Hartsville board votes to apply for lead agency role in process of bringing wind to Hartsville
The Hartsville Town board is requesting that the Department of Environmental Conservation approve the idea of Hartsville Town Hall becoming the lead agency for the next phase of the environmental impact statement.
Steve Dombert, the Hartsville Town Supervisor, is especially concerned about how loud the wind turbines could get, and does not want things to go in Hartsville the way they did in Cohocton. "Well we don't want to have a situation in Hartsville where the volume of complaints are generated that we are seeing in Cohocton," Dombert told our news department last night, after the Hartsville monthly meeting was over. "And we don't want to have a pattern of...sort of...no accountability after the project, and the difficulties that we see there, for rectifying those problems. We want to avoid them to begin with," Dombert said.
Up to this point, the Steuben County Industrial Development Agency has been the lead agent for the entire process of bringing a wind project to Hartsville. So if Hartsville town officials take over the role of lead agency, Hartsville will be replacing SCIDA's duties for that part of the environmental impact study.
Thursday, June 11, 2009
New York Renewable Portfolio Standard Program Evaluation Report - 2009
NY%2520Renewable%2520Portfolio%2520Standard%2520Program%2520Evaluation%2520Report%2520%282009%2520Review%29-FINAL.pdf
From Page 32:
Unfortunately, the current financial crisis has had negative impacts on the renewable energy market nationwide and the New York RPS Program. Citing financial difficulties, Noble Environmental Power cancelled two (2) projects: the 100.5 MW Noble Allegany Windpark in Allegany County, and the 19.5 MW Noble Chateaugay II Windpark in Franklin County. In addition to the Noble cancellations, First Wind cancelled its 54 MW Windfarm Prattsburgh project, also citing financial difficulties. (54)
As a result of these recent project cancellations, program progress as measured by the maximum contracted annual energy deliveries, will be reduced by approximately 360,000 MWh. Approximately $47.8 million that had been budgeted or encumbered for expected contract payments on these cancelled projects is now available for future Main Tier activities (subject to authorization by the Commission). Also, the financial security forfeiture provisions in the RPS Program contracts have resulted in additional revenue of approximately $1 million. (55) These funds are available for future Main Tier activities as well, subject to the Commission’s authorization.
Performance-Related Contract Adjustments
Renewable resources such as wind and hydroelectric are intermittent in nature and it is difficult to estimate annual and long term electricity production. Therefore, each Main Tier and Maintenance Tier RPS contract includes a maximum annual payment which, depending on actual production, may not be realized. Pursuant to this contract design feature, any monies not paid out for deliveries of RPS Attributes in any given year are disencumbered and made available for future Main Tier activities. As a result, $12.4 million has been disencumbered from contracts under RFP 916 for 2006 and 2007 and an additional $5 million may be disencumbered as a result of under production in 2008. (56)
Also, to ensure that program goals are met and other projects are afforded opportunities for funding, NYSERDA contractually requires that each project deliver at least a minimum percentage of its bid-based contract quantity obligation each year. If this percentage is not met for a defined number of consecutive years, the annual quantity of RPS Attributes that NYSERDA is obligated to purchase is reduced for the remaining years of the contract. (57) For example, the Maple Ridge Wind Farm will not meet its obligation to deliver the required 85% of its contracted bid quantity for three consecutive years (2006, 2007, and 2008). As a consequence, this facility’s contracted bid quantity will be reduced for the seven remaining years on the contract. While this adjustment represents a loss of approximately 176,000 MWh per year toward program targets, it will also free more than $28.2 million for future Main Tier activities.
54 This project had contracted under RFP 1037 for 10% of its output, and then under RFP 1168 for an additional 30%.
55 Project developers forfeit up to 100% of their financial security to NYSERDA should they elect to terminate a contract by a predefined date or if they fail to enter commercial operation.
56 Due to a lag in invoicing cycles, NYSERDA has yet to calculate actual deliveries for 2008 and formally disencumber funds associated with under deliveries.
57 Percentages and number of years vary by RFP and facility type (wind, hydro, etc.).
From Page 32:
Unfortunately, the current financial crisis has had negative impacts on the renewable energy market nationwide and the New York RPS Program. Citing financial difficulties, Noble Environmental Power cancelled two (2) projects: the 100.5 MW Noble Allegany Windpark in Allegany County, and the 19.5 MW Noble Chateaugay II Windpark in Franklin County. In addition to the Noble cancellations, First Wind cancelled its 54 MW Windfarm Prattsburgh project, also citing financial difficulties. (54)
As a result of these recent project cancellations, program progress as measured by the maximum contracted annual energy deliveries, will be reduced by approximately 360,000 MWh. Approximately $47.8 million that had been budgeted or encumbered for expected contract payments on these cancelled projects is now available for future Main Tier activities (subject to authorization by the Commission). Also, the financial security forfeiture provisions in the RPS Program contracts have resulted in additional revenue of approximately $1 million. (55) These funds are available for future Main Tier activities as well, subject to the Commission’s authorization.
Performance-Related Contract Adjustments
Renewable resources such as wind and hydroelectric are intermittent in nature and it is difficult to estimate annual and long term electricity production. Therefore, each Main Tier and Maintenance Tier RPS contract includes a maximum annual payment which, depending on actual production, may not be realized. Pursuant to this contract design feature, any monies not paid out for deliveries of RPS Attributes in any given year are disencumbered and made available for future Main Tier activities. As a result, $12.4 million has been disencumbered from contracts under RFP 916 for 2006 and 2007 and an additional $5 million may be disencumbered as a result of under production in 2008. (56)
Also, to ensure that program goals are met and other projects are afforded opportunities for funding, NYSERDA contractually requires that each project deliver at least a minimum percentage of its bid-based contract quantity obligation each year. If this percentage is not met for a defined number of consecutive years, the annual quantity of RPS Attributes that NYSERDA is obligated to purchase is reduced for the remaining years of the contract. (57) For example, the Maple Ridge Wind Farm will not meet its obligation to deliver the required 85% of its contracted bid quantity for three consecutive years (2006, 2007, and 2008). As a consequence, this facility’s contracted bid quantity will be reduced for the seven remaining years on the contract. While this adjustment represents a loss of approximately 176,000 MWh per year toward program targets, it will also free more than $28.2 million for future Main Tier activities.
54 This project had contracted under RFP 1037 for 10% of its output, and then under RFP 1168 for an additional 30%.
55 Project developers forfeit up to 100% of their financial security to NYSERDA should they elect to terminate a contract by a predefined date or if they fail to enter commercial operation.
56 Due to a lag in invoicing cycles, NYSERDA has yet to calculate actual deliveries for 2008 and formally disencumber funds associated with under deliveries.
57 Percentages and number of years vary by RFP and facility type (wind, hydro, etc.).
Tell the NYS Assembly to Vote "NO" on Vested Rights
Visit and review the below site to send your objection to your Assembly representative.
http://actionnetwork.org/campaign/assemblyVR_2009
Don’t let the State Assembly pass a law that would put developers’ rights ahead of those of ordinary New Yorkers.
With just two weeks left in this year’s Legislative Session, the New York State Assembly is considering a bill that would undercut the ability of cities, towns and villages to stop or even limit environmentally damaging development.
Bad idea, right? Tell your Assembly member to protect New York communities by voting “NO” on vested rights.
This bill, known as “vested rights,” would permit developers to freeze (or “vest”)—for six years—the municipal zoning, planning and environmental regulations that are in place in your community only six months after filing an application to develop land. Not after receiving a permit, not after receiving local approval, but after filing an application.
Because in most cases people don't know when development applications are filed, six months could easily pass without residents even knowing about it. And if those same residents want to re-zone to prevent a big box strip mall from going up next to a school, they'd only have six months to update their land use plans. That's not enough time.
Tell your representative in the Assembly to vote “NO” on vested rights for developers.
http://actionnetwork.org/campaign/assemblyVR_2009
Don’t let the State Assembly pass a law that would put developers’ rights ahead of those of ordinary New Yorkers.
With just two weeks left in this year’s Legislative Session, the New York State Assembly is considering a bill that would undercut the ability of cities, towns and villages to stop or even limit environmentally damaging development.
Bad idea, right? Tell your Assembly member to protect New York communities by voting “NO” on vested rights.
This bill, known as “vested rights,” would permit developers to freeze (or “vest”)—for six years—the municipal zoning, planning and environmental regulations that are in place in your community only six months after filing an application to develop land. Not after receiving a permit, not after receiving local approval, but after filing an application.
Because in most cases people don't know when development applications are filed, six months could easily pass without residents even knowing about it. And if those same residents want to re-zone to prevent a big box strip mall from going up next to a school, they'd only have six months to update their land use plans. That's not enough time.
Tell your representative in the Assembly to vote “NO” on vested rights for developers.
Wednesday, June 10, 2009
Nixon Peabody Acknowledgement of Additional Clipper Problems
Dear Records Access Officer
On June 2, 2009, representatives of First Wind Energy, LLC (Michael Alvarez, President and Chief Operating Officer) and Clipper Windpower, Inc. ("Clipper")(Robert Gates, Senior Vice President, Commercial Operations), met with Staff of the Department of Public Service. During that meeting, we provided to Department Staff a presentation labelled "Confidential", providing an overview of the root cause analysis undertaken by Clipper regarding the blade skin crack, an update of the resolution relating to gearbox timing, structural blade remediation, as well as other data regarding Clipper's Liberty turbine. A copy of this document was left with members of Department Staff present at the meeting, including Steve Blow, Edward Schrom, Richard Quimby, Andrew Davis and James Austin. An electronic version of the document is attached.
Please accept this e-mail as a confirmatory request that this document be protected from disclosure as a confidential document. The information contained in this document is highly confidential, commercially sensitive information relating to equipment design and testing of major components of the Clipper Liberty turbine, including the turbine blades, the drivetrain, and other information which is protected by Clipper, the manufacturer. This information is not publicly available, and would, if disclosed, cause Clipper substantial competitive injury. As a result, we would ask that this information be treated as a trade secret or information which, if disclosed, could cause injury to Clipper's competitive position pursuant to Public Officer's Law Sections 87.2(d) and 89(5) and 16 NYCRR Section 6-1.
Thank you for your consideration in this matter, and please confirm receipt of this e-mail.
Please note new address effective June 23, 2008
Ruth E. Leistensnider, Esq.
Partner
Nixon Peabody LLP
677 Broadway, 10th Floor
Albany, New York 12207
Tel: (518) 427-2655
Fax: (866) 947-1299
Cell: (518) 461-3368
e-mail: RLeistensnider@nixonpeabody.com
NYS Source document http://documents.dps.state.ny.us/public/Common/ViewDoc.aspx?DocRefId={33FA561C-ACE8-4F21-BEB3-D6DBF37F4892}
On June 2, 2009, representatives of First Wind Energy, LLC (Michael Alvarez, President and Chief Operating Officer) and Clipper Windpower, Inc. ("Clipper")(Robert Gates, Senior Vice President, Commercial Operations), met with Staff of the Department of Public Service. During that meeting, we provided to Department Staff a presentation labelled "Confidential", providing an overview of the root cause analysis undertaken by Clipper regarding the blade skin crack, an update of the resolution relating to gearbox timing, structural blade remediation, as well as other data regarding Clipper's Liberty turbine. A copy of this document was left with members of Department Staff present at the meeting, including Steve Blow, Edward Schrom, Richard Quimby, Andrew Davis and James Austin. An electronic version of the document is attached.
Please accept this e-mail as a confirmatory request that this document be protected from disclosure as a confidential document. The information contained in this document is highly confidential, commercially sensitive information relating to equipment design and testing of major components of the Clipper Liberty turbine, including the turbine blades, the drivetrain, and other information which is protected by Clipper, the manufacturer. This information is not publicly available, and would, if disclosed, cause Clipper substantial competitive injury. As a result, we would ask that this information be treated as a trade secret or information which, if disclosed, could cause injury to Clipper's competitive position pursuant to Public Officer's Law Sections 87.2(d) and 89(5) and 16 NYCRR Section 6-1.
Thank you for your consideration in this matter, and please confirm receipt of this e-mail.
Please note new address effective June 23, 2008
Ruth E. Leistensnider, Esq.
Partner
Nixon Peabody LLP
677 Broadway, 10th Floor
Albany, New York 12207
Tel: (518) 427-2655
Fax: (866) 947-1299
Cell: (518) 461-3368
e-mail: RLeistensnider@nixonpeabody.com
NYS Source document http://documents.dps.state.ny.us/public/Common/ViewDoc.aspx?DocRefId={33FA561C-ACE8-4F21-BEB3-D6DBF37F4892}
Lobbyists boost D.C. spending
Despite the recession, Massachusetts companies and interest groups have sharply increased spending in Washington, D.C., to influence how federal officials distribute more than $1 trillion to revive the lagging economy.
First Wind Energy LLC, a Newton-based firm that runs wind farms nationwide, hired Washington lobbyists after the market for tax credits that finance its projects collapsed during the larger credit crisis last year, according to the records. First Wind spent $120,000 to get access to US lawmakers who were working on a proposal to revive the use of tax credits for renewable-energy projects.
"This is absolutely critical both to our company and to the growth of renewable energy across the country," said Carol Grant, vice president of external affairs for the company, which is seeking funding to build four wind farms in New England.
Grant said First Wind representatives met with lawmakers to discuss problems with the financial markets and ways to restore credit. The Obama administration is still developing guidelines for the energy incentives approved in the legislation.
(Click to read entire article)
First Wind Energy LLC, a Newton-based firm that runs wind farms nationwide, hired Washington lobbyists after the market for tax credits that finance its projects collapsed during the larger credit crisis last year, according to the records. First Wind spent $120,000 to get access to US lawmakers who were working on a proposal to revive the use of tax credits for renewable-energy projects.
"This is absolutely critical both to our company and to the growth of renewable energy across the country," said Carol Grant, vice president of external affairs for the company, which is seeking funding to build four wind farms in New England.
Grant said First Wind representatives met with lawmakers to discuss problems with the financial markets and ways to restore credit. The Obama administration is still developing guidelines for the energy incentives approved in the legislation.
(Click to read entire article)
Brighter days seen for solar, next-gen biofuels
NEW YORK -- Big changes are afoot in the fledgling alternative-energy industry.
As the sector recovers from the 2008 financial market meltdown, insiders look for next-generation biofuels and solar technologies to start joining mainstream energy markets, while wind power continues to lean heavily on government support.
"Grid parity" for photovoltaic technology is imminent, solar executives say, as prices slide and the industry devises marketing strategies to entice both large electric utilities and small-scale customers while slowly freeing itself of government subsidies.
Biofuel executives, meanwhile, speak of an inevitable turn from corn-based ethanol into more efficient cellulosic feedstocks like sugarcane, switchgrass, and wood waste -- all spurred by an infusion of capital from big oil companies and large timber and farming concerns.
Wind power developers, meanwhile, say their future depends on tax credits and other government efforts to encourage investment. Even as solar and biofuel players say they aim to cut production costs to be competitive at current energy prices, wind operators say their customers must accept higher utility bills to support the industry.
"The key is the regulators and customers need to be willing to pay the higher prices," First Wind's chief financial officer, Michael Metzner, told an investor gathering hosted here last week by Lazard Capital Markets. "What you're betting on is the increasing demand for renewable energy."
(Click to read entire article)
As the sector recovers from the 2008 financial market meltdown, insiders look for next-generation biofuels and solar technologies to start joining mainstream energy markets, while wind power continues to lean heavily on government support.
"Grid parity" for photovoltaic technology is imminent, solar executives say, as prices slide and the industry devises marketing strategies to entice both large electric utilities and small-scale customers while slowly freeing itself of government subsidies.
Biofuel executives, meanwhile, speak of an inevitable turn from corn-based ethanol into more efficient cellulosic feedstocks like sugarcane, switchgrass, and wood waste -- all spurred by an infusion of capital from big oil companies and large timber and farming concerns.
Wind power developers, meanwhile, say their future depends on tax credits and other government efforts to encourage investment. Even as solar and biofuel players say they aim to cut production costs to be competitive at current energy prices, wind operators say their customers must accept higher utility bills to support the industry.
"The key is the regulators and customers need to be willing to pay the higher prices," First Wind's chief financial officer, Michael Metzner, told an investor gathering hosted here last week by Lazard Capital Markets. "What you're betting on is the increasing demand for renewable energy."
(Click to read entire article)
Tuesday, June 09, 2009
IRS guidance on claiming investment tax credits for wind, biomass, geothermal, and other PTC facilities
The 2009 Stimulus legislation (ARRA) permits owners of PTC facilities, such as wind, biomass, and others, to elect a 30-percent tax credit, based on the cost of the facility, at the time the project is placed in service, rather than the 10-year PTC, which is calculated based on sales of electricity. Last week, the IRS issued Notice 2009-52, which explains the process for making this election.
The election to claim the ITC in lieu of the PTC applies to the following types of renewable energy facilities:
*Wind;
*Biomass (both closed- and open-loop);
*Geothermal;
*Landfill gas;
*Trash facilities;
*Qualified hydropower; and
*Marine and hydrokinetic.
To qualify, a taxpayer must claim the ITC with respect to qualified property that is an integral part of the facility on a completed Form 3468. Form 3468 must be filed with the taxpayer’s income tax return for the year in which the property is placed in service.
A separate election must be made for each qualifying facility. At this time; however, there is no guidance on how to define a "qualifying facility."
The election to claim the ITC in lieu of the PTC applies to the following types of renewable energy facilities:
*Wind;
*Biomass (both closed- and open-loop);
*Geothermal;
*Landfill gas;
*Trash facilities;
*Qualified hydropower; and
*Marine and hydrokinetic.
To qualify, a taxpayer must claim the ITC with respect to qualified property that is an integral part of the facility on a completed Form 3468. Form 3468 must be filed with the taxpayer’s income tax return for the year in which the property is placed in service.
A separate election must be made for each qualifying facility. At this time; however, there is no guidance on how to define a "qualifying facility."
Councilman Kula's June 6, 2009 Final Response Letter to Prattsburgh Supervisor McConnell
Steven R. Kula
(607)522-3377
11470 Davis Road
Prattsburgh, NY 14873
steve.kula@yahoo.com
June 9, 2009
J. Harold McConnell
Supervisor
Town of Prattsburgh
19 North Main Street
PO Box 427
Prattsburgh, NY 14873
Dear Supervisor:
I have received your letter denying our request for a special meeting. I have contacted the Committee on Open Government and the New York State Association of Towns regarding this matter, and I would suggest that you do the same.
Town Law, section 62 clearly states that the Town Supervisor shall call a special meeting upon written request of two board members. There is nothing that states that we must first put forth a motion to be considered. Additionally, I have been elected to represent the town, and I have every right to speak and put forth information at any Prattsburgh Town Board meeting.
Consider this my final request. You have 10 days to convene the meeting that we have requested.
Sincerely,
Steven R. Kula
Town Councilman
Town of Prattsburgh
(607)522-3377
11470 Davis Road
Prattsburgh, NY 14873
steve.kula@yahoo.com
June 9, 2009
J. Harold McConnell
Supervisor
Town of Prattsburgh
19 North Main Street
PO Box 427
Prattsburgh, NY 14873
Dear Supervisor:
I have received your letter denying our request for a special meeting. I have contacted the Committee on Open Government and the New York State Association of Towns regarding this matter, and I would suggest that you do the same.
Town Law, section 62 clearly states that the Town Supervisor shall call a special meeting upon written request of two board members. There is nothing that states that we must first put forth a motion to be considered. Additionally, I have been elected to represent the town, and I have every right to speak and put forth information at any Prattsburgh Town Board meeting.
Consider this my final request. You have 10 days to convene the meeting that we have requested.
Sincerely,
Steven R. Kula
Town Councilman
Town of Prattsburgh
Monday, June 08, 2009
American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009
SUMMARY
H.R. 2454 would make a number of changes in energy and environmental policies largely aimed at reducing emissions of gases that contribute to global warming. The bill would limit or cap the quantity of certain greenhouse gases (GHGs) emitted from facilities that generate electricity and from other industrial activities over the 2012-2050 period. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) would establish two separate regulatory initiatives known as cap-and-trade programs—one covering emissions of most types of GHGs and one covering hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs). EPA would issue allowances to emit those gases under the cap-and-trade programs. Some of those allowances would be auctioned by the federal government, and the remainder would be distributed at no charge.
Other major provisions of the legislation would:
• Provide energy tax credits or energy rebates to certain low-income families to offset the impact of higher energy-related prices from the cap-and-trade programs;
• Require certain retail electricity suppliers to satisfy a minimum percentage of their electricity sales with electricity generated by facilities that use qualifying renewable fuels or energy sources;
• Establish a Carbon Storage Research Corporation to support research and development of technologies related to carbon capture and sequestration;
• Increase, by $25 billion, the aggregate amount of loans DOE is authorized to make to automobile manufacturers and component suppliers under the existing Advanced Technology Vehicle Manufacturing Loan Program;
• Establish a Clean Energy Deployment Administration (CEDA) within the Department of Energy (DOE), which would be authorized to provide direct loans, loan guarantees, and letters of credit for clean energy projects;
• Authorize the Department of Transportation (DOT) to provide individuals with vouchers to acquire new vehicles that achieve greater fuel efficiency than the existing qualifying vehicles owned by the individuals; and
• Authorize appropriations for various programs under EPA, DOE, and other agencies. CBO and the Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT) estimate that over the 2010-2019 period enacting this legislation would:
• Increase federal revenues by about $846 billion; and
• Increase direct spending by about $821 billion.
In total, those changes would reduce budget deficits (or increase future surpluses) by about $24 billion over the 2010-2019 period.
In addition, assuming appropriation of the necessary amounts, CBO estimates that implementing H.R. 2454 would increase discretionary spending by about $50 billion over the 2010-2019 period. Most of that funding would stem from spending auction proceeds from various funds established under this legislation.
CBO has determined that the non-tax provisions of H.R. 2454 contain intergovernmental and private-sector mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA). Several of those mandates would require utilities, manufacturers, and other entities to reduce greenhouse gas emissions through cap-and-trade programs and performance standards. CBO estimates that the cost of mandates in the bill would well exceed the annual thresholds established in UMRA for intergovernmental and private-sector mandates (in 2009, $69 million and $139 million respectively, adjusted annually for
inflation).
American%20Clean%20Energy%20and%20Security%20Act.pdf
H.R. 2454 would make a number of changes in energy and environmental policies largely aimed at reducing emissions of gases that contribute to global warming. The bill would limit or cap the quantity of certain greenhouse gases (GHGs) emitted from facilities that generate electricity and from other industrial activities over the 2012-2050 period. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) would establish two separate regulatory initiatives known as cap-and-trade programs—one covering emissions of most types of GHGs and one covering hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs). EPA would issue allowances to emit those gases under the cap-and-trade programs. Some of those allowances would be auctioned by the federal government, and the remainder would be distributed at no charge.
Other major provisions of the legislation would:
• Provide energy tax credits or energy rebates to certain low-income families to offset the impact of higher energy-related prices from the cap-and-trade programs;
• Require certain retail electricity suppliers to satisfy a minimum percentage of their electricity sales with electricity generated by facilities that use qualifying renewable fuels or energy sources;
• Establish a Carbon Storage Research Corporation to support research and development of technologies related to carbon capture and sequestration;
• Increase, by $25 billion, the aggregate amount of loans DOE is authorized to make to automobile manufacturers and component suppliers under the existing Advanced Technology Vehicle Manufacturing Loan Program;
• Establish a Clean Energy Deployment Administration (CEDA) within the Department of Energy (DOE), which would be authorized to provide direct loans, loan guarantees, and letters of credit for clean energy projects;
• Authorize the Department of Transportation (DOT) to provide individuals with vouchers to acquire new vehicles that achieve greater fuel efficiency than the existing qualifying vehicles owned by the individuals; and
• Authorize appropriations for various programs under EPA, DOE, and other agencies. CBO and the Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT) estimate that over the 2010-2019 period enacting this legislation would:
• Increase federal revenues by about $846 billion; and
• Increase direct spending by about $821 billion.
In total, those changes would reduce budget deficits (or increase future surpluses) by about $24 billion over the 2010-2019 period.
In addition, assuming appropriation of the necessary amounts, CBO estimates that implementing H.R. 2454 would increase discretionary spending by about $50 billion over the 2010-2019 period. Most of that funding would stem from spending auction proceeds from various funds established under this legislation.
CBO has determined that the non-tax provisions of H.R. 2454 contain intergovernmental and private-sector mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA). Several of those mandates would require utilities, manufacturers, and other entities to reduce greenhouse gas emissions through cap-and-trade programs and performance standards. CBO estimates that the cost of mandates in the bill would well exceed the annual thresholds established in UMRA for intergovernmental and private-sector mandates (in 2009, $69 million and $139 million respectively, adjusted annually for
inflation).
American%20Clean%20Energy%20and%20Security%20Act.pdf
IDA to review proposed PILOTs for wind farms
ELLICOTTVILLE — The board of directors of the Cattaraugus County Industrial Development Agency is expected to review a proposed agency policy Tuesday that will establish how much industrial-scale wind farms must pay to local taxing authorities during their incentive periods.
The IDA provides tax exemptions for 10 to 15 years, along with other incentives, to developers seeking assistance and conduit loans. The new Uniform Tax Exemption Policy would affect only wind energy projects and would establish how wind power developers’ payments-in-lieu-of- taxes (PILOTs) are shared among the towns, county and school districts where they are located.
If the board decides Tuesday to move ahead with a PILOT policy for wind projects, a public hearing will be scheduled to take comments on the policy proposal.
According to the meeting agenda, a brief presentation on wind energy will be provided by East Aurora engineer John Schenne before the resolution and public hearing are discussed.
The idea that the IDA will divide up the PILOT shares has been controversial. Some officials and residents believe towns should be able to establish PILOT payments and withhold the tax revenues from schools or the county because the towns take the brunt of the impacts.
IDA director Corey R. Wiktor has maintained the towns are free to adopt zoning or permit laws governing such projects, will be free to negotiate terms for host fees and set up guidelines for the development.
Wind energy experts say these power plants are not economically viable if taxes must be paid and so developers must seek IDA assistance when automatic state real property tax exemptions on alternative energy projects are lifted. Wiktor also stated that wind developers, even with tax incentives, can only afford to pay about $10,000 per megawatt to the local taxing authorities but must know in advance so they can attract bank loans to finance the construction and operations.
Representing the IDA on the committee are Executive Director Corey Wiktor, IDA attorney George Cregg and IDA Board Chairman Thomas E. Buffamante. Several town boards were asked to send three representatives to serve on the committee also. They chose Ashford Town Supervisor Chris Gerwitz, Allegany Town Supervisor Patrick Eaton and Lyndon Town Supervisor Dale Carlson. Cattaraugus County Legislature Chairman Crystal Abers appointed Jerry E. Burrell, R-Franklinville, Donna Vickman, R-Farmersville, and Jim Boser, D-Allegany, as delegates. Several school districts chose Allegany-Limestone Central School business administrator Mike Watson, Franklinville Central School Superintendent Dennis Johnson and Pioneer Central School Superintendent Jeffrey Bowen.
The IDA board will meet at 11:15 a. m. Tuesday in the agency’s office at 3 E. Washington St.
The IDA provides tax exemptions for 10 to 15 years, along with other incentives, to developers seeking assistance and conduit loans. The new Uniform Tax Exemption Policy would affect only wind energy projects and would establish how wind power developers’ payments-in-lieu-of- taxes (PILOTs) are shared among the towns, county and school districts where they are located.
If the board decides Tuesday to move ahead with a PILOT policy for wind projects, a public hearing will be scheduled to take comments on the policy proposal.
According to the meeting agenda, a brief presentation on wind energy will be provided by East Aurora engineer John Schenne before the resolution and public hearing are discussed.
The idea that the IDA will divide up the PILOT shares has been controversial. Some officials and residents believe towns should be able to establish PILOT payments and withhold the tax revenues from schools or the county because the towns take the brunt of the impacts.
IDA director Corey R. Wiktor has maintained the towns are free to adopt zoning or permit laws governing such projects, will be free to negotiate terms for host fees and set up guidelines for the development.
Wind energy experts say these power plants are not economically viable if taxes must be paid and so developers must seek IDA assistance when automatic state real property tax exemptions on alternative energy projects are lifted. Wiktor also stated that wind developers, even with tax incentives, can only afford to pay about $10,000 per megawatt to the local taxing authorities but must know in advance so they can attract bank loans to finance the construction and operations.
Representing the IDA on the committee are Executive Director Corey Wiktor, IDA attorney George Cregg and IDA Board Chairman Thomas E. Buffamante. Several town boards were asked to send three representatives to serve on the committee also. They chose Ashford Town Supervisor Chris Gerwitz, Allegany Town Supervisor Patrick Eaton and Lyndon Town Supervisor Dale Carlson. Cattaraugus County Legislature Chairman Crystal Abers appointed Jerry E. Burrell, R-Franklinville, Donna Vickman, R-Farmersville, and Jim Boser, D-Allegany, as delegates. Several school districts chose Allegany-Limestone Central School business administrator Mike Watson, Franklinville Central School Superintendent Dennis Johnson and Pioneer Central School Superintendent Jeffrey Bowen.
The IDA board will meet at 11:15 a. m. Tuesday in the agency’s office at 3 E. Washington St.
Wind Turbine Syndrome: Are wind farms hazardous to human health?
Over the last few years, the wind energy sector has been experiencing tremendous growth as governments and utilities around the world seek sources of energy that generate reduced greenhouse gas emissions. In Ontario, the province has plans to increase the wind component of its electricity generation from the current 1 percent to 15 percent by 2025.
For the most part the wind energy industry has coasted along with favorable press and public opinion. The industry has had to weather some resistance, particularly pertaining to wildlife impacts (primarily birds and bats) and the consistency and reliability of wind power. Yet these criticisms have not gained enough traction to have a noticeable effect on the growth of the industry, which is being hailed as a source of tens of thousands of potential new jobs in the evolving green economy.
Wind turbines emit inaudible sound waves in the low end of the sound spectrum and rhythmic vibrations caused by the spinning blades. These are suspected to cause a host of adverse health effects in some people that live in close proximity to the turbines, including:
◦insomnia,
◦headaches,
◦acute hypertensive episodes,
◦cardiac arrhythmia,
◦heart palpitations,
◦high blood pressure,
◦the sensation of bugs crawling on the skin,
◦humming in the head,
◦continuous ringing in the ears,
◦dizziness
The condition has been given a name: “Wind Turbine Syndrome”, coined by Dr. Nina Pierpont, the subject of her recently published 150-page book. Wind Concerns Ontario is a coalition of 32 individual anti-wind citizens’ groups that have joined together from across the province of Ontario; they have named Wind Turbine Syndrome as one of their key focus areas. Both Dr. Pierpont and Wind Concerns Ontario recommend a minimum 2 kilometer setback for wind turbines from residential homes, along the lines with what is recommended by the World Health Organization (1.5 kilometers).
The assignment of setback distances in Ontario is currently governed by municpalities (the province will be taking control under its new Green Energy Act) with most setbacks being under 500 meters. Given the mounting evidence indicating adverse effects that wind turbines can have on human health, it is critical that more research be conducted into adequate setback distances. With the empahsis that the world is placing on wind energy as a critical piece of our future energy puzzle, setback distance research would be time and money well spent to ensure that wind power grows in harmony with the environment and its citizens.
For the most part the wind energy industry has coasted along with favorable press and public opinion. The industry has had to weather some resistance, particularly pertaining to wildlife impacts (primarily birds and bats) and the consistency and reliability of wind power. Yet these criticisms have not gained enough traction to have a noticeable effect on the growth of the industry, which is being hailed as a source of tens of thousands of potential new jobs in the evolving green economy.
Wind turbines emit inaudible sound waves in the low end of the sound spectrum and rhythmic vibrations caused by the spinning blades. These are suspected to cause a host of adverse health effects in some people that live in close proximity to the turbines, including:
◦insomnia,
◦headaches,
◦acute hypertensive episodes,
◦cardiac arrhythmia,
◦heart palpitations,
◦high blood pressure,
◦the sensation of bugs crawling on the skin,
◦humming in the head,
◦continuous ringing in the ears,
◦dizziness
The condition has been given a name: “Wind Turbine Syndrome”, coined by Dr. Nina Pierpont, the subject of her recently published 150-page book. Wind Concerns Ontario is a coalition of 32 individual anti-wind citizens’ groups that have joined together from across the province of Ontario; they have named Wind Turbine Syndrome as one of their key focus areas. Both Dr. Pierpont and Wind Concerns Ontario recommend a minimum 2 kilometer setback for wind turbines from residential homes, along the lines with what is recommended by the World Health Organization (1.5 kilometers).
The assignment of setback distances in Ontario is currently governed by municpalities (the province will be taking control under its new Green Energy Act) with most setbacks being under 500 meters. Given the mounting evidence indicating adverse effects that wind turbines can have on human health, it is critical that more research be conducted into adequate setback distances. With the empahsis that the world is placing on wind energy as a critical piece of our future energy puzzle, setback distance research would be time and money well spent to ensure that wind power grows in harmony with the environment and its citizens.
Scientists, Economists Challenge Global Warming Alarmism
Third international conference attracts SRO crowd to Washington, DC
Washington, DC- Global warming skeptics, who for a decade have emphasized hard-science evidence to refute doomsday predictions from alarmists, added new ammunition to their arsenal Tuesday at the third International Conference on Climate Change.
More than 250 people crowded into Washington Court hotel meeting rooms to hear a dozen elite scientists refute the claim that global warming is either man-made or would have harmful effects on Earth.
But The Heartland Institute, a 25-year-old think tank that produced the three international climate conferences, also recruited seven elite economists to focus on the devastating personal and broad economic impact of legislation, sponsored by Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) and Ed Markey (D-Mass.) and headed for approval in the U.S. House, to put a cap on greenhouse gas emissions. Businesses, commercial structures, farms, and other emitters could purchase and trade the permits to emit carbon dioxide and other gases that exceed the cap.
While the scientists reported on a vast array of peer-reviewed literature that cast doubt on the causes and severity of global warming, the economists produced data that showed the cap-and-trade scheme not only wouldn`t halt the release of greenhouse gases, but would add huge costs to business activity that inevitably would be passed along to consumers in the form of higher prices.
Dr. Jeff Kueter, an economist and president of the George C. Marshall Institute, referred to Waxman-Markey as "a dismal down-payment on injuries more intrusive into our lives and economy" than ever seen before.
Kueter cited independent economic studies that showed the diversion of capital to emission permits from the investment in new plant and equipment in the U.S. economy would:
reduce employment by 1.1 million jobs a year from 2012 to 2030, and more than double that job-loss in 2035.
slash gross domestic product by an average of $491 billion a year from 2012 to 2035, and hit $662 billion in 2035 -- a total evaporation of productive output of goods and services worth more than $9.4 trillion.
reduce average global temperatures by an insignificant 0.36º Fahrenheit by 2100 and by 0.09º F by 2050.
Similar costs with negligible benefits in Waxman-Markey were cited by other economists and public officials, including Dr. David Tuerck, president of the Beacon Hill Institute and chairman of the economics department at Suffolk University in Boston, and U.S. Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla).
U.S. Rep. James Sensenbrenner (R-Wis.), a veteran global warming skeptic, urged attendees to call Waxman-Markey a "cap-and-tax plan" that amounts to "unilateral disarmament in the economic sphere" for American businesses and workers.
Another long-time skeptic, Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (D-Calif.), provoked sustained applause when he declared that the partisans of Waxman-Markey are "stampeding the public and elected officials in the biggest power grab in the history of human kind."
Economist Dr. Gabriel Calzada of King Juan Carlos University in Madrid reviewed the dismal performance of cap-and-trade mandates in Spain, where unemployment has reached a daunting 18 percent, carbon emissions are higher today than before cap-and-trade was installed, and fraud and misrepresentation of emission abatement programs are rampant.
(Click to read entire article)
Washington, DC- Global warming skeptics, who for a decade have emphasized hard-science evidence to refute doomsday predictions from alarmists, added new ammunition to their arsenal Tuesday at the third International Conference on Climate Change.
More than 250 people crowded into Washington Court hotel meeting rooms to hear a dozen elite scientists refute the claim that global warming is either man-made or would have harmful effects on Earth.
But The Heartland Institute, a 25-year-old think tank that produced the three international climate conferences, also recruited seven elite economists to focus on the devastating personal and broad economic impact of legislation, sponsored by Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) and Ed Markey (D-Mass.) and headed for approval in the U.S. House, to put a cap on greenhouse gas emissions. Businesses, commercial structures, farms, and other emitters could purchase and trade the permits to emit carbon dioxide and other gases that exceed the cap.
While the scientists reported on a vast array of peer-reviewed literature that cast doubt on the causes and severity of global warming, the economists produced data that showed the cap-and-trade scheme not only wouldn`t halt the release of greenhouse gases, but would add huge costs to business activity that inevitably would be passed along to consumers in the form of higher prices.
Dr. Jeff Kueter, an economist and president of the George C. Marshall Institute, referred to Waxman-Markey as "a dismal down-payment on injuries more intrusive into our lives and economy" than ever seen before.
Kueter cited independent economic studies that showed the diversion of capital to emission permits from the investment in new plant and equipment in the U.S. economy would:
reduce employment by 1.1 million jobs a year from 2012 to 2030, and more than double that job-loss in 2035.
slash gross domestic product by an average of $491 billion a year from 2012 to 2035, and hit $662 billion in 2035 -- a total evaporation of productive output of goods and services worth more than $9.4 trillion.
reduce average global temperatures by an insignificant 0.36º Fahrenheit by 2100 and by 0.09º F by 2050.
Similar costs with negligible benefits in Waxman-Markey were cited by other economists and public officials, including Dr. David Tuerck, president of the Beacon Hill Institute and chairman of the economics department at Suffolk University in Boston, and U.S. Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla).
U.S. Rep. James Sensenbrenner (R-Wis.), a veteran global warming skeptic, urged attendees to call Waxman-Markey a "cap-and-tax plan" that amounts to "unilateral disarmament in the economic sphere" for American businesses and workers.
Another long-time skeptic, Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (D-Calif.), provoked sustained applause when he declared that the partisans of Waxman-Markey are "stampeding the public and elected officials in the biggest power grab in the history of human kind."
Economist Dr. Gabriel Calzada of King Juan Carlos University in Madrid reviewed the dismal performance of cap-and-trade mandates in Spain, where unemployment has reached a daunting 18 percent, carbon emissions are higher today than before cap-and-trade was installed, and fraud and misrepresentation of emission abatement programs are rampant.
(Click to read entire article)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)