The nationwide financial crisis has put the brakes on a wind farm under construction in northern New York and another developer has aborted possible projects in eastern and central New York after trouble securing land. And wind energy companies are now being asked to abide by a code of ethics by Attorney General Andrew Cuomo _ the upshot of his investigation into allegations of corrupt practices by developers.
Wind is still alive in New York and new turbines are still being planned for blustery parts of the state. But the last few tumultuous months have been tough for the industry nationwide and New York in particular.
"Obviously, it doesn't make it easy for the wind industry, like every other industry, to get financing," said Carol Murphy, executive director of Alliance for Clean Energy New York, which represents renewable energy companies. "But I have not heard of any of my members who've run into a brick wall ... There are still a lot of hedge funds and folks who are investing in green energy."
There are 10 wind projects running in New York with a combined potential to generate more than 700 megawatts of electricity. The largest, Maple Ridge along northern New York's Tug Hill, includes 195 turbines. But wind remains a relatively small player in New York, where all the wind farms combined generate less power than a large nuclear reactor.
That could change next year.
The Cohocton Wind project in the Finger Lakes region could be finished by the end of this year, according to a spokesman for First Wind of Newton, Mass. The High Sheldon Wind Farm in Wyoming County could be running by January, according to an Invenergy spokeswoman. And Essex, Conn.-based Noble Environmental Power has made progress on two projects in northern New York, according to supervisors of the local towns.
But there have been questions about Noble's projects amid its financial problems. The company announced plans this year to raise money through an initial public offering with underwriting from Lehman Brothers, which became the largest bankruptcy filing in U.S. history.
Noble officials did not respond to repeated calls and an e-mail seeking comment from The Associated Press.
However, Noble officials blamed financing problems when they suspended work on 14 towers in the northern Adirondack town of Bellmont, said town supervisor Bruce Russell. The company told Russell it could not start work again before the second half of 2009. Meanwhile, work is nearing completion on Noble wind farms in the neighboring towns of Chateaugay and Altona, said supervisors from those towns.
Noble and First Wind were investigated by Cuomo earlier this year amid allegations that developers were bribing local officials to push through wind projects. No charges were ever filed. Noble and First Wind last month became the first signatories of Cuomo's voluntary "Wind Industry Ethics Code," which is designed to make sure developers deal with local officials in a fair and transparent manner.
Siting 400-foot-high wind towers in heavily settled states like New York is difficult in the best of times. Developers operate under strict regulations and quite often face organized local opposition. Iberdrola Renewables is still trying to develop a project in Jordanville, southeast of Utica, five years after being granted a permit for a test tower. Project opponents have already sued once.
Shell WindEnergy recently ran into trouble securing enough land for potential projects on the Helderberg Escarpment west of Albany and in the Finger Lakes and shelved the projects, said company spokesman Timothy O'Leary.
But there also are national factors working against wind. Aside from the credit crunch, the plummeting price of oil has lessened the urgency for renewable fuels. Even oilman-turned-wind advocate T. Boone Pickens has dialed back spending on his wind and natural gas campaign.
While Congress recently renewed crucial production tax credits for wind production, the extension lasts only a year. Murphy said producers are looking for cues from the incoming Obama administration to see if they can plan for the extension long term.
"I think we'll know more as we get into a new presidency and a new year," Murphy said.
New York offers its own financial incentives for wind projects under a long-standing goal to rely on renewable resources for 25 percent of the state's electricity by 2013. State regulators only signed off this year on a deal allowed Iberdrola to buy out Energy East after the Spanish company promised to spend $200 million to develop wind projects in New York.
Iberdrola has a list of 10 wind projects in various stages of development, including the Jordanville project. It's not a sure thing all the projects will be approved.
There is still plenty of room for growth in New York, at least theoretically.
Bruce Bailey, a principal for the wind-mapping company AWS Truewind, said New York could potentially produce from 5,000 to 7,000 megawatts _ or up to 10 times its current production. The richest potential is in wind-blown areas of the state like northern New York, the Southern Tier and west of the Catskills.
Bailey's estimate is based on wind potential and leaves aside issues like available grid connections, political concerns, available credit and the future energy market. Still, he said: "Getting halfway there is realistic in the next 10 years."
Monday, November 24, 2008
Thursday, November 20, 2008
Financial concerns may threaten wind farm projects
FARMERSVILLE — Noble Environmental Power’s wind-energy projects in Cattaraugus and Allegany communities face an uncertain future both because of the global financial crisis and a legal snag.
During a meeting of the Farmersville Town Board meeting Monday night, Town Supervisor Joe Brodka announced he had been advised that the area’s development director for Noble was no longer employed and that the local energy projects may be shelved or assets sold, due to financing difficulties.
A key Noble official responded Wednesday that efforts continue in Farmersville but several town officials this week said wind power projects in Farmersville and Freedom are in jeopardy and that a project in Centerville and Rushford could also be affected. They also said Noble’s development director in the region, Bob Maxwell, is no longer working for the company, which is beset by financial problems.
Calls seeking comment from Noble’s staff at offices in Arcade, Bliss and Fredonia were returned by John Quirke, the company’s executive vice president of development in Essex, Conn., who said he has taken over Maxwell’s responsibilities. He said the company’s efforts in Farmersville will continue but should be expected to take a long time to mature.
“We expect the market to improve,” said Quirke, who declined to provide further details about the company’s financial condition or the future of its various projects.
Noble representatives have met frequently with town officials in Farmersville and Freedom over the past two years and began negotiating a host benefit agreement with Freedom before filing an application in either town for an array of wind towers that would connect to a larger array in Farmersville. That project was to follow a Noble wind farm development spanning Centerville and Rushford in Allegany County, where applications have been filed for a targeted 2010 start-up. The Bliss Windpark in Wyoming County began generating power this year and the nearby Wethersfield wind farm is due to go online within a matter of weeks.
Last week, a citizen opposition group in Centerville won a Rochester appeals court ruling nullifying the town’s local wind farm permitting law because the town did not follow procedures required by the State Environmental Quality Review Act. The town should have filed a long environmental assessment form with the state Department of Environmental Conservation, which is required for large-scale land-use changes, the court said. Also, on Monday, the Town of Farmersville — in an unrelated move — repealed a nearly identical wind-energy permitting law and enacted a new one without filing either a long or short environmental assessment form.
Dan Spitzer, the attorney who wrote the laws for both Centerville and Farmersville, said he is awaiting some direction from the Centerville Town Board.
He added that he believes the project will go forward with or without financing at this time, but remarked, “Wind farms are capital-intensive projects and all are feeling effects of the turmoil in the capital markets.”
During a meeting of the Farmersville Town Board meeting Monday night, Town Supervisor Joe Brodka announced he had been advised that the area’s development director for Noble was no longer employed and that the local energy projects may be shelved or assets sold, due to financing difficulties.
A key Noble official responded Wednesday that efforts continue in Farmersville but several town officials this week said wind power projects in Farmersville and Freedom are in jeopardy and that a project in Centerville and Rushford could also be affected. They also said Noble’s development director in the region, Bob Maxwell, is no longer working for the company, which is beset by financial problems.
Calls seeking comment from Noble’s staff at offices in Arcade, Bliss and Fredonia were returned by John Quirke, the company’s executive vice president of development in Essex, Conn., who said he has taken over Maxwell’s responsibilities. He said the company’s efforts in Farmersville will continue but should be expected to take a long time to mature.
“We expect the market to improve,” said Quirke, who declined to provide further details about the company’s financial condition or the future of its various projects.
Noble representatives have met frequently with town officials in Farmersville and Freedom over the past two years and began negotiating a host benefit agreement with Freedom before filing an application in either town for an array of wind towers that would connect to a larger array in Farmersville. That project was to follow a Noble wind farm development spanning Centerville and Rushford in Allegany County, where applications have been filed for a targeted 2010 start-up. The Bliss Windpark in Wyoming County began generating power this year and the nearby Wethersfield wind farm is due to go online within a matter of weeks.
Last week, a citizen opposition group in Centerville won a Rochester appeals court ruling nullifying the town’s local wind farm permitting law because the town did not follow procedures required by the State Environmental Quality Review Act. The town should have filed a long environmental assessment form with the state Department of Environmental Conservation, which is required for large-scale land-use changes, the court said. Also, on Monday, the Town of Farmersville — in an unrelated move — repealed a nearly identical wind-energy permitting law and enacted a new one without filing either a long or short environmental assessment form.
Dan Spitzer, the attorney who wrote the laws for both Centerville and Farmersville, said he is awaiting some direction from the Centerville Town Board.
He added that he believes the project will go forward with or without financing at this time, but remarked, “Wind farms are capital-intensive projects and all are feeling effects of the turmoil in the capital markets.”
Hamlin wind regs to get scrutiny
Things are about to get interesting out in Hamlin.
During his community forum in Irondequoit last night, Attorney General Andrew Cuomo told a group of Hamlin residents that he'd send an environmental attorney to look into the town's wind tower regulations and the circumstances under which they were passed. He was responding to repeated requests from a group of town residents, all members of the Hamlin Preservation Group.
To be clear - Cuomo did not say that his office would take any action, just that he's sending a lawyer to take a look at the situation.
The Hamlin Preservation Group, which is suing the town over the regulations, has a couple of concerns. The first is with the regulations themselves: they allow the towers to be built too close to homes and roads, they say. The second is a perceived conflict of interest: one of the Town Board members has a lease agreement with Iberdrola - the company interested in building turbines in Hamlin - though he abstained from voting on the regulations.
Neither concern is unique to Hamlin.
"It's a big issue all across the state," Cuomo said.
Earlier this year, the AG's office issued a code of conduct for wind developers to help prevent improper relationships with town officials. Noble and First Wind have signed on, but Iberdrola has not. Among those that helped develop the code is Monroe County District Attorney Mike Green.
The Hamlin situation brings a larger problem into sharp relief: there are no uniform regulations for wind farm placement in New York. As Hamlin residents pointed out, that leaves the decision in the town's hands.
Cuomo says that his office has put together a task force to address issues like standardizing setbacks.
During his community forum in Irondequoit last night, Attorney General Andrew Cuomo told a group of Hamlin residents that he'd send an environmental attorney to look into the town's wind tower regulations and the circumstances under which they were passed. He was responding to repeated requests from a group of town residents, all members of the Hamlin Preservation Group.
To be clear - Cuomo did not say that his office would take any action, just that he's sending a lawyer to take a look at the situation.
The Hamlin Preservation Group, which is suing the town over the regulations, has a couple of concerns. The first is with the regulations themselves: they allow the towers to be built too close to homes and roads, they say. The second is a perceived conflict of interest: one of the Town Board members has a lease agreement with Iberdrola - the company interested in building turbines in Hamlin - though he abstained from voting on the regulations.
Neither concern is unique to Hamlin.
"It's a big issue all across the state," Cuomo said.
Earlier this year, the AG's office issued a code of conduct for wind developers to help prevent improper relationships with town officials. Noble and First Wind have signed on, but Iberdrola has not. Among those that helped develop the code is Monroe County District Attorney Mike Green.
The Hamlin situation brings a larger problem into sharp relief: there are no uniform regulations for wind farm placement in New York. As Hamlin residents pointed out, that leaves the decision in the town's hands.
Cuomo says that his office has put together a task force to address issues like standardizing setbacks.
Court knocks down town’s law regulating wind farms
CENTERVILLE - A law in the town of Centerville regulating wind farms was annulled by the state Supreme Court’s Appellate Division because the town failed to comply with the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQR).
The decision, which was made on Nov. 14, was prompted by a lawsuit from the Centerville Concerned Citizens (CCC), a group of landowners in the town who claimed that the Centerville Town Board worked along with the Noble Environmental Power to craft a local law that accommodates Noble’s proposed Centerville Windpark without fully looking at the environmental impacts.
The project would add 55 wind turbines, each about 50 stories high, to Noble’s Bliss Windpark in the town of Eagle.
The Centerville Town Board and Noble agreed to keep 1,000-foot distances from homes, and limit noise levels to 50 decibels, but that volume is far too loud, according to CCC head Dennis Gaffin.
“We told the town such noise levels would change life here dramatically, but they said there was no need to consider that issue because Noble would address it later,” Mr. Gaffin said in a press release.
CCC attorney Gary Abraham said the town broke the law by not considering the environmental impact of the project until Noble submitted its wind farm application.
“They said they would defer any of those things until applying for the project under the law,” Mr. Abraham said. “Once the law is in place, all Noble would have to say is ‘we complied with the law.’”
According to Mr. Abraham, under the SEQR, when a town takes on a project like a wind farm, the project is classified by its environmental impact as either a type one, type two, or unlisted action.
The court determined that the Centerville wind park project is a type one action, since it will affect more than 25 acres of the town. Centerville had pursued the project as an unlisted action, Mr. Abraham said.
“The town board, at their own peril, thought (they) weren’t going to lose this lawsuit and treated us as if we didn’t exist,” Mr. Abraham said.
However, the CCC’s lawsuit may have had some unintended consequences, according to Daniel Spitzer, lead legal representative for the town of Centerville in its discussions with Noble.
Since the court’s decision annulled the laws regulating wind farms in Centerville, there are essentially no regulations until the town enacts new laws.
“This doesn’t stop the project one bit,” Mr. Spitzer said. “Frankly, if the town does nothing, it means Noble can put (wind turbine) towers wherever they want.”
Mr. Spitzer expects the town board will take action swiftly, and that the project will continue to move forward.
“The petitioners did not get what they wanted either, so in that regard, we are pleased,” Mr. Spitzer said.
Centerville attorney David Pullen said the town will consider appealing the court’s decision.
“Hopefully, a decision will be made in the next few weeks,” he said.
“I question what (the CCC) thought they were achieving by bringing this lawsuit and invalidating the law, which leaves us with no law.
“That doesn’t mean their standards that they argued for are in place, it means there are no standards in place,” Mr. Pullen said.
The decision, which was made on Nov. 14, was prompted by a lawsuit from the Centerville Concerned Citizens (CCC), a group of landowners in the town who claimed that the Centerville Town Board worked along with the Noble Environmental Power to craft a local law that accommodates Noble’s proposed Centerville Windpark without fully looking at the environmental impacts.
The project would add 55 wind turbines, each about 50 stories high, to Noble’s Bliss Windpark in the town of Eagle.
The Centerville Town Board and Noble agreed to keep 1,000-foot distances from homes, and limit noise levels to 50 decibels, but that volume is far too loud, according to CCC head Dennis Gaffin.
“We told the town such noise levels would change life here dramatically, but they said there was no need to consider that issue because Noble would address it later,” Mr. Gaffin said in a press release.
CCC attorney Gary Abraham said the town broke the law by not considering the environmental impact of the project until Noble submitted its wind farm application.
“They said they would defer any of those things until applying for the project under the law,” Mr. Abraham said. “Once the law is in place, all Noble would have to say is ‘we complied with the law.’”
According to Mr. Abraham, under the SEQR, when a town takes on a project like a wind farm, the project is classified by its environmental impact as either a type one, type two, or unlisted action.
The court determined that the Centerville wind park project is a type one action, since it will affect more than 25 acres of the town. Centerville had pursued the project as an unlisted action, Mr. Abraham said.
“The town board, at their own peril, thought (they) weren’t going to lose this lawsuit and treated us as if we didn’t exist,” Mr. Abraham said.
However, the CCC’s lawsuit may have had some unintended consequences, according to Daniel Spitzer, lead legal representative for the town of Centerville in its discussions with Noble.
Since the court’s decision annulled the laws regulating wind farms in Centerville, there are essentially no regulations until the town enacts new laws.
“This doesn’t stop the project one bit,” Mr. Spitzer said. “Frankly, if the town does nothing, it means Noble can put (wind turbine) towers wherever they want.”
Mr. Spitzer expects the town board will take action swiftly, and that the project will continue to move forward.
“The petitioners did not get what they wanted either, so in that regard, we are pleased,” Mr. Spitzer said.
Centerville attorney David Pullen said the town will consider appealing the court’s decision.
“Hopefully, a decision will be made in the next few weeks,” he said.
“I question what (the CCC) thought they were achieving by bringing this lawsuit and invalidating the law, which leaves us with no law.
“That doesn’t mean their standards that they argued for are in place, it means there are no standards in place,” Mr. Pullen said.
Wednesday, November 19, 2008
Town Board revises wind farm regulations
FARMERSVILLE — The Farmersville Town Board voted Monday to replace its 2007 town law regulating wind farm projects with a shorter and more general version, while also lifting last month’s temporary moratorium against wind energy facilities.
“The old law had stuff that should have been in a host community agreement [between the town and the wind farm developer] and not in the law itself,” said Town Supervisor Joe Brodka.
The town has been approached about the possibility of a 67-turbine wind farm by Noble Environmental Power, which this year started up a new wind farm in the Wyoming County community of Bliss and has applied for a permit in the Town of Centerville in Allegany County.
That project may see a delay because of last week’s ruling by an appeals court that granted a citizen group’s request to nullify Centerville’s wind farm regulatory law because of the town’s inadequate state Environmental Quality Review.
The Centerville law was nearly identical to the 2007 Farmersville law, but Brodka said that the board was not informed about the court’s decision and that the ruling had no bearing on the move to update the Farmersville wind farm law.
The new Wind Energy Conversion Facilities Law requires the Farmersville Town Board to consider the aesthetic, physical, economic and sociopolitical impacts, as well as impacts on general health and welfare, and requires the developer to apply for a license from the town and pay a fee of $300 for each megawatt of generating capacity.
The applicant must also undergo a site plan review, while paying the town’s expenses and completing a state Environmental Quality Review. The developer will also be required to present studies on noise and visual impacts and assess impacts on birds and bats. Height limits of 450 feet are unchanged, but the Town Board may relax a 1,000-foot minimum distance to adjacent residential walls for good cause. Distance of wind tower placement from public roads or nonwind farm structures must be at least 1.2 times the tower height.
There were no statements from residents during a brief public hearing, and the law was adopted in a 4-0 vote.
The board also voted unanimously to accept a 2009 budget that appropriates $241,040 for general fund expenditures and $347,493 for highway costs. Another $4,200 will pay for a light district in Farmersville Station, and $57,938 is earmarked for the Farmersville Fire District.
Spending will increase by 5.8 percent for the general and highway funds, in addition to a 2.2 percent hike in the fire district expenses.
Brodka confirmed that the town tax rate is likely to be lower because of a townwide revaluation. The Cattaraugus County Legislature last week released a tentative tax rate for the town of $12.12, a 29 percent decrease from the amount levied in 2008.
“The old law had stuff that should have been in a host community agreement [between the town and the wind farm developer] and not in the law itself,” said Town Supervisor Joe Brodka.
The town has been approached about the possibility of a 67-turbine wind farm by Noble Environmental Power, which this year started up a new wind farm in the Wyoming County community of Bliss and has applied for a permit in the Town of Centerville in Allegany County.
That project may see a delay because of last week’s ruling by an appeals court that granted a citizen group’s request to nullify Centerville’s wind farm regulatory law because of the town’s inadequate state Environmental Quality Review.
The Centerville law was nearly identical to the 2007 Farmersville law, but Brodka said that the board was not informed about the court’s decision and that the ruling had no bearing on the move to update the Farmersville wind farm law.
The new Wind Energy Conversion Facilities Law requires the Farmersville Town Board to consider the aesthetic, physical, economic and sociopolitical impacts, as well as impacts on general health and welfare, and requires the developer to apply for a license from the town and pay a fee of $300 for each megawatt of generating capacity.
The applicant must also undergo a site plan review, while paying the town’s expenses and completing a state Environmental Quality Review. The developer will also be required to present studies on noise and visual impacts and assess impacts on birds and bats. Height limits of 450 feet are unchanged, but the Town Board may relax a 1,000-foot minimum distance to adjacent residential walls for good cause. Distance of wind tower placement from public roads or nonwind farm structures must be at least 1.2 times the tower height.
There were no statements from residents during a brief public hearing, and the law was adopted in a 4-0 vote.
The board also voted unanimously to accept a 2009 budget that appropriates $241,040 for general fund expenditures and $347,493 for highway costs. Another $4,200 will pay for a light district in Farmersville Station, and $57,938 is earmarked for the Farmersville Fire District.
Spending will increase by 5.8 percent for the general and highway funds, in addition to a 2.2 percent hike in the fire district expenses.
Brodka confirmed that the town tax rate is likely to be lower because of a townwide revaluation. The Cattaraugus County Legislature last week released a tentative tax rate for the town of $12.12, a 29 percent decrease from the amount levied in 2008.
Tuesday, November 18, 2008
Are turbines on the horizon for Alfred?
Alfred, N.Y.
Alfred residents found that where there is wind, there is a window of opportunity in a special Monday night meeting at the Alfred Station Fire Hall.
Keith Pitman, president and chief executive officer of Empire State Wind Energy from Oneida, gave an hour-long presentation to Alfred residents to gauge how interested the community is in developing a wind project.
So how did the Alfred community react to the possibilities of wind power?
Compared to some other communities looking at wind, very peaceful.
“I was kind of surprised that there was not more objections, but I think a lot of them were answered before they got a chance to be addressed,” said Alfred resident Alex Clare.
There was no shortage of residents at the meeting. Pitman spoke at previous meetings and only brought out a handful of residents, but at this meeting 130 residents turned out. The event was large enough that it had to be moved from the meeting area in the fire hall to the garage after firemen moved the company’s three trucks to make space.
Pitman positioned himself as a small-town businessman interested in transparent relationships with communities willing to use their resources for cleaner energy solutions.
“I sincerely believe in local control of a local investment,” said Pitman, adding his company would share a larger percentage of profit than other wind companies — twenty times the industry standard.
Pitman said Empire State Wind Energy has an openness policy that discloses financial numbers, including profits. According to Pitman, the company would would turn over between 50 to 75 percent of the net project revenue to the host community and give Alfred an option to purchase the development in its contract.
He said his company has not decided how many turbines would be constructed if a project is started, but his personal opinion is that 25 or 30 looks like a good number. Pitman asked for the community’s help in answering this question.
Pitman’s company has been conducting wind tests in the area, reviewing power market access, evaluating public acceptance and working with local government officials to see if Alfred would be a good choice for development.
“We haven’t found any red flags that say forget it,” said Pitman.
Pitman gave presentations to the village and town boards during the summer and both boards passed resolutions in May that supported wind project studies to be conducted.
Halfway through the meeting, Pitman asked the residents to raise their hands if they wanted his company to continue researching wind capabilites in the Alfred area. Two thirds or more of the people raised their hands.
“I was very impressed with the turnout tonight,” said Jeanne Cartwright, Alfred town supervisor. “I personally support wind power, but I only want to go through with this if the community thinks it’s the right thing to do.”
Pittman said he will leave it up to local officials to hold more meetings and feels they are a good way to share ideas and answer questions.
“I thought it was an interesting presentation, but there are questions and issues that arise from a project like this and you can’t answer them all in one meeting, but it was a good start,” said Meredith Johns, of Alfred.
If the meeting was an indication of what kind of support the community has for a wind farm, then wind power seems probable in Alfred’s future.
“I’m idly impressed with the turnout here, given the local population. It tells me there is an interest in learning and participating in the community, and from our point of view, as a developer, that is a very good sign,” said Pitman.
“It was a very interested and community-minded group of people here tonight ... Alfred State College, the town and the village all have been very supportive, cooperative and reasonable. They are the kind of organizations we like to deal with and when you are dealing with that many entities that is not always an easy thing to find,” said Pitman
“The meeting made me more relaxed about having a wind farm and I’m kind of looking forward to the idea now,” said Clare.
Empire State Wind Energy was co-founded by Alfred State College alumnus Tom Golisano, who currently chairs the company.
Pitman made the following points:
Annual revenue per turbine is estimated at between $400,000 to $550,000.
Cautioned meeting attendees to be skeptical about information they find on the internet. He said information on the internet can be biased and misleading when it comes to wind power and asked residents to be careful when choosing a source of information.
His company is looking for long term property rights for wind turbine locations. According to Pitman, a wind turbine takes between seven to 11 years to pay for itself.
A wind project would take between 2 to 5 years to be cleared for construction, so nothing would be constructed immediately.
He expects the wind project to be operational for 25 to 50 years after completion.
Alfred residents found that where there is wind, there is a window of opportunity in a special Monday night meeting at the Alfred Station Fire Hall.
Keith Pitman, president and chief executive officer of Empire State Wind Energy from Oneida, gave an hour-long presentation to Alfred residents to gauge how interested the community is in developing a wind project.
So how did the Alfred community react to the possibilities of wind power?
Compared to some other communities looking at wind, very peaceful.
“I was kind of surprised that there was not more objections, but I think a lot of them were answered before they got a chance to be addressed,” said Alfred resident Alex Clare.
There was no shortage of residents at the meeting. Pitman spoke at previous meetings and only brought out a handful of residents, but at this meeting 130 residents turned out. The event was large enough that it had to be moved from the meeting area in the fire hall to the garage after firemen moved the company’s three trucks to make space.
Pitman positioned himself as a small-town businessman interested in transparent relationships with communities willing to use their resources for cleaner energy solutions.
“I sincerely believe in local control of a local investment,” said Pitman, adding his company would share a larger percentage of profit than other wind companies — twenty times the industry standard.
Pitman said Empire State Wind Energy has an openness policy that discloses financial numbers, including profits. According to Pitman, the company would would turn over between 50 to 75 percent of the net project revenue to the host community and give Alfred an option to purchase the development in its contract.
He said his company has not decided how many turbines would be constructed if a project is started, but his personal opinion is that 25 or 30 looks like a good number. Pitman asked for the community’s help in answering this question.
Pitman’s company has been conducting wind tests in the area, reviewing power market access, evaluating public acceptance and working with local government officials to see if Alfred would be a good choice for development.
“We haven’t found any red flags that say forget it,” said Pitman.
Pitman gave presentations to the village and town boards during the summer and both boards passed resolutions in May that supported wind project studies to be conducted.
Halfway through the meeting, Pitman asked the residents to raise their hands if they wanted his company to continue researching wind capabilites in the Alfred area. Two thirds or more of the people raised their hands.
“I was very impressed with the turnout tonight,” said Jeanne Cartwright, Alfred town supervisor. “I personally support wind power, but I only want to go through with this if the community thinks it’s the right thing to do.”
Pittman said he will leave it up to local officials to hold more meetings and feels they are a good way to share ideas and answer questions.
“I thought it was an interesting presentation, but there are questions and issues that arise from a project like this and you can’t answer them all in one meeting, but it was a good start,” said Meredith Johns, of Alfred.
If the meeting was an indication of what kind of support the community has for a wind farm, then wind power seems probable in Alfred’s future.
“I’m idly impressed with the turnout here, given the local population. It tells me there is an interest in learning and participating in the community, and from our point of view, as a developer, that is a very good sign,” said Pitman.
“It was a very interested and community-minded group of people here tonight ... Alfred State College, the town and the village all have been very supportive, cooperative and reasonable. They are the kind of organizations we like to deal with and when you are dealing with that many entities that is not always an easy thing to find,” said Pitman
“The meeting made me more relaxed about having a wind farm and I’m kind of looking forward to the idea now,” said Clare.
Empire State Wind Energy was co-founded by Alfred State College alumnus Tom Golisano, who currently chairs the company.
Pitman made the following points:
Annual revenue per turbine is estimated at between $400,000 to $550,000.
Cautioned meeting attendees to be skeptical about information they find on the internet. He said information on the internet can be biased and misleading when it comes to wind power and asked residents to be careful when choosing a source of information.
His company is looking for long term property rights for wind turbine locations. According to Pitman, a wind turbine takes between seven to 11 years to pay for itself.
A wind project would take between 2 to 5 years to be cleared for construction, so nothing would be constructed immediately.
He expects the wind project to be operational for 25 to 50 years after completion.
Monday, November 17, 2008
Lowville finishing work on turbine law
LOWVILLE — While satisfied with existing wind turbines, town officials are looking to better regulate any future wind projects, both large and small.
"We just want to make sure they are done to manufacturers' specs," Lowville Town Supervisor Arleigh D. Rice said.
The Town Council earlier this month held a public hearing on a proposed wind power zoning law but is awaiting review by the Lewis County Planning Board before adopting it, Mr. Rice said.
The idea for crafting the regulations did not stem from any problems or concerns about the 15 Maple Ridge Wind Farm turbines already located within the town, the supervisor said. "I think it turned out very well here," he said.
However, current zoning law, which doesn't address wind turbines, would require setbacks of only 250 feet for the 400-foot-tall towers, Mr. Rice said.
Under the proposed law, any new wind turbines or wind measurement towers would have to be sited at least 11/2 times their height from the nearest property line, public road or other above-ground utility, unless the utility company would offer a waiver. Towers also would have to be at least 1,000 feet from any off-site residences and 2,000 feet from schools, churches, hospitals, nursing homes, active cemeteries, government offices and buildings used for public assembly .
Turbine noise would be restricted to 55 decibels at the nearest residence or public building.
Large wind turbines would be allowed in agricultural and conservation zones but not in residential or commercial ones. However, small, roof-mounted turbines would be allowed in all zones as long as they are not more than 10 feet tall on residences or 20 feet tall on commercial or industrial buildings.
An exemption is included for non-electrical windmills "used for pumping water for agricultural purposes," like those erected by the Amish. However, they still would have to be sited so that "any tipover will be harmless to others."
The proposed law also includes a section on small wind energy conversion systems for home, farm or commercial use.
Such systems would need to be on at least one acre of land, although that requirement could be met through a joint application by multiple neighboring landowners.
The proposed law suggests that small turbines are to be used only "to reduce on-site consumption of electricity," not to produce power for an electric utility or commercial wind farm. However, residents could apply for a waiver to connect the turbine to the electrical grid, allowing them to sell power when more is being produced than needed on site.
Anyone interested in erecting a wind system would have to apply for a wind energy permit from the Town Council. Proposed fees are $50 per megawatt for large turbines, $200 for a wind measurement tower and $100 for a small wind tower.
"We just want to make sure they are done to manufacturers' specs," Lowville Town Supervisor Arleigh D. Rice said.
The Town Council earlier this month held a public hearing on a proposed wind power zoning law but is awaiting review by the Lewis County Planning Board before adopting it, Mr. Rice said.
The idea for crafting the regulations did not stem from any problems or concerns about the 15 Maple Ridge Wind Farm turbines already located within the town, the supervisor said. "I think it turned out very well here," he said.
However, current zoning law, which doesn't address wind turbines, would require setbacks of only 250 feet for the 400-foot-tall towers, Mr. Rice said.
Under the proposed law, any new wind turbines or wind measurement towers would have to be sited at least 11/2 times their height from the nearest property line, public road or other above-ground utility, unless the utility company would offer a waiver. Towers also would have to be at least 1,000 feet from any off-site residences and 2,000 feet from schools, churches, hospitals, nursing homes, active cemeteries, government offices and buildings used for public assembly .
Turbine noise would be restricted to 55 decibels at the nearest residence or public building.
Large wind turbines would be allowed in agricultural and conservation zones but not in residential or commercial ones. However, small, roof-mounted turbines would be allowed in all zones as long as they are not more than 10 feet tall on residences or 20 feet tall on commercial or industrial buildings.
An exemption is included for non-electrical windmills "used for pumping water for agricultural purposes," like those erected by the Amish. However, they still would have to be sited so that "any tipover will be harmless to others."
The proposed law also includes a section on small wind energy conversion systems for home, farm or commercial use.
Such systems would need to be on at least one acre of land, although that requirement could be met through a joint application by multiple neighboring landowners.
The proposed law suggests that small turbines are to be used only "to reduce on-site consumption of electricity," not to produce power for an electric utility or commercial wind farm. However, residents could apply for a waiver to connect the turbine to the electrical grid, allowing them to sell power when more is being produced than needed on site.
Anyone interested in erecting a wind system would have to apply for a wind energy permit from the Town Council. Proposed fees are $50 per megawatt for large turbines, $200 for a wind measurement tower and $100 for a small wind tower.
CENTERVILLE’S CONCERNED CITIZENS
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department
1104
CA 08-00282
PRESENT: SMITH, J.P., LUNN, FAHEY, AND PERADOTTO, JJ.
CENTERVILLE’S CONCERNED CITIZENS,
PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT,
V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
TOWN BOARD OF TOWN OF CENTERVILLE,
DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT.
GARY A. ABRAHAM, ALLEGANY, FOR PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT.
HODGSON RUSS LLP, BUFFALO (DANIEL A. SPITZER OF COUNSEL), AND
RICHARDSON AND PULLEN, P.C., FILLMORE, FOR DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT.
Appeal from a judgment (denominated order) of the Supreme Court, Allegany County (Michael L. Nenno, A.J.), entered May 9, 2007 in a declaratory judgment action. The judgment dismissed the complaint (denominated petition and complaint).
It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously reversed on the law without costs, the complaint is reinstated and judgment is granted in favor of plaintiff as follows:
It is ADJUDGED and DECLARED that Local Law No. 1 (2006) of the Town of Centerville is invalid.
Memorandum: Plaintiff commenced this hybrid CPLR article 78 proceeding and declaratory judgment action seeking to annul Town of Centerville Local Law No. 1 of 2006 (Local Law) based on, inter alia, the alleged failure of defendant to comply with the procedural and substantive requirements of ECL article 8 (State Environmental Quality Review Act [SEQRA]) in enacting the Local Law. We note at the outset that this is properly only a declaratory judgment action. “The gravamen of the plaintiff’s challenge here is . . . that the local law itself is an invalid legislative enactment . . .[, and i]t is well established that an article 78 proceeding is not the proper vehicle to test the validity of a legislative enactment” (Kamhi v Town of Yorktown, 141 AD2d 607, 608, affd 74 NY2d 423). We agree with plaintiff, however, that Supreme Court erred in dismissing the complaint (improperly denominated petition and complaint) and instead should have granted judgment in favor of plaintiff declaring that the Local Law is invalid.
Defendant declared itself the lead agency for the proposed Local Law under SEQRA, concluded that this was an “Unlisted action” (6 NYCRR 617.6 [a] [3]), and prepared a “Short Environmental Assessment Form” (short EAF) used for such actions (see 6 NYCRR 617.20, Appendix C).
The short EAF contained a negative declaration of environmental significance and, based upon that declaration, no environmental impact statement was prepared (see ECL 8-0109 [4]; 6 NYCRR 617.7 [a] [2]).
It is well settled that SEQRA applies to the “adoption of . . . local laws . . . that may affect the environment” (6 NYCRR 617.2 [b] [3]; see ECL 8-0105 [4]; State of New York v Town of Horicon, 46 AD3d 1287, 1288). In addition, “[t]he mandate that agencies implement SEQRA’s procedural mechanisms to the ‘fullest extent possible’ reflects the Legislature’s view that the substance of SEQRA cannot be achieved without its procedure, and that departures from SEQRA’s procedural mechanisms thwart the purposes of the statute. Thus it is clear that strict, not substantial, compliance is required” (Matter of King v Saratoga County Bd. of Supervisors, 89 NY2d 341, 347).
We agree with plaintiff that defendant failed to comply with the procedural requirements of SEQRA and, “where a lead agency has failed to comply with SEQRA’s mandates, the negative declaration must be nullified” (Matter of New York City Coalition to End Lead Poisoning v Vallone, 100 NY2d 337, 348). The use of a short EAF is permitted only in the event that the proposed action, here, the enactment of the Local Law, is properly classified as an Unlisted action (see 6 NYCRR 617.6 [a] [3]). Unlisted actions are defined as those actions not identified as either Type I or Type II actions (see 6 NYCRR 617.2 [ak]), and Type I actions include “the adoption of changes in the allowable uses within any zoning district, affecting 25 or more acres of the district” (6 NYCRR 617.4 [b] [2]). The action at issue herein would change the allowable use within the entire Town and thus is properly classified as a Type I action (see generally Matter of Gernatt Asphalt Prods. v Town of Sardinia, 87 NY2d 668, 689-690; Patterson Materials Corp. v Town of Pawling, 264 AD2d 510, lv denied 95 NY2d 754). “For Type I actions, a full EAF . . . must be used to determine the significance of such actions” (6 NYCRR 617.6 [a] [2]). Thus, “[w]e agree with [plaintiff] that the failure of [defendant] to complete . . . the full EAF
nullifies its SEQRA negative declaration” (Matter of Citizens Against Sprawl-Mart v Planning Bd. of City of Niagara Falls, 8 AD3d 1052, 1053).
In light of our determination, we have not considered plaintiff’s
remaining contentions.
Entered: November 14, 2008 JoAnn M. Wahl
Clerk of the Court
Centerville.pdf
Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department
1104
CA 08-00282
PRESENT: SMITH, J.P., LUNN, FAHEY, AND PERADOTTO, JJ.
CENTERVILLE’S CONCERNED CITIZENS,
PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT,
V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
TOWN BOARD OF TOWN OF CENTERVILLE,
DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT.
GARY A. ABRAHAM, ALLEGANY, FOR PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT.
HODGSON RUSS LLP, BUFFALO (DANIEL A. SPITZER OF COUNSEL), AND
RICHARDSON AND PULLEN, P.C., FILLMORE, FOR DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT.
Appeal from a judgment (denominated order) of the Supreme Court, Allegany County (Michael L. Nenno, A.J.), entered May 9, 2007 in a declaratory judgment action. The judgment dismissed the complaint (denominated petition and complaint).
It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously reversed on the law without costs, the complaint is reinstated and judgment is granted in favor of plaintiff as follows:
It is ADJUDGED and DECLARED that Local Law No. 1 (2006) of the Town of Centerville is invalid.
Memorandum: Plaintiff commenced this hybrid CPLR article 78 proceeding and declaratory judgment action seeking to annul Town of Centerville Local Law No. 1 of 2006 (Local Law) based on, inter alia, the alleged failure of defendant to comply with the procedural and substantive requirements of ECL article 8 (State Environmental Quality Review Act [SEQRA]) in enacting the Local Law. We note at the outset that this is properly only a declaratory judgment action. “The gravamen of the plaintiff’s challenge here is . . . that the local law itself is an invalid legislative enactment . . .[, and i]t is well established that an article 78 proceeding is not the proper vehicle to test the validity of a legislative enactment” (Kamhi v Town of Yorktown, 141 AD2d 607, 608, affd 74 NY2d 423). We agree with plaintiff, however, that Supreme Court erred in dismissing the complaint (improperly denominated petition and complaint) and instead should have granted judgment in favor of plaintiff declaring that the Local Law is invalid.
Defendant declared itself the lead agency for the proposed Local Law under SEQRA, concluded that this was an “Unlisted action” (6 NYCRR 617.6 [a] [3]), and prepared a “Short Environmental Assessment Form” (short EAF) used for such actions (see 6 NYCRR 617.20, Appendix C).
The short EAF contained a negative declaration of environmental significance and, based upon that declaration, no environmental impact statement was prepared (see ECL 8-0109 [4]; 6 NYCRR 617.7 [a] [2]).
It is well settled that SEQRA applies to the “adoption of . . . local laws . . . that may affect the environment” (6 NYCRR 617.2 [b] [3]; see ECL 8-0105 [4]; State of New York v Town of Horicon, 46 AD3d 1287, 1288). In addition, “[t]he mandate that agencies implement SEQRA’s procedural mechanisms to the ‘fullest extent possible’ reflects the Legislature’s view that the substance of SEQRA cannot be achieved without its procedure, and that departures from SEQRA’s procedural mechanisms thwart the purposes of the statute. Thus it is clear that strict, not substantial, compliance is required” (Matter of King v Saratoga County Bd. of Supervisors, 89 NY2d 341, 347).
We agree with plaintiff that defendant failed to comply with the procedural requirements of SEQRA and, “where a lead agency has failed to comply with SEQRA’s mandates, the negative declaration must be nullified” (Matter of New York City Coalition to End Lead Poisoning v Vallone, 100 NY2d 337, 348). The use of a short EAF is permitted only in the event that the proposed action, here, the enactment of the Local Law, is properly classified as an Unlisted action (see 6 NYCRR 617.6 [a] [3]). Unlisted actions are defined as those actions not identified as either Type I or Type II actions (see 6 NYCRR 617.2 [ak]), and Type I actions include “the adoption of changes in the allowable uses within any zoning district, affecting 25 or more acres of the district” (6 NYCRR 617.4 [b] [2]). The action at issue herein would change the allowable use within the entire Town and thus is properly classified as a Type I action (see generally Matter of Gernatt Asphalt Prods. v Town of Sardinia, 87 NY2d 668, 689-690; Patterson Materials Corp. v Town of Pawling, 264 AD2d 510, lv denied 95 NY2d 754). “For Type I actions, a full EAF . . . must be used to determine the significance of such actions” (6 NYCRR 617.6 [a] [2]). Thus, “[w]e agree with [plaintiff] that the failure of [defendant] to complete . . . the full EAF
nullifies its SEQRA negative declaration” (Matter of Citizens Against Sprawl-Mart v Planning Bd. of City of Niagara Falls, 8 AD3d 1052, 1053).
In light of our determination, we have not considered plaintiff’s
remaining contentions.
Entered: November 14, 2008 JoAnn M. Wahl
Clerk of the Court
Centerville.pdf
Public hearing Comments Ecogen wind Project
To: SCIDA Board
RE: Financial Assistance to the Ecogen LLC project
FROM: Ruth Matilsky
Date: November 16, 2008
This letter is being written in response to the public hearing which was held at 10:00 A.M. on November 13 at the Prattsburgh Town Hall. The result of the public hearing will impact two towns, and it is unfortunate that the SCIDA chose to hold the hearing at a time when most people would be at work. It is not the first time that the SCIDA has held a meeting of this nature in the morning, and it appears it was not held at a convenient time for the SCIDA Board members, since not a single one attended the meeting. A copy of this memorandum is being sent to the recently established Attorney General’s Task Force, which was set up to ensure compliance with the Wind Industry Ethics Code.
It is approximately five years since the SCIDA became lead agent for the Ecogen project. Since that time much new information has emerged concerning the environmental impact of wind towers – The SCIDA has systematically ignored any and all evidence of harm, in its embrace of this and other wind projects.
The Ecogen project should not receive financial assistance from SCIDA in the form of a PILOT (or in any form for that matter) for the following reasons:
1. The SCIDA, as was mentioned numerous times in response to the DGEIS, does not have a legal right to be involved in financing for a project that is outside of Steuben County. More than half of the towers are proposed to be built in the Town of Italy, which is in Yates County.
2. In addition, by acting as lead agent as well as the instrument for arranging financial assistance, the SCIDA has a conflict of interest, since the SCIDA stands to gain $275,000 by arranging the PILOT. The Board of SCIDA knew that if they had rejected the GEIS that the SCIDA would have received no payment because there would have been no PILOT to arrange. Perhaps this is why the Board of SCIDA rubber stamped this project as well as the Windfarm Prattsburgh project. I personally sat at meetings when the SCIDA accepted 3000 page documents pertaining to the GEIS without hearing one SCIDA Board Member raise a single question.
3. Never once has the Ecogen project proved its cost benefit. Many times in the GEIS, the project sponsors referred to the Renewable Portfolio Standard, but never have the project sponsors revealed the results of their meteorological studies. The wind maps produced by AWS Truewind (referred to by the project sponsor) clearly show that the wind conditions in Prattsburgh and Italy are either less than or barely in line with NYSERDA guidelines.
4. It was announced at the public hearing that the Ecogen project will use 2.3 mw turbines instead of the GE 1.5’s they originally proposed in the GEIS. This alone should call for a new SEQR. The original studies based on 1.5s were not sufficient, comprised as they were of missing data and other flaws. The setbacks for the 1.5s were not sufficient. Now Ecogen is going to use more powerful turbines and SCIDA is rubber stamping that decision.
5. Ecogen does not have the leases it requires to make a contiguous path from the turbines to the substation or for a delivery path. The company has hired surveyors and directed them to trespass on the land of non participating landowners. People have been pressured, bullied and told that their land will be condemned, and still many of them have not signed. Yet SCIDA is about to grant financial assistance to a project whose plans were supposed to be completed during the SEQR and are, in fact, not yet complete.
6. Once again it must be pointed out that it was completely inappropriate for the SCIDA to allow Ecogen to carry out a generic EIS in the first place. Because each wind site varies so much, it is absolutely impossible to make models that will be accurate unless each and every turbine site is studied for noise impact and ice throw, not to mention visual impact and shadow flicker. The impact to well water has never been taken seriously by Ecogen or by the SCIDA.
7. Six to eight full time jobs have been projected by the project sponsor and not once have these jobs been defined. It is not known whether local people will qualify for these jobs and whether they will be jobs with benefits, etc. Surely a project that is going to reap windfall profits because of financial assistance, should be providing many more jobs than that.
Respectfully submitted
Ruth Matilsky, 6724 Baker Road, Prattsburgh, NY 14873
RE: Financial Assistance to the Ecogen LLC project
FROM: Ruth Matilsky
Date: November 16, 2008
This letter is being written in response to the public hearing which was held at 10:00 A.M. on November 13 at the Prattsburgh Town Hall. The result of the public hearing will impact two towns, and it is unfortunate that the SCIDA chose to hold the hearing at a time when most people would be at work. It is not the first time that the SCIDA has held a meeting of this nature in the morning, and it appears it was not held at a convenient time for the SCIDA Board members, since not a single one attended the meeting. A copy of this memorandum is being sent to the recently established Attorney General’s Task Force, which was set up to ensure compliance with the Wind Industry Ethics Code.
It is approximately five years since the SCIDA became lead agent for the Ecogen project. Since that time much new information has emerged concerning the environmental impact of wind towers – The SCIDA has systematically ignored any and all evidence of harm, in its embrace of this and other wind projects.
The Ecogen project should not receive financial assistance from SCIDA in the form of a PILOT (or in any form for that matter) for the following reasons:
1. The SCIDA, as was mentioned numerous times in response to the DGEIS, does not have a legal right to be involved in financing for a project that is outside of Steuben County. More than half of the towers are proposed to be built in the Town of Italy, which is in Yates County.
2. In addition, by acting as lead agent as well as the instrument for arranging financial assistance, the SCIDA has a conflict of interest, since the SCIDA stands to gain $275,000 by arranging the PILOT. The Board of SCIDA knew that if they had rejected the GEIS that the SCIDA would have received no payment because there would have been no PILOT to arrange. Perhaps this is why the Board of SCIDA rubber stamped this project as well as the Windfarm Prattsburgh project. I personally sat at meetings when the SCIDA accepted 3000 page documents pertaining to the GEIS without hearing one SCIDA Board Member raise a single question.
3. Never once has the Ecogen project proved its cost benefit. Many times in the GEIS, the project sponsors referred to the Renewable Portfolio Standard, but never have the project sponsors revealed the results of their meteorological studies. The wind maps produced by AWS Truewind (referred to by the project sponsor) clearly show that the wind conditions in Prattsburgh and Italy are either less than or barely in line with NYSERDA guidelines.
4. It was announced at the public hearing that the Ecogen project will use 2.3 mw turbines instead of the GE 1.5’s they originally proposed in the GEIS. This alone should call for a new SEQR. The original studies based on 1.5s were not sufficient, comprised as they were of missing data and other flaws. The setbacks for the 1.5s were not sufficient. Now Ecogen is going to use more powerful turbines and SCIDA is rubber stamping that decision.
5. Ecogen does not have the leases it requires to make a contiguous path from the turbines to the substation or for a delivery path. The company has hired surveyors and directed them to trespass on the land of non participating landowners. People have been pressured, bullied and told that their land will be condemned, and still many of them have not signed. Yet SCIDA is about to grant financial assistance to a project whose plans were supposed to be completed during the SEQR and are, in fact, not yet complete.
6. Once again it must be pointed out that it was completely inappropriate for the SCIDA to allow Ecogen to carry out a generic EIS in the first place. Because each wind site varies so much, it is absolutely impossible to make models that will be accurate unless each and every turbine site is studied for noise impact and ice throw, not to mention visual impact and shadow flicker. The impact to well water has never been taken seriously by Ecogen or by the SCIDA.
7. Six to eight full time jobs have been projected by the project sponsor and not once have these jobs been defined. It is not known whether local people will qualify for these jobs and whether they will be jobs with benefits, etc. Surely a project that is going to reap windfall profits because of financial assistance, should be providing many more jobs than that.
Respectfully submitted
Ruth Matilsky, 6724 Baker Road, Prattsburgh, NY 14873
Sunday, November 16, 2008
Wind farms: is there a hidden health hazard?
MORROW COUNTY, Ore. - It's their slice of heaven.
"When you get out here, everything kind of drains away from you," Sherry Eaton says as surveys her 10-acre rural home. "It's quiet, peaceful."
At least, it was.
"It looks like something prehistoric, something in the movies," Sherry’s husband Mike Eaton says about the more than a dozen towering wind turbines that have appeared above a ridge near their home.
Wind energy is the latest rage in going green and in shifting the United States away from fossil-based energy supplies. And more wind turbines are coming to Oregon. It is even required by law.
But with giant wind turbines now looming nearby, the Eaton’s fear the rapid move to clean energy will come at the expense of their health.
The problem is something called "Wind Turbine Syndrome."
"I pulled in the driveway after they started putting the towers up and there they are, I was just flabbergasted," Sherry said about the turbines, which reach nearly 400 feet into the sky.
But the view is not the half of it.
"My health concern is because I have a motion disorder, the research we've been researching has a possibility linked to having problems with [the turbines]," said Mike Eaton, who was an artillery man in Vietnam and has inner ear damage from all the blasts. He suffers from debilitating vertigo, which is similar to being seasick. He walks with a limp and a cane for assistance.
"In other words, I don't know what [the turbines] will do to me," he says. "To be honest with you… I don't want to be the guinea pig to find out."
Certain noises set off his vertigo, and he wonders if the sounds made by the whirling blades and churning turbine motors will be constant triggers.
That's why a soon-to-be-published book has them so alarmed. It’s called "Wind Turbine Syndrome: A Report on a Natural Experiment."
It's the work of New York physician and ecologist, Dr. Nina Pierpont.
Among the problems associated with Wind Turbine Syndrome are "a debilitating, complex of symptoms" including sleep disturbance, headache, dizziness, vertigo, nausea and panic episodes "associated with sensations of internal pulsation or quivering which arise while awake or asleep."
Dr. Pierpont began seeing patients in her clinic suffering from many of those symptoms and found a common thread among them: all lived near a new wind farm.
Dr. Owen Black is one of the experts asked to critique the research in the book. He is an expert in disorders of the inner ear.
He's also the Director of Neurology Research for the Legacy Research and Technology Center in Portland.
"Judging from the studies done, particularly by the Navy on low frequency sound pressure levels and given the symptom patterns that are described here, I definitely think it needs to be investigated," Dr. Black told KATU News. "What the cause is, I have no idea."
Dr. Pierpont's hypothesis says wind turbines produce vibration, low frequency noise and their moving shadows create visual stimulation known as "flicker."
All of those things that can affect the body, especially if you're someone with a "pre-existing migraine disorder, motion sensitivity, and inner ear damage" like Mike Eaton.
KATU News attempted to talk to the company building the wind farm next to the Eaton’s home about their concerns, but Susan Dennison of Invenergy, LLC, told KATU News "there hasn't been any conclusive evidence that turbines cause health problems."
Near the Eaton’s home, another company was cutting the ribbon on a newly-built wind farm.
Arlo Corwin, director of development for the Northwest region for Horizon Wind Energy said "we have definitely heard of these theories and we do think they are theories and we've never seen any credible source cited that substantiates this or scientific study that says this happens."
Horizon just commenced operation of the large new wind farm near Arlington.
Dr. Black concedes that "this area is very difficult because very few people have expertise in the areas that need to be studied" when it comes to the health affects of wind turbines.
He said that proving Wind Turbine Syndrome would require a comprehensive and very expensive study.
Meanwhile, The Eaton’s keep on eye on the nearest wind turbines, which are within a half-mile of their home.
Dr. Pierpont’s book says there should be a buffer of at least a mile and a quarter - maybe more - to protect the public.
"It's sickening, the pit of your stomach, you're whole life is going to change, and you have no control over it," Sherry Eaton says as she looks toward the temporarily still turbines.
Health concerns have not been part of the permitting process for wind farms in the Northwest. In fact, the state of Oregon touts it has "adopted an expedited siting processes for wind farms".
To learn about more Wind Turbine Syndrome, click here and here.
"When you get out here, everything kind of drains away from you," Sherry Eaton says as surveys her 10-acre rural home. "It's quiet, peaceful."
At least, it was.
"It looks like something prehistoric, something in the movies," Sherry’s husband Mike Eaton says about the more than a dozen towering wind turbines that have appeared above a ridge near their home.
Wind energy is the latest rage in going green and in shifting the United States away from fossil-based energy supplies. And more wind turbines are coming to Oregon. It is even required by law.
But with giant wind turbines now looming nearby, the Eaton’s fear the rapid move to clean energy will come at the expense of their health.
The problem is something called "Wind Turbine Syndrome."
"I pulled in the driveway after they started putting the towers up and there they are, I was just flabbergasted," Sherry said about the turbines, which reach nearly 400 feet into the sky.
But the view is not the half of it.
"My health concern is because I have a motion disorder, the research we've been researching has a possibility linked to having problems with [the turbines]," said Mike Eaton, who was an artillery man in Vietnam and has inner ear damage from all the blasts. He suffers from debilitating vertigo, which is similar to being seasick. He walks with a limp and a cane for assistance.
"In other words, I don't know what [the turbines] will do to me," he says. "To be honest with you… I don't want to be the guinea pig to find out."
Certain noises set off his vertigo, and he wonders if the sounds made by the whirling blades and churning turbine motors will be constant triggers.
That's why a soon-to-be-published book has them so alarmed. It’s called "Wind Turbine Syndrome: A Report on a Natural Experiment."
It's the work of New York physician and ecologist, Dr. Nina Pierpont.
Among the problems associated with Wind Turbine Syndrome are "a debilitating, complex of symptoms" including sleep disturbance, headache, dizziness, vertigo, nausea and panic episodes "associated with sensations of internal pulsation or quivering which arise while awake or asleep."
Dr. Pierpont began seeing patients in her clinic suffering from many of those symptoms and found a common thread among them: all lived near a new wind farm.
Dr. Owen Black is one of the experts asked to critique the research in the book. He is an expert in disorders of the inner ear.
He's also the Director of Neurology Research for the Legacy Research and Technology Center in Portland.
"Judging from the studies done, particularly by the Navy on low frequency sound pressure levels and given the symptom patterns that are described here, I definitely think it needs to be investigated," Dr. Black told KATU News. "What the cause is, I have no idea."
Dr. Pierpont's hypothesis says wind turbines produce vibration, low frequency noise and their moving shadows create visual stimulation known as "flicker."
All of those things that can affect the body, especially if you're someone with a "pre-existing migraine disorder, motion sensitivity, and inner ear damage" like Mike Eaton.
KATU News attempted to talk to the company building the wind farm next to the Eaton’s home about their concerns, but Susan Dennison of Invenergy, LLC, told KATU News "there hasn't been any conclusive evidence that turbines cause health problems."
Near the Eaton’s home, another company was cutting the ribbon on a newly-built wind farm.
Arlo Corwin, director of development for the Northwest region for Horizon Wind Energy said "we have definitely heard of these theories and we do think they are theories and we've never seen any credible source cited that substantiates this or scientific study that says this happens."
Horizon just commenced operation of the large new wind farm near Arlington.
Dr. Black concedes that "this area is very difficult because very few people have expertise in the areas that need to be studied" when it comes to the health affects of wind turbines.
He said that proving Wind Turbine Syndrome would require a comprehensive and very expensive study.
Meanwhile, The Eaton’s keep on eye on the nearest wind turbines, which are within a half-mile of their home.
Dr. Pierpont’s book says there should be a buffer of at least a mile and a quarter - maybe more - to protect the public.
"It's sickening, the pit of your stomach, you're whole life is going to change, and you have no control over it," Sherry Eaton says as she looks toward the temporarily still turbines.
Health concerns have not been part of the permitting process for wind farms in the Northwest. In fact, the state of Oregon touts it has "adopted an expedited siting processes for wind farms".
To learn about more Wind Turbine Syndrome, click here and here.
Saturday, November 15, 2008
Reduced Jordanville Wind Project Fine, Iberdrola Tells Packed House
Spanish multi-national Iberdrola unveiled a slimmer version of the Jordanville Wind Project before a packed town-hall meeting Monday, Nov. 10.
It was unclear, though, if anyone has changed his or her mind on an issue that divided the townspeople of Warren and Stark, where the wind project is planned, and Herkimer from Otsego counties; the northern county gets the benefits, and two counties share the impacts.
And while the prospective wind project has a new owner, some of the faces remained the same. For instance, Iberdrola’s vice president in charge of the 40-turbine project is Skip Brennan, the same Skip Brennan who was promoting the original wind farm for Community Energy as it shrank from 75 turbines to 68 to 49.
The current project, which was described as achieving a “suitable balance” between those pro and con in the community, also happens to top out at 80 megawatts; if it were a watt higher, it would fall under the review of the state Public Service Commission, which has issues strongly worded opinions about the shortcomings.
Since it escapes PSC review, the hearing the other night was to solicit public comment on Iberdrola’s revised filings required under SEQRA, the State Environmental Quality Review Act.
The company’s revised arguments, detailed by Brennan and emphasized on poster board across one wall, state:
• The project has gone though an exhaustive environmental review, dramatized by a pile of bound volumes a table long and three feet high, although it turned out those documents were actually for the Maple Ridge Farm near Lowville, the biggest in the state and now home to almost 200 turbines.
• The 28 eliminated turbines (from the 68-turbine version) is a 41 percent reduction, (although only an 18 percent reduction from the 49-turbine level set by state Supreme Court Judge Donald Greenwood in response to an Article 78 challenge.)
• Eight turbines were removed to the south, creating a five-mile buffer strip between the project and the Glimmerglass National Historic District.
• Four turbines were removed north of Holy Trinity Monastery, creating a one-mile buffer.
• A PILOT (payment in lieu of taxes) has been negotiated, which will generate $640,000 in local revenue annually, half of which would go to the Owen D. Young Central School District. Landowners would share $240,000 a year.
Some 36 people were scheduled to speak, five minutes each.
Representative of the anti side was Susan Marquardt, who cited low energy usage in the two towns, and called for “a unifying energy alternative” to the wind farm.
Troy Hugick was among the pros, quoting president-elect Barack Obama, “we have a righteous wind at our back.” He concluded, “and I believe we do.”
Brennan encouraged people with questions to visit the project description on Iberdrola’s web site.
It was unclear, though, if anyone has changed his or her mind on an issue that divided the townspeople of Warren and Stark, where the wind project is planned, and Herkimer from Otsego counties; the northern county gets the benefits, and two counties share the impacts.
And while the prospective wind project has a new owner, some of the faces remained the same. For instance, Iberdrola’s vice president in charge of the 40-turbine project is Skip Brennan, the same Skip Brennan who was promoting the original wind farm for Community Energy as it shrank from 75 turbines to 68 to 49.
The current project, which was described as achieving a “suitable balance” between those pro and con in the community, also happens to top out at 80 megawatts; if it were a watt higher, it would fall under the review of the state Public Service Commission, which has issues strongly worded opinions about the shortcomings.
Since it escapes PSC review, the hearing the other night was to solicit public comment on Iberdrola’s revised filings required under SEQRA, the State Environmental Quality Review Act.
The company’s revised arguments, detailed by Brennan and emphasized on poster board across one wall, state:
• The project has gone though an exhaustive environmental review, dramatized by a pile of bound volumes a table long and three feet high, although it turned out those documents were actually for the Maple Ridge Farm near Lowville, the biggest in the state and now home to almost 200 turbines.
• The 28 eliminated turbines (from the 68-turbine version) is a 41 percent reduction, (although only an 18 percent reduction from the 49-turbine level set by state Supreme Court Judge Donald Greenwood in response to an Article 78 challenge.)
• Eight turbines were removed to the south, creating a five-mile buffer strip between the project and the Glimmerglass National Historic District.
• Four turbines were removed north of Holy Trinity Monastery, creating a one-mile buffer.
• A PILOT (payment in lieu of taxes) has been negotiated, which will generate $640,000 in local revenue annually, half of which would go to the Owen D. Young Central School District. Landowners would share $240,000 a year.
Some 36 people were scheduled to speak, five minutes each.
Representative of the anti side was Susan Marquardt, who cited low energy usage in the two towns, and called for “a unifying energy alternative” to the wind farm.
Troy Hugick was among the pros, quoting president-elect Barack Obama, “we have a righteous wind at our back.” He concluded, “and I believe we do.”
Brennan encouraged people with questions to visit the project description on Iberdrola’s web site.
Friday, November 14, 2008
Don’t rush to invest in wind, solar power
We have just seen the collapse of the financial Goliath that was built by fast-buck bankers and encouraged by altruistic but shortsighted government policies that required banks to make more loans to those least able to repay them, and encouraged passing on these loans as quality investments.
We are now building a second Goliath in the form of irrational investment in wind and solar-voltaic energy. These are intermittent sources of electric power that our grid has no means to store for use when needed. The rush to invest in such irrational alternative energy schemes is driven by the same fast-buck investment bankers and by more altruistic but shortsighted government policies that require us to subsidize the cost of building such intermittent energy sources, and purchase their power output, whether we can use it or not.
This country needs reliable and affordable electric power for our homes and industries, and we have no more ability to make the wind blow or to move clouds when we need electric power than a farmer has the ability to make it rain on parched crops. We cannot afford another Goliath with feet of clay.
David Amsler
Franklinville
We are now building a second Goliath in the form of irrational investment in wind and solar-voltaic energy. These are intermittent sources of electric power that our grid has no means to store for use when needed. The rush to invest in such irrational alternative energy schemes is driven by the same fast-buck investment bankers and by more altruistic but shortsighted government policies that require us to subsidize the cost of building such intermittent energy sources, and purchase their power output, whether we can use it or not.
This country needs reliable and affordable electric power for our homes and industries, and we have no more ability to make the wind blow or to move clouds when we need electric power than a farmer has the ability to make it rain on parched crops. We cannot afford another Goliath with feet of clay.
David Amsler
Franklinville
Thursday, November 13, 2008
Wind farm moratorium eyed
The Holland Town Board, in the initial stages of writing a law on wind farms in the town, may adopt a moratorium on such entities as early as next month.
Wednesday, the board unanimously approved a public hearing for 8 p. m. Dec. 10 to impose a moratorium on wind farms until a local law regulating them has been adopted.
Eleven months ago, the board organized a subcommittee to investigate the sometimes controversial source of power. Since then, the group has studied various town ordinances to create a law that will suit the town.
Wednesday night, Town Attorney Ronald Bennett was asked by Supervisor Michael Kasprzyk to review the subcommittee’s work for proper legal wording.
Though no projects in the town have been proposed, the supervisor said the committee’s work has been prompted by the proliferation of wind farms in neighboring towns and the controversy they bring with them.
“All of our neighbors to the east — Sheldon, Java, Wethersfield — have projects going on. To the south of us, Sardinia said they don’t want to deal with it. I want us to be prepared, if we’re approached,” Kasprzyk said.
He said the Town of Eagle in Wyoming County has embraced the wind turbines while Farmersville has enacted a moratorium until officials rework their code book.
As the vanguard of the green movement, wind farm proposals are controversial, with some seeing the giant wind turbines as “an abomination of the landscape,” Kasprzyk said.
“So far I haven’t heard anyone against them in Holland, but maybe that’s because there’s no proposal on the table,” he added.
A public hearing on the new law, which will set the terms and conditions under which a wind farm can operate in Holland, is tentatively scheduled for January.
Wednesday, the board unanimously approved a public hearing for 8 p. m. Dec. 10 to impose a moratorium on wind farms until a local law regulating them has been adopted.
Eleven months ago, the board organized a subcommittee to investigate the sometimes controversial source of power. Since then, the group has studied various town ordinances to create a law that will suit the town.
Wednesday night, Town Attorney Ronald Bennett was asked by Supervisor Michael Kasprzyk to review the subcommittee’s work for proper legal wording.
Though no projects in the town have been proposed, the supervisor said the committee’s work has been prompted by the proliferation of wind farms in neighboring towns and the controversy they bring with them.
“All of our neighbors to the east — Sheldon, Java, Wethersfield — have projects going on. To the south of us, Sardinia said they don’t want to deal with it. I want us to be prepared, if we’re approached,” Kasprzyk said.
He said the Town of Eagle in Wyoming County has embraced the wind turbines while Farmersville has enacted a moratorium until officials rework their code book.
As the vanguard of the green movement, wind farm proposals are controversial, with some seeing the giant wind turbines as “an abomination of the landscape,” Kasprzyk said.
“So far I haven’t heard anyone against them in Holland, but maybe that’s because there’s no proposal on the table,” he added.
A public hearing on the new law, which will set the terms and conditions under which a wind farm can operate in Holland, is tentatively scheduled for January.
Wednesday, November 12, 2008
Increased setbacks recommended for Enfield wind law
The setbacks in the proposed Enfield wind law are not large enough, according to a letter from the Tompkins County Planning Department to Town Supervisor Frank Podufalski, but following that advice could kill the wind farm proposal for a site near Connecticut Hill.
The planning department recommends increased setbacks between property lines and the wind towers from 1.1 times the blade radius to 1.5 times the height of the tower. This would increase the setback from property lines from about 100 feet to roughly 600 feet. The height of the turbines is approximately 400 feet.
The size of setbacks has become the focal point of the proposed local law, and if the standards are increased to comply with the county recommendations, wind farm developer John Rancich's proposed wind farm would likely die. The county recommendations contain setbacks that are similar to a local law passed at the end of 2007 that was seen by some wind proponents as a desperate push by an outgoing town board resistant to the wind farm project.
Increased setbacks would kill Rancich's project because long, narrow plots in the vicinity would allow landowners to keep neighbors from having a tower on their own property, Rancich said last year. County Planning Director Ed Marx said the recommendations were solely based on wind laws in other communities and that the department did not consider the specific wind farm proposal.
“We feel like community support for alternative energy will be enhanced if we make sure adjacent property owners are properly protected as much as possible from the adverse impacts. I guess when you're developing a law it shouldn't be developed for a single project. It should be developed for the community and adjacent communities.”
The county recommendations also ask Enfield to increase setbacks from dwellings from 1.1 times the height of the tower to two times the height of the tower.
But Enfield does not have to comply with the county recommendations. If the Enfield Town Board does not adopt the recommendations, it will need a supermajority, which means four votes on the five-member board, to pass the proposal into law.
Marx based the county recommendations on examples of laws compiled by the New York State Energy Research and Development Authority, which vary considerably.
Town attorney Guy Krogh defended the proposed law.
“On setbacks, (NYSERDA) give(s) this ridiculous range of standards from barely anything to two times tower height, and somehow the county says ‘Well 1.1 (times the height of the tower) is at the low end. We think 1.5 (times the height of the tower),' ” Krogh said.
Krogh added that he doesn't see the relationship between community and intercommunity impacts and larger setbacks.
Marx said with greater setbacks there will likely be greater community support for alternative energy projects.
Residents living near the Rancich site have had concerns since wind energy was proposed.
Bruce Varner, a Connecticut Hill resident, wrote Podufalski requesting setbacks larger than proposed by county planning. However, he thinks a compromise could be found by the town board adhering to the county recommendations.
“If (the Enfield board) would alter the setbacks to what (county planning is) specifying and the sound levels to what they're specifying, I would think that's something workable. I would want them farther away,” Varner said
Varner also suggested moving the project across the street where he said a smaller but safer wind farm could be built. Rancich has said that his testing has only been done on the proposed site and that a smaller wind farm would not make the project financially viable.
At a public hearing last week, most attendees voiced strong support for the wind law with setbacks at 1.1 times the height of the tower.
The planning department recommends increased setbacks between property lines and the wind towers from 1.1 times the blade radius to 1.5 times the height of the tower. This would increase the setback from property lines from about 100 feet to roughly 600 feet. The height of the turbines is approximately 400 feet.
The size of setbacks has become the focal point of the proposed local law, and if the standards are increased to comply with the county recommendations, wind farm developer John Rancich's proposed wind farm would likely die. The county recommendations contain setbacks that are similar to a local law passed at the end of 2007 that was seen by some wind proponents as a desperate push by an outgoing town board resistant to the wind farm project.
Increased setbacks would kill Rancich's project because long, narrow plots in the vicinity would allow landowners to keep neighbors from having a tower on their own property, Rancich said last year. County Planning Director Ed Marx said the recommendations were solely based on wind laws in other communities and that the department did not consider the specific wind farm proposal.
“We feel like community support for alternative energy will be enhanced if we make sure adjacent property owners are properly protected as much as possible from the adverse impacts. I guess when you're developing a law it shouldn't be developed for a single project. It should be developed for the community and adjacent communities.”
The county recommendations also ask Enfield to increase setbacks from dwellings from 1.1 times the height of the tower to two times the height of the tower.
But Enfield does not have to comply with the county recommendations. If the Enfield Town Board does not adopt the recommendations, it will need a supermajority, which means four votes on the five-member board, to pass the proposal into law.
Marx based the county recommendations on examples of laws compiled by the New York State Energy Research and Development Authority, which vary considerably.
Town attorney Guy Krogh defended the proposed law.
“On setbacks, (NYSERDA) give(s) this ridiculous range of standards from barely anything to two times tower height, and somehow the county says ‘Well 1.1 (times the height of the tower) is at the low end. We think 1.5 (times the height of the tower),' ” Krogh said.
Krogh added that he doesn't see the relationship between community and intercommunity impacts and larger setbacks.
Marx said with greater setbacks there will likely be greater community support for alternative energy projects.
Residents living near the Rancich site have had concerns since wind energy was proposed.
Bruce Varner, a Connecticut Hill resident, wrote Podufalski requesting setbacks larger than proposed by county planning. However, he thinks a compromise could be found by the town board adhering to the county recommendations.
“If (the Enfield board) would alter the setbacks to what (county planning is) specifying and the sound levels to what they're specifying, I would think that's something workable. I would want them farther away,” Varner said
Varner also suggested moving the project across the street where he said a smaller but safer wind farm could be built. Rancich has said that his testing has only been done on the proposed site and that a smaller wind farm would not make the project financially viable.
At a public hearing last week, most attendees voiced strong support for the wind law with setbacks at 1.1 times the height of the tower.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)