Jefferson County's Board of Legislators slowed down its consideration of the payment-in-lieu-of-taxes agreement for the proposed Galloo Island Wind Farm.
The board's Planning and Development Committee, which met Tuesday night, recessed to 5:30 p.m. Tuesday to hold its discussion then.
Chairman Barry M. Ormsby, R-Belleville, said representatives of the Jefferson County Industrial Development Agency and Galloo Island's developer, Upstate NY Power Corp., would come to the meeting.
Mr. Ormsby said they also would allow the public to speak during privilege of the floor, though no public hearing is required.
"I want to thank you for slowing this process down and having a chance to have some questions answered next week," Legislator Michael J. Docteur, R-Cape Vincent, said.
Legislator Robert A. Boice, R-Rutland, said, "I think there's a lot of questions to be asked and answers to be given before we move to approve or disapprove the PILOT."
Legislature Chairman Kenneth D. Blankenbush, R-Black River, encouraged all of the legislators to attend next week's meeting.
"Everybody is going to be voting on this thing down the road," he said.
After the Planning and Development Committee discusses the PILOT, the Legislature's Finance and Rules Committee must approve it before full board approval.
If those two committees approve it, the full board may hold a special meeting Dec. 1 to also approve the PILOT. The board of directors of JCIDA meets Dec. 3 and must be the final approval for the PILOT.
The Sackets Harbor Central School District Board of Education approved the PILOT on a 5-0 vote Tuesday night. The town of Hounsfield approved the PILOT, also 5-0, on Thursday.
Wednesday, November 18, 2009
We have a right to be turbine-free
Ecogen Wind LLC's lawsuit claims the town of Italy, Yates County, delayed a decision on its industrial wind development proposal since 2002 and now can't deny its application (Nov. 5 story). In reality, Ecogen caused this long, drawn-out, expensive process by refusing to accept the town's original decision to remain non-industrial. A 2006 zoning law prohibiting industrial turbines, two town-wide surveys and several public hearings on this issue demonstrated that Italy wants to preserve its major strengths — natural beauty and a peaceful rural character. It was Ecogen's lawsuit threats and unrelenting pressure on the Town Board that led to a reluctantly made zoning law revision, application review and final denial.
Evidence submitted by citizens overwhelmingly showed that the short setbacks and high noise levels required to fit Ecogen's massive facility among our homes could damage Italy residents' welfare, property values, health and safety. Cohocton's experience with industrial wind turbines has been a nightmare and a learning experience. Recent elections in Italy and Prattsburgh clearly showed the people's choice to remain turbine-free.
We should have the right to say "no."
—JOAN SIMMONS
ITALY, YATES COUNTY
Evidence submitted by citizens overwhelmingly showed that the short setbacks and high noise levels required to fit Ecogen's massive facility among our homes could damage Italy residents' welfare, property values, health and safety. Cohocton's experience with industrial wind turbines has been a nightmare and a learning experience. Recent elections in Italy and Prattsburgh clearly showed the people's choice to remain turbine-free.
We should have the right to say "no."
—JOAN SIMMONS
ITALY, YATES COUNTY
Tuesday, November 17, 2009
Absentees ballots give Hirschey win in Cape Vincent
Absentee ballots have carried Republican Urban C. Hirschey to an apparent victory over Democratic incumbent Thomas Rienbeck in the Cape Vincent town supervisor's race.
Mr. Hirschey erased a 42 vote deficit at the polls by picking up 62 more votes than Mr. Rienbeck in absentees, 144-82. Mr. Hirschey's final tally was 634 votes, with Mr. Rienbeck receiving 614 votes.
Mr. Hirschey said even before the official count, he felt that he could win by just looking at the names on the absentee ballots. He said that several of the absentee ballots represent seasonal residents - from Syracuse, Rochester and Utica - who changed their registration to Cape Vincent to have a voice in the election.
“It sucks, doesn't it?” Mr. Rienbeck said. “These people, they have registered to vote here but they don't even live here. They obviously took advantage of the gray area of the law.”
Mr. Rienbeck who has been in office for 10 years, said most of the people who changed their registration to vote for Mr. Hirschey were rich seasonal residents who oppose wind farms.
“All they care about is their cottages on the river,” he said. “They are nothing but selfish people. It's a sad day for the people of Cape Vincent.”
Mr. Hirschey said one of his main priorities as the town's new supervisor is adopting a wind law that would spread out the wind turbines.
He said it was “disgraceful” that Mr. Rienbeck is attempting to adopt a zoning amendment for wind energy development, which does not contain restrictions on sound, at the very end of his term.
“If he tries to pass this, it's going to cost the town a lot of money in legal expenses,” he said. “If they had any sense, they would cancel it.”
Mr. Rienbeck said the sound restrictions would essentially prohibit industrial wind development in the town.
“People wanted this zoning law,” he said.
In Legislative District 11, Republican Robert "Bobby" Ferris extended his 21-vote Election Day lead in absentee balloting and won, 947-912, over Democrat Paul Simmons. District 11 encompasses Rutland and Watertown.
Meanwhile, Conservative Party candidate Doug Hoffman was on Glenn Beck's radio program Monday and said he wished he had not conceded the 23rd Congressional District race.
Mr. Hoffman was 3,176 votes behind Mr. Owens before absentees were counted and 2,957 after absentees in three counties he won were counted.
There were a total of 7,419 absentee ballots returned in the disrict.
The Times will be reporting today on the absentee count for this race and other local races.
Absentees did not change the results in other Cape Vincent races.
Debra J. Suller, the independent challenger for the town clerk post, picked up 19 more absentee votes than Town Clerk Jeri A. Mason. But Ms. Mason still won, 662-588.
Republican Brooks Bragdon and Democrat Mickey W. Orvis preserved their Election Day leads for two Town Council spots, picking up 120 absentee votes and 68 absentee votes respectively. Mr. Bragdon finished with 630, Mr. Orvis with 573. Democrat Richard H. Macsherry received 540 total votes, while independent John L. Byrne III received 480 votes. Republican Raymond R. Benjamin received 177 total votes.
Mr. Hirschey erased a 42 vote deficit at the polls by picking up 62 more votes than Mr. Rienbeck in absentees, 144-82. Mr. Hirschey's final tally was 634 votes, with Mr. Rienbeck receiving 614 votes.
Mr. Hirschey said even before the official count, he felt that he could win by just looking at the names on the absentee ballots. He said that several of the absentee ballots represent seasonal residents - from Syracuse, Rochester and Utica - who changed their registration to Cape Vincent to have a voice in the election.
“It sucks, doesn't it?” Mr. Rienbeck said. “These people, they have registered to vote here but they don't even live here. They obviously took advantage of the gray area of the law.”
Mr. Rienbeck who has been in office for 10 years, said most of the people who changed their registration to vote for Mr. Hirschey were rich seasonal residents who oppose wind farms.
“All they care about is their cottages on the river,” he said. “They are nothing but selfish people. It's a sad day for the people of Cape Vincent.”
Mr. Hirschey said one of his main priorities as the town's new supervisor is adopting a wind law that would spread out the wind turbines.
He said it was “disgraceful” that Mr. Rienbeck is attempting to adopt a zoning amendment for wind energy development, which does not contain restrictions on sound, at the very end of his term.
“If he tries to pass this, it's going to cost the town a lot of money in legal expenses,” he said. “If they had any sense, they would cancel it.”
Mr. Rienbeck said the sound restrictions would essentially prohibit industrial wind development in the town.
“People wanted this zoning law,” he said.
In Legislative District 11, Republican Robert "Bobby" Ferris extended his 21-vote Election Day lead in absentee balloting and won, 947-912, over Democrat Paul Simmons. District 11 encompasses Rutland and Watertown.
Meanwhile, Conservative Party candidate Doug Hoffman was on Glenn Beck's radio program Monday and said he wished he had not conceded the 23rd Congressional District race.
Mr. Hoffman was 3,176 votes behind Mr. Owens before absentees were counted and 2,957 after absentees in three counties he won were counted.
There were a total of 7,419 absentee ballots returned in the disrict.
The Times will be reporting today on the absentee count for this race and other local races.
Absentees did not change the results in other Cape Vincent races.
Debra J. Suller, the independent challenger for the town clerk post, picked up 19 more absentee votes than Town Clerk Jeri A. Mason. But Ms. Mason still won, 662-588.
Republican Brooks Bragdon and Democrat Mickey W. Orvis preserved their Election Day leads for two Town Council spots, picking up 120 absentee votes and 68 absentee votes respectively. Mr. Bragdon finished with 630, Mr. Orvis with 573. Democrat Richard H. Macsherry received 540 total votes, while independent John L. Byrne III received 480 votes. Republican Raymond R. Benjamin received 177 total votes.
Rush Limbaugh asks Governor Sarah Palin about Industrial Wind
RUSH: What's our biggest energy challenge as a country? Do you believe at all or some or a lot in the modern-day go-green movement of solar and wind and all of these nefarious things that really don't produce anything yet?
GOV. PALIN: I think there's a lot of snake oil science involved in that and somebody's making a whole lot of money off people's fears that the world is... It's kind of tough to figure out with the shady science right now, what are we supposed to be doing right now with our climate. Are we warming or are we cooling? I don't think Americans are even told anymore if it's global warming or just climate change. And I don't attribute all the changes to man's activities. I think that this is, in a lot of respects, cyclical and the earth does cool and it warms. And our greatest challenge with energy is that we're not tapping it to the abundant domestic supplies that God created right underfoot on American soil and under our waters. It's ridiculous that we are circulating hundreds of billions of dollars a year in foreign countries, asking them to ramp up production so that we can purchase it from them -- especially from the regimes that can control us via energy, using it as a weapon against us, potentially. It's nonsense that this administration and past administrations haven't really understood yet that inherent link between energy and security. I think more and more Americans are waking up to the fact, though, and we will hopefully see changes there soon.
GOV. PALIN: I think there's a lot of snake oil science involved in that and somebody's making a whole lot of money off people's fears that the world is... It's kind of tough to figure out with the shady science right now, what are we supposed to be doing right now with our climate. Are we warming or are we cooling? I don't think Americans are even told anymore if it's global warming or just climate change. And I don't attribute all the changes to man's activities. I think that this is, in a lot of respects, cyclical and the earth does cool and it warms. And our greatest challenge with energy is that we're not tapping it to the abundant domestic supplies that God created right underfoot on American soil and under our waters. It's ridiculous that we are circulating hundreds of billions of dollars a year in foreign countries, asking them to ramp up production so that we can purchase it from them -- especially from the regimes that can control us via energy, using it as a weapon against us, potentially. It's nonsense that this administration and past administrations haven't really understood yet that inherent link between energy and security. I think more and more Americans are waking up to the fact, though, and we will hopefully see changes there soon.
Chinese Breeze: A-Power Plans Big Wind-Turbine Plant in U.S.
Call it the Chuck Schumer effect.
Less than two weeks after New York’s senior senator railed against the Chinese wind farm planned for Texas, since it would mean mostly Chinese jobs, the companies behind the project announced their plans to build a huge wind-turbine factory in the U.S.
A-Power, the Chinese wind-turbine maker, and local partners U.S. Renewable Energy Group said they would build a massive wind-turbine plant in the U.S. that could produce 1,100 megawatts of wind turbines a year and employ more than 1,000 U.S. workers. The factory would use U.S.-made wind-turbine components, the company said.
“The decision to construct this wind energy facility in the United States is the direct result of America’s commitment to renewable energy and the strength and skill of the American workforce,” said Cappy McGarr, US-REG Managing Partner, in a press release.
It won’t matter for the Texas wind farm, which is meant to break ground next spring. But the planned factory would be huge—the same size as A-Power’s Chinese plant, which the company says is the biggest wind factory in China. The projected output of the factory would be somewhere between 15% and 20% of the recent annual installations of wind power in the U.S.
How, exactly, will it place all those turbines? Competition is fierce in the U.S., with global heavyweights General Electric, Vestas, Gamesa, and Siemens all fighting for market share in the world’s biggest wind-power market. All have a much longer track record than A-Power, which got into the wind business last year and uses German technology.
Can the plant compete on cost? Hard to see how. The whole point is to use U.S. labor, which costs more than Chinese labor. Ditto with U.S. wind-turbine components. There’s no cheap yuan to help sell the U.S.-made turbines, either. And tax credits for manufacturing facilities help all renewable-energy producers equally.
Maybe the real play is for Latin America. Despite all the talk about serving the U.S. market, the companies say the new plant will provide turbines “to renewable energy projects throughout North and South America.” Unlike wind markets in the U.S. and Europe, Latin America doesn’t have any home-grown wind-turbine makers gobbling up market share.
And even though the continent has been a wind-power laggard, governments from Mexico to Brazil are starting to warm up to the idea.
Less than two weeks after New York’s senior senator railed against the Chinese wind farm planned for Texas, since it would mean mostly Chinese jobs, the companies behind the project announced their plans to build a huge wind-turbine factory in the U.S.
A-Power, the Chinese wind-turbine maker, and local partners U.S. Renewable Energy Group said they would build a massive wind-turbine plant in the U.S. that could produce 1,100 megawatts of wind turbines a year and employ more than 1,000 U.S. workers. The factory would use U.S.-made wind-turbine components, the company said.
“The decision to construct this wind energy facility in the United States is the direct result of America’s commitment to renewable energy and the strength and skill of the American workforce,” said Cappy McGarr, US-REG Managing Partner, in a press release.
It won’t matter for the Texas wind farm, which is meant to break ground next spring. But the planned factory would be huge—the same size as A-Power’s Chinese plant, which the company says is the biggest wind factory in China. The projected output of the factory would be somewhere between 15% and 20% of the recent annual installations of wind power in the U.S.
How, exactly, will it place all those turbines? Competition is fierce in the U.S., with global heavyweights General Electric, Vestas, Gamesa, and Siemens all fighting for market share in the world’s biggest wind-power market. All have a much longer track record than A-Power, which got into the wind business last year and uses German technology.
Can the plant compete on cost? Hard to see how. The whole point is to use U.S. labor, which costs more than Chinese labor. Ditto with U.S. wind-turbine components. There’s no cheap yuan to help sell the U.S.-made turbines, either. And tax credits for manufacturing facilities help all renewable-energy producers equally.
Maybe the real play is for Latin America. Despite all the talk about serving the U.S. market, the companies say the new plant will provide turbines “to renewable energy projects throughout North and South America.” Unlike wind markets in the U.S. and Europe, Latin America doesn’t have any home-grown wind-turbine makers gobbling up market share.
And even though the continent has been a wind-power laggard, governments from Mexico to Brazil are starting to warm up to the idea.
Mafia Tied to Wind Fraud in Italy
Italian finance police have arrested two prominent businessmen — including one with ties to a former investor in the Cape Wind project in Nantucket — in the wind energy sector on charges of fraud. Arrested were Oreste Vigorito, head of the IVPC energy company and president of Italy’s National Association of Wind Energy, and Vito Nicastri, a Sicilian business associate, according to the Financial Times [1].
According to the European Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow [2], Oreste Vigorito has ties to Brian Caffyn, a former investor in the Cape Wind project [3], which has been criticized as a poor investment for taxpayers, reports Dakota Voice [4].
Vigorito once owned IVPC with Brian Caffyn, founder of Cape Wind and First Wind, according to the Boston Herald [5]. Caffyn sold his interest in Cape Wind in 2002 and sold his interest in IVPC in 2005. Vigorito has never had any involvement in Cape Wind, according to Mark Rodgers, Communications Director for the Cape Wind project.
The Herald reports that Caffyn was surprised to learn of Vigorito’s arrest:
“I read about it in the papers, and I was very surprised,” Brian Caffyn said from Hong Kong, where he is now building wind-energy farms in China and the Philippines.
“I know of no fraud with (former partners) Oreste (Vigorito) and IVPC,” said Caffyn, a Cape Cod native and Babson College graduate.
The “Gone with the Wind” sting operation, started in 2007, netted 11 others who were charged but were not arrested. Italian police told Financial Times that the fraud charges are related to obtaining millions of dollars in public subsidies to construct wind farms that never worked. Police confiscated seven wind farms with 185 turbines in Sicily linked to IVPC, according to the article.
The anti-fraud team also is investigating IVPC’s sales of wind farms to foreign companies, and already has sent requests for documentation to five companies located in the Netherlands and Spain, as well as IVPC’s Italian affiliates in Ireland and the UK, according to the article.
Anti-mafia prosecutors in Sicily also have launched a parallel investigation, reports the Financial Times.
Fraud appears to be an emerging problem in the nascent clean energy sector. Most recently, two clean energy auditors — SGS UK and DNV — were accused [6] of not properly auditing projects in carbon trading markets.
Meanwhile, the UK is dealing [7] with carbon trading credit scams that could cost millions of dollars. In Australia, to prevent bogus carbon offset schemes, federal police agents can now enter [8] company premises and request paperwork to monitor their emissions.
Article printed from Environmental Leader: http://www.environmentalleader.com
URL to article: Read Link
URLs in this post:
[1] Financial Times: Read Link
[2] European Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow: Read Link
[3] Cape Wind project: Read Link
[4] Dakota Voice: Read Link
[5] Boston Herald: Read Link
[6] accused: Read Link
[7] dealing: Read Link
[8] enter: Read Link
According to the European Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow [2], Oreste Vigorito has ties to Brian Caffyn, a former investor in the Cape Wind project [3], which has been criticized as a poor investment for taxpayers, reports Dakota Voice [4].
Vigorito once owned IVPC with Brian Caffyn, founder of Cape Wind and First Wind, according to the Boston Herald [5]. Caffyn sold his interest in Cape Wind in 2002 and sold his interest in IVPC in 2005. Vigorito has never had any involvement in Cape Wind, according to Mark Rodgers, Communications Director for the Cape Wind project.
The Herald reports that Caffyn was surprised to learn of Vigorito’s arrest:
“I read about it in the papers, and I was very surprised,” Brian Caffyn said from Hong Kong, where he is now building wind-energy farms in China and the Philippines.
“I know of no fraud with (former partners) Oreste (Vigorito) and IVPC,” said Caffyn, a Cape Cod native and Babson College graduate.
The “Gone with the Wind” sting operation, started in 2007, netted 11 others who were charged but were not arrested. Italian police told Financial Times that the fraud charges are related to obtaining millions of dollars in public subsidies to construct wind farms that never worked. Police confiscated seven wind farms with 185 turbines in Sicily linked to IVPC, according to the article.
The anti-fraud team also is investigating IVPC’s sales of wind farms to foreign companies, and already has sent requests for documentation to five companies located in the Netherlands and Spain, as well as IVPC’s Italian affiliates in Ireland and the UK, according to the article.
Anti-mafia prosecutors in Sicily also have launched a parallel investigation, reports the Financial Times.
Fraud appears to be an emerging problem in the nascent clean energy sector. Most recently, two clean energy auditors — SGS UK and DNV — were accused [6] of not properly auditing projects in carbon trading markets.
Meanwhile, the UK is dealing [7] with carbon trading credit scams that could cost millions of dollars. In Australia, to prevent bogus carbon offset schemes, federal police agents can now enter [8] company premises and request paperwork to monitor their emissions.
Article printed from Environmental Leader: http://www.environmentalleader.com
URL to article: Read Link
URLs in this post:
[1] Financial Times: Read Link
[2] European Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow: Read Link
[3] Cape Wind project: Read Link
[4] Dakota Voice: Read Link
[5] Boston Herald: Read Link
[6] accused: Read Link
[7] dealing: Read Link
[8] enter: Read Link
Eric Massa and an ill blowing wind
So, what’s the story with the wind farms of Cohocton? Have you driven down there? There are something like 30 of them dotting the hillsides by Route 17 heading through the Southern Tier. I think they’re beautiful. I love the idea of renewable energy being produced on such a large scale.
But, do they work? I’ve heard rumors that they have been constructed in an area that is not really a wind corridor and they don’t turn on their own, that there are generators powering those which are turning, to create the facade of functionality. (please note, the generators are rumor, I can’t find sources to back that up.)
So, why the wind turbines if they’re not producing energy? As usual, follow the money:
In 2006, the Beacon Hill Institute at Suffolk University undertook the most comprehensive review yet of Cape Wind’s public subsidies.
“What we found was quite remarkable,” David Tuerck, the institute’s executive director, said at the time. “Cape Wind stands to receive subsidies worth $731 million, or 77 percent of the cost of installing the project and 48 percent of the revenues it would generate. The policy question that this amount of subsidy raises is whether the project’s benefit is worth the huge public subsidies that the developer gets.”
Cape Wind spokesman Mark Rogers said the wind farm would only receive government monies after it is up and working, and meeting certain production criteria.
“It’s all performance-based,” he said.
Really, Mr Rogers? (Not to be confused with Fred Rogers, who didn’t have a dishonest bone in his body.)
In September, after First Wind affiliates received $115 million in federal stimulus money, U.S. Rep. Eric J. Massa (D-N.Y.) wrote to President Barack Obama, calling the grants “very alarming” and saying the company “abused the public trust.
“No electricity has been produced for sale out of the projects,” but the company “has already collected production rewards for non-existent energy,” Massa told Obama.
Further, here is a video of Eric Massa responding to this issue at a town hall meeting: View the Video
77 million dollars for a private, for profit adventure that has nothing to do with the taxpayer”
There is no one more enthusiastic about the possibilities of renewable energies in the form of wind power, than I. I’m heartbroken that, again, crooked corporations are running with this ball to the goal of profits without accountability. A quick buck made while the wool is pulled over the starry eyed gaze of a public wanting to believe in a path to the greater good.
Once again, thank you to Eric.
Related posts:
1. Once more, Eric Massa on the right side of wrong
2. (I know, how cliche’!) The Answer is Blowing in the Wind
3. On the Bill Press Show, Eric Massa “Calls ‘em as he sees ‘em”.
4. Hate Crimes legislation passed in the House last week, take a moment to thank Eric Massa.
5. Eric Massa interviewed by City. Here’s the Health Care part.
But, do they work? I’ve heard rumors that they have been constructed in an area that is not really a wind corridor and they don’t turn on their own, that there are generators powering those which are turning, to create the facade of functionality. (please note, the generators are rumor, I can’t find sources to back that up.)
So, why the wind turbines if they’re not producing energy? As usual, follow the money:
In 2006, the Beacon Hill Institute at Suffolk University undertook the most comprehensive review yet of Cape Wind’s public subsidies.
“What we found was quite remarkable,” David Tuerck, the institute’s executive director, said at the time. “Cape Wind stands to receive subsidies worth $731 million, or 77 percent of the cost of installing the project and 48 percent of the revenues it would generate. The policy question that this amount of subsidy raises is whether the project’s benefit is worth the huge public subsidies that the developer gets.”
Cape Wind spokesman Mark Rogers said the wind farm would only receive government monies after it is up and working, and meeting certain production criteria.
“It’s all performance-based,” he said.
Really, Mr Rogers? (Not to be confused with Fred Rogers, who didn’t have a dishonest bone in his body.)
In September, after First Wind affiliates received $115 million in federal stimulus money, U.S. Rep. Eric J. Massa (D-N.Y.) wrote to President Barack Obama, calling the grants “very alarming” and saying the company “abused the public trust.
“No electricity has been produced for sale out of the projects,” but the company “has already collected production rewards for non-existent energy,” Massa told Obama.
Further, here is a video of Eric Massa responding to this issue at a town hall meeting: View the Video
77 million dollars for a private, for profit adventure that has nothing to do with the taxpayer”
There is no one more enthusiastic about the possibilities of renewable energies in the form of wind power, than I. I’m heartbroken that, again, crooked corporations are running with this ball to the goal of profits without accountability. A quick buck made while the wool is pulled over the starry eyed gaze of a public wanting to believe in a path to the greater good.
Once again, thank you to Eric.
Related posts:
1. Once more, Eric Massa on the right side of wrong
2. (I know, how cliche’!) The Answer is Blowing in the Wind
3. On the Bill Press Show, Eric Massa “Calls ‘em as he sees ‘em”.
4. Hate Crimes legislation passed in the House last week, take a moment to thank Eric Massa.
5. Eric Massa interviewed by City. Here’s the Health Care part.
Transmission line gets no support
Landowners in Henderson and Ellisburg are charged up over the proposed transmission line for Galloo Island Wind Farm.
They voiced their displeasure with the plan during public hearings for the Public Service Commission on Monday morning and evening in Henderson and Belleville. In fact, none of the about 50 speakers at Monday's hearings supported the project.
Upstate NY Power Corp., the developer for the entire project, is seeking to build a 50.6-mile, 230-kilovolt transmission line. It would begin on Galloo Island and run underwater to the town of Henderson, where it would make landfall near Hovey Tract Road. From there, it would run east and south through the towns of Ellisburg, Sandy Creek and Richland to connect to a 345-kilovolt line in the town of Mexico.
The latest maps show the developer plans to circumvent the village of Pulaski and go to the east side of Interstate 81 there.
"There is nothing green or earth-friendly about building a power line through prime agricultural land," said Sharon B. Rossiter, co-owner of Doubledale Farms in Ellisburg.
She and her husband, Daniel L., choked up as they spoke about the crop cycle on the farm and the acres they would lose for crop production because of the proposed line. Mr. Rossiter said even with the poles spread out about 500 feet, it is difficult to plant crops around them.
The Rossiters stand to lose about 100 acres to the transmission line right of way.
"The obstacles for dairy farmers have become bigger and bigger," he said. "I have always remained optimistic about farming in Northern New York, but we must compete in a global economy. We don't need any other obstacles."
Jay M. Matteson, Jefferson County agricultural coordinator, also spoke out against using agricultural land in light of other alternatives.
"When state land is available that is not any more valuable environmentally than neighboring private lands, these transmission facilities projects should be sited on the available public land," he said. "The burden should be on New York state and the developer to prove to local landowners why their land is less valuable than public land."
John M. Irwin, Clay, argued against the proposed route, given the alternatives. In the application, the developer ruled out an underwater line because of cost and reliability issues.
"The claim about reliability of a subaquatic route is without merit," he said. "An underwater cable is not affected by an ice storm, or by lightning."
He also said the application lacked a realistic cost comparison of going to the Coffeen Street substation west of the city of Watertown. That substation would be the closest to the project, but would require upgrades to the substation.
"Their proposed line runs straight through the middle of the blueberry farm, which is what we've been working at building over the last six years," said Roberta F. French, owner of Farnham Farms in Sandy Creek.
The plan would eliminate about two-thirds of the blueberry field, she said. She said she will offer a proposal to go around her current and future fields.
Ms. French and others complained that they had not been notified that the transmission line is planned for their or neighboring property. Upstate NY Power representative Robert W. Burgdorf, of Nixon Peabody, Rochester, explained that the developer originally had talked to about 300 landowners along possible routes. But once the PSC process began, it did not notify individual landowners as the route changed.
Several landowners voiced fears about the use of eminent domain.
In August, a PSC spokeswoman said that although eminent domain could be attempted after the developer received a certificate of environmental compatibility and public need, it would require a separate process through local jurisdictions.
"They do not automatically gain the rights afforded under eminent domain law," Anne V. Dalton said.
Officials in Henderson also were vocal in opposition to the line.
"The town is vehemently opposed to the line coming through the town at all," said Holly K. Austin, the town's attorney on the transmission line proposal. She works for the Syracuse law firm Hancock & Estabrook LLP.
"The foundation of the town is tourism and agriculture," she said. "The community is very concerned about the visual impacts of this project."
Robert E. Ashodian, chairman of the Henderson Harbor Area Chamber of Commerce's Economic Development Committee, said the transmission line would violate the town's comprehensive plan. The plan was approved in 2004 after the town board and local Chamber of Commerce compiled surveys of residents.
"The scenic resources of the community and the natural resources are at the heart of the value of the community," he said. "How can the developer think about having a utility of this magnitude built with no reference to the long-term use plan of the town?"
Mr. Ashodian said people in Henderson didn't know it was coming.
The Times first reported in January 2008 the proposed path for the power line.
The hearings continue todayat 10 a.m. at the Barclay Court House, 1 Jefferson St., Pulaski, and at 6 p.m. at the Pulaski Junior-Senior High School, 4324 Salina St., Pulaski. The PSC and developer will present information during the first hour, followed by time for public statements.
They voiced their displeasure with the plan during public hearings for the Public Service Commission on Monday morning and evening in Henderson and Belleville. In fact, none of the about 50 speakers at Monday's hearings supported the project.
Upstate NY Power Corp., the developer for the entire project, is seeking to build a 50.6-mile, 230-kilovolt transmission line. It would begin on Galloo Island and run underwater to the town of Henderson, where it would make landfall near Hovey Tract Road. From there, it would run east and south through the towns of Ellisburg, Sandy Creek and Richland to connect to a 345-kilovolt line in the town of Mexico.
The latest maps show the developer plans to circumvent the village of Pulaski and go to the east side of Interstate 81 there.
"There is nothing green or earth-friendly about building a power line through prime agricultural land," said Sharon B. Rossiter, co-owner of Doubledale Farms in Ellisburg.
She and her husband, Daniel L., choked up as they spoke about the crop cycle on the farm and the acres they would lose for crop production because of the proposed line. Mr. Rossiter said even with the poles spread out about 500 feet, it is difficult to plant crops around them.
The Rossiters stand to lose about 100 acres to the transmission line right of way.
"The obstacles for dairy farmers have become bigger and bigger," he said. "I have always remained optimistic about farming in Northern New York, but we must compete in a global economy. We don't need any other obstacles."
Jay M. Matteson, Jefferson County agricultural coordinator, also spoke out against using agricultural land in light of other alternatives.
"When state land is available that is not any more valuable environmentally than neighboring private lands, these transmission facilities projects should be sited on the available public land," he said. "The burden should be on New York state and the developer to prove to local landowners why their land is less valuable than public land."
John M. Irwin, Clay, argued against the proposed route, given the alternatives. In the application, the developer ruled out an underwater line because of cost and reliability issues.
"The claim about reliability of a subaquatic route is without merit," he said. "An underwater cable is not affected by an ice storm, or by lightning."
He also said the application lacked a realistic cost comparison of going to the Coffeen Street substation west of the city of Watertown. That substation would be the closest to the project, but would require upgrades to the substation.
"Their proposed line runs straight through the middle of the blueberry farm, which is what we've been working at building over the last six years," said Roberta F. French, owner of Farnham Farms in Sandy Creek.
The plan would eliminate about two-thirds of the blueberry field, she said. She said she will offer a proposal to go around her current and future fields.
Ms. French and others complained that they had not been notified that the transmission line is planned for their or neighboring property. Upstate NY Power representative Robert W. Burgdorf, of Nixon Peabody, Rochester, explained that the developer originally had talked to about 300 landowners along possible routes. But once the PSC process began, it did not notify individual landowners as the route changed.
Several landowners voiced fears about the use of eminent domain.
In August, a PSC spokeswoman said that although eminent domain could be attempted after the developer received a certificate of environmental compatibility and public need, it would require a separate process through local jurisdictions.
"They do not automatically gain the rights afforded under eminent domain law," Anne V. Dalton said.
Officials in Henderson also were vocal in opposition to the line.
"The town is vehemently opposed to the line coming through the town at all," said Holly K. Austin, the town's attorney on the transmission line proposal. She works for the Syracuse law firm Hancock & Estabrook LLP.
"The foundation of the town is tourism and agriculture," she said. "The community is very concerned about the visual impacts of this project."
Robert E. Ashodian, chairman of the Henderson Harbor Area Chamber of Commerce's Economic Development Committee, said the transmission line would violate the town's comprehensive plan. The plan was approved in 2004 after the town board and local Chamber of Commerce compiled surveys of residents.
"The scenic resources of the community and the natural resources are at the heart of the value of the community," he said. "How can the developer think about having a utility of this magnitude built with no reference to the long-term use plan of the town?"
Mr. Ashodian said people in Henderson didn't know it was coming.
The Times first reported in January 2008 the proposed path for the power line.
The hearings continue todayat 10 a.m. at the Barclay Court House, 1 Jefferson St., Pulaski, and at 6 p.m. at the Pulaski Junior-Senior High School, 4324 Salina St., Pulaski. The PSC and developer will present information during the first hour, followed by time for public statements.
NY Court of Appeals Opens Door to Standing for Environmental Review Challenges
In a victory for those who have long believed that the New York Court of Appeals needed to open the courthouse door wider for advocates seeking standing in environmental disputes, a decision last week by the Court delivered. The court began its decision, “We hold that a person who can prove that he or she uses and enjoys a natural resource more than most other members of the public has standing under the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) to challenge government actions that threaten that resource. Applying that rule to this case, we hold that the individual petitioners who are members of petitioner Save the Pine Bush, Inc., and the organization itself, have standing to challenge an action alleged to threaten endangered species in the Pine Bush area.”
Following the required environmental review and subsequent rezoning of a 3.6 acre parcel adjoining the Pine Bush Preserve to accommodate a parking lot for a proposed hotel, nine members of Save the Pine Bush commenced challenging the City’s action under the State Environmental Quality Review Act, alleging that they “live near the site of the hotel project” and they “use the Pine Bush for recreation and to study and enjoy the unique habitat found there.” The trial court denied a motion to dismiss the proceeding for lack of standing, vacated the City’s SEQRA determination, and annulled the rezoning. The trial court determined that the environmental impact statement was flawed because while it gave “considerable attention” to the Karner Blue Butterfly, it did not contain “a hard look” at the potential impact on other rare plant and animals.
The Appellate Division affirmed (with two judges dissenting), finding, with respect to standing, that the plaintiffs could show evidence that “they regularly use the Preserve” and that “at least one of the petitioners resides in sufficient proximity to the Preserve to facilitate that use.” Applying Society of Plastics Industry v. Suffolk County (77 N.Y.2d 761), the Court said that “In land use matters… the plaintiff, for standing purposes, must show that it would suffer direct harm, injury that is in some way different from that of the public at large,” and that standing of an organization could be “established by proof that the agency action will directly harm the association members in their use and enjoyment of the affected natural resources.”
The Court of Appeals agreed, finding it was likely that members of the Save the Pine Bush organization would frequent and enjoy the Pine Bush. They referred to the finding by the United States Supreme Court in Sierra Club v Morton 405 U.S. 727 (1972), agreeing that a “generalized interest in the environment could not confer standing to challenge environmental injury, but that injury to a particular plaintiff “[a]esthetics and environmental well being” would be enough.” Here, the City did not challenge the injuries the petitioners asserted and the court found that the petitioners were able to prove the direct harm to the organization members.
The court, while holding that the petitioners had standing, nonetheless found for the City on the merits. The Court noted that the fact that not all possible potential impacts were studied was not fatal to the City approval of the zoning change. They stated “[w]hile it is essential that public agencies comply with their duties under SEQRA, some common sense in determining the extent of those duties is essential too.”
Save the Pine Bush v. Common Council of the City of Albany, 2009 WL 3425317 (NY 10/27/2009)
The opinion can be accessed at this link.
Posted in Current Caselaw - New York, Environmental Review, Standing
Following the required environmental review and subsequent rezoning of a 3.6 acre parcel adjoining the Pine Bush Preserve to accommodate a parking lot for a proposed hotel, nine members of Save the Pine Bush commenced challenging the City’s action under the State Environmental Quality Review Act, alleging that they “live near the site of the hotel project” and they “use the Pine Bush for recreation and to study and enjoy the unique habitat found there.” The trial court denied a motion to dismiss the proceeding for lack of standing, vacated the City’s SEQRA determination, and annulled the rezoning. The trial court determined that the environmental impact statement was flawed because while it gave “considerable attention” to the Karner Blue Butterfly, it did not contain “a hard look” at the potential impact on other rare plant and animals.
The Appellate Division affirmed (with two judges dissenting), finding, with respect to standing, that the plaintiffs could show evidence that “they regularly use the Preserve” and that “at least one of the petitioners resides in sufficient proximity to the Preserve to facilitate that use.” Applying Society of Plastics Industry v. Suffolk County (77 N.Y.2d 761), the Court said that “In land use matters… the plaintiff, for standing purposes, must show that it would suffer direct harm, injury that is in some way different from that of the public at large,” and that standing of an organization could be “established by proof that the agency action will directly harm the association members in their use and enjoyment of the affected natural resources.”
The Court of Appeals agreed, finding it was likely that members of the Save the Pine Bush organization would frequent and enjoy the Pine Bush. They referred to the finding by the United States Supreme Court in Sierra Club v Morton 405 U.S. 727 (1972), agreeing that a “generalized interest in the environment could not confer standing to challenge environmental injury, but that injury to a particular plaintiff “[a]esthetics and environmental well being” would be enough.” Here, the City did not challenge the injuries the petitioners asserted and the court found that the petitioners were able to prove the direct harm to the organization members.
The court, while holding that the petitioners had standing, nonetheless found for the City on the merits. The Court noted that the fact that not all possible potential impacts were studied was not fatal to the City approval of the zoning change. They stated “[w]hile it is essential that public agencies comply with their duties under SEQRA, some common sense in determining the extent of those duties is essential too.”
Save the Pine Bush v. Common Council of the City of Albany, 2009 WL 3425317 (NY 10/27/2009)
The opinion can be accessed at this link.
Posted in Current Caselaw - New York, Environmental Review, Standing
Monday, November 16, 2009
The reality of wind turbines is not as efficient as lobbyists would like the public to believe
The article in the Thursday, Oct. 27 edition of The Daily Observer, ‘Energy solution blowing in the wind,’ is an example of alternative energy propaganda funded by wind farm companies and promoted by environmental lobby groups.
Mr. Berton has nothing but praise for Spain and its supposedly 13 per cent production figure, but what he doesn’t tell you is that although the wind is free, the means to produce power from it is twice as expensive as conventional power plants. Furthermore, Spain is now realizing how inefficient wind power is.
England is on the brink of a blackout in about seven years because of its commitment to wind power. The British have spent billions of pounds installing 2,000 wind turbines that barely produce one per cent of the power needed.
They signed on to Kyoto and are legally obligated to produce 32 per cent of their power from alternative energy sources by 2010. Let’s do the math: If 2,000 wind turbines barely produce one per cent of need, then 32 times 2,000 means it would take 64,000 turbines to meet the target. Each turbine needs about four acres, four times 64,000 amounts to 256,000 acres and England would be hard-pressed to find room for 10,000 turbines. Prime Minister Brown and his group of environmental dreamers are in fantasy land.
They are proposing to close their coal and oil-fired power plants and eight of their nine nuclear plants are so old that they will be forced to shut down, amounting to approximately 65 per cent of their power production.
The government is now reluctantly proposing to build a new generation of nuclearpower plants, but it has waited too long and will not have them in place before the county runs out of power. Britain sold its world class nuclear construction company, Westinghouse, to the Japanese for a fire sale price.
Germany has installed more than 3,000 wind turbines and are in the process of building 40 more clean coal-fired plants, because they now realize how inefficient and expensive wind power is.
In Ontario, Mr. McGuinty and his group of socialist comrades are travelling down the same road, and if not stopped, WE will be looking at power shortfalls in 10 years. I suggest rather than wasting our tax dollars on wind power, we should be refurbishing or building new nuclear power plants and also clean coal power plants.
The notion that wind power can replace conventional and nuclear power production is ridiculous and just a means for extracting our tax dollars from naive political leaders by the use of alarmism.
The sad reality is there is a lot of money behind wind power promoted by environmental lobby groups, and I would love to follow that paper trail to see who is getting it.
Mack Thrasher, Laurentian Valley
Mr. Berton has nothing but praise for Spain and its supposedly 13 per cent production figure, but what he doesn’t tell you is that although the wind is free, the means to produce power from it is twice as expensive as conventional power plants. Furthermore, Spain is now realizing how inefficient wind power is.
England is on the brink of a blackout in about seven years because of its commitment to wind power. The British have spent billions of pounds installing 2,000 wind turbines that barely produce one per cent of the power needed.
They signed on to Kyoto and are legally obligated to produce 32 per cent of their power from alternative energy sources by 2010. Let’s do the math: If 2,000 wind turbines barely produce one per cent of need, then 32 times 2,000 means it would take 64,000 turbines to meet the target. Each turbine needs about four acres, four times 64,000 amounts to 256,000 acres and England would be hard-pressed to find room for 10,000 turbines. Prime Minister Brown and his group of environmental dreamers are in fantasy land.
They are proposing to close their coal and oil-fired power plants and eight of their nine nuclear plants are so old that they will be forced to shut down, amounting to approximately 65 per cent of their power production.
The government is now reluctantly proposing to build a new generation of nuclearpower plants, but it has waited too long and will not have them in place before the county runs out of power. Britain sold its world class nuclear construction company, Westinghouse, to the Japanese for a fire sale price.
Germany has installed more than 3,000 wind turbines and are in the process of building 40 more clean coal-fired plants, because they now realize how inefficient and expensive wind power is.
In Ontario, Mr. McGuinty and his group of socialist comrades are travelling down the same road, and if not stopped, WE will be looking at power shortfalls in 10 years. I suggest rather than wasting our tax dollars on wind power, we should be refurbishing or building new nuclear power plants and also clean coal power plants.
The notion that wind power can replace conventional and nuclear power production is ridiculous and just a means for extracting our tax dollars from naive political leaders by the use of alarmism.
The sad reality is there is a lot of money behind wind power promoted by environmental lobby groups, and I would love to follow that paper trail to see who is getting it.
Mack Thrasher, Laurentian Valley
2,200 Offshore Turbines Planned For Lakes Ontario & Erie
Lakes Ontario and Erie to be Decimated
NYPA Proposes Over 1,000 Turbines in Lake Ontario, 1200 in Lake Erie
Nov 13, 2009 – New York Power Authority President Richie Kessel and his staff made an hour and a half presentation at Oswego, NY city hall today to reveal the New York Power Authority Great Lakes Power Project that divulges a horrible future for Lakes Ontario and Erie. Approximately 60-70 people attended the presentation. The presentation was originally supposed to be for elected officials and community leaders until word of this covert meeting leaked out and spread rapidly. Information was mostly presented by two of Kessel’s staff (Sharon Luadisi, government and community affairs specialist for NYPA and Kathleen (?), environmental specialist) who are convinced that wind energy would be terrific for the Great Lakes and upstate NY. The information given is a regurgitation of what Kessel presented on Earth Day, April 22, 2009 in Buffalo. Luadisi said that Buffalo wanted a wind farm and people supposedly asked the NYPA that the turbines be located closer to Buffalo. At Oswego there were several people who expressed an opposing view to NYPA’s plans and made their feelings known. Several slides were shown that gave the attendees an overall idea of “the project” and how abhorrent it is for New Yorkers. I came away from the presentation convinced that “the project” is being forced upon Upstaters by a downstate Long Island Democrat appointed by a grossly unpopular NY governor we didn’t even elect. Kessel wishes to pollute Lakes Ontario and Erie with thousands of wind turbines so that volatile, low quality, unreliable, expensive power could be sent to metropolitan NYC and LI. Kessel speculated that turbines and necessary related parts could be manufactured upstate creating thousands of jobs. The presentation mentioned that the project would be reviewed by NYSDEC, US Coast Guard, US Army Corp of Engineers and US Fish & Wildlife Service and others. However – the slides shown that identified what agencies would be involved in siting “the project” - didn’t include input from local municipalities along the shorelines. In other words – towns bordering the lakes with offshore turbines – the major victims of this horrible project - wouldn’t have much, if anything, to say about the project. This project would be forced upon them. Turbines would need to be located in water depths of less than 150 feet. Whether or not tax payments to those municipalities nearest “the project” would be made are also questionable. Yes – this is what Richie has in store for upstaters.
The Lake Ontario & Erie maps illustrate what NYPA’s Kessel has been hiding from upstate New Yorkers – maps that are a “first cut” - showing the potential project sites (offshore wind farms) of this massive project that will hurt so many New Yorkers in numerous ways. The map slides were shown at Oswego this afternoon and graphically illustrate potential offshore wind farms very close to the shoreline. On the map slides please note there are two numbers shown for each offshore wind farm. The numbers indicate the electrical generating capacity of the farm. For example, let’s look at the one for Lake Ontario & Niagara County. The numbers show 90-180 meaning the megawatt capacity range being considered for the wind farm. Each turbine according to NYPA will produce about 3 megawatts therefore to determine how many turbines might be in the farm simply divide the megawatt range numbers on the map slide by 3. Therefore – offshore in Niagara County you could expect to find between 30 to 60 turbines! Up to 60 turbines near the outlet of the Niagara River into Lake Ontario off Niagara County! This should really upset the owner’s of beautiful yachts in the Niagara River marinas as well as our Canadian neighbors who will be forced to look upon these 450’ high eyesores. The next Lake Ontario area victimized is Monroe County (Rochester & 103 offshore turbines) from the town of Parma then east to Greece, then past Irondequoit and Webster to Wayne County’s town of Ontario – this comprises 3 wind farms. Another offshore wind farm (20 turbines) is shown off the town of Williamson and then east and north of Sodus Bay – this should really cause chaos for the Sodus Bay boaters & fishermen. Another large offshore wind farm (106 turbines) continues north of Sodus Bay and east past the towns of Huron and Wolcott and just reaching north of Cayuga County and the town of Sterling. The next offshore wind farm is enormous (560 turbines) and located in Mexico Bay just off of Oswego and Jefferson counties. Two more offshore wind farms (53 and 136 turbines) show in Lake Ontario just north of Galloo Island and of course this is in addition to what’s already in the controversial works on Galloo Island and the Jefferson county mainland! The last offshore wind farm (16 turbines) shows off Grenadier Island and just inside the Canadian border.
Lakes Ontario/Erie would change forever if this happens!
New Yorkers need to stop Kessel’s horrible project in its tracks.
If you do not want this tragedy to happen you must send this email to warn your neighbors, businesses, boating friends, charter captains, fellow workers, cottage owners, neighborhood associations, environmental groups, realtors, our Canadian neighbors, and especially shoreline property and business owners. You must pressure your local and state elected representatives to take immediate action opposed to Kessel’s objectives to industrialize the Great Lakes for downstate’s benefit. There is no need for offshore wind farms in Lake Ontario or Lake Erie. Don’t be fooled and allow Richie and NYPA to rape upstate NY.
Is it any wonder why New York state suffered the largest loss of residents to other states in the nation from 2000 to 2008, with more than 1.5 million people leaving, a report found. The report, commissioned by the conservative Empire Center for New York State Policy, found 8 percent of New York’s population at the start of the decade has left to other states. Efforts like Kessel’s trashing of Lakes Erie and Ontario will lead to a greater exodus of people from NYS during the next decade. Kessel has truly put a curse on lakeshore upstaters. Allowing any wind turbines anywhere in the Great Lakes will encourage more to follow in the future.
Kessel’s Great Lakes Power Project plan must be fought with a vengeance.
The New York Post said this about Kessel possibly being selected as NYPA chief:
"There couldn't be a worse choice to run the New York Power Authority than long-time Long Island gadfly and political gofer Richie Kessel -- yet Gov. Paterson seems set to tap him for just that post.
"What a huge mistake."
Paterson gave him the job.
Richard Kessel is the mastermind behind this Great Lakes Power Project fiasco and not free of controversy. You do not have to Google very long to discover what a train wreck Kessel is. He was fired from the Long Island Power Authority by former Gov. Spitzer. (both downstate Democrats) NY Times.com reports Kessel was investigated by the state inspector general for accepting dual salaries at LIPA for his twin roles as chairman and president. His plan for a 150 turbine offshore Long Island wind farm was dropped when costs ballooned to $800M and residents complained it was too near shore. He’s proposed putting a major power line under the NYS thruway (to downstate, of course). NYS Sen. George Maziarz of Niagara County testified that Kessel is a liar and a cheat. The North Country Gazette reported numerous Kessel blunders while he headed the LIPA. But the most damning Kessel commentary is described by George J. Marlin, former executive director of the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey. Read Marlin’s extensive Kessel scorchers in several articles at http://streetcornerconservative.com and at Read this Link - you won’t believe it!
No doubt Gov. Paterson won’t be re-elected hence Kessel won’t enjoy his NYPA job too long either but he’ll continue to do damage to NYS until he’s replaced from his $240K/year patronage job.
************************************************************************
Above information respectfully provided by Al Isselhard; email speedway2742@gmail.com
See another Beware NY Wind blog on offshore turbines: “Say “NO” to Offshore Great Lakes Turbines”
NYPA Proposes Over 1,000 Turbines in Lake Ontario, 1200 in Lake Erie
Nov 13, 2009 – New York Power Authority President Richie Kessel and his staff made an hour and a half presentation at Oswego, NY city hall today to reveal the New York Power Authority Great Lakes Power Project that divulges a horrible future for Lakes Ontario and Erie. Approximately 60-70 people attended the presentation. The presentation was originally supposed to be for elected officials and community leaders until word of this covert meeting leaked out and spread rapidly. Information was mostly presented by two of Kessel’s staff (Sharon Luadisi, government and community affairs specialist for NYPA and Kathleen (?), environmental specialist) who are convinced that wind energy would be terrific for the Great Lakes and upstate NY. The information given is a regurgitation of what Kessel presented on Earth Day, April 22, 2009 in Buffalo. Luadisi said that Buffalo wanted a wind farm and people supposedly asked the NYPA that the turbines be located closer to Buffalo. At Oswego there were several people who expressed an opposing view to NYPA’s plans and made their feelings known. Several slides were shown that gave the attendees an overall idea of “the project” and how abhorrent it is for New Yorkers. I came away from the presentation convinced that “the project” is being forced upon Upstaters by a downstate Long Island Democrat appointed by a grossly unpopular NY governor we didn’t even elect. Kessel wishes to pollute Lakes Ontario and Erie with thousands of wind turbines so that volatile, low quality, unreliable, expensive power could be sent to metropolitan NYC and LI. Kessel speculated that turbines and necessary related parts could be manufactured upstate creating thousands of jobs. The presentation mentioned that the project would be reviewed by NYSDEC, US Coast Guard, US Army Corp of Engineers and US Fish & Wildlife Service and others. However – the slides shown that identified what agencies would be involved in siting “the project” - didn’t include input from local municipalities along the shorelines. In other words – towns bordering the lakes with offshore turbines – the major victims of this horrible project - wouldn’t have much, if anything, to say about the project. This project would be forced upon them. Turbines would need to be located in water depths of less than 150 feet. Whether or not tax payments to those municipalities nearest “the project” would be made are also questionable. Yes – this is what Richie has in store for upstaters.
The Lake Ontario & Erie maps illustrate what NYPA’s Kessel has been hiding from upstate New Yorkers – maps that are a “first cut” - showing the potential project sites (offshore wind farms) of this massive project that will hurt so many New Yorkers in numerous ways. The map slides were shown at Oswego this afternoon and graphically illustrate potential offshore wind farms very close to the shoreline. On the map slides please note there are two numbers shown for each offshore wind farm. The numbers indicate the electrical generating capacity of the farm. For example, let’s look at the one for Lake Ontario & Niagara County. The numbers show 90-180 meaning the megawatt capacity range being considered for the wind farm. Each turbine according to NYPA will produce about 3 megawatts therefore to determine how many turbines might be in the farm simply divide the megawatt range numbers on the map slide by 3. Therefore – offshore in Niagara County you could expect to find between 30 to 60 turbines! Up to 60 turbines near the outlet of the Niagara River into Lake Ontario off Niagara County! This should really upset the owner’s of beautiful yachts in the Niagara River marinas as well as our Canadian neighbors who will be forced to look upon these 450’ high eyesores. The next Lake Ontario area victimized is Monroe County (Rochester & 103 offshore turbines) from the town of Parma then east to Greece, then past Irondequoit and Webster to Wayne County’s town of Ontario – this comprises 3 wind farms. Another offshore wind farm (20 turbines) is shown off the town of Williamson and then east and north of Sodus Bay – this should really cause chaos for the Sodus Bay boaters & fishermen. Another large offshore wind farm (106 turbines) continues north of Sodus Bay and east past the towns of Huron and Wolcott and just reaching north of Cayuga County and the town of Sterling. The next offshore wind farm is enormous (560 turbines) and located in Mexico Bay just off of Oswego and Jefferson counties. Two more offshore wind farms (53 and 136 turbines) show in Lake Ontario just north of Galloo Island and of course this is in addition to what’s already in the controversial works on Galloo Island and the Jefferson county mainland! The last offshore wind farm (16 turbines) shows off Grenadier Island and just inside the Canadian border.
Lakes Ontario/Erie would change forever if this happens!
New Yorkers need to stop Kessel’s horrible project in its tracks.
If you do not want this tragedy to happen you must send this email to warn your neighbors, businesses, boating friends, charter captains, fellow workers, cottage owners, neighborhood associations, environmental groups, realtors, our Canadian neighbors, and especially shoreline property and business owners. You must pressure your local and state elected representatives to take immediate action opposed to Kessel’s objectives to industrialize the Great Lakes for downstate’s benefit. There is no need for offshore wind farms in Lake Ontario or Lake Erie. Don’t be fooled and allow Richie and NYPA to rape upstate NY.
Is it any wonder why New York state suffered the largest loss of residents to other states in the nation from 2000 to 2008, with more than 1.5 million people leaving, a report found. The report, commissioned by the conservative Empire Center for New York State Policy, found 8 percent of New York’s population at the start of the decade has left to other states. Efforts like Kessel’s trashing of Lakes Erie and Ontario will lead to a greater exodus of people from NYS during the next decade. Kessel has truly put a curse on lakeshore upstaters. Allowing any wind turbines anywhere in the Great Lakes will encourage more to follow in the future.
Kessel’s Great Lakes Power Project plan must be fought with a vengeance.
The New York Post said this about Kessel possibly being selected as NYPA chief:
"There couldn't be a worse choice to run the New York Power Authority than long-time Long Island gadfly and political gofer Richie Kessel -- yet Gov. Paterson seems set to tap him for just that post.
"What a huge mistake."
Paterson gave him the job.
Richard Kessel is the mastermind behind this Great Lakes Power Project fiasco and not free of controversy. You do not have to Google very long to discover what a train wreck Kessel is. He was fired from the Long Island Power Authority by former Gov. Spitzer. (both downstate Democrats) NY Times.com reports Kessel was investigated by the state inspector general for accepting dual salaries at LIPA for his twin roles as chairman and president. His plan for a 150 turbine offshore Long Island wind farm was dropped when costs ballooned to $800M and residents complained it was too near shore. He’s proposed putting a major power line under the NYS thruway (to downstate, of course). NYS Sen. George Maziarz of Niagara County testified that Kessel is a liar and a cheat. The North Country Gazette reported numerous Kessel blunders while he headed the LIPA. But the most damning Kessel commentary is described by George J. Marlin, former executive director of the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey. Read Marlin’s extensive Kessel scorchers in several articles at http://streetcornerconservative.com and at Read this Link - you won’t believe it!
No doubt Gov. Paterson won’t be re-elected hence Kessel won’t enjoy his NYPA job too long either but he’ll continue to do damage to NYS until he’s replaced from his $240K/year patronage job.
************************************************************************
Above information respectfully provided by Al Isselhard; email speedway2742@gmail.com
See another Beware NY Wind blog on offshore turbines: “Say “NO” to Offshore Great Lakes Turbines”
Sunday, November 15, 2009
Rob Pforzheimer comments on your note "Ex-partner of Boston wind exec charged
"Caffyn may deny his association with IVPC but as evidenced by the testimony UPC gave to the VT Public Service Board in 2006, UPC/First Wind has its roots in this corrupt Italian company now being investigated. Former associates have been arrested for allegedly collecting subsidies on unproductive wind plants and mafia connections. Hopefully soon authorities here and in Italy will implicate Caffyn and UPC/First Wind.
Below is UPC describing themselves to the VT Public Service Board (PSB) proclaiming that due to their complete involvement with IVPC, they have enough expertise to build the Sheffield, VT project. The link is to the February 21, 2006 prefilled direct testimony of UPC in their application to the VT PSB for a Certificate of Public Good.
Read Link
From the Prefilled Direct Testimony of Cowan, Rowland, and Vavrik - February 21, 2006
Quoting UPC - "UPC Group is a group of related companies that have developed large scale wind farms in Europe. To date, UPC Group has developed, financed, constructed, owned and operated over 635 MW of large-scale wind turbine generators in southern Italy and the islands of Sicily and Sardinia through a company called Italian Vento Power Company (“IVPC”) (http://www.facebook.com/l/;www.ivpc.com). Certain principals of the UPC Group recently sold their ownership interests in holding companies that own the IVPC companies. In conjunction with this sale, a new European subsidiary of UPC Group has been established and is pursuing several hundred megawatts of wind energy projects in Europe and North Africa, including additional projects in Italy.
The IVPC subsidiaries of the UPC Group achieved an exceptional operating record, with its wind turbines available 98.5% of the time on a fleet-wide basis. An extensive operations and maintenance organization was established for the Italian projects, consisting of over 120 personnel dedicated exclusively to the day-to-day management, operation and maintenance of the IVPC projects."
Also from the same testimony is the resume of another former Enron employee, UPC VP, Steve Vavrik:
"I have 10 years of work experience in the energy field, concentrating on the financial aspects of power production and power sales. My past work experience includes GE Capital, where I developed financial models for equity investments on energy projects, and Enron Europe and Dynegy, where structured long term power and fuel purchases and sales. My first wind project was for PPM Energy in Portland, Oregon, where I was responsible for green tag power sales of the 198 MW Maple Ridge wind project in New York State. Currently I am the Vice President of Risk Management for UPC Wind Management, where I am in charge of all power sales."
This company with alleged mafia connections and run by former Enron execs has recently received $114.6 million in gov't grants with no strings attached and obviously no due diligence.
UPC/First Winds major investors are hedge funds DE Shaw and Madison Dearborn. Both have connections to the Obama administration.
Read Link
Larry Summers was a director of DE Shaw before leaving to head Obama's council of economic advisers. Obama adviser Rahm Emmanuel has "friends" and contributors at Chicago based Madison Dearborn.
Corrupt, politically connected, "green renewable energy" LLCs developing environmentally destructive industrial scale wind plants to collect gov't subsidies, paid with our tax dollars, will inevitably be the next scandal and bubble to burst."
To see the comment thread, follow the link
Below is UPC describing themselves to the VT Public Service Board (PSB) proclaiming that due to their complete involvement with IVPC, they have enough expertise to build the Sheffield, VT project. The link is to the February 21, 2006 prefilled direct testimony of UPC in their application to the VT PSB for a Certificate of Public Good.
Read Link
From the Prefilled Direct Testimony of Cowan, Rowland, and Vavrik - February 21, 2006
Quoting UPC - "UPC Group is a group of related companies that have developed large scale wind farms in Europe. To date, UPC Group has developed, financed, constructed, owned and operated over 635 MW of large-scale wind turbine generators in southern Italy and the islands of Sicily and Sardinia through a company called Italian Vento Power Company (“IVPC”) (http://www.facebook.com/l/;www.ivpc.com). Certain principals of the UPC Group recently sold their ownership interests in holding companies that own the IVPC companies. In conjunction with this sale, a new European subsidiary of UPC Group has been established and is pursuing several hundred megawatts of wind energy projects in Europe and North Africa, including additional projects in Italy.
The IVPC subsidiaries of the UPC Group achieved an exceptional operating record, with its wind turbines available 98.5% of the time on a fleet-wide basis. An extensive operations and maintenance organization was established for the Italian projects, consisting of over 120 personnel dedicated exclusively to the day-to-day management, operation and maintenance of the IVPC projects."
Also from the same testimony is the resume of another former Enron employee, UPC VP, Steve Vavrik:
"I have 10 years of work experience in the energy field, concentrating on the financial aspects of power production and power sales. My past work experience includes GE Capital, where I developed financial models for equity investments on energy projects, and Enron Europe and Dynegy, where structured long term power and fuel purchases and sales. My first wind project was for PPM Energy in Portland, Oregon, where I was responsible for green tag power sales of the 198 MW Maple Ridge wind project in New York State. Currently I am the Vice President of Risk Management for UPC Wind Management, where I am in charge of all power sales."
This company with alleged mafia connections and run by former Enron execs has recently received $114.6 million in gov't grants with no strings attached and obviously no due diligence.
UPC/First Winds major investors are hedge funds DE Shaw and Madison Dearborn. Both have connections to the Obama administration.
Read Link
Larry Summers was a director of DE Shaw before leaving to head Obama's council of economic advisers. Obama adviser Rahm Emmanuel has "friends" and contributors at Chicago based Madison Dearborn.
Corrupt, politically connected, "green renewable energy" LLCs developing environmentally destructive industrial scale wind plants to collect gov't subsidies, paid with our tax dollars, will inevitably be the next scandal and bubble to burst."
To see the comment thread, follow the link
Town to fight wind company lawsuit
Italy, N.Y.
A fight over whether a proposed wind turbine project bordering Naples will go forward heated up last week when the developer filed a lawsuit against the town, where 17 turbines were to go up.
The Article 78 action, filed in state Supreme Court in Monroe County by developer Ecogen Wind LLC, seeks to overturn the Town Board’s decision to stop the project by denying approvals and placing a moratorium on its development.
Last month, the board unanimously rejected the proposed wind turbine project, determining the gigantic, power-generating machines would have a negative effect on the environment. The board also imposed a six-month moratorium on wind turbines following a public hearing.
The decision followed a meeting the previous month attended by 116 residents. Most of those who spoke opposed the project over concerns about noise, light flicker, positioning on steep slopes and other concerns.
Supervisor-elect Brad Jones said he and other elected officials are ready to challenge the lawsuit that claims the town acted improperly and illegally in rejecting the project’s application.
“You don’t try to build a big industrial project when 70 to 80 percent said ‘we don’t want
industrialization in the town,’” said Jones. His family, like most others in Italy, choose to live there because of family history and the town’s rural character, he said.
“We need to represent the will of the people,” added Jones. “We will continue to fight.”
Messages left with Nixon Peabody LLP, Ecogen’s legal representative on the case, were not returned. Beth O’Brien, a spokeswoman with Ecogen’s partner on the project, Pattern Energy Group, said she could not comment because of the pending litigation.
Ed Premo, with Harter Secrest & Emery LLP, which represents the town, said the Town Board did due diligence.
“It went through the process of carefully reviewing the application, went through two public hearings and carefully considered all documents and evidence,” he said, before the board determined the benefits Ecogen offered did not outweigh “the substantial adverse impacts of the project.”
Jones said Ecogen had bought several properties in the town, with plans to build turbines there, claiming in the lawsuit it had spent between $10 million and $12 million on those land deals, while pegging its entire cost for the project at more than $150 million.
Town resident Vince Johnson said he plans to ask the town to set up a legal-defense fund to pay for the ongoing costs in fighting Ecogen in court.
“Sadly, Ecogen is coming back to town again with a legal gun and trying to bleed the town dry,” he said.
Italy and Ecogen have been involved in several legal battles involving the turbine project, which is tied to one in neighboring Prattsburgh. Ecogen and Pattern Energy Group want to put up 33 wind turbines across the two towns, with the companies saying the Prattsburgh project depends on getting the permit from Italy.
Naples also has a lot at stake. This summer the Naples Town Board asked the state’s Public Service Commission to stop development of turbines that would be built close to the town line. The town has focused 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 and 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.
Lynn Barbuto, who owns Ceasar’s Pet Palace in Geneva, said she was dismayed when she drove to Naples recently with a friend who had been interested in buying a home there. When they saw the industrial wind turbines covering the hillsides south of town, they were “mortified,” she said.
Her friend, who grew up in Rochester and had been living in Florida, wanted to return to the Finger Lakes region — particularly the Naples area — and settle down, said Barbuto. “But she rejected that area due to those wind turbines.”
“We couldn’t believe these monstrous things were in this most beautiful site in New York,” said Barbuto. “What next?”
A fight over whether a proposed wind turbine project bordering Naples will go forward heated up last week when the developer filed a lawsuit against the town, where 17 turbines were to go up.
The Article 78 action, filed in state Supreme Court in Monroe County by developer Ecogen Wind LLC, seeks to overturn the Town Board’s decision to stop the project by denying approvals and placing a moratorium on its development.
Last month, the board unanimously rejected the proposed wind turbine project, determining the gigantic, power-generating machines would have a negative effect on the environment. The board also imposed a six-month moratorium on wind turbines following a public hearing.
The decision followed a meeting the previous month attended by 116 residents. Most of those who spoke opposed the project over concerns about noise, light flicker, positioning on steep slopes and other concerns.
Supervisor-elect Brad Jones said he and other elected officials are ready to challenge the lawsuit that claims the town acted improperly and illegally in rejecting the project’s application.
“You don’t try to build a big industrial project when 70 to 80 percent said ‘we don’t want
industrialization in the town,’” said Jones. His family, like most others in Italy, choose to live there because of family history and the town’s rural character, he said.
“We need to represent the will of the people,” added Jones. “We will continue to fight.”
Messages left with Nixon Peabody LLP, Ecogen’s legal representative on the case, were not returned. Beth O’Brien, a spokeswoman with Ecogen’s partner on the project, Pattern Energy Group, said she could not comment because of the pending litigation.
Ed Premo, with Harter Secrest & Emery LLP, which represents the town, said the Town Board did due diligence.
“It went through the process of carefully reviewing the application, went through two public hearings and carefully considered all documents and evidence,” he said, before the board determined the benefits Ecogen offered did not outweigh “the substantial adverse impacts of the project.”
Jones said Ecogen had bought several properties in the town, with plans to build turbines there, claiming in the lawsuit it had spent between $10 million and $12 million on those land deals, while pegging its entire cost for the project at more than $150 million.
Town resident Vince Johnson said he plans to ask the town to set up a legal-defense fund to pay for the ongoing costs in fighting Ecogen in court.
“Sadly, Ecogen is coming back to town again with a legal gun and trying to bleed the town dry,” he said.
Italy and Ecogen have been involved in several legal battles involving the turbine project, which is tied to one in neighboring Prattsburgh. Ecogen and Pattern Energy Group want to put up 33 wind turbines across the two towns, with the companies saying the Prattsburgh project depends on getting the permit from Italy.
Naples also has a lot at stake. This summer the Naples Town Board asked the state’s Public Service Commission to stop development of turbines that would be built close to the town line. The town has focused 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 and 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.
Lynn Barbuto, who owns Ceasar’s Pet Palace in Geneva, said she was dismayed when she drove to Naples recently with a friend who had been interested in buying a home there. When they saw the industrial wind turbines covering the hillsides south of town, they were “mortified,” she said.
Her friend, who grew up in Rochester and had been living in Florida, wanted to return to the Finger Lakes region — particularly the Naples area — and settle down, said Barbuto. “But she rejected that area due to those wind turbines.”
“We couldn’t believe these monstrous things were in this most beautiful site in New York,” said Barbuto. “What next?”
Ex-partner of Boston wind exec charged by Christine McConville
The Massachusetts native who helped found controversial wind-energy developers Cape Wind and First Wind expressed surprise late last week at news that his one-time partner in a separate wind-energy company in Italy has been arrested and charged with fraud.
“I read about it in the papers, and I was very surprised,” Brian Caffyn said from Hong Kong, where he is now building wind-energy farms in China and the Philipines.
“I know of no fraud with (former partners) Oreste (Vigorito) and IVPC,” said Caffyn, a Cape Cod native and Babson College graduate.
IVPC is Italian Vento Power Corp., a company that Caffyn, 50, once owned with Vigorito, a well-known Italian soccer club president. The pair worked together for seven years in Italy and even lived next door to each other for a time.
Last week, the Italian finance police arrested Vigorito, his Sicilian business associate Vito Nicastri and two others, according to the Financial Times. Eleven others were charged in a probe dubbed “Gone with the Wind” that began in 2007, the Financial Times said.
The group is accused of committing fraud by obtaining millions in public subsidies to build wind farms that either never worked properly or did not supply the promised amounts of energy, the Financial Times reported.
Vigorito has no connection to Cape Wind or First Wind.
Caffyn, who has amassed a fortune starting wind-energy companies, sold his interest in Cape Wind in 2002. He sold his interest in IVPC in 2005, according to First Wind spokesman John Lamontagne. Caffyn remains a shareholder and director with First Wind, Lamontagne wrote in an e-mail statement.
Last February, as part of a parallel probe, Italy’s anti-Mafia police arrested eight others, including an alleged Mafia boss, and accused them of corruption in a wind farm project, the Financial Times reported.
According to corporate filings, Caffyn was a founding partner in Cape Wind, the wind-energy turbine project slated for Nantucket Sound. He went on to establish UPC Wind Management LLC, now known as First Wind.
In the United States, where the Department of Energy has recently set aside $100 billion in cash grants for the clean-energy sector, both Cape Wind and First Wind have been accused by critics of taking advantage of pro-alternative energy programs for financial gain.
In 2006, the Beacon Hill Institute at Suffolk University undertook the most comprehensive review yet of Cape Wind’s public subsidies.
“What we found was quite remarkable,” David Tuerck, the institute’s executive director, said at the time. “Cape Wind stands to receive subsidies worth $731 million, or 77 percent of the cost of installing the project and 48 percent of the revenues it would generate. The policy question that this amount of subsidy raises is whether the project’s benefit is worth the huge public subsidies that the developer gets.”
Cape Wind spokesman Mark Rogers said the wind farm would only receive government monies after it is up and working, and meeting certain production criteria.
“It’s all performance-based,“ he said.
In September, after First Wind affiliates received $115 million in federal stimulus money, U.S. Rep. Eric J. Massa (D-N.Y.) wrote to President Barack Obama, calling the grants “very alarming” and saying the company “abused the public trust.
“No electricity has been produced for sale out of the projects,” but the company “has already collected production rewards for non-existent energy,” Massa told Obama.
First Wind CEO Paul Gaynor, a former Enron executive, responded in a letter to Obama, saying that First Wind’s New York wind farms have produced 133,370 megawatt hours of clean, renewable energy. “We are proud of our work in New York and appreciate the grants we received,” he wrote.
Caffyn, whose 2007 divorce records show he amassed an $82 million fortune building wind farms around the world, said late last week that all the completed projects he has been involved with were properly constructed and met the promised performance standards.
“I read about it in the papers, and I was very surprised,” Brian Caffyn said from Hong Kong, where he is now building wind-energy farms in China and the Philipines.
“I know of no fraud with (former partners) Oreste (Vigorito) and IVPC,” said Caffyn, a Cape Cod native and Babson College graduate.
IVPC is Italian Vento Power Corp., a company that Caffyn, 50, once owned with Vigorito, a well-known Italian soccer club president. The pair worked together for seven years in Italy and even lived next door to each other for a time.
Last week, the Italian finance police arrested Vigorito, his Sicilian business associate Vito Nicastri and two others, according to the Financial Times. Eleven others were charged in a probe dubbed “Gone with the Wind” that began in 2007, the Financial Times said.
The group is accused of committing fraud by obtaining millions in public subsidies to build wind farms that either never worked properly or did not supply the promised amounts of energy, the Financial Times reported.
Vigorito has no connection to Cape Wind or First Wind.
Caffyn, who has amassed a fortune starting wind-energy companies, sold his interest in Cape Wind in 2002. He sold his interest in IVPC in 2005, according to First Wind spokesman John Lamontagne. Caffyn remains a shareholder and director with First Wind, Lamontagne wrote in an e-mail statement.
Last February, as part of a parallel probe, Italy’s anti-Mafia police arrested eight others, including an alleged Mafia boss, and accused them of corruption in a wind farm project, the Financial Times reported.
According to corporate filings, Caffyn was a founding partner in Cape Wind, the wind-energy turbine project slated for Nantucket Sound. He went on to establish UPC Wind Management LLC, now known as First Wind.
In the United States, where the Department of Energy has recently set aside $100 billion in cash grants for the clean-energy sector, both Cape Wind and First Wind have been accused by critics of taking advantage of pro-alternative energy programs for financial gain.
In 2006, the Beacon Hill Institute at Suffolk University undertook the most comprehensive review yet of Cape Wind’s public subsidies.
“What we found was quite remarkable,” David Tuerck, the institute’s executive director, said at the time. “Cape Wind stands to receive subsidies worth $731 million, or 77 percent of the cost of installing the project and 48 percent of the revenues it would generate. The policy question that this amount of subsidy raises is whether the project’s benefit is worth the huge public subsidies that the developer gets.”
Cape Wind spokesman Mark Rogers said the wind farm would only receive government monies after it is up and working, and meeting certain production criteria.
“It’s all performance-based,“ he said.
In September, after First Wind affiliates received $115 million in federal stimulus money, U.S. Rep. Eric J. Massa (D-N.Y.) wrote to President Barack Obama, calling the grants “very alarming” and saying the company “abused the public trust.
“No electricity has been produced for sale out of the projects,” but the company “has already collected production rewards for non-existent energy,” Massa told Obama.
First Wind CEO Paul Gaynor, a former Enron executive, responded in a letter to Obama, saying that First Wind’s New York wind farms have produced 133,370 megawatt hours of clean, renewable energy. “We are proud of our work in New York and appreciate the grants we received,” he wrote.
Caffyn, whose 2007 divorce records show he amassed an $82 million fortune building wind farms around the world, said late last week that all the completed projects he has been involved with were properly constructed and met the promised performance standards.
Saturday, November 14, 2009
Cape slates hearing for law on wind
CAPE VINCENT — It could be the 11th hour for the Town Council, so it has decided to move ahead with an amendment to the zoning law for wind energy development.
The proposed law does not contain overt restrictions on sound, either by an absolute number or by a number relative to ambient noise levels. That upsets members of the Wind Power Ethics Group, which has opposed proposed wind developments in the town and actions by town boards that have conflicts of interest.
The council, meeting Thursday, acted to move the proposed law to a public hearing Nov. 23, with comments accepted through the close of business Nov. 30. A public notice appeared in the Times on Friday morning. It was submitted Tuesday.
"Their agenda is complying with what the developer wants," said John L. Byrne, a member of WPEG. "It seems like they're doing this to accommodate the developer — that's obvious."
Supervisor Thomas K. Rienbeck said, "We decided we don't want to go on any longer without any law."
He said it was important to pass a law both for commercial and personal wind towers, eliminating them from the lake and river districts.
Mr. Byrne called the timing "very questionable," in light of unknown election results that could end Mr. Rienbeck's time on the council.
After the election Nov. 3, Mr. Rienbeck, a Democrat, and Republican challenger Urban C. Hirschey, also a member of WPEG, are awaiting the tally of 230 absentee ballots. Mr. Rienbeck leads 532-490 before those ballots.
Republican and WPEG member Brooks J. Bragdon, with 510 votes, and Democratic incumbent Mickey W. Orvis, with 505 votes, are leading five candidates for two Council seats. Democrat Richard H. Macsherry, with 466 votes, has the only other mathematical chance of claiming a seat.
Councilman Joseph H. Wood did not run for re-election. Mr. Wood has signed a lease with St. Lawrence Wind Farm developer Acciona.
His departure would leave two council members with conflicts of interest with the two wind farm developers. That would create a majority of the five members who could vote for a wind zoning law without conflicts. The existing board cannot pass wind legislation if the three members who have acknowledged conflicts of interest recuse themselves.
The council could take a vote on the law at its December meeting, but that doesn't solve the issue with conflicted council members.
"From a legal standpoint, they can't really do anything with it," Mr. Byrne said. "It's a case of desperate men doing desperate things."
Based on the town's wind committee discussions, a February draft of the zoning law required a pre-construction ambient sound study of both audible and low-frequency noise. It detailed how the data should be collected and called for turbines to be placed so the noise from them would not exceed 6 decibels above ambient noise at nonparticipating residents' property lines.
In the proposed law, that is replaced by a single sentence, which tells the developer to prepare a "sound impact analysis" consistent with a policy from the Department of Environmental Conservation.
That policy shows human reaction to noise levels, including that noise up to 5 decibels is unnoticed or tolerable, but beginning above 5 decibels, humans feel that noise is intrusive and increases of more than 15 decibels is objectionable.
"It's a general policy," said Clifford J. Schneider, who is a former DEC fisheries biologist and has published peer-reviewed articles on acoustics. "But the policy never got down to specifics on measuring background sounds."
Using the policy will open loopholes for developers to measure noise as they see fit.
The committee had developed a specific way of assessing wind turbine impacts, using engineers from Bernier, Carr and Associates, Watertown, and Cavanaugh Tocci Associates, Sudbury, Mass.
Mr. Rienbeck explained the changes as ones that will allow commercial development.
"There was not a reasonable method to come up with that would not prohibit the wind farms," he said. "We want to regulate commercial wind farms, not prohibit them."
During the meeting Thursday night, Mr. Schneider asked Mr. Rienbeck how the changes were compiled. The conversation was captured on videotape, which the Times saw later.
"I had conversations with everyone involved," Mr. Rienbeck said.
Mr. Schneider asked, "Including the developer?"
Mr. Rienbeck responded, "Yes."
On Friday, Mr. Schneider said he and other residents had asked for and submitted Freedom of Information Requests to see the law proposals and recommendations from the acoustic engineers.
The committee's draft did allow for an easement with nonparticipating residents that brought noise levels in line with those for participating residents. The noise could not exceed 50 decibels at any dwelling or allow low-frequency noise that would cause significant disturbance.
The committee's draft law also outlined a noise compliance survey to be conducted within three months of a project construction.
The setbacks are no longer dependent in part on the acoustical data. And in the committee's draft, small wind towers also had to comply with the noise requirements.
The proposed law includes a compliance section, but the developer, not the town, receives the complaints from residents. In the committee's draft, the town or consultants performed noise tests and previous tests by consultants were used for comparison. In the proposed law, the developer's models are the base line for assessment.
In both versions, the developer may be required to institute temporary mitigation measures. In the proposed law, those measures "include such measures as temporary cessation of operation."
In the committee's draft, the measures include "not operating during the night time, not operating when rotor blades are iced, or after implementation of other source or receiver sound control or acceptable remediation or shut down turbine until complaint condition is resolved."
Much of the rest of the zoning law, including setbacks not related to sound, is unchanged, calling for a variety of plans and assessments, some as part of the environmental review process.
The public hearing will be at 7 p.m. Nov. 23 at Cape Vincent Recreation Park, 602 S. James St. Comments will be accepted at the supervisor's office until close of business Nov. 30.
The proposed law does not contain overt restrictions on sound, either by an absolute number or by a number relative to ambient noise levels. That upsets members of the Wind Power Ethics Group, which has opposed proposed wind developments in the town and actions by town boards that have conflicts of interest.
The council, meeting Thursday, acted to move the proposed law to a public hearing Nov. 23, with comments accepted through the close of business Nov. 30. A public notice appeared in the Times on Friday morning. It was submitted Tuesday.
"Their agenda is complying with what the developer wants," said John L. Byrne, a member of WPEG. "It seems like they're doing this to accommodate the developer — that's obvious."
Supervisor Thomas K. Rienbeck said, "We decided we don't want to go on any longer without any law."
He said it was important to pass a law both for commercial and personal wind towers, eliminating them from the lake and river districts.
Mr. Byrne called the timing "very questionable," in light of unknown election results that could end Mr. Rienbeck's time on the council.
After the election Nov. 3, Mr. Rienbeck, a Democrat, and Republican challenger Urban C. Hirschey, also a member of WPEG, are awaiting the tally of 230 absentee ballots. Mr. Rienbeck leads 532-490 before those ballots.
Republican and WPEG member Brooks J. Bragdon, with 510 votes, and Democratic incumbent Mickey W. Orvis, with 505 votes, are leading five candidates for two Council seats. Democrat Richard H. Macsherry, with 466 votes, has the only other mathematical chance of claiming a seat.
Councilman Joseph H. Wood did not run for re-election. Mr. Wood has signed a lease with St. Lawrence Wind Farm developer Acciona.
His departure would leave two council members with conflicts of interest with the two wind farm developers. That would create a majority of the five members who could vote for a wind zoning law without conflicts. The existing board cannot pass wind legislation if the three members who have acknowledged conflicts of interest recuse themselves.
The council could take a vote on the law at its December meeting, but that doesn't solve the issue with conflicted council members.
"From a legal standpoint, they can't really do anything with it," Mr. Byrne said. "It's a case of desperate men doing desperate things."
Based on the town's wind committee discussions, a February draft of the zoning law required a pre-construction ambient sound study of both audible and low-frequency noise. It detailed how the data should be collected and called for turbines to be placed so the noise from them would not exceed 6 decibels above ambient noise at nonparticipating residents' property lines.
In the proposed law, that is replaced by a single sentence, which tells the developer to prepare a "sound impact analysis" consistent with a policy from the Department of Environmental Conservation.
That policy shows human reaction to noise levels, including that noise up to 5 decibels is unnoticed or tolerable, but beginning above 5 decibels, humans feel that noise is intrusive and increases of more than 15 decibels is objectionable.
"It's a general policy," said Clifford J. Schneider, who is a former DEC fisheries biologist and has published peer-reviewed articles on acoustics. "But the policy never got down to specifics on measuring background sounds."
Using the policy will open loopholes for developers to measure noise as they see fit.
The committee had developed a specific way of assessing wind turbine impacts, using engineers from Bernier, Carr and Associates, Watertown, and Cavanaugh Tocci Associates, Sudbury, Mass.
Mr. Rienbeck explained the changes as ones that will allow commercial development.
"There was not a reasonable method to come up with that would not prohibit the wind farms," he said. "We want to regulate commercial wind farms, not prohibit them."
During the meeting Thursday night, Mr. Schneider asked Mr. Rienbeck how the changes were compiled. The conversation was captured on videotape, which the Times saw later.
"I had conversations with everyone involved," Mr. Rienbeck said.
Mr. Schneider asked, "Including the developer?"
Mr. Rienbeck responded, "Yes."
On Friday, Mr. Schneider said he and other residents had asked for and submitted Freedom of Information Requests to see the law proposals and recommendations from the acoustic engineers.
The committee's draft did allow for an easement with nonparticipating residents that brought noise levels in line with those for participating residents. The noise could not exceed 50 decibels at any dwelling or allow low-frequency noise that would cause significant disturbance.
The committee's draft law also outlined a noise compliance survey to be conducted within three months of a project construction.
The setbacks are no longer dependent in part on the acoustical data. And in the committee's draft, small wind towers also had to comply with the noise requirements.
The proposed law includes a compliance section, but the developer, not the town, receives the complaints from residents. In the committee's draft, the town or consultants performed noise tests and previous tests by consultants were used for comparison. In the proposed law, the developer's models are the base line for assessment.
In both versions, the developer may be required to institute temporary mitigation measures. In the proposed law, those measures "include such measures as temporary cessation of operation."
In the committee's draft, the measures include "not operating during the night time, not operating when rotor blades are iced, or after implementation of other source or receiver sound control or acceptable remediation or shut down turbine until complaint condition is resolved."
Much of the rest of the zoning law, including setbacks not related to sound, is unchanged, calling for a variety of plans and assessments, some as part of the environmental review process.
The public hearing will be at 7 p.m. Nov. 23 at Cape Vincent Recreation Park, 602 S. James St. Comments will be accepted at the supervisor's office until close of business Nov. 30.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)