The Stark and Warren town boards voted this month to abandon their appeals from the decision in Brander et al v. Town of Warren Town Board et al. The developers Jordanville Wind, LLC and Community Energy, Inc., who are affiliates of the Spanish conglomerate Iberdrola, also failed to perfect their appeals. As a result, the Brander decision ruling that the Jordanville Wind Power Project was approved by the town boards in violation of state law and awarding attorney's fees in favor of the petitioners for the towns' violations of the Open Meetings Law will stand and becomes final, explained Douglas H. Zamelis, attorney for the petitioners.
The Brander decision was significant because the Supreme Court of New York expressly found that the actions of the town boards in approving the project were "arbitrary, capricious and unsupported by substantial evidence." The decision of the court was grounded on evidence that the towns failed to consider alternatives to the project, including the alternative of no project whatsoever, and refused to adequately consider mitigation of the project's negative effects on the significant cultural and historic resources of the region. "It's time to do the right thing and go back to the drawing board," said Sue Brander, one of 15 people who sued the towns and the project's developer. "People whose property and health were at stake had no other choice but to challenge this project. We had to take the towns and the developer to court to protect our rights and we won."
Representatives from Jordanville Wind, LLC and Community Energy, Inc. said at the June 9 Warren Town Board meeting that they planned to present a revised, 40 turbine, 80 megawatt project schedule at next month's meeting. It remains to be seen whether the revised project will meet the legal requirements imposed by existing state and federal law and the reasoning of the now final Brander decision.
Sunday, June 22, 2008
Friday, June 20, 2008
Brown agrees to meet with Schumer
Public Service Commission Chairman Garry Brown has agreed to meet with U.S. Sen. Charles Schumer about Iberdrola SA’s $4.5 billion acquisition of Energy East Corp.
Schumer wrote Brown a letter yesterday requesting the meeting, saying he was upset with an administrative law judge’s recommended decision in the case earlier in the week.
The judge, Rafael Epstein, had recommended that Brown and the commission’s four other members only approve the deal with significant conditions, including barring Iberdrola from building or owning any power generation, including wind farms, in the current Energy East service territory.
That would include areas around Rochester, Binghamton and parts of the Capital Region and the North Country.
Iberdrola is the largest wind developer in the world and is a 50 percent owner in the Maple Ridge Wind Farm in Lewis County, the state’s largest wind farm. Maple Ridge is in the National Grid territory and would not be subject to the judge’s proposed restriction.
Still, Schumer is upset that Iberdrola would have any restrictions for wind development anywhere in the state.
“As New York lags behind many states in developing alternative energy and Iberdrola is a worldwide leader in wind power, it is short-sighted to bar them from this sector of the industry,” Schumer wrote Brown.
PSC spokesman Jim Denn said this morning that Brown has agreed to meet with Schumer, but no date has been set.
Epstein’s decision is not binding, and the PSC commissioners are ultimately the ones who must approve or deny the deal. Their next meeting is July 16 in Albany.
Schumer wrote Brown a letter yesterday requesting the meeting, saying he was upset with an administrative law judge’s recommended decision in the case earlier in the week.
The judge, Rafael Epstein, had recommended that Brown and the commission’s four other members only approve the deal with significant conditions, including barring Iberdrola from building or owning any power generation, including wind farms, in the current Energy East service territory.
That would include areas around Rochester, Binghamton and parts of the Capital Region and the North Country.
Iberdrola is the largest wind developer in the world and is a 50 percent owner in the Maple Ridge Wind Farm in Lewis County, the state’s largest wind farm. Maple Ridge is in the National Grid territory and would not be subject to the judge’s proposed restriction.
Still, Schumer is upset that Iberdrola would have any restrictions for wind development anywhere in the state.
“As New York lags behind many states in developing alternative energy and Iberdrola is a worldwide leader in wind power, it is short-sighted to bar them from this sector of the industry,” Schumer wrote Brown.
PSC spokesman Jim Denn said this morning that Brown has agreed to meet with Schumer, but no date has been set.
Epstein’s decision is not binding, and the PSC commissioners are ultimately the ones who must approve or deny the deal. Their next meeting is July 16 in Albany.
Schumer to meet with PSC chairman on Iberdrola
Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., isn’t waiting for another regulatory decision on Iberdrola SA’s bid to buy Energy East Corp.
The state's senior senator has requested and been granted a meeting with Garry Brown, chairman of the Public Service Commission, the five-member board with the final vote on the $4.5 billion takeover.
Schumer has been closely following the agency's deliberations and has been sharply critical of the PSC staff and administrative law judge Rafael Epstein, who earlier this week recommended that the deal be rejected on grounds that it isn't in the public's interest.
Iberdrola, a Spanish utility company, is bidding to purchase Energy East, the parent company of Rochester Gas and Electric Corp. and New York State Electric and Gas.
Schumer’s office noted that the state’s regulatory process began nearly 10 months ago.
While every other state where Energy East owns assets — including Maine, Massachusetts, Connecticut and New Hampshire — has approved the acquisition, New York state has not.
“The buck stops with the PSC chair and the commissioners,” Schumer said, noting they aren’t bound by the law judge’s recommendation.
The PSC's vote could shortly follow a July 3 deadline for the interested parties to file reply briefs to Epstein's recommendation.
The state's senior senator has requested and been granted a meeting with Garry Brown, chairman of the Public Service Commission, the five-member board with the final vote on the $4.5 billion takeover.
Schumer has been closely following the agency's deliberations and has been sharply critical of the PSC staff and administrative law judge Rafael Epstein, who earlier this week recommended that the deal be rejected on grounds that it isn't in the public's interest.
Iberdrola, a Spanish utility company, is bidding to purchase Energy East, the parent company of Rochester Gas and Electric Corp. and New York State Electric and Gas.
Schumer’s office noted that the state’s regulatory process began nearly 10 months ago.
While every other state where Energy East owns assets — including Maine, Massachusetts, Connecticut and New Hampshire — has approved the acquisition, New York state has not.
“The buck stops with the PSC chair and the commissioners,” Schumer said, noting they aren’t bound by the law judge’s recommendation.
The PSC's vote could shortly follow a July 3 deadline for the interested parties to file reply briefs to Epstein's recommendation.
Robert Freeman June 20, 2008 Letter Regarding Prattsburgh Meeting by Ruth Matilsky
Robert Freeman
NY Department of State
41 State Street
Albany, NY 12231
June 20, 2008
Dear Mr. Freeman:
I have a question about a situation that occurred at the June 17 Prattsburgh Town Board Meeting with respect to the conduct of the Town Supervisor, Harold McConnell.
I was videotaping the meeting, and toward the end a man was speaking. I turned the camera on him, and after a moment or two he lunged for the camera, pushing it and shouting that I couldn’t take his picture.
Fortunately the camera was not hurt and I was not hurt, although it was upsetting. Others in the room told him not to do that again. One of the onlookers said, “Harold, straighten him out.” McConnell then said, “Straighten him out?” He then lambasted the people in the room who had told the man to stop his actions, and claimed that they were interfering with the man’s right to speak. He said, “Let one person respond to one of you people in anything other than kowtowing and you jump all over him.”
He did tell the man that I had the right to have the camera but said to those assembled that I shouldn’t have taken his picture.
At the end of the meeting I went up to the Supervisor and told him I thought he should have admonished the man to refrain from further physical outbursts and he repeated that what happened was my own fault for using the camera.
Is that true? Was it all right for that man to push away the camera and should the Supervisor have told him to stop? I would appreciate your comments. Of course I have the whole thing on videotape if you are interested in seeing it.
Very truly yours,
Ruth Matilsky
6724 Baker Rd.,
Prattsburgh, NY 14873
NY Department of State
41 State Street
Albany, NY 12231
June 20, 2008
Dear Mr. Freeman:
I have a question about a situation that occurred at the June 17 Prattsburgh Town Board Meeting with respect to the conduct of the Town Supervisor, Harold McConnell.
I was videotaping the meeting, and toward the end a man was speaking. I turned the camera on him, and after a moment or two he lunged for the camera, pushing it and shouting that I couldn’t take his picture.
Fortunately the camera was not hurt and I was not hurt, although it was upsetting. Others in the room told him not to do that again. One of the onlookers said, “Harold, straighten him out.” McConnell then said, “Straighten him out?” He then lambasted the people in the room who had told the man to stop his actions, and claimed that they were interfering with the man’s right to speak. He said, “Let one person respond to one of you people in anything other than kowtowing and you jump all over him.”
He did tell the man that I had the right to have the camera but said to those assembled that I shouldn’t have taken his picture.
At the end of the meeting I went up to the Supervisor and told him I thought he should have admonished the man to refrain from further physical outbursts and he repeated that what happened was my own fault for using the camera.
Is that true? Was it all right for that man to push away the camera and should the Supervisor have told him to stop? I would appreciate your comments. Of course I have the whole thing on videotape if you are interested in seeing it.
Very truly yours,
Ruth Matilsky
6724 Baker Rd.,
Prattsburgh, NY 14873
ARTHUR J. GIACALONE response to the Bob Clark - Hornell Tribune Bill Hatch article
To: Bob Clark, Staff Reporter, Evening Tribune
Cc: Andy Thompson, Managing Editor
From: Arthur J. Giacalone, Attorney-at-Law
Re: Corrections - Hatch Denied article 6-19-08
I'd like to bring the flowing corrections and clarifications to your attention:
1. The first sentence incorrectly reads, "A lawsuit to stop wind development in Howard and remove town board member Bill Hatch will continue."
Correction: The only issue that is still being pursued is the removal of Mr. Hatch. The petitioners chose not to appeal the decision dismissing the claims that challenged the wind development in Howard.
2. The fifteenth sentence incorrectly states that, "The second lawsuit was transferred to the appellate court…"
Correction: Only the third claim in the second lawsuit requesting Hatch's removal form his town board seat was transferred to the Appellate Division, the remainder of the lawsuit was dismissed.
3. The fifteenth and sixteenth sentences both incorrectly state that the second lawsuit was heard in Seneca County Supreme Court.
Correction: The second lawsuit was transferred to Hon. Joseph Valentino in Monroe County Supreme Court.
4. The seventh sentence states, Hedman's case focuses on a signed statement by Hatch from Feb. 21, 2007…"
Clarification: The Hatch case focuses on the inconsistency between Hatch's repeated claims that he did not have an agreement with EverPower, and the following documents filed between April 2006 and February 2007 by EverPower (with either the Town of Howard or Steuben County IDA) in which Bill Hatch is identified as a "participating landowner", either directly, by the listing of his name, or indirectly, by showing his property on Hughes Road in the Town of Howard as a site where a wind turbine will be installed:
(a) Howard Wind's April 2006 application includes "Hatch, William O" of Hughes Road in Canisteo, NY on "Exhibit 1", its list of "participating landowners", referencing parcel number 154.00-01-016.000. Everpower's April 11, 2006 transmittal letter, in response to the requirement at Section 2(B)(5) of the WEF law that an applicant "show consent of the participating property owners," states that Exhibit 1 "includes the names and addresses of all participating (consenting) landowners."
(b) Howard Wind's April 2006 "Proposed Project Layout" map accompanying its application depicts wind turbine number "13" located on respondent Hatch's Hughes Road property.
(c) Howard Wind's November 21, 2006 Proposed Project Layout map continues to show wind turbine "13" on respondent Hatch's Hughes Road property.
(d) The Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) submitted on February 20, 2007 to SCIDA on behalf of the Howard Wind Power Project, which was "accepted as complete" on February 27, 2007 by SCIDA, includes a drawing, dated December 2006, entitled "Figure 3: Proposed Project Layout", that continues to show wind turbine "13" on respondent Hatch's Hughes Road property.
Please note: During the March 14, 2007 public hearings conducted by the Howard Town Board, I directly asked Bill Hatch, in front of a crowd of approximately 100 people, whether he had ever advised Everpower or Howard Wind LLC that their submissions in support of the pending wind energy project contain incorrect information regarding him and his Hughes Road property. He did not respond to the inquiry.
5. At the eleventh and twelfth sentences, Hatch claims that he abstained in all the wind-related discussions and votes even before he signed an agreement in 2008.
Clarification: Town of Howard records show that Hatch voted a number of times on wind-related issues in 2006 and 2007. For example:
- On 2/8/06, upon motion by Lowell Smith (a participating landowner), seconded by Bill Hatch, the town board unanimously adopted local law No. 1 of 2006 enacting the town's wind energy facilities law.
- On 4/12/06, with two other Town Board members abstaining, Bill Hatch provided the necessary third vote adopting a resolution to accept Everpower's incomplete application for a permit under the Town's WEF Law, and, significantly, to recommend that the Steuben County IDA lend financial aid to the proposed "Howard Wind Power Project".
Please feel free to contact me if you have further questions or want any documentation.
Thank you.
ARTHUR J. GIACALONE
140 Knox Road
East Aurora, NY 14052
716-687-1902
AJGLAW@VERIZON.NET
Cc: Andy Thompson, Managing Editor
From: Arthur J. Giacalone, Attorney-at-Law
Re: Corrections - Hatch Denied article 6-19-08
I'd like to bring the flowing corrections and clarifications to your attention:
1. The first sentence incorrectly reads, "A lawsuit to stop wind development in Howard and remove town board member Bill Hatch will continue."
Correction: The only issue that is still being pursued is the removal of Mr. Hatch. The petitioners chose not to appeal the decision dismissing the claims that challenged the wind development in Howard.
2. The fifteenth sentence incorrectly states that, "The second lawsuit was transferred to the appellate court…"
Correction: Only the third claim in the second lawsuit requesting Hatch's removal form his town board seat was transferred to the Appellate Division, the remainder of the lawsuit was dismissed.
3. The fifteenth and sixteenth sentences both incorrectly state that the second lawsuit was heard in Seneca County Supreme Court.
Correction: The second lawsuit was transferred to Hon. Joseph Valentino in Monroe County Supreme Court.
4. The seventh sentence states, Hedman's case focuses on a signed statement by Hatch from Feb. 21, 2007…"
Clarification: The Hatch case focuses on the inconsistency between Hatch's repeated claims that he did not have an agreement with EverPower, and the following documents filed between April 2006 and February 2007 by EverPower (with either the Town of Howard or Steuben County IDA) in which Bill Hatch is identified as a "participating landowner", either directly, by the listing of his name, or indirectly, by showing his property on Hughes Road in the Town of Howard as a site where a wind turbine will be installed:
(a) Howard Wind's April 2006 application includes "Hatch, William O" of Hughes Road in Canisteo, NY on "Exhibit 1", its list of "participating landowners", referencing parcel number 154.00-01-016.000. Everpower's April 11, 2006 transmittal letter, in response to the requirement at Section 2(B)(5) of the WEF law that an applicant "show consent of the participating property owners," states that Exhibit 1 "includes the names and addresses of all participating (consenting) landowners."
(b) Howard Wind's April 2006 "Proposed Project Layout" map accompanying its application depicts wind turbine number "13" located on respondent Hatch's Hughes Road property.
(c) Howard Wind's November 21, 2006 Proposed Project Layout map continues to show wind turbine "13" on respondent Hatch's Hughes Road property.
(d) The Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) submitted on February 20, 2007 to SCIDA on behalf of the Howard Wind Power Project, which was "accepted as complete" on February 27, 2007 by SCIDA, includes a drawing, dated December 2006, entitled "Figure 3: Proposed Project Layout", that continues to show wind turbine "13" on respondent Hatch's Hughes Road property.
Please note: During the March 14, 2007 public hearings conducted by the Howard Town Board, I directly asked Bill Hatch, in front of a crowd of approximately 100 people, whether he had ever advised Everpower or Howard Wind LLC that their submissions in support of the pending wind energy project contain incorrect information regarding him and his Hughes Road property. He did not respond to the inquiry.
5. At the eleventh and twelfth sentences, Hatch claims that he abstained in all the wind-related discussions and votes even before he signed an agreement in 2008.
Clarification: Town of Howard records show that Hatch voted a number of times on wind-related issues in 2006 and 2007. For example:
- On 2/8/06, upon motion by Lowell Smith (a participating landowner), seconded by Bill Hatch, the town board unanimously adopted local law No. 1 of 2006 enacting the town's wind energy facilities law.
- On 4/12/06, with two other Town Board members abstaining, Bill Hatch provided the necessary third vote adopting a resolution to accept Everpower's incomplete application for a permit under the Town's WEF Law, and, significantly, to recommend that the Steuben County IDA lend financial aid to the proposed "Howard Wind Power Project".
Please feel free to contact me if you have further questions or want any documentation.
Thank you.
ARTHUR J. GIACALONE
140 Knox Road
East Aurora, NY 14052
716-687-1902
AJGLAW@VERIZON.NET
Update on the Tioga and Lycoming situations and an appeal for contributions
In Tioga County we are awaiting the Court hearing on the appeal of the granting of conditional approval to A.E.S. to construct 128 wind turbines on Armenia Mt. in Tioga and Bradford Counties. The Attorney's briefs are due soon and the court date has not been set yet but will probably be some time in August or September. Susan Smith, our Attorney, feels quite confident we will win this case.
In Lycoming County we have appealed the approval of the Catamount application to the Lycoming County Zoning Hearing Board. The hearing is tentatively set for the end of July. We have also appealed the adoption of the Lycoming County Zoning Amendment which was written to open the doors to wind development in Lycoming Country. No word yet on the date of that hearing. The cases will start out with the Lycoming County Zoning Hearing board and will probably go through 2 or maybe 3 levels of Court and we feel confident that we will win both of these appeals.
By law, these appeals put a halt to all preparations for both projects. Literally thousands of man-hours and over $7000.00 have gone into these two legal fights to date. Although we feel confident on winning all of them the end is still far away.
Other wind developers are closely monitoring the situation in Tioga, Lycoming, Potter and Bradford Counties and if A.E.S. or Catamount wins their legal battle and gets the O.K. to construct their wind facility then the others will also apply and we will have little to use to stop them. Eventually we will be in the terrible situation that Somerset County is in, which are multiple wind facilities under construction and more applications being filed.
If you are in the position to make a contribution to this cause, please do. We would like to, again, thank all of the generous contributors to date. Your generosity has helped fuel this cause up to the present. We are doing all we can financially but without your help we may not be able to keep with this to the end. We cannot allow the wind developers take from us our right to scenic beauty, peace and quiet, unfragmented forests etc.
Please do what you can to help us with our legal fees. It will be money well spent. I know the economy is slow right now and money is tight but if we spread this out between many people the individual per person cost will be much less.All donations will be equally divided between these two causes unless stated differently by the Contributor.
If you would care to contribute please send a check to:
Tioga Preservation Group
111 East Ave.
Wellsboro, Pa.16901
Sincerely,
Frank M. Pioccolella Sr.
Tioga Preservation Group
fieldflowers@epix.net
In Lycoming County we have appealed the approval of the Catamount application to the Lycoming County Zoning Hearing Board. The hearing is tentatively set for the end of July. We have also appealed the adoption of the Lycoming County Zoning Amendment which was written to open the doors to wind development in Lycoming Country. No word yet on the date of that hearing. The cases will start out with the Lycoming County Zoning Hearing board and will probably go through 2 or maybe 3 levels of Court and we feel confident that we will win both of these appeals.
By law, these appeals put a halt to all preparations for both projects. Literally thousands of man-hours and over $7000.00 have gone into these two legal fights to date. Although we feel confident on winning all of them the end is still far away.
Other wind developers are closely monitoring the situation in Tioga, Lycoming, Potter and Bradford Counties and if A.E.S. or Catamount wins their legal battle and gets the O.K. to construct their wind facility then the others will also apply and we will have little to use to stop them. Eventually we will be in the terrible situation that Somerset County is in, which are multiple wind facilities under construction and more applications being filed.
If you are in the position to make a contribution to this cause, please do. We would like to, again, thank all of the generous contributors to date. Your generosity has helped fuel this cause up to the present. We are doing all we can financially but without your help we may not be able to keep with this to the end. We cannot allow the wind developers take from us our right to scenic beauty, peace and quiet, unfragmented forests etc.
Please do what you can to help us with our legal fees. It will be money well spent. I know the economy is slow right now and money is tight but if we spread this out between many people the individual per person cost will be much less.All donations will be equally divided between these two causes unless stated differently by the Contributor.
If you would care to contribute please send a check to:
Tioga Preservation Group
111 East Ave.
Wellsboro, Pa.16901
Sincerely,
Frank M. Pioccolella Sr.
Tioga Preservation Group
fieldflowers@epix.net
Clinton-Ellenburg project will be second-largest wind farm in New York state
ALBANY -- The New York State Public Service Commission has authorized the construction and operation of Marble River LLC's wind-energy project in the towns of Clinton and Ellenburg.
North Country BizConnect
*What's your opinion?*
*Discuss this story on the EcoBiz forum of North Country BizConnect.* http://www.ncbizconnect.com/departments/ecobiz
The project is capable of generating up to 229 megawatts of electricity and connecting with an existing New York Power Authority transmission line.
In granting a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity, the commission included conditions to assure that the reliability of the interconnected electric grid is addressed and that the facility is managed in a safe and environmentally sound manner.
Marble River, when constructed, will be the second-largest individual wind-energy project in New York. The largest is the 320-megawatt Maple Ridge in Lowville, Lewis County.
The developer estimates the annual economic impact of Marble River will be more than $5 million.
"Given the fact that fossil fuels are becoming increasingly expensive and contribute to greenhouse-gas emissions, it is in our best interests to foster the development of renewable-energy sources, including wind-power projects, whose output can be delivered to the electric grid," Commission Chairman Garry Brown said in a news release.
"The Marble River project will generate electricity utilizing renewable-resource technology to provide clean and renewable supplies of electricity to the wholesale energy market."
Marble River plans to build up to 109 wind turbines, each rated at 2.1 megawatts.
In addition to the wind turbines, the project will include access roads, above-ground and underground electrical collection lines, an interconnection substation, a construction staging area and a centrally located operations and maintenance facility.
The wind turbines will range in height up to 407 feet, measured when a rotor blade is at the top of its rotation.
A State Environmental Quality Review was conducted with the towns of Clinton and Ellenburg acting as co-lead agencies and the commission as an involved agency.
Marble River is a joint venture of Horizon Wind Energy LLC and AES-Acciona Energy NY, LLC.
The commission's decision may be obtained from its Web site at www.dps.state.ny.us by accessing the File Room section of the homepage and referencing Case 07-E-1343.
PSC OKs MARBLE RIVER WIND PROJECT
pr08071.pdf
North Country BizConnect
*What's your opinion?*
*Discuss this story on the EcoBiz forum of North Country BizConnect.* http://www.ncbizconnect.com/departments/ecobiz
The project is capable of generating up to 229 megawatts of electricity and connecting with an existing New York Power Authority transmission line.
In granting a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity, the commission included conditions to assure that the reliability of the interconnected electric grid is addressed and that the facility is managed in a safe and environmentally sound manner.
Marble River, when constructed, will be the second-largest individual wind-energy project in New York. The largest is the 320-megawatt Maple Ridge in Lowville, Lewis County.
The developer estimates the annual economic impact of Marble River will be more than $5 million.
"Given the fact that fossil fuels are becoming increasingly expensive and contribute to greenhouse-gas emissions, it is in our best interests to foster the development of renewable-energy sources, including wind-power projects, whose output can be delivered to the electric grid," Commission Chairman Garry Brown said in a news release.
"The Marble River project will generate electricity utilizing renewable-resource technology to provide clean and renewable supplies of electricity to the wholesale energy market."
Marble River plans to build up to 109 wind turbines, each rated at 2.1 megawatts.
In addition to the wind turbines, the project will include access roads, above-ground and underground electrical collection lines, an interconnection substation, a construction staging area and a centrally located operations and maintenance facility.
The wind turbines will range in height up to 407 feet, measured when a rotor blade is at the top of its rotation.
A State Environmental Quality Review was conducted with the towns of Clinton and Ellenburg acting as co-lead agencies and the commission as an involved agency.
Marble River is a joint venture of Horizon Wind Energy LLC and AES-Acciona Energy NY, LLC.
The commission's decision may be obtained from its Web site at www.dps.state.ny.us by accessing the File Room section of the homepage and referencing Case 07-E-1343.
PSC OKs MARBLE RIVER WIND PROJECT
pr08071.pdf
Energy East deal in limbo, Schumer seeks meeting
New York’s senior senator, Charles Schumer, lashed out at the state’s Public Service Commission today, calling its demands “irrational and illogical,” following a non-binding ruling by an administrative law judge Monday to reject Iberdrola SA’s $4.5 billion buyout of Energy East Corp., parent to New York State Electric & Gas Corp.
NYSEG has nearly 90,000 customers in Westchester, Putnam and Dutchess counties.
The commission is seeking “to place severe restrictions on the world’s leading wind power producer,” Schumer said in a written statement.
In his ruling, the judge urged the commission, should it decide to go ahead with the buyout, to require Iberdrola to sell of all of its wind-energy assets in the state, among other conditions.
But Schumer said that stipulation would risk jobs and a $2 billion investment in the state’s economy. The Democrat said he is seeking to meet with PSC Chairman Garry A. Brown about Iberdrola’s bid, which likely will be withdrawn if PSC rejects the plan.
“I am requesting this meeting to discuss the importance of brokering a deal that will keep customer rates low, provide system reliability and bring much-needed wind power to New York,” Schumer said.
The PSC is expected it issue its ruling on the buyout next month.
New York is the last of four Northeastern states to weigh in on the deal. Connecticut, New Hampshire and Maine have approved the buyout.
NYSEG has nearly 90,000 customers in Westchester, Putnam and Dutchess counties.
The commission is seeking “to place severe restrictions on the world’s leading wind power producer,” Schumer said in a written statement.
In his ruling, the judge urged the commission, should it decide to go ahead with the buyout, to require Iberdrola to sell of all of its wind-energy assets in the state, among other conditions.
But Schumer said that stipulation would risk jobs and a $2 billion investment in the state’s economy. The Democrat said he is seeking to meet with PSC Chairman Garry A. Brown about Iberdrola’s bid, which likely will be withdrawn if PSC rejects the plan.
“I am requesting this meeting to discuss the importance of brokering a deal that will keep customer rates low, provide system reliability and bring much-needed wind power to New York,” Schumer said.
The PSC is expected it issue its ruling on the buyout next month.
New York is the last of four Northeastern states to weigh in on the deal. Connecticut, New Hampshire and Maine have approved the buyout.
Thursday, June 19, 2008
Ruth Matilsky's Account of the Town of Prattsburgh June 17, 2008 Meeting
The Prattsburgh Town Board meeting on June 17 was disturbing for several reasons. For one thing, information given by the town attorney, John Leyden, was so confusing that I am still trying to figure out whether I am missing something or he was being deliberately misleading. On a personal level the other disturbing thing was the way Supervisor Harold McConnell behaved when an audience member lunged for my camera and nearly broke it.
The meeting started out like most meetings do – old business, new business, committee reports, etc. Then the board went into executive session to discuss lawsuits. Forty-five minutes later, when the public was allowed back in, we learned that the Board had decided to table voting on the Eminent Domain Resolution which Mr. Leyden had drawn up. We couldn’t actually find out what it was that the Board was going to be voting on because they wouldn’t tell us. Specifically, Mr. Leyden couldn’t or wouldn’t tell us.
It is disturbing that a vote on eminent domain was on the agenda in the first place, considering that the majority of Board members had not read any of the public comments. Mr. Leyden maintained there isn’t much to read because most of the comments have nothing to do with eminent domain. When pressed, he said that comments had been written about windmills. I pointed out to him that the town has to prove public purpose in order to legally condemn property and that is why people were writing about windmills and their unproven public benefit. Nevertheless, he did not rescind his advice to the Board to just skip comments about windmills.
At around this time, the man two seats down from me became agitated and interrupted to say that the problem is with the seven people that won’t sign leases. He maintained that they have to sign leases. Mr. McConnell agreed with him. Then this guy, whose name I haven’t been able to find out, lunged for my video camera and said he didn’t want his picture taken.
When people in the room protested at his action, Mr. McConnell took the opportunity to launch into a “You people” speech aimed, presumably, at the people in the room who have questioned the wind projects in general and eminent domain in particular. While admitting that I had the right to videotape the proceedings, Mr. McConnell said it was all right for the man to lunge at me.
I won’t be naïve and say that I don’t understand the man’s feelings. He was angry and instead of using his words (as we tell the four year olds) and asking me to turn the camera away from me, he tried to break it. I’m actually not as upset with him as I am with the Supervisor, who should have not allowed violence of any type to occur in the meeting room. The fact that he condoned it speaks to the atmosphere of fear and intimidation that has insinuated itself into politics in Prattsburgh for too long.
People in Prattsburgh have learned that if they speak up there may well be consequences – in this case, the Supervisor allowed an audience member to assault me and told me it was my own fault.
Papparazzi who swarm rock stars routinely have their cameras smashed, and the rock stars are brought to court. Well, I’m a (nearly) 60 year old woman – not a paparazzi, and the middle aged creep who grabbed for my camera was certainly no rock star, but Mr. McConnell has an obligation to the people in Prattsburgh to make sure that intimidation is not a part of public proceedings. If he can’t do that, then he needs to be dismissed.
The meeting started out like most meetings do – old business, new business, committee reports, etc. Then the board went into executive session to discuss lawsuits. Forty-five minutes later, when the public was allowed back in, we learned that the Board had decided to table voting on the Eminent Domain Resolution which Mr. Leyden had drawn up. We couldn’t actually find out what it was that the Board was going to be voting on because they wouldn’t tell us. Specifically, Mr. Leyden couldn’t or wouldn’t tell us.
It is disturbing that a vote on eminent domain was on the agenda in the first place, considering that the majority of Board members had not read any of the public comments. Mr. Leyden maintained there isn’t much to read because most of the comments have nothing to do with eminent domain. When pressed, he said that comments had been written about windmills. I pointed out to him that the town has to prove public purpose in order to legally condemn property and that is why people were writing about windmills and their unproven public benefit. Nevertheless, he did not rescind his advice to the Board to just skip comments about windmills.
At around this time, the man two seats down from me became agitated and interrupted to say that the problem is with the seven people that won’t sign leases. He maintained that they have to sign leases. Mr. McConnell agreed with him. Then this guy, whose name I haven’t been able to find out, lunged for my video camera and said he didn’t want his picture taken.
When people in the room protested at his action, Mr. McConnell took the opportunity to launch into a “You people” speech aimed, presumably, at the people in the room who have questioned the wind projects in general and eminent domain in particular. While admitting that I had the right to videotape the proceedings, Mr. McConnell said it was all right for the man to lunge at me.
I won’t be naïve and say that I don’t understand the man’s feelings. He was angry and instead of using his words (as we tell the four year olds) and asking me to turn the camera away from me, he tried to break it. I’m actually not as upset with him as I am with the Supervisor, who should have not allowed violence of any type to occur in the meeting room. The fact that he condoned it speaks to the atmosphere of fear and intimidation that has insinuated itself into politics in Prattsburgh for too long.
People in Prattsburgh have learned that if they speak up there may well be consequences – in this case, the Supervisor allowed an audience member to assault me and told me it was my own fault.
Papparazzi who swarm rock stars routinely have their cameras smashed, and the rock stars are brought to court. Well, I’m a (nearly) 60 year old woman – not a paparazzi, and the middle aged creep who grabbed for my camera was certainly no rock star, but Mr. McConnell has an obligation to the people in Prattsburgh to make sure that intimidation is not a part of public proceedings. If he can’t do that, then he needs to be dismissed.
Hatch denied, Howard wind case carries on
Howard, N.Y.
A lawsuit to stop wind development in Howard and remove town board member Bill Hatch will continue its way through court.
According to court documents from the Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department of New York, the court chose not dismiss an Article 78 lawsuit Tuesday following a motion by Hatch.
According to court documents provided by Arthur Giacalone, an attorney for petitioner Gerry Hedman, the court chose to continue hearing the case and will accept additional filings.
Town board member Bill Hatch, who has a lease with wind developer EverPower Renewables, was unaware of the ruling when contacted this morning.
“To be honest with you, I don’t follow it that closely,” Hatch said. “They’ve thrown more legal stuff at the town board in the last two years than you can possibly comprehend.”
Hedman’s case focuses on a signed statement by Hatch from Feb. 21, 2007, where he states he had not signed a lease or entered into an oral agreement with EverPower, which is planning to place 25 wind turbines on the hills south of Howard.
“There were a lot of people who they (EverPower) wanted to place turbines on their property, including Mr. Hedman,” Hatch said.
He said although he was approached to lease his land, he did not sign a lease until about six months ago.
“I signed a lease in 2008,” Hatch said, saying he and three or four other landowners signed leases with EverPower in January.
Before that point, he sat out of all wind-related discussions at the town’s board meetings, he said.
“You’ll notice... I’ve abstained in every instance, even before I signed a lease,” Hatch said.
The lawsuit is the second filed by Hedman and others in Howard to stop the wind development. The first lawsuit, filed in June 2006, was dismissed Aug. 2, 2007. The current lawsuit was filed June 17, 2007, with oral arguments being heard in September of last year.
The second lawsuit was transfered to the appellate court from the Seneca County Supreme Court Jan. 20. Both lawsuits were heard in the Seneca County Supreme Court because the three Steuben County Supreme Court justices are members of the Steuben County Republican Party. Hatch is the chairman of the Steuben County GOP.
The order also removed Eric Hosmer, Kyle Hosmer, Richard Mariotto, William Harkenrider, Nikki Harkenrider and James Lindsay as petitioners, leaving only Hedman on the Article 78 lawsuit.
To continue the lawsuit, the order stated, the next round of briefs by Hedman need to be filed by July 17. The town board, EverPower and Hatch will have until Aug. 21 to respond to the briefs.
A lawsuit to stop wind development in Howard and remove town board member Bill Hatch will continue its way through court.
According to court documents from the Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department of New York, the court chose not dismiss an Article 78 lawsuit Tuesday following a motion by Hatch.
According to court documents provided by Arthur Giacalone, an attorney for petitioner Gerry Hedman, the court chose to continue hearing the case and will accept additional filings.
Town board member Bill Hatch, who has a lease with wind developer EverPower Renewables, was unaware of the ruling when contacted this morning.
“To be honest with you, I don’t follow it that closely,” Hatch said. “They’ve thrown more legal stuff at the town board in the last two years than you can possibly comprehend.”
Hedman’s case focuses on a signed statement by Hatch from Feb. 21, 2007, where he states he had not signed a lease or entered into an oral agreement with EverPower, which is planning to place 25 wind turbines on the hills south of Howard.
“There were a lot of people who they (EverPower) wanted to place turbines on their property, including Mr. Hedman,” Hatch said.
He said although he was approached to lease his land, he did not sign a lease until about six months ago.
“I signed a lease in 2008,” Hatch said, saying he and three or four other landowners signed leases with EverPower in January.
Before that point, he sat out of all wind-related discussions at the town’s board meetings, he said.
“You’ll notice... I’ve abstained in every instance, even before I signed a lease,” Hatch said.
The lawsuit is the second filed by Hedman and others in Howard to stop the wind development. The first lawsuit, filed in June 2006, was dismissed Aug. 2, 2007. The current lawsuit was filed June 17, 2007, with oral arguments being heard in September of last year.
The second lawsuit was transfered to the appellate court from the Seneca County Supreme Court Jan. 20. Both lawsuits were heard in the Seneca County Supreme Court because the three Steuben County Supreme Court justices are members of the Steuben County Republican Party. Hatch is the chairman of the Steuben County GOP.
The order also removed Eric Hosmer, Kyle Hosmer, Richard Mariotto, William Harkenrider, Nikki Harkenrider and James Lindsay as petitioners, leaving only Hedman on the Article 78 lawsuit.
To continue the lawsuit, the order stated, the next round of briefs by Hedman need to be filed by July 17. The town board, EverPower and Hatch will have until Aug. 21 to respond to the briefs.
Prattsburgh Supervison Harold McConnell Letter to Board Members Regarding Eminent Domain Lawsuit
Town of Prattsburgh
19 North Main Street
P0 Box 427
Prattsburgh, NY 14873
Telephone (607) 522-3761
Fax (607) 522-3749
J. Harold McConnell, Supervisor
Chris Jensen, Highway Superistendent
Pamela J. Kuhl, Town Clerk
Dear Board Member,
Enclosed is a copy of the suit made by Al Worthingham and the Advocates against the Town Board. It is mainly in regard to my vote at the hearing regarding eminent domain.
Obviously the board must make a defense or my vote will be negated and thereby the issue will be defeated.
First Wind has agreed verbally to pay for this defense but I have asked for assurance from them.
Regards,
Harold McConnell
19 North Main Street
P0 Box 427
Prattsburgh, NY 14873
Telephone (607) 522-3761
Fax (607) 522-3749
J. Harold McConnell, Supervisor
Chris Jensen, Highway Superistendent
Pamela J. Kuhl, Town Clerk
Dear Board Member,
Enclosed is a copy of the suit made by Al Worthingham and the Advocates against the Town Board. It is mainly in regard to my vote at the hearing regarding eminent domain.
Obviously the board must make a defense or my vote will be negated and thereby the issue will be defeated.
First Wind has agreed verbally to pay for this defense but I have asked for assurance from them.
Regards,
Harold McConnell
Town of Prattsburgh Supervisor Harold McConnell Letter to Board Members Regarding Meeting with SCIDA, NCSB, PCSB, Steuben County and UPC/First Wind
Town of Prattsburgh
19 North Main Street
P0 Box 427
Prattsburgh, NY 14873
Telephone (607) 522-3761
Fax (607) 522-3749
S. Harold McConnell, Supervisor Pamela J. Kula, Town Clerk
Chris Jensen, Highway Superintendent
Dear Board Member,
Phil Roach who is the chairman of the Steuben County Legislature and also a member of the SCIDA board of directors suggested that representatives of the two school districts involved in the suit against the town, SCIDA, Steuben County and Wind Farm Prattsburgh meet with Mr. Roach, Jim Sherron and myself for an informal discussion about the pending suit to see if there is any hope of avoiding an expensive action for all the parties involved.
Mr. Roach wanted as few people involved as possible so that those present might express themselves more freely. Therefore the superintendant, business manager and board president from Prattsburgh, the Superintendant and board president from Naples, Jim Sherron from SC1DA, Phil Roach and myself were present. No one from the wind company was invited as it was felt that their presence might deter and open discussion
The meeting lasted for about two hours with Roach and the school representatives doing most of the talking. I expressed how I felt about the disinterest of the schools until they suddenly realized there was money on the table and and I remained pretty much silent after that. Obviously, if they are willing to negotiate a settlement, the town has to give up it’s right to some part of money that we are to receive from an agreement we spent many months formulating.
The only decision made was that we meet again after each board has had a regular meeting and have had the opportunity to discuss if they are or are not interested in negotiating a division of the money from the host agreement. We won’t have much to talk about until we have learned what they, the two schools come up with. I think PCS is anxious to deal but Naples is not.
Regards,
Harold McConnell
19 North Main Street
P0 Box 427
Prattsburgh, NY 14873
Telephone (607) 522-3761
Fax (607) 522-3749
S. Harold McConnell, Supervisor Pamela J. Kula, Town Clerk
Chris Jensen, Highway Superintendent
Dear Board Member,
Phil Roach who is the chairman of the Steuben County Legislature and also a member of the SCIDA board of directors suggested that representatives of the two school districts involved in the suit against the town, SCIDA, Steuben County and Wind Farm Prattsburgh meet with Mr. Roach, Jim Sherron and myself for an informal discussion about the pending suit to see if there is any hope of avoiding an expensive action for all the parties involved.
Mr. Roach wanted as few people involved as possible so that those present might express themselves more freely. Therefore the superintendant, business manager and board president from Prattsburgh, the Superintendant and board president from Naples, Jim Sherron from SC1DA, Phil Roach and myself were present. No one from the wind company was invited as it was felt that their presence might deter and open discussion
The meeting lasted for about two hours with Roach and the school representatives doing most of the talking. I expressed how I felt about the disinterest of the schools until they suddenly realized there was money on the table and and I remained pretty much silent after that. Obviously, if they are willing to negotiate a settlement, the town has to give up it’s right to some part of money that we are to receive from an agreement we spent many months formulating.
The only decision made was that we meet again after each board has had a regular meeting and have had the opportunity to discuss if they are or are not interested in negotiating a division of the money from the host agreement. We won’t have much to talk about until we have learned what they, the two schools come up with. I think PCS is anxious to deal but Naples is not.
Regards,
Harold McConnell
Prattsburgh tables eminent domain issue
Prattsburgh, N.Y.
A final vote by the Prattsburgh Town Board on whether to move ahead with eminent domain proceedings is on hold for a week.
The town board agreed Tuesday night to a proposal by town Councilman Steve Kula to try to iron out legal difficulties with two local school districts before voting on the eminent domain issue.
The board will invite representatives from the Prattsburgh and Naples central schools, the Steuben County Industrial Development Agency, and the county to discuss their issues in executive session at 7 p.m. June 24 at the town hall.
Earlier this year, the school districts challenged both an agreement between the town and wind farm developer UPC and a 20-year tax break for the developer provided by SCIDA. UPC has since changed its name to First Wind.
The two districts charge the town agreement was used to reduce payments they should receive through SCIDA’s tax incentive. The districts estimate they will lose a total of $1.6 million in funds they would have received under similar SCIDA agreements.
“I just want to be sure we’re playing from the same playing field,” Kula said later. “I want honesty and openness.”
Representatives of several of the agencies met recently with SCIDA board member and county Legislature Chairman Philip Roche, R-Erwin, but no settlement was reached. First Wind was not asked to attend the meeting.
The town board was poised to vote Tuesday night on condemning portions of roadway owned by seven property owners, a step necessary before eminent domain proceedings can begin. The seven have refused to sign easements allowing First Wind to lay underground electrical transmission cables for the proposed 36-turbine windfarm.
Tempers grew heated at the meeting as residents questioned town Attorney John Leyden about the proceedings.
Leyden said 60 out of 70 written concerns submitted during a recent public comment period had no bearing on whether the roadway should be condemned. Leyden said the comments dealt with the value of the wind farm and not condemnation.
The board will make a decision based on oral comments, 18 exhibits and the written comments, he said.
Ruth Matilsky, an opponent of the project, said Leyden’s explanations added to her confusion.
“I feel like I’m in the Twilight Zone,” she said.
The questions about the proceedings angered one man, who said the seven property owners should be forced to sign.
After words were exchanged between those for and against the issue, town Supervisor Harold McConnell told the opponents they had no right to tell supporters to shut up.
“You people make me sick,” he said, angrily.
A final vote by the Prattsburgh Town Board on whether to move ahead with eminent domain proceedings is on hold for a week.
The town board agreed Tuesday night to a proposal by town Councilman Steve Kula to try to iron out legal difficulties with two local school districts before voting on the eminent domain issue.
The board will invite representatives from the Prattsburgh and Naples central schools, the Steuben County Industrial Development Agency, and the county to discuss their issues in executive session at 7 p.m. June 24 at the town hall.
Earlier this year, the school districts challenged both an agreement between the town and wind farm developer UPC and a 20-year tax break for the developer provided by SCIDA. UPC has since changed its name to First Wind.
The two districts charge the town agreement was used to reduce payments they should receive through SCIDA’s tax incentive. The districts estimate they will lose a total of $1.6 million in funds they would have received under similar SCIDA agreements.
“I just want to be sure we’re playing from the same playing field,” Kula said later. “I want honesty and openness.”
Representatives of several of the agencies met recently with SCIDA board member and county Legislature Chairman Philip Roche, R-Erwin, but no settlement was reached. First Wind was not asked to attend the meeting.
The town board was poised to vote Tuesday night on condemning portions of roadway owned by seven property owners, a step necessary before eminent domain proceedings can begin. The seven have refused to sign easements allowing First Wind to lay underground electrical transmission cables for the proposed 36-turbine windfarm.
Tempers grew heated at the meeting as residents questioned town Attorney John Leyden about the proceedings.
Leyden said 60 out of 70 written concerns submitted during a recent public comment period had no bearing on whether the roadway should be condemned. Leyden said the comments dealt with the value of the wind farm and not condemnation.
The board will make a decision based on oral comments, 18 exhibits and the written comments, he said.
Ruth Matilsky, an opponent of the project, said Leyden’s explanations added to her confusion.
“I feel like I’m in the Twilight Zone,” she said.
The questions about the proceedings angered one man, who said the seven property owners should be forced to sign.
After words were exchanged between those for and against the issue, town Supervisor Harold McConnell told the opponents they had no right to tell supporters to shut up.
“You people make me sick,” he said, angrily.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)