ALLEGANY - Supervisor Patrick Eaton said a recent ban on wind turbine farms by the Yorkshire Town Board has caused Allegany Town Board members to rethink its position regarding proposed wind turbines in the Chipmunk area.
Another issue expected to have an impact on the proposed 32-turbine Everpower wind farm in the Chipmunk area in the southwest portion of the town of Allegany is the town’s portion of PILOT (payment in lieu of taxes) payments negotiated by the Cattaraugus County Industrial Development Agency (IDA).
The proposal is not dead, yet, Mr. Eaton emphasized.
The town councilmen will meet in special session Monday at 6 p.m. at the Town Hall with Daniel Spitzer, the attorney they hired to advise the town on wind-power issues.
One of the issues the supervisor wants to address is a proposal to extend the distance from which a wind turbine’s noise is measured, or to remove it, which would in effect draw around each windmill based on a certain noise (decibel) level. That line could not extend past a residence.
The town board had recommended to the Allegany Town Zoning Board a 2,500-foot buffer between wind turbines and residences, but Concerned Citizens of Cattaraugus County advised Chipmunk residents there could likely be higher noise levels at greater distances.
“We’re re-examining our views on windmills,” the supervisor said Thursday. “We don’t feel comfortable with the IDA involvement.”
In particular, he said the town would only be getting about $22,000 in PILOT payments a year. That’s for all 32 wind turbines, not each one, he added. Mr. Eaton said he did not believe there would be additional “host community fees” available outside of the PILOT agreement, which is negotiated by the IDA. “We’re not doing it for $22,000,” he stated.
The school district, county and town would receive PILOT payments in the same proportion of the respective taxes in the town. One example shows a school district getting 50 percent of the PILOT, the county 40 percent and the town the remaining 10 percent.
Besides concerns from Chipmunk area residents over noise from the wind turbines, some board members want a moratorium to sort out other issues. Some are looking for a way to stop the process. Mr. Spitzer’s advice to the town is likely to be in closed-door executive session, but the other part of the meeting will be open to the public.
“My job is to get the best deal for town taxpayers and protect town residents,” Mr. Eaton said. “I don’t think you will see 32 windmills. It’s not dead yet, but problems will have to be addressed. The town of Yorkshire really perked up our interest.”
Yorkshire Supervisor Marcia Spencer said the town board voted 4-1 last month not to proceed with the town’s wind turbine law.
“After months of listening to the people, we voted not to proceed with the wind turbine law,” she said. “It did not agree with our comprehensive plan.”
Without a local law allowing the wind turbine farm like Horizon Power was proposing, the town’s zoning law prohibited the project.
“I just personally felt I had to vote not to proceed with the law, especially with the 420-foot tall blades,” Ms. Spencer said.
She added that she thought it would be difficult to site the turbines without affecting homeowners with their sound.
“I just think your home is your biggest investment,” she explained, adding that wind turbines do not belong near residential settings.
(Contact reporter Rick Miller at rmiller@oleantimesherald.com)
Saturday, October 10, 2009
Friday, October 09, 2009
Politicians should heed health complaints blamed on wind turbines, medical officer of health says
Mounting questions about how wind turbines affect people’s health justify MPP Bill Murdoch’s new call for a provincial moratorium, the region’s top doctor said yesterday.
“To me this is a real welcome move,” said Dr. Hazel Lynn, the Grey Bruce medical officer of health. “When there’s as much upset as there is, I think the politicians should be paying attention to it.”
Murdoch, the Conservative MPP for Bruce-Grey-Owen Sound, said late yesterday he will introduce a resolution Oct. 29 at Queen’s Park asking to put wind power projects on hold until Ontario’s chief medical officer states definitively whether turbines cause health problems for people who live near them.
Industry spokesman Chris Forrest said yesterday those questions have already been answered, and no scientific or medical evidence links turbines to ill health.
“I think it’s jumping the gun to suggest a moratorium,” said Forrest, who is the vice-president of communications for the Canadian Wind Energy Association. “That would potentially throw thousands of people out of work and possibly drive away billions of dollars in investment at a time when Ontario is losing manufacturing jobs every day.”
Lynn and health unit staff recently held meetings in Owen Sound and Walkerton to hear health concerns related to turbines and to try and move the discussion from protest to some positive action, Lynn said.
She also told the Owen Sound meeting health officials have no jurisdiction over wind turbines and new controls would have to come from political action.
So Lynn welcomed Murdoch’s plan when he called to ask her about it.
“He asked me (Wednesday), and I said absolutely let’s see if we can’t get it stopped and we can collect some more information,” Lynn said in a telephone interview yesterday.
“At least there should be some investigation to ensure there isn’t a direct health link. If it’s stress related and outrage related, I’m not discounting that. People will get just as sick, and that’s where the policies have to come in,” she said. “We need different policies that protect people from feeling helpless and so on.”
Murdoch’s “weak resolution” isn’t likely to help, since it asks for an investigation by provincial officials who have already ruled wind power is safe, local wind energy opponent Lorrie Gillis said yesterday.
“He’s asking for a declaration from the people who have already put public wind energy ahead of the health of families, so I’m not so impressed,” said Gillis, who represents Wind Concerns Ontario.
Gillis is holding a public meeting at 7 p.m, Oct. 13, at the Flesherton Kinplex to discuss health concerns and industrial wind turbines. Instead of “more rhetoric” she said the government should fund a proper third-party, unbiased study of the people who say the turbines have made them sick.
“To me, the evidence that wind turbines hurt people is there.”
Lynn said there’s no disputing that some people living near the turbines are suffering with a variety of health issues, perhaps partly as a result of their outrage, annoyance and helplessness to be able to do anything about the turbines, she said.
But research so far, in Europe, Canada and elsewhere, has yet to firmly establish a direct health link to the turbines, she added.
“I can make anybody sick by disturbing them enough. You get a nasty neighbour that moves in next door, you’re not going to sleep real well, you’re not going to be able to concentrate and you’re going to get a headache and so on and so. That’s not direct but it certainly is affecting your health and and if you stay in that state long enough you’ll get sick.”
The Grey Bruce health board raised concerns with the provincial government in March after numerous complaints that people near turbines, especially in the Ripley area, were getting sick, but there was no response.
An informal health unit survey found that at least one person at 8% of the 72 homes within a kilometre of the Ripley wind project complained of some related health problems, Lynn said.
Even if those issues don’t relate directly to turbines, government policies should account for the concerns, she said.
“A community that’s divided and disrupted is not a healthy community. So I’m certainly concerned about that,” she said. “I think there are solutions. They’ve certainly found solutions in other places, but some of that has to be in the political will and the political policies.”
“I think they maybe should have looked to other areas and to what other countries have done and different pros and cons before they suddenly said all of our alternate energy is going to be in the wind turbines.”
Mark Davis, an Arran-Elderslie councillor opposed to wind turbines, said yesterday he welcomed Murdoch’s change of heart. Until this week, the MPP had been telling constituents the Green Energy Act is law and nothing can halt wind development now.
Murdoch said yesterday he believed there was nothing further to do about the Green Energy Act. But Wednesday, after a fellow MPP asked to switch the date he would be allowed his members privilege of introducing a motion, he realized that might reopen the discussion at Queen’s Park.
He doesn’t expect the moratorium to pass unless wind power opponents mount a vigorous lobby campaign with Liberal MPPs.
“I’ll be the first to admit it’s a long shot,” Murdoch said.
Davis was set to ask his council to put wind development on hold through an interim control bylaw. But he said a last-minute, unsigned fax from the Ontario government advised municipal councils “they added that to the list of things we can’t do.”
Ontario planning policies do not apply to wind development under the new Green Energy Act, Davis said. The government is “shoving down our throats something the majority of our people don’t want.”
“Personally, if I had my wishes, I don’t want any of them here. Some bought-off health report that minimizes people’s health concerns, I’m not a good listener on that,” he said.
“In this day and age to even consider something that might effect someone’s health is totally absurd,” he said. “Personally I’d ban them, but I don’t have that power nor does council. If the health issues are looked at in an honest and fair way, I think most of us know they won’t be allowed.”
CanWEA spokesman Forrest said at least two regional medical officers of health, in Niagara and in Chatham-Kent, have already released studies saying there is no negative health risk associated with wind turbines as long as all the environment ministry guidelines are followed.
“Based on all available scientific and medical information, it’s CanWEA’s position that infrasound from wind turbines have no direct harmful affect whatsoever on human health,” Forrest said.
“To me this is a real welcome move,” said Dr. Hazel Lynn, the Grey Bruce medical officer of health. “When there’s as much upset as there is, I think the politicians should be paying attention to it.”
Murdoch, the Conservative MPP for Bruce-Grey-Owen Sound, said late yesterday he will introduce a resolution Oct. 29 at Queen’s Park asking to put wind power projects on hold until Ontario’s chief medical officer states definitively whether turbines cause health problems for people who live near them.
Industry spokesman Chris Forrest said yesterday those questions have already been answered, and no scientific or medical evidence links turbines to ill health.
“I think it’s jumping the gun to suggest a moratorium,” said Forrest, who is the vice-president of communications for the Canadian Wind Energy Association. “That would potentially throw thousands of people out of work and possibly drive away billions of dollars in investment at a time when Ontario is losing manufacturing jobs every day.”
Lynn and health unit staff recently held meetings in Owen Sound and Walkerton to hear health concerns related to turbines and to try and move the discussion from protest to some positive action, Lynn said.
She also told the Owen Sound meeting health officials have no jurisdiction over wind turbines and new controls would have to come from political action.
So Lynn welcomed Murdoch’s plan when he called to ask her about it.
“He asked me (Wednesday), and I said absolutely let’s see if we can’t get it stopped and we can collect some more information,” Lynn said in a telephone interview yesterday.
“At least there should be some investigation to ensure there isn’t a direct health link. If it’s stress related and outrage related, I’m not discounting that. People will get just as sick, and that’s where the policies have to come in,” she said. “We need different policies that protect people from feeling helpless and so on.”
Murdoch’s “weak resolution” isn’t likely to help, since it asks for an investigation by provincial officials who have already ruled wind power is safe, local wind energy opponent Lorrie Gillis said yesterday.
“He’s asking for a declaration from the people who have already put public wind energy ahead of the health of families, so I’m not so impressed,” said Gillis, who represents Wind Concerns Ontario.
Gillis is holding a public meeting at 7 p.m, Oct. 13, at the Flesherton Kinplex to discuss health concerns and industrial wind turbines. Instead of “more rhetoric” she said the government should fund a proper third-party, unbiased study of the people who say the turbines have made them sick.
“To me, the evidence that wind turbines hurt people is there.”
Lynn said there’s no disputing that some people living near the turbines are suffering with a variety of health issues, perhaps partly as a result of their outrage, annoyance and helplessness to be able to do anything about the turbines, she said.
But research so far, in Europe, Canada and elsewhere, has yet to firmly establish a direct health link to the turbines, she added.
“I can make anybody sick by disturbing them enough. You get a nasty neighbour that moves in next door, you’re not going to sleep real well, you’re not going to be able to concentrate and you’re going to get a headache and so on and so. That’s not direct but it certainly is affecting your health and and if you stay in that state long enough you’ll get sick.”
The Grey Bruce health board raised concerns with the provincial government in March after numerous complaints that people near turbines, especially in the Ripley area, were getting sick, but there was no response.
An informal health unit survey found that at least one person at 8% of the 72 homes within a kilometre of the Ripley wind project complained of some related health problems, Lynn said.
Even if those issues don’t relate directly to turbines, government policies should account for the concerns, she said.
“A community that’s divided and disrupted is not a healthy community. So I’m certainly concerned about that,” she said. “I think there are solutions. They’ve certainly found solutions in other places, but some of that has to be in the political will and the political policies.”
“I think they maybe should have looked to other areas and to what other countries have done and different pros and cons before they suddenly said all of our alternate energy is going to be in the wind turbines.”
Mark Davis, an Arran-Elderslie councillor opposed to wind turbines, said yesterday he welcomed Murdoch’s change of heart. Until this week, the MPP had been telling constituents the Green Energy Act is law and nothing can halt wind development now.
Murdoch said yesterday he believed there was nothing further to do about the Green Energy Act. But Wednesday, after a fellow MPP asked to switch the date he would be allowed his members privilege of introducing a motion, he realized that might reopen the discussion at Queen’s Park.
He doesn’t expect the moratorium to pass unless wind power opponents mount a vigorous lobby campaign with Liberal MPPs.
“I’ll be the first to admit it’s a long shot,” Murdoch said.
Davis was set to ask his council to put wind development on hold through an interim control bylaw. But he said a last-minute, unsigned fax from the Ontario government advised municipal councils “they added that to the list of things we can’t do.”
Ontario planning policies do not apply to wind development under the new Green Energy Act, Davis said. The government is “shoving down our throats something the majority of our people don’t want.”
“Personally, if I had my wishes, I don’t want any of them here. Some bought-off health report that minimizes people’s health concerns, I’m not a good listener on that,” he said.
“In this day and age to even consider something that might effect someone’s health is totally absurd,” he said. “Personally I’d ban them, but I don’t have that power nor does council. If the health issues are looked at in an honest and fair way, I think most of us know they won’t be allowed.”
CanWEA spokesman Forrest said at least two regional medical officers of health, in Niagara and in Chatham-Kent, have already released studies saying there is no negative health risk associated with wind turbines as long as all the environment ministry guidelines are followed.
“Based on all available scientific and medical information, it’s CanWEA’s position that infrasound from wind turbines have no direct harmful affect whatsoever on human health,” Forrest said.
ALBERT H. BOWERS October 9, 2009 Letter to NYS Department of Environmental Conservation
ALBERT H. BOWERS III
NAVAL ARCHITECT & MARITIME CONSULTANT
P.O. BOX 177 – 11891 ACADEMY STREET
CHAUMONT, NY 13622
(315) 649-2191
BERTNA@TWCNY.RR.COM
October 9, 2009
Mr. Stephen Tomasik, Project Manager
New York State Department of Environmental Conservation
625 Broadway, 4th Floor
Albany, New York 12233-1750
Re: Proposed Transmission Line Cape Vincent/Lyme - St Lawrence Wind - Environmental Impact
Dear Mr. Tomasik:
I have reviewed St Lawrence Wind’s Impact Statement for the proposed transmission line from its proposed wind turbine installation in Cape Vincent, New York to the substation in the neighboring town of Lyme. I have the following specific comments regarding the proposal:
• I am a resident of the Village of Chaumont, Town of Lyme and recognize that there are no positive benefits for residents in Lyme, excepting possible property taxes levied by the Town, from the passage of this distribution line through the Town of Lyme.
• The location of the proposed transmission line follows a former railway bed, which is also the location of a water line, administered by DANC. This water line is the sole water supply to the villages of Chaumont, Brownville, and Glen Park. There is, in my opinion, an unacceptable risk to the continuity and quality of our water supply resulting from the construction and operation of this transmission line in such close proximity to our vital water supply. In addition to the danger posed by construction along this vital corridor, the overhead lines and poles are vulnerable to damage from wind or ice storms and could lead to damage to the water line.
• Lyme has developed a law to govern wind development in the Town. In the survey and public hearings held to develop the wind law, there was a clear majority of the residents who expressed a preference for such transmission lines to be below ground.
In addition to the specific objections stated above to the location and configuration of the transmission lines, I vigorously object to the entire project.
There is no proof that wind turbines, such as those proposed by St Lawrence Wind for Cape Vincent, actually result in lower usage of fossil fuels or greenhouse gas emissions. Several European countries, notably Denmark and Germany, have built many more wind turbines for their size than the US and their Mr. Stephen Tomasik experience shows no improvement in the usage or fossil fuels or reduction of greenhouse gases. The reason for this is the inherently variable nature of wind which means that wind turbines cannot be counted as baseload generating capacity. In fact, the variability of wind is such that other powerplants must be kept spinning in the background to supply the grid whenever the wind speed drops.
All electrical generating sources are quite capital intensive. Wind is the most capital intensive and duplicates already existing baseload generators. Wind, therefore, adds substantially to our cost to generate electricity. Since New York has one of the highest costs in the nation for its electrical power, the addition of wind power will make us less competitive with other states and reduce our likelihood of attracting real businesses to our state.
Wind power would not exist but for the subsidies and tax breaks granted by the federal and state governments and the further kindness towards developers of PILOTs at the local level. I believe New York State should enact a statewide moratorium on wind development until the effects of this form of renewable energy can be thoroughly and dispassionately analyzed for its effects on our overall economic health as well as the effects on the physical health of communities and the natural environment. The wind will always be there, what’s the rush?
Sincerely,
Albert H. Bowers III
cc: Lyme Town Board
Watertown Daily Times, Nancy Madsen
NAVAL ARCHITECT & MARITIME CONSULTANT
P.O. BOX 177 – 11891 ACADEMY STREET
CHAUMONT, NY 13622
(315) 649-2191
BERTNA@TWCNY.RR.COM
October 9, 2009
Mr. Stephen Tomasik, Project Manager
New York State Department of Environmental Conservation
625 Broadway, 4th Floor
Albany, New York 12233-1750
Re: Proposed Transmission Line Cape Vincent/Lyme - St Lawrence Wind - Environmental Impact
Dear Mr. Tomasik:
I have reviewed St Lawrence Wind’s Impact Statement for the proposed transmission line from its proposed wind turbine installation in Cape Vincent, New York to the substation in the neighboring town of Lyme. I have the following specific comments regarding the proposal:
• I am a resident of the Village of Chaumont, Town of Lyme and recognize that there are no positive benefits for residents in Lyme, excepting possible property taxes levied by the Town, from the passage of this distribution line through the Town of Lyme.
• The location of the proposed transmission line follows a former railway bed, which is also the location of a water line, administered by DANC. This water line is the sole water supply to the villages of Chaumont, Brownville, and Glen Park. There is, in my opinion, an unacceptable risk to the continuity and quality of our water supply resulting from the construction and operation of this transmission line in such close proximity to our vital water supply. In addition to the danger posed by construction along this vital corridor, the overhead lines and poles are vulnerable to damage from wind or ice storms and could lead to damage to the water line.
• Lyme has developed a law to govern wind development in the Town. In the survey and public hearings held to develop the wind law, there was a clear majority of the residents who expressed a preference for such transmission lines to be below ground.
In addition to the specific objections stated above to the location and configuration of the transmission lines, I vigorously object to the entire project.
There is no proof that wind turbines, such as those proposed by St Lawrence Wind for Cape Vincent, actually result in lower usage of fossil fuels or greenhouse gas emissions. Several European countries, notably Denmark and Germany, have built many more wind turbines for their size than the US and their Mr. Stephen Tomasik experience shows no improvement in the usage or fossil fuels or reduction of greenhouse gases. The reason for this is the inherently variable nature of wind which means that wind turbines cannot be counted as baseload generating capacity. In fact, the variability of wind is such that other powerplants must be kept spinning in the background to supply the grid whenever the wind speed drops.
All electrical generating sources are quite capital intensive. Wind is the most capital intensive and duplicates already existing baseload generators. Wind, therefore, adds substantially to our cost to generate electricity. Since New York has one of the highest costs in the nation for its electrical power, the addition of wind power will make us less competitive with other states and reduce our likelihood of attracting real businesses to our state.
Wind power would not exist but for the subsidies and tax breaks granted by the federal and state governments and the further kindness towards developers of PILOTs at the local level. I believe New York State should enact a statewide moratorium on wind development until the effects of this form of renewable energy can be thoroughly and dispassionately analyzed for its effects on our overall economic health as well as the effects on the physical health of communities and the natural environment. The wind will always be there, what’s the rush?
Sincerely,
Albert H. Bowers III
cc: Lyme Town Board
Watertown Daily Times, Nancy Madsen
Thursday, October 08, 2009
First Wind receives first state PUC contract
Comments added to the below article:
Gov Blagoavich and Illinois corruption cannot hold a candle to Maine. This article goes to all the major news networks today. Here are a few of the , shall I say distortions of truth.
1) There is no room on the New England Grid for Stetson I ..much less Rollins etc. Easily verifiable.
2) Rates will go up at least 8 % to pay for the transmission lines and wind farms. We pay for them.
3)The contract being awarded is not irony-it is ludicrous since the permit is in litigation.
4) First Wind does not even have the money to build . They got a grant to build Stetson II. They are broke.
When will we get the truth from print news and TV in Maine. It seems as if all stories in BDN and TV news are transcribed from wind energy and govt. reps. First Wind gets all antsy and really is self destructive in times like these. When Mass finally changed law so that green energy could be sold at a higher rate. ...land was taken in Prattsburgh NY by emminent domain. .ME and NY are the designated states to supply wind farm energy to Mass. Does this seem insane since they are so far away and power is lost for every mile of transmission lines? It is . Well maybe NY and ME political and legislative bodies were just crooked enough to make it work. Changing law constantly. Bending the law. Lying with impunity. We need the justice dept. to look into this. IF our attoney general wasn't bought off, he / she would be investigating now.
A subsidiary of the state’s largest wind power manufacturer will get Maine’s first long-term electricity supply contract for its proposed 60-megawatt Rollins Mountain project in Penobscot County, officials said Wednesday.
The Maine Public Utilities Commission unanimously approved awarding the 20-year contract to First Wind Holding LLC, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Evergreen Wind Power III LLC, on Wednesday, state officials said.
“This is good news for ratepayers and renewable energy development in Maine,” commission Chairwoman Sharon Reishus said in a statement.
“The First Wind contract makes it possible for Maine ratepayers to gain energy supply cost benefits from a renewable energy resource, and the company gets the financial assurance the contract provides to become fully operational,” Reishus added.
The contract is the first long-term deal approved since the state restructured its electric utilities in 2000. The state Legislature gave the commission authority in 2006 to create long-term electric generation contracts in order to bring cost benefits to Maine ratepayers, officials said.
Those contracts were supposed to: lower electricity supply costs for Maine consumers; increase renewable capacity; hedge against market prices of electricity; offset costs resulting from new transmission; and provide a lower cost alternative to new transmission investment.
The commission directed Central Maine Power Co. and Bangor Hydro-Electric Co. to share the contract in an 80-20 split, with CMP securing the larger portion, officials said. The decision will be final with completion of the written order.
One irony of the contract is that a state permit allowing the Rollins Wind project — a proposed 40-turbine, $130 million industrial wind site for the Rollins Mountain ridgelines in Burlington, Lee, Lincoln and Winn — is being appealed in Superior Court by the Friends of Lincoln Lakes, a residents’ group.
Also, the project lacks an investor to pay for its construction. The project therefore has no set construction or start-up date, and might not occur at all if the Friends group wins its appeal, said John Lamontagne, First Wind’s spokesman.
“The contract is triggered by the commissioning of the project,” Lamontagne said Wednesday.
However, the securing of the contract will help First Wind draw investors to the project, he said.
“It allows us to secure project financing because of the certainty of the sale of the power once the project is built,” Lamontagne said.
The Maine Department of Environmental Protection issued First Wind of Massachusetts a permit for the Rollins Mountain project in April. Individual towns and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers have also issued permits.
Proponents have praised First Wind as a conscientious creator of wind power, saying the Lincoln Lakes project would create as much as 60 megawatts of pollution-free electricity in peak winds.
The Friends group contends that the turbines would lower land values and threaten human and animal health with light flicker and low-decibel sound; disrupt the pastoral nature of Rollins; and typically generate a fraction of their capacity.
The group argued its case to DEP, but the agency largely dismissed the complaints for lack of evidence. Harry Epp, a leading group member, did not immediately return a telephone message seeking comment on Wednesday night.
It would typically take nine months to a year to build a project like the one proposed for Rollins Mountain, Lamontagne said.
Gov Blagoavich and Illinois corruption cannot hold a candle to Maine. This article goes to all the major news networks today. Here are a few of the , shall I say distortions of truth.
1) There is no room on the New England Grid for Stetson I ..much less Rollins etc. Easily verifiable.
2) Rates will go up at least 8 % to pay for the transmission lines and wind farms. We pay for them.
3)The contract being awarded is not irony-it is ludicrous since the permit is in litigation.
4) First Wind does not even have the money to build . They got a grant to build Stetson II. They are broke.
When will we get the truth from print news and TV in Maine. It seems as if all stories in BDN and TV news are transcribed from wind energy and govt. reps. First Wind gets all antsy and really is self destructive in times like these. When Mass finally changed law so that green energy could be sold at a higher rate. ...land was taken in Prattsburgh NY by emminent domain. .ME and NY are the designated states to supply wind farm energy to Mass. Does this seem insane since they are so far away and power is lost for every mile of transmission lines? It is . Well maybe NY and ME political and legislative bodies were just crooked enough to make it work. Changing law constantly. Bending the law. Lying with impunity. We need the justice dept. to look into this. IF our attoney general wasn't bought off, he / she would be investigating now.
A subsidiary of the state’s largest wind power manufacturer will get Maine’s first long-term electricity supply contract for its proposed 60-megawatt Rollins Mountain project in Penobscot County, officials said Wednesday.
The Maine Public Utilities Commission unanimously approved awarding the 20-year contract to First Wind Holding LLC, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Evergreen Wind Power III LLC, on Wednesday, state officials said.
“This is good news for ratepayers and renewable energy development in Maine,” commission Chairwoman Sharon Reishus said in a statement.
“The First Wind contract makes it possible for Maine ratepayers to gain energy supply cost benefits from a renewable energy resource, and the company gets the financial assurance the contract provides to become fully operational,” Reishus added.
The contract is the first long-term deal approved since the state restructured its electric utilities in 2000. The state Legislature gave the commission authority in 2006 to create long-term electric generation contracts in order to bring cost benefits to Maine ratepayers, officials said.
Those contracts were supposed to: lower electricity supply costs for Maine consumers; increase renewable capacity; hedge against market prices of electricity; offset costs resulting from new transmission; and provide a lower cost alternative to new transmission investment.
The commission directed Central Maine Power Co. and Bangor Hydro-Electric Co. to share the contract in an 80-20 split, with CMP securing the larger portion, officials said. The decision will be final with completion of the written order.
One irony of the contract is that a state permit allowing the Rollins Wind project — a proposed 40-turbine, $130 million industrial wind site for the Rollins Mountain ridgelines in Burlington, Lee, Lincoln and Winn — is being appealed in Superior Court by the Friends of Lincoln Lakes, a residents’ group.
Also, the project lacks an investor to pay for its construction. The project therefore has no set construction or start-up date, and might not occur at all if the Friends group wins its appeal, said John Lamontagne, First Wind’s spokesman.
“The contract is triggered by the commissioning of the project,” Lamontagne said Wednesday.
However, the securing of the contract will help First Wind draw investors to the project, he said.
“It allows us to secure project financing because of the certainty of the sale of the power once the project is built,” Lamontagne said.
The Maine Department of Environmental Protection issued First Wind of Massachusetts a permit for the Rollins Mountain project in April. Individual towns and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers have also issued permits.
Proponents have praised First Wind as a conscientious creator of wind power, saying the Lincoln Lakes project would create as much as 60 megawatts of pollution-free electricity in peak winds.
The Friends group contends that the turbines would lower land values and threaten human and animal health with light flicker and low-decibel sound; disrupt the pastoral nature of Rollins; and typically generate a fraction of their capacity.
The group argued its case to DEP, but the agency largely dismissed the complaints for lack of evidence. Harry Epp, a leading group member, did not immediately return a telephone message seeking comment on Wednesday night.
It would typically take nine months to a year to build a project like the one proposed for Rollins Mountain, Lamontagne said.
Maine approves long-term deal with First Wind
Maine's utility commission today approved a 20-year electricity supply contract with First Wind, the first long-term contract the state has committed to since it deregulated the electricity industry in 2000.
The Maine Public Utilities Commission has reached a deal with First Wind Holdings LLC, a subsidiary of Evergreen Wind Power III LLC, for electricity generated at the company's $130 million, 60-megawatt Rollins Mountain wind farm in Penobscot County, according to a press release from the PUC. No dollar figure can be attached to the contract until it is signed, which is expected to occur next week, Evelyn deFrees, a PUC spokesperson, told Mainebiz.
According to the contract, Central Maine Power Co. will receive 80% of the electricity and Bangor Hydro Electric will receive 20%. The deal will lower energy costs for consumers, increase renewable energy capacity and offset new transmission costs, according to the release. "The First Wind contract makes it possible for Maine ratepayers to gain energy supply cost benefits from a renewable energy resource, and the company gets the financial assurance the contract provides to become fully operational," said PUC Chair Sharon Reishus in the release. In a separate release, First Wind said the agreement "will provide protection against the fluctuating prices of power produced by fossil fuels."
This is the state's first long-term supply contract since deregulation in 2000, and since the Legislature gave approval to the PUC in 2006 to develop long-term energy contracts. The PUC issued a request for proposals for contracts in December 2008 and received the first proposals in April 2009, according to the release. The commission is still considering other proposals it has received, deFrees said.
Massachusetts-based First Wind operates wind farms in northern and Down East Maine under various Evergreen subsidiaries, and earlier this year received approval from the Department of Environmental Protection to build the Rollins Mountain wind farm, which is planned for ridgelines in Burlington, Lee, Lincoln and Winn. Construction is expected to start by the fall of 2010, and the farm will produce enough electricity to power about 23,000 homes, according to First Wind.
The Maine Public Utilities Commission has reached a deal with First Wind Holdings LLC, a subsidiary of Evergreen Wind Power III LLC, for electricity generated at the company's $130 million, 60-megawatt Rollins Mountain wind farm in Penobscot County, according to a press release from the PUC. No dollar figure can be attached to the contract until it is signed, which is expected to occur next week, Evelyn deFrees, a PUC spokesperson, told Mainebiz.
According to the contract, Central Maine Power Co. will receive 80% of the electricity and Bangor Hydro Electric will receive 20%. The deal will lower energy costs for consumers, increase renewable energy capacity and offset new transmission costs, according to the release. "The First Wind contract makes it possible for Maine ratepayers to gain energy supply cost benefits from a renewable energy resource, and the company gets the financial assurance the contract provides to become fully operational," said PUC Chair Sharon Reishus in the release. In a separate release, First Wind said the agreement "will provide protection against the fluctuating prices of power produced by fossil fuels."
This is the state's first long-term supply contract since deregulation in 2000, and since the Legislature gave approval to the PUC in 2006 to develop long-term energy contracts. The PUC issued a request for proposals for contracts in December 2008 and received the first proposals in April 2009, according to the release. The commission is still considering other proposals it has received, deFrees said.
Massachusetts-based First Wind operates wind farms in northern and Down East Maine under various Evergreen subsidiaries, and earlier this year received approval from the Department of Environmental Protection to build the Rollins Mountain wind farm, which is planned for ridgelines in Burlington, Lee, Lincoln and Winn. Construction is expected to start by the fall of 2010, and the farm will produce enough electricity to power about 23,000 homes, according to First Wind.
Wind power generates controversy in Maine
(NECN: Amy Sinclair, Augusta, Maine) - Hundreds of wind energy enthusiasts gathered for Maine’s first "Wind Energy Conference" in Augusta today. Supporters say wind power could mean big business for Maine.
But as NECN's Amy Sinclair reports, not all Mainers are enthusiastic about these winds of change.
To supporters, these turning turbines are symbols of clean renewable energy and economic growth.
Opponents view them as symbols of government waste and environmental destruction.
Both sides came to be heard at Maine’s first statewide wind energy conference held today in Augusta.
And conference spokesperson Sue Jones says that means finding more ways to harness the power of wind both on land and off shore.
Maine's governor, just back from a wind-power trade mission to Europe says because of Maine’s geography, the state has the opportunity to be a national leader in wind power generation.
He's anxious to move the agenda forward because he says New England is in a race with the Midwest to develop a regional wind power plan and access stimulus funding.
Governor: “We do not want a DC line coming from the Midwest to the northeast because that will shut down energy projects for renewable energy in Maine."
Most of the protesters outside the conference didn't object to offshore projects, but they're deeply opposed to turbines on ridgelines almost anywhere in Maine.
Steve: "We're not willing to have these mountains sacrificed for such poor public policy.
They say the citizens of Maine are being left out of what they say is a corrupt process.
Brad: "Industrial wind wouldn't exist without massive subsidies and preferential treatment people in Augusta have given them."
A clear reminder that while wind power has potential in Maine...it's also generating plenty of controversy.
But as NECN's Amy Sinclair reports, not all Mainers are enthusiastic about these winds of change.
To supporters, these turning turbines are symbols of clean renewable energy and economic growth.
Opponents view them as symbols of government waste and environmental destruction.
Both sides came to be heard at Maine’s first statewide wind energy conference held today in Augusta.
And conference spokesperson Sue Jones says that means finding more ways to harness the power of wind both on land and off shore.
Maine's governor, just back from a wind-power trade mission to Europe says because of Maine’s geography, the state has the opportunity to be a national leader in wind power generation.
He's anxious to move the agenda forward because he says New England is in a race with the Midwest to develop a regional wind power plan and access stimulus funding.
Governor: “We do not want a DC line coming from the Midwest to the northeast because that will shut down energy projects for renewable energy in Maine."
Most of the protesters outside the conference didn't object to offshore projects, but they're deeply opposed to turbines on ridgelines almost anywhere in Maine.
Steve: "We're not willing to have these mountains sacrificed for such poor public policy.
They say the citizens of Maine are being left out of what they say is a corrupt process.
Brad: "Industrial wind wouldn't exist without massive subsidies and preferential treatment people in Augusta have given them."
A clear reminder that while wind power has potential in Maine...it's also generating plenty of controversy.
Wednesday, October 07, 2009
Italy rejects wind turbines
Italy, N.Y. — . The Town Board Monday unanimously rejected a proposed wind-turbine project in the town, determining the gigantic power-generating machines would have a negative effect on the environment. The board also agreed it wants to impose a six-month moratorium on wind turbines, though that decision requires a public hearing and final board vote.
“Most people did not want wind turbines,” Town Supervisor Margaret Dunn said Tuesday.
Last month, hundreds of residents in this Yates County town of 1,000, bordering Naples, turned out largely to voice their opposition to turbines in an emotionally charged gathering. Most of the 116 residents who spoke at the meeting were against the machines, said Dunn.
When the board convened Monday, it determined the 17 proposed turbines would have a negative impact due to noise, light flicker and positioning on steep slopes. Dunn said the board was particularly disturbed because the original proposal stated the turbines would not be sited on slopes exceeding 15 percent, yet the environmental study showed some were slated to be built on such slopes.
Resident Vince Johnson, who lives on Italy Hill Turnpike near a targeted turbine site, said he was worried about storm-water runoff from turbines — as well as noise and possible effect on spring-fed wells.
Beth O’Brien is a spokeswoman for Pattern Energy Group, a partner with West Seneca, N.Y.-based Ecogen LLC, which is planning the turbine project. On Tuesday, she said, “We are extremely disappointed in the result of the vote.”
“We really want to build a wind project in this area and bring the economic development benefits to the community.”
Originally, the companies said their plans to put up a total of 33 turbines across Italy and neighboring Prattsburgh, in Steuben County, depended on getting a permit from Italy.
“We are not pulling the plug just yet,” O’Brien said. “We are weighing our options.” She didn’t elaborate on what those options might be.
O’Brien said the wind companies own property in the town and have also signed leases with property owners who agreed to allow turbines on their property. The property owners will be paid according to the lease agreements for the specified time periods, whether or not the turbines get built.
Italy’s decision to at least halt the turbine project temporarily was good news for Naples town officials, who this summer asked the state’s Public Service Commission to stop development of turbines that would be built close to the town line.
The Naples Town Board’s focus has centered on five turbines that Ecogen’s original plans sited on Knapp Hill in Prattsburgh. One would be within 250 feet of the Naples town line, Town Supervisor Frank Duserick said at a recent meeting. It would also be less than 500 feet from a Naples landowner’s property line.
Wind turbines are already towering over the landscape to the south of Naples. Fifty turbines — with most clustered on Pine and Lent hills in Cohocton — installed by another wind energy company, First Wind, became operational early this year. The company’s plans to erect more than 40 additional turbines for a project in Prattsburgh are currently on hold due to financing issues.
Naples Supervisor Duserick maintains the Town Board is not against wind power, but wants to be sure turbines in neighboring towns are placed appropriately. Concerns range from health and safety to the rights of Naples property owners, who live near the town line.
Naples Town Board member Roger Riesenberger said Tuesday he was glad to hear of Italy’s decision. “We feel they are stepping back and looking at the situation to protect people,” he said. “We are glad for this.”
As for Italy, Johnson said the turbine issue has taken its toll on the community. There has been a “social cost,” he said. “Friendships were lost.”
Johnson, a former member of the town’s planning and zoning boards, said he hopes the town uses a moratorium to review and update its laws for development — to help manage wind turbine projects as well as other proposals. And he hopes the community comes back together during that process.
“I hope we can all figure out a way to get on same side of the table,” added Johnson.
“We are strongest together... not fighting one another.”
“Most people did not want wind turbines,” Town Supervisor Margaret Dunn said Tuesday.
Last month, hundreds of residents in this Yates County town of 1,000, bordering Naples, turned out largely to voice their opposition to turbines in an emotionally charged gathering. Most of the 116 residents who spoke at the meeting were against the machines, said Dunn.
When the board convened Monday, it determined the 17 proposed turbines would have a negative impact due to noise, light flicker and positioning on steep slopes. Dunn said the board was particularly disturbed because the original proposal stated the turbines would not be sited on slopes exceeding 15 percent, yet the environmental study showed some were slated to be built on such slopes.
Resident Vince Johnson, who lives on Italy Hill Turnpike near a targeted turbine site, said he was worried about storm-water runoff from turbines — as well as noise and possible effect on spring-fed wells.
Beth O’Brien is a spokeswoman for Pattern Energy Group, a partner with West Seneca, N.Y.-based Ecogen LLC, which is planning the turbine project. On Tuesday, she said, “We are extremely disappointed in the result of the vote.”
“We really want to build a wind project in this area and bring the economic development benefits to the community.”
Originally, the companies said their plans to put up a total of 33 turbines across Italy and neighboring Prattsburgh, in Steuben County, depended on getting a permit from Italy.
“We are not pulling the plug just yet,” O’Brien said. “We are weighing our options.” She didn’t elaborate on what those options might be.
O’Brien said the wind companies own property in the town and have also signed leases with property owners who agreed to allow turbines on their property. The property owners will be paid according to the lease agreements for the specified time periods, whether or not the turbines get built.
Italy’s decision to at least halt the turbine project temporarily was good news for Naples town officials, who this summer asked the state’s Public Service Commission to stop development of turbines that would be built close to the town line.
The Naples Town Board’s focus has centered on five turbines that Ecogen’s original plans sited on Knapp Hill in Prattsburgh. One would be within 250 feet of the Naples town line, Town Supervisor Frank Duserick said at a recent meeting. It would also be less than 500 feet from a Naples landowner’s property line.
Wind turbines are already towering over the landscape to the south of Naples. Fifty turbines — with most clustered on Pine and Lent hills in Cohocton — installed by another wind energy company, First Wind, became operational early this year. The company’s plans to erect more than 40 additional turbines for a project in Prattsburgh are currently on hold due to financing issues.
Naples Supervisor Duserick maintains the Town Board is not against wind power, but wants to be sure turbines in neighboring towns are placed appropriately. Concerns range from health and safety to the rights of Naples property owners, who live near the town line.
Naples Town Board member Roger Riesenberger said Tuesday he was glad to hear of Italy’s decision. “We feel they are stepping back and looking at the situation to protect people,” he said. “We are glad for this.”
As for Italy, Johnson said the turbine issue has taken its toll on the community. There has been a “social cost,” he said. “Friendships were lost.”
Johnson, a former member of the town’s planning and zoning boards, said he hopes the town uses a moratorium to review and update its laws for development — to help manage wind turbine projects as well as other proposals. And he hopes the community comes back together during that process.
“I hope we can all figure out a way to get on same side of the table,” added Johnson.
“We are strongest together... not fighting one another.”
Yates County town rejects wind farm
In what may have been a first for New York state, the Italy Town Board voted Monday night to deny an application from a company that wanted to build an 18-turbine wind farm in the picturesque Yates County town.
"We're all very pleased, and surprised. All of us who have been fighting for so long — our jaws were on the floor. We couldn't believe what we were hearing from our Town Board," said Kathy Johnstone, a resident and a vice president of the Finger Lakes Preservation Association, which opposes the project.
Board members in Italy voted 5 - 0 to deny the application by Ecogen LLC, which lists an address in suburban Buffalo. The company has sought permission to build a total of 34 turbines in the area — 18 in Italy and 16 in the neighboring town of Prattsburgh, Steuben County. The turbines would be 415 feet tall, equal in height to those erected by another company in the adjoining town of Cohocton, Steuben County.
Two lawyers and an engineering consultant working for the town said they were not aware of any other Town Board in the state that has outright rejected a wind-farm application.
The Italy vote could spell the end of the entire two-town project.
"We don't believe we can build the Prattsburgh project without Italy, because of the economies of scale," said Beth O'Brien, a spokeswoman for Ecogen's San Francisco-based partner in the project, Pattern Energy Group. She said the company would "crunch the numbers and see if we can move forward, but internally, the thought had been that it was all or nothing."
The Italy panel also voted to establish a six-month moratorium on accepting any new applications for wind-energy projects, said Town Clerk Debbie Trischler.
Town Supervisor Margaret Dunn said Tuesday that the vote was driven partly by concerns about such things as persistent complaints about turbine noise in Cohocton and Ecogen's plan to build on steep slopes that hadn't been resolved during the application process.
And she said early public support for the wind-farm concept had been overwhelmed by opposition to Ecogen's proposal.
"The board tried to do what is best for the town, but with these new things coming up and the definite town-resident outcry that they did not want to see the turbines — if they don't want them, then that's what I have to listen to," she said. Several hundred people packed a Saturday morning public hearing in the town highway barn several weeks ago, and Johnstone said 80 percent of them were against the plan.
SORR@DemocratandChronicle.com
"We're all very pleased, and surprised. All of us who have been fighting for so long — our jaws were on the floor. We couldn't believe what we were hearing from our Town Board," said Kathy Johnstone, a resident and a vice president of the Finger Lakes Preservation Association, which opposes the project.
Board members in Italy voted 5 - 0 to deny the application by Ecogen LLC, which lists an address in suburban Buffalo. The company has sought permission to build a total of 34 turbines in the area — 18 in Italy and 16 in the neighboring town of Prattsburgh, Steuben County. The turbines would be 415 feet tall, equal in height to those erected by another company in the adjoining town of Cohocton, Steuben County.
Two lawyers and an engineering consultant working for the town said they were not aware of any other Town Board in the state that has outright rejected a wind-farm application.
The Italy vote could spell the end of the entire two-town project.
"We don't believe we can build the Prattsburgh project without Italy, because of the economies of scale," said Beth O'Brien, a spokeswoman for Ecogen's San Francisco-based partner in the project, Pattern Energy Group. She said the company would "crunch the numbers and see if we can move forward, but internally, the thought had been that it was all or nothing."
The Italy panel also voted to establish a six-month moratorium on accepting any new applications for wind-energy projects, said Town Clerk Debbie Trischler.
Town Supervisor Margaret Dunn said Tuesday that the vote was driven partly by concerns about such things as persistent complaints about turbine noise in Cohocton and Ecogen's plan to build on steep slopes that hadn't been resolved during the application process.
And she said early public support for the wind-farm concept had been overwhelmed by opposition to Ecogen's proposal.
"The board tried to do what is best for the town, but with these new things coming up and the definite town-resident outcry that they did not want to see the turbines — if they don't want them, then that's what I have to listen to," she said. Several hundred people packed a Saturday morning public hearing in the town highway barn several weeks ago, and Johnstone said 80 percent of them were against the plan.
SORR@DemocratandChronicle.com
Rep. Massa Attacks Wind Farm Stimulus Funding (VIDEO)
October 6, 2009
Rep. Eric Massa has sent a letter to President Obama urging the Government Accountability Office to investigate stimulus funds awarded in Steuben County.
The government gave First Wind nearly $75 million in stimulus money for the wind farm project in Cohocton. But Massa calls the transaction "alarming."
In his letter to the president, Massa writes, “Constituents in our region see these projects as criminal actions."
Massa says the government should *not* be rewarding first wind, because he says the company has abused the public's trust.
“I am very concerned about the award of these monies when there are so many other projects and requirements throughout the Southern Tier that I believe are higher priority than that $75 million grant to a private and potentially foreign-owned corporation,” said Massa.
In response, First Wind spokesman John Lamontagne tells WENY-TV News, “There were very strict standards in the recovery bill, and our project met them…The funds will serve as a stimulus for further investment in renewable projects -- not just by First Wind, but by others in the industry as well."
Cohocton town supervisor Jack Zigenfus is angry with Massa's letter to the president. He says the wind project has brought in jobs and lowered taxes -- the town has even paid off its debt.
“We’ve bailed out automakers, we've bailed out banks that do business all over the world, and now we get money locally for something that has created something in his own congressional district – I don't know what the guy is thinking,” said Zigenfus.
No word yet if Rep. Massa's heard back from the White House.
(Click to the link to watch the VIDEO)
Rep. Eric Massa has sent a letter to President Obama urging the Government Accountability Office to investigate stimulus funds awarded in Steuben County.
The government gave First Wind nearly $75 million in stimulus money for the wind farm project in Cohocton. But Massa calls the transaction "alarming."
In his letter to the president, Massa writes, “Constituents in our region see these projects as criminal actions."
Massa says the government should *not* be rewarding first wind, because he says the company has abused the public's trust.
“I am very concerned about the award of these monies when there are so many other projects and requirements throughout the Southern Tier that I believe are higher priority than that $75 million grant to a private and potentially foreign-owned corporation,” said Massa.
In response, First Wind spokesman John Lamontagne tells WENY-TV News, “There were very strict standards in the recovery bill, and our project met them…The funds will serve as a stimulus for further investment in renewable projects -- not just by First Wind, but by others in the industry as well."
Cohocton town supervisor Jack Zigenfus is angry with Massa's letter to the president. He says the wind project has brought in jobs and lowered taxes -- the town has even paid off its debt.
“We’ve bailed out automakers, we've bailed out banks that do business all over the world, and now we get money locally for something that has created something in his own congressional district – I don't know what the guy is thinking,” said Zigenfus.
No word yet if Rep. Massa's heard back from the White House.
(Click to the link to watch the VIDEO)
Italy Town Board candidates say they'll reflect residents' wishes
Posted with the permission of The Naples Record, originally published Wednesday October 7, 2009
Three candidates are running for Italy Town Board on the Republican and Independent party lines. Donna Baran and Fred Johnstone are running for the two Town Board openings, and Brad Jones is running for town supervisor.
"We have chosen to run for office because the current Town Board has steadfastly refused to listen to the people of the town and accept the fact that the overwhelming majority do not want the proposed Ecogen industrial wind project," said Jones.
"At every single public hearing over the last five years and in two separate surveys, the people of Italy have said no to the Ecogen project," Jones said. "Yet the Town Board continues to do everything possible to accommodate every whim and desire of the developer and to push the project through before the end of this year. So, our reason for running is pretty simple: we want the future Town Board to reflect and defend the wishes of the townspeople, not the wishes of the hired guns from Riverstone Holdings LLC, the latest owner of the Ecogen project. We believe that the Town Board has a serious responsibility to protect the health and general welfare of its people, and that is exactly what we intend to do."
The incumbents are Supervisor Margaret Dunn and Town Board members Amanda Gorton and Charley Kreuzer. Gorton is not seeking re-election.
Jones and his wife, Linda, reside on the family property on Donley Road. Following a career that included management positions at Eastman Kodak, Alstom S.A and Al Sigl Center, Jones now leads his own consulting business that specializes in human resources and business development. He has extensive experience serving on both corporate and not-for-profit boards.
Johnstone and his wife, Kathy, have lived on Emerson Road for 12 years. He has many years of not-for-profit board experience and currently serves as a captain in the Rochester Fire Department.
Baran and her husband, Leonard, recently moved to their new home on Italy Valley Road from the Virgin Islands where they managed their own business. She has 15 years of experience in community and human services as well as several years of experience on not-for-profit boards.
"We believe that the current board has been so preoccupied with the Ecogen proposal for so many years that other important priorities have been ignored," Johnstone said. "This is not intended to be a criticism of any member of the current board. To the contrary, we appreciate and thank them for the hundreds of hours they have spent dealing with this developer and their army of lawyers."
Jones said that a new board in January would begin its term with a renewed focus on the following issues:
* A three-year plan for town road improvements with clear and objective criteria for all spending.
* Controlling real estate taxes and exhibiting fiscal restraint.
* Improved communications to all interested citizens through newsletters, web site, surveys and e-mail.
* Sustainable economic development working with nearby towns and the Finger Lakes Economic Development Center to develop and implement specific initiatives for long-term economic growth that are sustainable and consistent with residents' wishes and values.
"Following the expressed will of the people, we will move quickly to restore the original Comprehensive Plan prohibiting large scale industrialization in the town," Jones said.
Three candidates are running for Italy Town Board on the Republican and Independent party lines. Donna Baran and Fred Johnstone are running for the two Town Board openings, and Brad Jones is running for town supervisor.
"We have chosen to run for office because the current Town Board has steadfastly refused to listen to the people of the town and accept the fact that the overwhelming majority do not want the proposed Ecogen industrial wind project," said Jones.
"At every single public hearing over the last five years and in two separate surveys, the people of Italy have said no to the Ecogen project," Jones said. "Yet the Town Board continues to do everything possible to accommodate every whim and desire of the developer and to push the project through before the end of this year. So, our reason for running is pretty simple: we want the future Town Board to reflect and defend the wishes of the townspeople, not the wishes of the hired guns from Riverstone Holdings LLC, the latest owner of the Ecogen project. We believe that the Town Board has a serious responsibility to protect the health and general welfare of its people, and that is exactly what we intend to do."
The incumbents are Supervisor Margaret Dunn and Town Board members Amanda Gorton and Charley Kreuzer. Gorton is not seeking re-election.
Jones and his wife, Linda, reside on the family property on Donley Road. Following a career that included management positions at Eastman Kodak, Alstom S.A and Al Sigl Center, Jones now leads his own consulting business that specializes in human resources and business development. He has extensive experience serving on both corporate and not-for-profit boards.
Johnstone and his wife, Kathy, have lived on Emerson Road for 12 years. He has many years of not-for-profit board experience and currently serves as a captain in the Rochester Fire Department.
Baran and her husband, Leonard, recently moved to their new home on Italy Valley Road from the Virgin Islands where they managed their own business. She has 15 years of experience in community and human services as well as several years of experience on not-for-profit boards.
"We believe that the current board has been so preoccupied with the Ecogen proposal for so many years that other important priorities have been ignored," Johnstone said. "This is not intended to be a criticism of any member of the current board. To the contrary, we appreciate and thank them for the hundreds of hours they have spent dealing with this developer and their army of lawyers."
Jones said that a new board in January would begin its term with a renewed focus on the following issues:
* A three-year plan for town road improvements with clear and objective criteria for all spending.
* Controlling real estate taxes and exhibiting fiscal restraint.
* Improved communications to all interested citizens through newsletters, web site, surveys and e-mail.
* Sustainable economic development working with nearby towns and the Finger Lakes Economic Development Center to develop and implement specific initiatives for long-term economic growth that are sustainable and consistent with residents' wishes and values.
"Following the expressed will of the people, we will move quickly to restore the original Comprehensive Plan prohibiting large scale industrialization in the town," Jones said.
Tuesday, October 06, 2009
Invenergy applies for wind farm in Orangeville
ORANGEVILLE -- Invenergy has formally submitted its application for a 59-turbine wind farm within the town.
The Chicago-based company applied this past Friday to the town for a special use permit. The project -- called the Stony Creek Wind Farm -- would represent a direct capital investment of $175 million.
As proposed, it would pay more than $500,000 annually to the town as tax relief, along with $100,000 to area schools, fire departments and Wyoming County.
"After several years of measuring wind speeds and conducting background evaluations to determine the viability of a wind project, we are pleased to finally submit applications under the town's recently-approved zoning ordinance," said Senior Development Manager Jay Schoenberger in a news release.
The application marks the start of the State Environmental Quality Review process that will consider any potential environmental impacts.
Schoenberger estimates the process could take up to a year to complete, with construction starting in 2011. But the town would still need to approve or turn down the project.
Invenergy estimates Stony Creek would produce enough electricity to power 30,000 households annually.
The project -- much like the neighboring High Sheldon Wind Farm -- has already generated its share of controversy among town residents. Opponents and supporters are offering vocal opinions for and against the proposed development.
Invenergy dedicated the High Sheldon Wind Farm this past June in the neighboring town of Sheldon. It includes 75 turbines, each approaching 400 feet tall.
High Sheldon can produce a theoretical maximum of 112.5 megawatts, which powers about 45,000 households at any given time. It's essentially eliminated town taxes, with the town receiving about $1 million annually throughout the project's lifespan, among other benefits.
The New York State Common Retirement Fund has also invested $15 million in the wind farm.
But some Sheldon residents have experienced serious problems involving shadow flicker, noise, television interference and other issues.
Invenergy owns and operates 14 such wind farms nationwide.
The Chicago-based company applied this past Friday to the town for a special use permit. The project -- called the Stony Creek Wind Farm -- would represent a direct capital investment of $175 million.
As proposed, it would pay more than $500,000 annually to the town as tax relief, along with $100,000 to area schools, fire departments and Wyoming County.
"After several years of measuring wind speeds and conducting background evaluations to determine the viability of a wind project, we are pleased to finally submit applications under the town's recently-approved zoning ordinance," said Senior Development Manager Jay Schoenberger in a news release.
The application marks the start of the State Environmental Quality Review process that will consider any potential environmental impacts.
Schoenberger estimates the process could take up to a year to complete, with construction starting in 2011. But the town would still need to approve or turn down the project.
Invenergy estimates Stony Creek would produce enough electricity to power 30,000 households annually.
The project -- much like the neighboring High Sheldon Wind Farm -- has already generated its share of controversy among town residents. Opponents and supporters are offering vocal opinions for and against the proposed development.
Invenergy dedicated the High Sheldon Wind Farm this past June in the neighboring town of Sheldon. It includes 75 turbines, each approaching 400 feet tall.
High Sheldon can produce a theoretical maximum of 112.5 megawatts, which powers about 45,000 households at any given time. It's essentially eliminated town taxes, with the town receiving about $1 million annually throughout the project's lifespan, among other benefits.
The New York State Common Retirement Fund has also invested $15 million in the wind farm.
But some Sheldon residents have experienced serious problems involving shadow flicker, noise, television interference and other issues.
Invenergy owns and operates 14 such wind farms nationwide.
Italy says 'No' to Ecogen Wind Farm
Italy, N.Y.
The Italy Town Board took three actions Monday night to stop the development of a wind farm in the town.
Ecogen LLC applied to develop up to 24 turbines in 2007. Since then, the project was adjusted to 18 turbines as part of a wind farm placed on property in the Yates County Town of Italy and the Steuben County Town of Prattsburgh.
As a group of steadfast town residents watched, the board carefully reviewed and made minor revisions to a six-page resolution denying the application for a special use permit to build and operate a wind farm on Emerson Road. The board agreed unanimously to adopt the resolution denying the application.
The resolution also denied the application for incentive zoning, which would have established amenities and benefits to compensate the town for the adverse impact of the industrial wind farm.
Those amenities and benefits would have included a nearly $1.5 million one time payment plus over $430,000 in annual benefits. But Frank Sciremammano, the engineer contracted by the town to complete the environmental review of the project, said those benefits would be less than the revenue the town could receive if the wind farm was built and was fully taxed by the town. He estimated that annual amount at over $800,000 — far more than the town’s $600,000 annual total tax levy.
When asked what message this sends to town residents, Supervisor Margaret Dunn said, “I’m hoping it sends a message that this town board has never stopped listening, but we had to take the steps necessary to get to this.”
Kathy Johnstone, whose property neighbors one of the locations where the company wants to construct 400 ft. tall turbines, said she was surprised by the board’s action.
“I’m relieved that they are going to step back and take a closer look,” she said, adding, “I almost cried. This means some protection for my home.”
In conjunction with denying the application, the board unanimously agreed to a negative finding with respect to the state environmental quality review (SEQR). In another multi-page document, the board agreed that the adverse effects from the wind farm would outweigh the amenities and benefits proposed by Ecogen, LLC (Ecogen is now a partner with Pattern Energy).
Finally, the board unanimously agreed to adopt a local law placing a six month moratorium on the development of wind farms and associated infrastructure in the town.
During the moratorium, the town board will reconsider the town’s comprehensive plan and zoning laws related to industrial wind farm development.
A public hearing on the proposed local law will be held at 7 p.m. Oct. 27. That local law will also be reviewed by the Yates County Planning Board on Oct. 22.
Ecogen attorney Dan Spitzer said he was very disappointed in the development and added, “This is clearly based on generalized public opposition. We’ll see where it goes from here, but we appreciate all the hard work the board did.”
The board agreed with Sciremammano’s determinations that the adverse affects, such as noise, shadow flicker and decreased property value could not be offset by the amenities and benefits offered by the company.
In rejecting the SEQR findings, the board rejected conclusions that had been made by the Steuben County Industrial Development Agency (SCIDA), which had completed environmental review documents for the entire wind farm application, which includes turbine sites in the town of Prattsburgh.
Sciremammano said the SCIDA approved SEQR documents did not address Italy’s steep slope development requirements or mature wooded areas, and ignored the scenic value of the area as identified by the town.
He also noted that the widespread opposition by land owners, and recent noise issues experienced by property owners in the nearby Cohocton wind farm development were factors in the negative finding.
Dunn said in the past, town residents had looked favorably on wind farm development by a broad margin. In response, the town adopted a comprehensive plan and corresponding local regulations for the development. In February, the town board approved the Incentive Zoning for Industrial Wind Turbines by a 4-1 vote.
“Obviously, they (residents) changed their minds,” she said, noting there was likely a combination of a change in the people who spoke out about the issue as new residents moved into the town and a change of opinion within the town when residents learned about the negative experiences reported from other nearby wind farms.
The wind farm development has been the subject of lawsuits in Italy. In March 2006 Ecogen filed a federal lawsuit complaining about the length of the moratorium. The court ruled in favor of the town, but it cost the town nearly $80,000 in legal fees.
In June 2009, the Finger Lakes Preservation Association, an unincorporated association of property owners in Italy, filed a suit in Yates County against the town and Ecogen. The group is seeking repeal of the local law laying the groundwork for wind farm development, according to Dunn.
Litigants expect a decision within days.
The Italy Town Board took three actions Monday night to stop the development of a wind farm in the town.
Ecogen LLC applied to develop up to 24 turbines in 2007. Since then, the project was adjusted to 18 turbines as part of a wind farm placed on property in the Yates County Town of Italy and the Steuben County Town of Prattsburgh.
As a group of steadfast town residents watched, the board carefully reviewed and made minor revisions to a six-page resolution denying the application for a special use permit to build and operate a wind farm on Emerson Road. The board agreed unanimously to adopt the resolution denying the application.
The resolution also denied the application for incentive zoning, which would have established amenities and benefits to compensate the town for the adverse impact of the industrial wind farm.
Those amenities and benefits would have included a nearly $1.5 million one time payment plus over $430,000 in annual benefits. But Frank Sciremammano, the engineer contracted by the town to complete the environmental review of the project, said those benefits would be less than the revenue the town could receive if the wind farm was built and was fully taxed by the town. He estimated that annual amount at over $800,000 — far more than the town’s $600,000 annual total tax levy.
When asked what message this sends to town residents, Supervisor Margaret Dunn said, “I’m hoping it sends a message that this town board has never stopped listening, but we had to take the steps necessary to get to this.”
Kathy Johnstone, whose property neighbors one of the locations where the company wants to construct 400 ft. tall turbines, said she was surprised by the board’s action.
“I’m relieved that they are going to step back and take a closer look,” she said, adding, “I almost cried. This means some protection for my home.”
In conjunction with denying the application, the board unanimously agreed to a negative finding with respect to the state environmental quality review (SEQR). In another multi-page document, the board agreed that the adverse effects from the wind farm would outweigh the amenities and benefits proposed by Ecogen, LLC (Ecogen is now a partner with Pattern Energy).
Finally, the board unanimously agreed to adopt a local law placing a six month moratorium on the development of wind farms and associated infrastructure in the town.
During the moratorium, the town board will reconsider the town’s comprehensive plan and zoning laws related to industrial wind farm development.
A public hearing on the proposed local law will be held at 7 p.m. Oct. 27. That local law will also be reviewed by the Yates County Planning Board on Oct. 22.
Ecogen attorney Dan Spitzer said he was very disappointed in the development and added, “This is clearly based on generalized public opposition. We’ll see where it goes from here, but we appreciate all the hard work the board did.”
The board agreed with Sciremammano’s determinations that the adverse affects, such as noise, shadow flicker and decreased property value could not be offset by the amenities and benefits offered by the company.
In rejecting the SEQR findings, the board rejected conclusions that had been made by the Steuben County Industrial Development Agency (SCIDA), which had completed environmental review documents for the entire wind farm application, which includes turbine sites in the town of Prattsburgh.
Sciremammano said the SCIDA approved SEQR documents did not address Italy’s steep slope development requirements or mature wooded areas, and ignored the scenic value of the area as identified by the town.
He also noted that the widespread opposition by land owners, and recent noise issues experienced by property owners in the nearby Cohocton wind farm development were factors in the negative finding.
Dunn said in the past, town residents had looked favorably on wind farm development by a broad margin. In response, the town adopted a comprehensive plan and corresponding local regulations for the development. In February, the town board approved the Incentive Zoning for Industrial Wind Turbines by a 4-1 vote.
“Obviously, they (residents) changed their minds,” she said, noting there was likely a combination of a change in the people who spoke out about the issue as new residents moved into the town and a change of opinion within the town when residents learned about the negative experiences reported from other nearby wind farms.
The wind farm development has been the subject of lawsuits in Italy. In March 2006 Ecogen filed a federal lawsuit complaining about the length of the moratorium. The court ruled in favor of the town, but it cost the town nearly $80,000 in legal fees.
In June 2009, the Finger Lakes Preservation Association, an unincorporated association of property owners in Italy, filed a suit in Yates County against the town and Ecogen. The group is seeking repeal of the local law laying the groundwork for wind farm development, according to Dunn.
Litigants expect a decision within days.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)