Bath, N.Y.
A disagreement over the terms of a tax deal for a windfarm development in Prattsburgh will apparently have to be settled in court.
The Steuben County Industrial Development Agency refused to change the terms of a payment-in-lieu-of-taxes agreement Thursday for a 36-turbine project by First Wind, formerly known as UPC.
Attorneys for the Prattsburgh and Naples school districts requested a renegotiation claiming the company should be paying hundreds of thousands of dollars more in taxes.
The tax agreement involves First Wind paying a fixed amount of taxes to the school districts, the town of Prattsburgh and the county over a 20-year period.
SCIDA approved the tax agreement Thursday and attorneys for the school districts said they will follow through with a court challenge. The two sides argued their cases in court in late April, prior to the final agreement being approved. Supreme Court Judge Peter Bradstreet presided over the hearing and a decision is pending.
By state law, the county and towns generally split 52-53 percent of the annual tax payments, with the school districts taking in 47-48 percent of the payments. Those payment ratios are included in the windfarm agreement.
At issue is the amount being paid. The school districts claim First Wind should be paying $8,000 per megawatt produced by the development, which they say is the fair market value. The tax agreement requires the company pay only $500 per megawatt.
As a result, the Naples school district should receive $560,000 more than what is outlined in the agreement.
The Prattsburgh school district is being shorted about $1 million, school attorneys claim.
At Thursday’s meeting, the SCIDA board heard comments from the school attorneys and then went behind closed doors to discuss the matter. Rougly 20 minutes later the board emerged and voted to approve the payment plan without comment.
In other action, the board approved a 10-year PILOT agreement with Gunlocke in Wayland. The agreement is expected to allow the manufacturer to reach full tax status by 2018 and is based on a significant increase in employment.
Friday, May 16, 2008
Thursday, May 15, 2008
UPC Wind IPO Slate Emerges
UPC Wind, under its new moniker First Wind, is preparing to file an S-1 registration for an initial public offering to be underwritten by leads Credit Suisse, Goldman Sachs and JP Morgan and co-underwriter Morgan Stanley.
The Newton, Mass., developer--backed by affiliates of private equity firms Madison Dearbon Partners and DE Shaw & Co.--was supposed to file last Wednesday, according to one deal tracker, but postponed to review last-minute auditing details. The sum it is planning to raise could not be learned, but is reportedly in the $400 million range. A company spokesman had no comment ...
The Newton, Mass., developer--backed by affiliates of private equity firms Madison Dearbon Partners and DE Shaw & Co.--was supposed to file last Wednesday, according to one deal tracker, but postponed to review last-minute auditing details. The sum it is planning to raise could not be learned, but is reportedly in the $400 million range. A company spokesman had no comment ...
Barber to talk about wind in Cherry Valley
CHERRY VALLEY — Some of the best wind in New York State can be found in Cherry Valley, and residents will have an opportunity to learn how the town may be able to capitalize on it with a municipal wind generating project.
The town of Cherry Valley’s Citizens Committee on Renewable and Alternative Energy is sponsoring a presentation next week by town of Caroline supervisor Don Barber.
Caroline town officials have put together a proposal to build a 10-turbine, 2.5 mega-watt generating facility that would be financed, owned and operated by the town. The town would issue bonds to finance the project, and once those bonds are paid off, revenue generated by the turbines could be used to reduce property taxes.
Residents of Caroline have to approve issuing the bonds. Cherry Valley’s East Hill had been targeted for a wind farm by Reunion Power, but a stringent wind ordinance adopted by the town shortcircuited its plan.
Reunion Power is now in the process of removing its meteorological towers, which were erected to measure the wind.
Supervisor Tom Garretson spoke of the possibility of a municipal wind project for the town during his campaign for re-election last November, and remains interested today.
``The reason the town of Caroline caught our eye is that their turbines are not the 400-footers and the fact it was set up to take care of the town,’’ he said.
The smaller scale would address some of the residents’ concerns about the visual impact of the industrialscale turbines, Garretson said.
Andy Minnig, one of the founders of the Advocates for Cherry Valley that opposed Reunion Power’s plan, said he and members of the group were ``very excited’’ to hear more about Barber’s experience. ``We’re very much in favor of Don’s thinking about small scale projects that are defined by the town’s own philosophy,’’ Minnig said. ``We’re urging members to attend. It’s an important event for the town.’’
During the presentation in Cherry Valley, Barber, a Democrat running for the NYS Senate from the 51st district, will discuss the details of the proposed plan.
The event will take place Wednesday, May 21 at 7 p.m. in the community center.
The town of Cherry Valley’s Citizens Committee on Renewable and Alternative Energy is sponsoring a presentation next week by town of Caroline supervisor Don Barber.
Caroline town officials have put together a proposal to build a 10-turbine, 2.5 mega-watt generating facility that would be financed, owned and operated by the town. The town would issue bonds to finance the project, and once those bonds are paid off, revenue generated by the turbines could be used to reduce property taxes.
Residents of Caroline have to approve issuing the bonds. Cherry Valley’s East Hill had been targeted for a wind farm by Reunion Power, but a stringent wind ordinance adopted by the town shortcircuited its plan.
Reunion Power is now in the process of removing its meteorological towers, which were erected to measure the wind.
Supervisor Tom Garretson spoke of the possibility of a municipal wind project for the town during his campaign for re-election last November, and remains interested today.
``The reason the town of Caroline caught our eye is that their turbines are not the 400-footers and the fact it was set up to take care of the town,’’ he said.
The smaller scale would address some of the residents’ concerns about the visual impact of the industrialscale turbines, Garretson said.
Andy Minnig, one of the founders of the Advocates for Cherry Valley that opposed Reunion Power’s plan, said he and members of the group were ``very excited’’ to hear more about Barber’s experience. ``We’re very much in favor of Don’s thinking about small scale projects that are defined by the town’s own philosophy,’’ Minnig said. ``We’re urging members to attend. It’s an important event for the town.’’
During the presentation in Cherry Valley, Barber, a Democrat running for the NYS Senate from the 51st district, will discuss the details of the proposed plan.
The event will take place Wednesday, May 21 at 7 p.m. in the community center.
Prattsburgh EMINENT DOMAIN Public Hearing Thursday, May 22, 2008
This coming Thursday, May 22, from 7 P.M. to 9 P. M. there will be a Public Hearing at the Fire House at 15 Allis Street in Prattsburgh on Eminent Domain. Mentioned in the town’s resolution of April 21 are eight specific properties as well as any other property it might need on Rosey Hill Road, Gay Road, Cook School Road, Davis Road, Fisher Road, Dillenbeck Road, Block School Road and Matoon Road for the same purpose.
Those property owners who may subsequently wish to challenge condemnation of their property may only do so based on the issues, facts and objections raised at the Public Hearing. We have been told, but as of this date it has not been confirmed, that written comments can be submitted up until and including 5:00 P.M. May 27.
I cannot stress strongly enough the importance of attending this public hearing. This project will affect not just Prattsburgh, but all the surrounding towns. In this writer’s opinion, the reason that land needs to be condemned for the project is that, bottom line, the majority of people in Prattsburgh do not want this project.
Windfarm Prattsburgh has never proved its public benefit. The wind data has never been revealed, despite countless requests. Forcing landowners to sign easements for a project that will put 400 foot towers right next door to their property is nothing short of criminal. And if Prattsburgh will do this for Windfarm Prattsburgh, they will do it for the Ecogen project and any other project that might come along. And once the precedent is set, other towns will be affected.
If you have any concern at all about Eminent Domain for this Project, please make your voice heard.
Very truly yours, Ruth Matilsky
Those property owners who may subsequently wish to challenge condemnation of their property may only do so based on the issues, facts and objections raised at the Public Hearing. We have been told, but as of this date it has not been confirmed, that written comments can be submitted up until and including 5:00 P.M. May 27.
I cannot stress strongly enough the importance of attending this public hearing. This project will affect not just Prattsburgh, but all the surrounding towns. In this writer’s opinion, the reason that land needs to be condemned for the project is that, bottom line, the majority of people in Prattsburgh do not want this project.
Windfarm Prattsburgh has never proved its public benefit. The wind data has never been revealed, despite countless requests. Forcing landowners to sign easements for a project that will put 400 foot towers right next door to their property is nothing short of criminal. And if Prattsburgh will do this for Windfarm Prattsburgh, they will do it for the Ecogen project and any other project that might come along. And once the precedent is set, other towns will be affected.
If you have any concern at all about Eminent Domain for this Project, please make your voice heard.
Very truly yours, Ruth Matilsky
Wednesday, May 14, 2008
Town Board considering potential wind farm
GENEVA - The Town Board Tuesday night took the first step toward having billionaire Tom Golisano's energy company build a wind farm here.
After discussing it for about 10 minutes, board members agreed to approve a “host community agreement” with Empire State Wind Energy LLC of Oneida to pursue a project on the Davie-DeBoover farms off County Road 6.
Town Supervisor Mary Luckern, however, told board members that they would later be asked to approve a contract with the company, because it was “just an agreement” they passed Tuesday night. It would also be determined later how much money the town would receive from the project, she said.
Last month, the Town Board delayed taking action on the host agreement until they received more details about it.
Luckern, code enforcement officer Bill McAdoo and town attorney Jeff Graff last week met with company president and CEO Keith Pitman to talk about making some changes in the agreement, including new verbiage about the town's insurance liability from the project, she said.
Town Planning Board member John Davie owns the land where the company wants to develop the project.
Golisano, who started Paychex Inc. and owns the Buffalo Sabres, founded Empire State Wind Energy with Pitman, an expert in the electric utility and energy fields.
Last November, the Town Board approved a law that allows wind energy facilities in an agriculturally zoned area in the southwest section of the town and an industrial area on the north side of the town. The law allows wind turbines less than 200 feet tall.
After discussing it for about 10 minutes, board members agreed to approve a “host community agreement” with Empire State Wind Energy LLC of Oneida to pursue a project on the Davie-DeBoover farms off County Road 6.
Town Supervisor Mary Luckern, however, told board members that they would later be asked to approve a contract with the company, because it was “just an agreement” they passed Tuesday night. It would also be determined later how much money the town would receive from the project, she said.
Last month, the Town Board delayed taking action on the host agreement until they received more details about it.
Luckern, code enforcement officer Bill McAdoo and town attorney Jeff Graff last week met with company president and CEO Keith Pitman to talk about making some changes in the agreement, including new verbiage about the town's insurance liability from the project, she said.
Town Planning Board member John Davie owns the land where the company wants to develop the project.
Golisano, who started Paychex Inc. and owns the Buffalo Sabres, founded Empire State Wind Energy with Pitman, an expert in the electric utility and energy fields.
Last November, the Town Board approved a law that allows wind energy facilities in an agriculturally zoned area in the southwest section of the town and an industrial area on the north side of the town. The law allows wind turbines less than 200 feet tall.
Tuesday, May 13, 2008
Clipper Libery Gear Failures
The Clipper designed “Quantum Drive” gear boxes problems has almost nothing to do with the quality of the individual helical gears being assembled by a subcontractor as previously reported. This is not a Serial Defect quality failure story, it is a total Engineering Design failure of the whole “distribute loading” concept of the complex gear box. They did not follow standard accepted engineering practices which would allow the gears the proper degrees freedom necessary to relieve stress and strain in the system coming from the driving torque and from thermal expansion of the gears and case. Specifically, the four sets of gears are physically radially constrained in a closed loop meshing of all gears to back the main bull gear. Their distributed loading idea does not work because of variables acting in this distributed meshing. Axially the gear and pinion float would be acceptable as the double helical gears track and counter gear thrust. Radially however, the gears are totally constrained and have a cascading additive tolerance build up that changes as the gears wear in and what is more important, as they expand due to the friction heat losses being absorbed into the box coming from from a variable generator load of up to 2.5Mwatts. The box also has a input cold side a hot side where the generator is flanged, exhausting and conducting waste heat directly to the box adding another variable into the equation. It takes more than computer driven precision gear cutting machining to solve these problems.
Clipper's latest attempt to “distribute load” and get away with using smaller gears and fewer stages is as wrong as the original patent. They called this fix, the “legacy failure” (Someone else's fault? How unfunny!). It would take an a extraordinary degree of accuracy to avoid a progressive tolerance build-ups stressing the weakest link which are the pinions. They are trying to skip a gear reduction stage by using small pinion gears driven by much larger gears. Given perfect gears, no wear or backlash and no thermal expansion this might work for a while. But warm this up about a 100 degrees and the secondary gears expand from both directions to pinch all the inner connected expanding pinion gears. As they wear in and warm up and expand, the ratios change ever so slightly to produce what they call “gear timing errors” which in reality is “the gashing of teeth”. It looks like in their attempt to distribute the load by 4x, they have actually engineered in a 2x or 4X overload situation if the "gear timing" changes (how do you adjust timing to fixed gearing). Also, since the box oil bath is common, any pinion failure will cascade through the box making it fail as one unit. In other words, they have all their pinions in one basket and there is no redundancy. This thing is a Pandora's box of reliability. It is no wonder they were failing in the first month.
What does all this mean, it means Clipper is finished and this is an embarrassment to American Industry. I apologize for being the messenger of such bad news.
REF:
CLIPPER WIND TURBINE GEAR FAILURES STOP "STEELWINDS" IN LACKAWANNA
http://xrl.us/bgznj
OHIO PROJECT ON HOLD WITH GEAR TIMING FAILURES:
DESCRIPTION, OF FAILED LEGACY FAILURE PROPOSAL TO ORIGINAL DESIGN
Clipper's latest attempt to “distribute load” and get away with using smaller gears and fewer stages is as wrong as the original patent. They called this fix, the “legacy failure” (Someone else's fault? How unfunny!). It would take an a extraordinary degree of accuracy to avoid a progressive tolerance build-ups stressing the weakest link which are the pinions. They are trying to skip a gear reduction stage by using small pinion gears driven by much larger gears. Given perfect gears, no wear or backlash and no thermal expansion this might work for a while. But warm this up about a 100 degrees and the secondary gears expand from both directions to pinch all the inner connected expanding pinion gears. As they wear in and warm up and expand, the ratios change ever so slightly to produce what they call “gear timing errors” which in reality is “the gashing of teeth”. It looks like in their attempt to distribute the load by 4x, they have actually engineered in a 2x or 4X overload situation if the "gear timing" changes (how do you adjust timing to fixed gearing). Also, since the box oil bath is common, any pinion failure will cascade through the box making it fail as one unit. In other words, they have all their pinions in one basket and there is no redundancy. This thing is a Pandora's box of reliability. It is no wonder they were failing in the first month.
What does all this mean, it means Clipper is finished and this is an embarrassment to American Industry. I apologize for being the messenger of such bad news.
REF:
CLIPPER WIND TURBINE GEAR FAILURES STOP "STEELWINDS" IN LACKAWANNA
http://xrl.us/bgznj
OHIO PROJECT ON HOLD WITH GEAR TIMING FAILURES:
DESCRIPTION, OF FAILED LEGACY FAILURE PROPOSAL TO ORIGINAL DESIGN
Wayland-Cohocton Central School Board May 13, 2008 Letter by Don Sanford
May 13, 2008
Mr. Wetherbee & Board:
With increase taxes at every level including school taxes and hurting those the most on a fixed income is the reason I am here tonight.
On January 30, 2008 I sent a letter in the form of an e-mail to each of you expressing my displeasure with the SCIDA proposal for Wayland/Cohocton Schools and wanting to know your views on this important matter. If you have done so, I am certainly unaware of it, an therefore am led to believe you accept the SCIDA proposal as it stands. Unfortunately for taxpayers, SCIDA approved the pilot program for T/Cohocton giving the school only a pittance amount of $37,500 a year for at least the next 20 yrs as its fair share of a massive -multi-million dollar private wind energy enterprise, which if taxed industrial would generate considerable tax revenue in line with its assessed valuation.
Under these circumstances I cannot see why in good conscience you as board members wouldn't address this injustice in the courts as the Naples and Prattsburgh school systems are currently and aggressively doing, recognizing the significant monies potentially lost and thus the unfair and adverse impact on taxpayers by SCIDA, by its intentionally and knowingly depriving the school systems of a significant and more importantly, rightly deserved tax dollars. Yet the board attempts to justify the approval of $27.69 million dollar school budget, an increase of nearly 1.5 million dollars and a significant tax increase for us all!
Perhaps many of you are aware that in his first major policy speech in April after becoming governor, Governor Patterson intends and will make major changes in the star program to save money. What money every one saved last year because of the star program will soon be a thing of the past it seems. This picture as a whole is not an acceptable reality to me.
Therefore with political and financial conditions now existing and proposed, I think it is necessary that you proceed with court litigation against SCIDA, thereby leading in a responsible manner with our financial interest firmly in mind and aggressively challenging their unfair, dictating pilot agenda in court. In doing so, you will have rightfully gained the support and respect of the student and tax payer alike. Doing anything less leads me to have no confidence of this board to rightly address my concerns and will vote NO accordingly on this budget.
Respectively submitted,
Don E. Sandford
Mr. Wetherbee & Board:
With increase taxes at every level including school taxes and hurting those the most on a fixed income is the reason I am here tonight.
On January 30, 2008 I sent a letter in the form of an e-mail to each of you expressing my displeasure with the SCIDA proposal for Wayland/Cohocton Schools and wanting to know your views on this important matter. If you have done so, I am certainly unaware of it, an therefore am led to believe you accept the SCIDA proposal as it stands. Unfortunately for taxpayers, SCIDA approved the pilot program for T/Cohocton giving the school only a pittance amount of $37,500 a year for at least the next 20 yrs as its fair share of a massive -multi-million dollar private wind energy enterprise, which if taxed industrial would generate considerable tax revenue in line with its assessed valuation.
Under these circumstances I cannot see why in good conscience you as board members wouldn't address this injustice in the courts as the Naples and Prattsburgh school systems are currently and aggressively doing, recognizing the significant monies potentially lost and thus the unfair and adverse impact on taxpayers by SCIDA, by its intentionally and knowingly depriving the school systems of a significant and more importantly, rightly deserved tax dollars. Yet the board attempts to justify the approval of $27.69 million dollar school budget, an increase of nearly 1.5 million dollars and a significant tax increase for us all!
Perhaps many of you are aware that in his first major policy speech in April after becoming governor, Governor Patterson intends and will make major changes in the star program to save money. What money every one saved last year because of the star program will soon be a thing of the past it seems. This picture as a whole is not an acceptable reality to me.
Therefore with political and financial conditions now existing and proposed, I think it is necessary that you proceed with court litigation against SCIDA, thereby leading in a responsible manner with our financial interest firmly in mind and aggressively challenging their unfair, dictating pilot agenda in court. In doing so, you will have rightfully gained the support and respect of the student and tax payer alike. Doing anything less leads me to have no confidence of this board to rightly address my concerns and will vote NO accordingly on this budget.
Respectively submitted,
Don E. Sandford
Wayland-Cohocton Central School Board May 13, 2008 Letter by James Hall
May 13, 2008
Wayland-Cohocton Central School Board
2350 Rte 63 N
Wayland, NY 14572
RE: UPC/First Wind SCIDA PILOT – Cohocton Assessment on Project
Dear School Board members and Mr. Wetherbee,
Enclosed you will find the Town of Cohocton Tentative Assessment Roll pages, 461,462,464,470,480,485,487 and 491. It has been represented in compliance to a FOIL that these are the valued amount for the UPC/First Wind project under the LLC name of Canandaigua Power Partners LLC. Note no mention is made of the Canandaigua Power Partners II as a separate taxable entity.
The assessment at 20% for each industrial turbine is $500,000. If the project is commissioned the full 100% value will become $2,500,000 per turbine.
As you are aware from the Cohocton Wind Watch letter of January 28, 2008, the Wayland-Cohocton Central School Board has the legal right to challenge the SCIDA PILOT for this project. Since the School Boards of Prattsburgh and Naples have already filed legal actions in New York State Supreme Court, it is your responsibility to do the same.
CWW has evidence that supports that the SCIDA PILOT did not comply with the law. If the WCCS Board refuses to perform their fiduciary duty to tax this project at full assessment rates, it is probable that your conduct will be deemed as malfeasance. Citizen taxpayers reserve the right to file an action against your board and the WCCS District.
The increase in next years projected budget can be eliminated with prudent, rational and fair legal action against SCIDA and the PILOT. You need to collect legitimate full value tax funds for our school district on this project.
If the Naples and Prattsburgh School District are willing to protect their taxpayers, why is the Wayland-Cohocton Central School unwilling to do the same?
It is public knowledge that NYS investigations are active and that CWW has requested the Steuben County DA to convene a grand jury investigation into questionable and potentially criminal conduct. The appearance of collusion exists if the WCCS ignores the proper advocacy to insure due process and equitable taxation. Voters are watching. Your budget is a disgrace and an insult to property owners. Adopt the just policy and sue SCIDA over the PILOT.
Cordially,
James Hall for CWW
Wayland-Cohocton Central School Board
2350 Rte 63 N
Wayland, NY 14572
RE: UPC/First Wind SCIDA PILOT – Cohocton Assessment on Project
Dear School Board members and Mr. Wetherbee,
Enclosed you will find the Town of Cohocton Tentative Assessment Roll pages, 461,462,464,470,480,485,487 and 491. It has been represented in compliance to a FOIL that these are the valued amount for the UPC/First Wind project under the LLC name of Canandaigua Power Partners LLC. Note no mention is made of the Canandaigua Power Partners II as a separate taxable entity.
The assessment at 20% for each industrial turbine is $500,000. If the project is commissioned the full 100% value will become $2,500,000 per turbine.
As you are aware from the Cohocton Wind Watch letter of January 28, 2008, the Wayland-Cohocton Central School Board has the legal right to challenge the SCIDA PILOT for this project. Since the School Boards of Prattsburgh and Naples have already filed legal actions in New York State Supreme Court, it is your responsibility to do the same.
CWW has evidence that supports that the SCIDA PILOT did not comply with the law. If the WCCS Board refuses to perform their fiduciary duty to tax this project at full assessment rates, it is probable that your conduct will be deemed as malfeasance. Citizen taxpayers reserve the right to file an action against your board and the WCCS District.
The increase in next years projected budget can be eliminated with prudent, rational and fair legal action against SCIDA and the PILOT. You need to collect legitimate full value tax funds for our school district on this project.
If the Naples and Prattsburgh School District are willing to protect their taxpayers, why is the Wayland-Cohocton Central School unwilling to do the same?
It is public knowledge that NYS investigations are active and that CWW has requested the Steuben County DA to convene a grand jury investigation into questionable and potentially criminal conduct. The appearance of collusion exists if the WCCS ignores the proper advocacy to insure due process and equitable taxation. Voters are watching. Your budget is a disgrace and an insult to property owners. Adopt the just policy and sue SCIDA over the PILOT.
Cordially,
James Hall for CWW
Case_07-M-0906 Energy East -Iberdrola
Send in your own responses ASAP to the PSC and DPA!
Dear PSC and DPS Staff,
Attached are the Iberdrola Plans as presented for Q1. The mention of company direction and increase in profits, as well as acquisition are contained therein. Also please find the perception of the company to New York and the record time to gain authorization from FERC, and successful resolution of the situation in NY?????
Iberdrola Plans
"Now, I'm just going to briefly talk about the situation of the authorization processes of our transaction with Energy East, updating what we already said when we talked about the results for -- at the beginning of 2007.
At that time, we said that we had obtained all of the Federal authorizations for that approval. Now the competition, the Hart-Scott-Rodino, the Federal Communications Commission, the FCC, the Exon-Florio authorizations, and those of the Federal Energy Commission, the FERC, we have obtained all of these in a record time, I believe. We've also obtained the authorizations from different States, in Connecticut, New Hampshire, Maine, Massachusetts. Massachusetts we didn't need that authorization, actually.
What is left? Well, we still need in New York. New York, we said that the objective was to achieve this in the first semester, the first half, of 2008. We believe that we still can obtain that authorization within this first half of 2008.
And now, specifically, talking about that situation in New York, we're trying to reach an agreed solution with the technical services of the Commission. And we're trying -- we've tried to do this on a number of occasions, but it was not possible. So we had to go to an arbitration situation on the regulation. So in this proceeding, on March 16 to March 20, we expressed our different conditions as the technical [depotes] in the -- from the Commission. On April 11 we presented our writ and then we have 10 days to respond and make the -- make a different response to what the Commission's technical services have stated.
We also should mention that the Commission's technical services wanted to delay the process due to those speculations, those rumors, on corporate moves regarding Iberdrola. The judge said that this was not justified -- this delay was not justified unless there was specific proof that an operation was imminent.
Therefore, as we all know, that is not the case. Therefore, this situation has been resolved. So we're focusing now on the writ that we need to respond to what the Commission has said. At the end of May, according to the schedule, a administrative judge will have to make a recommendation to the Commission. This is not binding, but it is a very good indication of where things will -- the path things will probably take, not in terms of the technical services of the Commission, but the Commissioners themselves. The Commission itself has to take a decision in this connection.
There's no calendar set up, they don't have any time limit, but we will expect that this will take place in June. But as we said, we don't have any guarantee because they do not have a deadline. If the decision is favorable and the conditions are reasonable, as we expect, and we do get this authorization in June, then, immediately we will close the transaction.
Thanks very much for your attention. And now our Economic and Financial Director will take the floor. Thank you."
The DPS Staff should be applauded for their diligence and should continue to investigate and question and demand real answers, not nonanswers!! No one should be allowed to produce plans after a PSC approval or continue to use trade secrets as an excuse to hide pertinent information from the PSC and DPS.
The trade secret information DOES impact the economics in New York State as per the Q1 Iberdrola! It could jeopardize NYS's huge resource of oil and gas in Western NY and Homeland Security of our Energy Infrastructure! A negative determination in SEQR for this Foreign Acquisition and all its Secrets is against the purpose of 617.
"It was the intention of the Legislature that the protection and enhancement of the environment, human and community resources should be given appropriate weight with social and economic considerations in determining public policy, and that those factors be considered together in reaching decisions on proposed activities. "
With all the nondisclosure and/or disclosure of plans after approval and nondisclosure of economics based on Trade Secrets, how does the PSC, acting as lead agent, allow a Negative Determination? Where was the PSC's Notice for Lead Agency Status? DEC ENB- I couldn't find it? Notice of Public Input for SEQR?
If Iberdrola is in arbitration with the PSC, who is representing the public and how can the public continue to input?
With Iberdrola's recent full page ad in the Rochester Democrat and Chronicle of "1st" and the recent change in name of UPC Wind to FIRST Wind, along with Community Energy's ties via projects to both UPC Wind and Global Wind Harvest, should the information shared by the public under PSC Cases involving Windfarm Prattsburgh, Cohocton Wind and Dutch Hill, and many many others, be added to this Case? Especially with the continued acquisition of wind projects as mentioned in Q1. And what about gas/oil exploration in Western NY?
Please accept this letter and the Iberdrola Plans attached as part of the public input.
For Transparency,
Alice Sokolow
Dear PSC and DPS Staff,
Attached are the Iberdrola Plans as presented for Q1. The mention of company direction and increase in profits, as well as acquisition are contained therein. Also please find the perception of the company to New York and the record time to gain authorization from FERC, and successful resolution of the situation in NY?????
Iberdrola Plans
"Now, I'm just going to briefly talk about the situation of the authorization processes of our transaction with Energy East, updating what we already said when we talked about the results for -- at the beginning of 2007.
At that time, we said that we had obtained all of the Federal authorizations for that approval. Now the competition, the Hart-Scott-Rodino, the Federal Communications Commission, the FCC, the Exon-Florio authorizations, and those of the Federal Energy Commission, the FERC, we have obtained all of these in a record time, I believe. We've also obtained the authorizations from different States, in Connecticut, New Hampshire, Maine, Massachusetts. Massachusetts we didn't need that authorization, actually.
What is left? Well, we still need in New York. New York, we said that the objective was to achieve this in the first semester, the first half, of 2008. We believe that we still can obtain that authorization within this first half of 2008.
And now, specifically, talking about that situation in New York, we're trying to reach an agreed solution with the technical services of the Commission. And we're trying -- we've tried to do this on a number of occasions, but it was not possible. So we had to go to an arbitration situation on the regulation. So in this proceeding, on March 16 to March 20, we expressed our different conditions as the technical [depotes] in the -- from the Commission. On April 11 we presented our writ and then we have 10 days to respond and make the -- make a different response to what the Commission's technical services have stated.
We also should mention that the Commission's technical services wanted to delay the process due to those speculations, those rumors, on corporate moves regarding Iberdrola. The judge said that this was not justified -- this delay was not justified unless there was specific proof that an operation was imminent.
Therefore, as we all know, that is not the case. Therefore, this situation has been resolved. So we're focusing now on the writ that we need to respond to what the Commission has said. At the end of May, according to the schedule, a administrative judge will have to make a recommendation to the Commission. This is not binding, but it is a very good indication of where things will -- the path things will probably take, not in terms of the technical services of the Commission, but the Commissioners themselves. The Commission itself has to take a decision in this connection.
There's no calendar set up, they don't have any time limit, but we will expect that this will take place in June. But as we said, we don't have any guarantee because they do not have a deadline. If the decision is favorable and the conditions are reasonable, as we expect, and we do get this authorization in June, then, immediately we will close the transaction.
Thanks very much for your attention. And now our Economic and Financial Director will take the floor. Thank you."
The DPS Staff should be applauded for their diligence and should continue to investigate and question and demand real answers, not nonanswers!! No one should be allowed to produce plans after a PSC approval or continue to use trade secrets as an excuse to hide pertinent information from the PSC and DPS.
The trade secret information DOES impact the economics in New York State as per the Q1 Iberdrola! It could jeopardize NYS's huge resource of oil and gas in Western NY and Homeland Security of our Energy Infrastructure! A negative determination in SEQR for this Foreign Acquisition and all its Secrets is against the purpose of 617.
"It was the intention of the Legislature that the protection and enhancement of the environment, human and community resources should be given appropriate weight with social and economic considerations in determining public policy, and that those factors be considered together in reaching decisions on proposed activities. "
With all the nondisclosure and/or disclosure of plans after approval and nondisclosure of economics based on Trade Secrets, how does the PSC, acting as lead agent, allow a Negative Determination? Where was the PSC's Notice for Lead Agency Status? DEC ENB- I couldn't find it? Notice of Public Input for SEQR?
If Iberdrola is in arbitration with the PSC, who is representing the public and how can the public continue to input?
With Iberdrola's recent full page ad in the Rochester Democrat and Chronicle of "1st" and the recent change in name of UPC Wind to FIRST Wind, along with Community Energy's ties via projects to both UPC Wind and Global Wind Harvest, should the information shared by the public under PSC Cases involving Windfarm Prattsburgh, Cohocton Wind and Dutch Hill, and many many others, be added to this Case? Especially with the continued acquisition of wind projects as mentioned in Q1. And what about gas/oil exploration in Western NY?
Please accept this letter and the Iberdrola Plans attached as part of the public input.
For Transparency,
Alice Sokolow
Taco Stand - Moore Road Pine Hill
Could you get away with this kind of food operation on your property? Ask the Schwingel's what's next! How soon will it be before a tent city and company store will be erected on their land ??? Direct bus service from South of the Border non stop to UPC/First Wind. Example of Sanctuary "Méjico Gueto" in Cohocton, NY.
Monday, May 12, 2008
Sen. Schumer May 12, 2008 Letter by Gary Abraham
Gary Abraham
170 N. 2nd St.
Allegany, NY 14706-1045
May 12, 2008
Dear Sen. Schumer:
Your recent statement that the Iberdrola merger would "make New York a center for wind energy" shows no understanding or knowledge of the growing level of complaints upstate about the adverse impacts of utility-scale wind projects on host communities. Chief among these is the noise impact, which is higher by multiples than wind developers disclose in their EIS.
Recently retired NYSDEC biologist Glen Schneider, concerned about the Cape Wind project proposed for his home town, went to the Maple Ridge wind farm to measure actual sound levels. He found that hub-height winds above wind turbine cut-in speed occurred when ground-level winds were quiet. This magnified turbine noise as a result of reflection within the lower height wind gradient and the absence of wind masking noise at ground level.
Schneider forwarded his results to NYSDEC, asking the agency to take lead agency in more projects because local town boards are unable to adequately review potential noise impacts.
Nor does your statement reflect an appreciation of the land area such wind projects require. Wind plants in NY generally require a 25 square mile project area. Since NY lacks any class 5 or 6 winds, and wind energy is intermittent, these projects have an effective capacity of 10 percent.
Thus, a single wind farm has a rated capacity of about 100 MW, but an effective generation rate of 10 MW. To generate 300 MW, the equivalent of a conventional power plant, would call for 750 square miles for wind energy plants. This would fundamentally change the character of upstate, but for a fraction of one percent of our energy needs.
I am an environmental attorney involved in more than one wind farm case in NY and would be happy to brief your staff on the other side of the wind issue.
Sincerely,
Gary Abraham
716-372-1913
170 N. 2nd St.
Allegany, NY 14706-1045
May 12, 2008
Dear Sen. Schumer:
Your recent statement that the Iberdrola merger would "make New York a center for wind energy" shows no understanding or knowledge of the growing level of complaints upstate about the adverse impacts of utility-scale wind projects on host communities. Chief among these is the noise impact, which is higher by multiples than wind developers disclose in their EIS.
Recently retired NYSDEC biologist Glen Schneider, concerned about the Cape Wind project proposed for his home town, went to the Maple Ridge wind farm to measure actual sound levels. He found that hub-height winds above wind turbine cut-in speed occurred when ground-level winds were quiet. This magnified turbine noise as a result of reflection within the lower height wind gradient and the absence of wind masking noise at ground level.
Schneider forwarded his results to NYSDEC, asking the agency to take lead agency in more projects because local town boards are unable to adequately review potential noise impacts.
Nor does your statement reflect an appreciation of the land area such wind projects require. Wind plants in NY generally require a 25 square mile project area. Since NY lacks any class 5 or 6 winds, and wind energy is intermittent, these projects have an effective capacity of 10 percent.
Thus, a single wind farm has a rated capacity of about 100 MW, but an effective generation rate of 10 MW. To generate 300 MW, the equivalent of a conventional power plant, would call for 750 square miles for wind energy plants. This would fundamentally change the character of upstate, but for a fraction of one percent of our energy needs.
I am an environmental attorney involved in more than one wind farm case in NY and would be happy to brief your staff on the other side of the wind issue.
Sincerely,
Gary Abraham
716-372-1913
The Pinwheel Junk Yard - Fox news report from Wisconsin
This news report from Fox News in Wisconsin highlights the impacts of industrial wind facilities on the land, on individuals living near the turbines (noise, flicker, television reception), and on community harmony. Includes interesting scenes of the Blue Sky, Green Field wind project in Wisconsin as well as shadows from the blades.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)