Thursday, April 17, 2008
UPC Windfarm Prattsburgh HOST COMMUNITY AGREEMENT with the Town of Prattsburgh
Host%20agreement.doc
Scanned document obtained from Prattsburgh. Inquiry for a hard copy with Town Clerk.
Scanned document obtained from Prattsburgh. Inquiry for a hard copy with Town Clerk.
Hamlin NY, Ex-Wind Tower Committee Objectives Not Realized/Issues Not Explored
Upon termination of the Wind Tower Committee, they submitted a paper listing two objectives they didn’t realize and ten issues not explored or considered. In an effort to consider all of their concerns and issues, I will record my review of these items and indicate my thoughts. I will also pass this to the other Town Board members so that they can form their own opinions.
I. Objectives not Realized.
A. Assess the General Town Opinion: The committee felt this should have been the last thing done but because they were prematurely “terminated”, they weren’t allowed to do it. They felt it should still be done. I have thought all along that this should have been one of the first things the committee would have wanted to accomplish before any degree of biasness or propaganda could set in. Although no formal or informal survey was ever done, I believe that the majority of the Town is in favor of wind towers. The reasons for my belief:
1. The opposition group, although vocal, has not grown significantly in numbers and represents only a small minority of the Town.
2. The number of people who I have talked to – informally, socially, while carrying petitions, etc. – who have told me that they support them.
3. The election results.
4. The support noted from leaders of our ZBA and Conservation Boards.
B. Communicate with and Visit other Municipalities with Industrial Wind Turbines: Committee didn’t get a chance to visit any wind farms with turbines the size “purported” to be going into Hamlin. Feel that the Town Board needs to do this.
I am confident that each Town Board member has visited enough wind farms to make an educated and intelligent judgment.
II. Issues not Explored or Considered.
A. Not all questions for research asked by our citizens were answered. It is important that this be done, perhaps at an open, independent informational meeting prior to the public hearing.
Based upon the numerous workshops, public forums, public information meetings, and public hearings, I believe the opportunity for all questions to be asked has been provided. I cannot guarantee that all questions have been answered – at least to the satisfaction of the person answering the questions. But this is a result of differences in opinion over what the answer should be as opposed to not attempting to provide an answer or not having had the opportunity to ask the question.
B. Health Issues – Committee is concerned that a statement made by Mr. Spitzer at a Monroe County Supervisors’ Association luncheon that “they do not believe health issues were a concern” needs more research.
I reviewed the minutes of the May 18, 2007 Monroe County Supervisors’ Association minutes, which is the meeting at which Mr. Spitzer spoke. The minutes indicate that Mr. Spitzer remarks “continued with an overview on wind towers, focusing on regulations:
h. Safety Issues: Minimal – 6 claims on 33,000 towers insured (per one carrier).
i. No basis to most ‘health issues.’”
These issues have been adequately researched. In my research, I have found no indication of injuries from blade throw or ice throw, which are the two main safety issues we have addressed by our setbacks. Aside from the death of a construction worker and the injury to two other workers during a tower collapse in August 2007 (which in no way is intended to diminish that fact), I could find no data to support the fact that turbine collapse has injured any non-construction worker, i.e., innocent bystander/neighbor and no evidence at all to support anyone being injured by blade throw or ice throw. I have read various articles cautioning people (workers or not) from standing under the hub during ice shed. Our Wind Tower Regulations have addressed safety issues and incorporated procedures to mitigate and/or protect the public.
Health issues typically addressed are related to flicker and noise (including recent reports on heart problems due to noise – not limited to wind turbine noise). The committee itself addressed these issues in their report. The issues and methods to mitigate have been addressed in the proposed Wind Tower Regulations.
I believe that this issue was adequately addressed by the Committee and incorporated into the Regulations. I see no need for additional research based on general statements made by Mr. Spitzer at a Supervisors’ luncheon.
C. Potential lawsuits and their ramifications were not explored. (This is potentially one of the most important issues regarding industrial wind turbines and should be more heavily researched.) This is to protect the Town, the land owners, and all of Hamlin citizens. In my opinion I don’t consider that potential lawsuits need to be “explored.” However, I do have a concern about lawsuits, which is why we retained a well-respected attorney, experienced in writing and defending local wind tower laws.
D. National Grid: The Town should become aware of the National Grid’s “true” attitude toward wind turbines and the problems caused by “intermittency.” It is not the intent of the proposed wind tower regulations to resolve or influence National Grid. Intermittency was discussed at a Wind Tower Committee meeting and reflects the opinion of one its representatives. Per a comment appearing in the British Wind Energy Association Briefing Sheet, “Wind Power and Intermittency,” the Great Britain Systems Operator, National Grid Transco, in their “Seven Year Statement, May 2005, indicates “. . .based on recent analysis of the incidence and variation of wind speed, the intermittency of wind does not appear to pose major problems for stability. . .” It appears to me that National Grid’s “true attitude” is dependent upon whom you speak or listen.
E. Jobs: This area needs much more exploration. The Committee finds that although initial installation does “spike” employment at the local level, it is short lived. Permanent employment would be no more than two people after construction. I would not argue with the findings of the Committee as their numbers match the research I’ve found. However, the creation of jobs has not been an underlying premise or promise that I can determine has been made by either potential developers or Town officials.
F. Tourism: The Committee is concerned that given our close proximity to Brockport, any tourism dollars would likely go there because of the amenities there. The Committee feels it important that the Town Board more fully explore this issue. Like jobs, I have never seen tourism touted as a major benefit of wind towers in the Town of Hamlin. There is no doubt that there will be increased visitors who are curious and will want to see wind towers themselves and who will patronize some of local businesses - gas stations, farm stands, restaurants and maybe the State Park. However, I personally don’t see wind towers as a major tourist attraction and don’t know what value would be gained by Town Board more fully exploring the issue.
G. Land Owner Contracts: Committee stated that landowner contracts and a full proposal for the town were not available but “would have been helpful in aiding the committee’s development of a overall picture of the project.” As far as I know, landowner contracts are private lease agreements, which the Town is not privy to. Obviously, there has never been a proposal submitted, therefore we cannot review or consider what “might be.” However, our proposed regulations clearly state what is required in an application (proposal) so that the Town will definitely have the opportunity to review all aspects of a proposal before approving any project.
H. Other locations within the Town should be explored. This is very important due to bird/bat controversy which may push wind turbines well south of the present, proposed location. Another location that should not be overlooked is . . .offshore, which would mitigate most of the negative issues. The proposed wind tower regulations restrict wind towers to the RVL zoned districts only. So in that sense, it can be said that other locations have been explored. We’ve restricted wind towers to RVL to obviously limit towers to our least populated areas. The bird/bat issue will be studied before permitting any siting. Offshore would be an issue to be determined between the State (maybe also the Feds) and the developer.
I. Other concepts in wind generating devices: Several other turbine designs are available – some of which are able to mitigate all current negative issues associated with the contemplated project. It is up to the developer/applicant to determine the most feasible device to use. Our proposed regulations provide for both industrial and residential wind towers. The regulations give the latitude to the applicant to make a determination as to which is most efficient but gives the Town Board the authority to determine whether they are appropriate and meet the standards.
As a final note, the insinuations made throughout these issues that there is a “project” to be considered is the Committee’s. I know of no project being proposed and therefore, it would be impossible for Town Board to consider one. The proposed Wind Tower Regulations provide the Town Board the legal basis to do this when a project proposal or application is received.
I. Objectives not Realized.
A. Assess the General Town Opinion: The committee felt this should have been the last thing done but because they were prematurely “terminated”, they weren’t allowed to do it. They felt it should still be done. I have thought all along that this should have been one of the first things the committee would have wanted to accomplish before any degree of biasness or propaganda could set in. Although no formal or informal survey was ever done, I believe that the majority of the Town is in favor of wind towers. The reasons for my belief:
1. The opposition group, although vocal, has not grown significantly in numbers and represents only a small minority of the Town.
2. The number of people who I have talked to – informally, socially, while carrying petitions, etc. – who have told me that they support them.
3. The election results.
4. The support noted from leaders of our ZBA and Conservation Boards.
B. Communicate with and Visit other Municipalities with Industrial Wind Turbines: Committee didn’t get a chance to visit any wind farms with turbines the size “purported” to be going into Hamlin. Feel that the Town Board needs to do this.
I am confident that each Town Board member has visited enough wind farms to make an educated and intelligent judgment.
II. Issues not Explored or Considered.
A. Not all questions for research asked by our citizens were answered. It is important that this be done, perhaps at an open, independent informational meeting prior to the public hearing.
Based upon the numerous workshops, public forums, public information meetings, and public hearings, I believe the opportunity for all questions to be asked has been provided. I cannot guarantee that all questions have been answered – at least to the satisfaction of the person answering the questions. But this is a result of differences in opinion over what the answer should be as opposed to not attempting to provide an answer or not having had the opportunity to ask the question.
B. Health Issues – Committee is concerned that a statement made by Mr. Spitzer at a Monroe County Supervisors’ Association luncheon that “they do not believe health issues were a concern” needs more research.
I reviewed the minutes of the May 18, 2007 Monroe County Supervisors’ Association minutes, which is the meeting at which Mr. Spitzer spoke. The minutes indicate that Mr. Spitzer remarks “continued with an overview on wind towers, focusing on regulations:
h. Safety Issues: Minimal – 6 claims on 33,000 towers insured (per one carrier).
i. No basis to most ‘health issues.’”
These issues have been adequately researched. In my research, I have found no indication of injuries from blade throw or ice throw, which are the two main safety issues we have addressed by our setbacks. Aside from the death of a construction worker and the injury to two other workers during a tower collapse in August 2007 (which in no way is intended to diminish that fact), I could find no data to support the fact that turbine collapse has injured any non-construction worker, i.e., innocent bystander/neighbor and no evidence at all to support anyone being injured by blade throw or ice throw. I have read various articles cautioning people (workers or not) from standing under the hub during ice shed. Our Wind Tower Regulations have addressed safety issues and incorporated procedures to mitigate and/or protect the public.
Health issues typically addressed are related to flicker and noise (including recent reports on heart problems due to noise – not limited to wind turbine noise). The committee itself addressed these issues in their report. The issues and methods to mitigate have been addressed in the proposed Wind Tower Regulations.
I believe that this issue was adequately addressed by the Committee and incorporated into the Regulations. I see no need for additional research based on general statements made by Mr. Spitzer at a Supervisors’ luncheon.
C. Potential lawsuits and their ramifications were not explored. (This is potentially one of the most important issues regarding industrial wind turbines and should be more heavily researched.) This is to protect the Town, the land owners, and all of Hamlin citizens. In my opinion I don’t consider that potential lawsuits need to be “explored.” However, I do have a concern about lawsuits, which is why we retained a well-respected attorney, experienced in writing and defending local wind tower laws.
D. National Grid: The Town should become aware of the National Grid’s “true” attitude toward wind turbines and the problems caused by “intermittency.” It is not the intent of the proposed wind tower regulations to resolve or influence National Grid. Intermittency was discussed at a Wind Tower Committee meeting and reflects the opinion of one its representatives. Per a comment appearing in the British Wind Energy Association Briefing Sheet, “Wind Power and Intermittency,” the Great Britain Systems Operator, National Grid Transco, in their “Seven Year Statement, May 2005, indicates “. . .based on recent analysis of the incidence and variation of wind speed, the intermittency of wind does not appear to pose major problems for stability. . .” It appears to me that National Grid’s “true attitude” is dependent upon whom you speak or listen.
E. Jobs: This area needs much more exploration. The Committee finds that although initial installation does “spike” employment at the local level, it is short lived. Permanent employment would be no more than two people after construction. I would not argue with the findings of the Committee as their numbers match the research I’ve found. However, the creation of jobs has not been an underlying premise or promise that I can determine has been made by either potential developers or Town officials.
F. Tourism: The Committee is concerned that given our close proximity to Brockport, any tourism dollars would likely go there because of the amenities there. The Committee feels it important that the Town Board more fully explore this issue. Like jobs, I have never seen tourism touted as a major benefit of wind towers in the Town of Hamlin. There is no doubt that there will be increased visitors who are curious and will want to see wind towers themselves and who will patronize some of local businesses - gas stations, farm stands, restaurants and maybe the State Park. However, I personally don’t see wind towers as a major tourist attraction and don’t know what value would be gained by Town Board more fully exploring the issue.
G. Land Owner Contracts: Committee stated that landowner contracts and a full proposal for the town were not available but “would have been helpful in aiding the committee’s development of a overall picture of the project.” As far as I know, landowner contracts are private lease agreements, which the Town is not privy to. Obviously, there has never been a proposal submitted, therefore we cannot review or consider what “might be.” However, our proposed regulations clearly state what is required in an application (proposal) so that the Town will definitely have the opportunity to review all aspects of a proposal before approving any project.
H. Other locations within the Town should be explored. This is very important due to bird/bat controversy which may push wind turbines well south of the present, proposed location. Another location that should not be overlooked is . . .offshore, which would mitigate most of the negative issues. The proposed wind tower regulations restrict wind towers to the RVL zoned districts only. So in that sense, it can be said that other locations have been explored. We’ve restricted wind towers to RVL to obviously limit towers to our least populated areas. The bird/bat issue will be studied before permitting any siting. Offshore would be an issue to be determined between the State (maybe also the Feds) and the developer.
I. Other concepts in wind generating devices: Several other turbine designs are available – some of which are able to mitigate all current negative issues associated with the contemplated project. It is up to the developer/applicant to determine the most feasible device to use. Our proposed regulations provide for both industrial and residential wind towers. The regulations give the latitude to the applicant to make a determination as to which is most efficient but gives the Town Board the authority to determine whether they are appropriate and meet the standards.
As a final note, the insinuations made throughout these issues that there is a “project” to be considered is the Committee’s. I know of no project being proposed and therefore, it would be impossible for Town Board to consider one. The proposed Wind Tower Regulations provide the Town Board the legal basis to do this when a project proposal or application is received.
Vestas Safety Regulations for Operators and Technicians - Don Airey email
Issued by: Technology Safety Regulations for Operators and Technicians Class: II Type: MAN V90 — 3.OMWNIOO — 2.75MW Page 3 of 32
I. Introduction
A turbine connected to the grid implies certain elements of danger if it is handled without exercising proper caution.
For safety reasons, at least two persons have to be present during a work procedure.
The work must be properly carried out in accordance with this manual and other related manuals. This implies, among other things that personnel must be instructed in and familiar with relevant parts of this manual.
Furthermore, personnel must be familiar with the contents of the “Substances and Materials” regulations.
Caution must especially be exerted in situations where measurement and work is done in junction boxes that can be connected to power.
Consequently the following safety regulations must be observed.
2. Stay and Traffic by the Turbine
Do not stay within a radius of 400m (1 300ft) from the turbine unless it is necessary. If you have to inspect an operating turbine from the ground, do not stay under the rotor plane but observe the rotor from the front.
Make sure that children do not stay by or play nearby the turbine. If necessary, fence the foundation. The access door to the turbine must be locked in order to prevent unauthorised persons from stopping or damaging the turbine due to mal-operation of the controller.
3. AddressandPhoneNumberofthe Turbine
Note the address and the access road of the turbine in case an emergency situation should arise. The address of the turbine can often be found in the service reports in the ring binders next to the ground controller. Find the phone number of the local life-saving service.
_________________________________________________
Don Airey wrote:
We have just learned that Invenergy is saying they pulled the VESTA info. at VESTA's request due to the info. being "proprietary" in nature.
We have access to a hard copy of the rest of the manual. It is contained in the application to Roxbury and Stamford. Invenergy pulled the manual from their site, after they learned we were quoting it.
That document was instrumental in getting the R-Ville Committee to recommend 1500' from property lines.
Pound the fact that property owners should have reasonable expectation of safety while on their property. Also not the 1300' for workers assumes they would only be near the turbine for short periods of time, only a few times per year.
(Edited comments by Don Airey are his own)
I. Introduction
A turbine connected to the grid implies certain elements of danger if it is handled without exercising proper caution.
For safety reasons, at least two persons have to be present during a work procedure.
The work must be properly carried out in accordance with this manual and other related manuals. This implies, among other things that personnel must be instructed in and familiar with relevant parts of this manual.
Furthermore, personnel must be familiar with the contents of the “Substances and Materials” regulations.
Caution must especially be exerted in situations where measurement and work is done in junction boxes that can be connected to power.
Consequently the following safety regulations must be observed.
2. Stay and Traffic by the Turbine
Do not stay within a radius of 400m (1 300ft) from the turbine unless it is necessary. If you have to inspect an operating turbine from the ground, do not stay under the rotor plane but observe the rotor from the front.
Make sure that children do not stay by or play nearby the turbine. If necessary, fence the foundation. The access door to the turbine must be locked in order to prevent unauthorised persons from stopping or damaging the turbine due to mal-operation of the controller.
3. AddressandPhoneNumberofthe Turbine
Note the address and the access road of the turbine in case an emergency situation should arise. The address of the turbine can often be found in the service reports in the ring binders next to the ground controller. Find the phone number of the local life-saving service.
_________________________________________________
Don Airey wrote:
We have just learned that Invenergy is saying they pulled the VESTA info. at VESTA's request due to the info. being "proprietary" in nature.
We have access to a hard copy of the rest of the manual. It is contained in the application to Roxbury and Stamford. Invenergy pulled the manual from their site, after they learned we were quoting it.
That document was instrumental in getting the R-Ville Committee to recommend 1500' from property lines.
Pound the fact that property owners should have reasonable expectation of safety while on their property. Also not the 1300' for workers assumes they would only be near the turbine for short periods of time, only a few times per year.
(Edited comments by Don Airey are his own)
Wednesday, April 16, 2008
Energy East buyout in question
The chairman of Iberdrola, the Spanish utility seeking to buy Energy East, says what he calls "unreasonable conditions" imposed by the New York energy regulators could scuttle the proposed $$4.5 billion deal.
Iberdrola already has taken some sizable steps to gain New York's approval for the deal.
On March 14th, it agreed to several condition set by the New York State Public Service Commission, including putting up for bid and selling a power generating plant in Greece and four other plants.
The company also agreed to spend more than $100 million over the next three years developing wind-generated power in New York state.
The proposed buyout -- which now only needs the public service commission's approval before it can be done -- would affect 3 million customers from upstate New York to Maine and put Rochester Electric & Gas and New York State Electric & Gas under foreign ownership.
Iberdrola already has taken some sizable steps to gain New York's approval for the deal.
On March 14th, it agreed to several condition set by the New York State Public Service Commission, including putting up for bid and selling a power generating plant in Greece and four other plants.
The company also agreed to spend more than $100 million over the next three years developing wind-generated power in New York state.
The proposed buyout -- which now only needs the public service commission's approval before it can be done -- would affect 3 million customers from upstate New York to Maine and put Rochester Electric & Gas and New York State Electric & Gas under foreign ownership.
Energy East buyer wary of PSC
State regulatory issues may derail the purchase of Rochester Gas & Electric's parent company by a Spanish energy giant.
Iberdrola SA Chairman Ignacio Sanchez Galan said conditions imposed by the New York Public Service Commission might cause the company to reconsider its planned $4.5 billion purchase of Energy East Corp.
As Iberdrola held its annual shareholder meeting Tuesday in Bilbao, Spain, Galan said, "If the regulator's demands are unreasonable, we'll rethink the deal," Bloomberg News reported.
Company spokesman Luis Carlos Martinez said later Tuesday that Iberdrola still hopes to close on the purchase this summer. He did not elaborate on what regulatory issues are matters of concern.
If Iberdrola were to drop its bid for Energy East, Martinez said, the company "would look for other growth opportunities in the U.S."
Energy East is the parent of a pair of publicly regulated utility companies — RG&E and New York State Gas and Electric.
Iberdrola already has taken sizable steps to get New York's approval, agreeing to sell five RG&E power-generating plants, one of them being the Russell Station in Greece.
Iberdrola also agreed to spend more than $100 million over the next three years developing wind-generated power in New York and to review RG&E's remediation plans and schedules for its Beebee Station and Andrews Street site with the city of Rochester.
Public Service Commission spokesman James Denn said the regulatory agency's staff is "simply working to ensure that the best interests of ratepayers are kept in mind."
Energy East did not return a message seeking comment.
The final say on the purchase will come from the five-member Public Service Commission. After a series of hearings earlier this year on the proposed takeover, the commission received legal briefs from various interested parties. The deadline for those briefs was Monday.
Now all the parties have until April 25 to review each others' arguments for or against the sale and respond.
In its legal brief, the state Consumer Protection Board opposed the takeover in its present form, citing among its reasons too-small rate decreases offered by Iberdrola.
A group of more than 50 large industrial, commercial and institutional energy users in the RG&E and NYSEG service areas filed a joint brief of their own, arguing that the commission should approve the purchase with certain conditions, including rate reductions for customers and more stringent reliability and service quality performance standards.
Conversely, Iberdrola and Energy East argued in their filings that the PSC is trying to erect too high a barrier for Iberdrola to get into the New York market and is requiring immediate benefits for consumers even if the takeover will not produce them. Iberdrola already has pledged that it will not try to recover the cost of buying Energy East through rate increases and that the headquarters of RG&E and NYSEG will remain upstate.
Denn said the PSC has not yet scheduled subsequent steps in its consideration of the deal, such as meetings of the commission members to discuss the matter among themselves.
Iberdrola SA Chairman Ignacio Sanchez Galan said conditions imposed by the New York Public Service Commission might cause the company to reconsider its planned $4.5 billion purchase of Energy East Corp.
As Iberdrola held its annual shareholder meeting Tuesday in Bilbao, Spain, Galan said, "If the regulator's demands are unreasonable, we'll rethink the deal," Bloomberg News reported.
Company spokesman Luis Carlos Martinez said later Tuesday that Iberdrola still hopes to close on the purchase this summer. He did not elaborate on what regulatory issues are matters of concern.
If Iberdrola were to drop its bid for Energy East, Martinez said, the company "would look for other growth opportunities in the U.S."
Energy East is the parent of a pair of publicly regulated utility companies — RG&E and New York State Gas and Electric.
Iberdrola already has taken sizable steps to get New York's approval, agreeing to sell five RG&E power-generating plants, one of them being the Russell Station in Greece.
Iberdrola also agreed to spend more than $100 million over the next three years developing wind-generated power in New York and to review RG&E's remediation plans and schedules for its Beebee Station and Andrews Street site with the city of Rochester.
Public Service Commission spokesman James Denn said the regulatory agency's staff is "simply working to ensure that the best interests of ratepayers are kept in mind."
Energy East did not return a message seeking comment.
The final say on the purchase will come from the five-member Public Service Commission. After a series of hearings earlier this year on the proposed takeover, the commission received legal briefs from various interested parties. The deadline for those briefs was Monday.
Now all the parties have until April 25 to review each others' arguments for or against the sale and respond.
In its legal brief, the state Consumer Protection Board opposed the takeover in its present form, citing among its reasons too-small rate decreases offered by Iberdrola.
A group of more than 50 large industrial, commercial and institutional energy users in the RG&E and NYSEG service areas filed a joint brief of their own, arguing that the commission should approve the purchase with certain conditions, including rate reductions for customers and more stringent reliability and service quality performance standards.
Conversely, Iberdrola and Energy East argued in their filings that the PSC is trying to erect too high a barrier for Iberdrola to get into the New York market and is requiring immediate benefits for consumers even if the takeover will not produce them. Iberdrola already has pledged that it will not try to recover the cost of buying Energy East through rate increases and that the headquarters of RG&E and NYSEG will remain upstate.
Denn said the PSC has not yet scheduled subsequent steps in its consideration of the deal, such as meetings of the commission members to discuss the matter among themselves.
Tuesday, April 15, 2008
RG&E purchase may be in trouble, Iberdrola chief says
The purchase of Rochester Gas & Electric’s parent company by a Spanish energy giant may be in jeopardy.
Ibedrola S.A. Chairman Ignacio Sanchez Galan said this week that unreasonable conditions imposed by the New York state Public Service Commission might cause the company to reconsider its plans to purchase Maine-based Energy East Corp. for $4.5 billion.
Iberdrola already has taken some sizable steps to gain New York’s approval for the deal. On March 14, the company agreed to several Public Service Commission conditions, including putting up for bid and selling the RG&E Russell Station power generating plant in Greece and four other plants.
The company also agreed to spend more than $100 million over the next three years developing wind-generated power in New York state and to review its remediation plans and schedules for its Beebee Station and Andrews Street site with the city of Rochester.
Ibedrola S.A. Chairman Ignacio Sanchez Galan said this week that unreasonable conditions imposed by the New York state Public Service Commission might cause the company to reconsider its plans to purchase Maine-based Energy East Corp. for $4.5 billion.
Iberdrola already has taken some sizable steps to gain New York’s approval for the deal. On March 14, the company agreed to several Public Service Commission conditions, including putting up for bid and selling the RG&E Russell Station power generating plant in Greece and four other plants.
The company also agreed to spend more than $100 million over the next three years developing wind-generated power in New York state and to review its remediation plans and schedules for its Beebee Station and Andrews Street site with the city of Rochester.
Cohocton Town Board April 15, 2008 Letter by James Hall
April 15, 2008
Town Board of Cohocton
Highway Superintendent - Tom Simons
Cohocton Planning Board
Cohocton Assessors
15 South Main Street
Cohocton, NY 14826
RE: Violation by UPC and Mortenson of road contract agreement
Dear Town of Cohocton Officials,
The incident of a clear violation of the road agreement with UPC took place on Saturday April 12, 2008 on Moore Road. A transport flat bed trailer hauling a tower section for the UPC industrial wind project has been parked and abandoned in the low part of the gully on the south side of Moore Road. As you are well aware the portable display signs that state NO CONSTRUCTION TRAFFIC have been positioned on Moore Road near the intersection of Pine Hill Road.
UPC and Mortenson have continuously violated the prohibition that marks the use of Moore Road by construction vehicles. Within the Town of Cohocton‘s road agreement with UPC and stated publically at public meetings, the construction firm would NOT use the public dirt roads during the spring season.
Any objective observer of the road system on Pine Hill will acknowledge that damage to town roads is dangerous and caused by vehicles for the UPC project.
The Hornell Tribune in a March 23, 2008 article by reporter Bob Clark - Cohocton residents complain about country roads, quotes Highway Superintendent:
Simons said most of the times Mortenson is called after he drives the roads himself to check for problem areas. “I drive the roads and when I see it is impassable to the public, I give them a call,” Simons said. “I really haven’t had many complaints (from the public).”In the last few weeks, however, the roads deteriorated after Mortenson’s grader was ticketed for operating without a license plate.
The continued illegal use of heavy equipment manned by Mortenson and other UPC subcontractors on Moore Road is intolerable. But more important is that this documented evidence memorializes that the Town of Cohocton totally ignores public safety and is subject to substantial damages for malfeasance. Intentional refusal to enforce the road agreement and the law is systemic.
Note that damage to our primary vehicle was also reported in the same newspaper article. What will it take to stop this road damage, a severe motor vehicle accident or even a fatality?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uAZLjvx-NI4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=viNKRJuscaY
You Tube videos document a voting member of the Cohocton Planning Board, Steven Holley now employed by Mortonsen as the unlicensed grader and dump truck attempt to place huge rocks in the middle of Moore Road so that the flat bed tractor trailer could navigate out of its disabled location. Note that the Mortenson grader employee turns his equipment in the direct path of a local resident to prevent him from driving to his home.
The size of the rocks used by UPC pose a serious threat to any vehicle that uses Moore Road. The Town of Cohocton must bear the responsibility for rebuilding Moore Road to road standards that ensure public safety. Mortenson has no legal authority to destroy a public road in a feeble attempt to move a tower section on a construction vehicle that is in violation for using Moore Road in the first place.
A photo slide show is available to document several of the pictures in the video.
Pine Hill Road has also become virtually impassable. These dirt roads were never designed or built to withstand the continuous traffic of heavy construction equipment. Proper scale gravel should be used to replace the large rocks used by Mortenson on Moore Road and the road needs to be rebuilt by state approved or the Town of Cohocton, at the expense of UPC.
The Hall residence at 5029 Moore Road has no road access other than transgressing on the Town of Cohocton part of Moore Road. The Prattsburgh section of Moore and Wheaton Roads are also in serious disrepair because of the intentional disregard of continuous use of Moore Road.
Also the Atlanta fire department was not notified that Moore Road was impassable over the weekend. This failure is a gross dereliction of duty. The safety of the fire volunteers needs to be protected as well as the road risk of fire equipment using the unsafe roads must be corrected.
Moore Road needs to be rebuilt properly. In order to prevent even further damage, the Town of Cohocton and the County of Steuben needs to enforce banning construction vehicles from access on the dirt roads.
The Steuben County Highway Department also has a responsibility to guarantee a reasonable standard for public roads even if the primary responsibility rests with the Town of Cohocton.
LaBella Associates is also being put on notice that their contract to oversee construction of the UPC Project is totally inadequate. Their own conflict of interest, being the consultant to the Town of Cohocton and now the compliance agent for the project’s construction illustrates that there is no effective oversight going on. Construction is routinely conducted at night, on weekends and under the cloak of darkness. The legal consequences for LaBella should be obvious.
Cordially,
James Hall
5029 Moore Road
Cohocton, NY 14826
(585) 534-5581
cc: UPC/CPP
Labella Associates
Steuben County Legislature
Steuben County Highway Department
New York State Governor Paterson
New York State Senator Winner
New York Assemblyman Bacalles
New York State Attorney General Cuomo
New York State Department of Transportation
Atlanta Fire Department
Hornell Tribune
Corning Leader
Town Board of Cohocton
Highway Superintendent - Tom Simons
Cohocton Planning Board
Cohocton Assessors
15 South Main Street
Cohocton, NY 14826
RE: Violation by UPC and Mortenson of road contract agreement
Dear Town of Cohocton Officials,
The incident of a clear violation of the road agreement with UPC took place on Saturday April 12, 2008 on Moore Road. A transport flat bed trailer hauling a tower section for the UPC industrial wind project has been parked and abandoned in the low part of the gully on the south side of Moore Road. As you are well aware the portable display signs that state NO CONSTRUCTION TRAFFIC have been positioned on Moore Road near the intersection of Pine Hill Road.
UPC and Mortenson have continuously violated the prohibition that marks the use of Moore Road by construction vehicles. Within the Town of Cohocton‘s road agreement with UPC and stated publically at public meetings, the construction firm would NOT use the public dirt roads during the spring season.
Any objective observer of the road system on Pine Hill will acknowledge that damage to town roads is dangerous and caused by vehicles for the UPC project.
The Hornell Tribune in a March 23, 2008 article by reporter Bob Clark - Cohocton residents complain about country roads, quotes Highway Superintendent:
Simons said most of the times Mortenson is called after he drives the roads himself to check for problem areas. “I drive the roads and when I see it is impassable to the public, I give them a call,” Simons said. “I really haven’t had many complaints (from the public).”In the last few weeks, however, the roads deteriorated after Mortenson’s grader was ticketed for operating without a license plate.
The continued illegal use of heavy equipment manned by Mortenson and other UPC subcontractors on Moore Road is intolerable. But more important is that this documented evidence memorializes that the Town of Cohocton totally ignores public safety and is subject to substantial damages for malfeasance. Intentional refusal to enforce the road agreement and the law is systemic.
Note that damage to our primary vehicle was also reported in the same newspaper article. What will it take to stop this road damage, a severe motor vehicle accident or even a fatality?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uAZLjvx-NI4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=viNKRJuscaY
You Tube videos document a voting member of the Cohocton Planning Board, Steven Holley now employed by Mortonsen as the unlicensed grader and dump truck attempt to place huge rocks in the middle of Moore Road so that the flat bed tractor trailer could navigate out of its disabled location. Note that the Mortenson grader employee turns his equipment in the direct path of a local resident to prevent him from driving to his home.
The size of the rocks used by UPC pose a serious threat to any vehicle that uses Moore Road. The Town of Cohocton must bear the responsibility for rebuilding Moore Road to road standards that ensure public safety. Mortenson has no legal authority to destroy a public road in a feeble attempt to move a tower section on a construction vehicle that is in violation for using Moore Road in the first place.
A photo slide show is available to document several of the pictures in the video.
Pine Hill Road has also become virtually impassable. These dirt roads were never designed or built to withstand the continuous traffic of heavy construction equipment. Proper scale gravel should be used to replace the large rocks used by Mortenson on Moore Road and the road needs to be rebuilt by state approved or the Town of Cohocton, at the expense of UPC.
The Hall residence at 5029 Moore Road has no road access other than transgressing on the Town of Cohocton part of Moore Road. The Prattsburgh section of Moore and Wheaton Roads are also in serious disrepair because of the intentional disregard of continuous use of Moore Road.
Also the Atlanta fire department was not notified that Moore Road was impassable over the weekend. This failure is a gross dereliction of duty. The safety of the fire volunteers needs to be protected as well as the road risk of fire equipment using the unsafe roads must be corrected.
Moore Road needs to be rebuilt properly. In order to prevent even further damage, the Town of Cohocton and the County of Steuben needs to enforce banning construction vehicles from access on the dirt roads.
The Steuben County Highway Department also has a responsibility to guarantee a reasonable standard for public roads even if the primary responsibility rests with the Town of Cohocton.
LaBella Associates is also being put on notice that their contract to oversee construction of the UPC Project is totally inadequate. Their own conflict of interest, being the consultant to the Town of Cohocton and now the compliance agent for the project’s construction illustrates that there is no effective oversight going on. Construction is routinely conducted at night, on weekends and under the cloak of darkness. The legal consequences for LaBella should be obvious.
Cordially,
James Hall
5029 Moore Road
Cohocton, NY 14826
(585) 534-5581
cc: UPC/CPP
Labella Associates
Steuben County Legislature
Steuben County Highway Department
New York State Governor Paterson
New York State Senator Winner
New York Assemblyman Bacalles
New York State Attorney General Cuomo
New York State Department of Transportation
Atlanta Fire Department
Hornell Tribune
Corning Leader
Bar set high for wind energy by LARRY RULISON
ALBANY -- Putting up a wind turbine in your backyard isn't as easy as it looks.
That was made crystal clear Monday at Community Wind Energy 2008, a wind power conference held at Empire State Plaza.
Although most people would probably love to have a wind turbine generating low-cost power in their backyard, the reality is that doing so is expensive and time-consuming.
But judging from the conference, plenty of companies are willing to do the work.
That included Four Winds Renewable Energy LLC, a wind and solar electric system installer based in Steuben County.
Owner Roy Butler, a conference speaker, gave a "consumer primer" about installing small wind turbines.
"It's a lot of work," he said. "It's not a spectator sport."
(Click to read entire article)
That was made crystal clear Monday at Community Wind Energy 2008, a wind power conference held at Empire State Plaza.
Although most people would probably love to have a wind turbine generating low-cost power in their backyard, the reality is that doing so is expensive and time-consuming.
But judging from the conference, plenty of companies are willing to do the work.
That included Four Winds Renewable Energy LLC, a wind and solar electric system installer based in Steuben County.
Owner Roy Butler, a conference speaker, gave a "consumer primer" about installing small wind turbines.
"It's a lot of work," he said. "It's not a spectator sport."
(Click to read entire article)
Iberdrola Open To M&A Approaches
Galan also said that Iberdrola expects to complete the acquisition of Maine- based U.S. rival Energy East Corp. (EAS) in the early summer, following a recent clash with the New York Public Service Commission, which is completing the last regulatory review of the $4.5 billion (EUR3.1 billion) deal.
Completion of the friendly deal has been slowed down after the New York commission called for a freeze of the review process until EdF clarifies its stance on Iberdrola. The case is now in the hands of an Albany-based judge.
Galan said that if the commission were to slap "unacceptable conditions" on the Energy East acquisition, Iberdrola may cancel the deal, and look for further opportunities in the U.S. energy sector with the cash it raised last year for the Energy East buy.
Iberdrola, based in Bilbao, northern Spain, is the world's biggest wind-power generator, and Spain's largest power utility by market value.
Completion of the friendly deal has been slowed down after the New York commission called for a freeze of the review process until EdF clarifies its stance on Iberdrola. The case is now in the hands of an Albany-based judge.
Galan said that if the commission were to slap "unacceptable conditions" on the Energy East acquisition, Iberdrola may cancel the deal, and look for further opportunities in the U.S. energy sector with the cash it raised last year for the Energy East buy.
Iberdrola, based in Bilbao, northern Spain, is the world's biggest wind-power generator, and Spain's largest power utility by market value.
Monday, April 14, 2008
O'Malley says no turbines
BITTINGER — As expected, Gov. Martin O’Malley on Saturday said his administration would reject any effort to put commercial wind turbines on public land managed by the state Department of Natural Resources.
O’Malley announced earlier in the week he would issue his stance on Saturday from scenic Mountain Run Overlook in Savage River State Forest. Given the location, it appeared unlikely to those in attendance that O’Malley would choose such a spot and tell the crowd that the view they were looking at wouldn’t be there in years to come.
Instead, O’Malley said the area’s scenic beauty was “too valuable to our state” to allow industrial wind energy facilities. But O’Malley’s praise of the natural environment came with a word of caution. He said his announcement should not be construed as an anti-wind energy position.
“This is not a rejection of wind power,” O’Malley said to state and local elected officials, DNR Secretary John Griffin and David Edgerley, secretary of the state Department of Business and Economic Development. “The truth is, we have to find a mix of sustainable energy (sources).”
The announcement came after four months of public comment. DNR spokeswoman Olivia Campbell on Saturday said 83 percent of the roughly 1,400 responses voiced opposition to the project since January.
U.S. Wind Force, a Pennsylvania-based wind energy company, had sought to lease and clear nearly 400 acres in the Savage and Potomac state forests and construct about 100 wind turbines, each about 440 feet tall. Advocates of the project touted clean, renewable energy, the creation of jobs and some $30 million in revenue over 20 years.
O’Malley said the future of Maryland depended on distancing itself off the dependency of foreign oil. He said the resolution likely is a combination of a variety of alternative, renewable energy sources, including geothermal, wind and cellulosic ethanol.
In all, nearly 100 people attended the 45-minute presentation. After the meeting, Fannie Johnson, an Oakland native, thanked Griffin for helping to preserve “God’s country.”
Delegate Wendell Beitzel, who in January joined state Sen. George Edwards in opposing the placement of wind turbines on public lands, called O’Malley’s news “a wonderful announcement.”
“We were real concerned about the potential loss of our state parks and public lands,” Beitzel said.
“This city guy gets it,” Griffin told Beitzel of O’Malley, a former Baltimore mayor.
Edgerley noted that projects such as the one proposed by U.S. Wind Force on Meadow Mountain could create jobs. But much of the criticism of this particular project was its placement on public land, he said.
“I think the issue of where they go has been resolved,” Edgerley said.
O’Malley noted that wind turbines could still be placed in Western Maryland — on land that is privately owned or owned by federal, state or county governments.
Former state Sen. John Bambacus, an opponent of wind turbines on state land, felt his concerns had been listened to by local officials and O’Malley, who noted Bambacus’ effort during his remarks. Bambacus said he woke up Saturday morning “cautiously optimistic” about O’Malley’s announcement.
It would have been a shame to violate the natural beauty of the area, the retired Frostburg State University professor said. He said he brought groups of students up to Monroe Overlook for years and walked the five-mile trail teaching the younger generation about the area.
“This is my favorite place in the whole world,” Bambacus said. “This is who we are.”
In an e-mailed statement, wind-power industry spoke-sman Frank Maisano said he was “disappointed” about O’Malley’s decision. He said it was important to view the announcement in a larger context.
“It has always been our top priority to advance the wind projects on private land, which are in more advanced stages of development,” Maisano said. “While all wind development is important to advance the state’s policy goals, these private-land wind projects still remain at the front of the line.”
O’Malley announced earlier in the week he would issue his stance on Saturday from scenic Mountain Run Overlook in Savage River State Forest. Given the location, it appeared unlikely to those in attendance that O’Malley would choose such a spot and tell the crowd that the view they were looking at wouldn’t be there in years to come.
Instead, O’Malley said the area’s scenic beauty was “too valuable to our state” to allow industrial wind energy facilities. But O’Malley’s praise of the natural environment came with a word of caution. He said his announcement should not be construed as an anti-wind energy position.
“This is not a rejection of wind power,” O’Malley said to state and local elected officials, DNR Secretary John Griffin and David Edgerley, secretary of the state Department of Business and Economic Development. “The truth is, we have to find a mix of sustainable energy (sources).”
The announcement came after four months of public comment. DNR spokeswoman Olivia Campbell on Saturday said 83 percent of the roughly 1,400 responses voiced opposition to the project since January.
U.S. Wind Force, a Pennsylvania-based wind energy company, had sought to lease and clear nearly 400 acres in the Savage and Potomac state forests and construct about 100 wind turbines, each about 440 feet tall. Advocates of the project touted clean, renewable energy, the creation of jobs and some $30 million in revenue over 20 years.
O’Malley said the future of Maryland depended on distancing itself off the dependency of foreign oil. He said the resolution likely is a combination of a variety of alternative, renewable energy sources, including geothermal, wind and cellulosic ethanol.
In all, nearly 100 people attended the 45-minute presentation. After the meeting, Fannie Johnson, an Oakland native, thanked Griffin for helping to preserve “God’s country.”
Delegate Wendell Beitzel, who in January joined state Sen. George Edwards in opposing the placement of wind turbines on public lands, called O’Malley’s news “a wonderful announcement.”
“We were real concerned about the potential loss of our state parks and public lands,” Beitzel said.
“This city guy gets it,” Griffin told Beitzel of O’Malley, a former Baltimore mayor.
Edgerley noted that projects such as the one proposed by U.S. Wind Force on Meadow Mountain could create jobs. But much of the criticism of this particular project was its placement on public land, he said.
“I think the issue of where they go has been resolved,” Edgerley said.
O’Malley noted that wind turbines could still be placed in Western Maryland — on land that is privately owned or owned by federal, state or county governments.
Former state Sen. John Bambacus, an opponent of wind turbines on state land, felt his concerns had been listened to by local officials and O’Malley, who noted Bambacus’ effort during his remarks. Bambacus said he woke up Saturday morning “cautiously optimistic” about O’Malley’s announcement.
It would have been a shame to violate the natural beauty of the area, the retired Frostburg State University professor said. He said he brought groups of students up to Monroe Overlook for years and walked the five-mile trail teaching the younger generation about the area.
“This is my favorite place in the whole world,” Bambacus said. “This is who we are.”
In an e-mailed statement, wind-power industry spoke-sman Frank Maisano said he was “disappointed” about O’Malley’s decision. He said it was important to view the announcement in a larger context.
“It has always been our top priority to advance the wind projects on private land, which are in more advanced stages of development,” Maisano said. “While all wind development is important to advance the state’s policy goals, these private-land wind projects still remain at the front of the line.”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)