Dear Chairman Brown,
Someone must take a stand to stop the flood of dollars being ripped from the pockets of NYS taxpaying citizens to benefit special interests, highly profitable corporations and, increasingly, foreign owned businesses such as Iberdrola. Other than the “promise” to invest heavily in wind development (which, as you know, is of no benefit at all to NYS citizens, will come out of our own pockets in the long run and is redundant based on current proposed projects) how could it possibly be in our best interest to send more American dollars out of the country?
Iberdrola’s interest in the U.S. is clearly to build industrial wind turbines and profit from the overly generous subsidies, tax credits and renewable energy credits allowed for the wind industry. Otherwise why would they disagree so strongly with a restriction against owning wind generating facilities to complete this deal, when they would be free to build outside the Energy East area?
No amount of RPS legislation, media spin or sound bytes by politicians and business leaders will change the fact that wind turbines are a poor source of electricity and not deserving of massive public financial support, especially not at a time when more and more people are struggling just to pay for the necessities.
Added to that is the incredible potential for abuse in the REC and cap and trade markets, abuse that is already occurring as RECs are sold for electricity that hasn’t even been produced yet and likely never will be. Iberdrola affiliates in Pennsylvania and New Jersey are receiving RPS funds from NYSERDA, paid for by NYS. RECs are being sold in different states for the same unit of production. The public cannot afford to pay for these unethical practices, for which there is currently no regulatory oversight in NYS. Ownership of electricity distribution by Iberdrola will only open the door to further exploitation of these markets to the public’s detriment.
It doesn’t make any sense to talk about reducing dependence on foreign oil and then inviting foreign corporations to own and control our electricity supply. What authority will NYS have over Iberdrola if this deal goes through? What true benefit is there for ratepayers?
The early news reports of the PSC’s position opposing the Iberdrola deal gave hope to educated New Yorkers that at least one government agency would uphold the voice of reason and foresight for the public good in spite of pressure from politicians and special interests looking for a nonexistent magic solution to our energy issues. Your first instincts were correct. Please don’t back down now – we need you to represent the interests of the majority of New Yorkers, and oppose handing over this important part of our economy to Iberdrola.
Sincerely,
Joan Simmons
Canandaigua, NY
Monday, August 25, 2008
NYS PSC - Please reject Iberdrola's takeover of Energy East by Jim Sawicki
Monday, August 25, 2008
What a travesty that our country, and particularly NYS, has *devolved* to an all-time low where private citizens must spend considerable time and resources policing elected and appointed officials put in place to look out for the public’s best interests. Instead of a government of, by and for the people, our representatives and their decisions are heavily biased inappropriately towards deep-pocketed special interest groups, their lobbyists and multi-level corporate entities, like Iberdrola. This must stop!
Please do your part to restore government the way it should be. Please reject the Iberdrola deal as Judge Epstein has recommended. You already know why this is the right thing to do!
Please do not succumb to all the pressure from lobbyists and multi-entity corporate shell games so they greatly profit at significant taxpayer and ratepayer expense.
NYS citizens, especially taxpayers and ratepayers, that are already burdened with high taxes and electric bills do not deserve to pay more while Industrial Wind Companies like Iberdrola (including their maze of multi-level entities) and their owners avoid taxation, add significant costs to rates and impair the environment in the process.
Boone Pickens and many others say we must stop paying over $700 billion, annually, to foreign countries for our oil dependence. Why then, should we send EVEN MORE billions of dollars in profits overseas to foreign entities for electricity at public expense? This is madness and must stop!!
Iberdrola has threatened to walk away from the Energy East deal if they do not get their way. You will be doing your job, correctly, and in the best interest of NYS citizens by handing Iberdrola their “walking”
papers, this Wednesday.
Sincerely,
Jim Sawicki
Canandaigua, NY
What a travesty that our country, and particularly NYS, has *devolved* to an all-time low where private citizens must spend considerable time and resources policing elected and appointed officials put in place to look out for the public’s best interests. Instead of a government of, by and for the people, our representatives and their decisions are heavily biased inappropriately towards deep-pocketed special interest groups, their lobbyists and multi-level corporate entities, like Iberdrola. This must stop!
Please do your part to restore government the way it should be. Please reject the Iberdrola deal as Judge Epstein has recommended. You already know why this is the right thing to do!
Please do not succumb to all the pressure from lobbyists and multi-entity corporate shell games so they greatly profit at significant taxpayer and ratepayer expense.
NYS citizens, especially taxpayers and ratepayers, that are already burdened with high taxes and electric bills do not deserve to pay more while Industrial Wind Companies like Iberdrola (including their maze of multi-level entities) and their owners avoid taxation, add significant costs to rates and impair the environment in the process.
Boone Pickens and many others say we must stop paying over $700 billion, annually, to foreign countries for our oil dependence. Why then, should we send EVEN MORE billions of dollars in profits overseas to foreign entities for electricity at public expense? This is madness and must stop!!
Iberdrola has threatened to walk away from the Energy East deal if they do not get their way. You will be doing your job, correctly, and in the best interest of NYS citizens by handing Iberdrola their “walking”
papers, this Wednesday.
Sincerely,
Jim Sawicki
Canandaigua, NY
Court Ruling Comes Too Late For Wind Farm Developer
A court victory for wind farm advocates in the town of Lyme has apparently come too late to save a proposed wind farm project.
British Petroleum Alternative Energy, which had hoped to build turbines in the town, halted plans after council members passed a zoning law that BP found to be too restrictive.
The advocacy group Voters for Wind sued the town and won.
While the case was being decided in state supreme court, BP went ahead with its plans to build 95 turbines in the town of Cape Vincent.
“We do need to move forward and so we are moving forward with our plans in the town of Cape Vincent. I think it would be tough for them (Lyme officials) to come up with something that we could work with within the time line of our current project. But, for some future project, it’s certainly possible,” said Jim Madden of BP.
If BP or another wind farm developer approaches the town in the future, officials will need to address the zoning issues.
The zoning law originally passed with a three to two vote.
According to the judge’s ruling, if town officials want to pass the zoning law again, they will legally need one more vote for a majority of four to one.
The town could also appeal the ruling or go back to the drawing board.
“I think we need to be fair. We need to do what’s best for everyone in the town, so I’m hoping that we can find a fair and happy medium,” said Town Supervisor Scott Aubertine.
The town board is expected to discuss the issue at its next meeting September 10.
British Petroleum Alternative Energy, which had hoped to build turbines in the town, halted plans after council members passed a zoning law that BP found to be too restrictive.
The advocacy group Voters for Wind sued the town and won.
While the case was being decided in state supreme court, BP went ahead with its plans to build 95 turbines in the town of Cape Vincent.
“We do need to move forward and so we are moving forward with our plans in the town of Cape Vincent. I think it would be tough for them (Lyme officials) to come up with something that we could work with within the time line of our current project. But, for some future project, it’s certainly possible,” said Jim Madden of BP.
If BP or another wind farm developer approaches the town in the future, officials will need to address the zoning issues.
The zoning law originally passed with a three to two vote.
According to the judge’s ruling, if town officials want to pass the zoning law again, they will legally need one more vote for a majority of four to one.
The town could also appeal the ruling or go back to the drawing board.
“I think we need to be fair. We need to do what’s best for everyone in the town, so I’m hoping that we can find a fair and happy medium,” said Town Supervisor Scott Aubertine.
The town board is expected to discuss the issue at its next meeting September 10.
WIND POWER POLLUTION by Jack Sullivan
They say let us clear the air together, do they mean let us befoul the North Country? The wind industry's development of a giant industrial complex aka a "wind farm" produces large amounts of greenhouse gases as well as significant mercury pollution.
Processing the steel for turbine bodies produces about 2 tons of carbon-based emissions for each ton of steel. Plus the emissions from mining and transport. Since most wind turbines are manufactured offshore ocean transport involves large distances and consequently large amounts of emissions.
Once a turbine arrives at a port of entry like Albany it must be transported to the project site. Each turbine requires 6 or 7 trips by truck to be moved. According to EPA, measurements 4 lbs. of carbon-based emissions are produced per mile .Trucks hauling sand and gravel long distance emit upwards of 250 lbs. of carbon dioxide per trip (that's the main culprit in global warming.) and with hundreds of trips /day tons of emissions are produced daily. Concurrently, each loader, bulldozer, and excavator is emitting about 100 lbs. of CO2 per hour. Add to this 1000's of private cars and trucks driven in some cases long distances by those involved in a wind project. Many projects involve destroying large numbers of trees, each a carbon sink that truly helps clear the air.
Here in the North Country mercury pollution associated with wind projects may be more of an immediate concern than carbon emissions. The source of mercury is in the processing of cement. Cement is made from limestone, all of which contains some mercury. The median amount of mercury released into the air is 1.5 lbs. per ton of cement. The average turbine base contains 325 cu. yd. of concrete made with approx. 90 tons of cement. This mercury is released directly into the air at the cement plants.
Recent media hype has focused on the dangers of mercury in compact fluorescent lamps ( CFL's ). However, more mercury is released directly into the air from the cement used in a single wind turbine base than is encapsulated in over a MILLION CFL's.
A recent calculation by scientists from the Pacific Research Institute, a West Coast think tank that supplies input to some of the leading newspapers and magazines in the country shows wind turbines need to operate for 7 years at full capacity to avoid the carbon emissions produced in building them. In the low 1, 2 and 3 class winds of northern NY turbines run at best in the 25% capacity factor range. This means 28 years to break even, longer than most estimates of their useful life.
It appears that wind developers claim of completely pollution free production of electricity is at best an exaggeration at worst a bold-faced lie.
Jack Sullivan
Processing the steel for turbine bodies produces about 2 tons of carbon-based emissions for each ton of steel. Plus the emissions from mining and transport. Since most wind turbines are manufactured offshore ocean transport involves large distances and consequently large amounts of emissions.
Once a turbine arrives at a port of entry like Albany it must be transported to the project site. Each turbine requires 6 or 7 trips by truck to be moved. According to EPA, measurements 4 lbs. of carbon-based emissions are produced per mile .Trucks hauling sand and gravel long distance emit upwards of 250 lbs. of carbon dioxide per trip (that's the main culprit in global warming.) and with hundreds of trips /day tons of emissions are produced daily. Concurrently, each loader, bulldozer, and excavator is emitting about 100 lbs. of CO2 per hour. Add to this 1000's of private cars and trucks driven in some cases long distances by those involved in a wind project. Many projects involve destroying large numbers of trees, each a carbon sink that truly helps clear the air.
Here in the North Country mercury pollution associated with wind projects may be more of an immediate concern than carbon emissions. The source of mercury is in the processing of cement. Cement is made from limestone, all of which contains some mercury. The median amount of mercury released into the air is 1.5 lbs. per ton of cement. The average turbine base contains 325 cu. yd. of concrete made with approx. 90 tons of cement. This mercury is released directly into the air at the cement plants.
Recent media hype has focused on the dangers of mercury in compact fluorescent lamps ( CFL's ). However, more mercury is released directly into the air from the cement used in a single wind turbine base than is encapsulated in over a MILLION CFL's.
A recent calculation by scientists from the Pacific Research Institute, a West Coast think tank that supplies input to some of the leading newspapers and magazines in the country shows wind turbines need to operate for 7 years at full capacity to avoid the carbon emissions produced in building them. In the low 1, 2 and 3 class winds of northern NY turbines run at best in the 25% capacity factor range. This means 28 years to break even, longer than most estimates of their useful life.
It appears that wind developers claim of completely pollution free production of electricity is at best an exaggeration at worst a bold-faced lie.
Jack Sullivan
Wind turbines make bat lungs explode
"Beware: exploding lungs" is not a sign one would expect to see at a wind farm. But a new study suggests this is the main reason bats die in large numbers around wind turbines.
The risk that wind turbines pose to birds is well known and has dogged debates over wind energy. In fact, several studies have suggested the risk to bats is greater. In May 2007, the US National Research Council published the results of a survey of US wind farms showing that two bat species accounted for 60% of winged animals killed. Migrating birds, meanwhile, appear to steer clear of the turbines.
Why bats - who echolocate moving objects - are killed by turbines has remained a mystery until now. The research council thought the high-frequency noise from the turbines' gears and blades could be disrupting the bats' echolocation systems.
In fact, a new study shows that the moving blades cause a drop in pressure that makes the delicate lungs of bats suddenly expand, bursting the tissue's blood vessels. This is known as a barotrauma, and is well-known to scuba divers.
"While searching for bat carcasses under wind turbines, we noticed that many of the carcasses had no external injuries or no visible cause of death," says Erin Baerwald of the University of Calgary in Canada.
Internal injuries
Baerwald and colleagues collected 188 dead bats from wind farms across southern Alberta, and determined their cause of death. They found that 90% of the bats had signs of internal haemorrhaging, but only half showed any signs of direct contact with the windmill blades. Only 8% had signs of external injuries but no internal injuries.
The movement of wind-turbine blades creates a vortex of lower air pressure around the blade tips similar to the vortex at the tip of aeroplane wings. Others have suggested that this could be lethal to bats, but until now no-one had carried out necropsies to verify the theory.
Baerwald and her colleagues believe that birds do not suffer the same fate as bats - the majority of birds are killed by direct contact with the blades - because their lungs are more rigid than those of bats and therefore more resistant to sudden changes in pressure.
Bats eat nocturnal insects including agricultural pests, so if wind turbines affected their population levels, this could affect the rest of the local ecosystems. And the effects could even be international. "The species being killed are migrants," says Baerwald. "If bats are killed in Canada that could have consequences for ecosystems as far away as Mexico."
Windy day
One solution could be to increase the minimum wind speed needed to set the blades in motion. Most bats are more active in low wind.
The study was funded by a number of bat conservation groups together with energy companies with a financial interest in wind energy, such as Shell Canada and Alberta Wind Energy.
The risk that wind turbines pose to birds is well known and has dogged debates over wind energy. In fact, several studies have suggested the risk to bats is greater. In May 2007, the US National Research Council published the results of a survey of US wind farms showing that two bat species accounted for 60% of winged animals killed. Migrating birds, meanwhile, appear to steer clear of the turbines.
Why bats - who echolocate moving objects - are killed by turbines has remained a mystery until now. The research council thought the high-frequency noise from the turbines' gears and blades could be disrupting the bats' echolocation systems.
In fact, a new study shows that the moving blades cause a drop in pressure that makes the delicate lungs of bats suddenly expand, bursting the tissue's blood vessels. This is known as a barotrauma, and is well-known to scuba divers.
"While searching for bat carcasses under wind turbines, we noticed that many of the carcasses had no external injuries or no visible cause of death," says Erin Baerwald of the University of Calgary in Canada.
Internal injuries
Baerwald and colleagues collected 188 dead bats from wind farms across southern Alberta, and determined their cause of death. They found that 90% of the bats had signs of internal haemorrhaging, but only half showed any signs of direct contact with the windmill blades. Only 8% had signs of external injuries but no internal injuries.
The movement of wind-turbine blades creates a vortex of lower air pressure around the blade tips similar to the vortex at the tip of aeroplane wings. Others have suggested that this could be lethal to bats, but until now no-one had carried out necropsies to verify the theory.
Baerwald and her colleagues believe that birds do not suffer the same fate as bats - the majority of birds are killed by direct contact with the blades - because their lungs are more rigid than those of bats and therefore more resistant to sudden changes in pressure.
Bats eat nocturnal insects including agricultural pests, so if wind turbines affected their population levels, this could affect the rest of the local ecosystems. And the effects could even be international. "The species being killed are migrants," says Baerwald. "If bats are killed in Canada that could have consequences for ecosystems as far away as Mexico."
Windy day
One solution could be to increase the minimum wind speed needed to set the blades in motion. Most bats are more active in low wind.
The study was funded by a number of bat conservation groups together with energy companies with a financial interest in wind energy, such as Shell Canada and Alberta Wind Energy.
PSC Iberdrola Energy East Letter by Gary Abraham ESQ
Dear Chairman Brown:
Please accept the following comments on the above-referenced matter. I am a public interest environmental attorney currently representing two community groups raising concerns about local utility-scale wind power plant proposals, and I have become aware of well over a dozen similar situations around the state. This gives me a unique perspective from which to comment on some likely results of the proposed merger. I support Judge Rafael Epstein’s and PSC Staff’s recommendations that approval of the merger should not be granted without a divestiture of wind power by Iberdrola.
Prominent public officials have urged you to consider the benefits of wind energy development that purportedly would flow from the merger if approved, but this consideration is irrelevant to PSC’s decision. However, to the extent these voices are endeavoring to cultivate your sympathy for approval, the asserted benefits are largely a fiction. As the following comments show, wind energy can make no more than an insignificant contribution to New York’s electricity needs and promoting unplanned further development will result in specific harms to New Yorkers.
(Read entire letter from PDF file)
Ltr.%20to%20PSC%20Chairman%206-23-08.pdf
Please accept the following comments on the above-referenced matter. I am a public interest environmental attorney currently representing two community groups raising concerns about local utility-scale wind power plant proposals, and I have become aware of well over a dozen similar situations around the state. This gives me a unique perspective from which to comment on some likely results of the proposed merger. I support Judge Rafael Epstein’s and PSC Staff’s recommendations that approval of the merger should not be granted without a divestiture of wind power by Iberdrola.
Prominent public officials have urged you to consider the benefits of wind energy development that purportedly would flow from the merger if approved, but this consideration is irrelevant to PSC’s decision. However, to the extent these voices are endeavoring to cultivate your sympathy for approval, the asserted benefits are largely a fiction. As the following comments show, wind energy can make no more than an insignificant contribution to New York’s electricity needs and promoting unplanned further development will result in specific harms to New Yorkers.
(Read entire letter from PDF file)
Ltr.%20to%20PSC%20Chairman%206-23-08.pdf
Wind Energy Expected Soon In Area
Chautauqua and Cattaraugus counties and other area regional leaders are gearing up for wind energy to sweep into their boundaries.
''Probably by spring of next year, they'll start construction,'' said Bill Daly of the Chautauqua County Industrial Development Agency during a wind energy meeting hosted by Cattaraugus County Thursday.
Daly said included in possible plans for wind farms in Chautauqua County are those anticipated for Arkwright, Hanover, Ripley and Westfield. West Valley in Cattaraugus County has also drawn interest.
Despite the specific towns mentioned, Daly said there are ''tens of thousands of acres in Chautauqua County'' that could accommodate wind farms. He said between 200 and 300 turbines could come. Currently, however, he said there are three wind developers looking at areas.
In Cattaraugus County, there has recently been some discussion of wind energy in the Town of Little Valley.
Southern Tier West Regional Planning and Development Board also met Thursday. During that session, Daly said Chautauqua County officials are working on a broadband project to bring broadband capabilities to the area.
Another project discussed was a contract between STW and Chautauqua County for the Jamestown Board of Public Utilities energy efficiency program. Daly said the BPU would charge a percentage of a cent per kilowatt to earn $500,000 a year for energy efficiency programs. He said an energy conference will be held in Chautauqua County Nov. 14 and 15 to discuss energy programs such as landfill-to-energy programs.
''We're going to be the first county in New York state (to use methane gas from landfills for energy),'' he said.
In other news, area municipalities that have received shared municipal services incentive grants include:
Silver Creek, getting $96,000 for the village and school to share snow-clearing services.
Chautauqua County, to get $173,880 for road maintenance review.
the Town of New Albion, to get $242,132 for a sand salt storage for the town and Village of Cattaraugus.
the Town of Sherman, to get $288,206 for a town/village highway building.
''Probably by spring of next year, they'll start construction,'' said Bill Daly of the Chautauqua County Industrial Development Agency during a wind energy meeting hosted by Cattaraugus County Thursday.
Daly said included in possible plans for wind farms in Chautauqua County are those anticipated for Arkwright, Hanover, Ripley and Westfield. West Valley in Cattaraugus County has also drawn interest.
Despite the specific towns mentioned, Daly said there are ''tens of thousands of acres in Chautauqua County'' that could accommodate wind farms. He said between 200 and 300 turbines could come. Currently, however, he said there are three wind developers looking at areas.
In Cattaraugus County, there has recently been some discussion of wind energy in the Town of Little Valley.
Southern Tier West Regional Planning and Development Board also met Thursday. During that session, Daly said Chautauqua County officials are working on a broadband project to bring broadband capabilities to the area.
Another project discussed was a contract between STW and Chautauqua County for the Jamestown Board of Public Utilities energy efficiency program. Daly said the BPU would charge a percentage of a cent per kilowatt to earn $500,000 a year for energy efficiency programs. He said an energy conference will be held in Chautauqua County Nov. 14 and 15 to discuss energy programs such as landfill-to-energy programs.
''We're going to be the first county in New York state (to use methane gas from landfills for energy),'' he said.
In other news, area municipalities that have received shared municipal services incentive grants include:
Silver Creek, getting $96,000 for the village and school to share snow-clearing services.
Chautauqua County, to get $173,880 for road maintenance review.
the Town of New Albion, to get $242,132 for a sand salt storage for the town and Village of Cattaraugus.
the Town of Sherman, to get $288,206 for a town/village highway building.
Judge slams Lyme on turbine law
CHAUMONT — A state Supreme Court judge has ruled the Lyme Town Council acted "arbitrarily and capriciously" when it rejected 10 property owners' petition protesting the adoption of a local law regulating the siting of wind turbines.
Judge Hugh A. Gilbert also declared Thursday the town law adopted May 6, which, among other things, required a minimum setback of 4,500 feet from the high-water marks of Lake Ontario and the Chaumont River, is invalid.
The 10 property owners brought an Article 78 proceeding against the board in early July, claiming the amendment to town zoning law includes setback requirements for turbines that are "excessive" and effectively bans the development of wind-generating facilities within the town.
The owners had submitted a protest petition to the board April 17 expressing their concerns, but the town rejected it after its assessor reviewed the petition and concluded the property owners did not represent 20 percent or more of the total acreage in the town required to support the petition.
While a local law dealing with zoning changes can be adopted by a majority vote of the board, once a protest petition is filed, a three-fourths majority vote is required to pass it.
The town board passed its law regarding turbine siting on a 3-2 vote.
The property owners argued the signatures on their protest petition represented 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 countered that after removing parcels for which not all owners signed the petition and removing other ineligible signers, the petitioners represented 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.
Judge Gilbert, citing state law governing towns and villages, disagreed with the town's contention that each owner's signature was required, ruling that "the signature of one joint tenant counts for the entire parcel."
"Therefore, each parcel for which at least one owner signed must be included in the threshold calculation," the judge wrote in his decision. "Since very few were excluded for other reasons, we conclude the Protest Petition contained the signatures of twenty percent or more of the total area."
The town also rejected the petition because each page of the document had not been notarized and the attached signatures not otherwise witnessed. Judge Gilbert ruled there is no statutory basis for the town's requirement that the signatures be witnessed and notarized.
The landowners bringing the Article 78 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.
Judge Hugh A. Gilbert also declared Thursday the town law adopted May 6, which, among other things, required a minimum setback of 4,500 feet from the high-water marks of Lake Ontario and the Chaumont River, is invalid.
The 10 property owners brought an Article 78 proceeding against the board in early July, claiming the amendment to town zoning law includes setback requirements for turbines that are "excessive" and effectively bans the development of wind-generating facilities within the town.
The owners had submitted a protest petition to the board April 17 expressing their concerns, but the town rejected it after its assessor reviewed the petition and concluded the property owners did not represent 20 percent or more of the total acreage in the town required to support the petition.
While a local law dealing with zoning changes can be adopted by a majority vote of the board, once a protest petition is filed, a three-fourths majority vote is required to pass it.
The town board passed its law regarding turbine siting on a 3-2 vote.
The property owners argued the signatures on their protest petition represented 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 countered that after removing parcels for which not all owners signed the petition and removing other ineligible signers, the petitioners represented 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.
Judge Gilbert, citing state law governing towns and villages, disagreed with the town's contention that each owner's signature was required, ruling that "the signature of one joint tenant counts for the entire parcel."
"Therefore, each parcel for which at least one owner signed must be included in the threshold calculation," the judge wrote in his decision. "Since very few were excluded for other reasons, we conclude the Protest Petition contained the signatures of twenty percent or more of the total area."
The town also rejected the petition because each page of the document had not been notarized and the attached signatures not otherwise witnessed. Judge Gilbert ruled there is no statutory basis for the town's requirement that the signatures be witnessed and notarized.
The landowners bringing the Article 78 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.
NVBHA Member August 25, 2008 Letter to the PSC Case # 07-M-0906 Iberdrola acquisition of Energy East
To Chairman Brown & Committee,
We oppose the Iberdrola purchase of Energy East. We have many questions Is it true that Iberdrola will virtually pay no New York State taxes? Aren't the REC (renewal energy certificates) credits from selling unmetered electric from wind projects designed to rip off the public?
The Public Service Commission is charged by NYS Law to oversee the sale or trade of renewable credit transactions. From what we understand, your staff has acknowledged and stipulated that electric generation from industrial wind is substantially higher in cost than current methods of production.
REC credits have been sold from the Steelwinds - First Wind/UPC Wind - project that create enormous tax offsets that are the real underlying benefit from industrial wind turbines. How is it possible to generate electricity, when the turbines were not working because of the problems with the Clipper turbines gearbox and blade?
The Attorney General's Office is currently investigating First Wind/UPC Wind and SCIDA for illegal practices. Knowing that Iberdrola is a large wind company, why would the PSC allow this purchase when alleged fraud involving wind energy has incurred? It is obvious that if Iberdrola takes over the management & ownership of energy East, we the people will have absolutely no say in our local areas where these turbines have been placed in Cohocton. Could it be possible that Iberdrola has been or could be funding First Wind/UPC Wind?
If this purchase is for the better of the people, please tell us how it will be better. Exactly who will benefit from the purchase of Energy East by Iberdrola? Will it be the farmers who are leasing their land? Perhaps it is the short term job creation to construct & install the turbines? More importantly when making your decision, how will our electric & gas bills be reduced? How will this purchase benefit we the people? Where will the Iberdrola money go from the purchase of Energy East? More wind turbines? The turbines are costly to the tune of almost $3M per turbine. How does that save us taxpayers money? Where does the government subsidy money come from? So many questions…
Speaking of money, isn't wind energy in our area nothing more than a money making scam? If wind energy is so great, and the answer to our energy problems, then why does the government have to subsidize it?
Why are the wind companies asking for and backing the tax credits? See these link
http://www.powerofwind.com/
http://newenergynews.blogspot.com/2008/07/gold-rush-for-wind-in-upstate-ny.html
Our politicians (local, state & federal) are pushing for wind energy but do they really know the facts about wind energy in this area? The Rochester Business Alliance, RG&E, our politicians (Patterson & Schumer) are asking for your approval… why? Could it be it's about the promised money from Iberdrola? Will your decision be based on selling out the people so Iberdrola money can be used to help offset business & political budgets? What about the budgets of the local families who will see nothing more that rate increases? What about the people who have lost their viewshed because of the wind turbines. What about the people who cannot sell their homes because of NIMBY (not in my backyard). Real Estate values around these turbines have suddenly decreased. If Iberdrola purchases Energy East, we will only see more turbines, more depreciation.
The number one reasons for saying NO to Iberdrola:
We do not want to send our money to Spain!
We do not want our gas & electric to be owned & managed by a foreign country!
Wouldn't this takeover be against our Homeland Security Policy?
Think about how easily our lights & energy could be turned off in a blink of an eye.
Please do the right thing for the people in the Energy East area – say NO once & for all to Iberdrola!
Thank you for your time to read this & please consider our questions/comments above when making your decision. We realize that your committee is busy and no matter what the final decision is, somebody, some group, some business, some politician will be unhappy. We do not expect a reply with answers to our questions. We stated the questions merely to get our thoughts to you & hope your committee will do the right thing. SAY NO!
We oppose the Iberdrola purchase of Energy East. We have many questions Is it true that Iberdrola will virtually pay no New York State taxes? Aren't the REC (renewal energy certificates) credits from selling unmetered electric from wind projects designed to rip off the public?
The Public Service Commission is charged by NYS Law to oversee the sale or trade of renewable credit transactions. From what we understand, your staff has acknowledged and stipulated that electric generation from industrial wind is substantially higher in cost than current methods of production.
REC credits have been sold from the Steelwinds - First Wind/UPC Wind - project that create enormous tax offsets that are the real underlying benefit from industrial wind turbines. How is it possible to generate electricity, when the turbines were not working because of the problems with the Clipper turbines gearbox and blade?
The Attorney General's Office is currently investigating First Wind/UPC Wind and SCIDA for illegal practices. Knowing that Iberdrola is a large wind company, why would the PSC allow this purchase when alleged fraud involving wind energy has incurred? It is obvious that if Iberdrola takes over the management & ownership of energy East, we the people will have absolutely no say in our local areas where these turbines have been placed in Cohocton. Could it be possible that Iberdrola has been or could be funding First Wind/UPC Wind?
If this purchase is for the better of the people, please tell us how it will be better. Exactly who will benefit from the purchase of Energy East by Iberdrola? Will it be the farmers who are leasing their land? Perhaps it is the short term job creation to construct & install the turbines? More importantly when making your decision, how will our electric & gas bills be reduced? How will this purchase benefit we the people? Where will the Iberdrola money go from the purchase of Energy East? More wind turbines? The turbines are costly to the tune of almost $3M per turbine. How does that save us taxpayers money? Where does the government subsidy money come from? So many questions…
Speaking of money, isn't wind energy in our area nothing more than a money making scam? If wind energy is so great, and the answer to our energy problems, then why does the government have to subsidize it?
Why are the wind companies asking for and backing the tax credits? See these link
http://www.powerofwind.com/
http://newenergynews.blogspot.com/2008/07/gold-rush-for-wind-in-upstate-ny.html
Our politicians (local, state & federal) are pushing for wind energy but do they really know the facts about wind energy in this area? The Rochester Business Alliance, RG&E, our politicians (Patterson & Schumer) are asking for your approval… why? Could it be it's about the promised money from Iberdrola? Will your decision be based on selling out the people so Iberdrola money can be used to help offset business & political budgets? What about the budgets of the local families who will see nothing more that rate increases? What about the people who have lost their viewshed because of the wind turbines. What about the people who cannot sell their homes because of NIMBY (not in my backyard). Real Estate values around these turbines have suddenly decreased. If Iberdrola purchases Energy East, we will only see more turbines, more depreciation.
The number one reasons for saying NO to Iberdrola:
We do not want to send our money to Spain!
We do not want our gas & electric to be owned & managed by a foreign country!
Wouldn't this takeover be against our Homeland Security Policy?
Think about how easily our lights & energy could be turned off in a blink of an eye.
Please do the right thing for the people in the Energy East area – say NO once & for all to Iberdrola!
Thank you for your time to read this & please consider our questions/comments above when making your decision. We realize that your committee is busy and no matter what the final decision is, somebody, some group, some business, some politician will be unhappy. We do not expect a reply with answers to our questions. We stated the questions merely to get our thoughts to you & hope your committee will do the right thing. SAY NO!
PSC Iberdrola - Energy East August 24, 2008 Letter by Andrea Rebeck, AIA
Case # 07-M-0906 Iberdrola acquisition of Energy East
Those of you Commissioners who have reservations about the Iberdrola takeover of Energy East have every reason to be concerned. From where I sit, in Barre Center, Orleans County, NY, I see the future they have planned for us, and it is disastrous. Iberdrola employees have been courting our local public officials and large landowners for many months here, and are intent on erecting wind turbines in our town the minute your PSC gives the OK to the Energy East deal. However, there is not enough wind in our town to drive a single utility scale wind turbine. I have researched this and satisfied myself that this is true – such turbines require a Wind Power Density of Class 4, with some newer turbines possibly functioning in Class 3 wind, but Barre has only Class 1 and 2 wind. No one at Iberdrola will dispute this, but neither will they explain why they still want to erect turbines here.
Glenn Schleede has analyzed the economics of wind development in New York, and from my understanding of his writing, it appears that Iberdrola’s “investment” of $2 billion will net them $1.75 billion in federal and state tax shelters and subsidies. Owning wind farms in New York will allow Iberdrola to shelter nearly all the income it will earn from Energy East. New York taxpayers will have to make up for this lost tax revenue, at a time when we are already staggering under an intolerable tax burden. There is absolutely no benefit to New York ratepayers from allowing Iberdrola to own wind farms and Energy East. The benefit is solely to Iberdrola.
There is also no benefit to the environment from Iberdrola’s proposed wind farms. Iberdrola’s CEO has admitted that the electricity the wind turbines generate is not reliable, nor will it ever provide more than a tiny fraction of the renewable power that New York is striving to achieve through its Renewables Portfolio Standard. It will damage the health and welfare of the people who have to live with these enormous industrial machines in their midst. In our part of the state, town officials are permitting 420 ft. tall turbines to be built as close as 300 ft. from one’s property line. These requirements are absurd, but the officials have been so heavily influenced by wind industry operatives that they have completely abandoned their obligation to safeguard the welfare of their constituents. Thank heavens the State Attorney General’s office has finally mounted a serious investigation into the corruption that is allowing such actions to occur.
As a ratepayer, I am extremely troubled to see how Iberdrola treats its customers. Last year the company bought Scottish Power, and despite the fact that this unit accounted for one quarter of Iberdrola’s phenomenal 78% growth in revenue, Iberdrola will be imposing rate increases on Scottish Power customers this year. Apparently, Iberdrola cares more about its shareholders than it does about its customers. That is where the PSC comes in, for you are all that stands between us and utility companies – private entities that function as monopolies – taking advantage of us to enrich themselves. In a couple years’ time, it will be very obvious whether you have lived up to your responsibilities, if we see our rates increase. You have the opportunity to prevent this, and you have the obligation to do so now.
I might be less concerned if my dollars were staying in the US, but to see my hard-earned money going to a Spanish corporation, and very likely to an Arab nation in the near future, truly makes me outraged. The government of Abu Dhabi will be supplying some of the capital that Iberdrola needs to fund its phenomenal growth in the next few years. Rather than making us energy-independent of the Middle East, allowing Iberdrola to take over major electricity distribution companies in the Northeast will make us even more vulnerable to the economic and political whims of foreign nations, including those not friendly to us.
This would be a huge mistake, and one from which we will not easily recover. Please do not allow this to happen. New Yorkers have often been a bit more sophisticated and independent-minded than our neighboring states, so it does not surprise me that our PSC is the only body standing firm against this ill-considered proposition. Please continue to stand firm for us, and expose this tax shelter scheme for what it is – a great deal for a foreign corporation, but terribly harmful to New York ratepayers.
Thank you.
Andrea Rebeck
Andrea Rebeck, AIA
Andrea Rebeck, Architect
4652 Oak Orchard Road
Albion , NY 14411-9509
585-590-1199
rebeckarchitect@yahoo.com
Those of you Commissioners who have reservations about the Iberdrola takeover of Energy East have every reason to be concerned. From where I sit, in Barre Center, Orleans County, NY, I see the future they have planned for us, and it is disastrous. Iberdrola employees have been courting our local public officials and large landowners for many months here, and are intent on erecting wind turbines in our town the minute your PSC gives the OK to the Energy East deal. However, there is not enough wind in our town to drive a single utility scale wind turbine. I have researched this and satisfied myself that this is true – such turbines require a Wind Power Density of Class 4, with some newer turbines possibly functioning in Class 3 wind, but Barre has only Class 1 and 2 wind. No one at Iberdrola will dispute this, but neither will they explain why they still want to erect turbines here.
Glenn Schleede has analyzed the economics of wind development in New York, and from my understanding of his writing, it appears that Iberdrola’s “investment” of $2 billion will net them $1.75 billion in federal and state tax shelters and subsidies. Owning wind farms in New York will allow Iberdrola to shelter nearly all the income it will earn from Energy East. New York taxpayers will have to make up for this lost tax revenue, at a time when we are already staggering under an intolerable tax burden. There is absolutely no benefit to New York ratepayers from allowing Iberdrola to own wind farms and Energy East. The benefit is solely to Iberdrola.
There is also no benefit to the environment from Iberdrola’s proposed wind farms. Iberdrola’s CEO has admitted that the electricity the wind turbines generate is not reliable, nor will it ever provide more than a tiny fraction of the renewable power that New York is striving to achieve through its Renewables Portfolio Standard. It will damage the health and welfare of the people who have to live with these enormous industrial machines in their midst. In our part of the state, town officials are permitting 420 ft. tall turbines to be built as close as 300 ft. from one’s property line. These requirements are absurd, but the officials have been so heavily influenced by wind industry operatives that they have completely abandoned their obligation to safeguard the welfare of their constituents. Thank heavens the State Attorney General’s office has finally mounted a serious investigation into the corruption that is allowing such actions to occur.
As a ratepayer, I am extremely troubled to see how Iberdrola treats its customers. Last year the company bought Scottish Power, and despite the fact that this unit accounted for one quarter of Iberdrola’s phenomenal 78% growth in revenue, Iberdrola will be imposing rate increases on Scottish Power customers this year. Apparently, Iberdrola cares more about its shareholders than it does about its customers. That is where the PSC comes in, for you are all that stands between us and utility companies – private entities that function as monopolies – taking advantage of us to enrich themselves. In a couple years’ time, it will be very obvious whether you have lived up to your responsibilities, if we see our rates increase. You have the opportunity to prevent this, and you have the obligation to do so now.
I might be less concerned if my dollars were staying in the US, but to see my hard-earned money going to a Spanish corporation, and very likely to an Arab nation in the near future, truly makes me outraged. The government of Abu Dhabi will be supplying some of the capital that Iberdrola needs to fund its phenomenal growth in the next few years. Rather than making us energy-independent of the Middle East, allowing Iberdrola to take over major electricity distribution companies in the Northeast will make us even more vulnerable to the economic and political whims of foreign nations, including those not friendly to us.
This would be a huge mistake, and one from which we will not easily recover. Please do not allow this to happen. New Yorkers have often been a bit more sophisticated and independent-minded than our neighboring states, so it does not surprise me that our PSC is the only body standing firm against this ill-considered proposition. Please continue to stand firm for us, and expose this tax shelter scheme for what it is – a great deal for a foreign corporation, but terribly harmful to New York ratepayers.
Thank you.
Andrea Rebeck
Andrea Rebeck, AIA
Andrea Rebeck, Architect
4652 Oak Orchard Road
Albion , NY 14411-9509
585-590-1199
rebeckarchitect@yahoo.com
Town keeping mum on noise report
CLAYTON — Town officials have refused to let residents see a report evaluating the noise study done for Horse Creek Wind Farm.
The officials claim the report, by Cavanaugh Tocci Associates, an acoustic engineering firm in Sudbury, Mass., is too complicated and preliminary to be released.
Residents argue that the original noise study, done by consultant CH2MHill for Iberdrola, also was complicated, but that there are residents with acoustic expertise.
At least three Freedom of Information requests, including one by the Times, were turned down on the basis of the Cavanaugh Tocci report being interagency material. The town of Orleans also asked for the report and was refused.
The FOI refusal sent to the Times said, "the report was received and reviewed by the Planning Board Chairman and the Town Supervisor. Due to the technical nature of the report, it was sent back to our Consultant and the Consultant has been asked to provide clarifications to assist the Planning Board to understand the Consultants recommendations."
Clayton Supervisor Justin A. Taylor said the town, through Bernier, Carr & Associates, Watertown, has requested an executive summary to explain the report.
While he said he did not want to promise to release the entire report after the summary is received, he said it could happen "once the Planning Board has a chance to review it."
Clayton also told Orleans, the other town that has turbines planned for Horse Creek Wind Farm, that the report was incomplete.
"It's their report when it comes back, and we'll go from there," Orleans Supervisor Donna J. Chatterton said.
Orleans Councilman Dean T. Morrow said he had assumed that all wind-farm-related information would be shared between Clayton and Orleans.
"Apparently, they paid for the report themselves," he said. "We had no financial involvement, really. But I expect we'll see it once it comes back in its completed form. It's understandable."
Concerned residents say all of this sounds very fishy to them.
"The Planning Board almost sounds like they're hiding something," said Patricia Booras-Miller, vice president of the Environmentally Concerned Citizens Organization of Jefferson County. Ms. Booras-Miller had her FOI request refused.
ECCO had offered the expertise of four different acoustic engineers and consultants on the CH2MHill study to the Planning Board, she said, and all were refused.
"I think they just didn't want to accept what the residents had to say," she said.
But now, after using a third-party consultant, the town insists the consultant's report is too technical.
The Cavanaugh Tocci report could show large gaps in the measurements and conclusions the developer made in its noise study. The same consultants analyzed BP Alternative Energy's noise study for the Cape Vincent Wind Farm draft environmental impact statement.
Charles E. Ebbing, a retired acoustic engineer from Carrier Corp., said, "Out in the rural north country, the noise is going to be very similar."
The studies done for the two farms were very much alike.
"They used a similar number of sites, similar measuring times," he said. "They're going to be much more similar than dissimilar."
Both CH2MHill for PPM and Hessler Associates for BP Alternative Energy used a regression analysis matching ambient noise to wind speeds. They relied on wind speeds from hub height to figure out the wind speed at ground levels.
The developer used a regression curve to estimate background noise based on wind speed, which the analysis said was inappropriate. It overestimates or underestimates background and the effect of wind turbines on the noise level at a given wind speed a significant number of times, the report said.
Instead of trying to link background noise to wind speed, the report said, "We recommend that the noise data be considered irrespective of wind speed."
Neither report mentioned low-frequency sound from turbines. For the BP project, public comments on the draft environmental impact statement asked for information on the sound. The Cavanaugh Tocci report said, "It is recommended that the authors comment on this and present low frequency sound data for the turbine design to be installed."
And, the report said, "It is true that low frequency sound produced by wind turbine blade passage can be, in a sense, amplified inside building spaces because of standing wave effects."
Mr. Ebbing, LaFargeville, said the Cavanaugh Tocci report for the Horse Creek project should be very similar. If so, it should lead the town to the conviction that the noise study was insufficient.
"You have to infer from Tocci's report that it's gotta be redone," he said. "I really don't know what's in there."
One complicating factor is the suspension of Iberdrola's application for Horse Creek Wind Farm. Anything related to the wind farm, including state environmental quality review, or the town's wind development zoning law has lost town officials' attention.
"It's on the back burner because of the suspension of the application," Mr. Taylor said. "The Planning Board has clearly indicated, as has the town board, that we will look at all the information provided by the applicant for the portions of SEQR and address them based on what needs to be addressed based on that information at one time."
He saidthe town sought a third party because of the complicated nature of noise studies. The town may take action because of the Cavanaugh Tocci report, but "It's too premature to take additional action now."
But residents said they don't want to wait until an application is active.
"If the whole changing of our law depends on this report, then let's move on with this," Ms. Booras-Miller said.
Mr. Morrow said the report is one of the pieces of information Orleans officials would like to use in considering the town's wind development zoning law.
"We can make a change, but it would be arbitrary," he said. "It would be best to make any changes with good information."
The officials claim the report, by Cavanaugh Tocci Associates, an acoustic engineering firm in Sudbury, Mass., is too complicated and preliminary to be released.
Residents argue that the original noise study, done by consultant CH2MHill for Iberdrola, also was complicated, but that there are residents with acoustic expertise.
At least three Freedom of Information requests, including one by the Times, were turned down on the basis of the Cavanaugh Tocci report being interagency material. The town of Orleans also asked for the report and was refused.
The FOI refusal sent to the Times said, "the report was received and reviewed by the Planning Board Chairman and the Town Supervisor. Due to the technical nature of the report, it was sent back to our Consultant and the Consultant has been asked to provide clarifications to assist the Planning Board to understand the Consultants recommendations."
Clayton Supervisor Justin A. Taylor said the town, through Bernier, Carr & Associates, Watertown, has requested an executive summary to explain the report.
While he said he did not want to promise to release the entire report after the summary is received, he said it could happen "once the Planning Board has a chance to review it."
Clayton also told Orleans, the other town that has turbines planned for Horse Creek Wind Farm, that the report was incomplete.
"It's their report when it comes back, and we'll go from there," Orleans Supervisor Donna J. Chatterton said.
Orleans Councilman Dean T. Morrow said he had assumed that all wind-farm-related information would be shared between Clayton and Orleans.
"Apparently, they paid for the report themselves," he said. "We had no financial involvement, really. But I expect we'll see it once it comes back in its completed form. It's understandable."
Concerned residents say all of this sounds very fishy to them.
"The Planning Board almost sounds like they're hiding something," said Patricia Booras-Miller, vice president of the Environmentally Concerned Citizens Organization of Jefferson County. Ms. Booras-Miller had her FOI request refused.
ECCO had offered the expertise of four different acoustic engineers and consultants on the CH2MHill study to the Planning Board, she said, and all were refused.
"I think they just didn't want to accept what the residents had to say," she said.
But now, after using a third-party consultant, the town insists the consultant's report is too technical.
The Cavanaugh Tocci report could show large gaps in the measurements and conclusions the developer made in its noise study. The same consultants analyzed BP Alternative Energy's noise study for the Cape Vincent Wind Farm draft environmental impact statement.
Charles E. Ebbing, a retired acoustic engineer from Carrier Corp., said, "Out in the rural north country, the noise is going to be very similar."
The studies done for the two farms were very much alike.
"They used a similar number of sites, similar measuring times," he said. "They're going to be much more similar than dissimilar."
Both CH2MHill for PPM and Hessler Associates for BP Alternative Energy used a regression analysis matching ambient noise to wind speeds. They relied on wind speeds from hub height to figure out the wind speed at ground levels.
The developer used a regression curve to estimate background noise based on wind speed, which the analysis said was inappropriate. It overestimates or underestimates background and the effect of wind turbines on the noise level at a given wind speed a significant number of times, the report said.
Instead of trying to link background noise to wind speed, the report said, "We recommend that the noise data be considered irrespective of wind speed."
Neither report mentioned low-frequency sound from turbines. For the BP project, public comments on the draft environmental impact statement asked for information on the sound. The Cavanaugh Tocci report said, "It is recommended that the authors comment on this and present low frequency sound data for the turbine design to be installed."
And, the report said, "It is true that low frequency sound produced by wind turbine blade passage can be, in a sense, amplified inside building spaces because of standing wave effects."
Mr. Ebbing, LaFargeville, said the Cavanaugh Tocci report for the Horse Creek project should be very similar. If so, it should lead the town to the conviction that the noise study was insufficient.
"You have to infer from Tocci's report that it's gotta be redone," he said. "I really don't know what's in there."
One complicating factor is the suspension of Iberdrola's application for Horse Creek Wind Farm. Anything related to the wind farm, including state environmental quality review, or the town's wind development zoning law has lost town officials' attention.
"It's on the back burner because of the suspension of the application," Mr. Taylor said. "The Planning Board has clearly indicated, as has the town board, that we will look at all the information provided by the applicant for the portions of SEQR and address them based on what needs to be addressed based on that information at one time."
He saidthe town sought a third party because of the complicated nature of noise studies. The town may take action because of the Cavanaugh Tocci report, but "It's too premature to take additional action now."
But residents said they don't want to wait until an application is active.
"If the whole changing of our law depends on this report, then let's move on with this," Ms. Booras-Miller said.
Mr. Morrow said the report is one of the pieces of information Orleans officials would like to use in considering the town's wind development zoning law.
"We can make a change, but it would be arbitrary," he said. "It would be best to make any changes with good information."
Sunday, August 24, 2008
PSC - Iberdrola Energy East - August 24, 2008 Letter by Citizen Power Alliance
August 24, 2008
PSC Commissioners - Garry A. Brown, Patricia L. Acampora, Maureen F. Harris, Robert E. Curry, Jr. and Cheryl A. Buley
New York State Public Service Commission
Agency Building 3
Albany, NY 12223-1350
RE: Iberdrola acquisition of Energy East - Case # 07-M-0906
Dear Commissioners:
The conduct by the PSC staff at the regular meeting on August 20, 2008 is appalling. Especially the disingenuous comment that stated that if the PSC want to ignore their own decade old policy of separating generation from transmission, that a legal loophole can be used to grant SPECIAL treatment to the Spanish utility and wind developer IBERDROLA. Each commissioner has a duty to the ratepayer and taxpayer to administer a fair playing field for all companies. The approval of special entitlement, caving into political pressure from Schumer and others, and the 180-degree reversal from Judge Epstein’s report begs an Attorney General investigation of PSC and staff.
The public will face dramatic increases in their electric utility rates if Iberdrola is allowed to keep and expand their highly unreliable and costly industrial wind generation facilities. Commissioner Buley was correct in voicing her concerns on August 20th. Nevertheless, where is the leadership among other commissioners to challenge the clear appearance of corporate cronyism among the staff of the PSC? The viewing public watched the feeble attempt to reverse PSC policy for no good or compelling reason. Any reasonable person viewing would want to know the reasons why the Epstein report should be discarded and what possible public benefit could come from reversing deregulation policy.
The Citizen Power Alliance represents dozens of statewide organizations, which in turn speak for the hundreds of ratepayers and thousands of voters. The political fix has been the way NYS politics has operated for decades. Citizens are disgusted with political hacks making policy that favor “Special Interest” while penalizing ordinary people.
IBERDROLA must NOT be allowed to own, operate or buy additional industrial wind projects. CPA appeals to the moral character of PSC commissioners to stand up to the corporate pressure and insane economic giveaways that this state cannot afford. If you are determined to approve the Energy East acquisition, maintain the deregulation standard and ban Iberdrola from wind generation. Your duty is to protect the public. If the PSC acts as a rubber stamp for a foreign monopoly, more people will exit NYS.
CITIZEN POWER ALLIANCE
PSC Commissioners - Garry A. Brown, Patricia L. Acampora, Maureen F. Harris, Robert E. Curry, Jr. and Cheryl A. Buley
New York State Public Service Commission
Agency Building 3
Albany, NY 12223-1350
RE: Iberdrola acquisition of Energy East - Case # 07-M-0906
Dear Commissioners:
The conduct by the PSC staff at the regular meeting on August 20, 2008 is appalling. Especially the disingenuous comment that stated that if the PSC want to ignore their own decade old policy of separating generation from transmission, that a legal loophole can be used to grant SPECIAL treatment to the Spanish utility and wind developer IBERDROLA. Each commissioner has a duty to the ratepayer and taxpayer to administer a fair playing field for all companies. The approval of special entitlement, caving into political pressure from Schumer and others, and the 180-degree reversal from Judge Epstein’s report begs an Attorney General investigation of PSC and staff.
The public will face dramatic increases in their electric utility rates if Iberdrola is allowed to keep and expand their highly unreliable and costly industrial wind generation facilities. Commissioner Buley was correct in voicing her concerns on August 20th. Nevertheless, where is the leadership among other commissioners to challenge the clear appearance of corporate cronyism among the staff of the PSC? The viewing public watched the feeble attempt to reverse PSC policy for no good or compelling reason. Any reasonable person viewing would want to know the reasons why the Epstein report should be discarded and what possible public benefit could come from reversing deregulation policy.
The Citizen Power Alliance represents dozens of statewide organizations, which in turn speak for the hundreds of ratepayers and thousands of voters. The political fix has been the way NYS politics has operated for decades. Citizens are disgusted with political hacks making policy that favor “Special Interest” while penalizing ordinary people.
IBERDROLA must NOT be allowed to own, operate or buy additional industrial wind projects. CPA appeals to the moral character of PSC commissioners to stand up to the corporate pressure and insane economic giveaways that this state cannot afford. If you are determined to approve the Energy East acquisition, maintain the deregulation standard and ban Iberdrola from wind generation. Your duty is to protect the public. If the PSC acts as a rubber stamp for a foreign monopoly, more people will exit NYS.
CITIZEN POWER ALLIANCE
Observations on wind development
Many thanks for the excellent lead story in the Monday, Aug. 18, issue of the Times concerning wind-farm corruption which affirmed what many suspected. But I fear the town of Clayton's nearsighted board members will overlook the article. They see only immediate profit from turbines and refuse to recognize long-term concerns about severe environmental, ecological and economic damage.
I'm only surprised Clayton village officials haven't roped this cash cow and ridden it all the way to the bank. They must need money. My property assessment and water-sewer rates have doubled in the last three years. Come on, you village potentates, give us taxpayers a break and grab some green for going green.
Locate turbines atop the rebuilt opera house, TI Inn, whatever structure goes up on the Frink property and the soon-to-be-built (we think) St. Laurent Hotel. Better yet, attach vanes to church steeples throughout the village and demand the money PPM Energy saves on construction costs.
Some shortsighted, uninformed citizens will be shocked and dismayed by this desecration, but eminent domain has proved an effective tactic when greed is involved.
Need more money? Buy a fleet of tankers at taxpayers' expense and truck our clear, pure (oops! that was before the Seaway) water to the drought-stricken Southeast. Profit aside, what could be nobler than saving Pogo whose sage observation: "We have met the enemy and he is us," most assuredly describes our local bureaucrats.
Ed Ladley
Clayton
I'm only surprised Clayton village officials haven't roped this cash cow and ridden it all the way to the bank. They must need money. My property assessment and water-sewer rates have doubled in the last three years. Come on, you village potentates, give us taxpayers a break and grab some green for going green.
Locate turbines atop the rebuilt opera house, TI Inn, whatever structure goes up on the Frink property and the soon-to-be-built (we think) St. Laurent Hotel. Better yet, attach vanes to church steeples throughout the village and demand the money PPM Energy saves on construction costs.
Some shortsighted, uninformed citizens will be shocked and dismayed by this desecration, but eminent domain has proved an effective tactic when greed is involved.
Need more money? Buy a fleet of tankers at taxpayers' expense and truck our clear, pure (oops! that was before the Seaway) water to the drought-stricken Southeast. Profit aside, what could be nobler than saving Pogo whose sage observation: "We have met the enemy and he is us," most assuredly describes our local bureaucrats.
Ed Ladley
Clayton
Wind developers interested in Alfred
Alfred, N.Y.
At least one wind developer is eyeing Alfred for a potential building site.
Keith Pitman, president and chief executive officer of Empire State Wind Energy from Oneida, said his company is interested in developing a wind project in Alfred.
“We only want to build projects in communities that want us there,” he said.
According to Pitman, his company would like to move forward with a preliminary design phase and start finalizing plans to approve the project’s start.
He said that any type of large-scale wind project would take a year or two before it gets to the building point.
Pitman asked the board to appoint some representatives in the community to work closely with him about any concerns they might have with building windmills. While the town assembles a group of representatives, Pitman is going to see that data collecting equipment starts recording wind speed and direction.
“Bullying tactics are commonly used in the wind farm industry,” said Pitman. He promised his company is not secretive or aggressive with its plans.
“In our mode of development there will not be a lot of surprises,” he said.
Pitman told the board that he would seek to hire local workers for the project and during the construction phase it would provide a large influx of jobs to the community.
“I’m sure there is someone in Allegany that can operate a back hoe,” he said. “Our company is all about utilizing local labor and resources.”
Pitman said a number like 200 turbines would be too many but thinks that smaller numbers like 35 or so are more realistic.
“I think one of the reasons we are excited is the economic possibility,” said Councilman Jeff Johnston.
Empire State Wind Energy was co-founded by Alfred State College alum Tom Golisano. He is the chairman of the company.
At least one wind developer is eyeing Alfred for a potential building site.
Keith Pitman, president and chief executive officer of Empire State Wind Energy from Oneida, said his company is interested in developing a wind project in Alfred.
“We only want to build projects in communities that want us there,” he said.
According to Pitman, his company would like to move forward with a preliminary design phase and start finalizing plans to approve the project’s start.
He said that any type of large-scale wind project would take a year or two before it gets to the building point.
Pitman asked the board to appoint some representatives in the community to work closely with him about any concerns they might have with building windmills. While the town assembles a group of representatives, Pitman is going to see that data collecting equipment starts recording wind speed and direction.
“Bullying tactics are commonly used in the wind farm industry,” said Pitman. He promised his company is not secretive or aggressive with its plans.
“In our mode of development there will not be a lot of surprises,” he said.
Pitman told the board that he would seek to hire local workers for the project and during the construction phase it would provide a large influx of jobs to the community.
“I’m sure there is someone in Allegany that can operate a back hoe,” he said. “Our company is all about utilizing local labor and resources.”
Pitman said a number like 200 turbines would be too many but thinks that smaller numbers like 35 or so are more realistic.
“I think one of the reasons we are excited is the economic possibility,” said Councilman Jeff Johnston.
Empire State Wind Energy was co-founded by Alfred State College alum Tom Golisano. He is the chairman of the company.
Friday, August 22, 2008
PSC Comments on Iberdrola takeover of Energy East by Dan Wing
Fraud
The NY State PSC is considering allowing in an industrial wind giant company without having any PSC fraud prevention apparatus in place.
1. Iberdola and its affiliates are the only entity which reads its own production meters at its:
a. NY located wind farms.
b. Pennsylvania-located wind farms (some which receive NY RPS funds and many which issue RECs for which NYSERDA pays cash).
c. NJ-located wind farm (the Jersey-Atlantic Wind Farm received NY RPS funds and it issues RECs for which NYSERDA pays cash).
2. Iberdola and its affiliates are allowed by the NY PSC to print whatever number of RECs (having cashable value) that Iberdrola determines appropriate. That’s essentially handing Iberdrola a printing press to print its own money in an unregulated system.
3. NY State has no tracking system for RECs and particularly no tracking system for RECs which for the same unit of production (or marketing) are being fraudulently “double-dipped” for cashing in 2 (or more)states – NY being one of those states.
4. MW (megawatts)is not a production figure. It is a lab tested value. Actual production figures are a unit of measure (e.g., KW, MW) PER HOUR. The amount of the actual lab tested MW assigned value is intentionally misleading (as is the numbers of houses it will power for a year), being that only 10% (or less) of those rated amounts ever enter the Grid as electricity.
a. Yet, Iberdrola-owned Gamesa (a turbine assembler/manufacturer) claims the lab capacity [aka nameplate capacity] to obtain far more taxpayer monies’ subsidies than deserved.
b. Yet, about 2 years before a wind farm’s production ever begins, the wind farm (such as Iberdrola’s Beaver Creek Wind Farm in Pensylvania)issues long term discount-rate huge bulk-electricity many-year contracts to special interests (businesses; institutions; government agencies) for hypothetical quantities of electricity (based on lab ratings)which are 90% (or more) greater electrical output than the wind farm can ever operationally output into the grid. The lab-rated nameplate capacity is used by the wind industry to obtain far more taxpayer monies’ subsidies than deserved.
DanWingPSCComments.doc
my%20generic%20letter%2025%20Aug%202008%20about%20Iberdrola%20takeover.doc
The NY State PSC is considering allowing in an industrial wind giant company without having any PSC fraud prevention apparatus in place.
1. Iberdola and its affiliates are the only entity which reads its own production meters at its:
a. NY located wind farms.
b. Pennsylvania-located wind farms (some which receive NY RPS funds and many which issue RECs for which NYSERDA pays cash).
c. NJ-located wind farm (the Jersey-Atlantic Wind Farm received NY RPS funds and it issues RECs for which NYSERDA pays cash).
2. Iberdola and its affiliates are allowed by the NY PSC to print whatever number of RECs (having cashable value) that Iberdrola determines appropriate. That’s essentially handing Iberdrola a printing press to print its own money in an unregulated system.
3. NY State has no tracking system for RECs and particularly no tracking system for RECs which for the same unit of production (or marketing) are being fraudulently “double-dipped” for cashing in 2 (or more)states – NY being one of those states.
4. MW (megawatts)is not a production figure. It is a lab tested value. Actual production figures are a unit of measure (e.g., KW, MW) PER HOUR. The amount of the actual lab tested MW assigned value is intentionally misleading (as is the numbers of houses it will power for a year), being that only 10% (or less) of those rated amounts ever enter the Grid as electricity.
a. Yet, Iberdrola-owned Gamesa (a turbine assembler/manufacturer) claims the lab capacity [aka nameplate capacity] to obtain far more taxpayer monies’ subsidies than deserved.
b. Yet, about 2 years before a wind farm’s production ever begins, the wind farm (such as Iberdrola’s Beaver Creek Wind Farm in Pensylvania)issues long term discount-rate huge bulk-electricity many-year contracts to special interests (businesses; institutions; government agencies) for hypothetical quantities of electricity (based on lab ratings)which are 90% (or more) greater electrical output than the wind farm can ever operationally output into the grid. The lab-rated nameplate capacity is used by the wind industry to obtain far more taxpayer monies’ subsidies than deserved.
DanWingPSCComments.doc
my%20generic%20letter%2025%20Aug%202008%20about%20Iberdrola%20takeover.doc
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)