DES MOINES, Iowa - Students at Drake University are learning the laws of nature -- at least those that pertain to the wind.
Drake University law professor Neil Hamilton just finished teaching the school's first class in wind law to eight law school students and three attorneys. The students are taking their final exams this week and Drake plans to make the class permanent.
The class looks at the legal workings of wind energy, addressing land-use regulations, easements and leases, utility regulation and energy and environmental policies.
Hamilton's class is one of three across the country. The University of Texas at Austin and the University of Oregon in Eugene also teach wind law courses.
"With turbine farms going up all over Iowa, it's the next logical step," said Hamilton, director of Drake's Agriculture Law Center.
One student, John Hibschman of Logan, Utah, said he thinks the field will be wide open for wind law practitioners.
"Wind energy isn't as well-developed in Utah as here," Hibschman said. "But you can tell it's coming. I hope to be able to specialize in a practice."
Iowa ranks first in the country in the percentage of wind generation with 5.5 percent of electricity coming from wind turbines, according to the American Wind Energy Association.
While wind energy has a gentle, environmentally safe image, it has its share of conflict.
Some farmers in Buena Vista and Cherokee counties, in northwest Iowa, were angry when the owner of a 10-year-old wind farm built on their land cut their annual payments of $2,100 by two-thirds.
"We had no idea they could do it," said retired farmer Ronovan Meyer of Alta, who signed a lease with what was then an Enron subsidiary to allow a wind turbine on his 160-acre farm.
The lease signed by Meyer and about 30 other farmers called for payments of about 6 percent of the value of the power produced. The new terms cut those payments to 2 percent with landowners being guaranteed at least $750 per year.
"It was disappointing, but the amount of money is so small that it probably wouldn't be worth it to sue," Meyer said. "We may go through arbitration, though."
Hamilton said most wind farm leases don't have royalty clauses for electricity production. He said they tend to pay up to $4,000 a year to lease land with no royalties. That's different from many agreements for oil and gas production.
"You can claim your land rights, but how can you claim the wind?" Hamilton said.
Hamilton said he doubts wind energy will be an economic boon for rural Iowa.
"What you're seeing is income amounting to 1 or 2 percent of the total electric output from a turbine that goes back to the landowner," Hamilton said.
He said wind energy law may really take off if and when Congress passes a carbon emissions control system.
He said owners of green energy systems, such as wind farms, could profit from the sale of their energy credits to the owners of fossil-fueled power plants.
"There may be some windfalls there," Hamilton said.
Tuesday, May 06, 2008
Steuben County Distict Attorney John Tunney May 5, 2008 Letter from CWW
May 5, 2008
John C. Tunney
Steuben County District Attorney
3 East Pulteney Square,
Bath, NY 14810
RE: Complaint requesting a criminal investigation and grand jury – SCIDA, Government Officials and Wind Developers
Mr. Tunney,
Several residents and property owners of Steuben County have information and evidence of suspected criminal conduct. Three categories for investigation and corroboration of allegations include SCIDA and Mr. James Sherron individually, numerous town and planning board members of several towns (including but not limited to Cohocton and Prattsburgh) and Industrial Wind Developers – UPC (renamed to First Wind), and Ecogen (and their related LLC companies).
The scope of charges and areas of violations include False Claims and Filing False Instruments, Bribery of Public Officials, Larceny and Fraud.
1. Making False Claims and Filing False Instruments
From beginning to end of the entire process for approving and permitting industrial wind developers have knowingly provided and submitted false statements and false instruments. There is compelling and incontrovertible evidence that the developers and their associates have completely corrupted these processes:
State Environmental Quality Review including Generic, Draft, Supplemental, and Final Environmental Impact Statements.
Zoning Applications including Building Permits, Special Use Permits, and Requests For Variances.
Bid Proposals submitted to NYSERDA that enable the wind project owners to receive millions of dollars in the form of production incentives, state and federal production tax credits, and Renewable Energy Certificates.
2. Bribery of Public Officials
There is a clear and persistent pattern on the part of the developers to improperly influence public officials through a number of schemes including cash bribes, lucrative lease terms, bogus real estate transactions, purchase of personal property, and contingent real estate purchase offers.
3. Larceny
In a great many situations, developers seeking to obtain leases for wind turbine sites or easements for access roads and transmission lines have relied on lies and deceptions to convince landowners to sign away their rights. These falsehoods are felonies under Penal Law Article 155 and other statutes.
4. Fraud
Constructive fraud has occurred by Mr. Sherron, SCIDA and numerous governmental officials and town boards. Developers have committed fraud of inducement by their suspect business practices and fraud in law by their substitution of LLC company names in their filings. Scores of representations made by consultants employed by town boards and paid by developers were based upon intentional deceptions.
The recent passage of an Eminent Domain resolution by the Town Board of Prattsburgh, provided additional proof of the unlawful conduct by the Supervisor J. Harold McConnell. Review the You Tube Video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OTEL0mw_Uq8
At the February Steuben County meeting, I publically called for a Steuben County DA grand jury investigation into the illegal actions involving industrial wind developers. The tone of the County Legislators projected an impression that several elected official are concerned that they may be the subject of a public and comprehensive investigation.
This fact is especially enlightening since the efforts of Franklin County DA Derek Champagne are rapidly approaching indictments. Also the DA in Delaware County is conducting an active investigation, as well.
It is the intention of this correspondence to request a formal meeting with you and your senior staff. Representatives of several community groups and individual citizens have proof of criminal conduct. Based upon the predominance of evidence from paper trails, video tape documentation, individual testimony and publicly filed documents; your office needs to convene a grand jury with the purpose of filing criminal charges against participants who violated the law.
Your prompt reply and scheduling for an initial meeting is appreciated.
Cordially,
James Hall and additional CWW members
cc: David Paterson – NYS Governor
Andrew Cuomo – NYS Attorney General
George H. Winner – NYS Senator
James Bacalles – NYS Assembly
John C. Tunney
Steuben County District Attorney
3 East Pulteney Square,
Bath, NY 14810
RE: Complaint requesting a criminal investigation and grand jury – SCIDA, Government Officials and Wind Developers
Mr. Tunney,
Several residents and property owners of Steuben County have information and evidence of suspected criminal conduct. Three categories for investigation and corroboration of allegations include SCIDA and Mr. James Sherron individually, numerous town and planning board members of several towns (including but not limited to Cohocton and Prattsburgh) and Industrial Wind Developers – UPC (renamed to First Wind), and Ecogen (and their related LLC companies).
The scope of charges and areas of violations include False Claims and Filing False Instruments, Bribery of Public Officials, Larceny and Fraud.
1. Making False Claims and Filing False Instruments
From beginning to end of the entire process for approving and permitting industrial wind developers have knowingly provided and submitted false statements and false instruments. There is compelling and incontrovertible evidence that the developers and their associates have completely corrupted these processes:
State Environmental Quality Review including Generic, Draft, Supplemental, and Final Environmental Impact Statements.
Zoning Applications including Building Permits, Special Use Permits, and Requests For Variances.
Bid Proposals submitted to NYSERDA that enable the wind project owners to receive millions of dollars in the form of production incentives, state and federal production tax credits, and Renewable Energy Certificates.
2. Bribery of Public Officials
There is a clear and persistent pattern on the part of the developers to improperly influence public officials through a number of schemes including cash bribes, lucrative lease terms, bogus real estate transactions, purchase of personal property, and contingent real estate purchase offers.
3. Larceny
In a great many situations, developers seeking to obtain leases for wind turbine sites or easements for access roads and transmission lines have relied on lies and deceptions to convince landowners to sign away their rights. These falsehoods are felonies under Penal Law Article 155 and other statutes.
4. Fraud
Constructive fraud has occurred by Mr. Sherron, SCIDA and numerous governmental officials and town boards. Developers have committed fraud of inducement by their suspect business practices and fraud in law by their substitution of LLC company names in their filings. Scores of representations made by consultants employed by town boards and paid by developers were based upon intentional deceptions.
The recent passage of an Eminent Domain resolution by the Town Board of Prattsburgh, provided additional proof of the unlawful conduct by the Supervisor J. Harold McConnell. Review the You Tube Video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OTEL0mw_Uq8
At the February Steuben County meeting, I publically called for a Steuben County DA grand jury investigation into the illegal actions involving industrial wind developers. The tone of the County Legislators projected an impression that several elected official are concerned that they may be the subject of a public and comprehensive investigation.
This fact is especially enlightening since the efforts of Franklin County DA Derek Champagne are rapidly approaching indictments. Also the DA in Delaware County is conducting an active investigation, as well.
It is the intention of this correspondence to request a formal meeting with you and your senior staff. Representatives of several community groups and individual citizens have proof of criminal conduct. Based upon the predominance of evidence from paper trails, video tape documentation, individual testimony and publicly filed documents; your office needs to convene a grand jury with the purpose of filing criminal charges against participants who violated the law.
Your prompt reply and scheduling for an initial meeting is appreciated.
Cordially,
James Hall and additional CWW members
cc: David Paterson – NYS Governor
Andrew Cuomo – NYS Attorney General
George H. Winner – NYS Senator
James Bacalles – NYS Assembly
Note this NYSEG flyer that advertises wind energy from Community Energy - An Iberdrola Rewenable Company
So Energy East is telling their customers that it doesn't matter what the PSC rules on the Iberdrola acquisition – IBERDROLA will be in the Wind business and you need to pay more so that more Wind Projects can be built.
Monday, May 05, 2008
ALBION: Wind witness speaks out by Nicole Coleman
When commercial wind turbines were first proposed in Brad Jones’ hometown of Italy, N.Y., he thought it was a good thing.
As an environmentalist, he had looked into purchasing a small agricultural windmill at his farm for its clean, renewable energy.
Then he started asking questions.
Semi-retired, he began to spend close to 40 hours a week researching its potential effects. Others in his community joined in and they began networking with residents in areas facing the same issue with the Citizens Power Alliance. What they uncovered made them feel quite differently about the 400-plus-foot turbines, Jones said.
In their opinion, commercial wind energy doesn’t add up, he said: Concerns include the risk to wildlife and nearby residents, the lowering of property values and the loss of tourism.
When wind farms began going up in nearby Cohocton, also in the Finger Lakes region, they were convinced. While they support wind energy and alternative fuel options, big business wind development isn’t the answer, Jones said.
Although turbines have yet to be constructed in their town, they can see clearly the turbines in Cohocton. Their view from Main Street has drastically changed, said his wife, Linda Jones.
“I used to drive down Main Street and I was so in awe of the beauty,” she said. “Because of the enormity of the windmills, what is 10 miles away seems 1 mile away.”
A full crowd listened to Jones speak at Albion’s Pullman Universalist Church on Thursday evening at the invitation of the group Save Orleans County. Jones spends many of his evenings giving presentations in opposition to wind energy on a voluntary basis, he said.
Though he touched on only some of the issues, both positive and negative, he made it clear that in his opinion, the estimated economic cost far exceeds the economic benefit.
Those in favor of wind energy say they are in favor of wind energy over coal or nuclear generated power. The Orleans Industrial Development Agency has said that wind energy could attract new businesses.
Jones outlined some of the negatives. Wind farms generate a total of four jobs, each with an $18,000 salary, Jones said. Royalties to the landowner on which the turbines stand is minimal. Federal and state production tax credits make it a profitable venture for the developer, but not for the towns. They also take valuable land that could have been developed into a home or business off of the tax rolls, he said.
From a safety perspective, they pose the risk of ice throw, lightning strikes, blade and shadow flicker and audible, low frequency noise. Properly sited setbacks can prevent harm from ice throw, but many towns have adopted regulations far less than the necessary 1,500 to 2,600 feet, he said.
Their power production in this area of the state, less than 10 percent, is very little, Jones said. There has also been evidence that the power the turbines generate can create problems with the New York Power Authority grid, he said.
The harm to wildlife, especially birds, bats and raptors, has never been scientifically studied. The bird mortality estimate for a single communications tower is 1,000 per year. How many will the 1,500 industrial wind turbines proposed in New York kill, he asked.
When property values decrease and residents move away, taxes will increase to make up for the loss, he said.
“I won’t change the way I live in my home because a lobbyist wants to make more money,” Jones said. “They’re not going to give money to your schools. They’re not going to give money to your towns and governments.”
“We’ve seen the impact,” he continued. “You’re not going to be able to sell a home with a wind turbine. ... They destroy the value of real estate.”
Additional cause for concern is local air traffic. Mercy Flight is no longer able to fly through neighboring Cohocton, he said.
Wind energy developers, the majority of them foreign, make their money from the construction of the turbines, thanks to government grants, the production tax credits and renewable energy certificates, Jones said.
His personal opinion is that the government should reinvest these dollars into researching alternative solutions to increasing energy demands, he said. Some experts say the worldwide energy demand will increase 53 percent by 2030. Research on commercial fusion could be the answer to adding coal and nuclear plants to the landscape, he said.
At the local level, he advised towns to develop a comprehensive plan that states it will not allow any further industrialization.
“We live (in Italy, N.Y.) because it is absolutely beautiful. It’s quiet. It’s peaceful,” Jones said. “Why should we give up our quality of life? They have no right whatsoever. ... There are much better ways to make wind energy work.”
A number of representatives from Orleans County town and village boards attended the speech, among them Medina Mayor Adam Tabelski, Medina Trustee Andrew Meier, Gaines Supervisor Richard DeCarlo, Sr., Gaines Councilman Bill Lattin, Albion Supervisor Judy Koehler and County Legislator Gary Kent. Concerned Hamlin resident Paul Lapinski was also present.
Contact reporter Nicole Colemanat 798-1400, ext. 2227.
As an environmentalist, he had looked into purchasing a small agricultural windmill at his farm for its clean, renewable energy.
Then he started asking questions.
Semi-retired, he began to spend close to 40 hours a week researching its potential effects. Others in his community joined in and they began networking with residents in areas facing the same issue with the Citizens Power Alliance. What they uncovered made them feel quite differently about the 400-plus-foot turbines, Jones said.
In their opinion, commercial wind energy doesn’t add up, he said: Concerns include the risk to wildlife and nearby residents, the lowering of property values and the loss of tourism.
When wind farms began going up in nearby Cohocton, also in the Finger Lakes region, they were convinced. While they support wind energy and alternative fuel options, big business wind development isn’t the answer, Jones said.
Although turbines have yet to be constructed in their town, they can see clearly the turbines in Cohocton. Their view from Main Street has drastically changed, said his wife, Linda Jones.
“I used to drive down Main Street and I was so in awe of the beauty,” she said. “Because of the enormity of the windmills, what is 10 miles away seems 1 mile away.”
A full crowd listened to Jones speak at Albion’s Pullman Universalist Church on Thursday evening at the invitation of the group Save Orleans County. Jones spends many of his evenings giving presentations in opposition to wind energy on a voluntary basis, he said.
Though he touched on only some of the issues, both positive and negative, he made it clear that in his opinion, the estimated economic cost far exceeds the economic benefit.
Those in favor of wind energy say they are in favor of wind energy over coal or nuclear generated power. The Orleans Industrial Development Agency has said that wind energy could attract new businesses.
Jones outlined some of the negatives. Wind farms generate a total of four jobs, each with an $18,000 salary, Jones said. Royalties to the landowner on which the turbines stand is minimal. Federal and state production tax credits make it a profitable venture for the developer, but not for the towns. They also take valuable land that could have been developed into a home or business off of the tax rolls, he said.
From a safety perspective, they pose the risk of ice throw, lightning strikes, blade and shadow flicker and audible, low frequency noise. Properly sited setbacks can prevent harm from ice throw, but many towns have adopted regulations far less than the necessary 1,500 to 2,600 feet, he said.
Their power production in this area of the state, less than 10 percent, is very little, Jones said. There has also been evidence that the power the turbines generate can create problems with the New York Power Authority grid, he said.
The harm to wildlife, especially birds, bats and raptors, has never been scientifically studied. The bird mortality estimate for a single communications tower is 1,000 per year. How many will the 1,500 industrial wind turbines proposed in New York kill, he asked.
When property values decrease and residents move away, taxes will increase to make up for the loss, he said.
“I won’t change the way I live in my home because a lobbyist wants to make more money,” Jones said. “They’re not going to give money to your schools. They’re not going to give money to your towns and governments.”
“We’ve seen the impact,” he continued. “You’re not going to be able to sell a home with a wind turbine. ... They destroy the value of real estate.”
Additional cause for concern is local air traffic. Mercy Flight is no longer able to fly through neighboring Cohocton, he said.
Wind energy developers, the majority of them foreign, make their money from the construction of the turbines, thanks to government grants, the production tax credits and renewable energy certificates, Jones said.
His personal opinion is that the government should reinvest these dollars into researching alternative solutions to increasing energy demands, he said. Some experts say the worldwide energy demand will increase 53 percent by 2030. Research on commercial fusion could be the answer to adding coal and nuclear plants to the landscape, he said.
At the local level, he advised towns to develop a comprehensive plan that states it will not allow any further industrialization.
“We live (in Italy, N.Y.) because it is absolutely beautiful. It’s quiet. It’s peaceful,” Jones said. “Why should we give up our quality of life? They have no right whatsoever. ... There are much better ways to make wind energy work.”
A number of representatives from Orleans County town and village boards attended the speech, among them Medina Mayor Adam Tabelski, Medina Trustee Andrew Meier, Gaines Supervisor Richard DeCarlo, Sr., Gaines Councilman Bill Lattin, Albion Supervisor Judy Koehler and County Legislator Gary Kent. Concerned Hamlin resident Paul Lapinski was also present.
Contact reporter Nicole Colemanat 798-1400, ext. 2227.
Senator Charles Schumer May 1, 2008 CPA Letter by James Hall
May 1, 2008
U.S. Senator Charles E. Schumer
313 Hart Senate Building
Washington, DC 20510
Dear Senator Schumer,
The Citizen Power Alliance takes issue with your remarks about the PSC review on the Iberdrola acquisition of Energy East as reported in the D&C Schumer rips PSC staff on Iberdrola and in the Times Union Senator slams PSC in deal.
(Click to read entire letter)
U.S. Senator Charles E. Schumer
313 Hart Senate Building
Washington, DC 20510
Dear Senator Schumer,
The Citizen Power Alliance takes issue with your remarks about the PSC review on the Iberdrola acquisition of Energy East as reported in the D&C Schumer rips PSC staff on Iberdrola and in the Times Union Senator slams PSC in deal.
(Click to read entire letter)
Calvin Luther Martin May 4, 2008 Update Letter on Wind Industry Investigation
… I live in Franklin County, New York State. Several months ago the Franklin County District Attorney, Derek Champagne, issued a press release announcing that his office was working with State Attorney General Andrew Cuomo to ensure that municipal officers were not violating state law regarding conflicts of interest. Mr. Champagne had been deluged with complaints from Franklin County residents, pointing out that it is not uncommon for town board members to hold contracts with the wind developers even as these very board members were drafting a wind law for their communities. (See Burke bought and paid for? and Where the buck stops ).
I am writing to give you an update. Mr. Champagne empanelled a grand jury to begin an investigation. Two of the town board members who had been subpoenaed (both have, or had, contracts with the wind developers) filed lawsuits against Mr. Champagne, effectively, in the eyes of many, admitting their guilt. There is a strong suspicion the wind developers put these two men up to their lawsuit.
It backfired. If they thought this would derail Mr. Champagne, they were wrong. He merely called in the State Attorney General to take over the investigation.
The Attorney General turned up at the Franklin Country Courthouse this past Friday in the person of an Assistant Attorney General and an Investigator. Between them, and members of the District Attorney’s staff, they interrogated a parade of town officers from the towns of Burke, Brandon, Bellmont, and Chateaugay. Some of these people had been issued subpoenas; others were sent polite letters of invitation.
In all, the AG spent from 8am till late Friday afternoon conducting interviews in the DA’s offices. They also interviewed town residents who have compiled documentary evidence against these town board members.
One of the goals of the investigation is to determine whether the developers are breaking the law, whether they have bribed or otherwise illegally influenced public officials, and to expose the wind developers’ relationships with various lawyers in the state who offer their services to municipalities to write pro-wind ordinances.
I believe NYS is the only state in the union where the attorney general has begun investigating the wind developers.
I believe we will be seeing indictments in the next few weeks.
Calvin Luther Martin
Malone, NY
I am writing to give you an update. Mr. Champagne empanelled a grand jury to begin an investigation. Two of the town board members who had been subpoenaed (both have, or had, contracts with the wind developers) filed lawsuits against Mr. Champagne, effectively, in the eyes of many, admitting their guilt. There is a strong suspicion the wind developers put these two men up to their lawsuit.
It backfired. If they thought this would derail Mr. Champagne, they were wrong. He merely called in the State Attorney General to take over the investigation.
The Attorney General turned up at the Franklin Country Courthouse this past Friday in the person of an Assistant Attorney General and an Investigator. Between them, and members of the District Attorney’s staff, they interrogated a parade of town officers from the towns of Burke, Brandon, Bellmont, and Chateaugay. Some of these people had been issued subpoenas; others were sent polite letters of invitation.
In all, the AG spent from 8am till late Friday afternoon conducting interviews in the DA’s offices. They also interviewed town residents who have compiled documentary evidence against these town board members.
One of the goals of the investigation is to determine whether the developers are breaking the law, whether they have bribed or otherwise illegally influenced public officials, and to expose the wind developers’ relationships with various lawyers in the state who offer their services to municipalities to write pro-wind ordinances.
I believe NYS is the only state in the union where the attorney general has begun investigating the wind developers.
I believe we will be seeing indictments in the next few weeks.
Calvin Luther Martin
Malone, NY
Sunday, May 04, 2008
Wind farms sprout in western New York
Aside from Wyoming County, there are 62 other wind energy projects proposed across the state, according to the New York Independent System Operator. They include plans by Massachusetts-based First Wind for two projects in Ontario County and one in Genesee County; a 120-megawatt wind farm in Orleans County by Airtricity Inc. of Ireland; and a 75-megawatt wind farm in Genesee County by Tonawanda Creek Wind LLC.
First Wind, which last week changed its name from UPC Wind, also is planning a wind farm in Prattsburgh, Yates County, and has a pair of wind farms under development in Steuben County.
And Noble is planning 67 more turbines in the Southern Tier, primarily in Allegany County. It also has wind farms under development in Cattaraugus, Franklin and Clinton counties.
Iberdrola's presence
Noble's Wethersfield towers will be a short distance from the small Wethersfield Wind farm of 10 towers owned by a Pennsylvania subsidiary of Spanish energy giant Iberdrola SA, the company that seeks to acquire the parent of Rochester Gas and Electric Corp. and New York State Electric and Gas Corp. In all, Wyoming is home to two of the six wind farms currently operating in the state. The others are in Lewis, Madison and Erie counties.
According to paperwork filed with the New York Independent System Operator, the nonprofit organization that oversees the state's electricity transmission grid, Chicago-based Invenergy LLC and Texas-based Horizon Wind Energy both have proposals for wind farms in Wyoming County.
(Click to read entire article)
First Wind, which last week changed its name from UPC Wind, also is planning a wind farm in Prattsburgh, Yates County, and has a pair of wind farms under development in Steuben County.
And Noble is planning 67 more turbines in the Southern Tier, primarily in Allegany County. It also has wind farms under development in Cattaraugus, Franklin and Clinton counties.
Iberdrola's presence
Noble's Wethersfield towers will be a short distance from the small Wethersfield Wind farm of 10 towers owned by a Pennsylvania subsidiary of Spanish energy giant Iberdrola SA, the company that seeks to acquire the parent of Rochester Gas and Electric Corp. and New York State Electric and Gas Corp. In all, Wyoming is home to two of the six wind farms currently operating in the state. The others are in Lewis, Madison and Erie counties.
According to paperwork filed with the New York Independent System Operator, the nonprofit organization that oversees the state's electricity transmission grid, Chicago-based Invenergy LLC and Texas-based Horizon Wind Energy both have proposals for wind farms in Wyoming County.
(Click to read entire article)
Stull vs. Gamesa Energy USA LLC and Allegheny Ridge Wind Farm, LLC
Summary:
Todd and Jill Stull filed a complaint for damages and injunctive relief against Gamesa and Allegheny Ridge Wind Farm LLC (Babcock and Brown) due to excessive noise, flicker and other nuisance that are causing irreparable harm to the Plaintiffs and robbing them of their enjoyment of their property. A portion of their filing is detailed below. The full filing can be downloaded from the link at the bottom of this page.
StullvsGamesa%5B1%5D.pdf
(Click to read case summary)
Todd and Jill Stull filed a complaint for damages and injunctive relief against Gamesa and Allegheny Ridge Wind Farm LLC (Babcock and Brown) due to excessive noise, flicker and other nuisance that are causing irreparable harm to the Plaintiffs and robbing them of their enjoyment of their property. A portion of their filing is detailed below. The full filing can be downloaded from the link at the bottom of this page.
StullvsGamesa%5B1%5D.pdf
(Click to read case summary)
Saturday, May 03, 2008
ANOTHER CASE FOR ADEQUATE SETBACKS
We are being told that 1200’ is an adequate setback for the mega-turbines slated for this part of New York State and that 600’ from property lines is reasonable. Those in favor of these figures are either total Neanderthals or just like playing fast and loose with facts and other people's lives.
Composites are now the main structural material in many boat hulls, power transmission poles, buildings, vehicles, aircraft structures, other large monolithic structures and, of course, wind turbine blades.
In aviation, so I am told, there are mandatory inspection documents which are issued whenever a problem is discovered or thought to exist. These are called “airworthiness directives,” or “AD’s.” Many have been issued recently for composite structures on jet aircraft, the same kind of “plastic” components of which turbine blades are made, but under far more stringent regulations and inspections than the wind energy industry enjoys. The introduction of composite components was the most radical change in commercial aviation since the advent of the jet engine of the early 50’s.
On Nov. 12, 2001, a catastrophic disintegration of a composite rudder and vertical fin occurred on an Airbus 300 near J. F. K. airport in New York. The ensuing crash killed 265 people in the second-worst air tragedy in history. In March of 2005 the rudder of another Airbus aircraft, this time an A-310, literally exploded and most of the rudder wound up in the Florida Straits.
In both of these and a list of other incidents, carefully manufactured and highly inspected composite parts were subjected to severe and massive delamination areas that could not be seen nor anticipated. In “composites” (a generic term meaning the product of joining different material surfaces under pressure and heat to form a lightweight yet strong structural entity), once the delamination process begins, rapid propagation and eventual failure of the structure can occur. Other aircraft have experienced partial or entire flight surfaces tearing off or becoming useless due to a hidden flaw in the manufacturing process and/or unusually rough handling of the structures, long-time fatigue or other factors. In no other industry are components as rigidly constructed, inspected and maintained as in commercial aircraft.
Yet, wind turbine blades – of similar construction and materials – never undergo the costly, painstaking treatment as do aircraft parts. Current materials, while generally strong and lightweight, can suffer these kinds of failure. Whether made from older technology glass fiber reinforced plastic (GFRP), aramid fiber reinforced plastic (AFRP), or the newer carbon fiber reinforced plastic (CFRP), the sandwich design of these surfaces – sometimes using a “honeycomb” design – and often a combination of technologies, can become contaminated. Lightening, bird strikes (Oh, yes; this all can happen, contrary to developers’ claims), moisture ingress and hydraulic fluid contamination and other factors can cause failure of the blades.
Question: how far can a turbine blade be “thrown” if the tip speed is in the neighborhood of 175 mph?
Possible Answer: Depends on the point at which the blade or portion of the blade separates from the rotor (angle with the horizontal) and how big a piece results. Chances are, it might travel “a country mile.”
Question: if an entire tower were to blow over while the rotor is turning at it’s operational speed, when the rotor strikes the ground, how far will the shattered pieces fly? (The “fall zone” is considered twice the height of the entire structure and is a minimal “safety area.” Shattered pieces could travel well outside of the fall zone, or in the case of the Cohocton towers, something in excess of 840’, perhaps a good deal farther.
Question: is it safe to assume (never “assume” anything!) that the stated 1200’ setbacks would be adequate in the event of a collapse? If there were a structure at the 600’ property line but owned by a non-participating landowner, what recourse would he have against the wind developer or lessee if the building were damaged?
Does anyone with a modicum of education really believe that living in a dwelling 1200’ feet from an industrial giant is a safe, prudent or reasonable distance? Do we really need these onerous and intrusive machines literally in our backyards? The politicians think so but, then, they won’t have ‘em anywhere close to their properties.
Sorry … I forgot. We’re just the country bumpkins who don’t have a clue about anything. Or, do we …?
Composites are now the main structural material in many boat hulls, power transmission poles, buildings, vehicles, aircraft structures, other large monolithic structures and, of course, wind turbine blades.
In aviation, so I am told, there are mandatory inspection documents which are issued whenever a problem is discovered or thought to exist. These are called “airworthiness directives,” or “AD’s.” Many have been issued recently for composite structures on jet aircraft, the same kind of “plastic” components of which turbine blades are made, but under far more stringent regulations and inspections than the wind energy industry enjoys. The introduction of composite components was the most radical change in commercial aviation since the advent of the jet engine of the early 50’s.
On Nov. 12, 2001, a catastrophic disintegration of a composite rudder and vertical fin occurred on an Airbus 300 near J. F. K. airport in New York. The ensuing crash killed 265 people in the second-worst air tragedy in history. In March of 2005 the rudder of another Airbus aircraft, this time an A-310, literally exploded and most of the rudder wound up in the Florida Straits.
In both of these and a list of other incidents, carefully manufactured and highly inspected composite parts were subjected to severe and massive delamination areas that could not be seen nor anticipated. In “composites” (a generic term meaning the product of joining different material surfaces under pressure and heat to form a lightweight yet strong structural entity), once the delamination process begins, rapid propagation and eventual failure of the structure can occur. Other aircraft have experienced partial or entire flight surfaces tearing off or becoming useless due to a hidden flaw in the manufacturing process and/or unusually rough handling of the structures, long-time fatigue or other factors. In no other industry are components as rigidly constructed, inspected and maintained as in commercial aircraft.
Yet, wind turbine blades – of similar construction and materials – never undergo the costly, painstaking treatment as do aircraft parts. Current materials, while generally strong and lightweight, can suffer these kinds of failure. Whether made from older technology glass fiber reinforced plastic (GFRP), aramid fiber reinforced plastic (AFRP), or the newer carbon fiber reinforced plastic (CFRP), the sandwich design of these surfaces – sometimes using a “honeycomb” design – and often a combination of technologies, can become contaminated. Lightening, bird strikes (Oh, yes; this all can happen, contrary to developers’ claims), moisture ingress and hydraulic fluid contamination and other factors can cause failure of the blades.
Question: how far can a turbine blade be “thrown” if the tip speed is in the neighborhood of 175 mph?
Possible Answer: Depends on the point at which the blade or portion of the blade separates from the rotor (angle with the horizontal) and how big a piece results. Chances are, it might travel “a country mile.”
Question: if an entire tower were to blow over while the rotor is turning at it’s operational speed, when the rotor strikes the ground, how far will the shattered pieces fly? (The “fall zone” is considered twice the height of the entire structure and is a minimal “safety area.” Shattered pieces could travel well outside of the fall zone, or in the case of the Cohocton towers, something in excess of 840’, perhaps a good deal farther.
Question: is it safe to assume (never “assume” anything!) that the stated 1200’ setbacks would be adequate in the event of a collapse? If there were a structure at the 600’ property line but owned by a non-participating landowner, what recourse would he have against the wind developer or lessee if the building were damaged?
Does anyone with a modicum of education really believe that living in a dwelling 1200’ feet from an industrial giant is a safe, prudent or reasonable distance? Do we really need these onerous and intrusive machines literally in our backyards? The politicians think so but, then, they won’t have ‘em anywhere close to their properties.
Sorry … I forgot. We’re just the country bumpkins who don’t have a clue about anything. Or, do we …?
Office Of Sheriff County Of Steuben PRESS RELEASE - 5/3/08
THE STEUBEN COUNTY SHERIFF’S OFFICE ISSUED TWO SUBJECTS TICKETS YESTERDAY RELATED TO THE COHOCTON WIND PROJECT. THE SHERIFF’S PATROL STOPPED THE TRACTOR TRAILER HAULING A BULLDOZER ON COUNTY ROUTE 121 IN THE TOWN OF WAYLAND NEAR LOON LAKE. THE OPERATOR EDAWARD W. LAWRENCE, AGE 39 OF CLIFTON SPRINGS (NY) WAS CHARGED WITH VIOLATING THE OVERSIZE PERMIT CONDITIONS, OVER WIDTH VEHICLE, AND OVERLENGTH COMBINATION. THE OPERATOR OF THE OTHER VEHICLE ERIC M. BEASLEY, AGE 22, OF BREWERTON WAS CHARGED WITH ESCORTING WITH OUT AN ESCORT CERTIFICATE, IT IS ALLEGED THAT THE TRACTOR TRAILER OPERATOR HAULING THE BULL DOZER WAS IN VIOLATION OF THE SPECIAL HAULING PERMIT MAKING THE ISSUED PERMIT VOID. THE PERMIT ISSUED FOR THE HAULING COMPANY WAS FOR LOADS GREATER THAN 12 FEET REQUIRING A CERTIFIED ESCORT VEHICLE. THE VEHICLE WITH THE TRACTOR TRAILER WAS A REGULAR PICK UP TRUCK BELONGING TO THE CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, COUNTY ROUTE 121 HAD ONE LANE SHUT DOWN FOR OVER ONE AND A HALF HOURS WAITING FOR A CERTIFIED ESCORT VEHICLE TO SHOW UP. BOTH SUBJECTS ARE TO APPEAR IN WAYLAND TOWN COURT.
Schools await windfarm decision by Mary Perham
BATH | Just how tax payments from a windfarm development in Prattsburgh should be divided was argued this week before Supreme Court Judge Peter Bradstreet.
No decision was made in a lawsuit filed by the Prattsburgh and Naples school districts against a payment-in-lieu of taxes agreement approved by the Steuben County Industrial Development Agency in January.
No decision on the claim was made and Bradstreet’s office said there is no timetable when a ruling will be made.
The tax agreement was for a windfarm project by UPC that is in the process of erecting 36 wind turbines within the boundaries of the Prattsburgh and Naples school districts.
The school districts are entitled to more money than the tax agreement affords, their lawyers claim. A payment formula based on the potential output of the wind turbines – which generate electricity – was erroneous, the school attorneys argued.
The tax payments are included in a separate agreement between the town of Prattsburgh and UPC which were approved by the town board last July.
According to Joseph Shields, attorney for the Prattsburgh school, the district should receive more $2 million during the 20-year life of the tax agreement.
Naples school attorney Ed Premo estimated his district should receive $560,000 more than the agreement calls for.
Attorneys for UPC, SCIDA, the town of Prattsburgh, and the county asked Bradstreet to dismiss the districts’ lawsuit, because the tax agreement has not yet been signed.
SCIDA attorney Dale Worrall said the agreement is expected to be finalized when the agency meets May 15. Worrall said one purpose of the SCIDA meeting will be to revisit the issue and consider a uniform tax exemption.
“All we’re saying is wait and see,” Worrall said.
Defendants also said the districts can not ask to overturn the July fiscal agreement between the town and UPC.
“It’s a common tool used by projects to reimburse a community for the impact on the community,” UPC attorney Kevin Bernstein said. “It’s not taxes.”
But Premo said the town agreement was frequently referred to in discussions and documents setting up the PILOT.
“This was structured in a way to divert money away from the districts,” Premo said. “There is no indication they will do anything differently (in May).”
No decision was made in a lawsuit filed by the Prattsburgh and Naples school districts against a payment-in-lieu of taxes agreement approved by the Steuben County Industrial Development Agency in January.
No decision on the claim was made and Bradstreet’s office said there is no timetable when a ruling will be made.
The tax agreement was for a windfarm project by UPC that is in the process of erecting 36 wind turbines within the boundaries of the Prattsburgh and Naples school districts.
The school districts are entitled to more money than the tax agreement affords, their lawyers claim. A payment formula based on the potential output of the wind turbines – which generate electricity – was erroneous, the school attorneys argued.
The tax payments are included in a separate agreement between the town of Prattsburgh and UPC which were approved by the town board last July.
According to Joseph Shields, attorney for the Prattsburgh school, the district should receive more $2 million during the 20-year life of the tax agreement.
Naples school attorney Ed Premo estimated his district should receive $560,000 more than the agreement calls for.
Attorneys for UPC, SCIDA, the town of Prattsburgh, and the county asked Bradstreet to dismiss the districts’ lawsuit, because the tax agreement has not yet been signed.
SCIDA attorney Dale Worrall said the agreement is expected to be finalized when the agency meets May 15. Worrall said one purpose of the SCIDA meeting will be to revisit the issue and consider a uniform tax exemption.
“All we’re saying is wait and see,” Worrall said.
Defendants also said the districts can not ask to overturn the July fiscal agreement between the town and UPC.
“It’s a common tool used by projects to reimburse a community for the impact on the community,” UPC attorney Kevin Bernstein said. “It’s not taxes.”
But Premo said the town agreement was frequently referred to in discussions and documents setting up the PILOT.
“This was structured in a way to divert money away from the districts,” Premo said. “There is no indication they will do anything differently (in May).”
Friday, May 02, 2008
Prattsburgh supervisor accused of profiting off vote to seize land for turbines by Jack Jones
Article first appeared in the Naples Record April 30, 2008, published with permission.
Under fire over accusations he and other town and county officials have endorsed generous tax breaks and cut sweetheart deals ‘with the Massachusetts-based UPC Corp. wind farm developer, Prattsburgh Supervisor Harold McConnell faces further criticism following a vote last week to condemn and seize private land for the project.
After admitting de accepted real estate commissions in at least one land deal last fall involving UPC, McConnell on April 21 cast the deciding vote on an “eminent domain” resolution.” The action will allow construction of 36 controversial, 386-foot tall wird turbines towers in the town.
Scores of the imposing,densely-clustered turbine towers have spiraled taller than upended football fields above the Naples Valley on hilltops in neighboring Cohocton in recent months. Many other communities have frantically enacted moratoriums and taken other actions to control placement of the massive towers pending further study of environmental impact and questions about whether the turbines can do what they are intended - generate “clean, safe power” in a rural region touched more by occasional gentle breezes than by strong and steady winds.
After endorsing the project as one that he believes will have a positive economic impact on the town, McConnell rejected a request by town Councilman Charles Shick to acknowledge a potential conflict of interest and recuse himself from voting on the eminent domain declaration.
The resolution is expected to result in the condemnation of portions of eight privately owned parcels after further hearings. The resolution was drawn up and requested by UPC and their lawyers and supporters for the laying of transmissions lines from a planned 36 turbines outlined in Phase 1 of the
Prattsburgh project.
While numerous landowners have protested that the massive towers will lower their property values, several town residents who have agreed to lease hilltop properties to UPC stand to make “millions of dollars” over the life of the 20-year project, the town supervisor said during an interview.
McConnell also was criticized by town residents for refusing to allow public comment during the emotionally charged public meeting that attracted an overflow crowd of about 200, forcing relocation of the meeting from town hall to the fire hall. About 75 percent of the audience appeared to oppose the town board action, based on a reporter’s observation of those who applauded the comments of board members who, spoke critically of UPC’s proposed land seizure as opposed to comments by those in favor.
Municipal rules of order governing the public meeting did “not entitle anyone to speak except the board,” said McConnell, who cast the deciding voting on the eminent domain resolution approved 3-2 by the board.
Before casting the crucial vote, McConnell said town attorney John Leyden and others had advised him that his dual role - as a Realtor accepting commissions on a UPC land purchase and as a public official voting on the UPC project — does not constitute an ethical breach.
“I feel this is completely beside the point,” McConnell said. ‘I refuse to recuse myself’
Before the vote, Shick said that he had been contacted by an investigator for the state Attorney General’s office and was scheduled to meet with the agency regardng allegations of impropriety that have marked the turbine project.
Spokespersons for the AG’s office in Rochester and Albany did not respond to a reporter’s questions on the issue last week. A spokesperson for the state Association of Towns also did not respond to a request for comment on the propriety of McConnell’s vote
.
Russ Haven, legislative counsel for the New York State Public Interest Research Group, which. publicly supports wind turbine projects, said McConnell’s decision to accept realty fees and not recuse himself from a crucial vote in favor’ of the Prattsburgh project sends a dubious signal.
You shouldn’t be making money off actions you take as a public official, regardless,” said Haven, declaring.his own "conflict of interest” as an ardent supporter of wind power as an alternative energy source.
McConnell’s vote gives “the classic kind of appearance of conflict,” Haven said, adding that such actions by elected officials “leaves a bad smell.”
Apprised of Haven’s observations, McConnell said that in retrospect he “probably would not have” accepted the real estate money from the UPC deal “knowing the attitude these people (the project’s critics) would take.”
Neither town attorney John Leyden nor Jim Sherron, executive director of the Steuben County Industrial Development Agency (SCIDA) which McConnell also said approved his decision to vote on last week’s resolution, returned a reporter’s phone messages.
Town board members Shick and Steve Kula, who asked the board to take more time and get more information before condemning private landowners’ property to benefit a corporate project, said they we’re also alarmed by language in the resolution allowing UPC to seize additional real estate. The resolution targets rights-of-way which UPC said are being denied by eight property owners whose cooperation is needed to complete the laying of turbine transmission lines.
While the resolution specifies seizure of properties on Rosey Hill, Gay, Cook School, Davis, Fisher, Dillenbeck, Block School and Mattoon roads, it also authorizes “the commencement of condemnation proceedings against any other property along the aforementioned roads for the purposes of obtaining the remaining easements necessary for the Company to construct, install, operate, maintain, repair and replace conduit and electrical lines within the rights of way if the Company can show to the Town Supervisor’s satisfaction that best efforts have failed to obtain an agreement with such additional landowners.”
Kula and Shick said they are troubled by such language in the latest resolution as well as the wording of a previously signed “hosting agreement” that leaves key elements of the project and distribution of any profits largely to the discretion of UPC.
“I’m worried that our townboard seems just to be along for the ride, and that lawyers (for UPC, SCIDA and Prattsburgh) seems to me treating us just as small town people they can give only the information they want to give us while they make all the important decisions for us,” said Kula.
Kula stressed that he is open-minded about the turbine project and thinks that it might benefit the community and region if done properly and the town’s rights are secured by appropriate legal safeguards
Kula said in addition he is concerned because the town attorney also works for Steuben County Industrial Development Agency. “In my opinion, our town attorney cannot sent the town board and the IDA (which is being paid by UPC -as the lead agency for the turbines) in this matter,” he said.
Both he and Shick said they’re also concerned that UPC has refused to make public its studies on the amount of energy that the turbines will generate and whether anticipated economic benefits will offset expenses and anticipated negative impact on overall property values.
UPC representatives at last week’s meeting refused to divulge those figures, citing “proprietary data.” When questioned in detail about their estimates, company officials conceded that a reputed $11 million pay package for the town over the next 20 years would actually return an estimated $6.2 million, which could dwindle to just $1.2 million if a joint lawsuit by the Naples and Prattsburgh school districts awards schools a greater share of potential profits to which they claim they’re legally entitled.
Prattsburgh board member Stacey Bottoni, who rejected Kula and Shick’s requests to delay the vote on eminent domain and lashed out at project critics, also accused UPC officials of “deception.” Bottoni said the company was deceptive by submitting as “before and after” photos scenes of two different sections of a road where their crews had worked. Bottoni, McConnell and board member Sharon Quigley voted in favor of eminent domain.
After the vote, Kula said he “felt the town board was bullied into making a decision” by UPC project manager Brian Cocca. Cocca had been scheduled to speak at two previous public meetings, but declined at the last minute to make scheduled presentations at those meetings where large numbers of project critics showed up. Kula said Cocca instead “met with each individual board member separately and we were led to believe that UPC was going to pull out of the project if we did not approve eminent domain.”
Shick said that such closed-door, private meeting and an overall “lack of transparency” may indicate that regardless of any possible future community benefits of wind power, the Prattsburgh deal may not have been handled properly or in the public interest.
“I think some rules have been broken, said Shick. "And I think the state Attorney General's office will agree."
Under fire over accusations he and other town and county officials have endorsed generous tax breaks and cut sweetheart deals ‘with the Massachusetts-based UPC Corp. wind farm developer, Prattsburgh Supervisor Harold McConnell faces further criticism following a vote last week to condemn and seize private land for the project.
After admitting de accepted real estate commissions in at least one land deal last fall involving UPC, McConnell on April 21 cast the deciding vote on an “eminent domain” resolution.” The action will allow construction of 36 controversial, 386-foot tall wird turbines towers in the town.
Scores of the imposing,densely-clustered turbine towers have spiraled taller than upended football fields above the Naples Valley on hilltops in neighboring Cohocton in recent months. Many other communities have frantically enacted moratoriums and taken other actions to control placement of the massive towers pending further study of environmental impact and questions about whether the turbines can do what they are intended - generate “clean, safe power” in a rural region touched more by occasional gentle breezes than by strong and steady winds.
After endorsing the project as one that he believes will have a positive economic impact on the town, McConnell rejected a request by town Councilman Charles Shick to acknowledge a potential conflict of interest and recuse himself from voting on the eminent domain declaration.
The resolution is expected to result in the condemnation of portions of eight privately owned parcels after further hearings. The resolution was drawn up and requested by UPC and their lawyers and supporters for the laying of transmissions lines from a planned 36 turbines outlined in Phase 1 of the
Prattsburgh project.
While numerous landowners have protested that the massive towers will lower their property values, several town residents who have agreed to lease hilltop properties to UPC stand to make “millions of dollars” over the life of the 20-year project, the town supervisor said during an interview.
McConnell also was criticized by town residents for refusing to allow public comment during the emotionally charged public meeting that attracted an overflow crowd of about 200, forcing relocation of the meeting from town hall to the fire hall. About 75 percent of the audience appeared to oppose the town board action, based on a reporter’s observation of those who applauded the comments of board members who, spoke critically of UPC’s proposed land seizure as opposed to comments by those in favor.
Municipal rules of order governing the public meeting did “not entitle anyone to speak except the board,” said McConnell, who cast the deciding voting on the eminent domain resolution approved 3-2 by the board.
Before casting the crucial vote, McConnell said town attorney John Leyden and others had advised him that his dual role - as a Realtor accepting commissions on a UPC land purchase and as a public official voting on the UPC project — does not constitute an ethical breach.
“I feel this is completely beside the point,” McConnell said. ‘I refuse to recuse myself’
Before the vote, Shick said that he had been contacted by an investigator for the state Attorney General’s office and was scheduled to meet with the agency regardng allegations of impropriety that have marked the turbine project.
Spokespersons for the AG’s office in Rochester and Albany did not respond to a reporter’s questions on the issue last week. A spokesperson for the state Association of Towns also did not respond to a request for comment on the propriety of McConnell’s vote
.
Russ Haven, legislative counsel for the New York State Public Interest Research Group, which. publicly supports wind turbine projects, said McConnell’s decision to accept realty fees and not recuse himself from a crucial vote in favor’ of the Prattsburgh project sends a dubious signal.
You shouldn’t be making money off actions you take as a public official, regardless,” said Haven, declaring.his own "conflict of interest” as an ardent supporter of wind power as an alternative energy source.
McConnell’s vote gives “the classic kind of appearance of conflict,” Haven said, adding that such actions by elected officials “leaves a bad smell.”
Apprised of Haven’s observations, McConnell said that in retrospect he “probably would not have” accepted the real estate money from the UPC deal “knowing the attitude these people (the project’s critics) would take.”
Neither town attorney John Leyden nor Jim Sherron, executive director of the Steuben County Industrial Development Agency (SCIDA) which McConnell also said approved his decision to vote on last week’s resolution, returned a reporter’s phone messages.
Town board members Shick and Steve Kula, who asked the board to take more time and get more information before condemning private landowners’ property to benefit a corporate project, said they we’re also alarmed by language in the resolution allowing UPC to seize additional real estate. The resolution targets rights-of-way which UPC said are being denied by eight property owners whose cooperation is needed to complete the laying of turbine transmission lines.
While the resolution specifies seizure of properties on Rosey Hill, Gay, Cook School, Davis, Fisher, Dillenbeck, Block School and Mattoon roads, it also authorizes “the commencement of condemnation proceedings against any other property along the aforementioned roads for the purposes of obtaining the remaining easements necessary for the Company to construct, install, operate, maintain, repair and replace conduit and electrical lines within the rights of way if the Company can show to the Town Supervisor’s satisfaction that best efforts have failed to obtain an agreement with such additional landowners.”
Kula and Shick said they are troubled by such language in the latest resolution as well as the wording of a previously signed “hosting agreement” that leaves key elements of the project and distribution of any profits largely to the discretion of UPC.
“I’m worried that our townboard seems just to be along for the ride, and that lawyers (for UPC, SCIDA and Prattsburgh) seems to me treating us just as small town people they can give only the information they want to give us while they make all the important decisions for us,” said Kula.
Kula stressed that he is open-minded about the turbine project and thinks that it might benefit the community and region if done properly and the town’s rights are secured by appropriate legal safeguards
Kula said in addition he is concerned because the town attorney also works for Steuben County Industrial Development Agency. “In my opinion, our town attorney cannot sent the town board and the IDA (which is being paid by UPC -as the lead agency for the turbines) in this matter,” he said.
Both he and Shick said they’re also concerned that UPC has refused to make public its studies on the amount of energy that the turbines will generate and whether anticipated economic benefits will offset expenses and anticipated negative impact on overall property values.
UPC representatives at last week’s meeting refused to divulge those figures, citing “proprietary data.” When questioned in detail about their estimates, company officials conceded that a reputed $11 million pay package for the town over the next 20 years would actually return an estimated $6.2 million, which could dwindle to just $1.2 million if a joint lawsuit by the Naples and Prattsburgh school districts awards schools a greater share of potential profits to which they claim they’re legally entitled.
Prattsburgh board member Stacey Bottoni, who rejected Kula and Shick’s requests to delay the vote on eminent domain and lashed out at project critics, also accused UPC officials of “deception.” Bottoni said the company was deceptive by submitting as “before and after” photos scenes of two different sections of a road where their crews had worked. Bottoni, McConnell and board member Sharon Quigley voted in favor of eminent domain.
After the vote, Kula said he “felt the town board was bullied into making a decision” by UPC project manager Brian Cocca. Cocca had been scheduled to speak at two previous public meetings, but declined at the last minute to make scheduled presentations at those meetings where large numbers of project critics showed up. Kula said Cocca instead “met with each individual board member separately and we were led to believe that UPC was going to pull out of the project if we did not approve eminent domain.”
Shick said that such closed-door, private meeting and an overall “lack of transparency” may indicate that regardless of any possible future community benefits of wind power, the Prattsburgh deal may not have been handled properly or in the public interest.
“I think some rules have been broken, said Shick. "And I think the state Attorney General's office will agree."
Naples to Prattsburgh: Back off with wind towers
Naples, N.Y.
Supervisor Frank Duserick said the town of Naples is investigating what legal standing it may have to protest the placement of wind turbines planned for neighboring Prattsburgh.
“We’re not against wind towers,” Duserick said. “But we are for appropriate placement of towers. Our concern is they should have put them a minimum of 1,500 feet from the town line.”
Ecogen of West Seneca, near Buffalo, has proposed building up to 53 turbines — though the number could fall to 31 if it switches from a 1.5 to 2.5-megawatt model — in Prattsburgh in 2009.
One tower would go up on Knapp Hill less than 500 feet from the property line of a parcel John Servo owns in Naples that borders Prattsburgh. Servo, who is president of the anti-windfarm group Advocates of Prattsburgh, urged the Naples Town Board at a recent meeting to demand a 1,500-foot setback.
Servo said that Naples landowners near the town line where the wind towers are planned would effectively be prevented from full use of their property because of the noise he said turbines make. He called the Prattsburgh plan “reverse zoning for Naples.”
The Steuben County Industrial Development Agency is the lead agency responsible for determining the guidelines for the completion of the Prattsburgh wind-tower project. It has not sought input from Naples.
Duserick called SCIDA and Ecogen’s decision to place towers less than 500 feet from the town line an abrogation of Naples property owners’ rights.
“It may be legal, but it’s totally unethical and immoral,” Duserick said. “No one in their right minds would build within 500 feet of a wind turbine. The right thing to do is to get an appropriate setback.”
The Ecogen project is not related to the two wind farms now under construction in Cohocton by UPC Wind. Cohocton has a local law requiring towers to be at least 1,500 feet from a residence. The town of Prattsburgh, however, has no standard minimum distance for tower placement.
Setbacks for the Prattsburgh project vary from a minimum of 489 feet, intended as a safe fall zone should a tower collapse, to a maximum of 1,375 feet, to cut down on noise to nearby residences. The setback from Servo’s property was based on the distance outlined for a seasonal residence because the property generates its own power rather than hooking into the power grid.
UPC Wind has said that at a distance of 750 to 1,500 feet, the noise level of a wind turbine is comparable with a refrigerator, and that at 800 to 900 feet, a working turbine’s noise is masked by the wind. However, Servo said that studies of completed wind farms in Pennsylvania have determined that the noise from the turbines, at the source, was measured at up to 105 decibels, closer to the noise of a tractor or generator.
Servo also reminded the board that the towers have flashing lights for aviation purposes that can impact nearby homeowners.
Servo has visited operational wind farms such as the one in Fenner, Madison County, during his research on the impact of the turbines to nearby homeowners. “When I visited Fenner, the noise was shocking at 2,300 feet away,” he later said. “If they put the towers next to my son’s house, it will be unlivable. My main house may be unlivable. We moved to the country to get some peace and quiet.”
Servo also told the board that there was precedent, in the case of the Glimmerglass Historic District in Herkimer, in which the Public Service Commission acknowledged a distance of five miles as a standard for how close wind turbines could be set near a historic site.
There are several sites within the village of Naples that are registered as historic sites, such as the Memorial Town Hall and the Maxwell Building and tower behind the Naples Pharmacy. The sites are less than three miles from the planned wind towers on Knapp Hill.
Matt Dallas, a spokesman for Babcock & Brown, a company affiliated with Ecogen, confirmed that the five turbines on Knapp Hill are scheduled for construction sometime in 2009. He said the placement was selected because the turbines should be more effective at this site.
Supervisor Frank Duserick said the town of Naples is investigating what legal standing it may have to protest the placement of wind turbines planned for neighboring Prattsburgh.
“We’re not against wind towers,” Duserick said. “But we are for appropriate placement of towers. Our concern is they should have put them a minimum of 1,500 feet from the town line.”
Ecogen of West Seneca, near Buffalo, has proposed building up to 53 turbines — though the number could fall to 31 if it switches from a 1.5 to 2.5-megawatt model — in Prattsburgh in 2009.
One tower would go up on Knapp Hill less than 500 feet from the property line of a parcel John Servo owns in Naples that borders Prattsburgh. Servo, who is president of the anti-windfarm group Advocates of Prattsburgh, urged the Naples Town Board at a recent meeting to demand a 1,500-foot setback.
Servo said that Naples landowners near the town line where the wind towers are planned would effectively be prevented from full use of their property because of the noise he said turbines make. He called the Prattsburgh plan “reverse zoning for Naples.”
The Steuben County Industrial Development Agency is the lead agency responsible for determining the guidelines for the completion of the Prattsburgh wind-tower project. It has not sought input from Naples.
Duserick called SCIDA and Ecogen’s decision to place towers less than 500 feet from the town line an abrogation of Naples property owners’ rights.
“It may be legal, but it’s totally unethical and immoral,” Duserick said. “No one in their right minds would build within 500 feet of a wind turbine. The right thing to do is to get an appropriate setback.”
The Ecogen project is not related to the two wind farms now under construction in Cohocton by UPC Wind. Cohocton has a local law requiring towers to be at least 1,500 feet from a residence. The town of Prattsburgh, however, has no standard minimum distance for tower placement.
Setbacks for the Prattsburgh project vary from a minimum of 489 feet, intended as a safe fall zone should a tower collapse, to a maximum of 1,375 feet, to cut down on noise to nearby residences. The setback from Servo’s property was based on the distance outlined for a seasonal residence because the property generates its own power rather than hooking into the power grid.
UPC Wind has said that at a distance of 750 to 1,500 feet, the noise level of a wind turbine is comparable with a refrigerator, and that at 800 to 900 feet, a working turbine’s noise is masked by the wind. However, Servo said that studies of completed wind farms in Pennsylvania have determined that the noise from the turbines, at the source, was measured at up to 105 decibels, closer to the noise of a tractor or generator.
Servo also reminded the board that the towers have flashing lights for aviation purposes that can impact nearby homeowners.
Servo has visited operational wind farms such as the one in Fenner, Madison County, during his research on the impact of the turbines to nearby homeowners. “When I visited Fenner, the noise was shocking at 2,300 feet away,” he later said. “If they put the towers next to my son’s house, it will be unlivable. My main house may be unlivable. We moved to the country to get some peace and quiet.”
Servo also told the board that there was precedent, in the case of the Glimmerglass Historic District in Herkimer, in which the Public Service Commission acknowledged a distance of five miles as a standard for how close wind turbines could be set near a historic site.
There are several sites within the village of Naples that are registered as historic sites, such as the Memorial Town Hall and the Maxwell Building and tower behind the Naples Pharmacy. The sites are less than three miles from the planned wind towers on Knapp Hill.
Matt Dallas, a spokesman for Babcock & Brown, a company affiliated with Ecogen, confirmed that the five turbines on Knapp Hill are scheduled for construction sometime in 2009. He said the placement was selected because the turbines should be more effective at this site.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)