Bath, N.Y.
A Bath Town Board committee will study other municipalities’ wind turbine laws in preparation of drafting a local law regarding wind farm developments.
Town Councilwoman Robin Lattimer, Planning Board Chairman James Emo and Mitchellsville resident James Arthur were named to the committee Monday.
Last month, Lattimer said wind turbine technology is improving, thereby increasing the odds a wind farm developer may someday be attracted to the Bath area. To date, wind patterns in the town have not distinguished it as a candidate for wind turbine developments.
Town Supervisor Fred Muller suggested the board consider a moratorium on wind farms while the committee investigates land use regulations.
“The one time we could’ve had a moratorium, we didn’t and it came back to haunt us,” Muller said, referring to the construction of an adult products store on Worth Road. Rumors of such a store preceded its opening by months, and Muller said a moratorium could have been effective in preventing the store from opening.
“I don’t know that it’s necessary to throw up a moratorium,” Lattimer said.
No action was taken on Muller’s suggestion.
Separately, Bath town resident Hal Bailey told board members he has visited several wind turbine sites in Cohocton during windy conditions. “I could hear the wind blowing, but I couldn’t hear the windmill,” Bailey said.
The Cohocton wind turbines have been the source of several noise-related complaints by residents. Bailey, however, said he stood directly under one of the turbines and didn’t think the noise was troublesome.
Lattimer said setback requirements would likely be a principal feature of any local land use regulation. However, she added, the subcommittee would take its time researching the issue.
“We’re not going to rush into it,” she said.
Tuesday, May 12, 2009
Monday, May 11, 2009
NPR "On Point" show discussing clipper wind turbines
Click to listen to hour long NPR radio broadcast on Clipper Wind Turbines.
Clipper Windpower Turbine Shortcomings
James Dehlsen has spent decades trying to build a bigger and better machine to convert a breeze into electricity.
As much as anyone, he helped create the modern wind-power business, riding waves of interest in alternative energy and weathering downturns when that enthusiasm died down. At this point in the cycle, he doesn't exactly have the wind at his back.
"The industry has been impacted pretty heavily," says Mr. Dehlsen, chairman of Clipper Windpower, one of a few U.S. wind-turbine makers. Asked about the demand for turbines, he says: "It's not up."
Jeffrey Ball/The Wall Street Journal
Just a few months ago, Clipper Windpower's turbines were in high demand. The company recently laid off workers.
President Barack Obama and politicians of both parties vow a renewable-energy revolution. The ups and downs of Mr. Dehlsen's company show both the promise and the difficulty of that vision. Creating reliable energy from a fuel as fickle as the wind is difficult. Doing so without predictable and prolonged help from Capitol Hill and Wall Street is all but impossible.
Few industries are as hard to change as energy. Fossil fuel, entrenched and convenient, follows a boom-and-bust cycle that keeps interrupting the development and adoption of alternatives. The interest in renewable energy rises with the price of oil and falls with it, too. Phasing in new energy sources on a scale big enough to matter would take consistent effort over decades -- something that, so far, hasn't happened in the biggest oil-consuming country in the world.
Europe has been more consistent. Longstanding subsidies there have incubated renewable-energy companies that now have gone global -- much like higher gasoline taxes have pushed most Europeans away from gas-guzzling cars. In good economic times, the U.S. chose not to match Europe's renewable-energy subsidies. So Europe, which generally isn't as windy as the U.S., emerged early on as a global wind-power leader.
Today's recession is whipsawing renewable-energy companies regardless of their nationality. According to New Energy Finance, an industry analyst, new investment in "clean energy" -- sources such as wind, solar and biofuels -- sank 53% globally in the first quarter from the same period last year. Layoffs and production cutbacks are spreading throughout the industry, which just months ago was soaring. In response, the U.S. is moving to boost its subsidies, largely to generate what Mr. Obama calls "green jobs."
That's a big opportunity for Clipper -- if it can get past the recession. In the past few months, Clipper has laid off one-quarter of the workers at its factory in this Rust Belt city, and it has slashed its production of wind turbines by more than half. Like many of its competitors, it's spending huge sums fixing mechanical problems that couldn't have come at a worse time. The industry might have ironed out those glitches had it developed without the fits and starts.
Today's wind turbines weigh more than 300 tons and stand some 300 feet tall. Climbing their internal ladders to the top requires wearing a mountaineer-style safety harness and takes 10 or 15 sweaty minutes. Their three fiberglass blades slice through a circle of airspace covering nearly two acres. The blades turn gears, which run generators, which produce electricity.
When Mr. Dehlsen started his first wind company in 1980, turbines were "made in people's garages," he recalls. At the time, oil prices were surging, and tax breaks for new sources of energy were waiting to be exploited. Mr. Dehlsen's company, Zond Systems, began importing turbines from Vestas, a Danish equipment maker then entering the wind business.
By 1985, the good times had ended. Oil prices sank, Washington withdrew the tax credits, and private financing for wind power dried up.
Mr. Dehlsen spent the next two decades trying to develop turbines that would produce more power at lower cost. In 2000, he sold Zond to Enron, then a highflying energy company. The following year, he founded Clipper and began developing an even bigger turbine. In 2005, he tested it in a howling Wyoming snowstorm.
His timing was good. Once again, oil prices were rising, another U.S. tax break was in place, and investors were pouring money into wind.
Clipper leased an abandoned printing-press factory in Cedar Rapids and retooled it to make turbines. The location was sensible if not sexy. The windiest solid swath of the U.S. is a corridor stretching from Texas to the Dakotas. Iowa sits along it.
The arrival of Clipper and other wind-energy companies was a blessing for Iowa, which had been losing manufacturing jobs. Among those hired was Jeff Pottebaum, who was a maintenance worker at a local hospital before Clipper hired him in 2006 for $15 an hour. "I thought I had the world by the tail," the 41-year-old says.
In 2007, Clipper's first full year of production, cracks developed on the blades of some turbines the company had installed, and the teeth on some turbines' gears began to wear prematurely. In response, Clipper reinforced the blades of all its turbines. It also brought the gearboxes of all its turbines back to the factory to check and, if necessary, repair. Then, last year, more problems emerged with blades and with a few gearboxes. Those prompted additional fixes. Clipper says the problems originated with suppliers.
But the industry can't control the economy. Last fall, the debt markets collapsed, the recession set in, and orders for new turbines screeched to a halt. Clipper halved production, to about four turbines per week. In January, it laid off about 80 workers, including Mr. Pottebaum.
"I was with a company where I thought the sky was the limit," says Mr. Pottebaum, who now has a temporary job in landscaping. He would return to Clipper, he says, "in a heartbeat."
Other wind-turbine makers also have had layoffs -- enough to worry Iowa Gov. Chet Culver. "We've got to help them hold on," he says between meetings at the state capitol. Gov. Culver is glad that several wind-turbine companies -- including those based abroad -- have set up factories in his state. "Long-term, I think this is probably the strongest sector of our economy," he says. "I can't predict today what the future is going to be -- how long these companies are going to have to struggle."
Clipper is seeking a loan guarantee under the Obama administration's economic-stimulus plan. At the Cedar Rapids plant, Clipper's chief executive, Douglas Pertz, invokes national interest as a reason the government should help his firm. As the country assists its automotive icons, he argues, it also should help loosen up funding for its renewable-energy companies. It would be problematic for the country "for Clipper to not survive," he says. Yet the renewable-energy industry is one of many sectors competing for stimulus aid.
Vestas has grown into a global wind-power juggernaut largely because of the reliability of European renewable-energy policy, says Roby Roberts, a Vestas senior vice president. "It takes continuity, predictability and consistency, and that's not what the U.S. has ever had," he says. Vestas now is expanding in the U.S., he says, largely because the U.S. is implementing more supportive policy.
Out behind Clipper's plant, shrink-wrapped in plastic, the finished pieces of wind turbines are piling up as they wait to be picked up by buyers facing financial difficulty themselves.
As much as anyone, he helped create the modern wind-power business, riding waves of interest in alternative energy and weathering downturns when that enthusiasm died down. At this point in the cycle, he doesn't exactly have the wind at his back.
"The industry has been impacted pretty heavily," says Mr. Dehlsen, chairman of Clipper Windpower, one of a few U.S. wind-turbine makers. Asked about the demand for turbines, he says: "It's not up."
Jeffrey Ball/The Wall Street Journal
Just a few months ago, Clipper Windpower's turbines were in high demand. The company recently laid off workers.
President Barack Obama and politicians of both parties vow a renewable-energy revolution. The ups and downs of Mr. Dehlsen's company show both the promise and the difficulty of that vision. Creating reliable energy from a fuel as fickle as the wind is difficult. Doing so without predictable and prolonged help from Capitol Hill and Wall Street is all but impossible.
Few industries are as hard to change as energy. Fossil fuel, entrenched and convenient, follows a boom-and-bust cycle that keeps interrupting the development and adoption of alternatives. The interest in renewable energy rises with the price of oil and falls with it, too. Phasing in new energy sources on a scale big enough to matter would take consistent effort over decades -- something that, so far, hasn't happened in the biggest oil-consuming country in the world.
Europe has been more consistent. Longstanding subsidies there have incubated renewable-energy companies that now have gone global -- much like higher gasoline taxes have pushed most Europeans away from gas-guzzling cars. In good economic times, the U.S. chose not to match Europe's renewable-energy subsidies. So Europe, which generally isn't as windy as the U.S., emerged early on as a global wind-power leader.
Today's recession is whipsawing renewable-energy companies regardless of their nationality. According to New Energy Finance, an industry analyst, new investment in "clean energy" -- sources such as wind, solar and biofuels -- sank 53% globally in the first quarter from the same period last year. Layoffs and production cutbacks are spreading throughout the industry, which just months ago was soaring. In response, the U.S. is moving to boost its subsidies, largely to generate what Mr. Obama calls "green jobs."
That's a big opportunity for Clipper -- if it can get past the recession. In the past few months, Clipper has laid off one-quarter of the workers at its factory in this Rust Belt city, and it has slashed its production of wind turbines by more than half. Like many of its competitors, it's spending huge sums fixing mechanical problems that couldn't have come at a worse time. The industry might have ironed out those glitches had it developed without the fits and starts.
Today's wind turbines weigh more than 300 tons and stand some 300 feet tall. Climbing their internal ladders to the top requires wearing a mountaineer-style safety harness and takes 10 or 15 sweaty minutes. Their three fiberglass blades slice through a circle of airspace covering nearly two acres. The blades turn gears, which run generators, which produce electricity.
When Mr. Dehlsen started his first wind company in 1980, turbines were "made in people's garages," he recalls. At the time, oil prices were surging, and tax breaks for new sources of energy were waiting to be exploited. Mr. Dehlsen's company, Zond Systems, began importing turbines from Vestas, a Danish equipment maker then entering the wind business.
By 1985, the good times had ended. Oil prices sank, Washington withdrew the tax credits, and private financing for wind power dried up.
Mr. Dehlsen spent the next two decades trying to develop turbines that would produce more power at lower cost. In 2000, he sold Zond to Enron, then a highflying energy company. The following year, he founded Clipper and began developing an even bigger turbine. In 2005, he tested it in a howling Wyoming snowstorm.
His timing was good. Once again, oil prices were rising, another U.S. tax break was in place, and investors were pouring money into wind.
Clipper leased an abandoned printing-press factory in Cedar Rapids and retooled it to make turbines. The location was sensible if not sexy. The windiest solid swath of the U.S. is a corridor stretching from Texas to the Dakotas. Iowa sits along it.
The arrival of Clipper and other wind-energy companies was a blessing for Iowa, which had been losing manufacturing jobs. Among those hired was Jeff Pottebaum, who was a maintenance worker at a local hospital before Clipper hired him in 2006 for $15 an hour. "I thought I had the world by the tail," the 41-year-old says.
In 2007, Clipper's first full year of production, cracks developed on the blades of some turbines the company had installed, and the teeth on some turbines' gears began to wear prematurely. In response, Clipper reinforced the blades of all its turbines. It also brought the gearboxes of all its turbines back to the factory to check and, if necessary, repair. Then, last year, more problems emerged with blades and with a few gearboxes. Those prompted additional fixes. Clipper says the problems originated with suppliers.
But the industry can't control the economy. Last fall, the debt markets collapsed, the recession set in, and orders for new turbines screeched to a halt. Clipper halved production, to about four turbines per week. In January, it laid off about 80 workers, including Mr. Pottebaum.
"I was with a company where I thought the sky was the limit," says Mr. Pottebaum, who now has a temporary job in landscaping. He would return to Clipper, he says, "in a heartbeat."
Other wind-turbine makers also have had layoffs -- enough to worry Iowa Gov. Chet Culver. "We've got to help them hold on," he says between meetings at the state capitol. Gov. Culver is glad that several wind-turbine companies -- including those based abroad -- have set up factories in his state. "Long-term, I think this is probably the strongest sector of our economy," he says. "I can't predict today what the future is going to be -- how long these companies are going to have to struggle."
Clipper is seeking a loan guarantee under the Obama administration's economic-stimulus plan. At the Cedar Rapids plant, Clipper's chief executive, Douglas Pertz, invokes national interest as a reason the government should help his firm. As the country assists its automotive icons, he argues, it also should help loosen up funding for its renewable-energy companies. It would be problematic for the country "for Clipper to not survive," he says. Yet the renewable-energy industry is one of many sectors competing for stimulus aid.
Vestas has grown into a global wind-power juggernaut largely because of the reliability of European renewable-energy policy, says Roby Roberts, a Vestas senior vice president. "It takes continuity, predictability and consistency, and that's not what the U.S. has ever had," he says. Vestas now is expanding in the U.S., he says, largely because the U.S. is implementing more supportive policy.
Out behind Clipper's plant, shrink-wrapped in plastic, the finished pieces of wind turbines are piling up as they wait to be picked up by buyers facing financial difficulty themselves.
Sunday, May 10, 2009
Wind farm laws should consider neighboring towns
A controversial proposed site for the placement of a wind farm in the Town of Orangeville, is the focus of regional concerns and debate. The primary questions is: Should an industrial wind farm be situated where it can cause significant harm to neighboring townships? In this case the Village of Attica.
The location in question is at the northern border of Orangeville. The location and topography of this proposed site indicate that the Village of Attica reservoir would be a primary recipient of construction storm-water runoff pollution. As water flows over a construction site, it picks up soil, chemicals and debris and washes them into fresh-water resources. According to the NYS Energy Research and Development Authority's publication "Wind Project Lifecycle Overview," the construction phase of a wind farm can take 5-18 months. This allows considerable time for construction runoff pollution to occur. This would include whatever soil, debris and chemicals (oil, diesel fuel, etc.) that might accidentally be spilled during construction. In the Town of Sheldon there was a great deal of concern regarding material shipped in from Lackawanna and used as fill for access roads. The same company had proposed a wind farm in Orangeville.
Does the Town of Orangeville have the right to permit an industrial site that could harm a neighboring municipality? Who will defend the rights of Attica residents to clean water and an unpolluted reservoir?
We all can appreciate the need for clean energy. However, we do not have the right to expose our neighboring municipalities to the drainage, runoff pollution and threat to water tables that will accompany Orangeville's industrial wind farm. The Orangeville Town Board should require setbacks sufficient to protect neighboring municipalities from the construction pollution and other problems that an industrial wind farm will bring. By responsible siting of wind turbines, this pollution can be kept, as much as possible, within the borders of Orangeville.
On April 6, the Wyoming County planning Board recommended that the Town of Orangeville include a full completed Environmental Assessment Form for its proposed zoning law. It is unclear whether the Town Board will comply with this recommendation.
A neighbor in Orangeville
Steven Moultrup
The location in question is at the northern border of Orangeville. The location and topography of this proposed site indicate that the Village of Attica reservoir would be a primary recipient of construction storm-water runoff pollution. As water flows over a construction site, it picks up soil, chemicals and debris and washes them into fresh-water resources. According to the NYS Energy Research and Development Authority's publication "Wind Project Lifecycle Overview," the construction phase of a wind farm can take 5-18 months. This allows considerable time for construction runoff pollution to occur. This would include whatever soil, debris and chemicals (oil, diesel fuel, etc.) that might accidentally be spilled during construction. In the Town of Sheldon there was a great deal of concern regarding material shipped in from Lackawanna and used as fill for access roads. The same company had proposed a wind farm in Orangeville.
Does the Town of Orangeville have the right to permit an industrial site that could harm a neighboring municipality? Who will defend the rights of Attica residents to clean water and an unpolluted reservoir?
We all can appreciate the need for clean energy. However, we do not have the right to expose our neighboring municipalities to the drainage, runoff pollution and threat to water tables that will accompany Orangeville's industrial wind farm. The Orangeville Town Board should require setbacks sufficient to protect neighboring municipalities from the construction pollution and other problems that an industrial wind farm will bring. By responsible siting of wind turbines, this pollution can be kept, as much as possible, within the borders of Orangeville.
On April 6, the Wyoming County planning Board recommended that the Town of Orangeville include a full completed Environmental Assessment Form for its proposed zoning law. It is unclear whether the Town Board will comply with this recommendation.
A neighbor in Orangeville
Steven Moultrup
Naples hears from windmill supporter-turned-opponent
Naples, N.Y. — .As the town of Naples continues to push for increased setbacks on wind towers planned near the Prattsburgh town line, Supervisor Frank Duserick continues to seek input from those who’ve had up-close experience with the turbines.
The Town Board most recently heard from Cohocton Town Justice Hal Graham, who signed a lease with First Wind for a turbine that began operating in January on his Lent Hill Road property, about 2,000 feet from his house. He now calls it a mistake.
Since First Wind’s Cohocton wind development went live — and even prior to that, during the construction phase — nearby homeowners have complained about turbine noise. Graham likened the noise from the tower on his property and another on a neighbor’s property that’s only 1,050 feet away to jet engines.
“It’s a constant grinding, whining noise,” he said later. “You walk outside the house and it sounds like planes are in the sky all the time. You wake up at two or three in the morning, and it’s impossible to get back to sleep.”
Graham said he and his wife had been anxious about possible noise from the turbines, but that the developer had reassured them their concerns were unfounded.
“We said from day one, we don’t want noise,” he recalled. “We were constantly assured that at 900 feet, the noise would only be like the hum of a refrigerator. We believed that.”
Graham was also reassured by neighbors who took bus trips to operating wind farms, and who came back reporting the noise was negligible. But it’s not just the noise making Graham unhappy.
He said original plans called for white lights shining up in the air, like lights on an airport landing strip. Instead, the towers have flashing red lights, and Graham said he was shocked at their brightness and reach.
“My wife and I were coming back from Canandaigua at night, and I said, ‘My God, what have we done to our neighbors?’” he recalled.
Graham said, however, the yearly check wasn’t the reason he and his wife signed the lease.
Rather, they were concerned about global warming.
“We thought we were going to do something good — that these things made good, clean, green energy,” he said.
Now, after logging hours of research on wind turbines, it seems like an inaccurate perception.
Though it’s true that wind power is a renewable resource — unlike fossil fuels — Graham pointed out that the power produced is intermittent. When the wind doesn’t blow, energy customers have to fall back on other sources like coal or nuclear power, which remain on stand-by in case they are needed.
As a participating landowner who has a lease with First Wind, Graham is viewed as a “co-applicant” of the developer under local law, and Cohocton officials have told him that rather than seeking assistance from the town, he must direct noise complaints directly to the company.
So far, Graham says he hasn’t gotten a response to his calls to First Wind.
The town of Cohocton is taking a look, however, at complaints from non-participating landowners, and Supervisor Jack Zigenfus wrote a letter to First Wind last month saying the town may need to take action if noise levels don’t comply with local laws or the terms of the development’s special use permits. Sound monitoring done at property lines of non-participating landowners have so far shown that noise levels don’t exceed permitted levels of 50 decibels, but Zigenfus pointed out that the levels may still exceed what was projected by First Wind’s consultants during planning review.
First Wind spokesperson John Lamontagne said the company is working with the town on the sound monitoring, and that they have established a sound complaint hotline.
“We understand there are concerns about sound and are working with residents, the town and the turbine manufacturer to ensure we are in compliance with town statutes and determine if there are ways to mitigate the sound,” Lamontagne said.
Some of the turbines are turned off for warranty maintenance work to their blades through their manufacturer, Clipper Windpower, which has also been conducting sound testing. Clipper spokesperson Mary Gates reiterated that the turbines are operating per the sound requirements, and said that the company is looking at whether adjustments can be made to further dampen the sound.
For Duserick, who has been hearing concerns about the siting of wind towers in neighboring towns for the past few years he’s held office, Graham’s story didn’t come as a surprise.
“I think it’s important to get into the record that people that approved towers on their own property now think it’s an error — at least, one did,” Duserick said, noting that he also sent an e-mail inviting First Wind to share their side of the story, although he hasn’t yet heard back.
Duserick has explained that Naples is not against wind towers, but that the Town Board does want to see them properly sited. He is now looking into whether county officials will help support the town’s position in protesting the placement of several towers slated to be put up by developer Ecogen on Knapp Hill, near the Prattsburgh-Naples town line. The nearest tower is within 489 feet of Naples landowner John Servo’s property line, and the town has lodged formal protests that this is effectively “reverse zoning,” limiting Naples landowners from full use of their property for safety reasons.
Servo also told the board that despite developers’ claims that wind farms would not adversely affect property values, a recent appraisal of the 25-acre parcel owned by his wife near the Steuben County line — where Ecogen’s turbines are planned — came back with a reduced value.
That value dropped, he said, because the land was deemed too close to the future turbines.
Based on the appraisal, the Naples assessor lowered their assessment by 60 percent.
Servo later pointed out that if such a trend continues, the shifting tax base could affect residents in other parts of town.
“If all the property near the turbines gets devalued and the town’s budget stays the same, doesn’t it seem like everybody else’s taxes will go up?” he asked.
While Naples has made attempts to protest plans for the siting of towers in Prattsburgh, so far it has received little response. A letter the town sent to the Public Service Commission in December asking that the agency mandate greater setbacks has gone unanswered, and discussions with the State Attorney General’s office haven’t yet yielded a commitment for action on the issue.
Many Naples and Prattsburgh residents are hoping that after airing concerns on the siting of proposed Prattsburgh wind towers at Congressman Eric Massa’s latest Town Hall meeting held in Naples on May 1, they may have found a champion.
“He promised he would take a look at the issues,” said Duserick, noting that more than half of the meeting was spent discussing wind development.
The Town Board most recently heard from Cohocton Town Justice Hal Graham, who signed a lease with First Wind for a turbine that began operating in January on his Lent Hill Road property, about 2,000 feet from his house. He now calls it a mistake.
Since First Wind’s Cohocton wind development went live — and even prior to that, during the construction phase — nearby homeowners have complained about turbine noise. Graham likened the noise from the tower on his property and another on a neighbor’s property that’s only 1,050 feet away to jet engines.
“It’s a constant grinding, whining noise,” he said later. “You walk outside the house and it sounds like planes are in the sky all the time. You wake up at two or three in the morning, and it’s impossible to get back to sleep.”
Graham said he and his wife had been anxious about possible noise from the turbines, but that the developer had reassured them their concerns were unfounded.
“We said from day one, we don’t want noise,” he recalled. “We were constantly assured that at 900 feet, the noise would only be like the hum of a refrigerator. We believed that.”
Graham was also reassured by neighbors who took bus trips to operating wind farms, and who came back reporting the noise was negligible. But it’s not just the noise making Graham unhappy.
He said original plans called for white lights shining up in the air, like lights on an airport landing strip. Instead, the towers have flashing red lights, and Graham said he was shocked at their brightness and reach.
“My wife and I were coming back from Canandaigua at night, and I said, ‘My God, what have we done to our neighbors?’” he recalled.
Graham said, however, the yearly check wasn’t the reason he and his wife signed the lease.
Rather, they were concerned about global warming.
“We thought we were going to do something good — that these things made good, clean, green energy,” he said.
Now, after logging hours of research on wind turbines, it seems like an inaccurate perception.
Though it’s true that wind power is a renewable resource — unlike fossil fuels — Graham pointed out that the power produced is intermittent. When the wind doesn’t blow, energy customers have to fall back on other sources like coal or nuclear power, which remain on stand-by in case they are needed.
As a participating landowner who has a lease with First Wind, Graham is viewed as a “co-applicant” of the developer under local law, and Cohocton officials have told him that rather than seeking assistance from the town, he must direct noise complaints directly to the company.
So far, Graham says he hasn’t gotten a response to his calls to First Wind.
The town of Cohocton is taking a look, however, at complaints from non-participating landowners, and Supervisor Jack Zigenfus wrote a letter to First Wind last month saying the town may need to take action if noise levels don’t comply with local laws or the terms of the development’s special use permits. Sound monitoring done at property lines of non-participating landowners have so far shown that noise levels don’t exceed permitted levels of 50 decibels, but Zigenfus pointed out that the levels may still exceed what was projected by First Wind’s consultants during planning review.
First Wind spokesperson John Lamontagne said the company is working with the town on the sound monitoring, and that they have established a sound complaint hotline.
“We understand there are concerns about sound and are working with residents, the town and the turbine manufacturer to ensure we are in compliance with town statutes and determine if there are ways to mitigate the sound,” Lamontagne said.
Some of the turbines are turned off for warranty maintenance work to their blades through their manufacturer, Clipper Windpower, which has also been conducting sound testing. Clipper spokesperson Mary Gates reiterated that the turbines are operating per the sound requirements, and said that the company is looking at whether adjustments can be made to further dampen the sound.
For Duserick, who has been hearing concerns about the siting of wind towers in neighboring towns for the past few years he’s held office, Graham’s story didn’t come as a surprise.
“I think it’s important to get into the record that people that approved towers on their own property now think it’s an error — at least, one did,” Duserick said, noting that he also sent an e-mail inviting First Wind to share their side of the story, although he hasn’t yet heard back.
Duserick has explained that Naples is not against wind towers, but that the Town Board does want to see them properly sited. He is now looking into whether county officials will help support the town’s position in protesting the placement of several towers slated to be put up by developer Ecogen on Knapp Hill, near the Prattsburgh-Naples town line. The nearest tower is within 489 feet of Naples landowner John Servo’s property line, and the town has lodged formal protests that this is effectively “reverse zoning,” limiting Naples landowners from full use of their property for safety reasons.
Servo also told the board that despite developers’ claims that wind farms would not adversely affect property values, a recent appraisal of the 25-acre parcel owned by his wife near the Steuben County line — where Ecogen’s turbines are planned — came back with a reduced value.
That value dropped, he said, because the land was deemed too close to the future turbines.
Based on the appraisal, the Naples assessor lowered their assessment by 60 percent.
Servo later pointed out that if such a trend continues, the shifting tax base could affect residents in other parts of town.
“If all the property near the turbines gets devalued and the town’s budget stays the same, doesn’t it seem like everybody else’s taxes will go up?” he asked.
While Naples has made attempts to protest plans for the siting of towers in Prattsburgh, so far it has received little response. A letter the town sent to the Public Service Commission in December asking that the agency mandate greater setbacks has gone unanswered, and discussions with the State Attorney General’s office haven’t yet yielded a commitment for action on the issue.
Many Naples and Prattsburgh residents are hoping that after airing concerns on the siting of proposed Prattsburgh wind towers at Congressman Eric Massa’s latest Town Hall meeting held in Naples on May 1, they may have found a champion.
“He promised he would take a look at the issues,” said Duserick, noting that more than half of the meeting was spent discussing wind development.
Thursday, May 07, 2009
Don't allow turbines next to homes
Editor:
I would like to update residents of the Town of Alabama and nearby homeowners on the proceedings at the Town Council meeting on April 13. A petition was presented to town Supervisor Guy Hinkson and the council. The petition contained almost 300 signatures of Alabama residents who oppose the siting of industrial wind turbines within the town of Alabama. It was noted that the majority of the signatures were from residents who live within the build area of Horizon's proposed industrial wind turbine area.
There were no significant discussions of the wind turbines at this meeting other than the warning lights for a MET tower were not working due to a failure of a solar powered lighting system.
Several residents spoke in opposition to the wind turbines. I offered the following comments along with recent photographs of flocks of Canada geese in the proposed turbine areas near Townline and Macomber Roads.
My comments to the council:
There is only one good reason to allow Horizon to ruin our town with wind turbines and that is money.
Green energy and saving the earth are all debatable. There are many good reasons not to allow turbines in the town. A recent letter by a Bliss, N.Y., resident proves that turbines do interfere with the new digital TV signals as far away as 3 miles. This means that residents, including Oakfield, may not get good TV reception due to the turbines. This is a major wildlife area. Thousands of geese are all over the area, not just in the swamps. Year after year they fill the skies that will soon be filled with turbines. There are health concerns from sound and flicker. There are concerns with loss of ground water, using contaminated slag. There are concerns with changing the plans without town approval. Turbine land owners are now getting liens on their property from bankrupt or bad wind companies. Property values will go down.
However, the safety of the residents living near all the turbines should be your No. 1 concern. There will be over 200 homes within 4,000 feet of the turbines. Some turbines may be 1,200 feet from the homes of non-consenting residents. There are about 20 road intersections within or near the project area. Some are quite heavily traveled, especially Townline, Ledge, and Route 77. Many homes on Townline Road will be surrounded by turbines, nine turbines within about a half mile. This is just plain stupid, careless, negligent.
The average number of homes per square mile in Alabama is 16. The number of homes around turbine T-56 alone will be 24 homes per square mile. Where are your brains?
Horizon's own documents state that there are dangers and risks with this project. Their liability will be covered, they made it known, although they do not advertise the dangers and risks. The advertising we get in the mail or papers says nothing of the dangers and risks involved. Horizon forms limited liability corporations for each wind farm to protect their parent company from lawsuits because they know there will be problems. If landowners and the town think they are protected from lawsuits, they are wrong.
A recent turbine collapse in New York state proves that even high-tech wind turbines can and do go out of control and self destruct. As the elected town council, you must terminate the project or insist on the removal of all turbines that are creating dangerous and unsafe conditions. You must put safety first. End of comments to the council.
Under section 1104 of the Town of Alabama Zoning Law concerning incentive zoning (the special deals made to avoid paying regular taxes) it states: "In order to approve an amenity/incentive proposal, the Town Board shall determine that the proposed amenity provides sufficient public benefit to provide the requested incentive. In no circumstances, however, shall the Town Board be compelled to approve any amenity/incentive proposal and it may deny any such proposal in its sole and absolute discretion. The Town Board may also impose such conditions upon its approval as it may deem appropriate to promote the health, safety and welfare of the community."
Forty-story industrial wind turbines with blades moving almost 200 mph do not belong close to groups of homes. Wind developments may be OK for Texas or remote hilltops but not in areas with so many homes.
I hope the Alabama Council members are wise enough to see the potential risk and dangers before it is too late.
David M. Bencic
Town of Alabama
I would like to update residents of the Town of Alabama and nearby homeowners on the proceedings at the Town Council meeting on April 13. A petition was presented to town Supervisor Guy Hinkson and the council. The petition contained almost 300 signatures of Alabama residents who oppose the siting of industrial wind turbines within the town of Alabama. It was noted that the majority of the signatures were from residents who live within the build area of Horizon's proposed industrial wind turbine area.
There were no significant discussions of the wind turbines at this meeting other than the warning lights for a MET tower were not working due to a failure of a solar powered lighting system.
Several residents spoke in opposition to the wind turbines. I offered the following comments along with recent photographs of flocks of Canada geese in the proposed turbine areas near Townline and Macomber Roads.
My comments to the council:
There is only one good reason to allow Horizon to ruin our town with wind turbines and that is money.
Green energy and saving the earth are all debatable. There are many good reasons not to allow turbines in the town. A recent letter by a Bliss, N.Y., resident proves that turbines do interfere with the new digital TV signals as far away as 3 miles. This means that residents, including Oakfield, may not get good TV reception due to the turbines. This is a major wildlife area. Thousands of geese are all over the area, not just in the swamps. Year after year they fill the skies that will soon be filled with turbines. There are health concerns from sound and flicker. There are concerns with loss of ground water, using contaminated slag. There are concerns with changing the plans without town approval. Turbine land owners are now getting liens on their property from bankrupt or bad wind companies. Property values will go down.
However, the safety of the residents living near all the turbines should be your No. 1 concern. There will be over 200 homes within 4,000 feet of the turbines. Some turbines may be 1,200 feet from the homes of non-consenting residents. There are about 20 road intersections within or near the project area. Some are quite heavily traveled, especially Townline, Ledge, and Route 77. Many homes on Townline Road will be surrounded by turbines, nine turbines within about a half mile. This is just plain stupid, careless, negligent.
The average number of homes per square mile in Alabama is 16. The number of homes around turbine T-56 alone will be 24 homes per square mile. Where are your brains?
Horizon's own documents state that there are dangers and risks with this project. Their liability will be covered, they made it known, although they do not advertise the dangers and risks. The advertising we get in the mail or papers says nothing of the dangers and risks involved. Horizon forms limited liability corporations for each wind farm to protect their parent company from lawsuits because they know there will be problems. If landowners and the town think they are protected from lawsuits, they are wrong.
A recent turbine collapse in New York state proves that even high-tech wind turbines can and do go out of control and self destruct. As the elected town council, you must terminate the project or insist on the removal of all turbines that are creating dangerous and unsafe conditions. You must put safety first. End of comments to the council.
Under section 1104 of the Town of Alabama Zoning Law concerning incentive zoning (the special deals made to avoid paying regular taxes) it states: "In order to approve an amenity/incentive proposal, the Town Board shall determine that the proposed amenity provides sufficient public benefit to provide the requested incentive. In no circumstances, however, shall the Town Board be compelled to approve any amenity/incentive proposal and it may deny any such proposal in its sole and absolute discretion. The Town Board may also impose such conditions upon its approval as it may deem appropriate to promote the health, safety and welfare of the community."
Forty-story industrial wind turbines with blades moving almost 200 mph do not belong close to groups of homes. Wind developments may be OK for Texas or remote hilltops but not in areas with so many homes.
I hope the Alabama Council members are wise enough to see the potential risk and dangers before it is too late.
David M. Bencic
Town of Alabama
Attica wind law promotes conservation
ATTICA--The Town Board approved a Small Wind Energy Conservation Act at its meeting Monday.
The new law allows private residents and small businesses to erect small wind turbines for the purpose of reducing high energy costs on site.
"This law has been three years in the making," said Town Supervisor Doug Patti. "It started when UPC Wind was interested in developing a wind farm in 2006."
Town Board members spoke with several towns that were developing wind farms, Patti said. The Town Board also conducted a survey of town residents to know the desires of the town, he said.
"When this started, we promised a slow, methodical approach and we've done that," Patti said.
The new law allows for a maximum height of 120 feet for a turbine on a property of more than two acres and 65 feet for a turbine on a property of less than two acres. Turbines must also produce no more than 50 decibels when measured from the nearest inhabited house, Patti said.
"We think we've done what the majority of people in Attica want," Patti said. "We arrived at a law that is good for the majority."
The new law allows private residents and small businesses to erect small wind turbines for the purpose of reducing high energy costs on site.
"This law has been three years in the making," said Town Supervisor Doug Patti. "It started when UPC Wind was interested in developing a wind farm in 2006."
Town Board members spoke with several towns that were developing wind farms, Patti said. The Town Board also conducted a survey of town residents to know the desires of the town, he said.
"When this started, we promised a slow, methodical approach and we've done that," Patti said.
The new law allows for a maximum height of 120 feet for a turbine on a property of more than two acres and 65 feet for a turbine on a property of less than two acres. Turbines must also produce no more than 50 decibels when measured from the nearest inhabited house, Patti said.
"We think we've done what the majority of people in Attica want," Patti said. "We arrived at a law that is good for the majority."
Summary of Ecogen v. Town of Italy 2006 wind zoning case
While somewhat dated, this case, Ecogen LLC v. Town of Italy, 438 F. Supp. 2d 149 (W.D.N.Y. Jul. 2006), is worth mentioning at least because it is a New York state case in federal district court (these are rare) and offers some guidance on the ins and outs of wind zoning in New York towns, particularly where wind projects are contentious.
Ecogen LLC, interested since 2001 in developing a wind project in and around the Town of Italy (Yates County), filed suit to obtain relief from a wind energy (and related) development moratorium enacted in 2004 in the Town of Italy (Yates County) which was preventing Ecogen from constructing a substation in the town. The substation was for turbines to be constructed in Italy and neighboring Prattsburgh. The court indicated that while Prattsburgh was supportive of the project, Italy extended the six-month moratorium multiple times. The moratorium allowed a “hardship” exception, to be granted only after review of an application for such exception. Ecogen did not apply for such exception.
Ecogen claimed six causes of action: deprivation of due process; unconstitutionality of the moratorium; violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983; the seeking of injunctive relief; and two state law claims. The town moved to dismiss, stating that Ecogen had failed to state a claim, in part because it failed, by not seeking a hardship exception, to obtain a final decision from the town concerning the application of the moratorium to the proposal to build a substation.
The court looked to whether the moratorium “on its face” was deficient or whether “as applied” to Ecogen it was. Regarding the facial challenge, the court indicated that to prevail Ecogen would need to show that the moratorium, at least to the extent it prevented construction of the substation, bore no rational relationship to any legitimate government purpose. The court found no valid claim that the moratorium was invalid on its face, because, under federal law, it was not “so arbitrary or irrational as to violate [Ecogen's] substantive due process rights.” The court declined to apply state law standards advocated by Ecogen.
While Ecogen insisted that it was not challenging the moratorium as applied to Ecogen, the court nevertheless took it upon itself to consider such a claim. It found such a claim “not ripe for review.” Ecogen had argued that should the court so construe its claims, that the claim was ripe, because applying for the hardship exception would have been futile. The court disagreed. While a plaintiff need not “jump through a series of hoops, the last of which it is certain to find obstructed by a brick wall,” the court said there did need to be evidence that the town had no discretion to grant the exception, or had “dug in its heels and made clear” that it would not grant the exception. The doubtfulness of the grant of an exception, or the town’s hostility to the project was not enough. The court left for another day what an adequate showing of futility would be. (Considering what was happening here, one wonders how much heel digging is necessary to make such a showing before this court.)
The court found the length of the moratorium (two years running) needed to draft wind regulations “curious and suspicious”, but did not order the end of the moratorium, contingent however upon the town developing a comprehensive plan within ninety days of the court’s order or rendering a decision on a hardship exception application (if filed) within ninety days of filing.
Relatively recent press reports indicate that the town subsequently drafted a comprehensive plan that was relatively anti-wind development. Per the reports, Ecogen sued again, but agreed to put that lawsuit on hold provided the town consider incentive zoning, which would permit turbines provided the developer make certain payments.
A subsequent decision in the case, 461 F.Supp. 2d 100 (Nov. 2006) denied attorney’s fees to the defendant town.
Ecogen LLC, interested since 2001 in developing a wind project in and around the Town of Italy (Yates County), filed suit to obtain relief from a wind energy (and related) development moratorium enacted in 2004 in the Town of Italy (Yates County) which was preventing Ecogen from constructing a substation in the town. The substation was for turbines to be constructed in Italy and neighboring Prattsburgh. The court indicated that while Prattsburgh was supportive of the project, Italy extended the six-month moratorium multiple times. The moratorium allowed a “hardship” exception, to be granted only after review of an application for such exception. Ecogen did not apply for such exception.
Ecogen claimed six causes of action: deprivation of due process; unconstitutionality of the moratorium; violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983; the seeking of injunctive relief; and two state law claims. The town moved to dismiss, stating that Ecogen had failed to state a claim, in part because it failed, by not seeking a hardship exception, to obtain a final decision from the town concerning the application of the moratorium to the proposal to build a substation.
The court looked to whether the moratorium “on its face” was deficient or whether “as applied” to Ecogen it was. Regarding the facial challenge, the court indicated that to prevail Ecogen would need to show that the moratorium, at least to the extent it prevented construction of the substation, bore no rational relationship to any legitimate government purpose. The court found no valid claim that the moratorium was invalid on its face, because, under federal law, it was not “so arbitrary or irrational as to violate [Ecogen's] substantive due process rights.” The court declined to apply state law standards advocated by Ecogen.
While Ecogen insisted that it was not challenging the moratorium as applied to Ecogen, the court nevertheless took it upon itself to consider such a claim. It found such a claim “not ripe for review.” Ecogen had argued that should the court so construe its claims, that the claim was ripe, because applying for the hardship exception would have been futile. The court disagreed. While a plaintiff need not “jump through a series of hoops, the last of which it is certain to find obstructed by a brick wall,” the court said there did need to be evidence that the town had no discretion to grant the exception, or had “dug in its heels and made clear” that it would not grant the exception. The doubtfulness of the grant of an exception, or the town’s hostility to the project was not enough. The court left for another day what an adequate showing of futility would be. (Considering what was happening here, one wonders how much heel digging is necessary to make such a showing before this court.)
The court found the length of the moratorium (two years running) needed to draft wind regulations “curious and suspicious”, but did not order the end of the moratorium, contingent however upon the town developing a comprehensive plan within ninety days of the court’s order or rendering a decision on a hardship exception application (if filed) within ninety days of filing.
Relatively recent press reports indicate that the town subsequently drafted a comprehensive plan that was relatively anti-wind development. Per the reports, Ecogen sued again, but agreed to put that lawsuit on hold provided the town consider incentive zoning, which would permit turbines provided the developer make certain payments.
A subsequent decision in the case, 461 F.Supp. 2d 100 (Nov. 2006) denied attorney’s fees to the defendant town.
Sunday, May 03, 2009
AES SUIT: Judge invalidates payment-in-lieu-of-taxes agreement
AES Somerset’s $43 million tax break has been canceled.
A Friday ruling by the State Supreme Court Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department, invalidated the 12-year payment-in-lieu-of-taxes deal given to the power generator by the Niagara County Industrial Development Agency in October 2006.
“The AES tax exemption agreement is out the window,” said Robert Roberson, a former attorney for the Town of Somerset. “It is a complete reversal of the decision of Judge (Richard) Kloch. It will save the town, the county and the school district somewhere around $40 million in taxes they won’t have to pay to avoid AES paying them. That’s a lot of money.”
Since the PILOT is invalidated, however, AES Somerset’s multiple lawsuits against the town, all challenging the plant’s assessed value, can be reactivated. Town Supervisor Richard Meyers said he’s eager to try settling those claims out of court.
“I’d love to have the opportunity to sit down and really negotiate this with AES, and put it behind us once and for all,” Meyers said. “We’re well past this litigation cycle that we’ve been in for so long.”
Neither AES Somerset plant manager Kevin Pierce nor the special attorneys for AES and the IDA could be reached for comment late Friday.
The town, Barker School District and Niagara County all sued the IDA and AES in early 2007 seeking to have the PILOT rescinded. When Kloch, a state Supreme Court justice in Niagara County, threw out their petitions later that year, the county Legislature declined to proceed with an appeal. The school district and the town proceeded.
The IDA had granted the power company a 12-year, $192 million PILOT in exchange for the company’s promise to pursue a shot at building a state-subsidized clean coal plant under former Gov. George Pataki’s Advanced Clean Coal Initiative. The company also promised it would drop a series of pending lawsuits against the town challenging its annual assessment. AES later lost out on the clean-coal deal but the PILOT remained.
By taking AES property off the tax rolls and letting it make less-than-tax value payments for 12 years, the school district, the town and the county together stood to lose an estimated $43 million in revenue. The plant came off the assessment rolls in mid-2007, costing Barker School District alone nearly $3 million in two tax cycles since then. Before the removal from the rolls, the town listed AES Somerset’s value as $705 million. The company claimed its market value was $100 million.
The taxing entities argued the PILOT was improper because AES supplied the IDA with incomplete financial information and the IDA didn’t follow its own rules for granting tax breaks.
The four-judge appellate panel out of Rochester sided with the taxing entities and ruled unanimously that Kloch shouldn’t have dismissed the suits.
The ruling, posted online about 3 p.m. Friday, cites multiple flaws in the IDA’s stated justifications for granting the tax break, including:
• AES did not present Somerset plant-specific financial information from which the IDA could fairly decide a tax break was necessary.
• The IDA did not have any evidence supporting its claim that by granting the break, and getting AES to drop the assessment lawsuits, the taxing entities would benefit.
• The IDA did not, in its deliberations on the break, prove that deviation from its uniform tax exemption policy was warranted.
The panel also said the PILOT agreement improperly gave the IDA the power to determine the assessed value of any future additions to the Somerset generating station.
Kloch should have ruled in favor of the school district and the town, “thereby annulling the ... PILOT agreement” and he “erred” in dismissing AES Somerset’s assessment relief petitions, the panel said.
Deputy Town Supervisor Daniel Engert hailed the decision. The IDA was out of line when it tried imposing a settlement of AES’ outstanding assessment complaints without the consent of the affected taxing entities, he said.
“It was never up to them,” he said. “We’re happy to have it back in our court.”
Contact reporter Joyce Miles at 439-9222, ext. 6245.
A Friday ruling by the State Supreme Court Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department, invalidated the 12-year payment-in-lieu-of-taxes deal given to the power generator by the Niagara County Industrial Development Agency in October 2006.
“The AES tax exemption agreement is out the window,” said Robert Roberson, a former attorney for the Town of Somerset. “It is a complete reversal of the decision of Judge (Richard) Kloch. It will save the town, the county and the school district somewhere around $40 million in taxes they won’t have to pay to avoid AES paying them. That’s a lot of money.”
Since the PILOT is invalidated, however, AES Somerset’s multiple lawsuits against the town, all challenging the plant’s assessed value, can be reactivated. Town Supervisor Richard Meyers said he’s eager to try settling those claims out of court.
“I’d love to have the opportunity to sit down and really negotiate this with AES, and put it behind us once and for all,” Meyers said. “We’re well past this litigation cycle that we’ve been in for so long.”
Neither AES Somerset plant manager Kevin Pierce nor the special attorneys for AES and the IDA could be reached for comment late Friday.
The town, Barker School District and Niagara County all sued the IDA and AES in early 2007 seeking to have the PILOT rescinded. When Kloch, a state Supreme Court justice in Niagara County, threw out their petitions later that year, the county Legislature declined to proceed with an appeal. The school district and the town proceeded.
The IDA had granted the power company a 12-year, $192 million PILOT in exchange for the company’s promise to pursue a shot at building a state-subsidized clean coal plant under former Gov. George Pataki’s Advanced Clean Coal Initiative. The company also promised it would drop a series of pending lawsuits against the town challenging its annual assessment. AES later lost out on the clean-coal deal but the PILOT remained.
By taking AES property off the tax rolls and letting it make less-than-tax value payments for 12 years, the school district, the town and the county together stood to lose an estimated $43 million in revenue. The plant came off the assessment rolls in mid-2007, costing Barker School District alone nearly $3 million in two tax cycles since then. Before the removal from the rolls, the town listed AES Somerset’s value as $705 million. The company claimed its market value was $100 million.
The taxing entities argued the PILOT was improper because AES supplied the IDA with incomplete financial information and the IDA didn’t follow its own rules for granting tax breaks.
The four-judge appellate panel out of Rochester sided with the taxing entities and ruled unanimously that Kloch shouldn’t have dismissed the suits.
The ruling, posted online about 3 p.m. Friday, cites multiple flaws in the IDA’s stated justifications for granting the tax break, including:
• AES did not present Somerset plant-specific financial information from which the IDA could fairly decide a tax break was necessary.
• The IDA did not have any evidence supporting its claim that by granting the break, and getting AES to drop the assessment lawsuits, the taxing entities would benefit.
• The IDA did not, in its deliberations on the break, prove that deviation from its uniform tax exemption policy was warranted.
The panel also said the PILOT agreement improperly gave the IDA the power to determine the assessed value of any future additions to the Somerset generating station.
Kloch should have ruled in favor of the school district and the town, “thereby annulling the ... PILOT agreement” and he “erred” in dismissing AES Somerset’s assessment relief petitions, the panel said.
Deputy Town Supervisor Daniel Engert hailed the decision. The IDA was out of line when it tried imposing a settlement of AES’ outstanding assessment complaints without the consent of the affected taxing entities, he said.
“It was never up to them,” he said. “We’re happy to have it back in our court.”
Contact reporter Joyce Miles at 439-9222, ext. 6245.
Noise information should have been disclosed
I was recently contacted by councilman Steven Kula regarding a visit some of Prattsburgh's officials had to Chatham-Kent, Ontario to visit the Kruger Port Alma wind project.
I do not doubt that the people Stacey Bottoni and Sharon Quigley spoke to on their recent visit to Chatham-Kent did like the Kruger turbines and had no issues with them. However, that is not the case for everyone living near the turbines. I am in contact with a family suffering severe health/quality of life issues since the turbines began operating. They were told before the turbines went up that they would not hear them. They hear them almost all the time, both inside, and outside their home. Objects vibrate off shelves in their home. They all suffer from disturbed sleep patterns. The father has started trying to sleep with a radio on to drown out the noise. Two young children have started to hit their heads with their hands, "because of the noise" they say. One also complains of the noise in his ears and vomits as he is falling asleep.
This family complained of the noise created by the turbines to the Municipality of Chatham-Kent in early March. On March 23, 2009 a Kruger Energy employee visited the residence in response to the noise complaint that they had made to the Municipality. The Kruger representative said they would file a noise complaint report with the Ministry of the Environment and install noise monitoring equipment inside and outside the home. On March 24, a letter was submitted to Chatham-Kent council describing their altered living/health conditions.
Obviously the problems being experienced by these people were known to both Kruger and the Municipality before Bottoni and Quigley visited on March 30 and 31st.
For this information to have been withheld is very unethical and inexcusable.
Additionally, areas in Ontario with much more experience hosting industrial wind turbines than Chatham- Kent, are now expressing concern over the health effects on nearby residents.
The Grey-Bruce Public Health unit has asked all levels of government to undertake a proper scientific study to determine the effect of industrial wind turbines on public health because the issues related to wind turbines are infringing on their resources which are needed for other public health matters.
Prattsburgh is very lucky to have a councilman like Steven Kula working to protect the health and happiness of its' citizens.
Sincerely,
Monica Elmes
Ridgetown, ONT
I do not doubt that the people Stacey Bottoni and Sharon Quigley spoke to on their recent visit to Chatham-Kent did like the Kruger turbines and had no issues with them. However, that is not the case for everyone living near the turbines. I am in contact with a family suffering severe health/quality of life issues since the turbines began operating. They were told before the turbines went up that they would not hear them. They hear them almost all the time, both inside, and outside their home. Objects vibrate off shelves in their home. They all suffer from disturbed sleep patterns. The father has started trying to sleep with a radio on to drown out the noise. Two young children have started to hit their heads with their hands, "because of the noise" they say. One also complains of the noise in his ears and vomits as he is falling asleep.
This family complained of the noise created by the turbines to the Municipality of Chatham-Kent in early March. On March 23, 2009 a Kruger Energy employee visited the residence in response to the noise complaint that they had made to the Municipality. The Kruger representative said they would file a noise complaint report with the Ministry of the Environment and install noise monitoring equipment inside and outside the home. On March 24, a letter was submitted to Chatham-Kent council describing their altered living/health conditions.
Obviously the problems being experienced by these people were known to both Kruger and the Municipality before Bottoni and Quigley visited on March 30 and 31st.
For this information to have been withheld is very unethical and inexcusable.
Additionally, areas in Ontario with much more experience hosting industrial wind turbines than Chatham- Kent, are now expressing concern over the health effects on nearby residents.
The Grey-Bruce Public Health unit has asked all levels of government to undertake a proper scientific study to determine the effect of industrial wind turbines on public health because the issues related to wind turbines are infringing on their resources which are needed for other public health matters.
Prattsburgh is very lucky to have a councilman like Steven Kula working to protect the health and happiness of its' citizens.
Sincerely,
Monica Elmes
Ridgetown, ONT
Can Federal Funds Prop Up the U.S. Wind Biz?
The U.S. wind power industry has huge potential, both onshore and off, but it’s clearly looking for a hand from the government to get through these tough times. First there’s the billions in tax credits from the stimulus package that will benefit the wind industry. In addition the Department of Energy said this week that $93 million of stimulus funding will go directly toward wind power development. Meanwhile, at least one wind company is looking for a loan: Wind turbine maker Clipper Windpower recently applied for $300 million in loan guarantees from the DOE.
But will all that money be enough? Like most businesses these days, Clipper and other wind power companies have been hit by the down economy. Slumping demand has prompted layoffs at even the biggest players in the industry. Earlier this year, Clipper said it expected a 15-20 percent drop in turbine production vs. 2008 and laid off about 90 workers — 11 percent of its workforce.
Large, established wind firms producing high volume won’t find much help in that $93 million in stimulus cash directly for the wind industry (not the tax credits). It will mostly be used for research and development and testing of new technology.
But both the loan guarantees and the tax credits could offer significant aid. Earlier this month, GE Energy, one of the top dogs in the wind turbine industry, said that an Illinois wind project built by Invenergy and using GE turbines could be one of the first wind farms in the U.S. to get help from the stimulus act, through the production tax credits. And loan guarantees like the $300 million that Clipper is requesting could be a lifesaver. A DOE spokeswoman said the department is still reviewing its loan applications, so we don’t know how many other wind companies are also vying for some stimulus cash.
But will all that money be enough? Like most businesses these days, Clipper and other wind power companies have been hit by the down economy. Slumping demand has prompted layoffs at even the biggest players in the industry. Earlier this year, Clipper said it expected a 15-20 percent drop in turbine production vs. 2008 and laid off about 90 workers — 11 percent of its workforce.
Large, established wind firms producing high volume won’t find much help in that $93 million in stimulus cash directly for the wind industry (not the tax credits). It will mostly be used for research and development and testing of new technology.
But both the loan guarantees and the tax credits could offer significant aid. Earlier this month, GE Energy, one of the top dogs in the wind turbine industry, said that an Illinois wind project built by Invenergy and using GE turbines could be one of the first wind farms in the U.S. to get help from the stimulus act, through the production tax credits. And loan guarantees like the $300 million that Clipper is requesting could be a lifesaver. A DOE spokeswoman said the department is still reviewing its loan applications, so we don’t know how many other wind companies are also vying for some stimulus cash.
Saturday, May 02, 2009
47 new liens filed against Noble Environmental Power
EAGLE -- Forty-seven additional mechanics liens have been filed by a Michigan construction company against Noble Environmental Power.
The Aristeo Construction Company filed the liens on April 17. They don't list a dollar amount, but mention numerous other parties as debtors, including NEP affiliate Noble Construction LLC; the Wyoming County Industrial Development Agency; and property owners for each affected parcel.
The latter includes Eagle residents, along with a few in North Java and Lancaster. Boxler Dairy Farms of Varysburg, McCormick Farms of Bliss, and Adrianna Farms Inc. of Orchard Park are also among those listed.
The liens are in addition to 19 such documents filed Feb. 13 in connection with the Noble Wethersfield Wind Park.
A mechanics lien is filed when a party fails to provide payment for goods or services.
Each lien renders the property owner unable to obtain clear title to the property.
The liens can also damage the owners' credit scores, affecting their ability to obtain loans and lines of credit.
The April 17 liens aren't expected to have any effect on the Wyoming County IDA, said Executive Director Michael Heftka.
He said everybody involved in a project is usually named when such liens are filed.
"In a normal IDA transaction, (the IDA) would be a title holder to real property," he said. "In this case, we're not, because lease agreements were done. The real estate is still owned by the real property owners.
"When we do an agreement with a company, the IDA is indemnified in every aspect of it," he continued. "It's clearly the company's responsibility. My understanding is that the liens against (NEP) are being resolved."
Which essentially means the IDA is free of any legal liability.
Noble Environmental Power last month announced a $640 million infusion of long-term capital for projects including its Wethersfield Wind Park.
GE Energy Financial Services, a unit of General Electric, provided more than $200 million in investment, while a syndicate of banks and financial institutions provided $440 million in long-term debt.
Besides Wethersfield, projects included in the deal include the Noble Altona Windpark in Clinton County, and the Noble Chateaugay Windpark in Franklin County.
Noble officials expect the difficulties will be cleared up soon.
"A mechanic's lien is a statutory tool available to a vendor in a commercial dispute," representatives said in an e-mailed response to The Daily News. "It is a common tool utilized by subcontractors at the end of construction projects, and was used by a few of Noble's subcontractors. We are currently working through these issues and expect to have the liens removed in the near future."
The Aristeo Construction Company filed the liens on April 17. They don't list a dollar amount, but mention numerous other parties as debtors, including NEP affiliate Noble Construction LLC; the Wyoming County Industrial Development Agency; and property owners for each affected parcel.
The latter includes Eagle residents, along with a few in North Java and Lancaster. Boxler Dairy Farms of Varysburg, McCormick Farms of Bliss, and Adrianna Farms Inc. of Orchard Park are also among those listed.
The liens are in addition to 19 such documents filed Feb. 13 in connection with the Noble Wethersfield Wind Park.
A mechanics lien is filed when a party fails to provide payment for goods or services.
Each lien renders the property owner unable to obtain clear title to the property.
The liens can also damage the owners' credit scores, affecting their ability to obtain loans and lines of credit.
The April 17 liens aren't expected to have any effect on the Wyoming County IDA, said Executive Director Michael Heftka.
He said everybody involved in a project is usually named when such liens are filed.
"In a normal IDA transaction, (the IDA) would be a title holder to real property," he said. "In this case, we're not, because lease agreements were done. The real estate is still owned by the real property owners.
"When we do an agreement with a company, the IDA is indemnified in every aspect of it," he continued. "It's clearly the company's responsibility. My understanding is that the liens against (NEP) are being resolved."
Which essentially means the IDA is free of any legal liability.
Noble Environmental Power last month announced a $640 million infusion of long-term capital for projects including its Wethersfield Wind Park.
GE Energy Financial Services, a unit of General Electric, provided more than $200 million in investment, while a syndicate of banks and financial institutions provided $440 million in long-term debt.
Besides Wethersfield, projects included in the deal include the Noble Altona Windpark in Clinton County, and the Noble Chateaugay Windpark in Franklin County.
Noble officials expect the difficulties will be cleared up soon.
"A mechanic's lien is a statutory tool available to a vendor in a commercial dispute," representatives said in an e-mailed response to The Daily News. "It is a common tool utilized by subcontractors at the end of construction projects, and was used by a few of Noble's subcontractors. We are currently working through these issues and expect to have the liens removed in the near future."
Friday, May 01, 2009
Thursday, April 30, 2009
Prattsburgh gag order
Posted with the permission of The Naples Record, originally published Wednesday April 22, 2009
Ecogen tries to buy off residents to keep them quiet about excessive noise from towers
To the editor:
At the Prattsburgh Town Board meeting, it was revealed that Ecogen is offering payments to non-participating landowners - $10,000 in the example raised in the citizen's complaint last night - on the condition that they not complain about the noise.
This "gag order" - a condition for receiving "compensation" in exchange what has been forcibly taken (not freely negotiated and given) is disgusting, and takes away the citizen's freedom of speech. It appears that targeted landowners are being "incentivized" to live with what will be constant industrial noise, and in some cases - as in Cohocton - perhaps not be able to sleep at night, and then have to "forever hold their peace" or face lawsuit.
As was shown at the Tug Hill project near the Adirondacks, one-time payments and gag orders are standard operating procedure for wind project developers. But what I found particularly shocking was that board member Stacy Bottom admitted that she was directly involved with this effort to buy off and gag local citizens during this period leading up to the Town Board then deciding to "approve" the Ecogen project.
Analyzing this bizarre state of affairs in Prattsburgh, if you want to see what's really going on, follow the money. Following this straightforward approach, I brought up during the comment period a critical point many citizens may not know about. While the Town of Italy is scheduled to receive $12 million from Ecogen for siting 18 turbines while Prattsburgh is currently scheduled to receive only $3 million under its payment-in-lieu-of-taxes (PILOT) agreement - $9 million less - for siting 16 turbines in our town.
For whatever reason, John Leyden, Prattsburgh's attorney (and ALSO the attorney for SCIDA, the lead agent for the Ecogen project), told the Town Board a few months back that the Board had to approve the Ecogen PILOT at the same time they approved a new split of PILOT monies for the First Wind project renegotiated with the school districts. Well, accepting this "deal" - the extraordinarily bad Ecogen PILOT - cost the town $8 million to $9 million in lost income, compared to the deal Italy negotiated. And since then, Leyden has repeatedly stated, including Tuesday night, that the Town of Prattsburgh couldn't re-negotiate the bad PILOT, because the deal was done, and the town couldn't use other issues (such as noise) to sweeten the bad deal.
But what we heard Stacy Bottom say last night was that Ecogen had "offered" to consider providing funds for civic improvements as a "good neighbor." And we're supposed to believe there's no quid pro quo, no trade-off. Is the Ecogen - backing Town Board majority going to sell out the citizens who live "in the hills" - those Councilwoman Stacy Bottom calls "you people" - who would be harmed, and potentially ruined, by turbine noise, in exchange for, perhaps, some sidewalks in the village and a new truck for the Highway Department? And all this when the town should have received millions of dollars more if it hadn't been suckered into a bad deal in the first place?
By the way, this development is virtually "job-free." When you take the six to eight jobs permanent jobs the Ecogen project claims it will generate - over two towns - and factor in the exclusions for skill staff and remote monitoring, each town will be lucky if it gets more than one security guard. And the project's lead agent - Steuben County IDA - claims to be a "development" agency! To make matters worse, at the Tuesday Town Board meeting Stacy Bottom made a big deal out of the local jobs we'd get when the Town Board approves - meaning "rubber stamps" - this project. What jobs? One job? Maybe two? Do they think our citizens are really that stupid that we'd fall for this?
There will also be two critical meetings' in Prattsburgh next month that will address the Ecogen project.
• Tuesday, May 19,7 p.m. Prattsburgh Town Board meeting,
downstairs at the Ingleside Christian Church in Ingleside.
• Thursday, May 21,6:30 p.m., at either the Prattsburgh
School cafetorium or the Fire Hall: Ecogen will present its project
and the public will be allowed to comment.
We live in interesting times. Two-hundred years ago, during the Constitutional Convention, Ben Franklin was asked by a woman on the street "what they were doing in there." He answered, "creating a new country, if you can keep it." I guess it's still up for grabs.
John Servo,
Prattsburgh landowner
Ecogen tries to buy off residents to keep them quiet about excessive noise from towers
To the editor:
At the Prattsburgh Town Board meeting, it was revealed that Ecogen is offering payments to non-participating landowners - $10,000 in the example raised in the citizen's complaint last night - on the condition that they not complain about the noise.
This "gag order" - a condition for receiving "compensation" in exchange what has been forcibly taken (not freely negotiated and given) is disgusting, and takes away the citizen's freedom of speech. It appears that targeted landowners are being "incentivized" to live with what will be constant industrial noise, and in some cases - as in Cohocton - perhaps not be able to sleep at night, and then have to "forever hold their peace" or face lawsuit.
As was shown at the Tug Hill project near the Adirondacks, one-time payments and gag orders are standard operating procedure for wind project developers. But what I found particularly shocking was that board member Stacy Bottom admitted that she was directly involved with this effort to buy off and gag local citizens during this period leading up to the Town Board then deciding to "approve" the Ecogen project.
Analyzing this bizarre state of affairs in Prattsburgh, if you want to see what's really going on, follow the money. Following this straightforward approach, I brought up during the comment period a critical point many citizens may not know about. While the Town of Italy is scheduled to receive $12 million from Ecogen for siting 18 turbines while Prattsburgh is currently scheduled to receive only $3 million under its payment-in-lieu-of-taxes (PILOT) agreement - $9 million less - for siting 16 turbines in our town.
For whatever reason, John Leyden, Prattsburgh's attorney (and ALSO the attorney for SCIDA, the lead agent for the Ecogen project), told the Town Board a few months back that the Board had to approve the Ecogen PILOT at the same time they approved a new split of PILOT monies for the First Wind project renegotiated with the school districts. Well, accepting this "deal" - the extraordinarily bad Ecogen PILOT - cost the town $8 million to $9 million in lost income, compared to the deal Italy negotiated. And since then, Leyden has repeatedly stated, including Tuesday night, that the Town of Prattsburgh couldn't re-negotiate the bad PILOT, because the deal was done, and the town couldn't use other issues (such as noise) to sweeten the bad deal.
But what we heard Stacy Bottom say last night was that Ecogen had "offered" to consider providing funds for civic improvements as a "good neighbor." And we're supposed to believe there's no quid pro quo, no trade-off. Is the Ecogen - backing Town Board majority going to sell out the citizens who live "in the hills" - those Councilwoman Stacy Bottom calls "you people" - who would be harmed, and potentially ruined, by turbine noise, in exchange for, perhaps, some sidewalks in the village and a new truck for the Highway Department? And all this when the town should have received millions of dollars more if it hadn't been suckered into a bad deal in the first place?
By the way, this development is virtually "job-free." When you take the six to eight jobs permanent jobs the Ecogen project claims it will generate - over two towns - and factor in the exclusions for skill staff and remote monitoring, each town will be lucky if it gets more than one security guard. And the project's lead agent - Steuben County IDA - claims to be a "development" agency! To make matters worse, at the Tuesday Town Board meeting Stacy Bottom made a big deal out of the local jobs we'd get when the Town Board approves - meaning "rubber stamps" - this project. What jobs? One job? Maybe two? Do they think our citizens are really that stupid that we'd fall for this?
There will also be two critical meetings' in Prattsburgh next month that will address the Ecogen project.
• Tuesday, May 19,7 p.m. Prattsburgh Town Board meeting,
downstairs at the Ingleside Christian Church in Ingleside.
• Thursday, May 21,6:30 p.m., at either the Prattsburgh
School cafetorium or the Fire Hall: Ecogen will present its project
and the public will be allowed to comment.
We live in interesting times. Two-hundred years ago, during the Constitutional Convention, Ben Franklin was asked by a woman on the street "what they were doing in there." He answered, "creating a new country, if you can keep it." I guess it's still up for grabs.
John Servo,
Prattsburgh landowner
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)