USA: Iberdrola Renovables has signed a contract with General Electric for the supply of turbines with a total capacity of 300 MW. The total investment related to development of this wind capacity will total approximately US$655 million.
Under the terms of the contract, Iberdrola will acquire 200 General Electric turbines of 1.5 MW capacity each, for delivery in 2010 to its wind farms in the United States.
A spokesman for Iberdrola said, "With this contract, consistent with the goals of the 2008-10 Strategic Plan, Iberdrola completes its turbine supply program for its wind power program in the U.S., thus avoiding one of the principle uncertainties in this business and guaranteeing the installation of a major part of its projects in the short and medium term."
The agreement with General Electric follows the previous purchase of 300 MW in turbine capacity from Mitsubishi in the context of a framework agreement, scheduled for delivery in 2010 in the United States, and acquisition last year from Suzlon Wind Energy Corporation of turbines with a capacity of 700 MW, for delivery between 2008-2009.
Also, in 2006, Iberdrola signed a contract with Gamesa for the supply of 2,700 MW in turbine capacity for delivery between 2007 and 2009.
Monday, May 12, 2008
Towns want larger share of wind PILOT agreement by NANCY MADSEN
As Jefferson County, towns and school districts continue negotiations on splitting wind power development payments in lieu of taxes, towns have asked for an even larger piece of the pie than an earlier suggestion that included a host community agreement.
Under one recent proposal, towns would receive almost half of the money, at the expense of primarily the county, but also the school districts.
According to a spreadsheet obtained by a Freedom of Information request from the Jefferson County administrator's office, the town of Clayton offered numbers in which towns would receive 47.5 percent, schools would receive 37.5 percent and the county would receive 15 percent of any tax break money.
Payment-in-lieu-of-taxes agreements usually split the money based on tax distribution among those entities. On average over the five towns and four school districts in planned wind farm areas, towns receive 4.5 percent, schools get 56 percent and the county gets 39.4 percent.
So under the recent proposal, towns would increase their share almost tenfold, schools would lose about one-third and the county about 62 percent.
County Legislator Scott A. Gray, R-Watertown, said PILOTs based on the distribution of taxes should be the baseline.
"That should be the starting point," he said. "From there, if the town can make the case, to be identified in SEQR, that there are impacts that need to be mitigated, the county would be open to slight changes."
SEQR is the state environmental quality review, which is part of the development process. Mr. Gray said PILOTs have been tweaked before.
"I'm not opposed to mitigating those impacts," Mr. Gray said. "But it has to be something important under our current taxing system."
Clayton Supervisor Justin A. Taylor would not comment on any proposals or on whether Clayton was the source of the spreadsheet.
The Freedom of Information request from the Times asked for "communication between the town of Clayton and Jefferson County on the distribution of payment-in-lieu-of-taxes agreements or other tax break agreements for wind power developments."
"Disclosure of any discussions would be inappropriate until there is a proposal presented to the taxing entities," Mr. Taylor said. "Anything that you have would be purely speculative."
But he did say he and other supervisors for towns with proposed wind development believe the towns will be taking the brunt of any negative impacts.
"In this case, the impact is on particular towns and their roads," he said. "It's our belief that the lowest impact is on the county and the school districts."
The Jefferson County Industrial Development Agency has begun drafting a template PILOT agreement for wind power development. The draft will take several months, interim Director Donald C. Alexander said.
"We understand there is a timing issue in all of this and we have concern for the developer, too," he said. "We don't want to hold up development."
But he does not want to rush the process either. "We're asking for indulgence to allow time to develop policy in a meaningful way," Mr. Alexander said.
The result will be one uniform tax-exempt policy for all wind farms, just as the county has a policy for manufacturing facilities. There will be options for exceptions, but they are rare "because we understand the value of these things."
A normal formula for a PILOT agreement is 15 years, with the developer starting with a payment of 25 percent of what the total taxes would be and adding 25 percent more every five years. Money usually is distributed among the taxing entities based on how total property taxes are split the year before the PILOT starts. The uniform policy for wind farms could deviate from that in several ways, including length, payment amount and distribution.
In other New York communities with wind farms, only one is distributing PILOT money based on tax distribution — Lewis County. Others have money weighted toward the towns or cities that hold the turbines — sometimes entirely excluding the county. Madison County receives no money for the Munnsville Wind Farm, and Erie County receives no money from the Steel Winds Farm in Lackawanna.
JCIDA is working with attorneys and seeking input from the taxing jurisdictions as it formulates the PILOT. JCIDA's board will also examine the PILOT before it is approved.
"We're carrying the ball here and they'll all have the opportunity for input," Mr. Alexander said.
"At the end of the day, we're all in the same community and reasonable heads will prevail."
Under one recent proposal, towns would receive almost half of the money, at the expense of primarily the county, but also the school districts.
According to a spreadsheet obtained by a Freedom of Information request from the Jefferson County administrator's office, the town of Clayton offered numbers in which towns would receive 47.5 percent, schools would receive 37.5 percent and the county would receive 15 percent of any tax break money.
Payment-in-lieu-of-taxes agreements usually split the money based on tax distribution among those entities. On average over the five towns and four school districts in planned wind farm areas, towns receive 4.5 percent, schools get 56 percent and the county gets 39.4 percent.
So under the recent proposal, towns would increase their share almost tenfold, schools would lose about one-third and the county about 62 percent.
County Legislator Scott A. Gray, R-Watertown, said PILOTs based on the distribution of taxes should be the baseline.
"That should be the starting point," he said. "From there, if the town can make the case, to be identified in SEQR, that there are impacts that need to be mitigated, the county would be open to slight changes."
SEQR is the state environmental quality review, which is part of the development process. Mr. Gray said PILOTs have been tweaked before.
"I'm not opposed to mitigating those impacts," Mr. Gray said. "But it has to be something important under our current taxing system."
Clayton Supervisor Justin A. Taylor would not comment on any proposals or on whether Clayton was the source of the spreadsheet.
The Freedom of Information request from the Times asked for "communication between the town of Clayton and Jefferson County on the distribution of payment-in-lieu-of-taxes agreements or other tax break agreements for wind power developments."
"Disclosure of any discussions would be inappropriate until there is a proposal presented to the taxing entities," Mr. Taylor said. "Anything that you have would be purely speculative."
But he did say he and other supervisors for towns with proposed wind development believe the towns will be taking the brunt of any negative impacts.
"In this case, the impact is on particular towns and their roads," he said. "It's our belief that the lowest impact is on the county and the school districts."
The Jefferson County Industrial Development Agency has begun drafting a template PILOT agreement for wind power development. The draft will take several months, interim Director Donald C. Alexander said.
"We understand there is a timing issue in all of this and we have concern for the developer, too," he said. "We don't want to hold up development."
But he does not want to rush the process either. "We're asking for indulgence to allow time to develop policy in a meaningful way," Mr. Alexander said.
The result will be one uniform tax-exempt policy for all wind farms, just as the county has a policy for manufacturing facilities. There will be options for exceptions, but they are rare "because we understand the value of these things."
A normal formula for a PILOT agreement is 15 years, with the developer starting with a payment of 25 percent of what the total taxes would be and adding 25 percent more every five years. Money usually is distributed among the taxing entities based on how total property taxes are split the year before the PILOT starts. The uniform policy for wind farms could deviate from that in several ways, including length, payment amount and distribution.
In other New York communities with wind farms, only one is distributing PILOT money based on tax distribution — Lewis County. Others have money weighted toward the towns or cities that hold the turbines — sometimes entirely excluding the county. Madison County receives no money for the Munnsville Wind Farm, and Erie County receives no money from the Steel Winds Farm in Lackawanna.
JCIDA is working with attorneys and seeking input from the taxing jurisdictions as it formulates the PILOT. JCIDA's board will also examine the PILOT before it is approved.
"We're carrying the ball here and they'll all have the opportunity for input," Mr. Alexander said.
"At the end of the day, we're all in the same community and reasonable heads will prevail."
Sunday, May 11, 2008
SCE Wind Energy Production Records
To my knowledge, these are the first actual wind energy production records ever to be made available to the public. I acquired them by contacting Southern California Edison's Renewable Energy Division.
The wind energy industry claims that they can provide power for thousands of homes with each new windmill development, but in fact, wind turbines can only generate kilowatts randomly and can't actually service even one home. By nature intermittent, wind is unreliable as a power source. At best, windmills intermittently generate 14% to 20% of their rated capacity. The small amount of power they do generate does not match the time of need profile. In fact, only 6% of this generation is at peak need time, 33% mid peak and 61% off peak (at night).
To put this in context, the 4,000+ windmills in the San Gorgonio Pass (approx. 565 megawatts of installed capacity) generate only approx. 100 megawatts per year. Edison uses approx. 13,000 MW of power in their service area per year. There is approx. 2,500 MW of installed capacity wind energy in the State of California which generates approx. 600 MW of power. California uses approx. 67,500+ MW of power annually.
The visual blight, myriad environmental impacts, adverse health effects, noise, and property devaluation from industrial wind energy development is a harrowing tradeoff for a minuscule amount of intermittent power.
Because wind is unpredictable, the utilities will always have to have the same amount of power from conventional sources ready to take over when the wind stops. Wind is a duplication of power that the utilities already have to have, otherwise there would be blackouts. As rate and tax payers, we are paying more than double for this duplication of energy. Wind energy is the most highly subsidized energy source in the US at $23-30 per MW.
Wind energy will not save oil and fossil fuels (an untrue claim frequently made by windmill developers) or preclude the need to build additional power plants. When there is a surge in wind power, the utilities back up wind with hydro, geothermal or gas turbines, because they are the easiest to manipulate to accommodate the vagaries of wind. California does not use oil for electricity generation.
In order for an energy source to be viable it must be able to perform on demand, which wind cannot do, and because of it's unstable nature, it's useless as capacity.
Perhaps knowing the amount of power windmills actually generate, from the very source that buys their power, will lead to an understanding of why this is happening. It's not about the negligible amount of power that they generate, it's about the huge tax credits and ratepayer subsidies given to wind energy developers (and SCE and other utilities who buy their power) and the wealth that has enabled them to buy great political influence.
Windmills haven't proliferated in the San Gorgonio Pass because of the minuscule amount of power they generate, but because of the tremendous wealth of local windmill developers from wind energy tax credits and ratepayer subsidies that have afforded them the luxury of contributing large amounts of money to Riverside County and Palm Springs elected officials who, for 25 years, have generously returned the favor by approving every one of their massive, land intensive projects, regardless of the consequences.
Alexandra Weit
Whitewater, CA
bobweit@msn.com
SCE__Wind_Energy_Production_Records.pdf
The wind energy industry claims that they can provide power for thousands of homes with each new windmill development, but in fact, wind turbines can only generate kilowatts randomly and can't actually service even one home. By nature intermittent, wind is unreliable as a power source. At best, windmills intermittently generate 14% to 20% of their rated capacity. The small amount of power they do generate does not match the time of need profile. In fact, only 6% of this generation is at peak need time, 33% mid peak and 61% off peak (at night).
To put this in context, the 4,000+ windmills in the San Gorgonio Pass (approx. 565 megawatts of installed capacity) generate only approx. 100 megawatts per year. Edison uses approx. 13,000 MW of power in their service area per year. There is approx. 2,500 MW of installed capacity wind energy in the State of California which generates approx. 600 MW of power. California uses approx. 67,500+ MW of power annually.
The visual blight, myriad environmental impacts, adverse health effects, noise, and property devaluation from industrial wind energy development is a harrowing tradeoff for a minuscule amount of intermittent power.
Because wind is unpredictable, the utilities will always have to have the same amount of power from conventional sources ready to take over when the wind stops. Wind is a duplication of power that the utilities already have to have, otherwise there would be blackouts. As rate and tax payers, we are paying more than double for this duplication of energy. Wind energy is the most highly subsidized energy source in the US at $23-30 per MW.
Wind energy will not save oil and fossil fuels (an untrue claim frequently made by windmill developers) or preclude the need to build additional power plants. When there is a surge in wind power, the utilities back up wind with hydro, geothermal or gas turbines, because they are the easiest to manipulate to accommodate the vagaries of wind. California does not use oil for electricity generation.
In order for an energy source to be viable it must be able to perform on demand, which wind cannot do, and because of it's unstable nature, it's useless as capacity.
Perhaps knowing the amount of power windmills actually generate, from the very source that buys their power, will lead to an understanding of why this is happening. It's not about the negligible amount of power that they generate, it's about the huge tax credits and ratepayer subsidies given to wind energy developers (and SCE and other utilities who buy their power) and the wealth that has enabled them to buy great political influence.
Windmills haven't proliferated in the San Gorgonio Pass because of the minuscule amount of power they generate, but because of the tremendous wealth of local windmill developers from wind energy tax credits and ratepayer subsidies that have afforded them the luxury of contributing large amounts of money to Riverside County and Palm Springs elected officials who, for 25 years, have generously returned the favor by approving every one of their massive, land intensive projects, regardless of the consequences.
Alexandra Weit
Whitewater, CA
bobweit@msn.com
SCE__Wind_Energy_Production_Records.pdf
Saturday, May 10, 2008
Wayland-Cohocton Central School District - Budget Public Hearing Tuesday May 13, 2008
Important to attend, speak and submit written comments at the WCCS Budget Public Hearing - Tuesday, May 13, 2008 7:00 - 9:00 PM - LGI auditorium - WCCS Wayland, NY
Friday, May 09, 2008
Group critical of wind farms
Coalition would keep watch on state energy policy issues
By Matt Surtel
msurtel@batavianews.com
Jim Hall has a philosophy. The 60-year-old Steuben County resident is part of Cohocton Wind Watch one of numerous small-town groups opposing wind farms proposed in their communities.
Each group is up against the same cookie cutter” approach when a wind energy developer enters their town with a potential project, Hall says. And they’re often re-inventing the wheel in their efforts.
Hail is among those organizing the Citizen Power Alliance. The coalition of groups and activists aims to address the bigger, state issues involved in energy projects and policy.
The CPA will conduct an organizational meeting the morning of May 18 at Letchworth State Park.
We’re not limited to strictly wind issues,” Hall said Wednesday. “We’re an environmental and energy alternative group that encompasses energy and environmental policy primarily in New York State but we have members outside the state ax well.”
The CPA includes 14 member groups so far, including Citizens for a Healthy Rural Neighborhood of Perry. They’re primarily based in Western New York, though the CPA is a statewide group, with other members in New Hampshire and Ohio.
“The alliance coalition has been organizing over the past several months,” Hall said. The Letchworth gathering is more a get-together because we don’t have a tremendous amount of opportunity where people can see each other face-to-face.”
Members will discuss which directions they’d like to pursue, along with organizing leadership and committees.
Eminent domain and the state’s proposed Article X legislation are among the CPA’s biggest concerns. Hall said.
The former has traditionally been used by the government to seize land for public developments such as highways and hospitals. But it’s more recently been used for commercial development, and CPA members fear eminent domain could be used for projects benefiting private companies, and which are not in the public interest.
Article X was developed to speed up the review process for determining the locations of new power plants, but expired in 2003. Proposals to renew the law are under way at the state level, and opponents have often cited fears it would take away local control over wind farms and other projects.
“Were really concerned home rule will be thrown aside and New York state will allow siting of all kinds of power projects, without taking into consideration the local economics and environmental policy like (the State Environmental Quality Review process).”
State officials have denied Article X would allow indiscriminate siting of power projects.
Hall said the state’s pursuing the “fast track” for such projects, which would override local laws and ordinances passed by towns.
We’re looking for a sound environmental and energy policy on the state level,” he said. “We feel the current direction does not work.”
The state is pursuing policies which ignore all the implications of subsidies given to corporations, that won’t really produce the desired energy, he said. He cited energy credit trading and problems with turbine gearboxes at the Steel Winds project in Lackawanna.
The CPA members feel that’s fraud, he said.
Besides the existing member groups, the CPA has another 15 to 20 partner links on its Web Site, Hall said. He believes the group represents several thousand members cumulatively.
Those interested in working with the group will be able to attend the gathering, 9 am to 10 pm May 18 at the Middle Falls pavilion. It’s asked that those attending be constructive, and the CPA reserves the right ask disruptive people to leave.
“We’re quite interested to invite anyone who has interest in sound and community-based environmental interests and energy policy in New York State to attend,” Hall said. “We don’t keep secrets. Were very open.”
Visit www.citizenpoweralliance.com for information.
By Matt Surtel
msurtel@batavianews.com
Jim Hall has a philosophy. The 60-year-old Steuben County resident is part of Cohocton Wind Watch one of numerous small-town groups opposing wind farms proposed in their communities.
Each group is up against the same cookie cutter” approach when a wind energy developer enters their town with a potential project, Hall says. And they’re often re-inventing the wheel in their efforts.
Hail is among those organizing the Citizen Power Alliance. The coalition of groups and activists aims to address the bigger, state issues involved in energy projects and policy.
The CPA will conduct an organizational meeting the morning of May 18 at Letchworth State Park.
We’re not limited to strictly wind issues,” Hall said Wednesday. “We’re an environmental and energy alternative group that encompasses energy and environmental policy primarily in New York State but we have members outside the state ax well.”
The CPA includes 14 member groups so far, including Citizens for a Healthy Rural Neighborhood of Perry. They’re primarily based in Western New York, though the CPA is a statewide group, with other members in New Hampshire and Ohio.
“The alliance coalition has been organizing over the past several months,” Hall said. The Letchworth gathering is more a get-together because we don’t have a tremendous amount of opportunity where people can see each other face-to-face.”
Members will discuss which directions they’d like to pursue, along with organizing leadership and committees.
Eminent domain and the state’s proposed Article X legislation are among the CPA’s biggest concerns. Hall said.
The former has traditionally been used by the government to seize land for public developments such as highways and hospitals. But it’s more recently been used for commercial development, and CPA members fear eminent domain could be used for projects benefiting private companies, and which are not in the public interest.
Article X was developed to speed up the review process for determining the locations of new power plants, but expired in 2003. Proposals to renew the law are under way at the state level, and opponents have often cited fears it would take away local control over wind farms and other projects.
“Were really concerned home rule will be thrown aside and New York state will allow siting of all kinds of power projects, without taking into consideration the local economics and environmental policy like (the State Environmental Quality Review process).”
State officials have denied Article X would allow indiscriminate siting of power projects.
Hall said the state’s pursuing the “fast track” for such projects, which would override local laws and ordinances passed by towns.
We’re looking for a sound environmental and energy policy on the state level,” he said. “We feel the current direction does not work.”
The state is pursuing policies which ignore all the implications of subsidies given to corporations, that won’t really produce the desired energy, he said. He cited energy credit trading and problems with turbine gearboxes at the Steel Winds project in Lackawanna.
The CPA members feel that’s fraud, he said.
Besides the existing member groups, the CPA has another 15 to 20 partner links on its Web Site, Hall said. He believes the group represents several thousand members cumulatively.
Those interested in working with the group will be able to attend the gathering, 9 am to 10 pm May 18 at the Middle Falls pavilion. It’s asked that those attending be constructive, and the CPA reserves the right ask disruptive people to leave.
“We’re quite interested to invite anyone who has interest in sound and community-based environmental interests and energy policy in New York State to attend,” Hall said. “We don’t keep secrets. Were very open.”
Visit www.citizenpoweralliance.com for information.
Opponents demand investigation into wind farms by Mary Perham
Bath, N.Y.
Wind farm opponents have called on Steuben County District Attorney John Tunney to investigate their wide-ranging allegations against a county agency, municipalities and individual officials.
In a May 5 letter to Tunney, Cohocton Wind Watch’s chief spokesman James Hall demanded an investigation into what he feels are alleged criminal actions. Those include false claims, filing false instruments, bribery of public officials, larceny and fraud.
Those accused of illegal actions are: the Steuben County Industrial Development Agency, SCIDA Executive Director James Sherron, town and planning board members in several towns including Cohocton and Prattsburgh, and wind developers EcoGen and First Wind (formerly UPC).
Construction of roughly 50 turbines in Cohocton by First Wind began last fall. First Wind also has plans for a 36-turbine project in Prattsburgh and Naples.
EcoGen’s initial plans for a 50-turbine farm in Prattsburgh were approved two years ago by SCIDA, but the developer has taken no further public action since then.
Allegations by Cohocton Wind Watch against include:
. The wind developers knowingly provided and submitted false statements and false instruments for permits and during environmental studies.
. The developers have improperly influenced public officials through cash bribes, lucrative lease terms, bogus real estate transactions, purchase of personal property, and contingent real estate purchase offers.
. Developers seeking leases for wind turbine sites or easements for access roads and transmission lines have lied to convince landowners to sign away their rights.
. Numerous allegations of fraud by governmental officials, developers and consultants.
. Unlawful conduct by Prattsburgh Supervisor Harold McConnell in voting for an eminent domain resolution by the Prattsburgh Town Board last month. If carried out, the resolution would allow the town to seize privately-owned property in order to bury transmission cables.
McConnell publicly admitted at the April 21 board meeting he set up an unpaid real estate transaction for UPC/First Wind last year. McConnell told the board he later received payment for the transaction after the town signed an agreement with UPC, adding he had been told by counsel the action would not prevent him from casting the deciding vote for eminent domain.
Sherron returned phone calls from The Leader Thursday but opted not to give a comment. Tunney said he had no comment on the letter.
If Tunney decides to take action, Steuben would be the third county in the state to investigate criminal wrongdoing associated with wind farms.
The Franklin County District Attorney’s office is conducting a grand jury investigation into wind farm-related abuses, and Delaware County is also investigating alleged criminal activity.
Representatives from the state Attorney General’s Office also reportedly met with wind farm opponents in Steuben County last week.
Wind farm opponents have called on Steuben County District Attorney John Tunney to investigate their wide-ranging allegations against a county agency, municipalities and individual officials.
In a May 5 letter to Tunney, Cohocton Wind Watch’s chief spokesman James Hall demanded an investigation into what he feels are alleged criminal actions. Those include false claims, filing false instruments, bribery of public officials, larceny and fraud.
Those accused of illegal actions are: the Steuben County Industrial Development Agency, SCIDA Executive Director James Sherron, town and planning board members in several towns including Cohocton and Prattsburgh, and wind developers EcoGen and First Wind (formerly UPC).
Construction of roughly 50 turbines in Cohocton by First Wind began last fall. First Wind also has plans for a 36-turbine project in Prattsburgh and Naples.
EcoGen’s initial plans for a 50-turbine farm in Prattsburgh were approved two years ago by SCIDA, but the developer has taken no further public action since then.
Allegations by Cohocton Wind Watch against include:
. The wind developers knowingly provided and submitted false statements and false instruments for permits and during environmental studies.
. The developers have improperly influenced public officials through cash bribes, lucrative lease terms, bogus real estate transactions, purchase of personal property, and contingent real estate purchase offers.
. Developers seeking leases for wind turbine sites or easements for access roads and transmission lines have lied to convince landowners to sign away their rights.
. Numerous allegations of fraud by governmental officials, developers and consultants.
. Unlawful conduct by Prattsburgh Supervisor Harold McConnell in voting for an eminent domain resolution by the Prattsburgh Town Board last month. If carried out, the resolution would allow the town to seize privately-owned property in order to bury transmission cables.
McConnell publicly admitted at the April 21 board meeting he set up an unpaid real estate transaction for UPC/First Wind last year. McConnell told the board he later received payment for the transaction after the town signed an agreement with UPC, adding he had been told by counsel the action would not prevent him from casting the deciding vote for eminent domain.
Sherron returned phone calls from The Leader Thursday but opted not to give a comment. Tunney said he had no comment on the letter.
If Tunney decides to take action, Steuben would be the third county in the state to investigate criminal wrongdoing associated with wind farms.
The Franklin County District Attorney’s office is conducting a grand jury investigation into wind farm-related abuses, and Delaware County is also investigating alleged criminal activity.
Representatives from the state Attorney General’s Office also reportedly met with wind farm opponents in Steuben County last week.
Thursday, May 08, 2008
Schools readying for budget votes
Wayland-Cohocton Central School District
The Wayland-Cohocton school board approved a $27.69 million budget, up $206,000, or 5.67 percent, from the $26.19 million budget passed last year.
In the budget, the school will levy $6.45 million in property taxes on the district, up $2.24 percent from $6.3 million in the 2007-08 budget.
Taxpayers wil see a tax rate of $17.06 per $1,000 of true assessed property value, up $0.38, or 2.28 percent, from last year’s tax rate of $16.68 per $1,000.
A property owner living in a $50,000 house with the Basic STAR exemption will pay approximately $511.80, up $11.40 from last year’s $500.40
The public will see the full budget at a hearing at 7 p.m. May 13 in the Large Group Instruction Room at the Wayland campus.
Incumbent John Sick will be joined on the ballot by newcomer Philip Trautman for two open seats on the Wayland-Cohocton school board.
Other propositions include increasing the schools payments to local libraries. Under the proposition, the Wayland Wayland Free Library Association will receive an additional $5,000, the E.J. Cottrell Library in Atlanta will get $2,000 more and an additional $10,000 is earmarked for the Cohocton Public Library.
The district also will have a proposition establishing a new vehicle and equipment reserve fund, which will ultimately set aside $2 million for new buses and other equipment.
The Wayland-Cohocton school board approved a $27.69 million budget, up $206,000, or 5.67 percent, from the $26.19 million budget passed last year.
In the budget, the school will levy $6.45 million in property taxes on the district, up $2.24 percent from $6.3 million in the 2007-08 budget.
Taxpayers wil see a tax rate of $17.06 per $1,000 of true assessed property value, up $0.38, or 2.28 percent, from last year’s tax rate of $16.68 per $1,000.
A property owner living in a $50,000 house with the Basic STAR exemption will pay approximately $511.80, up $11.40 from last year’s $500.40
The public will see the full budget at a hearing at 7 p.m. May 13 in the Large Group Instruction Room at the Wayland campus.
Incumbent John Sick will be joined on the ballot by newcomer Philip Trautman for two open seats on the Wayland-Cohocton school board.
Other propositions include increasing the schools payments to local libraries. Under the proposition, the Wayland Wayland Free Library Association will receive an additional $5,000, the E.J. Cottrell Library in Atlanta will get $2,000 more and an additional $10,000 is earmarked for the Cohocton Public Library.
The district also will have a proposition establishing a new vehicle and equipment reserve fund, which will ultimately set aside $2 million for new buses and other equipment.
Burke official must turn over wind-farm paperwork by DENISE A. RAYMO
BURKE -- A Burke official with an option to lease land to a wind-farm company lost his court battle and must answer a subpoena from a Franklin County grand jury.
Town Council member David Vincent must turn over all correspondence, contracts, receipts, leases, purchase agreements, options or communications he has had concerning Noble Chateaugay Windpark, Noble Energy, Jericho Rise Windpark and Burke Wind Power.
"The grand jury is apparently investigating allegations of possible criminal conduct in the siting of wind farms in Franklin County," wrote St. Lawrence County Supreme Court and Acting Franklin County Supreme Court Judge David Demerest.
Vincent "is a member of the Town Board in the Town of Burke and, according to recordings in the County Clerk's Office, has entered into a contract with a developer of wind energy to lease some of his land," the judge stated.
Vincent attempted to have the subpoena quashed, claiming District Attorney Derek Champagne was conducting "a fishing expedition" by asking for a broad range of papers and information.
Vincent said that turning over the paperwork might violate his right to privacy and his right to avoid incriminating himself.
But, in making his ruling, the judge said Vincent did not show any proof that the information sought had "no conceivable relevance" to the grand-jury probe, nor did it appear as though the subpoena was issued in bad faith, as claimed.
Demerest said a grand jury must be given wide powers when making an inquiry.
"Here, the inquiry appears to be whether or not wind-energy developers are improperly interacting with local government officials," he wrote.
Vincent "has been linked to a developer through a search of public records, and it would appear that any writings that he might possess in relation to that transaction could have relevancy to the overall investigation," the ruling states.
Demerest also turned aside the argument that Vincent could incriminate himself if disclosures were made.
"Other than bald assertions by the petitioner that the production of these documents might tend to incriminate him, there is nothing before me that supports that assertion or that any other constitutional rights have been violated," the judge wrote.
"The documents sought involve negotiations leading to a public conveyance of a property right. They are legitimate business records."
Vincent could not be reached for comment Wednesday, nor could Chief Assistant District Attorney Jack Delehanty, who represented the DA in the case.
But Champagne said he was "pleased with the judge's decision," adding that it was "an important one. It strikes at the heart of our system.
Town Council member David Vincent must turn over all correspondence, contracts, receipts, leases, purchase agreements, options or communications he has had concerning Noble Chateaugay Windpark, Noble Energy, Jericho Rise Windpark and Burke Wind Power.
"The grand jury is apparently investigating allegations of possible criminal conduct in the siting of wind farms in Franklin County," wrote St. Lawrence County Supreme Court and Acting Franklin County Supreme Court Judge David Demerest.
Vincent "is a member of the Town Board in the Town of Burke and, according to recordings in the County Clerk's Office, has entered into a contract with a developer of wind energy to lease some of his land," the judge stated.
Vincent attempted to have the subpoena quashed, claiming District Attorney Derek Champagne was conducting "a fishing expedition" by asking for a broad range of papers and information.
Vincent said that turning over the paperwork might violate his right to privacy and his right to avoid incriminating himself.
But, in making his ruling, the judge said Vincent did not show any proof that the information sought had "no conceivable relevance" to the grand-jury probe, nor did it appear as though the subpoena was issued in bad faith, as claimed.
Demerest said a grand jury must be given wide powers when making an inquiry.
"Here, the inquiry appears to be whether or not wind-energy developers are improperly interacting with local government officials," he wrote.
Vincent "has been linked to a developer through a search of public records, and it would appear that any writings that he might possess in relation to that transaction could have relevancy to the overall investigation," the ruling states.
Demerest also turned aside the argument that Vincent could incriminate himself if disclosures were made.
"Other than bald assertions by the petitioner that the production of these documents might tend to incriminate him, there is nothing before me that supports that assertion or that any other constitutional rights have been violated," the judge wrote.
"The documents sought involve negotiations leading to a public conveyance of a property right. They are legitimate business records."
Vincent could not be reached for comment Wednesday, nor could Chief Assistant District Attorney Jack Delehanty, who represented the DA in the case.
But Champagne said he was "pleased with the judge's decision," adding that it was "an important one. It strikes at the heart of our system.
Wednesday, May 07, 2008
Lyme council OKs strict zoning law for wind turbines by NANCY MADSEN
CHAUMONT — The Lyme Town Council approved a strict zoning law for wind development that one developer said will make industrial turbine development virtually impossible.
The approval was on a 3-2 vote at a special meeting Tuesday night.
Before the vote, the council received a report from the assessors that invalidated a protest petition from wind development supporters that would have required four votes for passage of the law.
The law creates setbacks from wind turbines of 4,500 feet from Lake Ontario, the Chaumont River, the village of Chaumont and the hamlet of Three Mile Bay. The law also requires the wind farm developer to pay for several studies, including environmental, property value and well water quality testing.
"Tonight was the culmination of a lot of work by a lot of people, specifically on the Planning Board, citizens' group and town board," Councilman Warren A. Johnson said after the meeting. Mr. Johnson and Councilmen G. Norman Schreib and James R. Madill voted for the law.
BP Alternative Energy Project Manager James H. Madden has said that the law would make BP's proposed project section in Lyme impossible. BP's Cape Vincent Wind Farm had plans for 30 to 60 turbines in Lyme and up to 80 in the town of Cape Vincent.
Supervisor Scott G. Aubertine and Councilman Michael P. Countryman voted against the amendment.
"It's actually a bit of relief for me," Mr. Aubertine said after the meeting. "I've taken the brunt from a lot of people who said I wasn't representing the majority of the town, but I felt I was standing up for what was right. I felt that the law was restrictive to those landowners who wanted turbines."
Mr. Countryman said he had not been sure the council would vote on the law Tuesday night. "I'd like more time," he said after the meeting.
Supporters of wind power in Lyme were disappointed with having their protest petition knocked down. If the petition, which was submitted April 17, had been deemed valid and the council members had voted 3-2, the law would not have passed.
The petition is based on Town Law Article 16, Section 265, which deals with changing zoning laws. The section has several requirements for accepting such a petition, but it primarily states that if a petition contains the signatures of the owners of 20 percent of the land affected by the proposed change, the change must be passed by a supermajority of the council, or four votes.
Julia E. Gosier, a member of Voters for Wind, said, "I don't think there's any way that you can express the anger some of us feel right now."
The assessors' report said that the necessary 20 percent of the town's acreage would be 7,184. The petition had signatures representing 5,300 valid acres, after signatures for about 4,300 acres were ruled invalid. For almost 4,200 of those, the reason was that not all of the owners of record on the tax roll signed the petition. For example, if a husband signed the petition, but not his wife, when they are both listed on the tax roll, the husband's signature would be invalid.
In addition, the assessors said each page was not notarized.
The wind supporters will re-examine the petition and reasons for invalidating acreage.
"Just because they say so, doesn't mean it's true," said Charles A. Munk, a member of Voters for Wind.
The approval was on a 3-2 vote at a special meeting Tuesday night.
Before the vote, the council received a report from the assessors that invalidated a protest petition from wind development supporters that would have required four votes for passage of the law.
The law creates setbacks from wind turbines of 4,500 feet from Lake Ontario, the Chaumont River, the village of Chaumont and the hamlet of Three Mile Bay. The law also requires the wind farm developer to pay for several studies, including environmental, property value and well water quality testing.
"Tonight was the culmination of a lot of work by a lot of people, specifically on the Planning Board, citizens' group and town board," Councilman Warren A. Johnson said after the meeting. Mr. Johnson and Councilmen G. Norman Schreib and James R. Madill voted for the law.
BP Alternative Energy Project Manager James H. Madden has said that the law would make BP's proposed project section in Lyme impossible. BP's Cape Vincent Wind Farm had plans for 30 to 60 turbines in Lyme and up to 80 in the town of Cape Vincent.
Supervisor Scott G. Aubertine and Councilman Michael P. Countryman voted against the amendment.
"It's actually a bit of relief for me," Mr. Aubertine said after the meeting. "I've taken the brunt from a lot of people who said I wasn't representing the majority of the town, but I felt I was standing up for what was right. I felt that the law was restrictive to those landowners who wanted turbines."
Mr. Countryman said he had not been sure the council would vote on the law Tuesday night. "I'd like more time," he said after the meeting.
Supporters of wind power in Lyme were disappointed with having their protest petition knocked down. If the petition, which was submitted April 17, had been deemed valid and the council members had voted 3-2, the law would not have passed.
The petition is based on Town Law Article 16, Section 265, which deals with changing zoning laws. The section has several requirements for accepting such a petition, but it primarily states that if a petition contains the signatures of the owners of 20 percent of the land affected by the proposed change, the change must be passed by a supermajority of the council, or four votes.
Julia E. Gosier, a member of Voters for Wind, said, "I don't think there's any way that you can express the anger some of us feel right now."
The assessors' report said that the necessary 20 percent of the town's acreage would be 7,184. The petition had signatures representing 5,300 valid acres, after signatures for about 4,300 acres were ruled invalid. For almost 4,200 of those, the reason was that not all of the owners of record on the tax roll signed the petition. For example, if a husband signed the petition, but not his wife, when they are both listed on the tax roll, the husband's signature would be invalid.
In addition, the assessors said each page was not notarized.
The wind supporters will re-examine the petition and reasons for invalidating acreage.
"Just because they say so, doesn't mean it's true," said Charles A. Munk, a member of Voters for Wind.
Schools await windfarm decision by Mary Perham
Bath, N.Y.
Just how tax payments from a windfarm development in Prattsburgh should be divided was argued last week before state 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 (SCIDA) in January. Bradstreet’s office said there is no timetable on when a ruling will be made.
The tax agreement was for a windfarm project by First Wind, formerly UPC Wind. The company 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 provides for, their lawyers claim. A payment formula based on the potential output of the 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 district, the district should receive $2 million more 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 First Wind, SCIDA, the town of Prattsburgh and Steuben Conty 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 cannot 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).”
Just how tax payments from a windfarm development in Prattsburgh should be divided was argued last week before state 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 (SCIDA) in January. Bradstreet’s office said there is no timetable on when a ruling will be made.
The tax agreement was for a windfarm project by First Wind, formerly UPC Wind. The company 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 provides for, their lawyers claim. A payment formula based on the potential output of the 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 district, the district should receive $2 million more 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 First Wind, SCIDA, the town of Prattsburgh and Steuben Conty 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 cannot 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).”
Group asks for criminal probe of Steuben wind projects
Steuben County’s district attorney refused to comment Wednesday on a demand from an environmental group for a criminal investigation of wind farm development in the county.
Cohocton Wind Watch, a group opposed to wind farms already under construction, has called for a grand jury investigation of suspected criminal conduct by both wind developers and public officials.
In a May 5 letter to Steuben County District Attorney John C. Tunney, the group says “several residents and property owners of Steuben County have information of suspected criminal conduct.”
Tunney refused to comment Wednesday.
The list of alleged criminal activities includes:
• Making false claims and filing false statements.
• Bribery of public officials.
• Larceny.
• Fraud.
The only public officials named in the document are James P. Sherron, executive director of the Steuben County Industrial Development Agency, and J. Harold McConnell, supervisor of the Town of Prattsburgh. They did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
No response was immediately available from First Wind of Newton, Mass., developer of the Prattsburgh Wind and Cohocton Wind projects.
Cohocton Wind Watch, a group opposed to wind farms already under construction, has called for a grand jury investigation of suspected criminal conduct by both wind developers and public officials.
In a May 5 letter to Steuben County District Attorney John C. Tunney, the group says “several residents and property owners of Steuben County have information of suspected criminal conduct.”
Tunney refused to comment Wednesday.
The list of alleged criminal activities includes:
• Making false claims and filing false statements.
• Bribery of public officials.
• Larceny.
• Fraud.
The only public officials named in the document are James P. Sherron, executive director of the Steuben County Industrial Development Agency, and J. Harold McConnell, supervisor of the Town of Prattsburgh. They did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
No response was immediately available from First Wind of Newton, Mass., developer of the Prattsburgh Wind and Cohocton Wind projects.
Tuesday, May 06, 2008
Arkwright wind hearing draws overflow crowd by JOAN JOSEPHSON
ARKWRIGHT — Extra chairs had to be brought into Arkwright’s highway barns to accommodate the number of people who turned out for the public hearing on the New Grange Wind Farm draft environmental impact statement (DEIS).
At the outset of the hearing, town attorney Daniel Spitzer said its purpose was to record public statements and opinions on the DEIS, which is part of the required State Environmental Quality Review process.
New Grange will have to respond to these statements, opinions and the slew of questions raised by the hearing attendees as well as written ones that have been submitted, Spitzer said
Because several individuals indicated they had a difficult time gaining access to the DEIS information, which is contained in two large notebooks, the board decided to extend the comment deadline to May 30.
Councilman Roger Cardot cast the lone no vote on this decision.
“We accepted the DEIS in February and provided access at the town hall and at the town clerk’s office and New Grange had a copy available on its Web site,” Cardot said. “I think we should stick with the 10-day comment period.”
With the rest of the town board approving the extended period, Supervisor Fred Norton said comments will be accepted by him and the attorney.
Arkwright Zoning Board of Appeals chairman Fred Bretl said he read through the DEIS and has forwarded concerns he has about the project to the town.
“I accept the fact that we need to address energy problems and, thinking about the future generation, I’m in favor of the project,” he said.
But, he noted, the project has fractured the community with some residents supporting it and others opposed to it.
“It will impact the environment and the economy - the overhead transmission lines will be in our faces and the biological impact on vegetation and wildlife has to be considered.
“We need specific plans that will address these concerns,” Bretl said.
Kerry Askins said he was among the “not in my back yard” advocates.
“The wind farm will completely change the character of Arkwright, the place I moved to for peace and quiet,” he said.
Askins was the first but not the last to raise the question of the impact the wind farm would have on property value.
Dorothy Holland raised the same question.
She also said the mitigation measures contained in the DEIS are not objectively defined.
“Will the township be subject to lawsuits filed by individuals who are opposed to the wind farm operation?” she asked.
Elizabeth Booth and Kathy Jackson said they found flaws and inconsistencies in the DEIS.
“I think the final plans should be known before any decisions are made,” Jackson said.
Booth suggested a copy of the DEIS be made available at a local library to give Arkwright residents better access to its contents.
Speaking in favor of the wind farm were Doug Fairbanks and his 11-year-old daughter Katie.
“I visited the Tug Hill wind farm and found the community’s economic hardship was no longer an issue. It is better off today because of the wind farm,” he said.
Katie asked the audience and the town board to think about the community’s children.
“I think it’s a great idea to provide us with clean air,” she said to applause.
Angela McAvoy said New Grange would provide the opportunity to build a strong economy for Arkwright.
“I think it will build a community that will encourage kids to stay here because Arkwright would be so much better,” she said.
Wendy Phillips said she thought the wind farm would be a solution to adverse environmental issues such as acid rain.
“New Grange would be a step in the right direction,” she said.
Jim Potter also supported the project.
“It will create a large lasting impact on our town and we should go forward with it,” he said.
Several others also spoke in favor of the wind farm project.
In response to Booth’s question about responses to the issues raised on the report, Spitzer said they would become part of the final environmental impact statement prepared by New Grange Wind Farm.
If there are significant changes to the report, another public hearing will be required, he said.
CRA consulting engineer Bob Adams said additional studies need to be completed before the final environmental impact study report is complete.
“It will take a while to have these supplemental studies done
“We review the final responses to determine if they are technically adequate and verify them,” Adams said.
State fails to lead on wind energy
Canandaigua, N.Y.
Every new headline on wind turbines in the region documents another failure of the state to lead on an issue of importance to an increasing number of towns.
West of Rochester, the town of Hamlin, Monroe County, has adopted wind energy regulations following two years of sometimes angry debate, typically over how far turbines should be allowed from homes or property lines. Those who planned to lease land for turbines argued for a 1,000-foot setback. Opponents offered a variety of suggestions from 1,700 feet all the way to 1 1/2 miles.
Setbacks could spark a conflict between Naples, Ontario County, and Prattsburgh, Steuben County. Turbines for a wind farm in Prattsburgh would come within 500 feet of the Naples town line, though Naples residents have no say in the matter.
In a related issue, the Naples and Prattsburgh school districts are suing to get a share of the payment in lieu of taxes on the proposed Prattsburgh wind project. They realized too late that they had been left out of the deal.
Wind energy is not a local issue. Small towns and schools don’t have the high-priced lawyers and experts to evaluate a project or fight on their behalf when payment in lieu of taxes agreements are inked. Nor do they have jurisdiction on projects that might be just over the town or district line.
Before New York began its push for renewable energy, it should have funded objective research into the proper siting of wind towers. Surely somewhere between 1,000 feet and 1 1/2 miles is a setback that most people and wind energy companies can live with.
The state also should have set up ground rules for payment in lieu of tax agreements, requiring notification of all parties and general percentages based on how much of the project is in a given jurisdiction.
Instead, the state has stacked the deck in favor of wind energy companies, starting with former Gov. George Pataki’s executive order on June 30, 2001 — and continued by former Gov. Eliot Spitzer on Jan. 1, 2007 — that all state agencies buy 10 percent of their electricity from renewable sources by 2005 and 20 percent by 2010. Those orders turned the development of wind, hydro and other forms of renewable energy from desirable to a public imperative. The state Public Service Commission cited those orders in granting subsidiaries of UPC New York Wind, itself a subsidiary of UPC Wind Partners, permission to build the Cohocton and Dutch Hill wind farms, a total of 57 turbines, largely north and northeast of the village of Cohocton.
Wind turbines may yet have a valuable place among other forms of energy, each with its own advantages and drawbacks. Nuclear plants leave us with radioactive waste; the burning of natural gas, coal and oil — though oil is not a big player in electricity — pollute and are getting increasingly expensive.
State lawmakers manage to issue a press release on every headline of the day, from sex offender registries to a proposal for a gas-tax holiday. They are strangely silent on the gradual, haphazard implementation of wind utilities across the state. The time of leadership has come and nearly gone.
Every new headline on wind turbines in the region documents another failure of the state to lead on an issue of importance to an increasing number of towns.
West of Rochester, the town of Hamlin, Monroe County, has adopted wind energy regulations following two years of sometimes angry debate, typically over how far turbines should be allowed from homes or property lines. Those who planned to lease land for turbines argued for a 1,000-foot setback. Opponents offered a variety of suggestions from 1,700 feet all the way to 1 1/2 miles.
Setbacks could spark a conflict between Naples, Ontario County, and Prattsburgh, Steuben County. Turbines for a wind farm in Prattsburgh would come within 500 feet of the Naples town line, though Naples residents have no say in the matter.
In a related issue, the Naples and Prattsburgh school districts are suing to get a share of the payment in lieu of taxes on the proposed Prattsburgh wind project. They realized too late that they had been left out of the deal.
Wind energy is not a local issue. Small towns and schools don’t have the high-priced lawyers and experts to evaluate a project or fight on their behalf when payment in lieu of taxes agreements are inked. Nor do they have jurisdiction on projects that might be just over the town or district line.
Before New York began its push for renewable energy, it should have funded objective research into the proper siting of wind towers. Surely somewhere between 1,000 feet and 1 1/2 miles is a setback that most people and wind energy companies can live with.
The state also should have set up ground rules for payment in lieu of tax agreements, requiring notification of all parties and general percentages based on how much of the project is in a given jurisdiction.
Instead, the state has stacked the deck in favor of wind energy companies, starting with former Gov. George Pataki’s executive order on June 30, 2001 — and continued by former Gov. Eliot Spitzer on Jan. 1, 2007 — that all state agencies buy 10 percent of their electricity from renewable sources by 2005 and 20 percent by 2010. Those orders turned the development of wind, hydro and other forms of renewable energy from desirable to a public imperative. The state Public Service Commission cited those orders in granting subsidiaries of UPC New York Wind, itself a subsidiary of UPC Wind Partners, permission to build the Cohocton and Dutch Hill wind farms, a total of 57 turbines, largely north and northeast of the village of Cohocton.
Wind turbines may yet have a valuable place among other forms of energy, each with its own advantages and drawbacks. Nuclear plants leave us with radioactive waste; the burning of natural gas, coal and oil — though oil is not a big player in electricity — pollute and are getting increasingly expensive.
State lawmakers manage to issue a press release on every headline of the day, from sex offender registries to a proposal for a gas-tax holiday. They are strangely silent on the gradual, haphazard implementation of wind utilities across the state. The time of leadership has come and nearly gone.
Bethlehem Steel site assessment deal hailed
In other business Monday night, the City Council approved a payment-in-lieu-of- taxes agreement for Steel Winds II, the second phase of the wind energy development on the former Bethlehem site.
The agreement covers each of the proposed 13 turbines for 15 years, beginning when each is put into place. The payment will be based on $10,000 per megawatt for the 32.5 megawatts expected to be produced.
Each turbine is expected to generate 2.5 megawatts of power and $25,000 of revenue. The city will receive 50 percent; the school district, 40 percent; and Erie County 10 percent.
Under a voluntary agreement for Steel Winds I, only eight of 10 proposed turbines were erected on the site. The city receives $100,000 annually for those, which amounts to the same $12,500 per turbine they will receive under the new agreement.
A significant change in the new agreement is the inclusion of the school district and Erie County in the disbursement of PILOT monies. Neither was included in the original agreement, and the School District had explored options to stake a claim to money from the project.
School Board member Ronald Miller was among those who attended the City Council meeting. Referring to the PILOT for Steel Winds II, he said: “I hope that this fosters a closer communication and working relationship.”
The agreement covers each of the proposed 13 turbines for 15 years, beginning when each is put into place. The payment will be based on $10,000 per megawatt for the 32.5 megawatts expected to be produced.
Each turbine is expected to generate 2.5 megawatts of power and $25,000 of revenue. The city will receive 50 percent; the school district, 40 percent; and Erie County 10 percent.
Under a voluntary agreement for Steel Winds I, only eight of 10 proposed turbines were erected on the site. The city receives $100,000 annually for those, which amounts to the same $12,500 per turbine they will receive under the new agreement.
A significant change in the new agreement is the inclusion of the school district and Erie County in the disbursement of PILOT monies. Neither was included in the original agreement, and the School District had explored options to stake a claim to money from the project.
School Board member Ronald Miller was among those who attended the City Council meeting. Referring to the PILOT for Steel Winds II, he said: “I hope that this fosters a closer communication and working relationship.”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)