Two brothers-in-law, a country road in northwest Missouri, a fistfight …
Surely it’s happened before, but probably never over wind energy.
Last year, 400-foot-tall wind turbines were erected near King City, some less than 2,000 feet from Charlie Porter’s house on his small acreage.
Soon the sounds from the blades swooshing through the air and other noise were driving Porter and his family crazy, he said.
“The sound gets in your head like a saw and you can’t get rid of it,” Porter said. “Some people compare it to a train that never arrived.”
Porter’s complaints upset his brother-in-law, a Gentry County commissioner who helped bring the wind farm and new economy to the area, as well as others. In February, it spilled over into a fistfight between them, then a lawsuit.
At the heart of the dispute: Just how healthy is the noise from wind turbines?
(Click to read entire article)
Sunday, April 13, 2008
Saturday, April 12, 2008
Md. won't allow wind turbines in state forests
BITTINGER, Md. -- Gov. Martin O’Malley said today that his administration will not allow commercial wind turbines on state forest land, ending a heated four-month debate.
“While we must continue to explore and make progress on creating a more sustainable and independent energy future for Maryland, we will not do so at the expense of the special lands we hold in the public trust,” the Democratic governor said.
O’Malley spoke at a news conference at a scenic overlook in the Savage River State Forest. Opponents had claimed that allowing 40-story windmills on state-owned land in mountainous western Maryland would reduce its recreational value, spoil the landscape and lower property values, especially in the thriving Deep Creek Lake resort area of Garrett County.
O’Malley said the ban applies only to conservation lands owned outright by the state and managed by the Department of Natural Resources. It is not meant to discourage wind power development on other local, federal or privately owned land, he said.
The announcement follows four months of debate triggered by The (Baltimore) Sun’s report in December that Pennsylvania-based U.S. Wind Force was seeking to lease and clear about 400 acres in the Potomac and Savage River state forests to erect about 100 wind turbines. The company has estimated that the leases could bring Maryland about $30 million over 20 years.
The state sought public comment on the concept, bringing 1,400 responses, 83 percent of them opposed, DNR spokeswoman Olivia Campbell said. About 500 people packed a January hearing in Garrett County and nearly shouted down wind-power industry spokesman Frank Maisano when he likened wind farms to logging, which he called an “industrial” use of the land.
Advocates for state wind farm leases have cited the growing demand for energy in Maryland, which faces the risk of rolling blackouts as early as 2011 without additional power generation, according to PJM Interconnection, which runs the transmission grid for a 13-state area.
A bill proposed by O’Malley and passed by the just-concluded General Assembly requires that 20 percent of Maryland’s power come from renewable sources by 2022.
Maisano said on Friday that regardless of O’Malley’s decision, wind-power developers would keep pursuing projects on private land in western Maryland. “Some are moving forward toward construction as early as next year,” he said.
David F. McAnally, whose company is seeking Public Service Commission approval for a 28-turbine project on private and county-owned property in Garrett County, said: “We must have wind projects in order for the state to meet its renewable policy priorities, as well as providing important jobs and tax revenue for local communities.”
Two other companies are planning at least two other wind farms, totaling 42 turbines, on private land in western Maryland.
In Delaware, Delmarva Power recently included existing and planned Maryland wind farms among the 1,697 megawatts of onshore wind electricity sources potentially available to Delaware customers as an alternative to the Bluewater Wind offshore wind plan.
Company officials said wind from Maryland, Pennsylvania, Indian and Illinois would cost from one-third to one half less than Bluewater's proposed rates for a 25-year contract. Amounts are "more than enough" to meet local needs, the company reported.
Bluewater spokesman Jim Lanard quickly accused Delmarva of omitting some costs for transmission and regional grid charges from the onshore wind estimates, creating an unfair comparision. Lanard said Bluewater's project also will bring jobs to Delaware.
Bill Yingling, a spokesman for Delmarva, said the company was still analyzing bids from 10 land-based developers and confirmed that the recently released estimates were for wind-farm supplies only. Final estimates still will show a large savings over electricity from Bluewater's plan, Yingling said.
Yingling said Bluewater's cost estimates also omit some expenses, including costs created by a 300 megawatt "must take" contract that could force Delmarva to sell excess, higher-priced offshore wind electricity during low demand periods.
Lanard said that Delmarva also unfairly compared its onshore wind project solely with Bluewater's, despite a Public Service Commission recommendation to include a backup, on-shore gas fired plant that would have a lower combined electricity rate.
In a related development, New Jersey's Board of Public Utilities this week announced the formation of a review committee to examine bids for offshore wind projects in that state. Three companies have submitted proposals for rights to develop up to 350 megawatts of offshore wind production, under a New Jersey plan that requires bidders to make their own private arrangements for electricity sales. Up to $19 million will be available to assist developers in the form of a one-time state subsidy.
“While we must continue to explore and make progress on creating a more sustainable and independent energy future for Maryland, we will not do so at the expense of the special lands we hold in the public trust,” the Democratic governor said.
O’Malley spoke at a news conference at a scenic overlook in the Savage River State Forest. Opponents had claimed that allowing 40-story windmills on state-owned land in mountainous western Maryland would reduce its recreational value, spoil the landscape and lower property values, especially in the thriving Deep Creek Lake resort area of Garrett County.
O’Malley said the ban applies only to conservation lands owned outright by the state and managed by the Department of Natural Resources. It is not meant to discourage wind power development on other local, federal or privately owned land, he said.
The announcement follows four months of debate triggered by The (Baltimore) Sun’s report in December that Pennsylvania-based U.S. Wind Force was seeking to lease and clear about 400 acres in the Potomac and Savage River state forests to erect about 100 wind turbines. The company has estimated that the leases could bring Maryland about $30 million over 20 years.
The state sought public comment on the concept, bringing 1,400 responses, 83 percent of them opposed, DNR spokeswoman Olivia Campbell said. About 500 people packed a January hearing in Garrett County and nearly shouted down wind-power industry spokesman Frank Maisano when he likened wind farms to logging, which he called an “industrial” use of the land.
Advocates for state wind farm leases have cited the growing demand for energy in Maryland, which faces the risk of rolling blackouts as early as 2011 without additional power generation, according to PJM Interconnection, which runs the transmission grid for a 13-state area.
A bill proposed by O’Malley and passed by the just-concluded General Assembly requires that 20 percent of Maryland’s power come from renewable sources by 2022.
Maisano said on Friday that regardless of O’Malley’s decision, wind-power developers would keep pursuing projects on private land in western Maryland. “Some are moving forward toward construction as early as next year,” he said.
David F. McAnally, whose company is seeking Public Service Commission approval for a 28-turbine project on private and county-owned property in Garrett County, said: “We must have wind projects in order for the state to meet its renewable policy priorities, as well as providing important jobs and tax revenue for local communities.”
Two other companies are planning at least two other wind farms, totaling 42 turbines, on private land in western Maryland.
In Delaware, Delmarva Power recently included existing and planned Maryland wind farms among the 1,697 megawatts of onshore wind electricity sources potentially available to Delaware customers as an alternative to the Bluewater Wind offshore wind plan.
Company officials said wind from Maryland, Pennsylvania, Indian and Illinois would cost from one-third to one half less than Bluewater's proposed rates for a 25-year contract. Amounts are "more than enough" to meet local needs, the company reported.
Bluewater spokesman Jim Lanard quickly accused Delmarva of omitting some costs for transmission and regional grid charges from the onshore wind estimates, creating an unfair comparision. Lanard said Bluewater's project also will bring jobs to Delaware.
Bill Yingling, a spokesman for Delmarva, said the company was still analyzing bids from 10 land-based developers and confirmed that the recently released estimates were for wind-farm supplies only. Final estimates still will show a large savings over electricity from Bluewater's plan, Yingling said.
Yingling said Bluewater's cost estimates also omit some expenses, including costs created by a 300 megawatt "must take" contract that could force Delmarva to sell excess, higher-priced offshore wind electricity during low demand periods.
Lanard said that Delmarva also unfairly compared its onshore wind project solely with Bluewater's, despite a Public Service Commission recommendation to include a backup, on-shore gas fired plant that would have a lower combined electricity rate.
In a related development, New Jersey's Board of Public Utilities this week announced the formation of a review committee to examine bids for offshore wind projects in that state. Three companies have submitted proposals for rights to develop up to 350 megawatts of offshore wind production, under a New Jersey plan that requires bidders to make their own private arrangements for electricity sales. Up to $19 million will be available to assist developers in the form of a one-time state subsidy.
Friday, April 11, 2008
Howard wind hearing draws few residents by Bob Clark
Howard, N.Y.
Has the controversy over wind power blown away in Howard?
Fewer than 20 residents came out to a Steuben County Industrial Development Agency hearing Thursday evening on a proposed Payment In Lieu of Taxes Agreement with EverPower Renewables, a New York-based company planning to build 25 wind turbines south of Howard. Two people made comments to SCIDA Executive Director James Sherron.
By comparison, a similar hearing in Cohocton Jan. 18, a Friday morning meeting, was attended by more than 50 residents, with 20 making comments to SCIDA.
“I’m surprised,” Sherron said. “We had more people at 10 a.m. than 5 p.m.”
Sherron said he set the time for the Howard hearing for 5 p.m. after complaints from Cohocton residents wanting more access for residents with jobs.
The hearing Thursday, according to Sherron, was to receive public comment on SCIDA’s proposed PILOT agreement.
Under the agreement, SCIDA — a tax-exempt agency — will take hold of the project’s title, probably through a lease, and then lease it EverPower.
In this way, the project will become property, sales and mortgage tax-exempt, Sherron said.
In exchange for the tax breaks, EverPower will sign on for a 20-year payment plan to give funds to the Town of Howard — which will receive 24 percent — the Canisteo-Greenwood Central School District will get nearly 60 percent and Steuben County the rest.
According to Sherron at the hearing, EverPower will pay a lower rate per megawatt of production capacity every year for the first four years, as a way to help the company with start-up costs on the project. In the fifth year, the rate per megawatt will be $5,300, at $397,500 for the project, and will increase by 3 percent every year for the next 15 years, ending at approximately $9,000 per megawatt.
The project consists of 25 Nordex N90 2.5-megawatt turbines, producing a combined 75 megawatts, stretching south from Turnpike Road along County Route 27.
Robert Halevinski, who listed his mailing address as Livonia, asked Sherron if there were any guarantees that EverPower would not pull out of the project after construction has begun.
“I don’t think they’re going to build these and then skip town,” Sherron said. “The abatements and property tax credits come after (the project is completed).”
Sherron said the turbines will cost EverPower approximately $2 million each.
Halevinski also asked what kind of jobs are going to be created.
“Most of these (projects) are five to 10 full-time jobs,” Sherron said, adding more than 200 people are constructing turbines in Cohocton, and of those, 58 percent are local employees.
“You need special people and special cranes for the work,” he said, adding UPC Wind and contractor Mortenson Construction have done a good job trying to match SCIDA’s required 60-percent local labor stipulation in the Cohocton PILOT agreement.
Has the controversy over wind power blown away in Howard?
Fewer than 20 residents came out to a Steuben County Industrial Development Agency hearing Thursday evening on a proposed Payment In Lieu of Taxes Agreement with EverPower Renewables, a New York-based company planning to build 25 wind turbines south of Howard. Two people made comments to SCIDA Executive Director James Sherron.
By comparison, a similar hearing in Cohocton Jan. 18, a Friday morning meeting, was attended by more than 50 residents, with 20 making comments to SCIDA.
“I’m surprised,” Sherron said. “We had more people at 10 a.m. than 5 p.m.”
Sherron said he set the time for the Howard hearing for 5 p.m. after complaints from Cohocton residents wanting more access for residents with jobs.
The hearing Thursday, according to Sherron, was to receive public comment on SCIDA’s proposed PILOT agreement.
Under the agreement, SCIDA — a tax-exempt agency — will take hold of the project’s title, probably through a lease, and then lease it EverPower.
In this way, the project will become property, sales and mortgage tax-exempt, Sherron said.
In exchange for the tax breaks, EverPower will sign on for a 20-year payment plan to give funds to the Town of Howard — which will receive 24 percent — the Canisteo-Greenwood Central School District will get nearly 60 percent and Steuben County the rest.
According to Sherron at the hearing, EverPower will pay a lower rate per megawatt of production capacity every year for the first four years, as a way to help the company with start-up costs on the project. In the fifth year, the rate per megawatt will be $5,300, at $397,500 for the project, and will increase by 3 percent every year for the next 15 years, ending at approximately $9,000 per megawatt.
The project consists of 25 Nordex N90 2.5-megawatt turbines, producing a combined 75 megawatts, stretching south from Turnpike Road along County Route 27.
Robert Halevinski, who listed his mailing address as Livonia, asked Sherron if there were any guarantees that EverPower would not pull out of the project after construction has begun.
“I don’t think they’re going to build these and then skip town,” Sherron said. “The abatements and property tax credits come after (the project is completed).”
Sherron said the turbines will cost EverPower approximately $2 million each.
Halevinski also asked what kind of jobs are going to be created.
“Most of these (projects) are five to 10 full-time jobs,” Sherron said, adding more than 200 people are constructing turbines in Cohocton, and of those, 58 percent are local employees.
“You need special people and special cranes for the work,” he said, adding UPC Wind and contractor Mortenson Construction have done a good job trying to match SCIDA’s required 60-percent local labor stipulation in the Cohocton PILOT agreement.
Town of Prattsburgh Draft of Comprehensive Plan
Purpose:
The Town of Prattsburgh Comprehensive Plan is designed to provide municipal officials and residents with direction and guidance as our community looks toward the future.
It will ensure that Prattsburgh retains its rural atmosphere, and:
• Development happens in a planned and orderly manner without sprawl,
• Landowners are encouraged to maintain open space and farmland,
• Homeowners are required, by reasonable ordinance, to prevent residential properties from falling into disrepair, and to dispose of refuse properly,
• Environment-friendly business and industry are assisted,
• Historic assets are restored and preserved,
• Our agricultural base is supported and encouraged,
• The air, water and land are not despoiled,
• Our quaint downtown area is kept healthy by promoting Main Street business and tourism.
(Click to read entire comprehensive plan)
Prattsburgh_Comprehensive_Plan_40108.pdf
The Town of Prattsburgh Comprehensive Plan is designed to provide municipal officials and residents with direction and guidance as our community looks toward the future.
It will ensure that Prattsburgh retains its rural atmosphere, and:
• Development happens in a planned and orderly manner without sprawl,
• Landowners are encouraged to maintain open space and farmland,
• Homeowners are required, by reasonable ordinance, to prevent residential properties from falling into disrepair, and to dispose of refuse properly,
• Environment-friendly business and industry are assisted,
• Historic assets are restored and preserved,
• Our agricultural base is supported and encouraged,
• The air, water and land are not despoiled,
• Our quaint downtown area is kept healthy by promoting Main Street business and tourism.
(Click to read entire comprehensive plan)
Prattsburgh_Comprehensive_Plan_40108.pdf
Memo on Town of Prattsburgh Comprehensive Plan
Citizens of Prattsburgh:
Two years ago (May 2006) a group of your fellow citizens was appointed to serve on a special committee to draft a comprehensive plan. The people chosen were appointed by unanimous vote of the town board – your elected governing body – and the group is a diverse cross-section of the community. The members served without pay, devoted thousands of hours to research and issues analysis, studied the findings of a community-wide survey, garnered ideas from comprehensive plans in other towns, questioned county and state planning experts, and then produced a written draft that the town board will use as its guide when adopting a final document. The elected town board will examine the committee’s work, take citizen input (oral and written), and then adopt a Prattsburgh Comprehensive Plan.
This community is moving into the future, just like every other town and city in the nation. Without a plan to keep us on track, the Prattsburgh of 2075 could be unlivable, and future generations could be asking, “What happened?” Without proper planning, our grandchildren could inherit only stories of the rural atmosphere, town square charm, agricultural prosperity, hardwood forests, open fields, and clean air and pure water we enjoy today. Planning will happen, of course, one way or the other – intelligent planning by today’s citizens, or planning by the haphazard gamble of day-to-day circumstance. Your elected town board believes that intelligent planning is the only sane option. It is also recognizes that adopting a comprehensive plan is the first step in being eligible for many state and federal loans or grants.
No one has to tell residents of Prattsburgh about changes over the past decade. New homes are sprouting up, additions have been built to our Central School and athletic fields, communications and manufacturing enterprises continue to thrive and grow, new commercial ventures have appeared, agribusiness has grown healthy and profitable, natural gas wells and pipes are seen here and there, and motor vehicle traffic has increased substantially. Power-generating wind turbines are a reality on the ridges to the west, and, in part, their arrival prompted the creation of the special committee. Without a comprehensive plan and resulting ordinances in place, the town board has little control over land use and related issues, residential sprawl, air and water quality, and commercial development. A comprehensive plan does not carry any force of law, but serves as a guide for future town board members as they pass legally binding ordinances. With such a plan on the books, the board can point to the document and say to a developer, commercial or otherwise, “that is not in keeping with our comprehensive plan and ordinances.” It deals to your elected officials a better poker hand when all parties – state, county, IDA, town, business, DEC – sit down at the table and play the card game of commercial or residential development. Without a plan, we are not even in the game.
Prior to any public hearings, this committee will present its findings – the document – to town residents during an information meeting. This first public session is not designed for debate or citizen input, but to explain how we did our work and why we ended up with the attached draft comprehensive plan. Please take a copy home and read it cover-to-cover, make notes in the margins, underline what you like or don’t like about it, then come to a follow-up public session prepared to offer advice. This document was designed for your review. We need your input, and will gladly receive your comments and questions at future public gatherings. The town board will hold public hearings as well, so there will be ample opportunity for any and all expressions of public wisdom, criticism, or endorsement.
Two years ago (May 2006) a group of your fellow citizens was appointed to serve on a special committee to draft a comprehensive plan. The people chosen were appointed by unanimous vote of the town board – your elected governing body – and the group is a diverse cross-section of the community. The members served without pay, devoted thousands of hours to research and issues analysis, studied the findings of a community-wide survey, garnered ideas from comprehensive plans in other towns, questioned county and state planning experts, and then produced a written draft that the town board will use as its guide when adopting a final document. The elected town board will examine the committee’s work, take citizen input (oral and written), and then adopt a Prattsburgh Comprehensive Plan.
This community is moving into the future, just like every other town and city in the nation. Without a plan to keep us on track, the Prattsburgh of 2075 could be unlivable, and future generations could be asking, “What happened?” Without proper planning, our grandchildren could inherit only stories of the rural atmosphere, town square charm, agricultural prosperity, hardwood forests, open fields, and clean air and pure water we enjoy today. Planning will happen, of course, one way or the other – intelligent planning by today’s citizens, or planning by the haphazard gamble of day-to-day circumstance. Your elected town board believes that intelligent planning is the only sane option. It is also recognizes that adopting a comprehensive plan is the first step in being eligible for many state and federal loans or grants.
No one has to tell residents of Prattsburgh about changes over the past decade. New homes are sprouting up, additions have been built to our Central School and athletic fields, communications and manufacturing enterprises continue to thrive and grow, new commercial ventures have appeared, agribusiness has grown healthy and profitable, natural gas wells and pipes are seen here and there, and motor vehicle traffic has increased substantially. Power-generating wind turbines are a reality on the ridges to the west, and, in part, their arrival prompted the creation of the special committee. Without a comprehensive plan and resulting ordinances in place, the town board has little control over land use and related issues, residential sprawl, air and water quality, and commercial development. A comprehensive plan does not carry any force of law, but serves as a guide for future town board members as they pass legally binding ordinances. With such a plan on the books, the board can point to the document and say to a developer, commercial or otherwise, “that is not in keeping with our comprehensive plan and ordinances.” It deals to your elected officials a better poker hand when all parties – state, county, IDA, town, business, DEC – sit down at the table and play the card game of commercial or residential development. Without a plan, we are not even in the game.
Prior to any public hearings, this committee will present its findings – the document – to town residents during an information meeting. This first public session is not designed for debate or citizen input, but to explain how we did our work and why we ended up with the attached draft comprehensive plan. Please take a copy home and read it cover-to-cover, make notes in the margins, underline what you like or don’t like about it, then come to a follow-up public session prepared to offer advice. This document was designed for your review. We need your input, and will gladly receive your comments and questions at future public gatherings. The town board will hold public hearings as well, so there will be ample opportunity for any and all expressions of public wisdom, criticism, or endorsement.
Hamlin first in county to craft wind farm policies
Lapinski, a member of the citizen activist Hamlin Preservation Group, doesn't want to look out his windows and see clusters of 400-foot-tall wind turbines. He doesn't want to hear the droning "whump, whump, whump" of the towers when they're generating power. And he doesn't want to sit through backyard picnics while the sun flickers intermittently through spinning turbine blades.
"The town is not listening to the residents. The majority of people who've attended the public meetings aren't in favor of the proposed setbacks — this is about the health, welfare and safety of the people of Hamlin."
Lapinski's group — which has provided the town with testimonials from various experts and complaints from people who live near wind farms — wants even stronger laws.
"I'm not against green power, but other places where they're putting these kinds of farms aren't as populated as Hamlin," he said, noting there are about 120 homes in the area under consideration.
Paul Carr, a professor of engineering management at Cornell University, wrote to Hamlin officials in February about the law's proposed setbacks, which the town would require at a minimum of 1,200 feet from any residence and 600 feet from any roadway or property line.
Carr said those distances are "dangerously inadequate."
He said his conclusion is a simple "matter of physics," when it comes to such issues as ice chunks flinging off of spinning blades or blades breaking. He's calculated that hurled ice could potentially fly as far as 1,700 feet from a tower.
"My opinion is that setbacks for these towers should be at least four times the height of the tower," he said.
But industry group American Wind Energy Association says such fears are overblown.
According to the group, turbines can sense the build up of ice and stop spinning, thereby eliminating ice throw. And, the group asserts, broken blades being thrown by a turbine is "unheard of," given today's "better turbine design and engineering."
(Click to read entire article)
"The town is not listening to the residents. The majority of people who've attended the public meetings aren't in favor of the proposed setbacks — this is about the health, welfare and safety of the people of Hamlin."
Lapinski's group — which has provided the town with testimonials from various experts and complaints from people who live near wind farms — wants even stronger laws.
"I'm not against green power, but other places where they're putting these kinds of farms aren't as populated as Hamlin," he said, noting there are about 120 homes in the area under consideration.
Paul Carr, a professor of engineering management at Cornell University, wrote to Hamlin officials in February about the law's proposed setbacks, which the town would require at a minimum of 1,200 feet from any residence and 600 feet from any roadway or property line.
Carr said those distances are "dangerously inadequate."
He said his conclusion is a simple "matter of physics," when it comes to such issues as ice chunks flinging off of spinning blades or blades breaking. He's calculated that hurled ice could potentially fly as far as 1,700 feet from a tower.
"My opinion is that setbacks for these towers should be at least four times the height of the tower," he said.
But industry group American Wind Energy Association says such fears are overblown.
According to the group, turbines can sense the build up of ice and stop spinning, thereby eliminating ice throw. And, the group asserts, broken blades being thrown by a turbine is "unheard of," given today's "better turbine design and engineering."
(Click to read entire article)
Iberdrola could reconsider Energy East plan
REGION Iberdrola representative Tom Johnson confirmed that the company's chairman, Ignacio Sanchez Galan, said Iberdrola would rethink its planned acquisition of Energy East for about $4.5 billion if conditions imposed by the state Public Service Commission are unreasonable.
The deal is now expected to be completed before the third quarter, pending approval by the PSC. The transaction was expected to close in the first half of the year. The PSC has raised concerns about the acquisition and asked for more information from Energy East before it can decide whether the deal is in the public interest.
A recommendation from the administrative law judge assigned to the case is expected around late May.
The deal is now expected to be completed before the third quarter, pending approval by the PSC. The transaction was expected to close in the first half of the year. The PSC has raised concerns about the acquisition and asked for more information from Energy East before it can decide whether the deal is in the public interest.
A recommendation from the administrative law judge assigned to the case is expected around late May.
Hamlin Residents Debate Wind Farms
Hamlin residents weighed in on the possibility of a wind farm going up in their town. It would be the first in Monroe County.
Town officials are proposing the turbines be set 1,200 feet from homes and 600 feed from the road. Many residents say they want them at least 1,700 feet back.
"In Europe, and they've had a whole lot more experience than we have, the distance is in many countries one mile," said Hamlin resident Jerry Borkholder. "Now the interesting thing is that they started with the same setbacks that Hamlin is considering right now, but they moved gradually before they got to the point where they're at a mile right now."
The wind farm is proposed for the northwest corner of the town near the Orleans County line. Most of that area is farm land. However, some residents don't want turbines anywhere in the town of Hamlin.
"It doesn't belong in our town," said Hamlin resident Diana Hanley. "We have a wonderful town and this is just dividing it. If something divides this many people then it cannot be right."
That is what concerns New York State Senator Jim Alesi. The republican believes wind farms would pit neighbor against neighbor and town against town. So Alesi has proposed a statewide moratorium until there is a comprehensive review.
Alesi said, "We have to realize that windmills are very obtrusive and can be seen from miles away. And whatever one local town does within its own confines, within its own laws, can have an unintended effect on neighboring towns."
Hamlin town officials say they will take into consideration the concerns of residents before making a decision.
"We've taken into account all the issues. We may not agree on all of them, but all the issues have certainly been taken into account and considered and I think that's the important thing," said Hamlin Town Supervisor Dennis Roach. "We may not always agree but we have certainly heard what the issues and concerns are."
Roach says a decision on wind tower regulations will be made at a special town board meeting scheduled for April 24.
Town officials are proposing the turbines be set 1,200 feet from homes and 600 feed from the road. Many residents say they want them at least 1,700 feet back.
"In Europe, and they've had a whole lot more experience than we have, the distance is in many countries one mile," said Hamlin resident Jerry Borkholder. "Now the interesting thing is that they started with the same setbacks that Hamlin is considering right now, but they moved gradually before they got to the point where they're at a mile right now."
The wind farm is proposed for the northwest corner of the town near the Orleans County line. Most of that area is farm land. However, some residents don't want turbines anywhere in the town of Hamlin.
"It doesn't belong in our town," said Hamlin resident Diana Hanley. "We have a wonderful town and this is just dividing it. If something divides this many people then it cannot be right."
That is what concerns New York State Senator Jim Alesi. The republican believes wind farms would pit neighbor against neighbor and town against town. So Alesi has proposed a statewide moratorium until there is a comprehensive review.
Alesi said, "We have to realize that windmills are very obtrusive and can be seen from miles away. And whatever one local town does within its own confines, within its own laws, can have an unintended effect on neighboring towns."
Hamlin town officials say they will take into consideration the concerns of residents before making a decision.
"We've taken into account all the issues. We may not agree on all of them, but all the issues have certainly been taken into account and considered and I think that's the important thing," said Hamlin Town Supervisor Dennis Roach. "We may not always agree but we have certainly heard what the issues and concerns are."
Roach says a decision on wind tower regulations will be made at a special town board meeting scheduled for April 24.
Thursday, April 10, 2008
US Senate Votes For Solar, Wind Tax Credits; Faces Hurdles
WASHINGTON -(Dow Jones)- The U.S. Senate on Thursday voted to extend tax credits for wind-power and solar-energy projects, but the measure is unlikely to become law in its current form due to concern it would add to the nation's deficit.
By 88-8, the Senate added the renewable-energy tax credits to a major housing bill. Companies such as utility XCel Energy Inc. (XEL), the largest U.S. seller of wind-generated energy, have been calling on Congress to act quickly. The tax credits expire at the end of the year, but executives are making decisions now about whether to invest in renewable projects beyond this year.
The U.S. House of Representatives has hardened its opposition to this version of the tax-credit extensions, which are estimated to cost $6 billion over 10 years. House leaders have strong objections to deficit-financed tax breaks, and with few exceptions offset lost tax revenue with tax increases or spending cuts elsewhere.
"I doubt that the House will accept these extensions without some corresponding offsets," said Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee Chairman Jeff Bingaman, D-N.M., on the Senate floor. "This leaves the administration with a key role to play in developing a compromise that will be acceptable to both chambers."
(Click to read entire report)
By 88-8, the Senate added the renewable-energy tax credits to a major housing bill. Companies such as utility XCel Energy Inc. (XEL), the largest U.S. seller of wind-generated energy, have been calling on Congress to act quickly. The tax credits expire at the end of the year, but executives are making decisions now about whether to invest in renewable projects beyond this year.
The U.S. House of Representatives has hardened its opposition to this version of the tax-credit extensions, which are estimated to cost $6 billion over 10 years. House leaders have strong objections to deficit-financed tax breaks, and with few exceptions offset lost tax revenue with tax increases or spending cuts elsewhere.
"I doubt that the House will accept these extensions without some corresponding offsets," said Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee Chairman Jeff Bingaman, D-N.M., on the Senate floor. "This leaves the administration with a key role to play in developing a compromise that will be acceptable to both chambers."
(Click to read entire report)
Letter to the editor of Time Magazine by Albert H. Bowers III
I read your recent article about the clean energy myth surrounding ethanol fuels. There is another major clean energy myth and it concerns the use of wind power. Large "wind farms," are being built all over the U.S. in the mistaken belief that they will reduce our dependence on fossil fuels and also reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Wind farms only produce usable power in a fairly narrow range of wind speeds and this does not reliably occur at times when the power is needed. Base power plants burning fossil or nuclear fuels must be cut back to balance the grid, but must be kept idling to take up the demand when the wind dies. In such spinning, idling conditions, power plants are relatively inefficient and their fuel usage and emissions are not effectively reduced. Here in northern New York, the grid manager is often tempted to use hydro-power as the balancing power for wind as it is more easily controlled than coal fired or nuclear power. In this situation, there are obviously no savings in fuel use or emissions from the use of wind generated power.
Wind power produces only very small and intermittent amounts of power at a very high cost, considering the large investment required. What wind power does accomplish is the transfer of large tax liabilities from wealthy investors to the rest of us because of large tax write-offs and subsidies granted by federal, state and local governments. These subsidies, coupled with an increase in our utility bills, constitute the economic drive supporting construction of these mammoth wind towers. In addition, investors are allowed the accumulation of false "energy credits," permitting industry to continue polluting practices elsewhere. The wind developers proceed with construction based on the myth that they are creating "green energy," - a myth that is not questioned or examined critically by the public or our elected representatives. Wind energy is a false solution to our problems of energy consumption and global warming. It gives people comfort that we are on the way to solving our problems while diverting attention and financial resources from the task of finding real solutions.
Until we can find reasonable solutions to our energy problems, simple programs for energy conservation can go a long way to mitigate our situation.
Sincerely,
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 power produces only very small and intermittent amounts of power at a very high cost, considering the large investment required. What wind power does accomplish is the transfer of large tax liabilities from wealthy investors to the rest of us because of large tax write-offs and subsidies granted by federal, state and local governments. These subsidies, coupled with an increase in our utility bills, constitute the economic drive supporting construction of these mammoth wind towers. In addition, investors are allowed the accumulation of false "energy credits," permitting industry to continue polluting practices elsewhere. The wind developers proceed with construction based on the myth that they are creating "green energy," - a myth that is not questioned or examined critically by the public or our elected representatives. Wind energy is a false solution to our problems of energy consumption and global warming. It gives people comfort that we are on the way to solving our problems while diverting attention and financial resources from the task of finding real solutions.
Until we can find reasonable solutions to our energy problems, simple programs for energy conservation can go a long way to mitigate our situation.
Sincerely,
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
Schools sue over tax plan - The Naples Record
Posted with the permission of The Naples Record, originally published Wednesday April, 9, 2008
Naples, Prattsburgh districts want wind turbine PILOT plan tossed
The Naples and Prattsburgh school districts filed lawsuits recently against the Town of Prattsburgh, the Steuben County Industrial Development Agency and other agencies alleging that the payment-in-lieu-of-taxes agreement for the 36-turbine wind farm project creates a significant loss in anticipated revenues for the schools. Both districts want the tax agreement thrown out for the wind turbines that stretch along hillsides in Prattsburgh and Naples.
According to separate complaints filed in Steuben County Supreme Court, Prattsburgh schools will lose $1.3 million in anticipated revenues, and the Naples school district as much as $560,000 in expected revenues, the Corning Leader reported last Friday.
The annual losses are based on the number of wind turbines located in each district. Payments-in-lieu-of-taxes allow an industry to operate for up to 20 years without paying the full value of its property tax. Instead, the businesses pay a set fee each year, which gradually increases to full taxation.
By state law, the county and towns generally split 52-58 percent of the annual payments, with the school districts taking in 47-48 percent of the money. But the tax agreement wind farm developer UPC signed with the Town of Prattsburgh did not provide any funds for the school districts. The Town agreement was then used to sharply reduce the tax payments, accordingly to lawyers for the both districts.
Edward Primo, attorney for the Naples school district, told the Leader that SCIDA failed to work on behalf of all the groups affected by the tax payment package.
“It’s supposed to benefit not just one of them, but all of them,” Primo said Thursday. Prattsburgh Central School Superintendent Joseph Rumsey said the action is designed to give the board of education more time to study its options.
Prattsburgh town and SCIDA officials worked “largely behind the scenes” to prevent the school districts from participating in the agreements according to the Naples complaint.
Other allegations include:
• A deliberate intention by SCIDA to get around general municipal law.
• Lack of consultation with the school districts.
• Action designed to benefit the town to the district’s detriment.
• Incomplete information provided to districts on the developers, project scope or number of turbines in the districts.
• Improper public notice by the Town of Prattsburgh of public meetings and the hosting agreement.
• Districts have either received incomplete documents or no documents on the final tax agreement after formal requests.
Other agencies named in the lawsuit are Steuben County as a recipient of the PILOT payments and Windfarm Prattsburgh, the local UPC agent.
Naples, Prattsburgh districts want wind turbine PILOT plan tossed
The Naples and Prattsburgh school districts filed lawsuits recently against the Town of Prattsburgh, the Steuben County Industrial Development Agency and other agencies alleging that the payment-in-lieu-of-taxes agreement for the 36-turbine wind farm project creates a significant loss in anticipated revenues for the schools. Both districts want the tax agreement thrown out for the wind turbines that stretch along hillsides in Prattsburgh and Naples.
According to separate complaints filed in Steuben County Supreme Court, Prattsburgh schools will lose $1.3 million in anticipated revenues, and the Naples school district as much as $560,000 in expected revenues, the Corning Leader reported last Friday.
The annual losses are based on the number of wind turbines located in each district. Payments-in-lieu-of-taxes allow an industry to operate for up to 20 years without paying the full value of its property tax. Instead, the businesses pay a set fee each year, which gradually increases to full taxation.
By state law, the county and towns generally split 52-58 percent of the annual payments, with the school districts taking in 47-48 percent of the money. But the tax agreement wind farm developer UPC signed with the Town of Prattsburgh did not provide any funds for the school districts. The Town agreement was then used to sharply reduce the tax payments, accordingly to lawyers for the both districts.
Edward Primo, attorney for the Naples school district, told the Leader that SCIDA failed to work on behalf of all the groups affected by the tax payment package.
“It’s supposed to benefit not just one of them, but all of them,” Primo said Thursday. Prattsburgh Central School Superintendent Joseph Rumsey said the action is designed to give the board of education more time to study its options.
Prattsburgh town and SCIDA officials worked “largely behind the scenes” to prevent the school districts from participating in the agreements according to the Naples complaint.
Other allegations include:
• A deliberate intention by SCIDA to get around general municipal law.
• Lack of consultation with the school districts.
• Action designed to benefit the town to the district’s detriment.
• Incomplete information provided to districts on the developers, project scope or number of turbines in the districts.
• Improper public notice by the Town of Prattsburgh of public meetings and the hosting agreement.
• Districts have either received incomplete documents or no documents on the final tax agreement after formal requests.
Other agencies named in the lawsuit are Steuben County as a recipient of the PILOT payments and Windfarm Prattsburgh, the local UPC agent.
Iberdrola to reconsider Energy East buy if NY court conditions not reasonable
MADRID, Apr. 10, 2008 (Thomson Financial delivered by Newstex) -- Iberdrola SA (OOTC:IBDSF) (OOTC:IBDRY) would reconsider its planned buy of Energy East (NYSE:EAS) , for some 6 billion euros, if the conditions imposed by the New York State Public Service Commission (NYPSC) are 'not reasonable,' ABC reported, citing comments by Iberdrola chairman Ignacio Sanchez Galan.
'If the conditions are reasonable, we hope to complete the acquisition before the third quarter of the year,' in line with the original deadline set by the Basque utility, he added.
Over the last few months press reports have flagged that the deal could be blocked by the NYPSC on concerns about a possible carve-up of Iberdrola's assets in the event of a takeover bid.
The utility has reportedly been in the sights of EDF, perhaps in a joint offensive with core shareholder Actividades de Construccion y Serivicios SA, although more recently a domestic tie-up between Iberdrola and Gas Natural SDG SA (NYSE:GNN) has been tipped as the most likely scenario.
ABC noted that the NYPSC is the only authoritative body in the U.S. which has not given the green light to the East Energy (OOTC:EECFF) (TSXV:EEC) buy, a deal which is key to Iberdrola's expansion plans in the U.S.
'If the conditions are reasonable, we hope to complete the acquisition before the third quarter of the year,' in line with the original deadline set by the Basque utility, he added.
Over the last few months press reports have flagged that the deal could be blocked by the NYPSC on concerns about a possible carve-up of Iberdrola's assets in the event of a takeover bid.
The utility has reportedly been in the sights of EDF, perhaps in a joint offensive with core shareholder Actividades de Construccion y Serivicios SA, although more recently a domestic tie-up between Iberdrola and Gas Natural SDG SA (NYSE:GNN) has been tipped as the most likely scenario.
ABC noted that the NYPSC is the only authoritative body in the U.S. which has not given the green light to the East Energy (OOTC:EECFF) (TSXV:EEC) buy, a deal which is key to Iberdrola's expansion plans in the U.S.
Where the buck stops - Op-ed by Calvin Luther Martin
Last week, Burke’s prayers were answered. Last week, District Attorney Derek Champagne forcefully stepped into the vacuum of government control over conflicts of interest between municipal officers and the wind developers. Up till then, every single NYS agency had been passing the buck about enforcing NYS General Municipal Law (GML) against (obvious) conflicts of interest.
As I say, all that abruptly ended the afternoon of April 2nd, several hours before the Burke town board meeting, when Mr. Champagne issued a stunning two-page press release notifying all municipal and county officers that, henceforth, the General Municipal Law “Code of Ethics” will be rigorously enforced. He singled out §805-a-1-c&d as The Golden Rule (my term, not his):
“No municipal officer … shall … receive, or enter into any agreement, express or implied, for compensation for services to be rendered in relation to any matter before any municipal agency of which he is an officer” §805-a-1-c.
“No municipal officer … shall … receive, or enter into any agreement, express or implied, for compensation for services to be rendered in relation to any matter before any agency of his municipality, whereby his compensation is to be dependent or contingent upon any action by such agency with respect to such matter” §805-a-1-d.
He reminded everyone that the State Attorney General advises against “even the appearance of impropriety” (my emphasis).
Between them, GML §805-a-1-c&d and the AG’s stern warning against even appearances of impropriety pack a powerful message. Mr. Champagne has called for a uniform, county-wide Code of Ethics, drafted by the County Legislature. Mindful that public ethics require constant vigilance, he has further called upon the County Legislature to establish a County Board of Ethics to advise town boards, town employees, and the legislature itself.
Let us savor this moment. This is America at its finest. When I read Mr. Champagne’s press release I imagined church bells pealing, car horns sounding and confetti. I imagined a parade of war veterans. For this is exactly what democracy is about. On 4/2/08 Mr. Champagne served notice that one of the central tenets of democracy, The Golden Rule (GML §805-a-1-c&d), from now on rules in Franklin County.
(Click to read entire essay)
Wednesday, April 09, 2008
Remarks from Gary Abraham on S. 2821, the Clean Energy Act
Bernie Sanders waxed eloquently about "thousands of jobs" that would be created by extending the PTC, and how much "Americans want wind energy."
I fired off this message to Sens. Schumer and Clinton:
Sen. Bernie Sanders' remarks on the floor today in support of extending the Production Tax Credit for wind energy developers is misguided and wrong, and you should opposed extending the PTC.
Wind energy developed has expanded dramatically in upstate NY in the last two years and contrary to Sen. Sanders, the people do not want it. Perhaps it is appropriate in developing countries or in other regions of the US, marked by sparse population, but upstate clusters of over 50 400-foot-high turbines are being sited without regard to adverse impacts on residential homeowners. Moreover, a study for NYSERDA completed by GE Energy quantifies the “effective capacity” of land-based wind power plants, concluding as follows: "Capacity factors of inland wind sites in New York are on the order of 30% of their rated capacity. Their effective capacities, however, are about 10%, due to both the seasonal and daily patterns of the wind generation being largely 'out of phase' with the NYISO load patterns."
In other words, wind power is minimally available in the summer, when electricity is needed most, and is most available in the winter, when it is needed least. In addition, wind power is most available in the evening, when the system load is diminishing. The industry's (AWEA) estimates of wind power's potential contribution to efforts to reduce reliance on fossil fuels are therefore inflated by a factor of 10! We should stop aggressive development of wind--the least effective renewable energy resource--until the effects of the current level of development can be properly assessed.
I fired off this message to Sens. Schumer and Clinton:
Sen. Bernie Sanders' remarks on the floor today in support of extending the Production Tax Credit for wind energy developers is misguided and wrong, and you should opposed extending the PTC.
Wind energy developed has expanded dramatically in upstate NY in the last two years and contrary to Sen. Sanders, the people do not want it. Perhaps it is appropriate in developing countries or in other regions of the US, marked by sparse population, but upstate clusters of over 50 400-foot-high turbines are being sited without regard to adverse impacts on residential homeowners. Moreover, a study for NYSERDA completed by GE Energy quantifies the “effective capacity” of land-based wind power plants, concluding as follows: "Capacity factors of inland wind sites in New York are on the order of 30% of their rated capacity. Their effective capacities, however, are about 10%, due to both the seasonal and daily patterns of the wind generation being largely 'out of phase' with the NYISO load patterns."
In other words, wind power is minimally available in the summer, when electricity is needed most, and is most available in the winter, when it is needed least. In addition, wind power is most available in the evening, when the system load is diminishing. The industry's (AWEA) estimates of wind power's potential contribution to efforts to reduce reliance on fossil fuels are therefore inflated by a factor of 10! We should stop aggressive development of wind--the least effective renewable energy resource--until the effects of the current level of development can be properly assessed.
Iberdrola Leads in Wind with 7,000 MW
Spanish utility Iberdrola has passed FPL Energy to claim global leadership in wind power plant ownership for the year 2007 with over 6.9 gigawatts (GW) of peak capacity under net ownership, according to Emerging Energy Research (EER).
EER's recently released global wind power rankings show that Iberdrola added more than 1.5 GW of new wind construction in 2007, primarily driven by large-scale activations in Spain and the U.S. and more than 1.4 GW through the acquisition of ScottishPower's operating wind assets in the U.S., the UK and Ireland.
Surpassing 5 GW of cumulative wind ownership in 2007, FPL Energy continued to outpace its competitors in North America and took second place in EER's global rankings. The Florida-based utility led the North American field in new wind build for the third straight year, adding 956 megawatts (MW) of new peak capacity, in addition to consolidating its equity position in 108 MW of operating capacity in California.
Competition for third place was close as Acciona and Energias de Portugal (EDP) nearly tied at approximately 2.8 GW with Acciona coming out just above EDP. The top 20 global wind plant owners ended 2007 owning more than 32.8 GW of peak capacity combined, or approximately 35 percent of the total global installed wind plant, according to EER.
"With viable wind M&A targets dwindling, remaining at the head of the global wind rankings requires adding at least 500 MW of new wind build per year," said EER Research Director Joshua Magee.
EER's recently released global wind power rankings show that Iberdrola added more than 1.5 GW of new wind construction in 2007, primarily driven by large-scale activations in Spain and the U.S. and more than 1.4 GW through the acquisition of ScottishPower's operating wind assets in the U.S., the UK and Ireland.
Surpassing 5 GW of cumulative wind ownership in 2007, FPL Energy continued to outpace its competitors in North America and took second place in EER's global rankings. The Florida-based utility led the North American field in new wind build for the third straight year, adding 956 megawatts (MW) of new peak capacity, in addition to consolidating its equity position in 108 MW of operating capacity in California.
Competition for third place was close as Acciona and Energias de Portugal (EDP) nearly tied at approximately 2.8 GW with Acciona coming out just above EDP. The top 20 global wind plant owners ended 2007 owning more than 32.8 GW of peak capacity combined, or approximately 35 percent of the total global installed wind plant, according to EER.
"With viable wind M&A targets dwindling, remaining at the head of the global wind rankings requires adding at least 500 MW of new wind build per year," said EER Research Director Joshua Magee.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)