I recently read that in Ontario, there are now 963 megawatts of wind power available. However, the winds are never at optimum force everywhere, so the greatest amount of wind power actually fed to the grid was 466 megawatts, or about 50%. The average is 161 megawatts -- 17% -- and the minimum was eight megawatts, or less than 1%.
Just because the wind turbine blades are rotating does not mean there is any power output. They are designed to rotate at a constant speed, even when the output is negligible, much like a car motor idling in neutral. So with the power output ranging from 1% to 50% of capacity, how many coal-burning generating stations will the province shut down?
We also pay a heavy premium for this unreliable power. We must still maintain 963 megawatts of coal-burning generating capacity for the days when it is not windy. These coal-burning generating stations will now burn an average of 17% less coal while they continue to burn 83% of their current amount. So if wind power is the answer, we need to figure out what was the question.
Steve Manders Kingston
Thursday, June 18, 2009
Tuesday, June 16, 2009
Cohocton to receive $635,000 for roads as part of settlement with First Wind
Note that reporter Bob Clark was not present at the June 15, 2009 Town of Cohocton meeting
Atlanta, N.Y.
After a month of negotiation, Cohocton town officials are expecting a settlement with wind developer First Wind to the tune of $635,000.
The Cohocton town board gave a tentative OK to the agreement to fix up town roads damaged by construction equipment at Monday night’s board meeting, but there are a few minor issues left to iron out, said town Supervisor Jack Zigenfus.
“There’s only a couple little things remaining to be ironed out,” Zigenfus said. “Kind of ‘what if, down-the-road’ things.”
In the agreement, First Wind will pay the town $335,000 within 10 days of approval. The agreement also requires $100,000 annual payments from the company for the next three years.
The news comes a month to the day after the town threatened to take First Wind to court after a new round of construction at the 50 turbine locations scattered through the town. On May 15, town officials placed weight limit restrictions on several town roads that lead to the turbines and contacted its attorney to pursue some kind of action, even a trip to court if needed.
According to John Lamontagne, director of communications for First Wind, the company needs to reinforce all of the turbine blades after flaws were found in several of the turbines.
“It’s progressing pretty smoothly,” Lamontagne said, adding the work should wrap up by this fall.
The same work is being executed on the Steel Winds project in Lackawanna, Lamontagne said, adding the same problems were found in the identical turbines at the project. At least one turbine at the site is currently disassembled because of the work, being performed under warranty by Clipper Windpower.
The town threatened legal action over the work because heavy construction equipment like cranes need to be moved to every turbine site. Zigenfus said the town was not notified properly about the work and there was no plan in place to restore the roads after the work.
The agreement also includes provisions to coordinate town repair schedules with the company’s maintenance schedules, as well as posting construction routes for company drivers to keep down congestion and limit damage.
“The trouble is a lot of the equipment trucks are from out of the area,” Zigenfus said, adding many rely on GPS units to find their way around. Instead of taking the normal route, a GPS might suggest the driver take other routes not approved for the traffic.
Lamontagne said First Wind should sign off on the agreement in the next day or two.
“It will insure all the roads are safe,” Lamontagne said, but added it will give the company access for the rest of the work and future maintenance.
First Wind has had to negotiate with local governments before to fix up roads.
Just days after breaking ground in 2007, Steuben County officials placed low weight limits on county roads used for the construction traffic. Within two weeks, the county had an agreement with then UPC Wind over the road work. First Wind will need to pay out more than $765,000 to repair two county roads in the town.
Atlanta, N.Y.
After a month of negotiation, Cohocton town officials are expecting a settlement with wind developer First Wind to the tune of $635,000.
The Cohocton town board gave a tentative OK to the agreement to fix up town roads damaged by construction equipment at Monday night’s board meeting, but there are a few minor issues left to iron out, said town Supervisor Jack Zigenfus.
“There’s only a couple little things remaining to be ironed out,” Zigenfus said. “Kind of ‘what if, down-the-road’ things.”
In the agreement, First Wind will pay the town $335,000 within 10 days of approval. The agreement also requires $100,000 annual payments from the company for the next three years.
The news comes a month to the day after the town threatened to take First Wind to court after a new round of construction at the 50 turbine locations scattered through the town. On May 15, town officials placed weight limit restrictions on several town roads that lead to the turbines and contacted its attorney to pursue some kind of action, even a trip to court if needed.
According to John Lamontagne, director of communications for First Wind, the company needs to reinforce all of the turbine blades after flaws were found in several of the turbines.
“It’s progressing pretty smoothly,” Lamontagne said, adding the work should wrap up by this fall.
The same work is being executed on the Steel Winds project in Lackawanna, Lamontagne said, adding the same problems were found in the identical turbines at the project. At least one turbine at the site is currently disassembled because of the work, being performed under warranty by Clipper Windpower.
The town threatened legal action over the work because heavy construction equipment like cranes need to be moved to every turbine site. Zigenfus said the town was not notified properly about the work and there was no plan in place to restore the roads after the work.
The agreement also includes provisions to coordinate town repair schedules with the company’s maintenance schedules, as well as posting construction routes for company drivers to keep down congestion and limit damage.
“The trouble is a lot of the equipment trucks are from out of the area,” Zigenfus said, adding many rely on GPS units to find their way around. Instead of taking the normal route, a GPS might suggest the driver take other routes not approved for the traffic.
Lamontagne said First Wind should sign off on the agreement in the next day or two.
“It will insure all the roads are safe,” Lamontagne said, but added it will give the company access for the rest of the work and future maintenance.
First Wind has had to negotiate with local governments before to fix up roads.
Just days after breaking ground in 2007, Steuben County officials placed low weight limits on county roads used for the construction traffic. Within two weeks, the county had an agreement with then UPC Wind over the road work. First Wind will need to pay out more than $765,000 to repair two county roads in the town.
Monday, June 15, 2009
Environmental concerns come with industrial wind turbines
Recently, the Orangeville town board held a public hearing on the proposed amendments to the zoning laws of the town. Although there are several sections in the proposal, the overflow crowd in attendance focused on section 1309 (Alternative Energy Sources) and section 1116 (Wind Energy Conversion Device/Farm); specifically, wind turbines and setback requirements.
The notice for this public hearing summarized the proposed zoning law amendments stating, "All amendments outlined in the proposed law were drafted after reasonable consideration, ... among other things ... with a view to conserving property values and natural resources."
How does the Town Board propose to conserve property values and natural resources? An examination of section 1116 of the proposed amendments reveals some of the their proposed setback requirements for wind turbines as follows:
"i. From the property line of the parcel on which the wind energy conversion device is located by a minimum distance of five hundred (500) ft. unless waived in writing, in the form of an easement...
ii. From any dwelling that is on any parcel by a minimum distance of one thousand two hundred and fifty feet (1250ft.), unless waived in writing, in the form of an easement.
iv. from the property line of a non-participating resident a minimum distance of sevenhundred feet (700 ft.)"
There were more than 45 persons that presented arguments in response to these specific proposals. The overwhelming majority of the speakers were opposed to the proposed setback requirements citing evidence that erecting 400+ foot high industrial wind turbines in such close proximity to residences and property lines causes documented health and environmental risks and negatively impacts one's quality of life while dramatically lowering the property values of those non-participating residents located within the view shed or auditory circumference of these 35-story high mechanisms. The speakers in favor of the proposal were either employees of the wind development company or property owners that signed a 40-year financial land-lease agreement with the Invenergy Corporation. The attorney representing the wind developers inappropriately "lectured" the town officials regarding their representative "obligations."
In contrast with the Orangeville Town Board proposal for setback requirements, Dr. Pierpoint, an international authority on Vibro-Acoustic-Disease, (wind turbine syndrome) recommends 6,600 foot setbacks (more than a mile) for wind turbines because of the negative health effect from noise made by wind turbines. The French National Academy of Medicine has called for a halt of all large scale wind development within 1.5 kilometers (about 1 mile) of any residence, because the sound emitted by the blades constitute a permanent risk for people exposed to them.( Also, a German study found significant noise levels one mile away from a two year old industrial wind farm of 17 turbines, especially at night. In Vermont, the director of energy efficiency for the Department of Public Service, Rod Ide, said that residents in this area who reside 1.5 to three miles downwind in otherwise quiet rural areas, suffer significant noise pollution. These are but a few of many documented findings regarding this topic.
While wind developers and town officials deny that industrial wind farms have any effect on property values of neighboring residents, they refuse to provide legally enforceable guarantees of compensation for property value losses caused by such an aesthetic alteration of the natural environment. In fact, a view and a serene environment add value to rural property. There are many documented articles that substantiate the argument that the location of wind turbines within sight and sound of property causes significant devaluation and that this loss is in direct proportion to their proximity.
As elected officials, the Orangeville town government is empowered to enact zoning ordinances for the town. However, their current proposal for setback requirements is in stark contrast with their stated goals and objectives. Article XIII, section 1309 of this proposal states as its goal to "allow development of alternative energy sources to take place within the town but direct it to those areas that are most appropriate." Policy No. 3 of this same section proposes to "pinpoint the sites with the greatest potential for development with the lowest potential for adverse environmental or other impacts." Since land-lease agreements are negotiated directly between the property owner and the wind developer, and the town's proposal allows for variances in the setback requirements, it is essentially impossible for this proposal to achieve its stated environmental objectives.
Expressing goals and objectives is important. However they remain immeasurable and ineffective unless accompanied by specific details for their implementation. Therefore, it is strongly advisable that the Orangeville Town Board use setback guidelines recommended by the objective scientific conclusions abundently documented and cited in the literature, rather than the "workable" guidelines recommended by wind developers.
In the event that our local government officials choose not to follow scientific recommendations nor to honor their stated goal of "... conserving property values and natural resources," it is extremely advisable that concerned Orangeville land owners have their property professionally appraised and retain counsel.
Dr. Joseph A. Zampogna lives in Orangeville.
The notice for this public hearing summarized the proposed zoning law amendments stating, "All amendments outlined in the proposed law were drafted after reasonable consideration, ... among other things ... with a view to conserving property values and natural resources."
How does the Town Board propose to conserve property values and natural resources? An examination of section 1116 of the proposed amendments reveals some of the their proposed setback requirements for wind turbines as follows:
"i. From the property line of the parcel on which the wind energy conversion device is located by a minimum distance of five hundred (500) ft. unless waived in writing, in the form of an easement...
ii. From any dwelling that is on any parcel by a minimum distance of one thousand two hundred and fifty feet (1250ft.), unless waived in writing, in the form of an easement.
iv. from the property line of a non-participating resident a minimum distance of sevenhundred feet (700 ft.)"
There were more than 45 persons that presented arguments in response to these specific proposals. The overwhelming majority of the speakers were opposed to the proposed setback requirements citing evidence that erecting 400+ foot high industrial wind turbines in such close proximity to residences and property lines causes documented health and environmental risks and negatively impacts one's quality of life while dramatically lowering the property values of those non-participating residents located within the view shed or auditory circumference of these 35-story high mechanisms. The speakers in favor of the proposal were either employees of the wind development company or property owners that signed a 40-year financial land-lease agreement with the Invenergy Corporation. The attorney representing the wind developers inappropriately "lectured" the town officials regarding their representative "obligations."
In contrast with the Orangeville Town Board proposal for setback requirements, Dr. Pierpoint, an international authority on Vibro-Acoustic-Disease, (wind turbine syndrome) recommends 6,600 foot setbacks (more than a mile) for wind turbines because of the negative health effect from noise made by wind turbines. The French National Academy of Medicine has called for a halt of all large scale wind development within 1.5 kilometers (about 1 mile) of any residence, because the sound emitted by the blades constitute a permanent risk for people exposed to them.( Also, a German study found significant noise levels one mile away from a two year old industrial wind farm of 17 turbines, especially at night. In Vermont, the director of energy efficiency for the Department of Public Service, Rod Ide, said that residents in this area who reside 1.5 to three miles downwind in otherwise quiet rural areas, suffer significant noise pollution. These are but a few of many documented findings regarding this topic.
While wind developers and town officials deny that industrial wind farms have any effect on property values of neighboring residents, they refuse to provide legally enforceable guarantees of compensation for property value losses caused by such an aesthetic alteration of the natural environment. In fact, a view and a serene environment add value to rural property. There are many documented articles that substantiate the argument that the location of wind turbines within sight and sound of property causes significant devaluation and that this loss is in direct proportion to their proximity.
As elected officials, the Orangeville town government is empowered to enact zoning ordinances for the town. However, their current proposal for setback requirements is in stark contrast with their stated goals and objectives. Article XIII, section 1309 of this proposal states as its goal to "allow development of alternative energy sources to take place within the town but direct it to those areas that are most appropriate." Policy No. 3 of this same section proposes to "pinpoint the sites with the greatest potential for development with the lowest potential for adverse environmental or other impacts." Since land-lease agreements are negotiated directly between the property owner and the wind developer, and the town's proposal allows for variances in the setback requirements, it is essentially impossible for this proposal to achieve its stated environmental objectives.
Expressing goals and objectives is important. However they remain immeasurable and ineffective unless accompanied by specific details for their implementation. Therefore, it is strongly advisable that the Orangeville Town Board use setback guidelines recommended by the objective scientific conclusions abundently documented and cited in the literature, rather than the "workable" guidelines recommended by wind developers.
In the event that our local government officials choose not to follow scientific recommendations nor to honor their stated goal of "... conserving property values and natural resources," it is extremely advisable that concerned Orangeville land owners have their property professionally appraised and retain counsel.
Dr. Joseph A. Zampogna lives in Orangeville.
Lake Ontario power project seeks Oswego County route
Oswego, N.Y. - Plans to run power from a wind turbine project in Lake Ontario through Oswego County are meeting surprise and resistance.
"It'll ruin my property value," said Kathleen Schneider, who with her husband owns 55 acres on Castor Road in Albion.
The Schneiders received a letter last month from Upstate NY Power Corp. telling them they would be contacted about selling a right of way on their land. They threw it out.
Later they learned that Upstate NY Power has applied to install 77 wind turbines on Galloo Island, 12 miles off the shore of Lake Ontario.
Two representatives for the project visited them Monday to say that Upstate NY Power would pay $4,000 an acre for a 150-foot-wide swath to accommodate a 230-kilovolt power line. And, they were told, if they didn't agree, the company might use eminent domain. A letter included a deadline of Feb. 25. The date was underlined, she said.
"They made it sound like a done deal," she said. But the Schneiders didn't sign.
Eben Forbes, who owns a farm in Richland, didn't sign, either. Like the Schneiders, he hadn't heard of the plan before he received a letter. "I thought it was a joke," he said.
It's no joke. Upstate NY Power is backed by Babcock & Brown, an international operation that owns 20 wind farms in nine states. The nearest one is in Bear Creek, Penn., said Matt Dallas, a spokesman for the company.
Dallas said the company wants to build a wind power project on Galloo because "it's not in anybody's backyard."
Migratory birds follow the lake shore, he said, so they wouldn't be a problem for the turbines, and the entire installation would take up only 4 percent of the 2,000-acre island.
The island is in the town of Hounsfield, but power from the turbines -- 250 megawatts, enough to power about 100,000 homes -- would come ashore in Henderson and then be carried to Parish, where it would connect with larger power lines.
The route isn't set, Dallas said. "There are a couple of different options."
The turbine project has not gone through an approval process. "It's pretty early stage development," Dallas said. Work wouldn't begin until 2010 at the earliest and would take about a year to complete, he said.
The project would create about 250 jobs during construction and 20 or so permanent jobs when finished, he said. "We always try to hire locally when we can," he said.
The power lines wouldn't look like the structures that carry power from Oswego County's three nuclear plants. They would be single-pole lines that run 36 miles from the shore to Parish, Dallas said.
He also said the company, which has been around since 1977, has never used eminent domain. He said representatives -- contractors working for another company -- may have mentioned eminent domain because the law requires them to.
Oswego County Legislature Chairman Barry Leemann, R-Altmar, was upset that no one involved in the project told the county. "They haven't bothered to contact us," he said.
"I think we thought it was fairly well known," said Dallas, whose office is in New York City.
The Jefferson County Agricultural Development Corp. and Jefferson County Soil and Water Conservation District have invited Oswego County landowners to a program on dealing with the issue Thursday in Henderson.
"It'll ruin my property value," said Kathleen Schneider, who with her husband owns 55 acres on Castor Road in Albion.
The Schneiders received a letter last month from Upstate NY Power Corp. telling them they would be contacted about selling a right of way on their land. They threw it out.
Later they learned that Upstate NY Power has applied to install 77 wind turbines on Galloo Island, 12 miles off the shore of Lake Ontario.
Two representatives for the project visited them Monday to say that Upstate NY Power would pay $4,000 an acre for a 150-foot-wide swath to accommodate a 230-kilovolt power line. And, they were told, if they didn't agree, the company might use eminent domain. A letter included a deadline of Feb. 25. The date was underlined, she said.
"They made it sound like a done deal," she said. But the Schneiders didn't sign.
Eben Forbes, who owns a farm in Richland, didn't sign, either. Like the Schneiders, he hadn't heard of the plan before he received a letter. "I thought it was a joke," he said.
It's no joke. Upstate NY Power is backed by Babcock & Brown, an international operation that owns 20 wind farms in nine states. The nearest one is in Bear Creek, Penn., said Matt Dallas, a spokesman for the company.
Dallas said the company wants to build a wind power project on Galloo because "it's not in anybody's backyard."
Migratory birds follow the lake shore, he said, so they wouldn't be a problem for the turbines, and the entire installation would take up only 4 percent of the 2,000-acre island.
The island is in the town of Hounsfield, but power from the turbines -- 250 megawatts, enough to power about 100,000 homes -- would come ashore in Henderson and then be carried to Parish, where it would connect with larger power lines.
The route isn't set, Dallas said. "There are a couple of different options."
The turbine project has not gone through an approval process. "It's pretty early stage development," Dallas said. Work wouldn't begin until 2010 at the earliest and would take about a year to complete, he said.
The project would create about 250 jobs during construction and 20 or so permanent jobs when finished, he said. "We always try to hire locally when we can," he said.
The power lines wouldn't look like the structures that carry power from Oswego County's three nuclear plants. They would be single-pole lines that run 36 miles from the shore to Parish, Dallas said.
He also said the company, which has been around since 1977, has never used eminent domain. He said representatives -- contractors working for another company -- may have mentioned eminent domain because the law requires them to.
Oswego County Legislature Chairman Barry Leemann, R-Altmar, was upset that no one involved in the project told the county. "They haven't bothered to contact us," he said.
"I think we thought it was fairly well known," said Dallas, whose office is in New York City.
The Jefferson County Agricultural Development Corp. and Jefferson County Soil and Water Conservation District have invited Oswego County landowners to a program on dealing with the issue Thursday in Henderson.
Saturday, June 13, 2009
Wind farm foes file federal lawsuit
Citing potential harm to an endangered species of bat, opponents of a proposed wind farm in Greenbrier County filed a lawsuit in federal court earlier this week.
Joining Mountain Communities for Responsible Energy and David G. Cowan in the suit, filed in U.S. District Court in Maryland, is the Animal Welfare Institute of Washington. According to a news release issued by the plaintiffs, this is believed to be the first federal lawsuit challenging an industrial wind energy project on environmental grounds.
The plaintiffs claim Beech Ridge Energy LLC and Invenergy Wind LLC will likely be responsible for the killing, injury and other forms of “taking” of endangered Indiana bats in violation of the Endangered Species Act if the 124-windmill project is allowed to proceed.
Cowan, a Frankford resident, is identified as the property manager and steward for the Lobelia Saltpeter Cave Preserve, located about 7 miles from the nearest proposed wind turbine. According to the lawsuit, that cave was a destination for hibernating and mating Indiana bats as recently as the winter of 2008.
Cowan also says he has seen the endangered bats “on numerous occasions” near the project site, a 23-mile ridgeline in the northwest portion of the county. The lawsuit maintains “the installation and long-term operation of more than one hundred 390-foot-tall wind turbines is likely to result in deaths and injuries from turbine-bat collisions.”
The plaintiffs ask the court to grant an injunction preventing the construction of the wind farm unless and until the companies named as defendants obtain permission to do so from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, in keeping with the provisions of the Endangered Species Act.
“Poorly sited wind power projects in the eastern U.S. have already killed and maimed scores of bats, and leading bat experts predict that, without reforms, hundreds of thousands more will be killed in coming years,” the plaintiffs’ news release indicates.
“We were hoping to avoid a federal lawsuit,” said John Stroud, spokesman for MCRE, a grassroots group based in Williamsburg. “However, Beech Ridge Energy is currently moving forward with construction despite repeated requests to first bring the project into compliance with the Endangered Species Act to ensure that the Indiana bat is afforded the full protections of the law.”
Joe Condo, vice president and general counsel of Invenergy LLC, responded to the allegations.
“While we do not comment on the specifics of pending litigation, we believe, as with previous attempts to delay the Beech Ridge project by way of lawsuits, that the claim filed is without merit,” Condo said. “Beech Ridge Energy has cooperated for years with all the relevant governmental entities and has received all required permits necessary to build the wind farm, which will help West Virginia and the country reach its clean energy goals.”
Joining Mountain Communities for Responsible Energy and David G. Cowan in the suit, filed in U.S. District Court in Maryland, is the Animal Welfare Institute of Washington. According to a news release issued by the plaintiffs, this is believed to be the first federal lawsuit challenging an industrial wind energy project on environmental grounds.
The plaintiffs claim Beech Ridge Energy LLC and Invenergy Wind LLC will likely be responsible for the killing, injury and other forms of “taking” of endangered Indiana bats in violation of the Endangered Species Act if the 124-windmill project is allowed to proceed.
Cowan, a Frankford resident, is identified as the property manager and steward for the Lobelia Saltpeter Cave Preserve, located about 7 miles from the nearest proposed wind turbine. According to the lawsuit, that cave was a destination for hibernating and mating Indiana bats as recently as the winter of 2008.
Cowan also says he has seen the endangered bats “on numerous occasions” near the project site, a 23-mile ridgeline in the northwest portion of the county. The lawsuit maintains “the installation and long-term operation of more than one hundred 390-foot-tall wind turbines is likely to result in deaths and injuries from turbine-bat collisions.”
The plaintiffs ask the court to grant an injunction preventing the construction of the wind farm unless and until the companies named as defendants obtain permission to do so from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, in keeping with the provisions of the Endangered Species Act.
“Poorly sited wind power projects in the eastern U.S. have already killed and maimed scores of bats, and leading bat experts predict that, without reforms, hundreds of thousands more will be killed in coming years,” the plaintiffs’ news release indicates.
“We were hoping to avoid a federal lawsuit,” said John Stroud, spokesman for MCRE, a grassroots group based in Williamsburg. “However, Beech Ridge Energy is currently moving forward with construction despite repeated requests to first bring the project into compliance with the Endangered Species Act to ensure that the Indiana bat is afforded the full protections of the law.”
Joe Condo, vice president and general counsel of Invenergy LLC, responded to the allegations.
“While we do not comment on the specifics of pending litigation, we believe, as with previous attempts to delay the Beech Ridge project by way of lawsuits, that the claim filed is without merit,” Condo said. “Beech Ridge Energy has cooperated for years with all the relevant governmental entities and has received all required permits necessary to build the wind farm, which will help West Virginia and the country reach its clean energy goals.”
NYS Article X Bill Before Legislator - Text - A08696
8696
2009-2010 Regular Sessions
I N A S S E M B L Y
June 3, 2009
___________
Introduced by M. of A. CAHILL -- read once and referred to the Committee
on Energy
AN ACT to amend the public service law, in relation to the siting of
major electric generating facilities; to amend the public authorities
law, in relation to making technical corrections thereto; to amend the
state finance law, in relation to establishing an intervenor account;
to amend the environmental conservation law, in relation to power
plant emissions and performance standards; and providing for the
repeal of such provisions upon expiration thereof
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, REPRESENTED IN SENATE AND ASSEM-
BLY, DO ENACT AS FOLLOWS:
(Click to read entire 08696 Bill)
2009-2010 Regular Sessions
I N A S S E M B L Y
June 3, 2009
___________
Introduced by M. of A. CAHILL -- read once and referred to the Committee
on Energy
AN ACT to amend the public service law, in relation to the siting of
major electric generating facilities; to amend the public authorities
law, in relation to making technical corrections thereto; to amend the
state finance law, in relation to establishing an intervenor account;
to amend the environmental conservation law, in relation to power
plant emissions and performance standards; and providing for the
repeal of such provisions upon expiration thereof
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, REPRESENTED IN SENATE AND ASSEM-
BLY, DO ENACT AS FOLLOWS:
(Click to read entire 08696 Bill)
NYS Citizens' Wind Energy Questions for NYSERDA
NYSERDA_Questions.pdf
— Contents —
Table of Contents page 2
Brief History page 3-4
Introductory Observations page 5
A. Some POLICY Questions (10) page 6-7
B. Some RPS Questions (3) page 8-10
C. Some GENERAL Questions (8) page 11-12
D. Some TECHNICAL Questions (9) page 13-14
E. Some FINANCIAL Questions (21) page 15-17
F. Some ENVIRONMENTAL Questions (13) page 18-20
Summary page 21
Some Signatures page 22
Some Citizen Groups page 23
Cover Letter to Mark Watson (NYSERDA) page 24-25
SUMMARY —
Since a lot of ground has been covered in this document, we need to recap what was stated in the beginning. The quantity and scope of the questions listed here should send two unequivocal messages:
1 - wind power is not a NIMBY issue to most NYS citizens, and
2 - how seriously deficient NYSERDA’s site and support materials are concerning wind energy information.
We are for Sound Scientific Solutions (i.e. not political schemes) to the energy economic and environmental issues facing our state today.
We support all options (including renewables) that have been proven to be scientifically sound solutions.
We favor the state and NYSERDA taking appropriate measures that support scientifically sound solutions.
We insist that the health and welfare of the citizens in NYS take precedence over the economic benefits of any business, or the political agenda (no matter how well-intentioned) of any organization.
We expect that NYSERDA employ scientific methodology in assessing the alternative electrical energy options presented by businesses, investors, and other opportunists.
We expect that the main areas of this assessment be the technical, economic and environmental soundness of the proposed source.
We expect that the assessment and the results be fully transparent.
All this amounts to the fact that we expect our elected and appointed representatives to be acting in the best interests of all the citizens of NYS, and in a professional, objective, comprehensive, and open-minded manner.
Since very little of this has yet to happen in the area of wind energy, we request that NYSERDA take a public position that a one year moratorium on wind developments in NYS is necessary.
[Interestingly this same request was made (but ignored) three years ago http://tinyurl.com/2wdhd6. Consider how much further along we would be on the path to genuine energy progress had the state heeded that proposal.]
A moratorium will give NYSERDA the time to do a comprehensive, objective, and independent assessment of the viability of wind energy as a meaningful solution to the significant energy issues facing the citizens of New York State.
— Contents —
Table of Contents page 2
Brief History page 3-4
Introductory Observations page 5
A. Some POLICY Questions (10) page 6-7
B. Some RPS Questions (3) page 8-10
C. Some GENERAL Questions (8) page 11-12
D. Some TECHNICAL Questions (9) page 13-14
E. Some FINANCIAL Questions (21) page 15-17
F. Some ENVIRONMENTAL Questions (13) page 18-20
Summary page 21
Some Signatures page 22
Some Citizen Groups page 23
Cover Letter to Mark Watson (NYSERDA) page 24-25
SUMMARY —
Since a lot of ground has been covered in this document, we need to recap what was stated in the beginning. The quantity and scope of the questions listed here should send two unequivocal messages:
1 - wind power is not a NIMBY issue to most NYS citizens, and
2 - how seriously deficient NYSERDA’s site and support materials are concerning wind energy information.
We are for Sound Scientific Solutions (i.e. not political schemes) to the energy economic and environmental issues facing our state today.
We support all options (including renewables) that have been proven to be scientifically sound solutions.
We favor the state and NYSERDA taking appropriate measures that support scientifically sound solutions.
We insist that the health and welfare of the citizens in NYS take precedence over the economic benefits of any business, or the political agenda (no matter how well-intentioned) of any organization.
We expect that NYSERDA employ scientific methodology in assessing the alternative electrical energy options presented by businesses, investors, and other opportunists.
We expect that the main areas of this assessment be the technical, economic and environmental soundness of the proposed source.
We expect that the assessment and the results be fully transparent.
All this amounts to the fact that we expect our elected and appointed representatives to be acting in the best interests of all the citizens of NYS, and in a professional, objective, comprehensive, and open-minded manner.
Since very little of this has yet to happen in the area of wind energy, we request that NYSERDA take a public position that a one year moratorium on wind developments in NYS is necessary.
[Interestingly this same request was made (but ignored) three years ago http://tinyurl.com/2wdhd6. Consider how much further along we would be on the path to genuine energy progress had the state heeded that proposal.]
A moratorium will give NYSERDA the time to do a comprehensive, objective, and independent assessment of the viability of wind energy as a meaningful solution to the significant energy issues facing the citizens of New York State.
Ontario leaps before it looks with proposed wind-turbine rules
About now, Neal Michelutti and two colleagues at Queen's University are receiving responses to a survey about wind turbines on Wolfe Island, which sits in Lake Ontario near Kingston.
They want to find out whether, as many suspect, the turbines rob people of sleep and hearing, or cause stress, skin rashes, headaches, high blood pressure or a host of other ailments.
The study is rudimentary. Last summer, the researchers sent questionnaires to all 600 homes on the island, where an 86-turbine wind farm was about to be installed. About 150 people responded.
Last month, with all the turbines in place and some operating, a second survey went into the mail. It's due back now. A final questionnaire will go out in early fall, when all the machines will have been generating electricity for a few weeks.
Results will be available in about a year.
Astonishingly, this is apparently the first study undertaken anywhere that attempts to measure health differences before and after wind turbines go into an area.
Michelutti and his colleagues live on the island. They're not anti-turbine. "I'm in favour of anything that reduces greenhouse gas emissions," Michelutti says. He figures the issue likely centres on how far turbines should be kept from homes. In Europe and elsewhere, required setbacks range from 250 to 1,500 metres.
The rule for Wolfe Island is 400 metres. "I'm not sure how that was agreed upon," Michelutti says.
Certainly it wasn't based on medical evidence, because there isn't any, one way or another.
This week, the provincial government entered the fray, proposing a minimum setback of 550 metres for any turbines, and substantial distances from property lines.
Industry officials argue such regulations could kill many new land-based projects in Southern Ontario. Developers are assessing the impacts, says Sean Whittaker of the Canadian Wind Energy Association. Given such high stakes, and the importance of wind power in Queen's Park's plan to promote renewable energy, you'd think setback requirements would await scientific evidence.
Instead, Queen's Park has responded blindly to pressure from a well-organized group that managed to spook some Liberal backbenchers.
As Michelutti's study suggests, the collection of evidence is barely in its infancy. With a budget big enough to pay for stamps and photocopying, his survey will eventually reveal how perhaps one-fifth of Wolfe Island's residents view their own health status. There's been no funding, anywhere, for epidemiological research to actually measure what's happening in the bodies of turbine neighbours, before and after projects go in. There are no indications the province, or anyone else, has interest in such work.
Turbines might have health impacts. We don't know for certain. And if there are impacts, we've little idea what causes them.
The new regulation is based on audible noise. The aim, it says, is to keep neighbours from hearing more than 40 decibels, "approximately the noise level experienced in a quiet office or library. " That requirement would, ludicrously, stop the addition of two turbines to the lone one now operating at Exhibition Place. Traffic noise from nearby Lake Shore Blvd. and the slightly more distant Gardiner Expressway is much louder than the whoosh of turbine blades, and far exceeds the calm of a reading room.
Turbine noise can be dramatically reduced through alterations such as sharpening the blade's trailing edge or reshaping gears, so one-size-fits-all setbacks make little sense.
"If you're constraining for sound, base it on sound," is Whittaker's reasonable argument.
Meanwhile, the province's announcement ignores the slim possibility any health impacts might be caused by emanations – low-frequency signals, perhaps – not detected by human senses.
On a major policy, Queen's Park has leapt before it looked.
Peter Gorrie is the Star's former environment reporter. He can be reached at: pgorrie@sympatico.ca
They want to find out whether, as many suspect, the turbines rob people of sleep and hearing, or cause stress, skin rashes, headaches, high blood pressure or a host of other ailments.
The study is rudimentary. Last summer, the researchers sent questionnaires to all 600 homes on the island, where an 86-turbine wind farm was about to be installed. About 150 people responded.
Last month, with all the turbines in place and some operating, a second survey went into the mail. It's due back now. A final questionnaire will go out in early fall, when all the machines will have been generating electricity for a few weeks.
Results will be available in about a year.
Astonishingly, this is apparently the first study undertaken anywhere that attempts to measure health differences before and after wind turbines go into an area.
Michelutti and his colleagues live on the island. They're not anti-turbine. "I'm in favour of anything that reduces greenhouse gas emissions," Michelutti says. He figures the issue likely centres on how far turbines should be kept from homes. In Europe and elsewhere, required setbacks range from 250 to 1,500 metres.
The rule for Wolfe Island is 400 metres. "I'm not sure how that was agreed upon," Michelutti says.
Certainly it wasn't based on medical evidence, because there isn't any, one way or another.
This week, the provincial government entered the fray, proposing a minimum setback of 550 metres for any turbines, and substantial distances from property lines.
Industry officials argue such regulations could kill many new land-based projects in Southern Ontario. Developers are assessing the impacts, says Sean Whittaker of the Canadian Wind Energy Association. Given such high stakes, and the importance of wind power in Queen's Park's plan to promote renewable energy, you'd think setback requirements would await scientific evidence.
Instead, Queen's Park has responded blindly to pressure from a well-organized group that managed to spook some Liberal backbenchers.
As Michelutti's study suggests, the collection of evidence is barely in its infancy. With a budget big enough to pay for stamps and photocopying, his survey will eventually reveal how perhaps one-fifth of Wolfe Island's residents view their own health status. There's been no funding, anywhere, for epidemiological research to actually measure what's happening in the bodies of turbine neighbours, before and after projects go in. There are no indications the province, or anyone else, has interest in such work.
Turbines might have health impacts. We don't know for certain. And if there are impacts, we've little idea what causes them.
The new regulation is based on audible noise. The aim, it says, is to keep neighbours from hearing more than 40 decibels, "approximately the noise level experienced in a quiet office or library. " That requirement would, ludicrously, stop the addition of two turbines to the lone one now operating at Exhibition Place. Traffic noise from nearby Lake Shore Blvd. and the slightly more distant Gardiner Expressway is much louder than the whoosh of turbine blades, and far exceeds the calm of a reading room.
Turbine noise can be dramatically reduced through alterations such as sharpening the blade's trailing edge or reshaping gears, so one-size-fits-all setbacks make little sense.
"If you're constraining for sound, base it on sound," is Whittaker's reasonable argument.
Meanwhile, the province's announcement ignores the slim possibility any health impacts might be caused by emanations – low-frequency signals, perhaps – not detected by human senses.
On a major policy, Queen's Park has leapt before it looked.
Peter Gorrie is the Star's former environment reporter. He can be reached at: pgorrie@sympatico.ca
Proximity to turbines leads to lower assessments, then higher taxes
My house and land is in Prattsburgh, across from turbine sites for the Ecogen wind project, and my wife owns adjacent property in Naples, Ontario County. I've heard some people say "what's happening in the hills with the wind turbines won't affect me." What these folks may not yet realize is that, if these turbines are allowed to damage the value of adjacent properties, their taxes will go up. And the first step in this one-two process has just started.
This April, I appealed the property assessment for a 25-acre parcel owned by my wife in Naples. This property is located close to Ecogen turbine sites, across the line in Steuben County. This appeal for a lower assessment was based upon a re-appraisal, which considered the proximity of the proposed wind turbines, impact on the selling price of comparable properties across from turbine sites in Cohocton, and our resulting inability to build on the property. Last week the Naples assessor lowered the assessment by 60 percent.
Why did we get 60 percent lopped off our tax bill? The reason is starkly clear: The value was sucked out of the property. When wind turbines are built and sited near this property, the land will be bathed in constant industrial noise. It is not only unwise to build there, it would be virtually impossible for any sensible bank to give us a mortgage were we foolish enough to do so. I believe the Naples assessor did a fair and honest job. And while lowering taxes is good, this victory is like ashes in our mouths. What do we really want? Give us back the higher taxes, along with the ability to build on our property!
There are two issues which the citizens of Prattsburgh -- and any town considering wind turbines -- need to consider. Yes, adjacent non-participating landowners will be ruined, hosed by the developers big-time. The 60 percent lowering of our assessment is peanuts compared to what will happen to the value of homes in the shadow of noise-making, health-threatening industrial wind turbines. What the rest of our fellow property owners in town need to realize is this: They will have to help foot the bill.
Let's think it through. Assume our town's budget stays the same. When the many negatively-impacted property and home owners have their assessments justifiably lowered, all the other taxpayers will have to take up the slack -- and pay higher taxes. It's like shifting the balance point on a see-saw: When one side goes down, the other side goes up. This is new reality of life in Prattsburgh.
Welcome to the "benefits" of hosting a wind project with horrendous, damagingly-short setbacks. And don't think this won't happen to you! The wind companies want to put up 5,000 turbines in Upstate New York faster than you can blink. To do this, all they have to do is swing a majority on each town board, often through blatant conflicts-of-interest. As a result, you can almost hear the board members falling on their backs like dominoes. Upstate is being turned into a third world country, and the only ones who will make out in this mess are the foreign project developers, their foreign financiers, and whoever helps "grease the wheels of progress." Our towns will then be left to sort out the damage and find a way to pay for it - through higher taxes.
John Servo lives in Prattsburgh, N.Y.
This April, I appealed the property assessment for a 25-acre parcel owned by my wife in Naples. This property is located close to Ecogen turbine sites, across the line in Steuben County. This appeal for a lower assessment was based upon a re-appraisal, which considered the proximity of the proposed wind turbines, impact on the selling price of comparable properties across from turbine sites in Cohocton, and our resulting inability to build on the property. Last week the Naples assessor lowered the assessment by 60 percent.
Why did we get 60 percent lopped off our tax bill? The reason is starkly clear: The value was sucked out of the property. When wind turbines are built and sited near this property, the land will be bathed in constant industrial noise. It is not only unwise to build there, it would be virtually impossible for any sensible bank to give us a mortgage were we foolish enough to do so. I believe the Naples assessor did a fair and honest job. And while lowering taxes is good, this victory is like ashes in our mouths. What do we really want? Give us back the higher taxes, along with the ability to build on our property!
There are two issues which the citizens of Prattsburgh -- and any town considering wind turbines -- need to consider. Yes, adjacent non-participating landowners will be ruined, hosed by the developers big-time. The 60 percent lowering of our assessment is peanuts compared to what will happen to the value of homes in the shadow of noise-making, health-threatening industrial wind turbines. What the rest of our fellow property owners in town need to realize is this: They will have to help foot the bill.
Let's think it through. Assume our town's budget stays the same. When the many negatively-impacted property and home owners have their assessments justifiably lowered, all the other taxpayers will have to take up the slack -- and pay higher taxes. It's like shifting the balance point on a see-saw: When one side goes down, the other side goes up. This is new reality of life in Prattsburgh.
Welcome to the "benefits" of hosting a wind project with horrendous, damagingly-short setbacks. And don't think this won't happen to you! The wind companies want to put up 5,000 turbines in Upstate New York faster than you can blink. To do this, all they have to do is swing a majority on each town board, often through blatant conflicts-of-interest. As a result, you can almost hear the board members falling on their backs like dominoes. Upstate is being turned into a third world country, and the only ones who will make out in this mess are the foreign project developers, their foreign financiers, and whoever helps "grease the wheels of progress." Our towns will then be left to sort out the damage and find a way to pay for it - through higher taxes.
John Servo lives in Prattsburgh, N.Y.
Friday, June 12, 2009
Bath prepares to put wind farms on hold
BATH — Bath town board members last week took the first step towards a moratorium on commercial wind farm developments, directing town attorney Jeffrey Squires to draw up a local law establishing a six-month ban on commercial wind turbines.
The unanimous vote came one month after town Supervisor Fred Muller asked board members to consider a moratorium. Councilmen last month, however, showed little enthusiasm for the measure.
That sentiment had changed by Monday's meeting. The four councilmen — Dean Kropp, Bill Glossick, Robin Lattmer and Albert Burns — joined Muller in unanimously authorizing Squires to draft the local law.
The moratorium would be established while a three-person committee studies land use regulations from other municipalities regulating the location of commercial wind turbines. That committee eventually will draft a local law regulating the location of any future commercial size wind turbines in the town.
So far, the committee has not held its first formal meeting. Lattimer, serving as chairman, said she has collected several sample municipal laws governing wind farms and distributed them to the other committee members. "We're not rushing into this," she said Monday.
The Town of Bath to date has not been identified as a suitable area for wind farm developments; improving wind turbine technology, however, could eventually mitigate the municipality's current drawbacks, Lattimer said.
Hal Bailey, a member of Lattimer's committee and chairman of the committee that developed a comprehensive development plan for the town, agreed.
"It's only a matter of time," Bailey said Monday, in reference to a future wind farm development.
While the local law is bound to focus on set back requirements for wind turbine towers, Bath highway Superintendent Pat Muller recommended a local law address wear and tear on municipal roads as a result of developments such as wind farms. Muller recommended the town consider hiring an engineering firm to assess the current condtion of town roads, establishing a baseline against future development.
Lattimer noted future projects could include largescale drilling for natural gas, as the Marcellus shale range passes through the Town of Bath and is a prime target for natural gas development.
The unanimous vote came one month after town Supervisor Fred Muller asked board members to consider a moratorium. Councilmen last month, however, showed little enthusiasm for the measure.
That sentiment had changed by Monday's meeting. The four councilmen — Dean Kropp, Bill Glossick, Robin Lattmer and Albert Burns — joined Muller in unanimously authorizing Squires to draft the local law.
The moratorium would be established while a three-person committee studies land use regulations from other municipalities regulating the location of commercial wind turbines. That committee eventually will draft a local law regulating the location of any future commercial size wind turbines in the town.
So far, the committee has not held its first formal meeting. Lattimer, serving as chairman, said she has collected several sample municipal laws governing wind farms and distributed them to the other committee members. "We're not rushing into this," she said Monday.
The Town of Bath to date has not been identified as a suitable area for wind farm developments; improving wind turbine technology, however, could eventually mitigate the municipality's current drawbacks, Lattimer said.
Hal Bailey, a member of Lattimer's committee and chairman of the committee that developed a comprehensive development plan for the town, agreed.
"It's only a matter of time," Bailey said Monday, in reference to a future wind farm development.
While the local law is bound to focus on set back requirements for wind turbine towers, Bath highway Superintendent Pat Muller recommended a local law address wear and tear on municipal roads as a result of developments such as wind farms. Muller recommended the town consider hiring an engineering firm to assess the current condtion of town roads, establishing a baseline against future development.
Lattimer noted future projects could include largescale drilling for natural gas, as the Marcellus shale range passes through the Town of Bath and is a prime target for natural gas development.
Resident wants company to sign Wind Code of Ethics
ARKWRIGHT — Elizabeth Booth wants the Arkwright Town Board to “go no further” with the Horizon Wind Farm development until the company agrees to sign a Wind Code of Ethics.
At Monday’s town board meeting, Booth said two companies operating in Chautauqua County which she identified as Noble Environmental Power and First Wind, have signed this code developed by New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo. When she asked Horizon project manager Tom Stebbins if his company had signed this oath, his response was ‘no.’
“This code is important, and I applaud our attorney general for his leadership,” she said. She urged Arkwright residents to exhibit similar leadership and require Horizon “to show that they respect the importance of keeping the process open and honest by signing the Wind Energy Ethics Code.”
Furthermore, she said, “If you believe this transparency is important, do not let this project go any further before Horizon signs this ethics code.”
According to Booth, the code bans wind companies from hiring municipal employees or their relatives, giving gifts of more than $10 during a one-year time period, or providing any other form of compensation that is contingent on any action before a municipal agency. It also requires wind companies to establish and maintain a public Web site to disclose the names of all municipal officers or their relatives who have a financial stake in wind farm development. It requires wind companies to submit in writing to the municipal clerk for public inspection and to publish the nature and scope of the municipal officer’s financial interest.
Mandates that all wind easements and leases be in writing and filed with the county clerk.
Prevents wind companies from soliciting, using or knowingly receiving confidential information acquired by a municipal officer in the course of his or her official duties.
Town Supervisor Fred Norton said Horizon was in compliance and need not sign the code, but he said he would investigate further and report to the board at the July meeting.
When Stebbins said his company was not implicated by the attorney general, Booth said this was all the more reason to sign the Code of Ethics.
Councilman Jeff Dietrich agreed, saying it would set an example for other townships.
Stebbins further noted that Noble Environmental Power and First Wind are the only two companies operating in New York state who have signed this code.
“None of the other wind companies, including Horizon, were implicated by the attorney general’s study, and none other has signed the code,” he said.
Stebbins went on to say the wind energy companies are working through the Alliance for Clean Energy New York organization with the attorney general’s office to develop a code that would meet established standards.
Booth also asked about the status of the supplemental Draft Environmental Impact Study Horizon is required to file on the Arkwright wind project.
Norton said the DEIS has been approved by the board with recommendations from the attorney Daniel Spitzer and Conestoga-Rovers engineer Robert Adams. He said a public hearing on the final environmental statement will be scheduled.
At Monday’s town board meeting, Booth said two companies operating in Chautauqua County which she identified as Noble Environmental Power and First Wind, have signed this code developed by New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo. When she asked Horizon project manager Tom Stebbins if his company had signed this oath, his response was ‘no.’
“This code is important, and I applaud our attorney general for his leadership,” she said. She urged Arkwright residents to exhibit similar leadership and require Horizon “to show that they respect the importance of keeping the process open and honest by signing the Wind Energy Ethics Code.”
Furthermore, she said, “If you believe this transparency is important, do not let this project go any further before Horizon signs this ethics code.”
According to Booth, the code bans wind companies from hiring municipal employees or their relatives, giving gifts of more than $10 during a one-year time period, or providing any other form of compensation that is contingent on any action before a municipal agency. It also requires wind companies to establish and maintain a public Web site to disclose the names of all municipal officers or their relatives who have a financial stake in wind farm development. It requires wind companies to submit in writing to the municipal clerk for public inspection and to publish the nature and scope of the municipal officer’s financial interest.
Mandates that all wind easements and leases be in writing and filed with the county clerk.
Prevents wind companies from soliciting, using or knowingly receiving confidential information acquired by a municipal officer in the course of his or her official duties.
Town Supervisor Fred Norton said Horizon was in compliance and need not sign the code, but he said he would investigate further and report to the board at the July meeting.
When Stebbins said his company was not implicated by the attorney general, Booth said this was all the more reason to sign the Code of Ethics.
Councilman Jeff Dietrich agreed, saying it would set an example for other townships.
Stebbins further noted that Noble Environmental Power and First Wind are the only two companies operating in New York state who have signed this code.
“None of the other wind companies, including Horizon, were implicated by the attorney general’s study, and none other has signed the code,” he said.
Stebbins went on to say the wind energy companies are working through the Alliance for Clean Energy New York organization with the attorney general’s office to develop a code that would meet established standards.
Booth also asked about the status of the supplemental Draft Environmental Impact Study Horizon is required to file on the Arkwright wind project.
Norton said the DEIS has been approved by the board with recommendations from the attorney Daniel Spitzer and Conestoga-Rovers engineer Robert Adams. He said a public hearing on the final environmental statement will be scheduled.
Thursday, June 11, 2009
Ecogen Town of Italy Application Available On-line
The Ecogen special use application for a wind energy facility in the town of Italy is now (mostly) available on-line at:
www.ecogeneis.com/reports.html (toward the bottom of the page)
Please consider reviewing the parts of this application that concern you and writing a letter to the Italy Town Board letting them know your concerns.
There will be a special meeting of the Italy Town Board this upcoming Tuesday 6/16/2009 at 7pm.
www.ecogeneis.com/reports.html (toward the bottom of the page)
Please consider reviewing the parts of this application that concern you and writing a letter to the Italy Town Board letting them know your concerns.
There will be a special meeting of the Italy Town Board this upcoming Tuesday 6/16/2009 at 7pm.
Hartsville pushes to become lead agency in SEQR
Hartsville, N.Y.
The town of Hartsville is exercising its rights for more control over a environmental impact statement that will be done in connection to wind farm studies.
Supervisor Steve Dombert said the town board unanimously passed a resolution to make a formal request to the Department of Environmental Conservation to become the lead agency conducting a state environmental quality review act at its Wednesday night meeting.
The Steuben County Industrial Development Agency is slated to carry the study out, but town officials agree that it’s in the best interest to have the town take over the responsibility.
“We feel that the town has a good chance at becoming the lead agency ... we think it will give us better oversight of the process and we will directly make decisions over the adequacy of the areas in the study,” said Dombert, adding, “It will give us much more control over issues we are the most concerned with.”
If SCIDA opposes it, which I have every reason to believe they will, the DEC will then decide and chose who is more appropriate,” said Dombert.
“The IDA has been dragging their feet and we want to take this thing over,” said Trustee Benjamin Ray.
The board is currently looking into a wind farm impact on property values, noise and municipal compensation. Hartsville officials have been in contact with Prattsburg and Cohocton officials for input on potential problems and agreements.
Dombert said he expects changes to the town wind farm laws to come.
Hartsville enacted a one-year moratorium on wind farms in February, but Dombert said he would like to see it lifted by the end of summer.
He also noted that all costs associated with the SEQRA will be billed to Aeon, the German based company interested in a project there.
John Reynolds, an Aeon project manager, was on hand to observe the meeting and answer questions.
A special meeting wind meeting will take place at the town hall at 7 p.m. June 24.
Officials also made decisions over maintenance issues at the town hall and discussed the recent lawsuit.
The town of Hartsville is exercising its rights for more control over a environmental impact statement that will be done in connection to wind farm studies.
Supervisor Steve Dombert said the town board unanimously passed a resolution to make a formal request to the Department of Environmental Conservation to become the lead agency conducting a state environmental quality review act at its Wednesday night meeting.
The Steuben County Industrial Development Agency is slated to carry the study out, but town officials agree that it’s in the best interest to have the town take over the responsibility.
“We feel that the town has a good chance at becoming the lead agency ... we think it will give us better oversight of the process and we will directly make decisions over the adequacy of the areas in the study,” said Dombert, adding, “It will give us much more control over issues we are the most concerned with.”
If SCIDA opposes it, which I have every reason to believe they will, the DEC will then decide and chose who is more appropriate,” said Dombert.
“The IDA has been dragging their feet and we want to take this thing over,” said Trustee Benjamin Ray.
The board is currently looking into a wind farm impact on property values, noise and municipal compensation. Hartsville officials have been in contact with Prattsburg and Cohocton officials for input on potential problems and agreements.
Dombert said he expects changes to the town wind farm laws to come.
Hartsville enacted a one-year moratorium on wind farms in February, but Dombert said he would like to see it lifted by the end of summer.
He also noted that all costs associated with the SEQRA will be billed to Aeon, the German based company interested in a project there.
John Reynolds, an Aeon project manager, was on hand to observe the meeting and answer questions.
A special meeting wind meeting will take place at the town hall at 7 p.m. June 24.
Officials also made decisions over maintenance issues at the town hall and discussed the recent lawsuit.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)