Noise and vibration coming from large turbines are behind an increase in heart disease, migraine, panic attacks and other health problems, according to research by an American doctor
Living too close to wind turbines can cause heart disease, tinnitus, vertigo, panic attacks, migraines and sleep deprivation, according to groundbreaking research to be published later this year by an American doctor.
Dr Nina Pierpont, a leading New York paediatrician, has been studying the symptoms displayed by people living near wind turbines in the US, the UK, Italy, Ireland and Canada for more than five years. Her findings have led her to confirm what she has identified as a new health risk, wind turbine syndrome (WTS). This is the disruption or abnormal stimulation of the inner ear's vestibular system by turbine infrasound and low-frequency noise, the most distinctive feature of which is a group of symptoms which she calls visceral vibratory vestibular disturbance, or VVVD. They cause problems ranging from internal pulsation, quivering, nervousness, fear, a compulsion to flee, chest tightness and tachycardia – increased heart rate. Turbine noise can also trigger nightmares and other disorders in children as well as harm cognitive development in the young, she claims. However, Dr Pierpont also makes it clear that not all people living close to turbines are susceptible.
Until now, the Government and the wind companies have denied any health risks associated with the powerful noises and vibrations emitted by wind turbines. Acoustic engineers working for the wind energy companies and the Government say that aerodynamic noise produced by turbines pose no risk to health, a view endorsed recently by acousticians at Salford University. They have argued that earlier claims by Dr Pierpont are "imaginary" and are likely to argue that her latest findings are based on a sample too small to be authoritative.
At the heart of Dr Pierpont's findings is that humans are affected by low-frequency noise and vibrations from wind turbines through their ear bones, rather like fish and other amphibians. That humans have the same sensitivity as fish is based on new discoveries made by scientists at Manchester University and New South Wales last year. This, she claims, overturns the medical orthodoxy of the past 70 years on which acousticians working for wind farms are using to base their noise measurements. "It has been gospel among acousticians for years that if a person can't hear a sound, it's too weak for it to be detected or registered by any other part of the body," she said. "But this is no longer true. Humans can hear through the bones. This is amazing. It would be heretical if it hadn't been shown in a well-conducted experiment."
In the UK, Dr Christopher Hanning, founder of the British Sleep Society, who has also backed her research, said: "Dr Pierpont's detailed recording of the harm caused by wind turbine noise will lay firm foundations for future research. It should be required reading for all planners considering wind farms. Like so many earlier medical pioneers exposing the weaknesses of current orthodoxy, Dr Pierpont has been subject to much denigration and criticism and ... it is tribute to her strength of character and conviction that this important book is going to reach publication."
Dr Pierpont's thesis, which is to be published in October by K-Selected Books, has been peer reviewed and includes an endorsement from Professor Lord May, former chief scientific adviser to the UK government. Lord May describes her research as "impressive, interesting and important".
Her new material about the impact of turbine noise on health will be of concern to the Government given its plans for about 4,000 new wind turbines across the country. Ed Miliband, the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change, has made wind power a central part of his new green policy to encourage renewable energy sources. Another 3,000 are planned off-shore.
Drawing on the early work of Dr Amanda Harry, a British GP in Portsmouth who had been alerted by her patients to the potential health risk, Dr Pierpont gathered together 10 further families from around the world who were living near large wind turbines, giving her a cluster of 38 people, from infants to age 75, to explore the pathophysiology of WTS for the case series. Eight of the 10 families she analysed for the study have now moved away from their homes.
In a rare interview, Dr Pierpont, a fellow of the American Academy of Pediatrics, told The Independent on Sunday: "There is no doubt that my clinical research shows that the infrasonic to ultrasonic noise and vibrations emitted by wind turbines cause the symptoms which I am calling wind turbine syndrome. There are about 12 different health problems associated with WTS and these range from tachycardia, sleep disturbance, headaches, tinnitus, nausea, visual blurring, panic attacks with sensations of internal quivering to more general irritability.
"The wind industry will try to discredit me and disparage me, but I can cope with that. This is not unlike the tobacco industry dismissing health issues from smoking. The wind industry, however, is not composed of clinicians, nor is it made up of people suffering from wind turbines." The IoS has a copy of the confidential manuscript which is exhaustive in its research protocol and detailed case series, drawing on the work of leading otolaryngologists and neurotologists – ear, nose and throat clinical specialists.
Some of the earliest research into the impact of low-frequency noise and vibrations was undertaken by Portuguese doctors studying the effects on military and civil personnel flying at high altitudes and at supersonic speed. They found that this exposure may also cause the rare illness, vibroacoustic disorder or VAD, which causes changes to the structure of certain organs such as the heart and lungs and may well be caused by vibrations from turbines. Another powerful side effect of turbines is the impact which the light thrown off the blades – known as flicker – has on people who suffer from migraines and epilepsy.
Campaigners have consistently argued that much research hitherto has been based on written complaints to environmental health officers and manufacturers, not on science-based research. But in Denmark, Germany and France, governments are moving towards building new wind farms off-shore because of concern over the potential health and environmental risks. In the UK there are no such controls, and a growing number of lobbyists, noise experts and government officials are also beginning to query the statutory noise levels being given to councils when deciding on planning applications from wind farm manufacturers. Lobbyists claim a new method of measuring is needed.
Dr Pierpont, who has funded all the research herself and is independent of any organisation, recommends at least a 2km set-back distance between potential wind turbines and people's homes, said: "It is irresponsible of the wind turbine companies – and governments – to continue building wind turbines so close to where people live until there has been a proper epidemiological investigation of the full impact on human health.
"What I have shown in my research is that many people – not all – who have been living close to a wind turbine running near their homes display a range of health illnesses and that when they move away, many of these problems also go away."
A breakthrough into understanding more of the impact of vibrations came last year, she said, when scientists at Manchester University and Prince of Wales Clinical School and Medical Research Institute in Sydney showed that the normal human vestibular system has a fish or frog-like sensitivity to low-frequency vibration. This was a turning point in understanding the nature of the problem, Dr Pierpont added, because it overturns the orthodoxy of the current way of measuring noise. "It is clear from the new evidence that the methods being used by acousticians goes back to research first carried out in the 1930s and is now outdated."
Dr Pierpont added that the wind turbine companies constantly argue that the health problems are "imaginary, psychosomatic or malingering". But she said their claims are "rubbish" and that medical evidence supports that the reported symptoms are real.
Case study: 'My husband had pneumonia, my father-in-law had a heart attack. Nobody was ill before'
Jane Davis, 53, a retired NHS manager, and her husband, Julian, 44, a farmer, lived in Spalding, Lincolnshire, until the noise of a wind farm 930m away forced them to leave
"People describe the noise as like an aeroplane that never arrives. My husband developed pneumonia very quickly after the turbines went up, having never had chest problems before. We suffer constant headaches and ear nuisance. My mother-in-law developed pneumonia and my husband developed atrial fibrillation – a rapid heartbeat. He had no pre-existing heart disease. Our blood pressure has gone up. My father-in-law has suffered a heart attack, tinnitus and marked hearing loss.
" I understand this can be regarded as a coincidence, but nobody was ill before 2006."
The defence: 'Wind turbines are quiet and safe'
The British Wind Energy Association, UK's biggest renewable energy trade association, said last night: "One of the first things first-time visitors to wind farms usually say is that they are surprised how quiet the turbines are.
"To put things in context: the London Borough of Westminster registered around 300,000 noise complaints from residents in 2008, none from wind turbines. The total number of noise complaints to local councils across the country runs into millions.
"In contrast, an independent study on wind farms and noise in 2007 found only four complaints from about 2,000 turbines in the country, three of which were resolved by the time the report was published.
"Wind turbines are quiet, safe and sustainable. It is not surprising that, according to a DTI report, 94 per cent of people who live near wind turbines are in favour of them. There is no scientific research to suggest that wind turbines are in any way harmful, and even many of the detractors of wind energy are honest enough to admit this.
"Noise from wind farms is a non-problem, and we need to move away from this unproductive and unscientific debate, and focus on our targets on reducing carbon emissions."
Sunday, August 02, 2009
Friday, July 31, 2009
Comments on the Ecogen application dated February 17, 2009 for a special use permit
Dear Ms. Dunn:
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the above referenced application and to provide public input during the technical review of this application. Please consider this commentary as part of your technical review of the application by Ecogen for a wind farm in the Town of Italy. Please also share this letter with the other members of the Town Board and the town’s engineer Frank Sciremammano.
We strongly urge the Town Board to substantively address the points raised in this letter, especially impulsive low frequency noise at night. Because the application fails to address these points in a careful, thorough, and scientifically valid way we urge the Town Board to deny this application as currently proposed. The project should be re-designed based on sound scientific knowledge and reasoning.
We caution the Town Board to move forward on this application with great care, as “the Devil is in the details.”
(Click to read entire report)
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the above referenced application and to provide public input during the technical review of this application. Please consider this commentary as part of your technical review of the application by Ecogen for a wind farm in the Town of Italy. Please also share this letter with the other members of the Town Board and the town’s engineer Frank Sciremammano.
We strongly urge the Town Board to substantively address the points raised in this letter, especially impulsive low frequency noise at night. Because the application fails to address these points in a careful, thorough, and scientifically valid way we urge the Town Board to deny this application as currently proposed. The project should be re-designed based on sound scientific knowledge and reasoning.
We caution the Town Board to move forward on this application with great care, as “the Devil is in the details.”
(Click to read entire report)
N.Y. wind energy corruption probe reaches Vermont
MONTPELIER – New York's far-reaching investigation into allegations that wind developers paid local officials to approve their energy projects moved into the state of Vermont this week.
New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo announced Wednesday that his office issued a subpoena to Reunion Power, a wind energy developer with offices in Manchester Center and Hackensack, N.J., as part of its ongoing investigation.
Announced last summer, the investigation alleges that wind executives at several companies received land-use agreements for their projects from public officials and residents using cash bribes and other illegal gifts.
It's not clear whether Reunion Power, which has proposed wind projects in three New York counties, is also accused of that type of wrongdoing. The press release from Cuomo's office Wednesday only said the subpoena was issued as part of the "investigation into allegations of misconduct."
The company, which does not have any active wind projects in development in Vermont, denied any wrongdoing in a statement released Thursday. Steve Eisenberg, the company's managing director, said Reunion Power has "nothing to hide."
"Reunion Power is proud of how we develop wind farms and that we perform by the books at all times," he said in a prepared statement.
The announcement that Reunion Power was subpoenaed as part of the investigation came the same day that Cuomo's office announced that 16 companies had signed onto a code of ethics for the wind industry to combat any further alleged abuses.
His office said early Wednesday that Reunion Power was the only company not to sign onto the code. A release from his office later that day said the company had changed course and signed onto the pledge.
"New York must be equally committed to clean energy and clean government," Cuomo said. "The companies that have signed onto our Wind Industry Ethics Code are echoing that commitment – and I commend them for that."
Cuomo's office did not return a call for comment Thursday and a representative of the Vermont Attorney General's Office said they were not involved in the investigation.
A statement from Reunion Power released Thursday stated that the company signed onto an earlier ethics code released by the attorney general's office and did not know about the new code until after Cuomo's office issued a press release about it.
"Our company is one of the smallest of all the wind power developers in (New York)," read the statement. "Perhaps that is why no one notified us prior to the announcement of the final ethic code being enacted. We would have appreciated more direct communication, as it would have prevented Reunion Power as being singled out and used as an example."
Cuomo's investigation centers on at least two wind companies – First Wind of Massachusetts (formerly known as UPC Wind, a company that has worked on projects in Vermont) and Noble Environmental Power LLC of Connecticut.
According to statements from Cuomo's office, the companies are accused of attempting to acquire the necessary land permit approvals for several high-profile wind projects in New York by bribing public officials and also engaging in anti-competitive business practices.
The scandal has rocked the green-energy community and provided fodder for anti-wind activists who worry about the effect large-scale windmills have on the environment, especially scenic views.
Jodi Hall, the treasurer of the organization Cohocton Wind Watch, a group that is battling First Wind's plans for projects in that part of the state, said the emergence of Reunion Power in the investigation was a surprise.
She said the company has several projects in development, but believed that they had been delayed for several years.
"This is brand-new information for us," Hall said. "And it's not clear right now if this is because they would not sign the code of ethics or because they are targets now of the investigation."
New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo announced Wednesday that his office issued a subpoena to Reunion Power, a wind energy developer with offices in Manchester Center and Hackensack, N.J., as part of its ongoing investigation.
Announced last summer, the investigation alleges that wind executives at several companies received land-use agreements for their projects from public officials and residents using cash bribes and other illegal gifts.
It's not clear whether Reunion Power, which has proposed wind projects in three New York counties, is also accused of that type of wrongdoing. The press release from Cuomo's office Wednesday only said the subpoena was issued as part of the "investigation into allegations of misconduct."
The company, which does not have any active wind projects in development in Vermont, denied any wrongdoing in a statement released Thursday. Steve Eisenberg, the company's managing director, said Reunion Power has "nothing to hide."
"Reunion Power is proud of how we develop wind farms and that we perform by the books at all times," he said in a prepared statement.
The announcement that Reunion Power was subpoenaed as part of the investigation came the same day that Cuomo's office announced that 16 companies had signed onto a code of ethics for the wind industry to combat any further alleged abuses.
His office said early Wednesday that Reunion Power was the only company not to sign onto the code. A release from his office later that day said the company had changed course and signed onto the pledge.
"New York must be equally committed to clean energy and clean government," Cuomo said. "The companies that have signed onto our Wind Industry Ethics Code are echoing that commitment – and I commend them for that."
Cuomo's office did not return a call for comment Thursday and a representative of the Vermont Attorney General's Office said they were not involved in the investigation.
A statement from Reunion Power released Thursday stated that the company signed onto an earlier ethics code released by the attorney general's office and did not know about the new code until after Cuomo's office issued a press release about it.
"Our company is one of the smallest of all the wind power developers in (New York)," read the statement. "Perhaps that is why no one notified us prior to the announcement of the final ethic code being enacted. We would have appreciated more direct communication, as it would have prevented Reunion Power as being singled out and used as an example."
Cuomo's investigation centers on at least two wind companies – First Wind of Massachusetts (formerly known as UPC Wind, a company that has worked on projects in Vermont) and Noble Environmental Power LLC of Connecticut.
According to statements from Cuomo's office, the companies are accused of attempting to acquire the necessary land permit approvals for several high-profile wind projects in New York by bribing public officials and also engaging in anti-competitive business practices.
The scandal has rocked the green-energy community and provided fodder for anti-wind activists who worry about the effect large-scale windmills have on the environment, especially scenic views.
Jodi Hall, the treasurer of the organization Cohocton Wind Watch, a group that is battling First Wind's plans for projects in that part of the state, said the emergence of Reunion Power in the investigation was a surprise.
She said the company has several projects in development, but believed that they had been delayed for several years.
"This is brand-new information for us," Hall said. "And it's not clear right now if this is because they would not sign the code of ethics or because they are targets now of the investigation."
Thursday, July 30, 2009
Forests of concrete and steel
Many words could describe wind energy and green jobs. “Sustainable” is not one of them.
Paul Driessen
Boone Pickens, Nacel Energy, Vestas Iberia and others have been issuing statements and running ads, extolling the virtues of wind as an affordable, sustainable energy resource. Renewable energy reality is slowly taking hold, however.
Spain did increase its installed wind power capacity to 10% of its total electricity, although actual energy output is 10-30% of this, or 1-3% of total electricity, because the wind is intermittent and unreliable. However, Spain spent $3.7 billion on the program in 2007 alone, King Juan Carlos University economics professor Gabriel Calzada determined.
It created 50,000 jobs, mostly installing wind turbines, at $73,000 in annual subsidies per job – and 10,000 of these jobs have already been terminated. The subsidies have been slashed, due to Spain’s growing economic problems, putting the remaining 40,000 jobs at risk.
Meanwhile, the cost of subsidized wind energy and carbon dioxide emission permits sent electricity prices soaring for other businesses – causing 2.2 jobs to be lost for every “green” job created, says Calzada. Spain’s unemployment rate is now 17% and rising. That’s hardly the “success” story so often cited by Congress and the Obama Administration.
Across the Channel, Britain’s biggest wind-energy projects are in trouble. Just as the UK government announced its goal of creating 400,000 eco-jobs by 2015, major green energy employer Vestas UK is ending production. All 7,000 turbines that Downing Street just committed to installing over the next decade will be manufactured – not in Britain, but in Germany, Denmark and China.
For businesses, existing global warming policies have added 21% to industrial electricity bills since 2001, and this will rise to 55% by 2020, the UK government admits. Its latest renewable energy strategy will add another 15% – meaning the total impact on British industry will likely be a prohibitive 70% cost increase over two decades. This is the result of the government’s plans to cut carbon dioxide emissions 34% below 1990 levels by 2020, and increase the share of renewables, especially wind, from 6% to 31% of Britain’s electricity.
These cost hikes could make British manufacturers uncompetitive, and send thousands more jobs overseas, the Energy Intensive Users Group reports. English steel mills could become “unable to compete globally, even at current domestic energy prices,” says British journalist Dominic Lawson; “but deliberately to make them uncompetitive is industrial vandalism – and even madness … a futile gesture ... and immoral.”
On this side of the pond, President Obama and anti-hydrocarbon members of Congress are promoting “green” energy and jobs, via new mandates, standards, tax breaks and subsidies. However, the United States would need 180,000 1.5-megawatt wind turbines by 2020, just to generate the 600 billion kilowatt-hours of electricity that compliance with the narrowly passed Waxman-Markey global warming bill would necessitate, retired energy and nuclear engineering professor James Rust calculates.
This would require millions of acres of scenic, habitat and agricultural lands, and 126 million tons of concrete, steel, fiberglass and “rare earth” minerals for the turbines, at 700 tons per turbine; prodigious quantities of concrete, steel, copper and land for new transmission lines; and still more land, fuel and raw materials for backup gas-fired generators. America’s new national forests will apparently be made of concrete and steel.
Those miners and drillers would likely be reclassified as “green” workers, based on the intended purpose of their output. However, the raw materials will probably not be produced in the States, because so many lands, prospects and deposits are off limits – and NIMBY litigation will further hamper resource extraction.
Air quality laws and skyrocketing energy costs (due to carbon taxes and expensive renewable energy mandates) will make wind turbine (and solar panel) manufacturing in the USA equally improbable. Thus, manufacturing could well be in China or India, and most “green” jobs could be for installers, as Spain and Britain discovered.
Posturing has already collided with reality in Texas, the nation’s wind energy capital. Austin’s GreenChoice program cannot find buyers for electricity generated entirely from wind and solar power. Its latest sales scheme has been a massive flop: after seven months, 99% of its recent electricity offering remains unsold.
Austin officials admit that “times have changed,” and the recession and falling energy prices may make it impossible for the city to meet its lofty goals. The company’s renewable electricity now costs almost three times more than standard electricity, and even eco-conscious consumers care more about the color of their money than the hue of their purported ideology.
Even worse for global warming alarmists and renewable energy advocates and rent seekers, global warming patterns have reversed during the past decade. Satellite data reveal that the planet is cooling, despite steadily rising carbon dioxide levels, and summertime low temperature records are being broken all over the United States.
“You'd better hope global warming is caused by manmade CO2 if you're investing in [renewable] sectors,” says Daniel Rice, the past decade’s best-performing US equity fund manager (BlackRock Energy and Resources Fund). But evidence for manmade catastrophic global warming is dissipating faster than carbon dioxide from an open soda bottle on a hot summer day.
The crucial fact remains: wind and solar are simply not economical without major government subsidies or monstrous carbon taxes. Moreover, cap-and-tax legislation currently being promoted in the House and Senate is “not enough to do anything” about supposed global warming disasters notes Rice.
“All it does is provide Obama a pass to Copenhagen,” where the UN will host a climate change conference in December, Rice says. And those subsidies and taxes would drive energy prices still higher, killing jobs and skyrocketing the cost of everything we eat, drive, heat, cool, grow, make and do.
Congress and the Administration are dragging their feet on nuclear power, closing off access to more resource-rich lands, and imposing layers of new regulations on oil, gas and coal energy – denying Americans these vast stores of energy and hundreds of billions in revenue that developing them would generate. Meanwhile, slick wind turbine ad campaigns promote expensive, heavily subsidized, unreliable technologies that only climate activists and company lobbyists would describe as sustainable, affordable, eco-friendly or socially responsible.
The ads and lobbyists seek more mandates, tax breaks and subsidies. Wind promoters want to quiet opponents long enough to get energy and climate legislation enacted – before Americans realize how it would drive the price of energy still higher, kill jobs, curtail living standards and liberties, and raise the cost of everything we eat, drive, heat, cool, grow, make and do.
Paul Driessen is senior policy advisor for the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow and Congress of Racial Equality, and author of Eco-Imperialism: Green Power • Black Death.
Paul Driessen
Boone Pickens, Nacel Energy, Vestas Iberia and others have been issuing statements and running ads, extolling the virtues of wind as an affordable, sustainable energy resource. Renewable energy reality is slowly taking hold, however.
Spain did increase its installed wind power capacity to 10% of its total electricity, although actual energy output is 10-30% of this, or 1-3% of total electricity, because the wind is intermittent and unreliable. However, Spain spent $3.7 billion on the program in 2007 alone, King Juan Carlos University economics professor Gabriel Calzada determined.
It created 50,000 jobs, mostly installing wind turbines, at $73,000 in annual subsidies per job – and 10,000 of these jobs have already been terminated. The subsidies have been slashed, due to Spain’s growing economic problems, putting the remaining 40,000 jobs at risk.
Meanwhile, the cost of subsidized wind energy and carbon dioxide emission permits sent electricity prices soaring for other businesses – causing 2.2 jobs to be lost for every “green” job created, says Calzada. Spain’s unemployment rate is now 17% and rising. That’s hardly the “success” story so often cited by Congress and the Obama Administration.
Across the Channel, Britain’s biggest wind-energy projects are in trouble. Just as the UK government announced its goal of creating 400,000 eco-jobs by 2015, major green energy employer Vestas UK is ending production. All 7,000 turbines that Downing Street just committed to installing over the next decade will be manufactured – not in Britain, but in Germany, Denmark and China.
For businesses, existing global warming policies have added 21% to industrial electricity bills since 2001, and this will rise to 55% by 2020, the UK government admits. Its latest renewable energy strategy will add another 15% – meaning the total impact on British industry will likely be a prohibitive 70% cost increase over two decades. This is the result of the government’s plans to cut carbon dioxide emissions 34% below 1990 levels by 2020, and increase the share of renewables, especially wind, from 6% to 31% of Britain’s electricity.
These cost hikes could make British manufacturers uncompetitive, and send thousands more jobs overseas, the Energy Intensive Users Group reports. English steel mills could become “unable to compete globally, even at current domestic energy prices,” says British journalist Dominic Lawson; “but deliberately to make them uncompetitive is industrial vandalism – and even madness … a futile gesture ... and immoral.”
On this side of the pond, President Obama and anti-hydrocarbon members of Congress are promoting “green” energy and jobs, via new mandates, standards, tax breaks and subsidies. However, the United States would need 180,000 1.5-megawatt wind turbines by 2020, just to generate the 600 billion kilowatt-hours of electricity that compliance with the narrowly passed Waxman-Markey global warming bill would necessitate, retired energy and nuclear engineering professor James Rust calculates.
This would require millions of acres of scenic, habitat and agricultural lands, and 126 million tons of concrete, steel, fiberglass and “rare earth” minerals for the turbines, at 700 tons per turbine; prodigious quantities of concrete, steel, copper and land for new transmission lines; and still more land, fuel and raw materials for backup gas-fired generators. America’s new national forests will apparently be made of concrete and steel.
Those miners and drillers would likely be reclassified as “green” workers, based on the intended purpose of their output. However, the raw materials will probably not be produced in the States, because so many lands, prospects and deposits are off limits – and NIMBY litigation will further hamper resource extraction.
Air quality laws and skyrocketing energy costs (due to carbon taxes and expensive renewable energy mandates) will make wind turbine (and solar panel) manufacturing in the USA equally improbable. Thus, manufacturing could well be in China or India, and most “green” jobs could be for installers, as Spain and Britain discovered.
Posturing has already collided with reality in Texas, the nation’s wind energy capital. Austin’s GreenChoice program cannot find buyers for electricity generated entirely from wind and solar power. Its latest sales scheme has been a massive flop: after seven months, 99% of its recent electricity offering remains unsold.
Austin officials admit that “times have changed,” and the recession and falling energy prices may make it impossible for the city to meet its lofty goals. The company’s renewable electricity now costs almost three times more than standard electricity, and even eco-conscious consumers care more about the color of their money than the hue of their purported ideology.
Even worse for global warming alarmists and renewable energy advocates and rent seekers, global warming patterns have reversed during the past decade. Satellite data reveal that the planet is cooling, despite steadily rising carbon dioxide levels, and summertime low temperature records are being broken all over the United States.
“You'd better hope global warming is caused by manmade CO2 if you're investing in [renewable] sectors,” says Daniel Rice, the past decade’s best-performing US equity fund manager (BlackRock Energy and Resources Fund). But evidence for manmade catastrophic global warming is dissipating faster than carbon dioxide from an open soda bottle on a hot summer day.
The crucial fact remains: wind and solar are simply not economical without major government subsidies or monstrous carbon taxes. Moreover, cap-and-tax legislation currently being promoted in the House and Senate is “not enough to do anything” about supposed global warming disasters notes Rice.
“All it does is provide Obama a pass to Copenhagen,” where the UN will host a climate change conference in December, Rice says. And those subsidies and taxes would drive energy prices still higher, killing jobs and skyrocketing the cost of everything we eat, drive, heat, cool, grow, make and do.
Congress and the Administration are dragging their feet on nuclear power, closing off access to more resource-rich lands, and imposing layers of new regulations on oil, gas and coal energy – denying Americans these vast stores of energy and hundreds of billions in revenue that developing them would generate. Meanwhile, slick wind turbine ad campaigns promote expensive, heavily subsidized, unreliable technologies that only climate activists and company lobbyists would describe as sustainable, affordable, eco-friendly or socially responsible.
The ads and lobbyists seek more mandates, tax breaks and subsidies. Wind promoters want to quiet opponents long enough to get energy and climate legislation enacted – before Americans realize how it would drive the price of energy still higher, kill jobs, curtail living standards and liberties, and raise the cost of everything we eat, drive, heat, cool, grow, make and do.
Paul Driessen is senior policy advisor for the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow and Congress of Racial Equality, and author of Eco-Imperialism: Green Power • Black Death.
Albert H. Bowers III July 30, 2009 letter to the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation
July 30, 2009
Mr. Stephen Tomasik, Project Manager
New York State Department of Environmental Conservation
625 Broadway, 4th Floor
Albany, New York 12233-1750
Re: Proposed Galloo Island Wind Turbine Project - Environmental Impact
Dear Mr. Tomasik:
We spoke recently at the hearing in Sackets Harbor about my letter to you dated May 8, 2009. In that letter I described a situation related to me by a town resident, Don Metzger, who is a ship pilot on the Seaway of some anecdotal evidence of wind turbine noise traveling over open water. It seems there is a field of turbines installed in the water off the Gaspe Peninsula, in the mouth of the St. Lawrence River. Ship Captains passing these turbines have commented to Mr. Metzger that they are surprised how noisy the turbines are as they pass them at a distance of 2-3 miles in the shipping channel.
I am still working with Mr. Metzger to develop some more definitive information about the turbine noise in the Gaspe, however, recently a similar situation much closer to home has come to my attention. Mr. Art Pundt, who has been active in assessing the impact of proposed turbine installations in nearby Cape Vincent recently sent me an email detailing his experience with noise being transmitted from the turbines now operating on Wolfe Island, Ontario, just across the river from Cape Vincent, New York. The text of Mr. Pundt’s message is:
“Since the Wolfe Island Wind Farm became operational in early July I have heard low rumbling on some nights from my side yard or deck at my cottage. I have heard it numerous times. I have heard the trains in Canada and traffic on the 401 in Canada as well as the city hum of Kingston on quiet nights. This was different and coming directly from the red lights of the WI turbines. I also know the low rumble of ships. There were no ships around.
I wasn't sure, so last night with a fairly strong south wind we drove down to the village of Cape Vincent. We stopped at the public boat launch in the village. I opened up the drivers side window with that side of the truck out of the wind...and sure enough there was the answer. The turbines on WI are can easily be heard. Sounds like a jet flying over at altitude and is very distinct. Or it sounds like the sound emanated from outside a large busy city. If you are in a calm spot protected from the wind the sound is really clear.
Now keep in mind the the closest turbine to me is about 7.5 miles and the center of the WI project is around 9-10 miles from my cottage. At the public dock in CV the nearest turbines is about 3 miles. This was all measured on Google Earth.
Now keep in mind the distances I mentioned above. The town (Cape Vincent) is only about 4 to 5 miles wide, and something like 12 miles long (approx) And that is 148 (proposed) turbines packed into that area. WI (Wolfe Island) is 86. You won't be able to hide anywhere from the sound based on what I heard coming from WI. I am surprised there have not been any mention of this or complaints coming from the village. Also keep in mind that the wind was blowing away from me last night. So what is the bottom line? If you think a wind law will protect you even with large sound set backs... based on what I have heard from WI and the distance at which you can hear these turbines...you better think again!!!! Turbines do not belong in this
community period!
Go down to the village some night with a strong south wind and listen for yourself, then do the math."
Art Pundt
Most of us have had the experience of sound, even a person’s voice, carrying long distances over water on quiet summer evenings. The noise described by Mr. Pundt is being transmitted partly over water and partly over land and can be heard clearly 7.5 miles away. I, therefore, believe it will be necessary as I previously stated, as a part of the environmental impact study of the Galloo Project, to do studies of the noise that will be transmitted by the turbines on Galloo to the nearby points on the mainland, including Point Peninsula (Lyme) and Pillar Point (Brownsville). Transmission to these points will be entirely across the water in the direction of the prevailing winds. The nearest points of land are only about five miles from Galloo. Such noise studies should consider the condition of a stable atmosphere where the winds at ground level are still, but the turbines are operating in the steady winds at higher elevations. The sound levels should be predicted for the shoreline of the Lake on both the A and C decibel scales. Unless predicted sound levels fall within 5 dBA of the ambient nighttime levels on the lakeshore, the sound levels generated by the Galloo project may be unacceptable to the residents of those areas.
Sincerely,
Albert H. Bowers III
cc: Lyme Town Board
Watertown Daily Times, Nancy Madsen
Mr. Stephen Tomasik, Project Manager
New York State Department of Environmental Conservation
625 Broadway, 4th Floor
Albany, New York 12233-1750
Re: Proposed Galloo Island Wind Turbine Project - Environmental Impact
Dear Mr. Tomasik:
We spoke recently at the hearing in Sackets Harbor about my letter to you dated May 8, 2009. In that letter I described a situation related to me by a town resident, Don Metzger, who is a ship pilot on the Seaway of some anecdotal evidence of wind turbine noise traveling over open water. It seems there is a field of turbines installed in the water off the Gaspe Peninsula, in the mouth of the St. Lawrence River. Ship Captains passing these turbines have commented to Mr. Metzger that they are surprised how noisy the turbines are as they pass them at a distance of 2-3 miles in the shipping channel.
I am still working with Mr. Metzger to develop some more definitive information about the turbine noise in the Gaspe, however, recently a similar situation much closer to home has come to my attention. Mr. Art Pundt, who has been active in assessing the impact of proposed turbine installations in nearby Cape Vincent recently sent me an email detailing his experience with noise being transmitted from the turbines now operating on Wolfe Island, Ontario, just across the river from Cape Vincent, New York. The text of Mr. Pundt’s message is:
“Since the Wolfe Island Wind Farm became operational in early July I have heard low rumbling on some nights from my side yard or deck at my cottage. I have heard it numerous times. I have heard the trains in Canada and traffic on the 401 in Canada as well as the city hum of Kingston on quiet nights. This was different and coming directly from the red lights of the WI turbines. I also know the low rumble of ships. There were no ships around.
I wasn't sure, so last night with a fairly strong south wind we drove down to the village of Cape Vincent. We stopped at the public boat launch in the village. I opened up the drivers side window with that side of the truck out of the wind...and sure enough there was the answer. The turbines on WI are can easily be heard. Sounds like a jet flying over at altitude and is very distinct. Or it sounds like the sound emanated from outside a large busy city. If you are in a calm spot protected from the wind the sound is really clear.
Now keep in mind the the closest turbine to me is about 7.5 miles and the center of the WI project is around 9-10 miles from my cottage. At the public dock in CV the nearest turbines is about 3 miles. This was all measured on Google Earth.
Now keep in mind the distances I mentioned above. The town (Cape Vincent) is only about 4 to 5 miles wide, and something like 12 miles long (approx) And that is 148 (proposed) turbines packed into that area. WI (Wolfe Island) is 86. You won't be able to hide anywhere from the sound based on what I heard coming from WI. I am surprised there have not been any mention of this or complaints coming from the village. Also keep in mind that the wind was blowing away from me last night. So what is the bottom line? If you think a wind law will protect you even with large sound set backs... based on what I have heard from WI and the distance at which you can hear these turbines...you better think again!!!! Turbines do not belong in this
community period!
Go down to the village some night with a strong south wind and listen for yourself, then do the math."
Art Pundt
Most of us have had the experience of sound, even a person’s voice, carrying long distances over water on quiet summer evenings. The noise described by Mr. Pundt is being transmitted partly over water and partly over land and can be heard clearly 7.5 miles away. I, therefore, believe it will be necessary as I previously stated, as a part of the environmental impact study of the Galloo Project, to do studies of the noise that will be transmitted by the turbines on Galloo to the nearby points on the mainland, including Point Peninsula (Lyme) and Pillar Point (Brownsville). Transmission to these points will be entirely across the water in the direction of the prevailing winds. The nearest points of land are only about five miles from Galloo. Such noise studies should consider the condition of a stable atmosphere where the winds at ground level are still, but the turbines are operating in the steady winds at higher elevations. The sound levels should be predicted for the shoreline of the Lake on both the A and C decibel scales. Unless predicted sound levels fall within 5 dBA of the ambient nighttime levels on the lakeshore, the sound levels generated by the Galloo project may be unacceptable to the residents of those areas.
Sincerely,
Albert H. Bowers III
cc: Lyme Town Board
Watertown Daily Times, Nancy Madsen
Ultra NIMBY – or U-NIMBY by Glenn R. Schleede
March 5, 2009
Ultra NIMBY – or U-NIMBY
For the past 25 years, virtually anyone who opposed the construction of some kind of major energy facility, such as an oil or gas storage tank, electrical transmission line, power plant, or ‘wind farm” in their area has been labeled, derisively, as a “NIMBY,” an acronym standing for “Not In My Back Yard.”
Some using the NIMBY term do so in an attempt to discredit project opponents and to avoid dealing with substantive issues raised by the opponents. Thus, “NIMBY” is an ad hominem attack on opponents.
Often, the wrong people are labeled as “NIMBYs.” The true NIMBYs are people in metropolitan areas who are the principal beneficiaries of energy facilities but who don’t want those facilities anywhere near them. Perhaps these people should be called Ultra or Urban NIMBYS, or simply UNIMBYS!
In any case, it’s time to shed light on the issue, identify the true NIMBYs, and challenge those who use the epithet in an attempt to avoid dealing with real, substantive issues raised by energy projects.
Citizen objections to certain projects
Citizens have long been concerned about adverse health, safety, noise, environmental, and ecological impacts of energy and other facilities located near them, including projects that impair scenic, property, and other values they consider important. Federal, state and local governments have enacted a variety of measures to protect private property rights and to limit adverse impacts extending beyond property lines. Governments have also exercised powers of eminent domain to permit construction of facilities that government authorities believe have public benefits that should override private property rights.
Origin of the term, NIMBY
According to Wikipedia, the term “… is used pejoratively to describe a new development's opposition by residents in its vicinity. The new project being opposed is generally considered a benefit for many but has negative side-effects on its close surroundings. As a result, residents nearby the immediate location would consider it undesirable and would generally prefer the building to be "elsewhere". The term was coined in the 1980s by British politician Nicholas Ridley…”
Who are the true NIMBYs – or UNIMBYs – when energy facilities are involved?
Objections to the location of energy facilities is not a phenomenon that begins with people living in rural areas or those who wish to protect scenic areas or the value of privately owned property. Instead, objections to the location of energy facilities really begin with people living in urban and suburban (“metropolitan”) areas and organizations located in those areas. People and organizations in these areas account for a majority of the nation’s energy demand. These people and organizations want the convenience of having reliable energy supplies -- electricity, gas or oil -- immediately available for their homes, offices, shopping centers, and cars.
However, they don’t want storage tanks, electric generating units (whether powered by coal, oil, natural gas, nuclear energy, or wind) located anywhere near their homes and offices or impairing their parks or scenic areas or impairing their views or life styles. Also, they want the pipelines and electric transmission and distribution lines needed to bring the energy to their homes and offices to be as nearly invisible as possible – preferably buried underground.
So, while they want the convenience of immediately available energy, they also want any adverse environmental, health or safety impacts kept away and out of their sight! They insist that adverse impacts associated with the facilities should be borne by someone else -- as far away as possible. For example:
• People in California object to power plants in their area, but are quite willing to import electricity generated in Utah or Arizona using coal or nuclear energy. They also want oil and gasoline for their vehicles (even from insecure or hostile nations!) and natural gas for generating plants but do not want any production from oil and gas reserves located off California’s coast.
• People in the New York City metropolitan area demand electricity but also want necessary generating plants and transmission lines that serve their needs to be built in upstate or western New York – or even in New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Maryland, Virginia or West Virginia.
• People in New England want adequate and reliable electricity but prefer that it be generated elsewhere, perhaps in Canada, and moved to them over long transmission lines.
• Political leaders are eager to override citizen and local government opposition to electric generating plants, wind farms, and transmission lines but would be aghast if a 400+ foot wind turbine with blades covering an area larger than the length and wingspan of a 747 aircraft was placed on the front lawn of a capitol building or executive mansion in Washington DC or a state capital, or if a transmission line with 125 foot towers were to be placed near their private residences.
How should people who object to energy or other facilities respond when developers or others seek to dismiss their objections by labeling them “NIMBYs”?
The short answer is “stand your ground” if you have good reasons to object to the energy facility, and work to obtain fair compensation for adverse impacts, including loss of property value. However, the situation deserves more detailed consideration, including all the following steps:
First, learn the details of the proposed project and its true costs and benefits, both for the owner, the area, and the nation. Many energy facilities are large, intrusive, and costly. They may produce, transport, or store products that are badly needed. But, large energy facilities are intrusive. They may adversely impact health, scenic vistas, environmentally sensitive or protected areas, and the value of neighboring property because of their large size, noise, or other impacts. Such facilities include:
• Transmission lines with towers that may be more than 125 feet tall.
• Large electric generating plants.
• “Wind farms” with wind turbines that are likely to be over 400 feet tall (or 40+ stories).
• Oil, gas, and LNG (liquefied natural gas) storage tanks, and oil refineries.
Second, those objecting to a proposed facility should have a sound, substantive case for objecting to the facility. Those who object to a facility should not be hypocritical by contending that the proposed facility is a fine idea as long as it is in someone else’s backyard. Clearly, this undermines their position and often ignores valid, substantive reasons for opposing a proposed facility that is NOT in the public interest. For example, as has now been demonstrated repeatedly, huge wind turbines and “wind farms”:
• Produce very little electricity and that electricity is low in value because it is intermittent, volatile, unreliable, and most likely to be produced when least needed; i.e., at night and in colder months when winds are strong – not on hot weekday late afternoons when electricity demand is high.
• Do not have the environmental, energy, and economic benefits often claimed and, in fact, have significant adverse environmental, economic, scenic and property value impacts.
• Are being built principally because of huge tax breaks and subsidies for “wind farm” owners and financiers, not because of their energy, environmental or economic benefits.
• Are very high in true cost, including the cost of tax breaks and subsidies, and the added cost of providing reliable backup generating capacity needed to maintain grid reliability because of the intermittence, volatility, and unreliability of electricity from wind turbines.
• Do not replace the need for adding reliable generating capacity in areas experiencing grow in peak electricity demand or needing to replace aging generating units.
Third, identify and understand the motives of those promoting construction of the facility, particularly those people using the “NIMBY” label in a derisive way. Expose their identities and motives. Most likely, those promoting construction of the facility will be one or more of the following:
• An Ultra or Urban NIMBY, as described above who wants the convenience of reliable energy but doesn’t want to see the facilities that produce the energy or transport it to his home or office.
• An official from a company that wants to finance, build, and/or own a “wind farm,” transmission line or other large facility that would produce the adverse health, safety, scenic or environmental impact.
• A property owner who wishes to profit by leasing or selling his property to a company that wishes to build the intrusive facility, regardless of the health, safety or environmental impact on neighbors.
• A politician who, for one reason or another, wishes to override citizen and/or local government objections, or is repaying a special interest group or facility developer for campaign contributions.
• A government official or “bureaucrat” with a rather narrow perspective that wants to force a “wind farm,” transmission line, or other obtrusive energy facility into an area that may be ill-suited for it.
Fourth, those who are labeled “NIMBYs” should not be embarrassed and should not “back off” when they are pressured. The health, safety, environmental, scenic, and property values that would be impaired are real and often valuable. The wind industry, for example, has been notorious in claiming falsely that “wind farms” with their huge wind turbines do not adversely affect neighboring property values. That industry and, sadly, some government agencies using taxpayers' money have sponsored “studies” producing such false claims. However, such studies have been shown to be biased and based on faulty analysis. Not long ago, a court in England found in favor of a plaintiff whose life was made unbearable by a neighboring “wind farm” and who could not sell the home because of the “wind farm.” Common sense alone should convince any objective person that a residential property that has a large wind turbine nearby will command a lower price than an identical property without the wind turbine.
Fifth, citizens should not be intimidated by government pronouncements concerning the energy technologies and facilities that should be constructed. Government officials and central planners are notorious for their inability to pick wining technologies. Further, both elected and appointed government officials at all levels have proven highly susceptible to undue influence from lobbyists and developers. Advocates for some energy technologies and projects (e.g., wind energy and “wind farms”) have been extremely effective in creating false popular wisdom and faulty government policies that benefit their private interests but are not in the national and public interest. Billions of taxpayer and consumer dollars have been wasted on the development, demonstration, and deployment of government-selected energy technologies that have proven not to be cost effective, environmentally acceptable, commercially viable, and technologically sound.
What should be done about necessary energy facilities?
Are some of these facilities clearly necessary and in the national and public interest? Certainly they are, but that doesn’t diminish the critical questions: (a) where should they be located, (b) who should bear the adverse environmental, scenic and property value impacts, and the health and safety risks, (c) how should those who are adversely affected be compensated, (d) should eminent domain laws be changed to give greater protection and/or compensation to those adversely affected, (e) how should people in rural areas be protected, particularly if they are not protected by zoning laws, and/or they have inadequate political representation because legislatures are dominated by representatives from urban areas?
Alternatives should be evaluated. Perhaps, more facilities such as electric generating plants should be located near or IN the heart of metropolitan areas that are being served so that long transmission lines with attendant losses of electricity are not needed. Many cities have blighted areas that could be restored with properly constructed generating plants – perhaps not as large as those plants would be if located at a distance, but still large enough to supply a significant amount of electricity for people in the urban area. Also, additional units could be added at some existing powerplant sites in or near urban areas. Still, another possibility is the construction of electric generating units at superfund sites in urban areas.
Glenn R. Schleede, 18220 Turnberry Drive, Round Hill, VA 20141-2574. 540-338-9958.
* Schleede is semi-retired after spending more than 35 years dealing with energy related matters in the federal government and private sector. He writes frequently about wind and other energy issues, particularly government policies that have adverse impacts on taxpayers and consumers.
Ultra NIMBY – or U-NIMBY
For the past 25 years, virtually anyone who opposed the construction of some kind of major energy facility, such as an oil or gas storage tank, electrical transmission line, power plant, or ‘wind farm” in their area has been labeled, derisively, as a “NIMBY,” an acronym standing for “Not In My Back Yard.”
Some using the NIMBY term do so in an attempt to discredit project opponents and to avoid dealing with substantive issues raised by the opponents. Thus, “NIMBY” is an ad hominem attack on opponents.
Often, the wrong people are labeled as “NIMBYs.” The true NIMBYs are people in metropolitan areas who are the principal beneficiaries of energy facilities but who don’t want those facilities anywhere near them. Perhaps these people should be called Ultra or Urban NIMBYS, or simply UNIMBYS!
In any case, it’s time to shed light on the issue, identify the true NIMBYs, and challenge those who use the epithet in an attempt to avoid dealing with real, substantive issues raised by energy projects.
Citizen objections to certain projects
Citizens have long been concerned about adverse health, safety, noise, environmental, and ecological impacts of energy and other facilities located near them, including projects that impair scenic, property, and other values they consider important. Federal, state and local governments have enacted a variety of measures to protect private property rights and to limit adverse impacts extending beyond property lines. Governments have also exercised powers of eminent domain to permit construction of facilities that government authorities believe have public benefits that should override private property rights.
Origin of the term, NIMBY
According to Wikipedia, the term “… is used pejoratively to describe a new development's opposition by residents in its vicinity. The new project being opposed is generally considered a benefit for many but has negative side-effects on its close surroundings. As a result, residents nearby the immediate location would consider it undesirable and would generally prefer the building to be "elsewhere". The term was coined in the 1980s by British politician Nicholas Ridley…”
Who are the true NIMBYs – or UNIMBYs – when energy facilities are involved?
Objections to the location of energy facilities is not a phenomenon that begins with people living in rural areas or those who wish to protect scenic areas or the value of privately owned property. Instead, objections to the location of energy facilities really begin with people living in urban and suburban (“metropolitan”) areas and organizations located in those areas. People and organizations in these areas account for a majority of the nation’s energy demand. These people and organizations want the convenience of having reliable energy supplies -- electricity, gas or oil -- immediately available for their homes, offices, shopping centers, and cars.
However, they don’t want storage tanks, electric generating units (whether powered by coal, oil, natural gas, nuclear energy, or wind) located anywhere near their homes and offices or impairing their parks or scenic areas or impairing their views or life styles. Also, they want the pipelines and electric transmission and distribution lines needed to bring the energy to their homes and offices to be as nearly invisible as possible – preferably buried underground.
So, while they want the convenience of immediately available energy, they also want any adverse environmental, health or safety impacts kept away and out of their sight! They insist that adverse impacts associated with the facilities should be borne by someone else -- as far away as possible. For example:
• People in California object to power plants in their area, but are quite willing to import electricity generated in Utah or Arizona using coal or nuclear energy. They also want oil and gasoline for their vehicles (even from insecure or hostile nations!) and natural gas for generating plants but do not want any production from oil and gas reserves located off California’s coast.
• People in the New York City metropolitan area demand electricity but also want necessary generating plants and transmission lines that serve their needs to be built in upstate or western New York – or even in New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Maryland, Virginia or West Virginia.
• People in New England want adequate and reliable electricity but prefer that it be generated elsewhere, perhaps in Canada, and moved to them over long transmission lines.
• Political leaders are eager to override citizen and local government opposition to electric generating plants, wind farms, and transmission lines but would be aghast if a 400+ foot wind turbine with blades covering an area larger than the length and wingspan of a 747 aircraft was placed on the front lawn of a capitol building or executive mansion in Washington DC or a state capital, or if a transmission line with 125 foot towers were to be placed near their private residences.
How should people who object to energy or other facilities respond when developers or others seek to dismiss their objections by labeling them “NIMBYs”?
The short answer is “stand your ground” if you have good reasons to object to the energy facility, and work to obtain fair compensation for adverse impacts, including loss of property value. However, the situation deserves more detailed consideration, including all the following steps:
First, learn the details of the proposed project and its true costs and benefits, both for the owner, the area, and the nation. Many energy facilities are large, intrusive, and costly. They may produce, transport, or store products that are badly needed. But, large energy facilities are intrusive. They may adversely impact health, scenic vistas, environmentally sensitive or protected areas, and the value of neighboring property because of their large size, noise, or other impacts. Such facilities include:
• Transmission lines with towers that may be more than 125 feet tall.
• Large electric generating plants.
• “Wind farms” with wind turbines that are likely to be over 400 feet tall (or 40+ stories).
• Oil, gas, and LNG (liquefied natural gas) storage tanks, and oil refineries.
Second, those objecting to a proposed facility should have a sound, substantive case for objecting to the facility. Those who object to a facility should not be hypocritical by contending that the proposed facility is a fine idea as long as it is in someone else’s backyard. Clearly, this undermines their position and often ignores valid, substantive reasons for opposing a proposed facility that is NOT in the public interest. For example, as has now been demonstrated repeatedly, huge wind turbines and “wind farms”:
• Produce very little electricity and that electricity is low in value because it is intermittent, volatile, unreliable, and most likely to be produced when least needed; i.e., at night and in colder months when winds are strong – not on hot weekday late afternoons when electricity demand is high.
• Do not have the environmental, energy, and economic benefits often claimed and, in fact, have significant adverse environmental, economic, scenic and property value impacts.
• Are being built principally because of huge tax breaks and subsidies for “wind farm” owners and financiers, not because of their energy, environmental or economic benefits.
• Are very high in true cost, including the cost of tax breaks and subsidies, and the added cost of providing reliable backup generating capacity needed to maintain grid reliability because of the intermittence, volatility, and unreliability of electricity from wind turbines.
• Do not replace the need for adding reliable generating capacity in areas experiencing grow in peak electricity demand or needing to replace aging generating units.
Third, identify and understand the motives of those promoting construction of the facility, particularly those people using the “NIMBY” label in a derisive way. Expose their identities and motives. Most likely, those promoting construction of the facility will be one or more of the following:
• An Ultra or Urban NIMBY, as described above who wants the convenience of reliable energy but doesn’t want to see the facilities that produce the energy or transport it to his home or office.
• An official from a company that wants to finance, build, and/or own a “wind farm,” transmission line or other large facility that would produce the adverse health, safety, scenic or environmental impact.
• A property owner who wishes to profit by leasing or selling his property to a company that wishes to build the intrusive facility, regardless of the health, safety or environmental impact on neighbors.
• A politician who, for one reason or another, wishes to override citizen and/or local government objections, or is repaying a special interest group or facility developer for campaign contributions.
• A government official or “bureaucrat” with a rather narrow perspective that wants to force a “wind farm,” transmission line, or other obtrusive energy facility into an area that may be ill-suited for it.
Fourth, those who are labeled “NIMBYs” should not be embarrassed and should not “back off” when they are pressured. The health, safety, environmental, scenic, and property values that would be impaired are real and often valuable. The wind industry, for example, has been notorious in claiming falsely that “wind farms” with their huge wind turbines do not adversely affect neighboring property values. That industry and, sadly, some government agencies using taxpayers' money have sponsored “studies” producing such false claims. However, such studies have been shown to be biased and based on faulty analysis. Not long ago, a court in England found in favor of a plaintiff whose life was made unbearable by a neighboring “wind farm” and who could not sell the home because of the “wind farm.” Common sense alone should convince any objective person that a residential property that has a large wind turbine nearby will command a lower price than an identical property without the wind turbine.
Fifth, citizens should not be intimidated by government pronouncements concerning the energy technologies and facilities that should be constructed. Government officials and central planners are notorious for their inability to pick wining technologies. Further, both elected and appointed government officials at all levels have proven highly susceptible to undue influence from lobbyists and developers. Advocates for some energy technologies and projects (e.g., wind energy and “wind farms”) have been extremely effective in creating false popular wisdom and faulty government policies that benefit their private interests but are not in the national and public interest. Billions of taxpayer and consumer dollars have been wasted on the development, demonstration, and deployment of government-selected energy technologies that have proven not to be cost effective, environmentally acceptable, commercially viable, and technologically sound.
What should be done about necessary energy facilities?
Are some of these facilities clearly necessary and in the national and public interest? Certainly they are, but that doesn’t diminish the critical questions: (a) where should they be located, (b) who should bear the adverse environmental, scenic and property value impacts, and the health and safety risks, (c) how should those who are adversely affected be compensated, (d) should eminent domain laws be changed to give greater protection and/or compensation to those adversely affected, (e) how should people in rural areas be protected, particularly if they are not protected by zoning laws, and/or they have inadequate political representation because legislatures are dominated by representatives from urban areas?
Alternatives should be evaluated. Perhaps, more facilities such as electric generating plants should be located near or IN the heart of metropolitan areas that are being served so that long transmission lines with attendant losses of electricity are not needed. Many cities have blighted areas that could be restored with properly constructed generating plants – perhaps not as large as those plants would be if located at a distance, but still large enough to supply a significant amount of electricity for people in the urban area. Also, additional units could be added at some existing powerplant sites in or near urban areas. Still, another possibility is the construction of electric generating units at superfund sites in urban areas.
Glenn R. Schleede, 18220 Turnberry Drive, Round Hill, VA 20141-2574. 540-338-9958.
* Schleede is semi-retired after spending more than 35 years dealing with energy related matters in the federal government and private sector. He writes frequently about wind and other energy issues, particularly government policies that have adverse impacts on taxpayers and consumers.
Developers sign on to state wind ethics code
VOLUNTARY RULES: Attorney general aims to prevent corruption
All of the local wind developers signed on to the state attorney general's Wind Industry Ethics Code on Wednesday.
The developers of four local projects were among 15 companies that signed on.
"New York must be equally committed to clean energy and clean government," Attorney General Andrew M. Cuomo said. "Wind power has enormous environmental and economic potential for New York and it is critical that this industry continues to grow without the suspicion or shadow of public corruption or anything else outside the law."
The code was introduced Oct. 31, when two developers, Noble Environmental Power LLC, Essex, Conn., and First Wind, Newton, Mass., signed the pact after an investigation by the attorney general's office into allegations that they were bribing local officials to push through wind projects.
"The code is prospective," Mr. Cuomo said during a press conference in Albany. "It defines the rules going forward. Investigations with past actions continue."
The voluntary code calls on developers to disclose financial relationships with town officials or their relatives, release written property agreements and establish ethics training for employees. Under the code, developers are not allowed to hire local officials, give gifts worth more than $10 in one year or pay for an official's or municipality's legal fees related to a law enforcement investigation.
Violation of the code could lead to civil penalties of $50,000 for the first violation and $100,000 for subsequent violations.
All of the local developers signed on, including:
■ Acciona Wind Energy USA LLC, developer of St. Lawrence Wind Farm in Cape Vincent.
■ BP Wind Energy North America Inc., developer of Cape Vincent Wind Farm.
■ Iberdrola Renewables Inc., part-owner of Maple Ridge Wind Farm and developer of Horse Creek Wind Farm in Clayton and Stone Church Wind Farm in Hammond.
■ Horizon Wind Energy, part-owner of Maple Ridge Wind Farm.
■ Galloo Island Wind Farm developers Pattern Energy Group Holdings and Upstate NY Power Corp.
"We feel this is a positive step for the industry," said BP project manager James H. Madden. "We have some work ahead of us for documenting what is required, but we think this is going to help our project move forward."
The other local developers also praised the code and expressed readiness to comply with public notification.
"We applaud the state of New York's support of the renewable energy industry and today's announcement of formal efforts to ensure transparency and accountability across the board," Acciona project manager Peter E. Zedick said in an e-mail.
Beth O'Brien, spokeswoman for Pattern Energy, said, "Hopefully, it will give some comfort to local communities and help New York reach its renewable energy goals."
Other signatories included Ecogen Wind LLC, E.on Climate and Renewables North America Inc., Everpower Wind Holdings Inc., Invenergy Wind Development LLC, Northwind & Power LLC, Penn Energy Trust LLC, Sustainable Energy Trust Inc., and Shell WindEnergyInc. Later Wednesday, after facing a subpoena from the attorney general's office, Reunion Power also signed.
The Alliance for Clean Energy New York, a renewable energy proponent, worked on behalf of its member wind developers in the discussions on the code with the attorney general's office. It said the developers and their subsidiaries comprise more than 90 percent of constructed and proposed wind power projects.
Executive Director Carol E. Murphy said in a press release, "This set of guidelines incorporates best industry practices and sets a new standard of transparency and public integrity that goes far beyond existing state law and what other industries must comply with."
The code signed Wednesday had slight changes from the first version. The word "knowingly" was added to sections telling developers not to give gifts, honorariums or compensation to municipal officers or their relatives.
Financial interests in the development by municipal officers or family members must be disclosed before a first application is made to a town, either for a wind measurement tower or a project.
And developers are given 60 days to hold a seminar on conflicts of interest with employees. The members of the attorney general's wind energy task force are clearly defined, including representatives of the wind industry.
"We've been working closely with other responsible wind developers," said Paul N. Copleman, communications manager for Iberdrola. "It is fair to the wind industry and to the communities."
All of the local wind developers signed on to the state attorney general's Wind Industry Ethics Code on Wednesday.
The developers of four local projects were among 15 companies that signed on.
"New York must be equally committed to clean energy and clean government," Attorney General Andrew M. Cuomo said. "Wind power has enormous environmental and economic potential for New York and it is critical that this industry continues to grow without the suspicion or shadow of public corruption or anything else outside the law."
The code was introduced Oct. 31, when two developers, Noble Environmental Power LLC, Essex, Conn., and First Wind, Newton, Mass., signed the pact after an investigation by the attorney general's office into allegations that they were bribing local officials to push through wind projects.
"The code is prospective," Mr. Cuomo said during a press conference in Albany. "It defines the rules going forward. Investigations with past actions continue."
The voluntary code calls on developers to disclose financial relationships with town officials or their relatives, release written property agreements and establish ethics training for employees. Under the code, developers are not allowed to hire local officials, give gifts worth more than $10 in one year or pay for an official's or municipality's legal fees related to a law enforcement investigation.
Violation of the code could lead to civil penalties of $50,000 for the first violation and $100,000 for subsequent violations.
All of the local developers signed on, including:
■ Acciona Wind Energy USA LLC, developer of St. Lawrence Wind Farm in Cape Vincent.
■ BP Wind Energy North America Inc., developer of Cape Vincent Wind Farm.
■ Iberdrola Renewables Inc., part-owner of Maple Ridge Wind Farm and developer of Horse Creek Wind Farm in Clayton and Stone Church Wind Farm in Hammond.
■ Horizon Wind Energy, part-owner of Maple Ridge Wind Farm.
■ Galloo Island Wind Farm developers Pattern Energy Group Holdings and Upstate NY Power Corp.
"We feel this is a positive step for the industry," said BP project manager James H. Madden. "We have some work ahead of us for documenting what is required, but we think this is going to help our project move forward."
The other local developers also praised the code and expressed readiness to comply with public notification.
"We applaud the state of New York's support of the renewable energy industry and today's announcement of formal efforts to ensure transparency and accountability across the board," Acciona project manager Peter E. Zedick said in an e-mail.
Beth O'Brien, spokeswoman for Pattern Energy, said, "Hopefully, it will give some comfort to local communities and help New York reach its renewable energy goals."
Other signatories included Ecogen Wind LLC, E.on Climate and Renewables North America Inc., Everpower Wind Holdings Inc., Invenergy Wind Development LLC, Northwind & Power LLC, Penn Energy Trust LLC, Sustainable Energy Trust Inc., and Shell WindEnergyInc. Later Wednesday, after facing a subpoena from the attorney general's office, Reunion Power also signed.
The Alliance for Clean Energy New York, a renewable energy proponent, worked on behalf of its member wind developers in the discussions on the code with the attorney general's office. It said the developers and their subsidiaries comprise more than 90 percent of constructed and proposed wind power projects.
Executive Director Carol E. Murphy said in a press release, "This set of guidelines incorporates best industry practices and sets a new standard of transparency and public integrity that goes far beyond existing state law and what other industries must comply with."
The code signed Wednesday had slight changes from the first version. The word "knowingly" was added to sections telling developers not to give gifts, honorariums or compensation to municipal officers or their relatives.
Financial interests in the development by municipal officers or family members must be disclosed before a first application is made to a town, either for a wind measurement tower or a project.
And developers are given 60 days to hold a seminar on conflicts of interest with employees. The members of the attorney general's wind energy task force are clearly defined, including representatives of the wind industry.
"We've been working closely with other responsible wind developers," said Paul N. Copleman, communications manager for Iberdrola. "It is fair to the wind industry and to the communities."
Perry Public Hearing Monday, August 10, 2009 at 7:00 PM
CHRN (Citizen’s for a Healthy Rural Neighborhood)!
Turbine Free Perry
We are asking for your support! Monday August 10th, 2009 @ 7:00 PM at the Perry High School Auditorium, Watkins Avenue
Please attend the Perry Public Hearing for the Supplemental DEIS for the proposed Horizon Wind Project here in North Perry.
The opposition group has been passing out t-shirts and invitations in the Village of Perry. We need numbers and your support!
If you want to speak you have to sign up before 7:00 PM the night of the hearing. Your comments have to reference to the SDEIS report. We have SDEIS CD’s 237-2338
You can turn in your written report the night of the hearing or at the Perry Town Hall by Monday August 31, 2009
Numbers count! Please help us out! Please attend! Just come and be present!
Sincerely,
CHRN
Valary Sahrle
Turbine Free Perry
We are asking for your support! Monday August 10th, 2009 @ 7:00 PM at the Perry High School Auditorium, Watkins Avenue
Please attend the Perry Public Hearing for the Supplemental DEIS for the proposed Horizon Wind Project here in North Perry.
The opposition group has been passing out t-shirts and invitations in the Village of Perry. We need numbers and your support!
If you want to speak you have to sign up before 7:00 PM the night of the hearing. Your comments have to reference to the SDEIS report. We have SDEIS CD’s 237-2338
You can turn in your written report the night of the hearing or at the Perry Town Hall by Monday August 31, 2009
Numbers count! Please help us out! Please attend! Just come and be present!
Sincerely,
CHRN
Valary Sahrle
17 wind-industry firms sign state ethics code
ALBANY - Seventeen companies comprising more than 90 percent of New York's wind-energy industry have signed an ethics code designed to prevent conflicts of interest between companies and municipal officials, state Attorney General Andrew Cuomo announced Wednesday.
Wind energy is a burgeoning sector in New York, Cuomo said, and New York wants to encourage it for environmental and economic-development reasons. But there have been "significant issues about conflict of interest, etc." in the siting of turbines, and a lack of clarity with government officials on what the rules are, he said.
"In many ways, it was a modern-day gold rush," Cuomo said. "This code of conduct that was signed today basically lays out the rules of the road."
One company doing business in the state - Reunion Power of Manchester Center, Vt. - originally refused to sign the code of ethics but changed its mind Wednesday afternoon.
"This is a great step forward for the industry and State of New York, setting a new level of integrity in government and a green light for the exciting new wind industry," Cuomo said in a statement.
Before Reunion Power signed the ethics code, Cuomo's office issued a subpoena to the company as part of his ongoing investigation of allegations of improper dealings. Reunion Power has potential wind-farm development in Otsego, Schoharie and Warren counties.
Wind power has the potential to provide 20 percent of the state's electricity demand, according to the state Energy Research Development Authority. A report from the state comptroller in 2005 predicted the industry could add 43,000 jobs in New York by 2013.
Cuomo unveiled the code of conduct in late October, when he announced that two wind-energy companies had signed it - Noble Environmental Power of Essex, Conn., and First Wind of Newton, Mass. Fifteen more have signed on since then.
The ethics code grew out of Cuomo's ongoing investigation on whether wind-farm developers improperly sought land-use agreements with residents and public officials, tried to influence public officials' actions by providing them with certain benefits, and other areas.
The code:
* Bans wind companies from hiring municipal employees or their relatives, giving gifts of more than $10 during a one-year period, or providing any other compensation that is contingent on any action before a municipal agency.
* Prevents wind companies from soliciting, using or knowingly receiving confidential information acquired by municipal officers in the course of their duties.
* Requires wind companies to set up public Web sites to disclose the names of all municipal officers or their relatives who have a financial stake in wind-farm development.
* Requires that wind companies submit to municipal clerks for public viewing and publish in a local newspaper the nature of a municipal officer's financial interest.
Wind energy is a burgeoning sector in New York, Cuomo said, and New York wants to encourage it for environmental and economic-development reasons. But there have been "significant issues about conflict of interest, etc." in the siting of turbines, and a lack of clarity with government officials on what the rules are, he said.
"In many ways, it was a modern-day gold rush," Cuomo said. "This code of conduct that was signed today basically lays out the rules of the road."
One company doing business in the state - Reunion Power of Manchester Center, Vt. - originally refused to sign the code of ethics but changed its mind Wednesday afternoon.
"This is a great step forward for the industry and State of New York, setting a new level of integrity in government and a green light for the exciting new wind industry," Cuomo said in a statement.
Before Reunion Power signed the ethics code, Cuomo's office issued a subpoena to the company as part of his ongoing investigation of allegations of improper dealings. Reunion Power has potential wind-farm development in Otsego, Schoharie and Warren counties.
Wind power has the potential to provide 20 percent of the state's electricity demand, according to the state Energy Research Development Authority. A report from the state comptroller in 2005 predicted the industry could add 43,000 jobs in New York by 2013.
Cuomo unveiled the code of conduct in late October, when he announced that two wind-energy companies had signed it - Noble Environmental Power of Essex, Conn., and First Wind of Newton, Mass. Fifteen more have signed on since then.
The ethics code grew out of Cuomo's ongoing investigation on whether wind-farm developers improperly sought land-use agreements with residents and public officials, tried to influence public officials' actions by providing them with certain benefits, and other areas.
The code:
* Bans wind companies from hiring municipal employees or their relatives, giving gifts of more than $10 during a one-year period, or providing any other compensation that is contingent on any action before a municipal agency.
* Prevents wind companies from soliciting, using or knowingly receiving confidential information acquired by municipal officers in the course of their duties.
* Requires wind companies to set up public Web sites to disclose the names of all municipal officers or their relatives who have a financial stake in wind-farm development.
* Requires that wind companies submit to municipal clerks for public viewing and publish in a local newspaper the nature of a municipal officer's financial interest.
Comments on Wolfe Island by Art Pundt
Folks,
Since the Wolfe Island Wind Farm became operational in early July I have heard low rumbling on some nights from my side yard or deck at my cottage. I have heard it numerous time. I have heard the trains in Canada and traffic on the 401 in Canada as well as the city hum of Kingston on quiet nights. This was different and coming directly from the red lights of the WI turbines. I also know the low rumble of ships. There were no ships around.
I wasn't sure, so last night with a fairly strong south wind we drove down to the village of Cape Vincent. We stopped at the public boat launch in the village. I opened up the drivers side window with that side of the truck out of the wind...and sure enough there was the answer. The turbines on WI are can easily be heard. Sounds like a jet flying over at altitude and is very distinct. Or it soulds like the sound eminated from outside a large busy city. If you are in a clam spot protected from the wind the sound is really clear.
Now keep in mind the the closest turbine to me is about 7.5 miles and the center of the WI project is around 9-10 miles from my cottage. At the public dock in CV the nearest turbines is about 3 miles. This was all measured on Google Earth.
Now keep in mind the distances I mentioned above. The town is only about 4 to 5 miles wide, and something like 12 miles long (approx).
And that is 148 turbines packed into that area. WI is 86. You won't be able to hide anywhere from the sound based on what I heard coming from WI. I am surprised there have not been any mention of this or complaints coming from the village. Also keep in mind that the wind was blowing away from me last night
So what is the bottom line? If you think a wind law will protect you even with large sound set backs... based on what I have heard from WI and the distance at which you can hear these turbines...you better think again!!!! Turbines do not belong in this community period!
Go down to the village some night with a strong south wind and listen for yourself, then do the math.
Art Pundt
Since the Wolfe Island Wind Farm became operational in early July I have heard low rumbling on some nights from my side yard or deck at my cottage. I have heard it numerous time. I have heard the trains in Canada and traffic on the 401 in Canada as well as the city hum of Kingston on quiet nights. This was different and coming directly from the red lights of the WI turbines. I also know the low rumble of ships. There were no ships around.
I wasn't sure, so last night with a fairly strong south wind we drove down to the village of Cape Vincent. We stopped at the public boat launch in the village. I opened up the drivers side window with that side of the truck out of the wind...and sure enough there was the answer. The turbines on WI are can easily be heard. Sounds like a jet flying over at altitude and is very distinct. Or it soulds like the sound eminated from outside a large busy city. If you are in a clam spot protected from the wind the sound is really clear.
Now keep in mind the the closest turbine to me is about 7.5 miles and the center of the WI project is around 9-10 miles from my cottage. At the public dock in CV the nearest turbines is about 3 miles. This was all measured on Google Earth.
Now keep in mind the distances I mentioned above. The town is only about 4 to 5 miles wide, and something like 12 miles long (approx).
And that is 148 turbines packed into that area. WI is 86. You won't be able to hide anywhere from the sound based on what I heard coming from WI. I am surprised there have not been any mention of this or complaints coming from the village. Also keep in mind that the wind was blowing away from me last night
So what is the bottom line? If you think a wind law will protect you even with large sound set backs... based on what I have heard from WI and the distance at which you can hear these turbines...you better think again!!!! Turbines do not belong in this community period!
Go down to the village some night with a strong south wind and listen for yourself, then do the math.
Art Pundt
Wednesday, July 29, 2009
ATTORNEY GENERAL CUOMO ANNOUNCES NEW ETHICS CODE ADOPTED BY WIND INDUSTRY COMPANIES ACROSS NY
Attorney General Cuomo's Wind Industry Ethics Code Increases Transparency While Deterring Improper Dealing Between the Industry and Local Government Officials
Vast Majority of Industry Adopts Code; Investigation into Allegations of Misconduct Continues with Subpoena to Reunion Power
ALBANY, N.Y. (July 29, 2009) Attorney General Andrew M. Cuomo today announced that 16 companies representing the vast majority of wind energy activity in New York state (more than 90 percent) have signed his Wind Industry Ethics Code, facilitating the development of renewable energy while helping assure that the industry is acting properly and within the law. The Code calls for oversight through an advisory Task Force and unprecedented transparency that will deter improper relationships between wind development companies and local government officials.
Fourteen companies have now joined the two that signed late last year to make a total of 16 wind industry leaders agreeing to Attorney General Cuomo s Ethics Code. According to the Alliance for Clean Energy (ACE), these companies, along with their subsidiaries, are responsible for more than 90 percent of the wind farm development (past, present or future projects) in New York State.
The Attorney General also announced that as part of its ongoing investigation into allegations of improper dealings, his office issued a subpoena to Reunion Power, which has potential wind farm development in Otsego, Schoharie and Warren Counties, and has not agreed to sign the Code.
New York must be equally committed to clean energy and clean government. The companies that have signed our Wind Industry Ethics Code are echoing that commitment and I commend them for that,” said Attorney General Cuomo. Wind power has enormous environmental and economic potential for New York and it is critical that this industry continues to grow without the suspicion or shadow of public corruption or anything else outside the law.”
The new companies to sign on to the Code are: Acciona Wind Energy USA, LLC, BP Wind Energy North America, Inc., Ecogen Wind, LLC, E.on Climate and Renewables North America, Inc., Everpower Wind Holdings, Inc., Horizon Wind Energy, LLC, Iberdrola Renewables, Inc., Invenergy Wind Development, LLC, Northwind & Power, LLC, Pattern Energy Group Holdings, Penn Energy Trust, LLC, Sustainable Energy Trust, Inc., Upstate NY Power Corp. and Shell WindEnergy, Inc.
The Code was signed previously by Newton, Massachusetts-based First Wind (formerly known as UPC Wind) and Essex, Connecticut-based Noble Environmental Power, LLC. Both companies currently operate several wind farms in New York and have others in development.
The Wind Industry Ethics Code is a direct result of the Attorney General's ongoing investigation into, among other things, whether companies developing wind farms improperly sought land-use agreements with citizens and public officials, and whether improper benefits were given to public officials to influence their official actions relating to wind farm development.
The Attorney General s Wind Industry Ethics Code prohibits conflicts of interest between municipal officials and wind companies and establishes public disclosure requirements. The Code:
Bans wind companies from hiring municipal employees or their relatives, giving gifts of more than $10 during a one-year period, or providing any other form of compensation that is contingent on any action before a municipal agency
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
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
Requires wind companies to submit in writing to the municipal
clerk for public inspection, and to publish in the local newspaper, 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
Dictates that within sixty days of signing the Wind Industry
Ethics Code, companies must conduct a seminar for employees about identifying and preventing conflicts of interest when working with municipal employees
The Attorney General s Task Force monitors the wind companies to ensure they are in compliance with the Ethics Code and receives complaints regarding the industry. Members of the Task Force include, among others, Franklin County District Attorney Derek P. Champagne, Monroe County District Attorney Michael C. Green, Wyoming County District Attorney Gerald Stout, Executive Director Stephen J. Acquario of The New York State Association of Counties, and Executive Director G. Jeffrey Haber of The Association of Towns of the State of New York.
The New York State Energy Research Development Authority (NYSERDA) estimates that wind power has the potential to provide 20 percent of the state s electricity demand and a 2005 report by the state Comptroller s Office estimates the industry could add 43,000 jobs in New York by 2013.
Franklin County District Attorney Derek P. Champagne said, More than a dozen companies committed to the smart and transparent growth of the renewable energy industry have now agreed to the Attorney General s Wind Energy Code of Conduct. The public will now be able to easily review and identify potential conflicts of interest between their government officials and wind power companies. Attorney General Cuomo is delivering real results on this issue and I look forward to my continued service on his Wind Energy Task Force.”
Wyoming County District Attorney Gerald Stout said, The Attorney General s Code of Conduct is a successful and business friendly way to ensure this growing industry realizes its tremendous economic and environmental potential. I applaud the companies that have already signed on, and I strongly encourage other wind energy companies doing business in New York to demonstrate their commitment to openness and transparency by following suit.”
Monroe County District Attorney Michael C. Green said, It is imperative for the public to know that the business of wind energy is free from conflict and corruption, and that is exactly what Attorney General Cuomo s Code of Conduct helps ensure. Wind energy will play a vital role in our state s energy future and companies that sign the Code are signaling their willingness to conduct business in an open and transparent way.”
New York State Association of Counties executive director Stephen J. Acquario said, County governments are on the front lines of helping to balance essential renewable energy growth through the installation of wind farms and policing possible conflicts of interests between wind power companies and public officials. Attorney General Cuomo s Ethics Code helps the clean energy industry sustain honest growth and continue to contribute to the goal of energy independence and job creation.”
Association of Towns of the State of New York Executive Director G. Jeffrey Haber said, The Wind Energy Code of Conduct drafted by Attorney General Cuomo and agreed to by major wind energy companies will provide guidance for growth of wind energy facilities without conflicts of interest.”
The Attorney General thanked the Task Force members for their continued assistance and guidance. Gabriel Alonso, Chief Executive Officer of Horizon Wind Energy said, On behalf of Horizon and the communities across the United States that are our partners in wind energy development, we are very proud to be part of the initiative announced today by the Attorney General of New York to promote transparent and ethical conduct in the wind power industry in the State of New York. We look forward to working with the newly created Task Force and the Attorney General in order to capture the full potential of wind power for all New Yorkers.”
Mike Garland, Chief Executive Officer of Pattern Energy, said, Pattern Energy is very excited about our New York wind projects in active development and we are pleased that a Code of Conduct with the Attorney General s office is now in place. This code allows communities to have confidence that the wind project approval process is transparent, which in turn helps New York State reach renewable energy goals and receive the economic and environmental benefits from the development of renewable energy.”
The matter is being handled by Executive Deputy Attorney General for Criminal Justice Robin L. Baker, Special Deputy Attorney General Ellen Nachtigall Biben, who oversees the Attorney General s Public Integrity Bureau, and Assistant Attorney General Andrew Heffner.
(Click to read the Industrial Wind Code of Ethics)
Vast Majority of Industry Adopts Code; Investigation into Allegations of Misconduct Continues with Subpoena to Reunion Power
ALBANY, N.Y. (July 29, 2009) Attorney General Andrew M. Cuomo today announced that 16 companies representing the vast majority of wind energy activity in New York state (more than 90 percent) have signed his Wind Industry Ethics Code, facilitating the development of renewable energy while helping assure that the industry is acting properly and within the law. The Code calls for oversight through an advisory Task Force and unprecedented transparency that will deter improper relationships between wind development companies and local government officials.
Fourteen companies have now joined the two that signed late last year to make a total of 16 wind industry leaders agreeing to Attorney General Cuomo s Ethics Code. According to the Alliance for Clean Energy (ACE), these companies, along with their subsidiaries, are responsible for more than 90 percent of the wind farm development (past, present or future projects) in New York State.
The Attorney General also announced that as part of its ongoing investigation into allegations of improper dealings, his office issued a subpoena to Reunion Power, which has potential wind farm development in Otsego, Schoharie and Warren Counties, and has not agreed to sign the Code.
New York must be equally committed to clean energy and clean government. The companies that have signed our Wind Industry Ethics Code are echoing that commitment and I commend them for that,” said Attorney General Cuomo. Wind power has enormous environmental and economic potential for New York and it is critical that this industry continues to grow without the suspicion or shadow of public corruption or anything else outside the law.”
The new companies to sign on to the Code are: Acciona Wind Energy USA, LLC, BP Wind Energy North America, Inc., Ecogen Wind, LLC, E.on Climate and Renewables North America, Inc., Everpower Wind Holdings, Inc., Horizon Wind Energy, LLC, Iberdrola Renewables, Inc., Invenergy Wind Development, LLC, Northwind & Power, LLC, Pattern Energy Group Holdings, Penn Energy Trust, LLC, Sustainable Energy Trust, Inc., Upstate NY Power Corp. and Shell WindEnergy, Inc.
The Code was signed previously by Newton, Massachusetts-based First Wind (formerly known as UPC Wind) and Essex, Connecticut-based Noble Environmental Power, LLC. Both companies currently operate several wind farms in New York and have others in development.
The Wind Industry Ethics Code is a direct result of the Attorney General's ongoing investigation into, among other things, whether companies developing wind farms improperly sought land-use agreements with citizens and public officials, and whether improper benefits were given to public officials to influence their official actions relating to wind farm development.
The Attorney General s Wind Industry Ethics Code prohibits conflicts of interest between municipal officials and wind companies and establishes public disclosure requirements. The Code:
Bans wind companies from hiring municipal employees or their relatives, giving gifts of more than $10 during a one-year period, or providing any other form of compensation that is contingent on any action before a municipal agency
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
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
Requires wind companies to submit in writing to the municipal
clerk for public inspection, and to publish in the local newspaper, 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
Dictates that within sixty days of signing the Wind Industry
Ethics Code, companies must conduct a seminar for employees about identifying and preventing conflicts of interest when working with municipal employees
The Attorney General s Task Force monitors the wind companies to ensure they are in compliance with the Ethics Code and receives complaints regarding the industry. Members of the Task Force include, among others, Franklin County District Attorney Derek P. Champagne, Monroe County District Attorney Michael C. Green, Wyoming County District Attorney Gerald Stout, Executive Director Stephen J. Acquario of The New York State Association of Counties, and Executive Director G. Jeffrey Haber of The Association of Towns of the State of New York.
The New York State Energy Research Development Authority (NYSERDA) estimates that wind power has the potential to provide 20 percent of the state s electricity demand and a 2005 report by the state Comptroller s Office estimates the industry could add 43,000 jobs in New York by 2013.
Franklin County District Attorney Derek P. Champagne said, More than a dozen companies committed to the smart and transparent growth of the renewable energy industry have now agreed to the Attorney General s Wind Energy Code of Conduct. The public will now be able to easily review and identify potential conflicts of interest between their government officials and wind power companies. Attorney General Cuomo is delivering real results on this issue and I look forward to my continued service on his Wind Energy Task Force.”
Wyoming County District Attorney Gerald Stout said, The Attorney General s Code of Conduct is a successful and business friendly way to ensure this growing industry realizes its tremendous economic and environmental potential. I applaud the companies that have already signed on, and I strongly encourage other wind energy companies doing business in New York to demonstrate their commitment to openness and transparency by following suit.”
Monroe County District Attorney Michael C. Green said, It is imperative for the public to know that the business of wind energy is free from conflict and corruption, and that is exactly what Attorney General Cuomo s Code of Conduct helps ensure. Wind energy will play a vital role in our state s energy future and companies that sign the Code are signaling their willingness to conduct business in an open and transparent way.”
New York State Association of Counties executive director Stephen J. Acquario said, County governments are on the front lines of helping to balance essential renewable energy growth through the installation of wind farms and policing possible conflicts of interests between wind power companies and public officials. Attorney General Cuomo s Ethics Code helps the clean energy industry sustain honest growth and continue to contribute to the goal of energy independence and job creation.”
Association of Towns of the State of New York Executive Director G. Jeffrey Haber said, The Wind Energy Code of Conduct drafted by Attorney General Cuomo and agreed to by major wind energy companies will provide guidance for growth of wind energy facilities without conflicts of interest.”
The Attorney General thanked the Task Force members for their continued assistance and guidance. Gabriel Alonso, Chief Executive Officer of Horizon Wind Energy said, On behalf of Horizon and the communities across the United States that are our partners in wind energy development, we are very proud to be part of the initiative announced today by the Attorney General of New York to promote transparent and ethical conduct in the wind power industry in the State of New York. We look forward to working with the newly created Task Force and the Attorney General in order to capture the full potential of wind power for all New Yorkers.”
Mike Garland, Chief Executive Officer of Pattern Energy, said, Pattern Energy is very excited about our New York wind projects in active development and we are pleased that a Code of Conduct with the Attorney General s office is now in place. This code allows communities to have confidence that the wind project approval process is transparent, which in turn helps New York State reach renewable energy goals and receive the economic and environmental benefits from the development of renewable energy.”
The matter is being handled by Executive Deputy Attorney General for Criminal Justice Robin L. Baker, Special Deputy Attorney General Ellen Nachtigall Biben, who oversees the Attorney General s Public Integrity Bureau, and Assistant Attorney General Andrew Heffner.
(Click to read the Industrial Wind Code of Ethics)
The Developer's Bull Does Stink
7/28/09
The Developer's Bull Does Stink
In May I wrote that my wife owns a 25-acre Naples, Ontario County property located across from a wind turbine site, and we had the tax assessment reduced by 60%. I stand by that statement, and I have the paper trail to prove it. To say I'm a bit displeased at being called a liar by the wind developer in "Today's Stinky Bull" is an understatement. Let me explain how this all went down.
First, the assessment on my wife's property was raised, as were the assessments on many properties in Naples. In response, I brought the tax assessor several documents which I felt indicated that the value of this property – and two other nearby properties – should be significantly lowered due to the proximity of a wind turbine site. As evidence, I submitted the letter the current Naples town supervisor wrote to the NY State attorney general, which, among other concerns, addresses the resulting inability to build on property in close proximity to turbines. I also provided the developer's turbine site map, and indicated their plan to build the project this year.
In response, the Naples assessor first granted a (quite modest) change in the assessment, based upon the percentage of the 25 acres which was field versus forest. While I didn't understand this rationale, this small reduction was appreciated. I then re-stated this didn't address the real problem. This property was severely devalued because of the close proximity of a site for a 415-foot-high, noise-making, ice-throwing, health-threatening industrial wind turbine. For this reason, no one in their right mind could build there, and even if we were crazy enough to do so, no sane banker would grant us a mortgage, and no sensible underwriter would sell us insurance. It seemed pretty straightforward to me.
The Naples assessor then stated that any further reduction in the assessment would need to be based upon an appraisal. We commissioned and submitted appraisals on this 25-acre parcel and two other adjacent properties. In response, the assessments on all three properties were reduced, and the reduction in assessment was progressively lower the closer the property was to the wind turbine site. And yes, the assessment on the property closest to the wind turbine site was reduced (to be precise) a whopping 59.5%!
Now let's think through the "stinky bull" these sweethearts have been slinging. The "Misinformation" newsletter claims that this property was "reclassified as to its current use at the request of the owner" and "she (the Naples assessor) did that and the land was reclassified from building lots to woodland and wasteland". What a whopper! I've never heard of these classifications.
First, none of these three unimproved properties was a "building lot". I'm not a housing developer, and they weren't cut up into one acre (or any other sized) sections. The problem is we WANTED to build a home for one of our sons on this 25-acre property – one house – and now we CAN'T.
Next, I didn't ASK to have this 25-acre property declared a "wasteland". The windfarm developer MADE it a "wasteland"! If that's what the assessor needed to call it in order to justifiably reduce the tax assessment, so be it. But don't tell us this is what we wanted! This 60% lower assessment is almost half what we originally paid for the property, and one-third what we were offered for the property several years ago – and turned down. Again, don't tell us this is what we wanted!
Calming down, this does open an interesting question. Is it really possible that I or anyone else can just go into the town tax assessor and say, "I don't feel like building on my property. So, uh, how about you just cut my tax bill in half? No, wait. Make that 60%." What!? Does anyone reading this claim in "The Stinky Bull" really believe this is how it works? Do you think the developers even believe it? Come now! Just thinking they believed they could get people to swallow this "stinky bull" takes my breath away.
And if (for whatever reason) your town board throws these pillaging Vikings the keys to the car and they site a 400-foot-high noise-making industrial wind turbine close to your home and land, prepare yourself for a drag-out fight if you seek a reassessment. Do you believe the town assessor wants to open "Pandora's Box" and start assessing a number of properties DOWN? Of course not!
Let's get this straight. At this point, the real issue is not the inevitable lower property assessments for those severely damaged, which will need to be balanced out by higher taxes paid by the rest of the town's property owners. The real issue is this – How much do you want the value and usefulness of your property to fall? How about not at all!
Forget about who's been "influenced", or even that your former town supervisor now works for the developer. Your future is still within your control. Stand up and tell your elected town board what you truly want. One choice is to give in to the "prophets of powerlessness", let the developer do with you what they will, and live with the consequences. Or, you can protect your homes, your property, and your way of life, and protect yourself and your neighbors from the higher taxes this havoc will cause. It's your choice.
John Servo
Prattsburgh, New York
The Developer's Bull Does Stink
In May I wrote that my wife owns a 25-acre Naples, Ontario County property located across from a wind turbine site, and we had the tax assessment reduced by 60%. I stand by that statement, and I have the paper trail to prove it. To say I'm a bit displeased at being called a liar by the wind developer in "Today's Stinky Bull" is an understatement. Let me explain how this all went down.
First, the assessment on my wife's property was raised, as were the assessments on many properties in Naples. In response, I brought the tax assessor several documents which I felt indicated that the value of this property – and two other nearby properties – should be significantly lowered due to the proximity of a wind turbine site. As evidence, I submitted the letter the current Naples town supervisor wrote to the NY State attorney general, which, among other concerns, addresses the resulting inability to build on property in close proximity to turbines. I also provided the developer's turbine site map, and indicated their plan to build the project this year.
In response, the Naples assessor first granted a (quite modest) change in the assessment, based upon the percentage of the 25 acres which was field versus forest. While I didn't understand this rationale, this small reduction was appreciated. I then re-stated this didn't address the real problem. This property was severely devalued because of the close proximity of a site for a 415-foot-high, noise-making, ice-throwing, health-threatening industrial wind turbine. For this reason, no one in their right mind could build there, and even if we were crazy enough to do so, no sane banker would grant us a mortgage, and no sensible underwriter would sell us insurance. It seemed pretty straightforward to me.
The Naples assessor then stated that any further reduction in the assessment would need to be based upon an appraisal. We commissioned and submitted appraisals on this 25-acre parcel and two other adjacent properties. In response, the assessments on all three properties were reduced, and the reduction in assessment was progressively lower the closer the property was to the wind turbine site. And yes, the assessment on the property closest to the wind turbine site was reduced (to be precise) a whopping 59.5%!
Now let's think through the "stinky bull" these sweethearts have been slinging. The "Misinformation" newsletter claims that this property was "reclassified as to its current use at the request of the owner" and "she (the Naples assessor) did that and the land was reclassified from building lots to woodland and wasteland". What a whopper! I've never heard of these classifications.
First, none of these three unimproved properties was a "building lot". I'm not a housing developer, and they weren't cut up into one acre (or any other sized) sections. The problem is we WANTED to build a home for one of our sons on this 25-acre property – one house – and now we CAN'T.
Next, I didn't ASK to have this 25-acre property declared a "wasteland". The windfarm developer MADE it a "wasteland"! If that's what the assessor needed to call it in order to justifiably reduce the tax assessment, so be it. But don't tell us this is what we wanted! This 60% lower assessment is almost half what we originally paid for the property, and one-third what we were offered for the property several years ago – and turned down. Again, don't tell us this is what we wanted!
Calming down, this does open an interesting question. Is it really possible that I or anyone else can just go into the town tax assessor and say, "I don't feel like building on my property. So, uh, how about you just cut my tax bill in half? No, wait. Make that 60%." What!? Does anyone reading this claim in "The Stinky Bull" really believe this is how it works? Do you think the developers even believe it? Come now! Just thinking they believed they could get people to swallow this "stinky bull" takes my breath away.
And if (for whatever reason) your town board throws these pillaging Vikings the keys to the car and they site a 400-foot-high noise-making industrial wind turbine close to your home and land, prepare yourself for a drag-out fight if you seek a reassessment. Do you believe the town assessor wants to open "Pandora's Box" and start assessing a number of properties DOWN? Of course not!
Let's get this straight. At this point, the real issue is not the inevitable lower property assessments for those severely damaged, which will need to be balanced out by higher taxes paid by the rest of the town's property owners. The real issue is this – How much do you want the value and usefulness of your property to fall? How about not at all!
Forget about who's been "influenced", or even that your former town supervisor now works for the developer. Your future is still within your control. Stand up and tell your elected town board what you truly want. One choice is to give in to the "prophets of powerlessness", let the developer do with you what they will, and live with the consequences. Or, you can protect your homes, your property, and your way of life, and protect yourself and your neighbors from the higher taxes this havoc will cause. It's your choice.
John Servo
Prattsburgh, New York
Cape wind ban gets support
A wind-power moratorium on just a portion of a town doesn't make sense.
That's according to the Jefferson County Planning Board, which considered Cape Vincent's proposed six-month moratorium for wind power development in the lakefront and river front districts at its meeting Tuesday afternoon. The members of the board approved a townwide moratorium, which was not presented to them, rather than the town's proposed partial moratorium.
The county board, however, did not directly reject the town's proposal.
"They should look at all areas," said member Jon W. Storms.
When the Town Council introduced the moratorium idea July 9, it said it would protect the two districts which were never intended for wind power development.
"Currently, we have two projects under review in the ag district and we're not going to suspend those," Supervisor Tho-mas K. Rienbeck said at the time. "One is almost complete."
The riverfront district runs north of Route 12E, east of the village and to County Route 6 west of the village.
The lakefront district lies west of County Route 6, north of Mud Creek.
Those districts contain none of the proposed turbines in either the St. Lawrence Wind Farm or Cape Vincent Wind Farm projects.
"The Town Council acknowledges that the current zoning law is not equipped to review wind generating facilities," said Michael J. Bourcy, the county community development coordinator.
Mr. Bourcy was part of the town's most recent review of a zoning law, which was completed in January.
"The last draft we had wouldn't allow these uses in the (riverfront) or (lake front) districts," he said.
Until a law is adopted, all meteorological towers, personal windmills and commercial wind turbines are considered utilities, based on a decision from the town's Zoning Board of Appeals and may be placed anywhere in the town following a site plan review.
As part of the county Planning Board's comments, members reminded the town the state Department of State has said municipalities must make a valid argument for enacting any moratorium. Planning Board member Clifford J. Schneider, who is also a Cape Vincent resident, said, "Understanding that this is the biggest development in our county, I am dumbfounded to understand why they do not have a zoning amendment for it."
If the Planning Board had rejected the two-district moratorium, it would have forced the Town Council to approve it by at least a 4-1 vote.
Tuesday's approval of a moratorium with different boundaries acts only as a recommendation to the town.
The County Planning Board also approved a zoning amendment for the town of Watertown which combines the light industrial and business districts from the area bordering outer Coffeen Street south to the parcels surrounding outer Arsenal Street.
The new district is called "neighborhood commercial" and includes all of the light manufacturing and business uses previously allowed.
It also includes regulations on single-family and multi-family residences with minimum footprints and does not allow mobile homes.
The board encouraged the town to consider applying the new district in other business districts.
The board commented on and approved proposed regulations for Grindstone Island in the town of Clayton.
While the town told the board the regulations are meant to encourage a rural, low-density feel on the island, the board questioned whether uses including flea markets, self-storage, quarries and educational institutions meet that goal.
That's according to the Jefferson County Planning Board, which considered Cape Vincent's proposed six-month moratorium for wind power development in the lakefront and river front districts at its meeting Tuesday afternoon. The members of the board approved a townwide moratorium, which was not presented to them, rather than the town's proposed partial moratorium.
The county board, however, did not directly reject the town's proposal.
"They should look at all areas," said member Jon W. Storms.
When the Town Council introduced the moratorium idea July 9, it said it would protect the two districts which were never intended for wind power development.
"Currently, we have two projects under review in the ag district and we're not going to suspend those," Supervisor Tho-mas K. Rienbeck said at the time. "One is almost complete."
The riverfront district runs north of Route 12E, east of the village and to County Route 6 west of the village.
The lakefront district lies west of County Route 6, north of Mud Creek.
Those districts contain none of the proposed turbines in either the St. Lawrence Wind Farm or Cape Vincent Wind Farm projects.
"The Town Council acknowledges that the current zoning law is not equipped to review wind generating facilities," said Michael J. Bourcy, the county community development coordinator.
Mr. Bourcy was part of the town's most recent review of a zoning law, which was completed in January.
"The last draft we had wouldn't allow these uses in the (riverfront) or (lake front) districts," he said.
Until a law is adopted, all meteorological towers, personal windmills and commercial wind turbines are considered utilities, based on a decision from the town's Zoning Board of Appeals and may be placed anywhere in the town following a site plan review.
As part of the county Planning Board's comments, members reminded the town the state Department of State has said municipalities must make a valid argument for enacting any moratorium. Planning Board member Clifford J. Schneider, who is also a Cape Vincent resident, said, "Understanding that this is the biggest development in our county, I am dumbfounded to understand why they do not have a zoning amendment for it."
If the Planning Board had rejected the two-district moratorium, it would have forced the Town Council to approve it by at least a 4-1 vote.
Tuesday's approval of a moratorium with different boundaries acts only as a recommendation to the town.
The County Planning Board also approved a zoning amendment for the town of Watertown which combines the light industrial and business districts from the area bordering outer Coffeen Street south to the parcels surrounding outer Arsenal Street.
The new district is called "neighborhood commercial" and includes all of the light manufacturing and business uses previously allowed.
It also includes regulations on single-family and multi-family residences with minimum footprints and does not allow mobile homes.
The board encouraged the town to consider applying the new district in other business districts.
The board commented on and approved proposed regulations for Grindstone Island in the town of Clayton.
While the town told the board the regulations are meant to encourage a rural, low-density feel on the island, the board questioned whether uses including flea markets, self-storage, quarries and educational institutions meet that goal.
Tuesday, July 28, 2009
An unfortunate situation in Prattsburgh
Posted with the permission of The Naples Record, originally published Wednesday July 29, 2009
Latest meeting dashes hope for honest debate over wind turbines
To the editor:
I attended the Prattsburgh Town Board meeting last Tuesday. I was approaching it with great enthusiasm as the members of the Town Board had all agreed that they were not themselves experts on sound and setbacks and the effect of the proposed wind turbines on the residents. My hopes were that the town would be able to learn a little more from the problems in Cohocton that have been so visible in the news.
I had even thanked two of the town board members after-wards, Stacy Bottoni and Harold McConnell for having located and invited an independent sound expert to come and speak about a study that would put to rest the endless disagreements that have dragged on and on in town meetings. I felt that finally the egos and perceptions of all five voting members have been put aside so that the Town Board can go ahead with adopting a comprehensive wind law that protects the citizens at the same time as it defines what sort of parameters outside companies have to follow while installing turbine projects in Prattsburgh.
My enthusiasm was sharply lowered as discussions about the cost of the study seemed to make the study something that would not come to fruition. My enthusiasm was lowered further when in discussions it was evident that maybe there was not a setting aside of the egos and beliefs and that regardless of any independent study it is possible that minds are already made up. This is unfortunate for Prattsburgh because the company that is profiting from the project is the one that is guiding the decisions about safety and setbacks, threatening to sue the town every time an opinion comes in that is not theirs.
I am guessing that the reason is that the bare minimum of setbacks and safety regulations are what is most profitable and allows the most 400-foot turbine towers to be placed in the town. I think that Pattern Energy, formerly Ecogen, has convinced some of the board that any change at all in noise regulations or setbacks that stems from things that we all have learned and studies and regulations that are being used all through the world, will doom the project.
I guess it comes down to whom the board feels is better to doom - the company that is here for the profit they will make or a few of the residents that call Prattsburgh home. This coming week the Town Board will meet on how to pay for the study. It is my belief that the money will not be available. Even if it is, Pattern Energy's coaching and the ever-present eyes of their lawyer have trained the majority of the board to vote to follow the breadcrumbs that Pattern Energy has laid out for them.
I hope, unlike in Hansel and Gretel's tale, no one gets pushed into the oven or lost, and everyone lives happily ever after. This decision lies in the vote of the Town Board. My dream is that logic, reason and compromise can overcome strong egos and long standing perceptions for all of the five voters. Three to two votes are becoming a regular thing. My vote is for the citizens of Prattsburgh and the future of the unique area that we all love.
Tom MacAIlister, Prattsburgh
Latest meeting dashes hope for honest debate over wind turbines
To the editor:
I attended the Prattsburgh Town Board meeting last Tuesday. I was approaching it with great enthusiasm as the members of the Town Board had all agreed that they were not themselves experts on sound and setbacks and the effect of the proposed wind turbines on the residents. My hopes were that the town would be able to learn a little more from the problems in Cohocton that have been so visible in the news.
I had even thanked two of the town board members after-wards, Stacy Bottoni and Harold McConnell for having located and invited an independent sound expert to come and speak about a study that would put to rest the endless disagreements that have dragged on and on in town meetings. I felt that finally the egos and perceptions of all five voting members have been put aside so that the Town Board can go ahead with adopting a comprehensive wind law that protects the citizens at the same time as it defines what sort of parameters outside companies have to follow while installing turbine projects in Prattsburgh.
My enthusiasm was sharply lowered as discussions about the cost of the study seemed to make the study something that would not come to fruition. My enthusiasm was lowered further when in discussions it was evident that maybe there was not a setting aside of the egos and beliefs and that regardless of any independent study it is possible that minds are already made up. This is unfortunate for Prattsburgh because the company that is profiting from the project is the one that is guiding the decisions about safety and setbacks, threatening to sue the town every time an opinion comes in that is not theirs.
I am guessing that the reason is that the bare minimum of setbacks and safety regulations are what is most profitable and allows the most 400-foot turbine towers to be placed in the town. I think that Pattern Energy, formerly Ecogen, has convinced some of the board that any change at all in noise regulations or setbacks that stems from things that we all have learned and studies and regulations that are being used all through the world, will doom the project.
I guess it comes down to whom the board feels is better to doom - the company that is here for the profit they will make or a few of the residents that call Prattsburgh home. This coming week the Town Board will meet on how to pay for the study. It is my belief that the money will not be available. Even if it is, Pattern Energy's coaching and the ever-present eyes of their lawyer have trained the majority of the board to vote to follow the breadcrumbs that Pattern Energy has laid out for them.
I hope, unlike in Hansel and Gretel's tale, no one gets pushed into the oven or lost, and everyone lives happily ever after. This decision lies in the vote of the Town Board. My dream is that logic, reason and compromise can overcome strong egos and long standing perceptions for all of the five voters. Three to two votes are becoming a regular thing. My vote is for the citizens of Prattsburgh and the future of the unique area that we all love.
Tom MacAIlister, Prattsburgh
A lack of respect
Posted with the permission of The Naples Record, originally published Wednesday July 29, 2009
Prattsburgh Town Board disrespects citizens - and each other
To the editor:
Every time I go to a Prattsburgh Town Board meeting I hope that maybe this time the Town Board majority consisting of Harold McConnell, Sharon Quigley and Stacy Bottom will act in the best interests of the entire town. Last night that hope was extinguished for good. Not only did the board majority vote to ignore the advice of their own noise consultant and vote to give permission to Ecogen to keep their project maps secret, but once again McConnell allowed Bottom to speak disrespectfully to another board member. He also allowed the attorney for Ecogen to make slanderous comments as he openly disrespected a board member who tried to hold Ecogen accountable for its promises.
For months they have discussed the need for a windmill law and the need for an independent noise expert to help them write the safety regulations. Finally, two weeks ago, McConnell brought in a noise expert who was not connected to the wind projects or to the board or to anyone in the town. This guy told them point blank that the setbacks for the projects are "woefully inadequate." He sent the town a proposal for a noise study that would enable him to write the noise guidelines for the law, and McConnell, Quigley and Bottom decided that there was no value in the town spending the money for his expert opinion.
Ecogen's attorney point blank refused to reveal the project maps. Up until now every project map has shown transmission lines crossing the property of non-participating landowners. Ecogen has promised to "fix" the maps, but refuses to show the revisions. Could it be that Ecogen does not have a transmission plan and hopes to get the board majority to condemn land for the project?
I have witnessed first-hand the board majority's disrespect for citizens on a variety of issues having nothing to do with wind. In addition, they do not seem to have a good grasp of the town's ordinances and the Town Attorney repeatedly shows that he doesn't either. Prattsburgh needs and deserves leadership and integrity in its elected and appointed officials. The present board majority and lawyer consistently display neither of those qualities. November 2009 will give us a chance to make positive changes in our town government.
Al Wordingham, Cook School Road, Prattsburgh
Prattsburgh Town Board disrespects citizens - and each other
To the editor:
Every time I go to a Prattsburgh Town Board meeting I hope that maybe this time the Town Board majority consisting of Harold McConnell, Sharon Quigley and Stacy Bottom will act in the best interests of the entire town. Last night that hope was extinguished for good. Not only did the board majority vote to ignore the advice of their own noise consultant and vote to give permission to Ecogen to keep their project maps secret, but once again McConnell allowed Bottom to speak disrespectfully to another board member. He also allowed the attorney for Ecogen to make slanderous comments as he openly disrespected a board member who tried to hold Ecogen accountable for its promises.
For months they have discussed the need for a windmill law and the need for an independent noise expert to help them write the safety regulations. Finally, two weeks ago, McConnell brought in a noise expert who was not connected to the wind projects or to the board or to anyone in the town. This guy told them point blank that the setbacks for the projects are "woefully inadequate." He sent the town a proposal for a noise study that would enable him to write the noise guidelines for the law, and McConnell, Quigley and Bottom decided that there was no value in the town spending the money for his expert opinion.
Ecogen's attorney point blank refused to reveal the project maps. Up until now every project map has shown transmission lines crossing the property of non-participating landowners. Ecogen has promised to "fix" the maps, but refuses to show the revisions. Could it be that Ecogen does not have a transmission plan and hopes to get the board majority to condemn land for the project?
I have witnessed first-hand the board majority's disrespect for citizens on a variety of issues having nothing to do with wind. In addition, they do not seem to have a good grasp of the town's ordinances and the Town Attorney repeatedly shows that he doesn't either. Prattsburgh needs and deserves leadership and integrity in its elected and appointed officials. The present board majority and lawyer consistently display neither of those qualities. November 2009 will give us a chance to make positive changes in our town government.
Al Wordingham, Cook School Road, Prattsburgh
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)