wind projects outside the jurisdiction of the New York State distribution regulation because nobody on the state level cared. We've talked to politicians until we're blue in the face. We've talked to agencies until we basically can't hit a key stroke anymore on a computer, but nobody cares.
Yes, it was mentioned before. Follow the money. Let's face it, we've been around a long time. We know how politics work. I was in Albany 35 years ago working for a New York State Senator. I left New York Sate 30 years ago. I came back because I love New York. We all want to stay in New York, but we don't have a future for our children with utility costs out of control and guaranteed to go much further in the stratosphere.
I'll provide you with a few more documents that we don't have to believe. The financial stability of Iberdrola? It's questionable, folks. It's questionable because you don't know what the name of it is going to be. You don't know who the players are going to be. You don't know what the bill is going to be. It's just going to be higher. I'll close on this point.
Cohocoton Wind Watch has existed for about two years now. We'd like to do something better with our life, we'd like to have a life, and we're doing this full-time and we're going to continue to do this and expand doing what we're doing because there is political corruption that you can't imagine and only the light of day is going to expose this. You urge the Public Services Commission to do their duty and protect the public, not the corporations from Spain or France or Germany or wherever they'll be tomorrow.
07-M-0906_PSH_Roch_022008.pdf
Some excellent points were made earlier in this day, and I'm going to try to
follow-up on them. Let's be very clear. Iberdrola is not going to be traded in the United States as a stock. It will not be under SEC regulation. Now folks, that's one of the few protections the average human being has in this country, is to get a little regulation from the federal government so you can get financial reporting in a timely way based on standard accounting practices so you can evaluate the financial condition of a company. We have the experience of dealing with a company called Clipper Wind Power, LLC. They're the people that built the turbines for Steel Winds in Lackawanna, Buffalo. Of course they're not working and they have to be taken down because the technology in the gear boxes don't work. They're not traded in the United States. They're traded on the London Stock Exchange with no SEC regulation. The Public Services Commission needs to take this fact into account. It's crucial.
We're giving up infrastructure. This is your homeland security issue in this country. It's not just transferring billions of dollars, let's face it when the Euro first started to trade it was 85 cents to the dollar. It's close to $1.50 now. If I'm an investor over in Europe I'm buying Energy East all day long, folks. It's a bargain. And what are they gonna do? They're going to get that 11 percent return for their investment. And don't let anybody think for a minute that you're not going to be pay substantially higher electric charges. Especially when Iberdrola is one of the largest wind farm developers in the world. Now let's face facts boys and girls, this is just a reality you gotta deal with, it's more expensive to generate electricity with wind turbines. Fact. Nobody has ever disputed that. No attorney has ever disputed that. No representation of an association from the wind industry has ever disputed that.
And what do we have? We have the prospect that everyone will pay more for money to go out of the country with no accountability of any kind from a financial condition standpoint, and what do we have? A company, it's been alluded to, but let's get to it, anti-trust, folks. Do we know what a monopoly is? We were told earlier. Well, you're going see what a monopoly is and it's going to be a foreign monopoly. And why would the Public Services Commission approve a company with a record of predatory pricing and anti-trust? Anti-trust is serious. This is not a small violation.
Didn't we break up the oil companies at the turn of the century? Did we have the term we just got railroaded when they made the railroads? Well folks, you're going to see it in the electric business, in payments, in your bill. The Public Services Commission has the power. We could have packed this auditorium if we just wanted people here. It's been our experience, we talk to groups all the time, and nobody listens. We're appealing to you because you have the authority to get this information back to the Public Services Commission.
It's important that they stick with their recommendations. That wall of separation is so crucial. You cannot let a wind developer own the distribution facilities and rights. That line has to be a wall that's not severed and we don't want to hear about that they formed another LLC and they put it down in the Cayman Islands and they're now controlling all the wind projects outside the jurisdiction of the New York State distribution regulation because nobody on the state level cared. We've talked to politicians until we're blue in the face. We've talked to agencies until we basically can't hit a key stroke anymore on a computer, but nobody cares.
Yes, it was mentioned before. Follow the money. Let's face it, we've been around a long time. We know how politics work. I was in Albany 35 years ago working for a New York State Senator. I left New York Sate 30 years ago. I came back because I love New York. We all want to stay in New York, but we don't have a future for our children with utility costs out of control and guaranteed to go much further in the stratosphere.
I'll provide you with a few more documents that we don't have to believe. The financial stability of Iberdrola? It's questionable, folks. It's questionable because you don't know what the name of it is going to be. You don't know who the players are going to be. You don't know what the bill is going to be. It's just going to be higher. I'll close on this point.
Cohocoton Wind Watch has existed for about two years now. We'd like to do something better with our life, we'd like to have a life, and we're doing this full-time and we're going to continue to do this and expand doing what we're doing because there is political corruption that you can't imagine and only the light of day is going to expose this. You urge the Public Services Commission to do their duty and protect the public, not the corporations from Spain or France or Germany or wherever they'll be tomorrow.
07-M-0906_PSH_Roch_022008.pdf
CWW Judith Hall Statement to PSC Public Hearing on Iberdrola Energy East - 2/21/08 pages 93 - 97
MS. HALL: My name is Judith Hall, 5029 War Road Cohocton, New York. I'm here representing Cohocton Wind Watch, which is a community based citizen's watch organization which currently is in New York State Supreme Court regarding the UPC Wind Project. CWW strongly opposes the Iberdrola acquisition of Energy East. We've cited five recent news articles in the document which we've given a copy of.
I'll quickly just say, number one was recently reported by CNBC, Iberdrola has been fined $15.4 million by the Commission Nacionale de la Compencia for abusing its dominant position in the electric markets. The CNC is an anti-trust body. The second one cites a report providing documents on the Iberdrola world wide wind power monopolization. Number three is a joint bid pondered for Spain's Iberdrola. French electricity generator EZF and Spanish construction groups and ACS are considering a joint bid for Iberdrola. Um-- four is that a German utility, E.ONAG is setting its sights on Iberdrola, and number five is an article in which Iberdrola prepares to defend against hostile take over. It is quoted that Iberdrola intends to show investors it can deliver the 11 percent annual earnings and dividend growth it promised in October. The point of all these reports is they have a history of anti-trust violations.
An essential part of a wind development monopoly is in place for a hostile take over from two separate European groups. It has stated and announced the delivery of 11 percent annual earnings for investors. These are foreign investors. Why is the Public Services Commission considering this monopolistic foreign company taking control of an essential north east utility company? The Public Services Commission has a primary duty to protect the public. Approving a financial scheme to maximize return on capital is not the mission of the PSC. Electrical deregulation has become the law. The clear and distinct separation between energy generation and distribution is no more. Iberdrola has floated a major European stock to create renewable energy acquisition at the same time when they're own company is a target of a hostile take over. How can the Public Services Commission be true to their stated purpose with such an ill conceived purchase of Energy East?
The fact that Iberdrola is part owner of the Maple Ridge Wind Project and is proposing developments in Hamlin and other towns in central New York illustrates Iberdrola has every intention to violate the separation of generation and distribution. Home land security would be severely compromised with approved foreign control. It is a proven fact that wind electricity is not sustainable. Wind provided electric is substantially more expensive than other methods of generation. The mantra that alternative energy goals must be met in New York State by the citing of wind projects avoids the central issue that sufficient wind patterns do not exist to provide reliable electricity around the state.
Iberdrola seeks to force this kind of marginal technology at best upon every hamlet in a reprehensible attempt to pay the stock holder. How does the New York consumer benefit from such a plot to defraud the rate payer? The effects of eminent domain have been heard at every corner of our state. Scores of local groups have been formed to combat this systematic effort to steal the effective use of our land for the enrichment of foreign countries. The employees of Energy East know all too well what's coming if this is approved by the PSC. Many workers have already been notified that their days are numbered. They're utility customers, too, and when they are out of work how will they afford the cost being charged to finance another corporate rate?
Iberdrola should be denied approval of acquisition based on their history of anti-trust violations currently being investigated with numerous utility companies and state agencies. The conduct of the Public Services Commission is one of those agencies. Under these circumstances it would be immoral for the PSC to approve this. The public wants transparency and protection for the benefit of New York residents. It is crucial that the PSC appreciate the intense opposition. Don't force citizen groups to seek relief in court. Do your job. The people of New York are watching thank you.
07-M-0906_PSH_Roch_022008.pdf
I'll quickly just say, number one was recently reported by CNBC, Iberdrola has been fined $15.4 million by the Commission Nacionale de la Compencia for abusing its dominant position in the electric markets. The CNC is an anti-trust body. The second one cites a report providing documents on the Iberdrola world wide wind power monopolization. Number three is a joint bid pondered for Spain's Iberdrola. French electricity generator EZF and Spanish construction groups and ACS are considering a joint bid for Iberdrola. Um-- four is that a German utility, E.ONAG is setting its sights on Iberdrola, and number five is an article in which Iberdrola prepares to defend against hostile take over. It is quoted that Iberdrola intends to show investors it can deliver the 11 percent annual earnings and dividend growth it promised in October. The point of all these reports is they have a history of anti-trust violations.
An essential part of a wind development monopoly is in place for a hostile take over from two separate European groups. It has stated and announced the delivery of 11 percent annual earnings for investors. These are foreign investors. Why is the Public Services Commission considering this monopolistic foreign company taking control of an essential north east utility company? The Public Services Commission has a primary duty to protect the public. Approving a financial scheme to maximize return on capital is not the mission of the PSC. Electrical deregulation has become the law. The clear and distinct separation between energy generation and distribution is no more. Iberdrola has floated a major European stock to create renewable energy acquisition at the same time when they're own company is a target of a hostile take over. How can the Public Services Commission be true to their stated purpose with such an ill conceived purchase of Energy East?
The fact that Iberdrola is part owner of the Maple Ridge Wind Project and is proposing developments in Hamlin and other towns in central New York illustrates Iberdrola has every intention to violate the separation of generation and distribution. Home land security would be severely compromised with approved foreign control. It is a proven fact that wind electricity is not sustainable. Wind provided electric is substantially more expensive than other methods of generation. The mantra that alternative energy goals must be met in New York State by the citing of wind projects avoids the central issue that sufficient wind patterns do not exist to provide reliable electricity around the state.
Iberdrola seeks to force this kind of marginal technology at best upon every hamlet in a reprehensible attempt to pay the stock holder. How does the New York consumer benefit from such a plot to defraud the rate payer? The effects of eminent domain have been heard at every corner of our state. Scores of local groups have been formed to combat this systematic effort to steal the effective use of our land for the enrichment of foreign countries. The employees of Energy East know all too well what's coming if this is approved by the PSC. Many workers have already been notified that their days are numbered. They're utility customers, too, and when they are out of work how will they afford the cost being charged to finance another corporate rate?
Iberdrola should be denied approval of acquisition based on their history of anti-trust violations currently being investigated with numerous utility companies and state agencies. The conduct of the Public Services Commission is one of those agencies. Under these circumstances it would be immoral for the PSC to approve this. The public wants transparency and protection for the benefit of New York residents. It is crucial that the PSC appreciate the intense opposition. Don't force citizen groups to seek relief in court. Do your job. The people of New York are watching thank you.
07-M-0906_PSH_Roch_022008.pdf
Tuesday, March 18, 2008
Iberdrola offers concessions by LARRY RULISON
ALBANY -- Iberdrola SA is offering regulators in New York a list of concessions to try and smooth the path for its $4.5 billion acquisition of Energy East Corp.
The large Spanish utility first proposed buying Energy East, which has 1.4 million upstate New York customers, last August.
But the New York Public Service Commission, a five-member board, must sign off on the deal.
PSC staffers, who make recommendations to the commissioners, have been negotiating with Iberdrola and Energy East over a deal that would give New York consumers benefits such as rate decreases.
After talks broke down last Wednesday, the case went before an administrative law judge who will make his own recommendation to the PSC. Hearings before the judge, Rafael Epstein, began Monday.
Iberdrola made the concessions to PSC staff Friday in hopes they could "narrow the issues" prior to the hearings.
One of those concessions is to agree to sell all of Energy East's fossil fuel power plants in New York.
The PSC has been calling on Iberdrola to get out of all power generation in New York, including wind farm projects it already has in place.
Iberdrola says that if it is allowed to remain in the wind farm business, it will commit to spend at least $100 million on new wind projects in the state over the next three years.
Iberdrola also offered $201.6 million in so-called "positive benefit adjustments" for New York customers.
PSC spokesman James Denn said the hearing was held Monday in Albany as scheduled and is expected to continue today.
The large Spanish utility first proposed buying Energy East, which has 1.4 million upstate New York customers, last August.
But the New York Public Service Commission, a five-member board, must sign off on the deal.
PSC staffers, who make recommendations to the commissioners, have been negotiating with Iberdrola and Energy East over a deal that would give New York consumers benefits such as rate decreases.
After talks broke down last Wednesday, the case went before an administrative law judge who will make his own recommendation to the PSC. Hearings before the judge, Rafael Epstein, began Monday.
Iberdrola made the concessions to PSC staff Friday in hopes they could "narrow the issues" prior to the hearings.
One of those concessions is to agree to sell all of Energy East's fossil fuel power plants in New York.
The PSC has been calling on Iberdrola to get out of all power generation in New York, including wind farm projects it already has in place.
Iberdrola says that if it is allowed to remain in the wind farm business, it will commit to spend at least $100 million on new wind projects in the state over the next three years.
Iberdrola also offered $201.6 million in so-called "positive benefit adjustments" for New York customers.
PSC spokesman James Denn said the hearing was held Monday in Albany as scheduled and is expected to continue today.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)