Local governments are beginning to flex their permitting authority to challenge commercial-scale wind farms, a trend some industry observers say could impede broader federal efforts to expand renewable energy production.
The latest round in the emerging battle between local governments and wind-energy developers occurred last week in Kansas, where the state Supreme Court upheld a Wabaunsee County zoning ordinance banning industrial-scale wind development across 791-square miles of tallgrass prairie that county officials say should remain unsullied by wind turbines and transmission lines. Alma, the seat of the 7,000-population county, sits roughly 30 miles west of Topeka.
Experts say the Wabaunsee ordinance, unanimously upheld by the Kansas court, is a key test of local governments' power to effectively ban large-scale wind farms, as opposed to blocking a specific project or proposal. "This case is unique in that it involves a blanket order," said Ron Keefover, a spokesman for the Kansas Supreme Court.
Wabaunsee County is among a handful of local governments -- from Bay Township, Mich., to Clive, Iowa, to Lincolnshire, Ill. -- that have enacted such bans, either permanently or temporarily, to ban commerical-scale wind development. Yet many more cases are likely to emerge as renewable energy developers, flush with federal grants and tax credits, try to meet the Obama administration's goal to revolutionize the way energy is produced in the United States, with a major emphasis on expanding renewable resources like wind, solar and biomass.
While a number of proposals have been slowed by environmentalists concerned that new energy plants and associated infrastructure will destroy valuable plant and wildlife habitat, most of those challenges involve the siting of turbines, solar arrays or powerlines on protected lands such as parks, wildlife refuges or wilderness areas.
The Wabaunsee County zoning law, by contrast, targets the development of wind projects on private lands, something industry representatives and others say could set a dangerous precedent.
Broader implications
"What we could be seeing here is the first chink in the armor of private property rights" as it relates to wind-power development, said Eric Bearse, a spokesman for the Wind Coalition, a group of energy companies and advocacy groups supporting what they consider responsible wind-power development in the southcentral United States.
That chink is "potentially problematic" for renewable energy development from the Midwest to the East Coast where most land is privately owned, said Benjamin Israel, an energy transactional lawyer at the Philadelphia-based law firm of Duane Morris LLC, which represents wind, solar and other renewable energy developers.
"I would say there's a growing sophistication among wind-power opponents to use various tactics to delay or prohibit commercial-scale wind projects throughout the U.S.," Israel said.
Such strategies could become more apparent in states like Kansas, which has become a magnet for wind-power developers. According to recent statistics from the American Wind Energy Association, Kansas' 450 megawatts of newly installed wind generation in 2008 trailed only three other states: Texas, Iowa and Minnesota.
But it is not just a problem for Middle America.
Frank Maisano, an energy specialist at the law firm Bracewell & Giuliani, which represents wind-power developers in the mid-Atlantic, said officials in western Maryland's Allegany County all but killed a proposal to build 25 turbines on a local mountain crest by adopting retroactive zoning requirements limiting where the turbines could be sited.
The project, sought by Pennsylvania-based U.S. Wind Force LLC had already obtained two building permits to start construction, but the Allegany commissioner's zoning changes "made the project unworkable," Maisano said.
Of course, local officials are entitled to pass laws that preserve landscapes and protect community standards for development. But, Maisano said, by rejecting clean energy development, communities risk undermining their long-term economic stability.
"I think it's a stupid policy," Maisano said of zoning ordinances aimed at banning wind farms.
As for the Kansas case, Maisano said the issue is less about the Supreme Court's decision to uphold the ban than the local officials' decision to impose it in the first place. "It seems to me that in Kansas if that county commission wants to take that approach, they're missing a great opportunity," he said.
Slowing big wind
But Wabaunsee County's path to banning large-scale wind farms was not a knee-jerk response by a few elected officials, nor was it based on the complaints of a few property owners who resisted the idea of seeing wind turbines out their back windows.
Rather, officials say, Wabaunsee's three-member board of county commissioners saw as early as 2004 that their county was going to become a bull's eye for wind-power development. The Department of Energy considers east-central Kansas, where Wabaunsee County is located, to have good wind-power potential, and a number of projects had either been built or were proposed for neighboring counties.
During the course of 54 public meetings on the proposed zoning changes, the commission heard overwhelming testimony from county residents who feared that a glut of wind turbines, some towering as high as 425 feet, would ruin the character of the Flint Hills, one of North America's last remnants of native tallgrass prairie.
"They didn't want them because of the general notion that this would be an eyesore," said David Stuewe, the county's zoning administrator.
So in 2004 county law was changed to restrict wind turbine height to no more than 120 feet -- roughly twice the hight of a standard utility line pole -- and to limit turbine density to no more than one per every 20 acres.
Beyond the concerns about unsightliness, however, commissioners were motivated by a desire to preserve the native tallgrass prairie -- which has been reduced from 140 million acres a century and a half ago to 6 million acres today in Kansas, Oklahoma and Nebraska. Most of the habitat loss has come with expansion of agricultural lands over the last century.
Ron Klataske, executive director of Audubon of Kansas, said he supports Wabaunsee County's efforts to save the Flint Hills prairie and its remaining species, including the federally threatened greater prairie chicken, from new forms of development. Moreover, he said he hopes the Kansas Supreme Court's decision will embolden other counties to take similar steps.
"We as an organization favor renewable energy, but we could no more support wind-power development in the Flint Hills than we could if it was being proposed on the Arctic Plains," Klataske said. "We hope this [decision] will continue to send a signal to industrial wind-power developers that they need to be sensitive to site selection."
Remaining issues
But the decision also raises some complicated constitutional questions that could have implications for domestic energy development and the ability of local governments to regulate it. The Kansas Supreme Court has agreed to hear those arguments in briefs and oral arguments due in the coming months.
Among the arguments to receive further review are claims by property owners and industry representatives that the county violated the U.S. Constitution's "takings clause" by prohibiting wind-power developers from entering agreements with private landowners. Several Wabaunsee County property owners had obtained written agreements with wind-power developers that turbines would be built on their land if the firms decided to build in the region.
Moreover, industry lawyers argue that the county ordinance violates the Constitution's commerce clause by interfering with interstate transfer of goods and services. In legal documents, they argue the commission's action "is no different than banning all oil and gas wells in Wabaunsee County and preventing use of mineral interests."
Attorneys for the county, however, argued that to prove a violation of the Constitution's takings clause, wind-power developers "must demonstrate a deprivation of all economic beneficial use of the parcel as a whole, not just their 'discrete segment' of wind rights."
Bruce Waugh, an attorney and Wabaunsee County ranch owner who testified at public meetings in favor of the countywide ban, said he believes the county will prevail, particularly since the court has already ruled that the ordinance met the state's statutory requirement for reasonableness.
"That's probably the biggest impact of this case," Waugh said. "A ruling that it was not unreasonable to prohibit [wind farms] clearly puts to bed the notion that counties cannot keep them out."
But, he added, "I can see why wind developers would be very concerned by all this. For them, maybe they are not accustomed to people saying it's not the most environmentally favorable thing to build a wind turbine. But the evidence in Wabaunsee County shows that doing so would do more environmental harm than good."
Scott Streater writes from Colorado Springs, Colo.
Saturday, November 07, 2009
Wind Turbines - The Big Lie - Exposed Part 1
Part 1 of the Hal Graham interview on the regrets of a First Wind leaseholder. Mr. Graham's experience is a lesson for any land owner considering signing an industrial wind turbine lease.
Wind Turbines - The Big Lie - Exposed Part 2
Part 2 of the Hal Graham interview on the regrets of a First Wind leaseholder. Mr. Graham's experience is a lesson for any land owner considering signing an industrial wind turbine lease.
Wind Turbines - The Big Lie - Exposed Part 3
Part 3 of the Hal Graham interview on the regrets of a First Wind leaseholder. Mr. Graham's experience is a lesson for any land owner considering signing an industrial wind turbine lease.
Friday, November 06, 2009
A thoughtful proposal for Clayton's wind law
Speaking as a resident with property in both the towns of Clayton and Orleans, and one who is keenly interested in the subject of wind turbine safety, I am very proud to salute Clayton Supervisor Justin Taylor and his board. They accepted the recommendations of the Wind Turbine Commission for changes to the current law regarding industrial wind development. It is my fervent hope and expectation that they now will follow through promptly with those recommendations.
The 12-member commission, appointed late in 2008, was charged with the heavy responsibility to thoroughly study any possible turbine-related health and safety risks to the residents and how best to protect us. As the town board had received considerable and conflicting evidence surrounding safety features of industrial wind facilities, they wisely selected six well-informed residents who had found the turbines to be safe and six residents who had presented evidence to the contrary. Their recommendations were impressive, thoughtful, factual, scientific and totally devoid of emotion and/or opinions. I salute each member.
In the meantime, some "johnnies-come-lately" continued sporadically to offer emotional pleas and promotional documents with comments already studied and either discarded or accepted by the board. Such is standard procedure in the manufacturing world.
Residents who are interested would be wise to look into the scientific, deep and lengthy research conducted by two brothers, Hilkat and Oguz Soysal, professors in the Department of Physics and Engineering, Frostburg State University, Maryland. They are fully knowledgeable of the many methods and the proper equipment physicists and engineers use to measure noise frequencies in things such as industrial wind turbines.
Frank Andre
LaFargeville
The 12-member commission, appointed late in 2008, was charged with the heavy responsibility to thoroughly study any possible turbine-related health and safety risks to the residents and how best to protect us. As the town board had received considerable and conflicting evidence surrounding safety features of industrial wind facilities, they wisely selected six well-informed residents who had found the turbines to be safe and six residents who had presented evidence to the contrary. Their recommendations were impressive, thoughtful, factual, scientific and totally devoid of emotion and/or opinions. I salute each member.
In the meantime, some "johnnies-come-lately" continued sporadically to offer emotional pleas and promotional documents with comments already studied and either discarded or accepted by the board. Such is standard procedure in the manufacturing world.
Residents who are interested would be wise to look into the scientific, deep and lengthy research conducted by two brothers, Hilkat and Oguz Soysal, professors in the Department of Physics and Engineering, Frostburg State University, Maryland. They are fully knowledgeable of the many methods and the proper equipment physicists and engineers use to measure noise frequencies in things such as industrial wind turbines.
Frank Andre
LaFargeville
Wind law could benefit company
Despite significant opposition in Western Massachusetts, state environmental affairs secretary Ian Bowles is pushing hard to get a controversial wind-turbine law passed before the legislative session ends on Nov. 18.
The bill could benefit a wind-energy firm, recently relocated to Boston, whose chief executive helped co-author the proposed law and whose financial backers have close ties to the Obama administration.
With the bill before the Legislature’s joint committee on telecommunications, utilites and energy, Bowles met this week with House Speaker Robert DeLeo in an effort to move it along.
“The secretary is very supportive of this bill and anxious to see it move,” Bowles’ spokesman Robert Keough told the Herald.
The Wind Energy Siting Reform Act aims to streamline the permitting process for commercial wind turbine developers. Supporters say its passage will make it much easier for wind-energy firms to operate here, while critics say it will strip communities of their rights.
“Massachusetts is a state of independent communities,” said Eleanor Tillinghast, who lives in the Berkshires, where the turbines will most likely be erected. “If this bill is passed, it will undermine towns’ abilities to develop in the ways they think are most appropriate.”
Keough disagreed, saying the bill has been revised to better protect local interests.
Still, the Berkshire Regional Planning Commission maintains its opposition to the proposal, while some environmental groups say it hasn’t been properly vetted.
On Beacon Hill, the bill is seen by some as the next step in Gov. Deval Patrick’s broad plan to position clean energy as the state’s next economic development engine.
Now, the bill’s critics are wondering if a controversial wind-energy firm with ties to the White House may be poised to benefit.
First Wind Energy Holdings, LLC, which runs five wind farms and has many more in development, just relocated to Boston.
Its chief executive, Paul Gaynor, sat on the state commission that wrote the bill, and its main investors are Chicago private-equity firm Madison Dearborn Partners and the New York hedge fund D.E. Shaw.
Rahm Emanuel, President Obama’s chief of staff, has in the past called executives at Madison Dearborn supporters and friends. Lawrence Summers, director of Obama’s National Economic Council, made more than $5 million as a D.E. Shaw managing director.
Obama’s decision to give the firm $115 million in stimulus funds outraged people in New York, where the attorney general has investigated First Wind for corruption.
A First Wind spokesman said the company has no immediate plan to build in Massachusetts.
Keough said if the bill passes, that could change. “They’ve shown little interest in (Massachusetts) so far, because the permitting process is so uncertain and perilous,” he said.
The bill could benefit a wind-energy firm, recently relocated to Boston, whose chief executive helped co-author the proposed law and whose financial backers have close ties to the Obama administration.
With the bill before the Legislature’s joint committee on telecommunications, utilites and energy, Bowles met this week with House Speaker Robert DeLeo in an effort to move it along.
“The secretary is very supportive of this bill and anxious to see it move,” Bowles’ spokesman Robert Keough told the Herald.
The Wind Energy Siting Reform Act aims to streamline the permitting process for commercial wind turbine developers. Supporters say its passage will make it much easier for wind-energy firms to operate here, while critics say it will strip communities of their rights.
“Massachusetts is a state of independent communities,” said Eleanor Tillinghast, who lives in the Berkshires, where the turbines will most likely be erected. “If this bill is passed, it will undermine towns’ abilities to develop in the ways they think are most appropriate.”
Keough disagreed, saying the bill has been revised to better protect local interests.
Still, the Berkshire Regional Planning Commission maintains its opposition to the proposal, while some environmental groups say it hasn’t been properly vetted.
On Beacon Hill, the bill is seen by some as the next step in Gov. Deval Patrick’s broad plan to position clean energy as the state’s next economic development engine.
Now, the bill’s critics are wondering if a controversial wind-energy firm with ties to the White House may be poised to benefit.
First Wind Energy Holdings, LLC, which runs five wind farms and has many more in development, just relocated to Boston.
Its chief executive, Paul Gaynor, sat on the state commission that wrote the bill, and its main investors are Chicago private-equity firm Madison Dearborn Partners and the New York hedge fund D.E. Shaw.
Rahm Emanuel, President Obama’s chief of staff, has in the past called executives at Madison Dearborn supporters and friends. Lawrence Summers, director of Obama’s National Economic Council, made more than $5 million as a D.E. Shaw managing director.
Obama’s decision to give the firm $115 million in stimulus funds outraged people in New York, where the attorney general has investigated First Wind for corruption.
A First Wind spokesman said the company has no immediate plan to build in Massachusetts.
Keough said if the bill passes, that could change. “They’ve shown little interest in (Massachusetts) so far, because the permitting process is so uncertain and perilous,” he said.
Wind-energy firm takes town of Italy to court
Angered by a Town Board vote in Italy, Yates County, to kill a turbine proposal, a wind-energy company is asking a judge to override the elected board members and allow the project to go forward.
Ecogen Wind LLC, which had been seeking permission from the town government to erect 17 415-foot-tall wind turbines in hilly Italy, claimed in its court papers filed Wednesday afternoon that town leaders dodged and delayed a decision on the proposal since 2002.
When board members finally did vote 5-to-0 in early October to deny Ecogen the approvals it needed, the company argues in legal papers, that action was illegal and based on reasons that Ecogen lawyers said were “demonstrably false and/or pretextural.”
The legal action will ask a state Supreme Court judge to reverse the Town Board action and grant Ecogen the permit it needs to proceed, or to order the Town Board to issue the permit.
Ecogen, based in suburban Buffalo, and partner Pattern Energy of San Francisco have planned to build another 16 turbines in adjoining areas of Prattsburgh, Steuben County. The two-county wind farm would have the capacity to generate up to about 76 megawatts of electricity.
Because the Italy Town Board also declared a moratorium on any wind-related construction, the unbuilt Prattsburgh turbines also are effectively blocked because they would connect to the transmission grid through an electrical substation in to be built in Italy.
Italy Town Supervisor Margaret Dunn could not immediately be reached for comment this afternoon, and town attorney Edward Brockman declined to comment because he had not seen the legal papers.
Ironically, Dunn and two Town Board members who voted to deny the permit to Ecogen were ousted from office in voting Tuesday in favor of stridently anti-turbine candidates.
Brad Jones, the supervisor-elect, said he could not comment on the lawsuit because he had not seen the court papers. But he voted that the Town Board would “continue to represent the expressed desires in the town, which is to resist industrialization.”
Ecogen Wind LLC, which had been seeking permission from the town government to erect 17 415-foot-tall wind turbines in hilly Italy, claimed in its court papers filed Wednesday afternoon that town leaders dodged and delayed a decision on the proposal since 2002.
When board members finally did vote 5-to-0 in early October to deny Ecogen the approvals it needed, the company argues in legal papers, that action was illegal and based on reasons that Ecogen lawyers said were “demonstrably false and/or pretextural.”
The legal action will ask a state Supreme Court judge to reverse the Town Board action and grant Ecogen the permit it needs to proceed, or to order the Town Board to issue the permit.
Ecogen, based in suburban Buffalo, and partner Pattern Energy of San Francisco have planned to build another 16 turbines in adjoining areas of Prattsburgh, Steuben County. The two-county wind farm would have the capacity to generate up to about 76 megawatts of electricity.
Because the Italy Town Board also declared a moratorium on any wind-related construction, the unbuilt Prattsburgh turbines also are effectively blocked because they would connect to the transmission grid through an electrical substation in to be built in Italy.
Italy Town Supervisor Margaret Dunn could not immediately be reached for comment this afternoon, and town attorney Edward Brockman declined to comment because he had not seen the legal papers.
Ironically, Dunn and two Town Board members who voted to deny the permit to Ecogen were ousted from office in voting Tuesday in favor of stridently anti-turbine candidates.
Brad Jones, the supervisor-elect, said he could not comment on the lawsuit because he had not seen the court papers. But he voted that the Town Board would “continue to represent the expressed desires in the town, which is to resist industrialization.”
Thursday, November 05, 2009
Naples School District, SCIDA and First Wind Legal Settlement by James Hall
Published in The Naples Record on Wednesday November 4, 2009 under the title Selling taxpayers short and subtitle - Why didn't NCS fully tax wind turbines? - Was the Naples School Board duped into settling with Cohocton wind farm developer?
Naples School District taxpayers,
Kimberle A. Ward Superintendent of Naples Central School responded to Cohocton Wind Watch on an expanded FOIL request, dated October 26, 2009
The NCSD Board voted to accept and settle a legal action against the Town of Cohocton, First Wind and SCIDA on the taxation of three industrial turbines that are located within the district.
These three turbines are presently being taxed at a value, established by the Cohocton Assessors, of $7,500,000 by the Atlanta Fire District.
Mrs. Ward’s response to the original FOIL provided a copy of a new PILOT that the School Board accepted as part of the settlement. The value of this new PILOT is lower than the original SCIDA PILOT for the First Wind project.
The independent taxing authority of the Naples School District to bill First Wind for the full $7.5 million dollar amount should be self-evident. SCIDA jurisdiction to force taxation districts outside of Steuben County to accept a ridiculously lower PILOT is an absurd claim. However, this legal principle and the interest of the Naples taxpayers do not seem to be a concern for the district’s law firm Harter Secrest.
Ronald Mendrick is the legal counsel for the NCSD and presented the settlement agreement to the board. He provided documents to the Board that were incomplete before their vote to accept.
Mrs. Ward’s letter states: “1. The Naples Central School District is not in possession of the documents you are requesting”.
The Schedule B of the new PILOT should have included the actual contracts of the leaseholder agreements with First Wind. Your Board was never provided those contracts for review. This is especially important since a leaseholder is pursuing a legal challenge that those leases are based upon fraud.
This is not a minor point, especially in light of the recent Department of Energy grant of $74,600,000 to First Wind. A poverty hardship for a PILOT is not in play. So why would SCIDA approve such a meager levy for First Wind? Why would the law firm for the district rollover and never advise the board to send out a tax bill for the entire amount that is already on the rolls?
It looks like SCIDA is in the business of selling tax exemptions. They receive 1% of the cost of the entire project for granting a PILOT. First Wind acknowledges to the Security and Exchange Commission, in their August 2008 IPO S-1 application that the Cohocton project cost was $265,000,000. Do the math. Executive Director of SCIDA, James P. Sherron salary is $245,000 a year.
Even more interesting is Harter Secrest attorney, Edward Premo representing the Town of Italy and defending an Article 78 filed by Finger Lakes Preservation Association. He vigorously argued, in Supreme Court, that SCIDA’s authority to impose a PILOT upon a jurisdiction in Yates County was acceptable. Harter Secrest consistency, both Ontario and Yates Counties must cede to Steuben County because SCIDA says so.
Are you getting the picture?
Superintendent Ward continues: “2. The Naples Central School District is under no obligation to assist to obtain the documents from SCIDA”.
Protecting the abuses of SCIDA is a full time profession engaged in by the high price law firms. How much did Harter Secrest charge the NCSD for their legal expertise? You had better have your own CPA ask your school board to explain the bill of some $125,000.
Moreover, what was the First Wind settlement, you ask? A promise to pay $80,000 in cash and a lower PILOT amount. With a deal like this the taxpayers will find no relief in their school taxes. Your school board was duped, are lax in their fiduciary duties, are complicit in the protection of SCIDA or simply do not care if ordinary property owners get the shaft. You decide which is the most likely.
With this kind of affable legal representation, Harter Secrest may just be ready to merge with Harris Beach, the SCIDA law firm.
James Hall for CWW
Naples School District taxpayers,
Kimberle A. Ward Superintendent of Naples Central School responded to Cohocton Wind Watch on an expanded FOIL request, dated October 26, 2009
The NCSD Board voted to accept and settle a legal action against the Town of Cohocton, First Wind and SCIDA on the taxation of three industrial turbines that are located within the district.
These three turbines are presently being taxed at a value, established by the Cohocton Assessors, of $7,500,000 by the Atlanta Fire District.
Mrs. Ward’s response to the original FOIL provided a copy of a new PILOT that the School Board accepted as part of the settlement. The value of this new PILOT is lower than the original SCIDA PILOT for the First Wind project.
The independent taxing authority of the Naples School District to bill First Wind for the full $7.5 million dollar amount should be self-evident. SCIDA jurisdiction to force taxation districts outside of Steuben County to accept a ridiculously lower PILOT is an absurd claim. However, this legal principle and the interest of the Naples taxpayers do not seem to be a concern for the district’s law firm Harter Secrest.
Ronald Mendrick is the legal counsel for the NCSD and presented the settlement agreement to the board. He provided documents to the Board that were incomplete before their vote to accept.
Mrs. Ward’s letter states: “1. The Naples Central School District is not in possession of the documents you are requesting”.
The Schedule B of the new PILOT should have included the actual contracts of the leaseholder agreements with First Wind. Your Board was never provided those contracts for review. This is especially important since a leaseholder is pursuing a legal challenge that those leases are based upon fraud.
This is not a minor point, especially in light of the recent Department of Energy grant of $74,600,000 to First Wind. A poverty hardship for a PILOT is not in play. So why would SCIDA approve such a meager levy for First Wind? Why would the law firm for the district rollover and never advise the board to send out a tax bill for the entire amount that is already on the rolls?
It looks like SCIDA is in the business of selling tax exemptions. They receive 1% of the cost of the entire project for granting a PILOT. First Wind acknowledges to the Security and Exchange Commission, in their August 2008 IPO S-1 application that the Cohocton project cost was $265,000,000. Do the math. Executive Director of SCIDA, James P. Sherron salary is $245,000 a year.
Even more interesting is Harter Secrest attorney, Edward Premo representing the Town of Italy and defending an Article 78 filed by Finger Lakes Preservation Association. He vigorously argued, in Supreme Court, that SCIDA’s authority to impose a PILOT upon a jurisdiction in Yates County was acceptable. Harter Secrest consistency, both Ontario and Yates Counties must cede to Steuben County because SCIDA says so.
Are you getting the picture?
Superintendent Ward continues: “2. The Naples Central School District is under no obligation to assist to obtain the documents from SCIDA”.
Protecting the abuses of SCIDA is a full time profession engaged in by the high price law firms. How much did Harter Secrest charge the NCSD for their legal expertise? You had better have your own CPA ask your school board to explain the bill of some $125,000.
Moreover, what was the First Wind settlement, you ask? A promise to pay $80,000 in cash and a lower PILOT amount. With a deal like this the taxpayers will find no relief in their school taxes. Your school board was duped, are lax in their fiduciary duties, are complicit in the protection of SCIDA or simply do not care if ordinary property owners get the shaft. You decide which is the most likely.
With this kind of affable legal representation, Harter Secrest may just be ready to merge with Harris Beach, the SCIDA law firm.
James Hall for CWW
Mars Hill - Wendy Todd November 5, 2009 Letter to the Editor
A message from Mars Hill
To the Editor:
To the people of Lowell and the surrounding communities:
My name is Wendy Todd and I am from Mars Hill, Maine. I grew up in Mars Hill, on a farm that has been in my family for generations. After getting married, my husband Perrin and I moved to southern Maine. About five years ago we moved back to the County to raise our children and enjoy the rural living that we both grew up with. Shortly after moving into our new home at the base of Mars Hill Mountain, construction began on the Mars Hill Wind Farm. The entire project went on line in March of 2007.
The wind turbines have changed our lives forever...
There are 18 families who live under a mile and downwind of the Mars Hill wind project who have been negatively impacted by these massive turbines. We all want for people to understand what is at stake when turbines move into your community. The 28, GE 1.5 megawatt turbines here in Mars Hill have destroyed a way of life that many have cherished for generations. It is an industrial facility that covers over 3 miles. It has destroyed wildlife habitat, breathtaking views, and property values. It has forever scarred the mountain. It has disturbed streams, ponds and wetlands. Safety issues with ice throw, risks of fire and tower collapse are all things that neighbors have to consider.
The noise created by the turbines can be unbearable at times. It causes disruption to sleep patterns, stress and anxiety to most who live downwind of the project. For some it causes headaches, pressure or ringing in the ears, inability to concentrate, feelings of unease, and dizziness. Others who suffer from migraines are saying that their migraines are worse and that their medications are no longer as effective in relieving the pain. Some of my neighbors have turned to medications and other therapies to cope. Most of us have had to alter something, either in our homes or personal lives, to cope with how the turbines have changed the environment. I am not talking about a simple nuisance, this is about life altering changes to the environment that can literally make people sick and change the way you live in your home and use your land. A large number of the families affected have considered leaving their homes.
Many in the Acoustic and Medical Communities are calling for a 1.5 kilometer or greater set back for industrial wind turbines from homes, schools, and medical facilities for reasons of health and well being. Proper setbacks are the only way to provide protection.
I truly believe it is only a matter of time before the scientific data will be there to force more stringent regulation on this industry, but for now you have to protect yourselves because no one else is able to do so. Your friends in Mars Hill are begging that you listen and heed our warnings before you too find yourself in this nightmare.
Many promises were made to our town through the information period before construction began. Talk of job creation, reductions in carbon emissions, and reductions in our taxes were all very appealing. Many inaccurate, false statements were given about the noise issue. We were told that we would have to be within 500 feet of the project to hear anything at all from the turbines and that there would be no noise at all at the base of the mountain. Shadow flicker was never discussed.
The extent of how huge the construction phase would be or what kind of disruption we as citizens should expect was not discussed either. The Mars Hill project was supposed to reduce carbon emissions by 65 million tons, yet when asked to show confirmation of that, they cannot show where any regional power plants have stopped or slowed production that would realize any carbon reductions at all.
The promise of jobs went mostly to large corporations and their employees from mid to southern Maine. Most local crews did not have the expertise to meet the needs of the developer.
They told us that property values tend to go up when turbines move in, but appraisals show a 20 percent to 50 percent devaluation of property depending on proximity and visibility of the turbines. One appraiser even said that some of our properties might never sell.
Mars Hill was the first project of its kind in our state but there should be no excuse for how little the people of Mars Hill knew about this process. Maine DEP and the developer had a good understanding of what was going to take place but it was never communicated properly to the people of Mars Hill. One can only imagine how different things would be if the truth had been known. The state of Maine has not adopted rules that will protect its residents from this kind of project. At this point in time, individual communities must take action to protect their families because there are no wind industry guidelines that will. The developers hope that they can get in and operational before you understand the facts about wind. They make you feel that you would be a fool not support such a wonderful project. We were naïve and believed what the developer told us.
You are in a different place. So much new information is becoming available to communities who are considering wind. You are not alone. You have the chance and the responsibility to listen to all the information and choose wisely for your town. Any of the 18 families here in Mars Hill are willing to answer any questions or concerns that you may have regarding what life is like under industrial wind turbines. If you are not going to be affected personally ask yourself if a friend or neighbor will be. Protect each other. Ask lots of questions and use caution when listening to the developer. They are there to sell their project, not tell you all the negative things that can happen.
What can you do to learn more? Attend local meetings, listen, and visit a few Web sites on the impacts of industrial wind and wind turbine syndrome. Educate yourselves now before it is too late. Defend your ridgelines, your homes and your way of life. No one else will do it for you. Once the project is approved there is no hope and no turning back.
Sincerely,
Wendy Todd
Mars Hill, Maine
To the Editor:
To the people of Lowell and the surrounding communities:
My name is Wendy Todd and I am from Mars Hill, Maine. I grew up in Mars Hill, on a farm that has been in my family for generations. After getting married, my husband Perrin and I moved to southern Maine. About five years ago we moved back to the County to raise our children and enjoy the rural living that we both grew up with. Shortly after moving into our new home at the base of Mars Hill Mountain, construction began on the Mars Hill Wind Farm. The entire project went on line in March of 2007.
The wind turbines have changed our lives forever...
There are 18 families who live under a mile and downwind of the Mars Hill wind project who have been negatively impacted by these massive turbines. We all want for people to understand what is at stake when turbines move into your community. The 28, GE 1.5 megawatt turbines here in Mars Hill have destroyed a way of life that many have cherished for generations. It is an industrial facility that covers over 3 miles. It has destroyed wildlife habitat, breathtaking views, and property values. It has forever scarred the mountain. It has disturbed streams, ponds and wetlands. Safety issues with ice throw, risks of fire and tower collapse are all things that neighbors have to consider.
The noise created by the turbines can be unbearable at times. It causes disruption to sleep patterns, stress and anxiety to most who live downwind of the project. For some it causes headaches, pressure or ringing in the ears, inability to concentrate, feelings of unease, and dizziness. Others who suffer from migraines are saying that their migraines are worse and that their medications are no longer as effective in relieving the pain. Some of my neighbors have turned to medications and other therapies to cope. Most of us have had to alter something, either in our homes or personal lives, to cope with how the turbines have changed the environment. I am not talking about a simple nuisance, this is about life altering changes to the environment that can literally make people sick and change the way you live in your home and use your land. A large number of the families affected have considered leaving their homes.
Many in the Acoustic and Medical Communities are calling for a 1.5 kilometer or greater set back for industrial wind turbines from homes, schools, and medical facilities for reasons of health and well being. Proper setbacks are the only way to provide protection.
I truly believe it is only a matter of time before the scientific data will be there to force more stringent regulation on this industry, but for now you have to protect yourselves because no one else is able to do so. Your friends in Mars Hill are begging that you listen and heed our warnings before you too find yourself in this nightmare.
Many promises were made to our town through the information period before construction began. Talk of job creation, reductions in carbon emissions, and reductions in our taxes were all very appealing. Many inaccurate, false statements were given about the noise issue. We were told that we would have to be within 500 feet of the project to hear anything at all from the turbines and that there would be no noise at all at the base of the mountain. Shadow flicker was never discussed.
The extent of how huge the construction phase would be or what kind of disruption we as citizens should expect was not discussed either. The Mars Hill project was supposed to reduce carbon emissions by 65 million tons, yet when asked to show confirmation of that, they cannot show where any regional power plants have stopped or slowed production that would realize any carbon reductions at all.
The promise of jobs went mostly to large corporations and their employees from mid to southern Maine. Most local crews did not have the expertise to meet the needs of the developer.
They told us that property values tend to go up when turbines move in, but appraisals show a 20 percent to 50 percent devaluation of property depending on proximity and visibility of the turbines. One appraiser even said that some of our properties might never sell.
Mars Hill was the first project of its kind in our state but there should be no excuse for how little the people of Mars Hill knew about this process. Maine DEP and the developer had a good understanding of what was going to take place but it was never communicated properly to the people of Mars Hill. One can only imagine how different things would be if the truth had been known. The state of Maine has not adopted rules that will protect its residents from this kind of project. At this point in time, individual communities must take action to protect their families because there are no wind industry guidelines that will. The developers hope that they can get in and operational before you understand the facts about wind. They make you feel that you would be a fool not support such a wonderful project. We were naïve and believed what the developer told us.
You are in a different place. So much new information is becoming available to communities who are considering wind. You are not alone. You have the chance and the responsibility to listen to all the information and choose wisely for your town. Any of the 18 families here in Mars Hill are willing to answer any questions or concerns that you may have regarding what life is like under industrial wind turbines. If you are not going to be affected personally ask yourself if a friend or neighbor will be. Protect each other. Ask lots of questions and use caution when listening to the developer. They are there to sell their project, not tell you all the negative things that can happen.
What can you do to learn more? Attend local meetings, listen, and visit a few Web sites on the impacts of industrial wind and wind turbine syndrome. Educate yourselves now before it is too late. Defend your ridgelines, your homes and your way of life. No one else will do it for you. Once the project is approved there is no hope and no turning back.
Sincerely,
Wendy Todd
Mars Hill, Maine
Schumer Seeks to Block Stimulus Funds for Chinese-Backed Texas Wind Farm
Senator Charles Schumer, the New York Democrat, is calling on the Obama administration to block the use of stimulus funds for a utility-scale wind farm in West Texas that would make use of turbines manufactured largely in China.
As Green Inc. reported last week, the $1.5 billion wind venture — announced by a coalition of American and Chinese companies — was planning to seek $450 million from funds set aside in the economic stimulus package for clean-energy development.
The rest of the financing would come from Chinese commercial banks, and the turbines themselves would be manufactured by A-Power Energy Generation Systems of Shenyang, China.
“The idea that stimulus funds would be used to create jobs overseas is quite troubling,” Mr. Schumer reportedly wrote, according to The Associated Press, in a letter to be sent Thursday to Energy Secretary Steven Chu.
Mr. Schumer plans a news conference on Thursday afternoon, in which he will urge the Obama administration to block any stimulus money from financing the proposed wind farm.
Organizers of the project have estimated that more than 2,000 manufacturing jobs would be created in China as a result of the project, while a little over 300 would be created in Texas.
The purpose of the stimulus program, Mr. Schumer was quoted by The A.P. as saying, “was to jump start the economy to create and save jobs — American jobs.”
China’s reputation for blocking foreign access to its own burgeoning clean-energy sector has been fueling anger over the planned project in Texas.
The country has vexed multinational corporations and American officials by imposing not just a 70 percent “local content” requirement for wind projects on its own turf, but by steering virtually all wind contracts issued by the national government to Chinese-owned companies even when foreign companies meet the 70 percent requirement by opening factories in China.
China set even higher local-content requirements earlier this year for solar power projects.
World Trade Organization rules allow governments to set high local-content thresholds for what are deemed demonstration projects, and China has labeled its solar projects in particular as such; with as few as 10 megawatts, they are tiny compared to the 600-megawatt and 1,200-megawatt coal-fired plants being built across the country.
The Chinese government has further shielded itself from challenge by never signing the trade organization’s agreement extending free-trade rules to government procurement. But this means that the United States government also does not have to follow W.T.O. rules in deciding whether or not to include Chinese companies in its own government spending programs, according to Alan Wolff, the chairman of international trade practice at Dewey & LeBoeuf, a Washington law firm.
“If this is government procurement, we don’t owe the Chinese anything” under the W.T.O. rules, said Mr. Wolff.
China did ease its prohibition on local content requirements for wind turbines in a bilateral commitment to the United States government last week, when Chinese and American trade officials met in Hangzhou, China, as part of the U.S.-China Joint Commission on Commerce and Trade.
And China’s top economic planning agency, the National Development and Reform Commission, has moved this autumn to remove local-content regulations in the renewable energy sector, and has concluded several deals to import equipment.
But Western renewable energy companies have remained skeptical that they will see much change given the way Chinese officials have mentioned in speeches for months the importance of raising the market share of Chinese-owned companies. And Western executives complain that the same Chinese officials continue to show preference for domestic companies when awarding contracts.
In response to complaints sent to us by readers, Cappy McGarr, a managing partner with U.S. Renewable Energy Group (US-REG), a private-equity firm and a partner in the Texas wind deal, suggested in an e-mail message that the extended benefits to Texans — and to the wider American economy — were being overlooked.
“Many of the parts for the turbines will be made by General Electric, an American company,” Mr. McGarr said. “The people of Texas will directly benefit through major increases in tax revenue to support schools, fire departments, and local governments. This wind farm will also generate millions of dollars in royalties for Texas landowners over the next 25 to 30 years.”
As Green Inc. reported last week, the $1.5 billion wind venture — announced by a coalition of American and Chinese companies — was planning to seek $450 million from funds set aside in the economic stimulus package for clean-energy development.
The rest of the financing would come from Chinese commercial banks, and the turbines themselves would be manufactured by A-Power Energy Generation Systems of Shenyang, China.
“The idea that stimulus funds would be used to create jobs overseas is quite troubling,” Mr. Schumer reportedly wrote, according to The Associated Press, in a letter to be sent Thursday to Energy Secretary Steven Chu.
Mr. Schumer plans a news conference on Thursday afternoon, in which he will urge the Obama administration to block any stimulus money from financing the proposed wind farm.
Organizers of the project have estimated that more than 2,000 manufacturing jobs would be created in China as a result of the project, while a little over 300 would be created in Texas.
The purpose of the stimulus program, Mr. Schumer was quoted by The A.P. as saying, “was to jump start the economy to create and save jobs — American jobs.”
China’s reputation for blocking foreign access to its own burgeoning clean-energy sector has been fueling anger over the planned project in Texas.
The country has vexed multinational corporations and American officials by imposing not just a 70 percent “local content” requirement for wind projects on its own turf, but by steering virtually all wind contracts issued by the national government to Chinese-owned companies even when foreign companies meet the 70 percent requirement by opening factories in China.
China set even higher local-content requirements earlier this year for solar power projects.
World Trade Organization rules allow governments to set high local-content thresholds for what are deemed demonstration projects, and China has labeled its solar projects in particular as such; with as few as 10 megawatts, they are tiny compared to the 600-megawatt and 1,200-megawatt coal-fired plants being built across the country.
The Chinese government has further shielded itself from challenge by never signing the trade organization’s agreement extending free-trade rules to government procurement. But this means that the United States government also does not have to follow W.T.O. rules in deciding whether or not to include Chinese companies in its own government spending programs, according to Alan Wolff, the chairman of international trade practice at Dewey & LeBoeuf, a Washington law firm.
“If this is government procurement, we don’t owe the Chinese anything” under the W.T.O. rules, said Mr. Wolff.
China did ease its prohibition on local content requirements for wind turbines in a bilateral commitment to the United States government last week, when Chinese and American trade officials met in Hangzhou, China, as part of the U.S.-China Joint Commission on Commerce and Trade.
And China’s top economic planning agency, the National Development and Reform Commission, has moved this autumn to remove local-content regulations in the renewable energy sector, and has concluded several deals to import equipment.
But Western renewable energy companies have remained skeptical that they will see much change given the way Chinese officials have mentioned in speeches for months the importance of raising the market share of Chinese-owned companies. And Western executives complain that the same Chinese officials continue to show preference for domestic companies when awarding contracts.
In response to complaints sent to us by readers, Cappy McGarr, a managing partner with U.S. Renewable Energy Group (US-REG), a private-equity firm and a partner in the Texas wind deal, suggested in an e-mail message that the extended benefits to Texans — and to the wider American economy — were being overlooked.
“Many of the parts for the turbines will be made by General Electric, an American company,” Mr. McGarr said. “The people of Texas will directly benefit through major increases in tax revenue to support schools, fire departments, and local governments. This wind farm will also generate millions of dollars in royalties for Texas landowners over the next 25 to 30 years.”
Critical Thinking is the antithesis of 'standing firm'
Dear Editor,
I was rather perplexed when I read the Daily's 10/29/09 editorial, "Balanced education", regarding the Warsaw 8th grade field trip to the Sheldon industrial wind installation. The editor obviously misinterpreted the gist of my meeting with the school board (regarding a field trip that had already occurred) when he reported the Board was right to "stand firm".
The purpose of my visit with the Warsaw School Board was to discuss critical thinking in the classroom, which can only happen when ALL pertinent information is available and considered. Critical thinking is the antithesis of "standing firm" - which can mean close-minded.
To their credit, the Warsaw School Board was very open and receptive to the information I brought to share with them and the 8th Grade school teacher, which included:
1.) NYS Citizens' Questions Document (tinyurl.com/kkkuqz)
2.) DVD copies of Physicist John Droz's 9/29/09 Energy Presentation (http://EnergyPresentation.Info)
3.) the summary I wrote of Mr. Droz's presentation for the newspapers (yet to be published in the Daily News)
4.) articles by environmentalists, energy specialists, economists, etc. which can be found on www.stopillwind.org, www.wind-watch.org, and www.windaction.org
Unfortunately, it's no surprise folks are wondering if both sides of the industrial wind issue are being heard when there are many examples to illustrate the fact that they are not.
For instance, on September 29, 2009, a FREE, scientifically-based energy presentation by Physicist John Droz was offered at The Stage in Warsaw. It was advertised for weeks in advance. We invited every Supervisor in Wyoming County, at least six local newspapers (including the Daily News), and local school officials. Yet, not one representative of any of them attended.
Is it any wonder many don't believe our children are getting the real story about industrial wind technology when those in community leadership positions and the news media choose to avoid opportunities to learn more about the most divisive issue to ever hit our area -- which many of our local elections were based upon this year?
Thus my reason for taking the information to the school board - to make sure the 8th grade teacher and students had access to it. Superintendent Knowles and the school board graciously allowed me the opportunity to speak with them, accepting the information I provided, and agreeing to pass it on to the 8th grade teacher. I trusted that Superintendent Knowles would follow through on his promise, and thanked all for the courtesy of allowing me the opportunity to address the Board.
In the interest of full disclosure, I did let the Board know that I am both a taxpayer and NYS-certified Health Science educator myself, who has been researching the industrial wind issue for nearly five years. As such, it concerns me that our tax dollars were used to bus our children out to a commercial enterprise (an industrial wind installation) to get a "science" lesson from self-serving salesmen who manned the booths the children were required to go through. There are laws against soliciting, so I don't understand how it somehow becomes acceptable to subject our children to such blatant propaganda during school hours.
In a follow-up call to Superintendent Knowles, I relayed to him the fact that there are many local residents who have been negatively affected by the siting of industrial wind turbines too close to their homes. I also let him know that the attorney representing many of these residents offered to come in and speak with the class to ensure that they understood the nature of all these problems with wind. They have yet to accept this offer.
Perhaps, instead of sending young, impressionable minds that are perfect targets for shrewd salesmen into the middle of a politically-divisive issue, science teachers might consider posing questions on how an intermittent, highly-volatile power source could power anything in a society utterly dependent upon reliable, precision power performance? Math teachers could join the discussion by giving their students the formula for converting wind speed into electrical energy, which is based upon the cube of the wind speed, in order to show the actual skittering nature of wind energy. History teachers could explain why steam-powered craft replaced the elegant clipper ships 200 years ago, and why the Dutch no longer use their lovely small windmills to reclaim the land from the sea. Social Studies teachers could have students locate countries worldwide who have spent billions on wind while not significantly reducing CO2 emissions or closing a single coal plant.
Do your own research. Deploy critical thinking. Until people examine ALL the pertinent information, limited liability wind corporations will continue to exploit us, our children, and our state and country - at taxpayer and ratepayer expense. Each of us should be demanding more informed answers from our elected officials to the NYS Citizens' Questions (tinyurl.com/kkkuqz) before we allow our priceless NYS countrysides and quality of life to be destroyed -- all for an ineffectual energy technology which furthers only civil discord while causing serious environmental harm.
Mary Kay Barton
Environmental Activist for Sound Scientific Solutions
Mary Kay Barton
P.O. Box 69
Silver Lake, N.Y. 14549
585-813-8173
I was rather perplexed when I read the Daily's 10/29/09 editorial, "Balanced education", regarding the Warsaw 8th grade field trip to the Sheldon industrial wind installation. The editor obviously misinterpreted the gist of my meeting with the school board (regarding a field trip that had already occurred) when he reported the Board was right to "stand firm".
The purpose of my visit with the Warsaw School Board was to discuss critical thinking in the classroom, which can only happen when ALL pertinent information is available and considered. Critical thinking is the antithesis of "standing firm" - which can mean close-minded.
To their credit, the Warsaw School Board was very open and receptive to the information I brought to share with them and the 8th Grade school teacher, which included:
1.) NYS Citizens' Questions Document (tinyurl.com/kkkuqz)
2.) DVD copies of Physicist John Droz's 9/29/09 Energy Presentation (http://EnergyPresentation.Info)
3.) the summary I wrote of Mr. Droz's presentation for the newspapers (yet to be published in the Daily News)
4.) articles by environmentalists, energy specialists, economists, etc. which can be found on www.stopillwind.org, www.wind-watch.org, and www.windaction.org
Unfortunately, it's no surprise folks are wondering if both sides of the industrial wind issue are being heard when there are many examples to illustrate the fact that they are not.
For instance, on September 29, 2009, a FREE, scientifically-based energy presentation by Physicist John Droz was offered at The Stage in Warsaw. It was advertised for weeks in advance. We invited every Supervisor in Wyoming County, at least six local newspapers (including the Daily News), and local school officials. Yet, not one representative of any of them attended.
Is it any wonder many don't believe our children are getting the real story about industrial wind technology when those in community leadership positions and the news media choose to avoid opportunities to learn more about the most divisive issue to ever hit our area -- which many of our local elections were based upon this year?
Thus my reason for taking the information to the school board - to make sure the 8th grade teacher and students had access to it. Superintendent Knowles and the school board graciously allowed me the opportunity to speak with them, accepting the information I provided, and agreeing to pass it on to the 8th grade teacher. I trusted that Superintendent Knowles would follow through on his promise, and thanked all for the courtesy of allowing me the opportunity to address the Board.
In the interest of full disclosure, I did let the Board know that I am both a taxpayer and NYS-certified Health Science educator myself, who has been researching the industrial wind issue for nearly five years. As such, it concerns me that our tax dollars were used to bus our children out to a commercial enterprise (an industrial wind installation) to get a "science" lesson from self-serving salesmen who manned the booths the children were required to go through. There are laws against soliciting, so I don't understand how it somehow becomes acceptable to subject our children to such blatant propaganda during school hours.
In a follow-up call to Superintendent Knowles, I relayed to him the fact that there are many local residents who have been negatively affected by the siting of industrial wind turbines too close to their homes. I also let him know that the attorney representing many of these residents offered to come in and speak with the class to ensure that they understood the nature of all these problems with wind. They have yet to accept this offer.
Perhaps, instead of sending young, impressionable minds that are perfect targets for shrewd salesmen into the middle of a politically-divisive issue, science teachers might consider posing questions on how an intermittent, highly-volatile power source could power anything in a society utterly dependent upon reliable, precision power performance? Math teachers could join the discussion by giving their students the formula for converting wind speed into electrical energy, which is based upon the cube of the wind speed, in order to show the actual skittering nature of wind energy. History teachers could explain why steam-powered craft replaced the elegant clipper ships 200 years ago, and why the Dutch no longer use their lovely small windmills to reclaim the land from the sea. Social Studies teachers could have students locate countries worldwide who have spent billions on wind while not significantly reducing CO2 emissions or closing a single coal plant.
Do your own research. Deploy critical thinking. Until people examine ALL the pertinent information, limited liability wind corporations will continue to exploit us, our children, and our state and country - at taxpayer and ratepayer expense. Each of us should be demanding more informed answers from our elected officials to the NYS Citizens' Questions (tinyurl.com/kkkuqz) before we allow our priceless NYS countrysides and quality of life to be destroyed -- all for an ineffectual energy technology which furthers only civil discord while causing serious environmental harm.
Mary Kay Barton
Environmental Activist for Sound Scientific Solutions
Mary Kay Barton
P.O. Box 69
Silver Lake, N.Y. 14549
585-813-8173
HARTSVILLE'S WIND COMPANY HAS SAME SOUND ENGINEER AS COHOCTON
Cohocton wind project received many noise complaints.
Hartsville's wind company EON has produced a sound engineer expert to take a look at the new wind law that Hartsville Town Hall is working on. However, Hartsville Town Supervisor Steve Dombert argues that Eon's sound expert is the same sound expert that worked on the Cohocton wind project. "(he) purports to be an expert, but we have two towns away where obviously his company and the town or somebody had a big problem," Dombert said at Monday night's Hartsville special wind meeting.
The sound engineer says that the Cohocton situation has nothing to do with his assessment, and that due to contractual reasons, he cannot discuss the details of the Cohocton project.
The Public Hearing on the Hartsville wind law will be on November 23.
Hartsville's wind company EON has produced a sound engineer expert to take a look at the new wind law that Hartsville Town Hall is working on. However, Hartsville Town Supervisor Steve Dombert argues that Eon's sound expert is the same sound expert that worked on the Cohocton wind project. "(he) purports to be an expert, but we have two towns away where obviously his company and the town or somebody had a big problem," Dombert said at Monday night's Hartsville special wind meeting.
The sound engineer says that the Cohocton situation has nothing to do with his assessment, and that due to contractual reasons, he cannot discuss the details of the Cohocton project.
The Public Hearing on the Hartsville wind law will be on November 23.
Election commissioners: New voting machines pass test
Bath, N.Y.
Steuben County election commissioners said the first real trial of new voting machines in the county went well Tuesday, although a number of tallies now listed on the county Web site are incorrect.
“That’s why we call them unofficial results,” Republican Elections Commissioner Veronica Olin said Wednesday.
Olin said some results posted on the election board’s Web site are wrong, probably due to some sort of human error.
“People make mistakes,” she said. “You can’t help that. This is a learning process.”
Steuben’s elections results will remain unchanged until the tallies become official within the next couple of weeks. By law, the board’s next step is testing machines selected at random, Olin said.
All ballots then will be recanvassed beginning Nov. 12, after the deadline for absentee and overseas military ballots has passed.
Olin and Democratic Elections Commissioner Gilbert Sweet said the office was kept busy Election Day answering questions from poll workers, and going to various sites to deal with minor problems.
The new machines are in place due to the 2002 federal Help America Vote Act, which is supposed to ensure tamper-proof elections.
Other problems Tuesday included machine breakdowns in the city of Corning’s 1st Ward and in the town of Hartsville, the commissioners said.
Voters there were asked to fill out the paper ballots, which were deposited in an emergency ballot slot on the machine. The emergency ballots will be counted during the recanvassing, elections officials said.
The elections board also fielded results from all districts in roughly the same period, and was hampered because only one data entry point was available Tuesday night, officials said.
Another problem the board faced was a lack of poll workers at some sites, caused in part, after a number of workers called Monday to say they wouldn’t be available Tuesday.
The result was a scramble to locate and train more elections inspectors, the commissioners said.
Those problems, and others, will be reported to the state for correction and used to improve training next year, according to Sweet.
Steuben is one of the few counties in the state to fully implement the federal voting guidelines this year. In Chemung County, lever-style machines were used, with new machines available for handicapped voters.
Steuben’s decision to use the new machines this year for all voters was the right one, Olin said.
“This year, we just had local elections,” she said. “Next year there’s the state elections and the gubernatorial. We absolutely did the right thing starting this year.”
Olin said the problems actually showed the new system works, because effective back-ups were in place to allow people to vote and prevent a total breakdown.
“The (final) vote will be fair and accurate,” Sweet said. “And the paper ballots make it bullet proof.”
Steuben County election commissioners said the first real trial of new voting machines in the county went well Tuesday, although a number of tallies now listed on the county Web site are incorrect.
“That’s why we call them unofficial results,” Republican Elections Commissioner Veronica Olin said Wednesday.
Olin said some results posted on the election board’s Web site are wrong, probably due to some sort of human error.
“People make mistakes,” she said. “You can’t help that. This is a learning process.”
Steuben’s elections results will remain unchanged until the tallies become official within the next couple of weeks. By law, the board’s next step is testing machines selected at random, Olin said.
All ballots then will be recanvassed beginning Nov. 12, after the deadline for absentee and overseas military ballots has passed.
Olin and Democratic Elections Commissioner Gilbert Sweet said the office was kept busy Election Day answering questions from poll workers, and going to various sites to deal with minor problems.
The new machines are in place due to the 2002 federal Help America Vote Act, which is supposed to ensure tamper-proof elections.
Other problems Tuesday included machine breakdowns in the city of Corning’s 1st Ward and in the town of Hartsville, the commissioners said.
Voters there were asked to fill out the paper ballots, which were deposited in an emergency ballot slot on the machine. The emergency ballots will be counted during the recanvassing, elections officials said.
The elections board also fielded results from all districts in roughly the same period, and was hampered because only one data entry point was available Tuesday night, officials said.
Another problem the board faced was a lack of poll workers at some sites, caused in part, after a number of workers called Monday to say they wouldn’t be available Tuesday.
The result was a scramble to locate and train more elections inspectors, the commissioners said.
Those problems, and others, will be reported to the state for correction and used to improve training next year, according to Sweet.
Steuben is one of the few counties in the state to fully implement the federal voting guidelines this year. In Chemung County, lever-style machines were used, with new machines available for handicapped voters.
Steuben’s decision to use the new machines this year for all voters was the right one, Olin said.
“This year, we just had local elections,” she said. “Next year there’s the state elections and the gubernatorial. We absolutely did the right thing starting this year.”
Olin said the problems actually showed the new system works, because effective back-ups were in place to allow people to vote and prevent a total breakdown.
“The (final) vote will be fair and accurate,” Sweet said. “And the paper ballots make it bullet proof.”
The Windpower Industry’s “top ten” False and Misleading Claims … Number 10 – “Locals who oppose the wind industry are NIMBYS”
Over the next few weeks, courtesy of Jon Boone’s Stop Ill Wind web site, we’ll count down the windpower industry’s “top ten” illusions.
To begin, since many of us who continue to ask questions are considered such, we present:
Number 10 – “Locals who oppose the wind industry are NIMBYS”
One of the most persistent hypocrisies from corporate wind and its supporters is the accusation that locals who resist the industry are selfishly holding back progress. However, many politicians who vote to enable industrial wind do so fully aware that windplants will be built in someone else’s back yard, realizing they would not survive the political backlash if one were constructed in their district. Wind investors—and the politicians who enable them—live hundreds of miles away from the results of their handiwork. Although there are many areas of good wind potential available, the industry focuses on rural, often economically depressed areas which don’t have much money or political influence. In Maryland, for example, the Chesapeake Bay has the best overall wind potential in the state. Yet the wind industry, aware of the probable political repercussions, avoids this region, preferring instead to target Appalachia and the mountains in the far western region of the state. It is the old story of colonialism, with distant capital exploiting the people and resources of the hinterlands to give the illusion of progress.
Nedpower, one of the most aggressive wind companies in the country, is in the midst of constructing a huge 200-wind turbine facility along a 14-mile strip of the Alleghany Front east of Mount Storm Lake in West Virginia. Frank Maisano, a Washington, DC lobbyist and media spokesman for Nedpower and who lives near the Bay, said that any allegation that a wind-powered project will be an “eyesore” is generally a claim without merit.” However, when asked by a reporter, he declined to say if he would want such a project built within two miles of his home. “I’m not living next to one, so I’m not going to answer hypothetical questions for you just for the sake of answering them,” he said. (Charlotte, WV Gazette, November 30, 2005.)
As has been shown, there are legitimate, unselfish reasons for locals to be concerned about how massive windplants will affect their lives.
To begin, since many of us who continue to ask questions are considered such, we present:
Number 10 – “Locals who oppose the wind industry are NIMBYS”
One of the most persistent hypocrisies from corporate wind and its supporters is the accusation that locals who resist the industry are selfishly holding back progress. However, many politicians who vote to enable industrial wind do so fully aware that windplants will be built in someone else’s back yard, realizing they would not survive the political backlash if one were constructed in their district. Wind investors—and the politicians who enable them—live hundreds of miles away from the results of their handiwork. Although there are many areas of good wind potential available, the industry focuses on rural, often economically depressed areas which don’t have much money or political influence. In Maryland, for example, the Chesapeake Bay has the best overall wind potential in the state. Yet the wind industry, aware of the probable political repercussions, avoids this region, preferring instead to target Appalachia and the mountains in the far western region of the state. It is the old story of colonialism, with distant capital exploiting the people and resources of the hinterlands to give the illusion of progress.
Nedpower, one of the most aggressive wind companies in the country, is in the midst of constructing a huge 200-wind turbine facility along a 14-mile strip of the Alleghany Front east of Mount Storm Lake in West Virginia. Frank Maisano, a Washington, DC lobbyist and media spokesman for Nedpower and who lives near the Bay, said that any allegation that a wind-powered project will be an “eyesore” is generally a claim without merit.” However, when asked by a reporter, he declined to say if he would want such a project built within two miles of his home. “I’m not living next to one, so I’m not going to answer hypothetical questions for you just for the sake of answering them,” he said. (Charlotte, WV Gazette, November 30, 2005.)
As has been shown, there are legitimate, unselfish reasons for locals to be concerned about how massive windplants will affect their lives.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)