At least two companies are interested in offshore wind development in New York’s Great Lakes waters — BQ Energy, which developed Lackawanna’s Steel Winds, and AWS Truewind.
“I don’t think it’s inevitable, but I think it’s very likely,” said Bruce Bailey, AWS Truewind’s president.
There are significant obstacles and unknowns. Among them:
• Right now, the costs. The cost of windmills in water far exceeds land-based turbines, and would be too high to justify the return for private investors, even with government subsidies aimed at spurring renewable energy development.
• While some of the European offshore wind installations are in icy waters, the freshwater ice sheet on Lake Erie will present special design challenges, according to experts.
• Many environmentalists, while generally supportive of the concept of wind power, want more research into potential impacts.
• And proponents say they aren’t sure how the public will react to the sight of turbines in the lake.
“That’s a question I’ve given a lot of thought to,” said BQ Energy’s Tim Ryan, who says he has been stopped by people who know of his connection to Steel Winds and asked when there might be similar turbines in the lake.
Interest has bloomed to the point where BQ Energy is developing an analysis of the prognosis for Lake Erie wind power.
The study, which will be completed by year’s end, will try to answer more precisely how much wind is available, how reliable it is, the best places to put turbines, how they would be connected to the electricity grids and what regulatory bodies would be involved.
Ryan said there have been some preliminary findings of the study, which is funded by the New York State Energy and Research Development Authority.
“I would say the output in Lake Erie might be 20 percent more than it would be on land,” he said.
The current technology allows for turbines in up to 70 feet of water, he said.
“The New York part of the lake gets pretty deep pretty quickly,” Ryan said. “So there’s a relatively narrow strip along the lake, extending out between three and six to seven miles.”
(Click to read entire article)
Sunday, July 13, 2008
Saturday, July 12, 2008
Schumer errs in supporting commercial wind power
Sen. Charles Schumer may believe he’s addressing critical issues by supporting commercial wind power, but real-life evidence and data that’s accumulated for more than 20 years seems to disagree.
It appears that industrial wind is mostly an environmental and economic folly that’s unfortunately diverting our attention and resources away from efforts to find truly meaningful solutions to ever-increasing, real problems. It’s being propelled by some of the world’s largest corporations because their investments in wind allow them to avoid billions in taxes each year, regardless of their oftentimes very “un-green” portfolios.
Schumer’s assertion that costs will come down as a result of wind power is inexcusably naive. In every electricity market with high penetrations of wind, consumer costs have sky-rocketed. Meanwhile, huge swaths of our remaining and cherished natural landscapes, which are not renewable, are being swallowed up by this boondoggle — ironically in the name of the environment.
The Public Service Commission had it right when trying to protect the interests of citizens from the likely consequences of the Iberdrola acquisition. Schumer hasn’t done New Yorkers, or this beautiful state, any favors by interfering.
Sue Sliwinski
It appears that industrial wind is mostly an environmental and economic folly that’s unfortunately diverting our attention and resources away from efforts to find truly meaningful solutions to ever-increasing, real problems. It’s being propelled by some of the world’s largest corporations because their investments in wind allow them to avoid billions in taxes each year, regardless of their oftentimes very “un-green” portfolios.
Schumer’s assertion that costs will come down as a result of wind power is inexcusably naive. In every electricity market with high penetrations of wind, consumer costs have sky-rocketed. Meanwhile, huge swaths of our remaining and cherished natural landscapes, which are not renewable, are being swallowed up by this boondoggle — ironically in the name of the environment.
The Public Service Commission had it right when trying to protect the interests of citizens from the likely consequences of the Iberdrola acquisition. Schumer hasn’t done New Yorkers, or this beautiful state, any favors by interfering.
Sue Sliwinski
Windmill project to traverse counties
Oswego, N.Y.
The Upstate New York Power Corp (UNYPC) presented a PowerPoint to Oswego County legislators Thursday outlining their proposed wind farm project.
Robert Burgdorf, of the Law Office of Nixon and Peabody, presented the powerPoint on behalf of the UNYPC, an electrical corporation formed to develop clean, renewable energy projects in the New York energy market.
The presentation outlined the specifics on a proposal for the Hounsfield Wind Farm on Galloo Island in Jefferson County, and the installation of a land-based transmission line necessary to transmit the wind power to an already established power grid.
The focal point of his presentation was to gain support of the legislators of the specific towns that this land-based transmission line is being proposed to cross through.
According to Burgdorf, the use of a landline is necessary, since a submarine line from Galloo Island to Oswego “would not be economically feasible.”
The route that this proposed transmission line would proceed through is still in its planning phase.
If the proposal is approved, approximately 10 miles of cable would be installed at the bottom of Lake Ontario from Galloo Island to the town of Henderson in Jefferson County.
The cable would then travel overland through the Town of Ellisburg, and the towns of Sandy Creek and Albion in Oswego County.
The overhead line would then connect with the New York State Electric and Gas 345 kV line in the town of Parish. From there, the power would be channeled into the proper facilities. The length of the transmission line is approximately 41 miles long.
Legislator Jack Proud R-Mexico, is a strong advocate for the wind farm, as well as the transmission line.
“I think there’s an inexhaustible source of power there (Galloo Island) and we should take advantage of it,” Proud said. “We’ve got to move away from petroleum however we can,” Proud said.
He believes that we are not doing enough with wind power and we should harness it any way we can wherever we can.
The UNYPC has approached up to 200 landowners in the projected path of the line and received mixed reactions. They are currently doing a survey of the respective towns, which the line will pass through one-by-one to determine the best route.
Local legislators also urged Burgdorf to ensure that the transmission line has the capacity to support further projects up north, so there won’t be the need for more lines.
UNYPC is still in the process of finalizing the route of the transmission line and the current route is still subject to change.
According to the UNYPC Web site, the construction and operation of the transmission line is received through the Article VII process under the New York State Public Service Commission. Article VII requires a full environmental and public health and safety review of a proposed facility.
According to Burgdorf, there are several contributing factors that the UNYPC must take into consideration when mapping the transmission line’s course. This includes avoiding sensitive environmental areas, avoiding wetlands, avoiding any sensitive historical properties and avoiding any impacts on agricultural resources.
According to the UNYPC, the Hounsfield Wind Farm Project includes the construction and operation of up to 90 wind turbines, the installation and operation of associated collection lines and related facilities.
Benefits of the project include meeting the energy needs of approximately 100,000 households, the prevention of releasing 1 million tons of CO2, allowing New Yorkers to decrease their reliance on expendable resources such as oil and to help New York meet its goal of increasing its renewable energy to 25 percent by 2013.
If established, the wind plant will produce 250 megawatts of power. It will also provide up to 250 jobs during construction, as well as up to 25 full-time post-construction jobs that are well paying.
The Upstate New York Power Corp (UNYPC) presented a PowerPoint to Oswego County legislators Thursday outlining their proposed wind farm project.
Robert Burgdorf, of the Law Office of Nixon and Peabody, presented the powerPoint on behalf of the UNYPC, an electrical corporation formed to develop clean, renewable energy projects in the New York energy market.
The presentation outlined the specifics on a proposal for the Hounsfield Wind Farm on Galloo Island in Jefferson County, and the installation of a land-based transmission line necessary to transmit the wind power to an already established power grid.
The focal point of his presentation was to gain support of the legislators of the specific towns that this land-based transmission line is being proposed to cross through.
According to Burgdorf, the use of a landline is necessary, since a submarine line from Galloo Island to Oswego “would not be economically feasible.”
The route that this proposed transmission line would proceed through is still in its planning phase.
If the proposal is approved, approximately 10 miles of cable would be installed at the bottom of Lake Ontario from Galloo Island to the town of Henderson in Jefferson County.
The cable would then travel overland through the Town of Ellisburg, and the towns of Sandy Creek and Albion in Oswego County.
The overhead line would then connect with the New York State Electric and Gas 345 kV line in the town of Parish. From there, the power would be channeled into the proper facilities. The length of the transmission line is approximately 41 miles long.
Legislator Jack Proud R-Mexico, is a strong advocate for the wind farm, as well as the transmission line.
“I think there’s an inexhaustible source of power there (Galloo Island) and we should take advantage of it,” Proud said. “We’ve got to move away from petroleum however we can,” Proud said.
He believes that we are not doing enough with wind power and we should harness it any way we can wherever we can.
The UNYPC has approached up to 200 landowners in the projected path of the line and received mixed reactions. They are currently doing a survey of the respective towns, which the line will pass through one-by-one to determine the best route.
Local legislators also urged Burgdorf to ensure that the transmission line has the capacity to support further projects up north, so there won’t be the need for more lines.
UNYPC is still in the process of finalizing the route of the transmission line and the current route is still subject to change.
According to the UNYPC Web site, the construction and operation of the transmission line is received through the Article VII process under the New York State Public Service Commission. Article VII requires a full environmental and public health and safety review of a proposed facility.
According to Burgdorf, there are several contributing factors that the UNYPC must take into consideration when mapping the transmission line’s course. This includes avoiding sensitive environmental areas, avoiding wetlands, avoiding any sensitive historical properties and avoiding any impacts on agricultural resources.
According to the UNYPC, the Hounsfield Wind Farm Project includes the construction and operation of up to 90 wind turbines, the installation and operation of associated collection lines and related facilities.
Benefits of the project include meeting the energy needs of approximately 100,000 households, the prevention of releasing 1 million tons of CO2, allowing New Yorkers to decrease their reliance on expendable resources such as oil and to help New York meet its goal of increasing its renewable energy to 25 percent by 2013.
If established, the wind plant will produce 250 megawatts of power. It will also provide up to 250 jobs during construction, as well as up to 25 full-time post-construction jobs that are well paying.
Friday, July 11, 2008
Howard board gets planning board update
The Howard town board got an update from the planning board at its meeting Wednesday night.
The planning board has been dealing with various aspects of a proposed wind farm project in town, including a draft of the proposed State Environmental Quality Review findings statement and road use agreement.
“We got a three-page report from the planning board,” Councilman Bill Hatch said. “They’re very active right now with the windmill proposal.”
According to that report, at the planning board’s June meeting, it was informed by Bob Riekofski, town building inspector and code enforcement officer, that two building permits have been issued in area adjacent to the proposed siting of windmills by Howard Wind/EverPower, but neither of the permits were within the proposed fall zone regulations.
According to information presented to the town board, the planning board will be submitting the cultural mitigation suggestions to the councilmen and Highway Superintendent Anthony Clark will be reviewing the road use agreement. The planning board also is working on the decommissioning and site restoration plan, to spell out what will be done when the lifespan of the turbines is complete.
The planning board has been dealing with various aspects of a proposed wind farm project in town, including a draft of the proposed State Environmental Quality Review findings statement and road use agreement.
“We got a three-page report from the planning board,” Councilman Bill Hatch said. “They’re very active right now with the windmill proposal.”
According to that report, at the planning board’s June meeting, it was informed by Bob Riekofski, town building inspector and code enforcement officer, that two building permits have been issued in area adjacent to the proposed siting of windmills by Howard Wind/EverPower, but neither of the permits were within the proposed fall zone regulations.
According to information presented to the town board, the planning board will be submitting the cultural mitigation suggestions to the councilmen and Highway Superintendent Anthony Clark will be reviewing the road use agreement. The planning board also is working on the decommissioning and site restoration plan, to spell out what will be done when the lifespan of the turbines is complete.
Plan to add more wind turbines OK’d
The Lackawanna Planning Board Thursday approved site plans for the second phase of the Steel Winds turbine project along Route 5.
The approval paves the way for 13 additional turbines to be erected on the property, on which 11 of the turbines would be located further inland, roughly midway between the Lake Erie shoreline and Route 5 on the old Bethlehem Steel site.
The developer, Clipper Windpower, first broke ground in 2005 on the $40 million wind-energy project, erecting eight turbines along the lake shore after agreeing to pay the city $100,000 annually over the next 15 years.
The Planning Board’s approval on Thursday actually covers 11 additional turbines. The board had previously, in 2005, approved two turbines north of the existing eight that were never constructed.
“So when we first came in with concept of Steel Winds, we had applied for site plan approval of 10 turbines,” Paul F. Curran, managing director of BQ Energy, explained after the meeting.
“We only built eight, though the approval [for 10 turbines] remained valid,” Curran added.
In all, 26 windmills are planned for the site. In addition to the existing eight and the 13 others that will be erected in Lackawanna, BQ Energy has already received approval from Hamburg officials to build another five turbines along the lake shore in Hamburg.
Even though, by state law, renewable energy projects like the Steel Winds farm are tax-exempt, the Lackawanna City Council last October unanimously adopted a law that would allow the city to collect property taxes on the second phase of the Steel Winds turbine project.
Instead, city officials worked out an agreement with the company in which it will pay the city $10,000 per megawatt for the power capacity generated by the turbines.
Each of the existing eight turbines in Lackawanna generates 2.5 megawatts of power, Curran said. If the additional 13 turbines each generates the same amount of power, that would be 32.5 megawatts and Lackawanna would receive $325,000 annually in taxes.
However, Curran said it has not yet been decided whether or not BQ Energy will use the same kind of turbines in the second phase of the Steel Winds project.
“We have to get all of our [other] approvals from the city and then we can go about the business of financing and ordering equipment,” said Curran. “The ones we have out there now are as big as they come. Our survey of the market is that they would either be [2.5 megawatts each] or a little bit less.”
He added that a firm date for when construction is to begin has not yet been set.
“We really have to get the equipment ordered now. Wind turbines are in popular demand. So it can take as much as two years to get the equipment on site. It might be 2010 that we get it. We’re still hopeful that we can get the equipment in by 2009 but likely it’s 2010,” Curran said.
The approval paves the way for 13 additional turbines to be erected on the property, on which 11 of the turbines would be located further inland, roughly midway between the Lake Erie shoreline and Route 5 on the old Bethlehem Steel site.
The developer, Clipper Windpower, first broke ground in 2005 on the $40 million wind-energy project, erecting eight turbines along the lake shore after agreeing to pay the city $100,000 annually over the next 15 years.
The Planning Board’s approval on Thursday actually covers 11 additional turbines. The board had previously, in 2005, approved two turbines north of the existing eight that were never constructed.
“So when we first came in with concept of Steel Winds, we had applied for site plan approval of 10 turbines,” Paul F. Curran, managing director of BQ Energy, explained after the meeting.
“We only built eight, though the approval [for 10 turbines] remained valid,” Curran added.
In all, 26 windmills are planned for the site. In addition to the existing eight and the 13 others that will be erected in Lackawanna, BQ Energy has already received approval from Hamburg officials to build another five turbines along the lake shore in Hamburg.
Even though, by state law, renewable energy projects like the Steel Winds farm are tax-exempt, the Lackawanna City Council last October unanimously adopted a law that would allow the city to collect property taxes on the second phase of the Steel Winds turbine project.
Instead, city officials worked out an agreement with the company in which it will pay the city $10,000 per megawatt for the power capacity generated by the turbines.
Each of the existing eight turbines in Lackawanna generates 2.5 megawatts of power, Curran said. If the additional 13 turbines each generates the same amount of power, that would be 32.5 megawatts and Lackawanna would receive $325,000 annually in taxes.
However, Curran said it has not yet been decided whether or not BQ Energy will use the same kind of turbines in the second phase of the Steel Winds project.
“We have to get all of our [other] approvals from the city and then we can go about the business of financing and ordering equipment,” said Curran. “The ones we have out there now are as big as they come. Our survey of the market is that they would either be [2.5 megawatts each] or a little bit less.”
He added that a firm date for when construction is to begin has not yet been set.
“We really have to get the equipment ordered now. Wind turbines are in popular demand. So it can take as much as two years to get the equipment on site. It might be 2010 that we get it. We’re still hopeful that we can get the equipment in by 2009 but likely it’s 2010,” Curran said.
Dual roles a hurdle in Iberdrola's takeover of RG&E parent
But so far the staff of the New York Department of Public Service has said ownership of both wind turbines and distribution-transmission lines is a no-no. The staff has opposed Iberdrola's plan to build three wind farms in Energy East territory.
The staff's position is important because it advises the five-member state Public Service Commission, which is to rule on the Iberdrola-Energy East deal this summer.
In short, the staff is saying that Iberdrola can deliver electricity and natural gas — what RG&E and NYSEG do now — but Iberdrola cannot also "make" the products, even if it uses the wind instead of coal or natural gas to generate electricity.
The staff's position is part of New York policy on energy deregulation, but it has left Iberdrola officials feeling as if they are facing an unfathomable government demand, especially because the state has set a goal of getting 25 percent of its energy from renewable sources such as wind and hydropower by 2013.
Iberdrola officials said they will walk away from the Energy East deal if the PSC votes to approve it but also insists on separating Iberdrola from its three proposed wind farms in Energy East territory.
Central to the disagreement is a worry that Iberdrola could exercise too much control over the electricity market, which might thwart competition and harm consumers. RG&E and NYSEG ratepayers who attended public hearings on the proposed deal earlier this year urged that any sale of Energy East lead to lower, not higher, rates.
(Click to read entire article)
The staff's position is important because it advises the five-member state Public Service Commission, which is to rule on the Iberdrola-Energy East deal this summer.
In short, the staff is saying that Iberdrola can deliver electricity and natural gas — what RG&E and NYSEG do now — but Iberdrola cannot also "make" the products, even if it uses the wind instead of coal or natural gas to generate electricity.
The staff's position is part of New York policy on energy deregulation, but it has left Iberdrola officials feeling as if they are facing an unfathomable government demand, especially because the state has set a goal of getting 25 percent of its energy from renewable sources such as wind and hydropower by 2013.
Iberdrola officials said they will walk away from the Energy East deal if the PSC votes to approve it but also insists on separating Iberdrola from its three proposed wind farms in Energy East territory.
Central to the disagreement is a worry that Iberdrola could exercise too much control over the electricity market, which might thwart competition and harm consumers. RG&E and NYSEG ratepayers who attended public hearings on the proposed deal earlier this year urged that any sale of Energy East lead to lower, not higher, rates.
(Click to read entire article)
Thursday, July 10, 2008
Parcel owners act against Lyme
CHAUMONT — Ten town of Lyme property owners have brought an Article 78 proceeding against the Town Council, claiming it improperly rejected a petition protesting the adoption of a local law regulating the siting of wind turbines.
The owners group is asking a state Supreme Court judge to declare that its protest petition valid and that a local law adopted subsequent to the board's rejection of the petition be declared invalid, according to documents filed Monday at the Jefferson County clerk's office.
The property owners claim that a local law adopted by the board May 6 contains setback requirements for turbines that are "excessive" and effectively bans the development of wind-generating facilities within the town.
"We are not only challenging the protest petition invalidation, but the zoning law itself as capricious and arbitrary," said Dawn M. Munk, one of the landowners and spokeswoman for the group.
The landowners all are part of the pro-wind-power group Voters for Wind. They had expected to be a part of BP's Cape Vincent Wind Farm before the zoning amendment was designed and passed.
"We are not giving up on this," Mrs. Munk said.
The council was served the legal papers Wednesday night. A press release from Voters for Wind said the court has set July 31 as the return date for the petition.
"I think we were all surprised," Supervisor Scott G. Aubertine said. "We'll turn it over to the attorney and see what he recommends."
At issue is a section of town law dealing with zoning changes. Under the law, if owners representing more 20 percent of the total acreage in the town formally protest a change, a three-fourths majority of town board members is required to approve it.
The town rejected the petition May 6, maintaining that the signatures of property owners contained in the petition did not represent at least 20 percent of all property within the town. The board based its rejection on a review of properties by its assessor that concluded, among other things, that not all property owners of each parcel on the petition had signed it and that some of the signers were not listed on tax rolls as the owners.
The assessor said that each sheet of signatures on the petition needed to be witnessed and notarized or else there "is no proof that the actual property owner signed the petition."
The property owners say the signatures on their protest petition represent 9,610 acres, or nearly 27 percent, of the town's 35,920 acres. A representation of at least 7,184 acres would be needed to comprise at least 20 percent of the acreage. The town counters that, after removing parcels for which not all owners signed the petition and removing other ineligible signers, the petitioners represent just 5,302 valid acres.
According to the assessors' report from May 6, the foremost reason for rejecting parcels was that not all of the property owners of the parcels had signed the petition. For example, if a husband signed the petition but not his wife, when both are listed on the tax roll, the husband's signature would be invalid. That accounted for about 4,167 acres that were rejected.
"We did find an attorney general's ruling from 1989 that said both signatures are not required, so they illegally disposed of the petition," Mrs. Munk said.
On May 6, the board adopted a law requiring, among other things, a minimum setback of 4,500 feet from the high-water marks of Lake Ontario and the Chaumont River. It mandated the same setbacks from the village of Chaumont and the hamlet of Three Mile Bay.
According to court documents, the law makes "no distinction between the establishment of a single wind turbine or a project which includes dozens of turbines" under the state Environmental Quality Review Act and that siting of "small" wind energy facilities can be subject to the approval of adjoining property owners even if all other criteria for the location are met. In their Article 78 petition, the property owners contend this requirement, in essence, would give adjoining property owners "an absolute veto over windmills."
This was one provision that the council had taken out during its work sessions on the law. Another provision that is in the final version of the law, but had been removed during the work sessions, stated that the town would be entitled to all wind and sound data from wind measurement towers.
The town board approved the local law in a 3-2 vote, with Councilmen Warren A. Johnson, G. Norman Schreib and James R. Madill voting in favor. Supervisor Scott G. Aubertine and Councilman Michael P. Countryman voted against the amendment. If the protest petition had been accepted, four favorable votes would have been needed to adopt the amendment.
The property owners are asking a judge to rule the protest petition valid and thus require that a supermajority be achieved to approve the local law.
The property owners bringing the Article 78 proceeding are Julie E. and Guy E. Gosier, Jeanine and David N. Bourquin, Janice and Lawrence E. Comins, Dawn M. and Charles A. Munk, Charles B. Kingsley and Charles W. Mount. They are represented by Syracuse attorney James A. Gosier.
The owners group is asking a state Supreme Court judge to declare that its protest petition valid and that a local law adopted subsequent to the board's rejection of the petition be declared invalid, according to documents filed Monday at the Jefferson County clerk's office.
The property owners claim that a local law adopted by the board May 6 contains setback requirements for turbines that are "excessive" and effectively bans the development of wind-generating facilities within the town.
"We are not only challenging the protest petition invalidation, but the zoning law itself as capricious and arbitrary," said Dawn M. Munk, one of the landowners and spokeswoman for the group.
The landowners all are part of the pro-wind-power group Voters for Wind. They had expected to be a part of BP's Cape Vincent Wind Farm before the zoning amendment was designed and passed.
"We are not giving up on this," Mrs. Munk said.
The council was served the legal papers Wednesday night. A press release from Voters for Wind said the court has set July 31 as the return date for the petition.
"I think we were all surprised," Supervisor Scott G. Aubertine said. "We'll turn it over to the attorney and see what he recommends."
At issue is a section of town law dealing with zoning changes. Under the law, if owners representing more 20 percent of the total acreage in the town formally protest a change, a three-fourths majority of town board members is required to approve it.
The town rejected the petition May 6, maintaining that the signatures of property owners contained in the petition did not represent at least 20 percent of all property within the town. The board based its rejection on a review of properties by its assessor that concluded, among other things, that not all property owners of each parcel on the petition had signed it and that some of the signers were not listed on tax rolls as the owners.
The assessor said that each sheet of signatures on the petition needed to be witnessed and notarized or else there "is no proof that the actual property owner signed the petition."
The property owners say the signatures on their protest petition represent 9,610 acres, or nearly 27 percent, of the town's 35,920 acres. A representation of at least 7,184 acres would be needed to comprise at least 20 percent of the acreage. The town counters that, after removing parcels for which not all owners signed the petition and removing other ineligible signers, the petitioners represent just 5,302 valid acres.
According to the assessors' report from May 6, the foremost reason for rejecting parcels was that not all of the property owners of the parcels had signed the petition. For example, if a husband signed the petition but not his wife, when both are listed on the tax roll, the husband's signature would be invalid. That accounted for about 4,167 acres that were rejected.
"We did find an attorney general's ruling from 1989 that said both signatures are not required, so they illegally disposed of the petition," Mrs. Munk said.
On May 6, the board adopted a law requiring, among other things, a minimum setback of 4,500 feet from the high-water marks of Lake Ontario and the Chaumont River. It mandated the same setbacks from the village of Chaumont and the hamlet of Three Mile Bay.
According to court documents, the law makes "no distinction between the establishment of a single wind turbine or a project which includes dozens of turbines" under the state Environmental Quality Review Act and that siting of "small" wind energy facilities can be subject to the approval of adjoining property owners even if all other criteria for the location are met. In their Article 78 petition, the property owners contend this requirement, in essence, would give adjoining property owners "an absolute veto over windmills."
This was one provision that the council had taken out during its work sessions on the law. Another provision that is in the final version of the law, but had been removed during the work sessions, stated that the town would be entitled to all wind and sound data from wind measurement towers.
The town board approved the local law in a 3-2 vote, with Councilmen Warren A. Johnson, G. Norman Schreib and James R. Madill voting in favor. Supervisor Scott G. Aubertine and Councilman Michael P. Countryman voted against the amendment. If the protest petition had been accepted, four favorable votes would have been needed to adopt the amendment.
The property owners are asking a judge to rule the protest petition valid and thus require that a supermajority be achieved to approve the local law.
The property owners bringing the Article 78 proceeding are Julie E. and Guy E. Gosier, Jeanine and David N. Bourquin, Janice and Lawrence E. Comins, Dawn M. and Charles A. Munk, Charles B. Kingsley and Charles W. Mount. They are represented by Syracuse attorney James A. Gosier.
Enfield Town Board seeks stronger wind pact
ENFIELD — The Enfield Town Board held off on a vote Wednesday on wind-farm developer John Rancich's proposed developer's agreement in order to send it back to the town attorney to get a stronger agreement.
Town Supervisor Frank Podufalski said from what he's seen and heard, a local wind law and a developer's agreement are used during wind farm projects, so asking Guy Krogh, the town attorney, to strengthen the agreement would allow the town board to comfortably approve it down the road.
Krogh expressed concerns over several portions of the agreement, most notably that the town has yet to adopt a local wind law. Councilman Herb Masser said the town planning board is very close to submitting a proposal for the local law. All that's needed before passing it to the town are a few changes in the language, he said.
Rancich submitted the agreements in order to obtain the town's word that it won't block the project and so he may go ahead and sign a contract to purchase wind turbines. Steve Bauman, Rancich's associate, said the purchase could be as much as $10 million, which makes it prudent to seek an agreement with the town.
Krogh said in an e-mail to Podufalski that payments made to the town from the wind farm could be construed as a bribe as it's worded in the agreement. Podufalski and Masser said that was not the intent of the developer but rather a flaw in the language.
Originally Rancich requested the town be the lead agency in the state environmental quality review. However, Podufalski said the town cannot afford to take on such a project and the state Department of Environmental Conservation would likely want to be lead agency.
It would take the DEC at least nine months to conduct the review, Podufalski said.
The town board also held two public hearings on a proposal to build additional municipal buildings, which town officials estimate could cost between $1 million and $2 million.
Podufalski said if the town moves forward with the buildings, he would prefer not to raise funds through taxes but instead use a capital reserve of $500,000 as a down payment and bond the project for as many as 30 years.
The town has spent roughly $30,000 to date on site plan review for the project. The buildings are proposed in two locations — a public safety building and town court where the current highway department and town hall sit, and the additional buildings are proposed at the intersection of Trumbulls Corners and Route 327.
The board also discussed alternatives to the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals if it cannot give the town the lowest offer.
Town Supervisor Frank Podufalski said from what he's seen and heard, a local wind law and a developer's agreement are used during wind farm projects, so asking Guy Krogh, the town attorney, to strengthen the agreement would allow the town board to comfortably approve it down the road.
Krogh expressed concerns over several portions of the agreement, most notably that the town has yet to adopt a local wind law. Councilman Herb Masser said the town planning board is very close to submitting a proposal for the local law. All that's needed before passing it to the town are a few changes in the language, he said.
Rancich submitted the agreements in order to obtain the town's word that it won't block the project and so he may go ahead and sign a contract to purchase wind turbines. Steve Bauman, Rancich's associate, said the purchase could be as much as $10 million, which makes it prudent to seek an agreement with the town.
Krogh said in an e-mail to Podufalski that payments made to the town from the wind farm could be construed as a bribe as it's worded in the agreement. Podufalski and Masser said that was not the intent of the developer but rather a flaw in the language.
Originally Rancich requested the town be the lead agency in the state environmental quality review. However, Podufalski said the town cannot afford to take on such a project and the state Department of Environmental Conservation would likely want to be lead agency.
It would take the DEC at least nine months to conduct the review, Podufalski said.
The town board also held two public hearings on a proposal to build additional municipal buildings, which town officials estimate could cost between $1 million and $2 million.
Podufalski said if the town moves forward with the buildings, he would prefer not to raise funds through taxes but instead use a capital reserve of $500,000 as a down payment and bond the project for as many as 30 years.
The town has spent roughly $30,000 to date on site plan review for the project. The buildings are proposed in two locations — a public safety building and town court where the current highway department and town hall sit, and the additional buildings are proposed at the intersection of Trumbulls Corners and Route 327.
The board also discussed alternatives to the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals if it cannot give the town the lowest offer.
GE unit invests in wind farms
General Electric Co. said it will invest a total of $100 million in three wind farms under construction in New York, including one in the Wyoming County town of Wethersfield. GE, the largest supplier of wind turbines in the United States, is expanding investments to take advantage of federal tax credits and minimum state requirements for renewable energy. Wind is the fastest growing source of renewable energy worldwide because it's cheaper than solar or geothermal plants.
GE will buy the New York wind farm stakes from developer Noble Environmental Power. Noble will complete construction of the facilities, operate them and continue to own an undisclosed stake.
The facilities include a 126-megawatt wind farm in Wethersfield, a 106.5-megawatt farm in Chateaugay, Franklin County, and a 97.5-megawatt site in Altona, Clinton County.
GE will buy the New York wind farm stakes from developer Noble Environmental Power. Noble will complete construction of the facilities, operate them and continue to own an undisclosed stake.
The facilities include a 126-megawatt wind farm in Wethersfield, a 106.5-megawatt farm in Chateaugay, Franklin County, and a 97.5-megawatt site in Altona, Clinton County.
Scipio town board discusses wind farm plan
SCIPIO -- What's in the wind for Scipio? The town board discussed a number of issues affecting future plans for the town.
Keith Batman, town supervisor, put a positive spin on his update of the wind farm/broadband plans. The board also weighed in on property issues related to its comprehensive plan, increases in highway expenditures due to rising fuel costs and their effects on budgets and taxes, and a review of its policies regarding the Southern Ambulence Service.
The Shell WindEnergy group met with a group of Scipio landowners on Monday at the Auburn Masonic Temple to discuss issues on which they disagreed, according to Batman.
"In the initial lease that Shell showed the landowners, all legal rights went to Shell. It was a big problem," he said. "Shell has economic concerns and proprietary technology that it's not willing to give away."
Batman said that they now seem more willing to discuss the landowners' concerns.
He said that there was sufficient information for the town to move ahead and consider forming an advisory group.
Landowners' concerns included placement of towers and placement of access roads, and they wanted to know who was going to decide. Batman said it's difficult to determine placement because of all the scientific testing that has to be done. Besides the wind, soil and subsoil samples have to be analyzed.
As for setback issues, a third concern, the town does decide how far back the towers can be set.
"The landowners were asking for some say in where they (the towers) would go," Batman said. While Shell Wind did not inform the town which landowners were invited to the meeting, Batman said it was easy enough to look at a tax map at the land between Wykoff Road and Route 34 to the town line to find out.
The meterological experimental tower (MET) was placed on the farm of Jay Horst on Skillet Road.
Even if there is a compromise on definitive issues, a process has to be followed where the landowners sign on, followed by a SEQRA process, which wouldn't be complete for another two or three years.
"They would like to be in by 2010 or 2011," Batman said.
Keith Batman, town supervisor, put a positive spin on his update of the wind farm/broadband plans. The board also weighed in on property issues related to its comprehensive plan, increases in highway expenditures due to rising fuel costs and their effects on budgets and taxes, and a review of its policies regarding the Southern Ambulence Service.
The Shell WindEnergy group met with a group of Scipio landowners on Monday at the Auburn Masonic Temple to discuss issues on which they disagreed, according to Batman.
"In the initial lease that Shell showed the landowners, all legal rights went to Shell. It was a big problem," he said. "Shell has economic concerns and proprietary technology that it's not willing to give away."
Batman said that they now seem more willing to discuss the landowners' concerns.
He said that there was sufficient information for the town to move ahead and consider forming an advisory group.
Landowners' concerns included placement of towers and placement of access roads, and they wanted to know who was going to decide. Batman said it's difficult to determine placement because of all the scientific testing that has to be done. Besides the wind, soil and subsoil samples have to be analyzed.
As for setback issues, a third concern, the town does decide how far back the towers can be set.
"The landowners were asking for some say in where they (the towers) would go," Batman said. While Shell Wind did not inform the town which landowners were invited to the meeting, Batman said it was easy enough to look at a tax map at the land between Wykoff Road and Route 34 to the town line to find out.
The meterological experimental tower (MET) was placed on the farm of Jay Horst on Skillet Road.
Even if there is a compromise on definitive issues, a process has to be followed where the landowners sign on, followed by a SEQRA process, which wouldn't be complete for another two or three years.
"They would like to be in by 2010 or 2011," Batman said.
Board breaks off with Empire State Wind Energy
SOMERSET — If Empire State Wind Energy wants to put wind farms in town, it first has to go through the planning board.
The town board made that split decision Tuesday, to the chagrin of board member Dan Engert, who made a motion to submit a counterproposal to ESWE. The vote was 3-2, with board members Randall Wayner, April Gow and Dudley Chaffee voting it down.
“At the apparent final turn, certain members of this board have stumbled and flip-flopped their position on this wind energy project in Somerset,” Engert said. “It’s been very difficult to stay the course and to attempt to see this project through for the benefit of the residents. I sincerely hope that at some point, this board can come together to support a wind project in our town.”
According to Engert, Wayner has consistently opposed the ESWE wind project and voted against any further discussions.
Wayner objected. “I have not been against ESWE. After receiving their rejection letter on May 12, I felt it was time to move on and open this up to other developers. I’m not anti-ESWE. They rejected our community host agreement, it’s time to move.”
On June 10, after debate, the Somerset Board voted 4-1 to send a letter to ESWE stating that the town was prepared to offer a counterproposal. It asked the wind energy company if it would consider the Somerset Host Community Agreement with an adjustment in the revenue-sharing formula.
Empire State CEO Keith Pitman had said that he wanted more specifics concerning money the town and his company would receive. On Tuesday, Engert made a motion, seconded by Supervisor Richard Meyers, to take a lower percentage of net revenue in order to entice ESWE back to the table.
Wayner objected to providing ESWE with actual numbers. The original percentage offered by ESWE to the town was 80 percent. The new Somerset proposal would have lowered the risk and the percentage of profit to the town. It was a graduated, eventually getting to 75 percent.
“I thought it was a mistake to offer that to ESWE in the first place June 10.” Wayner said Wednesday. “Last night, we corrected that mistake. I was very disappointed that, after all this time and energy and money spent by us, that ESWE declined to see the value of developing a wind farm in Somerset.
“It’s not a happy day. It would have been great to have it worked out. We spent a lot of effort on this,” he said.
It is not wise to go back to ESWE and offer a lower percentage, according to Wayner. A resident advised him, “When you put yourself in that position, beggars can’t be choosers. You become beggars instead of negotiators.”
Engert reported ESWE was eager to receive a counterproposal. “Why on Earth would the board not follow through and send a proposal when they resolved just one month prior to send a letter indicating as much?” he wrote rhetorically. “It’s clearly not a very positive development for the residents of Somerset who entrust these board members to negotiate in their best interest.”
Wayner said the board has supported wind energy since 2005. “We have the only commercial wind energy law in Niagara County,” he said. “We welcome wind energy, we have the laws ready to go.”
Wayner wants ESWE to enter an application to the town planning board. “Follow the process and we will welcome them with open arms. There is another developer who has expressed sincere interest in doing this. That’s AES.”
AES has not made a proposal, but expressed a desire to do so, according to Wayner. “Somerset will be there for any developer. We’re not going anywhere.”
A developer’s first step is to approach the landowners to see if it can secure land. Wayner said he does not know who has been approached.
“We will be taking no more steps regarding a Host Community Agreement with Empire State Wind Energy. This brings closure to that avenue,” Wayner said. “If they would like to develop wind farm in Somerset, they are more than welcome to submit an application to our planning board.”
The town board made that split decision Tuesday, to the chagrin of board member Dan Engert, who made a motion to submit a counterproposal to ESWE. The vote was 3-2, with board members Randall Wayner, April Gow and Dudley Chaffee voting it down.
“At the apparent final turn, certain members of this board have stumbled and flip-flopped their position on this wind energy project in Somerset,” Engert said. “It’s been very difficult to stay the course and to attempt to see this project through for the benefit of the residents. I sincerely hope that at some point, this board can come together to support a wind project in our town.”
According to Engert, Wayner has consistently opposed the ESWE wind project and voted against any further discussions.
Wayner objected. “I have not been against ESWE. After receiving their rejection letter on May 12, I felt it was time to move on and open this up to other developers. I’m not anti-ESWE. They rejected our community host agreement, it’s time to move.”
On June 10, after debate, the Somerset Board voted 4-1 to send a letter to ESWE stating that the town was prepared to offer a counterproposal. It asked the wind energy company if it would consider the Somerset Host Community Agreement with an adjustment in the revenue-sharing formula.
Empire State CEO Keith Pitman had said that he wanted more specifics concerning money the town and his company would receive. On Tuesday, Engert made a motion, seconded by Supervisor Richard Meyers, to take a lower percentage of net revenue in order to entice ESWE back to the table.
Wayner objected to providing ESWE with actual numbers. The original percentage offered by ESWE to the town was 80 percent. The new Somerset proposal would have lowered the risk and the percentage of profit to the town. It was a graduated, eventually getting to 75 percent.
“I thought it was a mistake to offer that to ESWE in the first place June 10.” Wayner said Wednesday. “Last night, we corrected that mistake. I was very disappointed that, after all this time and energy and money spent by us, that ESWE declined to see the value of developing a wind farm in Somerset.
“It’s not a happy day. It would have been great to have it worked out. We spent a lot of effort on this,” he said.
It is not wise to go back to ESWE and offer a lower percentage, according to Wayner. A resident advised him, “When you put yourself in that position, beggars can’t be choosers. You become beggars instead of negotiators.”
Engert reported ESWE was eager to receive a counterproposal. “Why on Earth would the board not follow through and send a proposal when they resolved just one month prior to send a letter indicating as much?” he wrote rhetorically. “It’s clearly not a very positive development for the residents of Somerset who entrust these board members to negotiate in their best interest.”
Wayner said the board has supported wind energy since 2005. “We have the only commercial wind energy law in Niagara County,” he said. “We welcome wind energy, we have the laws ready to go.”
Wayner wants ESWE to enter an application to the town planning board. “Follow the process and we will welcome them with open arms. There is another developer who has expressed sincere interest in doing this. That’s AES.”
AES has not made a proposal, but expressed a desire to do so, according to Wayner. “Somerset will be there for any developer. We’re not going anywhere.”
A developer’s first step is to approach the landowners to see if it can secure land. Wayner said he does not know who has been approached.
“We will be taking no more steps regarding a Host Community Agreement with Empire State Wind Energy. This brings closure to that avenue,” Wayner said. “If they would like to develop wind farm in Somerset, they are more than welcome to submit an application to our planning board.”
Wednesday, July 09, 2008
GE reaches $4 billion mark for wind energy investments
General Electric, the world's biggest maker of power generation equipment, said that it would invest a total of $100 million in three wind farms under construction in northern and western New York.
The Fairfield, Connecticut-based GE will buy the New York wind park stakes from the developer Noble Environmental Power, a majority-owned unit of JPMorgan Chase. Noble will continue to own an undisclosed share, complete construction and operate the facilities.
They include a 126-megawatt wind farm in Wethersfield, a 106.5-megawatt farm in Chateaugay and a 97.5-megawatt site in Altona. Combined, the turbines can generate power for about 110,000 homes, the company said.
GE's power-plant unit is supplying each of the wind parks with 1.5 megawatt turbines.
(Click to read entire article)
The Fairfield, Connecticut-based GE will buy the New York wind park stakes from the developer Noble Environmental Power, a majority-owned unit of JPMorgan Chase. Noble will continue to own an undisclosed share, complete construction and operate the facilities.
They include a 126-megawatt wind farm in Wethersfield, a 106.5-megawatt farm in Chateaugay and a 97.5-megawatt site in Altona. Combined, the turbines can generate power for about 110,000 homes, the company said.
GE's power-plant unit is supplying each of the wind parks with 1.5 megawatt turbines.
(Click to read entire article)
Wethersfield turbines going up
Wethersfield is actually a continuation of the Eagle project, which is consuming the two adjoining towns almost in their entirety. It’s unbelievable that this could happen in such a populated area of NY (compared to the Tug Hill region, for instance). The total for this project will be around 160 turbines, but it’s not ending there. Plans are in the works to expand further into Orangeville, Sheldon, Centerville, and Farmersville - the towns that border to the north and south - forming a 50 mile crescent-shaped swath spanning three (once) beautiful rural counties. Additionally, many, many unrelated wind projects are underway in western and central NY. The NY-ISO queue lists almost 70 of them.
Tuesday, July 08, 2008
City tax rate adjusted up
The tax rate for Lackawanna taxpayers did not go down quite as much as city officials thought.
The City Council Monday was asked by Assessor Frank E. Krakowski to approve a correction of the adjusted base proportions of the 2008-2009 assessment rolls because of a computer error that did not assign an assessed value to one of the eight new wind turbines off Route 5.
“The dollar amount never got calculated into the computer,” Krakowski told lawmakers. “In March, we did the final roll and when things were [calculated] into the budget, that amount, somehow, was lost.”
The Steel Winds wind farm is under a Payment in Lieu of Taxes or PILOT agreement, which means the turbines are currently tax exempt, but they still must be assigned an assessed value in the final assessment roll totals, Krakowski explained.
As a result, the final assessment rolls, as approved by the City Council in March, were incorrect, requiring the Council to approve an adjustment to the tax rate to preserve the 10 percent shift between the city’s homestead and non-homestead base proportions it approved in March. Krakowski said the computer miscalculation had the effect of inflating the city’s taxable value by more than $1 million.
So while the city’s 2008-2009 tax levy will remain unchanged, the homestead tax rate paid by homeowners in Lackawanna was boosted 17 cents per $1,000 of assessed valuation from $11.12 per $1,000 to $11.29. That’s still 29 cents less than the 2007-2008 tax rate of $11.58 per $1,000 of assessed valuation.
The non-homestead rate paid by business owners in the city was bumped up from $32.35 per $1,000 to $32.95 per $1,000. The adjusted figure is 53 cents per $1,000 less than last year’s homestead tax rate of $33.48 per $1,000.
The adjustment approved by the City Council affect both the city and the school district portions of the 2008-2009 assessment roll.
First Ward Councilwoman Andrea Haxton balked at the late notice the council received regarding the incorrect assessment roll totals and suggested that lawmakers be given time to review it and hold a special meeting later in the week.
Krakowski said that would affect the timing of the tax bills, causing them to be mailed out a month later than originally scheduled.
Haxton also complained the Steel Winds wind farm project was supposed to lowertaxes for ratepayers in the city.
“With the windmills here, it’s ridiculous that taxes have to change,” Haxton said.
The City Council Monday was asked by Assessor Frank E. Krakowski to approve a correction of the adjusted base proportions of the 2008-2009 assessment rolls because of a computer error that did not assign an assessed value to one of the eight new wind turbines off Route 5.
“The dollar amount never got calculated into the computer,” Krakowski told lawmakers. “In March, we did the final roll and when things were [calculated] into the budget, that amount, somehow, was lost.”
The Steel Winds wind farm is under a Payment in Lieu of Taxes or PILOT agreement, which means the turbines are currently tax exempt, but they still must be assigned an assessed value in the final assessment roll totals, Krakowski explained.
As a result, the final assessment rolls, as approved by the City Council in March, were incorrect, requiring the Council to approve an adjustment to the tax rate to preserve the 10 percent shift between the city’s homestead and non-homestead base proportions it approved in March. Krakowski said the computer miscalculation had the effect of inflating the city’s taxable value by more than $1 million.
So while the city’s 2008-2009 tax levy will remain unchanged, the homestead tax rate paid by homeowners in Lackawanna was boosted 17 cents per $1,000 of assessed valuation from $11.12 per $1,000 to $11.29. That’s still 29 cents less than the 2007-2008 tax rate of $11.58 per $1,000 of assessed valuation.
The non-homestead rate paid by business owners in the city was bumped up from $32.35 per $1,000 to $32.95 per $1,000. The adjusted figure is 53 cents per $1,000 less than last year’s homestead tax rate of $33.48 per $1,000.
The adjustment approved by the City Council affect both the city and the school district portions of the 2008-2009 assessment roll.
First Ward Councilwoman Andrea Haxton balked at the late notice the council received regarding the incorrect assessment roll totals and suggested that lawmakers be given time to review it and hold a special meeting later in the week.
Krakowski said that would affect the timing of the tax bills, causing them to be mailed out a month later than originally scheduled.
Haxton also complained the Steel Winds wind farm project was supposed to lowertaxes for ratepayers in the city.
“With the windmills here, it’s ridiculous that taxes have to change,” Haxton said.
Wind power not answer
The exorbitant oil prices have still another unfortunate consequence: They are tricking some people into believing that we need to change to wind power.
Of course this is nonsense, but a lot of what we hear and see on energy matters is just that: non-science. (Among other reasons, it makes no sense given that only about 1.5 percent of U.S. oil imports are used for electricity generation, considerably less oil than the U.S. exports).
There are several reasons why oil prices have gone way up: decreased supply, increased demand, a devalued U.S. dollar, etc.
Recently on the Spiegel Online Web site was one of the best articles I've seen that explains how speculators (“noncommercial traders”) are likely the prime reason oil prices have escalated so much: “How Speculators Are Causing the Cost of Living to Skyrocket.”
The bottom line continues to be that environmentally, economically and scientifically sound solutions will get us out of this mess. In the meantime we can be certain that we will be aggressively solicited by Peter Pan Profiteers (e.g. wind power mercenaries) to line their pockets. They are banking on the technological ignorance of the public.
If we keep our wits about us, and employ critical thinking and scientific methodology, we will be able to resist their Siren's call. Feel free to e-mail me for scientific information about wind power at aaprjohn@northnet.org.
John Droz Jr.
Brantingham Lake, N.Y.
Of course this is nonsense, but a lot of what we hear and see on energy matters is just that: non-science. (Among other reasons, it makes no sense given that only about 1.5 percent of U.S. oil imports are used for electricity generation, considerably less oil than the U.S. exports).
There are several reasons why oil prices have gone way up: decreased supply, increased demand, a devalued U.S. dollar, etc.
Recently on the Spiegel Online Web site was one of the best articles I've seen that explains how speculators (“noncommercial traders”) are likely the prime reason oil prices have escalated so much: “How Speculators Are Causing the Cost of Living to Skyrocket.”
The bottom line continues to be that environmentally, economically and scientifically sound solutions will get us out of this mess. In the meantime we can be certain that we will be aggressively solicited by Peter Pan Profiteers (e.g. wind power mercenaries) to line their pockets. They are banking on the technological ignorance of the public.
If we keep our wits about us, and employ critical thinking and scientific methodology, we will be able to resist their Siren's call. Feel free to e-mail me for scientific information about wind power at aaprjohn@northnet.org.
John Droz Jr.
Brantingham Lake, N.Y.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)