Wyoming County - The Town of Orangeville, as lead agency, has determined that the proposed Stony Creek Wind Farm Project may have a significant adverse impact on the environment and a Draft Environmental Impact Statement must be prepared. Written comments on the draft scope will be accepted by the contact listed below until 12:00 p.m. on January 5, 2010. The action involves a proposal by the applicant, Stony Creek Energy, LLC, to construct a wind-powered generating facility consisting of up to 59 General Electric 1.5xle or equivalent, wind turbine generators (WTGs) each with a maximum height of nearly 400 feet. The project will also include an operation and maintenance (O & M) facility, a system of gravel access roads, a 34.5 KV electrical collection system of buried electrical cable from the 59 WTGs to a substation and one 262 foot permanent meteorological tower. The project is located in the Town of Orangeville, New York.
Contact: Susan May, Town of Orangeville, 3529 Route 20A, Warsaw, NY 14569, Phone: (585) 786-2883, E-mail: smaysupv@yahoo.com.
Thursday, December 24, 2009
Wind turbines affect public health
In a presentation to the New York State Legislature's Energy Committee in March 2006, titled "Wind Turbine Syndrome," Dr. Nina Pierpont cited numerous public health issues associated with siting wind turbines too close to homes, hospitals and schools. Dr. Pierpont graduated from Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine in 1991. She holds a Ph.D. in population biology from Princeton University, conferred in 1985, as well as a B.A. in biology from Yale University, conferred in 1977. Dr. Pierpont is also a fellow of the American Academy of Pediatrics. She can be reached at www.ninapierpont.com.
In the opening paragraph she stated, "current (wind turbine) [siting] practices disregard public health." In the balance of her presentation, she addresses various maladies suffered by all citizens, including the rural, old, ill and very young when residing too close to wind turbines that have come to be called wind turbine syndrome. In the final paragraphs of her presentation, she stated that, based on all of the studies she has made, had access to, and correspondence with academia in New Zealand and Europe, "… there is in fact a consistent cluster of symptoms, the wind turbine syndrome, which occurs in a significant number of people in the vicinity of industrial wind turbines. There are specific risk factors for this syndrome, and people with these risk factors include a substantial portion of the population. A setback of 1.5 miles from homes, schools, hospitals and similar institutions will probably be adequate in most N.Y. State terrain, to protect people from the adverse health effects of industrial wind turbines."
The N.J. Department of Environmental Protection, the Monmouth County Board of Freeholders, citizens in nearby communities serviced by the Bayshore Regional Sewerage Authority, the Union Beach Council, the Union Beach Board of Education, and the citizens of Union Beach themselves must decide whether or not the people shall be provided with the same protection from the wind turbine syndrome that was recommended for the residents of the state of New York. If they do demand it, the BRSA wind turbine project should be halted. If, in the end, they do not desire this protection, then the project should go forward. My home in Hazlet, is, as is a large portion of the Union Beach population, closer than 1.5 miles and I do want the same protection.
Charles E. Hoffman Jr. Captain U.S. Navy Reserve
In the opening paragraph she stated, "current (wind turbine) [siting] practices disregard public health." In the balance of her presentation, she addresses various maladies suffered by all citizens, including the rural, old, ill and very young when residing too close to wind turbines that have come to be called wind turbine syndrome. In the final paragraphs of her presentation, she stated that, based on all of the studies she has made, had access to, and correspondence with academia in New Zealand and Europe, "… there is in fact a consistent cluster of symptoms, the wind turbine syndrome, which occurs in a significant number of people in the vicinity of industrial wind turbines. There are specific risk factors for this syndrome, and people with these risk factors include a substantial portion of the population. A setback of 1.5 miles from homes, schools, hospitals and similar institutions will probably be adequate in most N.Y. State terrain, to protect people from the adverse health effects of industrial wind turbines."
The N.J. Department of Environmental Protection, the Monmouth County Board of Freeholders, citizens in nearby communities serviced by the Bayshore Regional Sewerage Authority, the Union Beach Council, the Union Beach Board of Education, and the citizens of Union Beach themselves must decide whether or not the people shall be provided with the same protection from the wind turbine syndrome that was recommended for the residents of the state of New York. If they do demand it, the BRSA wind turbine project should be halted. If, in the end, they do not desire this protection, then the project should go forward. My home in Hazlet, is, as is a large portion of the Union Beach population, closer than 1.5 miles and I do want the same protection.
Charles E. Hoffman Jr. Captain U.S. Navy Reserve
Wednesday, December 23, 2009
The rich and selfish strike in Houndsfield
So, this lady stands up at a Public Hearing, Monday, about the Galloo Island Wind Factory. She lives near the Watertown border of Houndsfield and she spoke in favor of the wind factory which is 22 miles from her home. She even gave some reasons why she thought wind towers were good. But then, she declared that the outsiders attending and speaking at the hearing had no business coming to her town and telling her town what to do about this issue. She closed her testimony by stating that the resistance to turning Lake Ontario into a wind factory was coming from those rich people. They were selfish.
Geeze, Lady! I sure respect your opinion. In fact, yours was probably the only opinion that your board even listened to. If you recall, your board was not as quick to cut you off under the time rule as they were the speakers who were giving the reasons not to approve the site plan. And for the first time during their meeting, some members of the board perked up. Even the guy who said wind towers were good because he worked for a wind tower company did not get that kind of attention.
But, to tell a citizen he or she has no right to comment at a public hearing when the Galloo project affects them, their home values and their businesses is wrong.
Blame it on the rich?
Call them selfish?
Let me remind you, Lady, that the wind developers who are about to take control over your town are very, very rich. And, that lawyer guy? Wind development has brought him riches you and I will never see.
Let me also remind you that wind developers are outsiders, too. So far outside that they have to cross big oceans to get to Houndsfield. And the next time they come, they will use a bigger plane because they will be bringing many of the wind tower workers with them.
And the lawyer guy? He is from the outside, too. In fact, he has been spending much of his time on the other side of New York filing law suits against towns who don't want to cooperate with his rich outsider wind developer friends from other countries.
And let me remind you that they are the ones that are selfish as hell. There is nothing more selfish than a corporation with carfully laid plans to make as much money as they can before they reorganize, sell out, or go bankrupt and disappear. And if you think these outsider rich guys are here to share significant amounts of their good fortune with you and your town taxpayers, think twice. The real generosity will be showered on the politicians who have made this project possible for the rich- outsider multi-national wind developers and their investors.
Monday, December 21, 2009
Bert Bowers December 12, 2009 Letter to the Town of Hounsfield Planning Board
December 21, 2009
Town of Hounsfield Planning Board
Ms. Kathy Snyder – Chairperson
C/O Ms. Diane Nier – Town Clerk
18774 County Route 66
Watertown, NY 13601
Copy: Honorable Robert F. Hagemann III (RobertH@co.jefferson.ny.us)
Honorable Robert J. Thomas (bobt@co.jefferson.ny.us)
Honorable Barry M. Ormsby (barryormsby@aol.com)
Honorable Assemblywoman Addie J. Russell
Jefferson County District Office
Dulles State Office Building, Suite 210
317 Washington Street
Watertown, NY 13601
Honorable Assemblywoman Dede Scozzafava
93 East Main Street
Gouverneur, NY 13642
Supervisor Scott Aubertine, Town of Lyme
SUBJECT: Public Comments to Town of Hounsfield Planning Board Hearing
Upstate NY Power Corporation – Galloo Island Industrial Wind Project
Madame Chairwoman Snyder:
We thank you for the opportunity to offer public comments during your Planning Board’s deliberation of the subject project. At this time, the NYSDEC has not provided their final decision on the DEIS, as part of their SEQRA process. As we have previously noted the Town of Lyme will be affected due to its proximity to the project on Galloo Island. Citizens of Lyme are concerned about the effects on the viewshed, noise from the turbines impacting residents on Poimt Peninsula and the resulting deterioration in real estate values and assessed valuations.
As a result of our concerns, the developer has had a noise study done by Tech
Environmental, Inc. of Waltham, Massachusetts. To say that this study is inadequate is the kindest thing we are able to say about it. The authors assume a preposterous sound level in the quiet rural area of Point Peninsula of 50.7 decibels and on this basis conclude that noise from turbines will not be a problem.
Looking at the larger issues in this proposed development, we believe this project, as presently constituted, exposes Jefferson County and the affected communities to a great deal of risk for little, if any net benefit. Conversely, the developer, for a minimal amount of risk assumed by an LLC with little capitalization, stands to make huge profits at the expense of residents and communities in Jefferson County.
We advocate that, because the very usefulness of the project is dependent upon a satisfactory transmission of the power to the electrical grid, approvals of the project work on Galloo Island be delayed until the development of a feasible and satisfactory transmission alternative can be worked out to the satisfaction of all parties. It should be noted that the purpose of the transmission line is to carry any electricity generated by the project beyond the boundaries of Jefferson County.
Jefferson County and the affected towns surrounding Galloo or along the power distribution lines are the largest investors in this project The developer and his LLC will suddenly fade into oblivion if anything goes seriously wrong with this project and Jefferson County will be left with the result. The economic success of this project is totally dependent on the willingness of US taxpayers to continue to support an industry that is not economically sound. This is one of the major risks to the profitability of the project.
There are other considerable risks. The proposed turbines are larger than those of other projects and will be operating in a isolated island environment where maintenance and repair of the equipment will be difficult, if not impossible, at certain times during the year.
Above all, we implore the Town of Hounsfield and Jefferson County to realize that we, not the developer, are the major investor in this project and have far more at risk than the developer. We must resist efforts by the developer to speed up the approval process for his benefit. The PILOT, as developed by the JCIDA, is a bad deal for the County and its communities as it does not provide sufficient compensation for the evident risks and downsides to our community. We must take the time to thoroughly analyze this proposed project and its benefits, which as presently constituted are woefully inadequate, and its costs to the people of Jefferson County and the affected communities.
Respectfully submitted,
Albert H. Bowers III, Co-Chair
The Coalition for the Preservation of the Golden Crecent and the Thousand Islands
Town of Hounsfield Planning Board
Ms. Kathy Snyder – Chairperson
C/O Ms. Diane Nier – Town Clerk
18774 County Route 66
Watertown, NY 13601
Copy: Honorable Robert F. Hagemann III (RobertH@co.jefferson.ny.us)
Honorable Robert J. Thomas (bobt@co.jefferson.ny.us)
Honorable Barry M. Ormsby (barryormsby@aol.com)
Honorable Assemblywoman Addie J. Russell
Jefferson County District Office
Dulles State Office Building, Suite 210
317 Washington Street
Watertown, NY 13601
Honorable Assemblywoman Dede Scozzafava
93 East Main Street
Gouverneur, NY 13642
Supervisor Scott Aubertine, Town of Lyme
SUBJECT: Public Comments to Town of Hounsfield Planning Board Hearing
Upstate NY Power Corporation – Galloo Island Industrial Wind Project
Madame Chairwoman Snyder:
We thank you for the opportunity to offer public comments during your Planning Board’s deliberation of the subject project. At this time, the NYSDEC has not provided their final decision on the DEIS, as part of their SEQRA process. As we have previously noted the Town of Lyme will be affected due to its proximity to the project on Galloo Island. Citizens of Lyme are concerned about the effects on the viewshed, noise from the turbines impacting residents on Poimt Peninsula and the resulting deterioration in real estate values and assessed valuations.
As a result of our concerns, the developer has had a noise study done by Tech
Environmental, Inc. of Waltham, Massachusetts. To say that this study is inadequate is the kindest thing we are able to say about it. The authors assume a preposterous sound level in the quiet rural area of Point Peninsula of 50.7 decibels and on this basis conclude that noise from turbines will not be a problem.
Looking at the larger issues in this proposed development, we believe this project, as presently constituted, exposes Jefferson County and the affected communities to a great deal of risk for little, if any net benefit. Conversely, the developer, for a minimal amount of risk assumed by an LLC with little capitalization, stands to make huge profits at the expense of residents and communities in Jefferson County.
We advocate that, because the very usefulness of the project is dependent upon a satisfactory transmission of the power to the electrical grid, approvals of the project work on Galloo Island be delayed until the development of a feasible and satisfactory transmission alternative can be worked out to the satisfaction of all parties. It should be noted that the purpose of the transmission line is to carry any electricity generated by the project beyond the boundaries of Jefferson County.
Jefferson County and the affected towns surrounding Galloo or along the power distribution lines are the largest investors in this project The developer and his LLC will suddenly fade into oblivion if anything goes seriously wrong with this project and Jefferson County will be left with the result. The economic success of this project is totally dependent on the willingness of US taxpayers to continue to support an industry that is not economically sound. This is one of the major risks to the profitability of the project.
There are other considerable risks. The proposed turbines are larger than those of other projects and will be operating in a isolated island environment where maintenance and repair of the equipment will be difficult, if not impossible, at certain times during the year.
Above all, we implore the Town of Hounsfield and Jefferson County to realize that we, not the developer, are the major investor in this project and have far more at risk than the developer. We must resist efforts by the developer to speed up the approval process for his benefit. The PILOT, as developed by the JCIDA, is a bad deal for the County and its communities as it does not provide sufficient compensation for the evident risks and downsides to our community. We must take the time to thoroughly analyze this proposed project and its benefits, which as presently constituted are woefully inadequate, and its costs to the people of Jefferson County and the affected communities.
Respectfully submitted,
Albert H. Bowers III, Co-Chair
The Coalition for the Preservation of the Golden Crecent and the Thousand Islands
Voices of Vinalhaven, Maine Part 1 of 2
On December 19, WERU 89.9 FM radio conducted a lengthy interview with residents living near the Fox Island Wind Farm located in Vinalhaven, Maine, an island community about 12 miles off the coastline. The wind facility, consisting of 3 GE 1.5 MW wind turbines, was commissioned on November 17, 2009.
This video (part 1 of 2) was compiled using excerpts of the interview. Those speaking are describing their experience of living with turbine noise. The images appearing in this video are not from Vinalhaven, however, they are actual photos of other locations in North America where towers were sited very closed to homes.
The entire interview can be heard at WERU 89.9 FM .
Sunday, December 20, 2009
JCIDA probe
It was a surprise to learn that the Jefferson County Industrial Development Agency has been used as a conduit to provide state retirement benefits to a host of staff serving other development agencies across Jefferson County.
As revealed at a recent meeting of the Watertown Local Development Corp., the longstanding practice has been for various economic development agencies to declare their staff to be employees of the JCIDA. Doing so allows them to qualify for pension benefits through the state retirement system. The JCIDA became an umbrella agency to funnel benefits to workers.
But the state comptroller's office has raised questions about the propriety of the relationship. It sounds much like what some municipalities and school districts across the state were doing by declaring their attorneys to be employees to earn state pension benefits. Comptroller Thomas P. DiNapoli and state Attorney General Andrew M. Cuomo put a stop to that.
Comments by JCIDA officials defensive of the arrangement raise many questions.
If, as claimed, staff at other economic development agencies are JCIDA employees, then what oversight does JCIDA perform?
What is the day-to-day working relationship between the JCIDA and the myriad employees, directors, consultants and secretaries who are supposed to be answerable to JCIDA Chief Executive Officer Donald C. Alexander?
In defending the practice, Mr. Alexander borrowed a ploy from former President Clinton ("it depends on what your definition of is is.")
Similarly, Mr. Alexander said, "It's a question of how you define employee."
Just what is the JCIDA definition of employee? Are they employees other than on paper? Are they paid by JCIDA? What control does the JCIDA have over their salaries or work hours? There is certainly more to it than just declaring someone an employee. Who sets the work agenda for these ghost employees?
The practice bears a thorough investigation by Mr. DiNapoli's office to determine its validity and accountability for any improper conduct.
As revealed at a recent meeting of the Watertown Local Development Corp., the longstanding practice has been for various economic development agencies to declare their staff to be employees of the JCIDA. Doing so allows them to qualify for pension benefits through the state retirement system. The JCIDA became an umbrella agency to funnel benefits to workers.
But the state comptroller's office has raised questions about the propriety of the relationship. It sounds much like what some municipalities and school districts across the state were doing by declaring their attorneys to be employees to earn state pension benefits. Comptroller Thomas P. DiNapoli and state Attorney General Andrew M. Cuomo put a stop to that.
Comments by JCIDA officials defensive of the arrangement raise many questions.
If, as claimed, staff at other economic development agencies are JCIDA employees, then what oversight does JCIDA perform?
What is the day-to-day working relationship between the JCIDA and the myriad employees, directors, consultants and secretaries who are supposed to be answerable to JCIDA Chief Executive Officer Donald C. Alexander?
In defending the practice, Mr. Alexander borrowed a ploy from former President Clinton ("it depends on what your definition of is is.")
Similarly, Mr. Alexander said, "It's a question of how you define employee."
Just what is the JCIDA definition of employee? Are they employees other than on paper? Are they paid by JCIDA? What control does the JCIDA have over their salaries or work hours? There is certainly more to it than just declaring someone an employee. Who sets the work agenda for these ghost employees?
The practice bears a thorough investigation by Mr. DiNapoli's office to determine its validity and accountability for any improper conduct.
Get a better deal on wind farm PILOT by JOHN P. GAUS
At a recent meeting of the Jefferson County Legislature, our senior executive for the Jefferson County Industrial Development Agency and the lawyer for the Galloo Island Wind Farm project developer explained why they want the county to rush to pass a gigantic tax break for the developer before knowing all of the important facts. The developer needs the attractive deal from Jefferson County residents to help his bankers on Wall Street.
Before using rural taxpayer dollars to help Wall Street bankers, the county and JCIDA need to do more work. At a minimum we must ensure 1)that we get the best economic deal possible; 2)that the project complies with the law; 3)that the developer won't use eminent domain to seize our neighbors' property; 4)that we minimize the negative impacts to property values and waterfront communities, and 5)that we consider the alternatives to this type of industrial development.
BEST ECONOMIC DEAL
The project as currently planned is likely a bad deal for Jefferson County. The only way to know for sure is to analyze the developer's detailed project models and review the same information that the developer has provided to its own investors. After all, our community is very much being asked to invest with our tax dollars and resources.
The deal for Jefferson County should be commensurate with the project's value to its other investors. The deal should let Jefferson County taxpayers share in the monetizeable value that the developer receives as a result of our tax break.
The deal should also seek a share of the 30 percent federal incentive in the form of town and county project equity, seek a share of the value of the New York State Energy Research and Development Authority incentives, not waive taxes on the sale of the transmission line, and tie increased revenue to our taxpayers to total project revenue and/or sale value of the project instead of to power prices where power is already at an excess.
STOP EMINENT DOMAIN
Eminent domain should only be used when the taking of land is absolutely necessary for the public good. This project is not necessary for our public good. Our region already runs at a power excess. Our region also already produces the vast majority of renewable power in New York state through the St. Lawrence Seaway Power Project, our many small hydro dams and the wind power already in the north country.
This project is a money grab for the developers made available to the developer as a result of massive subsidies. As the project is not required and arguably bad for our environment, we cannot allow it to utilize eminent domain against our neighbors.
COMPLY WITH LAW
There a number of ways that the current environmental impact statement on file for the project is likely not compliant with the law. First, the State Environmental Quality Review must consider the cumulative impact analysis when:
Part 617.7(c)(1)(xii) "two or more related actions undertaken, funded or approved by an agency, none of which has or would have a significant impact on the environment, but when considered cumulatively would meet one or more of the criteria in this subdivision."
A cursory read of the impact statement demonstrates this has not been done with respect to the New York Power Authority plan to put turbines in the water, the other planned projects in the north country or with respect to the planned transmission line which has been separated from the wind power project as a technicality and for convenience. This is wrong.
The environmental impact study is also deficient with respect to its environmental justice analysis, the state Department of Environmental Conservation Open Space Plan, petroleum and chemical bulk storage permitting, and the socioeconomic impact of the planned use of eminent domain which the developer does not acknowledge in the document.
MINIMIZE NEGATIVE IMPACT
The project as currently planned does not seek to minimize environmental or community impact. The transmission line is planned at over four times its required capacity. Many believe this is to allow for turbines to be placed in the water. We should seek to have the transmission line built only as required and get a written guarantee from the developer that turbines will never be allowed in the water in any future expansion to the Galloo Island project.
Additionally, we should demand the Federal Aviation Administration lighting plan for the project be changed. The plan could forbid towers in the water, minimize towers on the east side of the island, make the area a no-fly zone to do away with need for intrusive lights, or choose lights that point up with a nonintrusive wavelength.
If we do not improve the FAA lighting plan, the eastern end of the lake will look like JFK airport at morning, dusk and night. This will decrease property values, hurt tourism and damage our waterfront community businesses.
CONSIDER ALTERNATIVES
There are renewable energy and other economic development alternatives that may be much better than the wind power projects currently planned. Such projects likely require less in subsidy, create more benefit for our community and create more long-term jobs. Examples of these projects include agricultural scale wind for dairies and greenhouses.
Our local dairy industry is in crisis, and we produce little of our own food. If 500 households in Northern New York were able to buy all local food, there would be a greater net cash impact on our community annually than the Galloo Island pilot payments. Other project opportunities include biomass digesters and biomass farming, particularly willow plantations. Such development would produce environmental benefits, more jobs and more base-load power than Galloo Island.
We should investigate positive alternative development for the long-term good of our community. There is no need to rush into industrial wind power. If the planned wind power project are truly good project, they will still be good project 24 months from now. If we do this, we should take our time and do it right. Hasn't Wall Street hurt rural American enough already?
The writer is an owner of Golden Technology Management, a Potsdam firm that invests in commercializing renewable energy technology.
Before using rural taxpayer dollars to help Wall Street bankers, the county and JCIDA need to do more work. At a minimum we must ensure 1)that we get the best economic deal possible; 2)that the project complies with the law; 3)that the developer won't use eminent domain to seize our neighbors' property; 4)that we minimize the negative impacts to property values and waterfront communities, and 5)that we consider the alternatives to this type of industrial development.
BEST ECONOMIC DEAL
The project as currently planned is likely a bad deal for Jefferson County. The only way to know for sure is to analyze the developer's detailed project models and review the same information that the developer has provided to its own investors. After all, our community is very much being asked to invest with our tax dollars and resources.
The deal for Jefferson County should be commensurate with the project's value to its other investors. The deal should let Jefferson County taxpayers share in the monetizeable value that the developer receives as a result of our tax break.
The deal should also seek a share of the 30 percent federal incentive in the form of town and county project equity, seek a share of the value of the New York State Energy Research and Development Authority incentives, not waive taxes on the sale of the transmission line, and tie increased revenue to our taxpayers to total project revenue and/or sale value of the project instead of to power prices where power is already at an excess.
STOP EMINENT DOMAIN
Eminent domain should only be used when the taking of land is absolutely necessary for the public good. This project is not necessary for our public good. Our region already runs at a power excess. Our region also already produces the vast majority of renewable power in New York state through the St. Lawrence Seaway Power Project, our many small hydro dams and the wind power already in the north country.
This project is a money grab for the developers made available to the developer as a result of massive subsidies. As the project is not required and arguably bad for our environment, we cannot allow it to utilize eminent domain against our neighbors.
COMPLY WITH LAW
There a number of ways that the current environmental impact statement on file for the project is likely not compliant with the law. First, the State Environmental Quality Review must consider the cumulative impact analysis when:
Part 617.7(c)(1)(xii) "two or more related actions undertaken, funded or approved by an agency, none of which has or would have a significant impact on the environment, but when considered cumulatively would meet one or more of the criteria in this subdivision."
A cursory read of the impact statement demonstrates this has not been done with respect to the New York Power Authority plan to put turbines in the water, the other planned projects in the north country or with respect to the planned transmission line which has been separated from the wind power project as a technicality and for convenience. This is wrong.
The environmental impact study is also deficient with respect to its environmental justice analysis, the state Department of Environmental Conservation Open Space Plan, petroleum and chemical bulk storage permitting, and the socioeconomic impact of the planned use of eminent domain which the developer does not acknowledge in the document.
MINIMIZE NEGATIVE IMPACT
The project as currently planned does not seek to minimize environmental or community impact. The transmission line is planned at over four times its required capacity. Many believe this is to allow for turbines to be placed in the water. We should seek to have the transmission line built only as required and get a written guarantee from the developer that turbines will never be allowed in the water in any future expansion to the Galloo Island project.
Additionally, we should demand the Federal Aviation Administration lighting plan for the project be changed. The plan could forbid towers in the water, minimize towers on the east side of the island, make the area a no-fly zone to do away with need for intrusive lights, or choose lights that point up with a nonintrusive wavelength.
If we do not improve the FAA lighting plan, the eastern end of the lake will look like JFK airport at morning, dusk and night. This will decrease property values, hurt tourism and damage our waterfront community businesses.
CONSIDER ALTERNATIVES
There are renewable energy and other economic development alternatives that may be much better than the wind power projects currently planned. Such projects likely require less in subsidy, create more benefit for our community and create more long-term jobs. Examples of these projects include agricultural scale wind for dairies and greenhouses.
Our local dairy industry is in crisis, and we produce little of our own food. If 500 households in Northern New York were able to buy all local food, there would be a greater net cash impact on our community annually than the Galloo Island pilot payments. Other project opportunities include biomass digesters and biomass farming, particularly willow plantations. Such development would produce environmental benefits, more jobs and more base-load power than Galloo Island.
We should investigate positive alternative development for the long-term good of our community. There is no need to rush into industrial wind power. If the planned wind power project are truly good project, they will still be good project 24 months from now. If we do this, we should take our time and do it right. Hasn't Wall Street hurt rural American enough already?
The writer is an owner of Golden Technology Management, a Potsdam firm that invests in commercializing renewable energy technology.
Wind-energy battle heats up in New York by Elizabeth Stull - Daily Record
A proposed wind-energy project in Yates and Steuben counties so far has churned up more legal disputes than clean fuel.
The project motivated voter turnout in November, when residents of two towns elected new board members who oppose the project as proposed.
Following the election, Ecogen Wind LLC filed two legal actions in Monroe County, claiming the towns of Italy and Prattsburgh are intentionally and illegally thwarting a planned wind farm project there. Ecogen v. Town of Italy, Ind. No. 09-15485, and Ecogen v. Town of Prattsburgh, Ind. No. 09-16082.
Although Prattsburgh is poised to vote on a settlement with Ecogen, two minority town board members filed an action requesting separate counsel, claiming the town attorney has a conflict of interest. Kula and Shick, in their official capacities as Members of the Town of Prattsburgh Town Board v. Town of Prattsburgh Town Board, Ind. No. 09-17133.
All three cases currently are assigned to state Supreme Court Justice Stephen Lindley.
This week Justice Lindley will decide whether to transfer the Italy case to Yates County Judge Patrick Falvey, who presided in the FLPA's case challenging the town's wind zoning law.
Justice Lindley also is expected to rule on the Prattsburgh board members' request for counsel by the end of the year.
The project Ecogen seeks to build, respectively, 17 turbines in Italy and 16 turbines in Prattsburgh.
In court papers the company states the selected ridge-top sites are "truly rare and unique wind resource[s]" due to high wind speeds and the site's proximity to an existing transmission line that could supply to electricity to the power grid.
Ecogen's Article 78 action against Italy asks the court to review why its special use application under the town's new wind zoning law was rejected.
The company's action against Prattsburgh claims the town threatened to issue a moratorium and cites disagreements and delays over building and road permits, noise and other issues, including monetary benefits to the town.
Venue Justice Lindley said from the bench Wednesday morning that he will grant a motion to transfer the venue of the Italy case to Yates County.
He did not immediately decide on the town's request to transfer the case to Judge Falvey in Yates County, however. He said he will issue a decision within a week.
Justice Lindley said he is willing to travel to a court more convenient for witnesses and interested observers. He accused both parties of "judge shopping. "
Italy's special counsel, attorney Edward Premo of Harter Secrest & Emery LLP in Rochester, argued the matter should be transferred to Judge Falvey because he already is familiar with the case's hefty record.
Premo also argued Judge Falvey should hear the case "in the interest of judicial consistency" and because the case would have been assigned to him had it been filed in Yates County. Allowing the case to proceed before a Monroe County judge would circumvent the court's assignment system, Premo said.
In the recent case before Judge Falvey, Italy and Ecogen both stood on the same side defending the town's wind zone law, Premo said. Finger Lakes Preservation Association v. Town Board, Town of Italy, et al, Ind. No. 2009-237
Laurie S. Bloom, counsel at Nixon Peabody LLP's Buffalo office, argued Wednesday there is no legal authority for removing a case to a particular judge.
"Judge Falvey never had this case," Bloom said. She argued the only issue argued before Judge Falvey was the town's zoning law.
"We have no beef with the wind zone law or the [environmental impact statement] for the wind zone law," she said. "This is a zoning issue. We followed the procedure, they turned us down. "
On Dec. 11, the Finger Lakes Preservation Association - which previously opposed the Town of Italy's new wind zoning law - sought to intervene as a party on the town's side in the pending case. That motion is returnable Jan. 6.
Prattsburgh
Early last week Justice Lindley issued a temporary restraining order to prevent Prattsburgh from voting on the proposed Ecogen settlement before it investigated whether its minority board members are entitled to independent counsel.
The board convened Monday and voted 3-2 that the two minority members do not require independent counsel under Local Law No. 1, (similar to Public Officers Law No. 18).
During a telephone hearing late Tuesday afternoon, Justice Lindley lifted the TRO to allow Prattsburgh to vote on the proposed settlement. He did not yet rule on whether the town conducted an adequate investigation of the minority board members' request.
Prattsburgh did not vote on the settlement at its scheduled meeting Tuesday night, however since one of the three pro-settlement board members was absent.
Attorney Edward Hourihan of Bond, Schoeneck & King PLLC in Rochester, represents minority board members Steven Kula and Charles Shick and said the next board meeting will be held Friday night.
If the settlement is approved, the town is expected to seek court approval under Town Law §68.
"There's a lot of head scratching by the board and town attorney as to how Judge Lindley's decision is to be acted on," Hourihan said Wednesday morning. "Our contention was that Ecogen and the outgoing board were just attempting to railroad this through before the new board comes in. "
The town attorney for Prattsburgh, John Leyden, did not return calls for comment before press time.
"Ecogen is basically going to court to overturn the election results," said Anthony Carter, a Town of Italy property owner who attended Wednesday's hearing.
Ecogen attorneys Bloom and Robert Burgdorf declined to comment on the case.
The project motivated voter turnout in November, when residents of two towns elected new board members who oppose the project as proposed.
Following the election, Ecogen Wind LLC filed two legal actions in Monroe County, claiming the towns of Italy and Prattsburgh are intentionally and illegally thwarting a planned wind farm project there. Ecogen v. Town of Italy, Ind. No. 09-15485, and Ecogen v. Town of Prattsburgh, Ind. No. 09-16082.
Although Prattsburgh is poised to vote on a settlement with Ecogen, two minority town board members filed an action requesting separate counsel, claiming the town attorney has a conflict of interest. Kula and Shick, in their official capacities as Members of the Town of Prattsburgh Town Board v. Town of Prattsburgh Town Board, Ind. No. 09-17133.
All three cases currently are assigned to state Supreme Court Justice Stephen Lindley.
This week Justice Lindley will decide whether to transfer the Italy case to Yates County Judge Patrick Falvey, who presided in the FLPA's case challenging the town's wind zoning law.
Justice Lindley also is expected to rule on the Prattsburgh board members' request for counsel by the end of the year.
The project Ecogen seeks to build, respectively, 17 turbines in Italy and 16 turbines in Prattsburgh.
In court papers the company states the selected ridge-top sites are "truly rare and unique wind resource[s]" due to high wind speeds and the site's proximity to an existing transmission line that could supply to electricity to the power grid.
Ecogen's Article 78 action against Italy asks the court to review why its special use application under the town's new wind zoning law was rejected.
The company's action against Prattsburgh claims the town threatened to issue a moratorium and cites disagreements and delays over building and road permits, noise and other issues, including monetary benefits to the town.
Venue Justice Lindley said from the bench Wednesday morning that he will grant a motion to transfer the venue of the Italy case to Yates County.
He did not immediately decide on the town's request to transfer the case to Judge Falvey in Yates County, however. He said he will issue a decision within a week.
Justice Lindley said he is willing to travel to a court more convenient for witnesses and interested observers. He accused both parties of "judge shopping. "
Italy's special counsel, attorney Edward Premo of Harter Secrest & Emery LLP in Rochester, argued the matter should be transferred to Judge Falvey because he already is familiar with the case's hefty record.
Premo also argued Judge Falvey should hear the case "in the interest of judicial consistency" and because the case would have been assigned to him had it been filed in Yates County. Allowing the case to proceed before a Monroe County judge would circumvent the court's assignment system, Premo said.
In the recent case before Judge Falvey, Italy and Ecogen both stood on the same side defending the town's wind zone law, Premo said. Finger Lakes Preservation Association v. Town Board, Town of Italy, et al, Ind. No. 2009-237
Laurie S. Bloom, counsel at Nixon Peabody LLP's Buffalo office, argued Wednesday there is no legal authority for removing a case to a particular judge.
"Judge Falvey never had this case," Bloom said. She argued the only issue argued before Judge Falvey was the town's zoning law.
"We have no beef with the wind zone law or the [environmental impact statement] for the wind zone law," she said. "This is a zoning issue. We followed the procedure, they turned us down. "
On Dec. 11, the Finger Lakes Preservation Association - which previously opposed the Town of Italy's new wind zoning law - sought to intervene as a party on the town's side in the pending case. That motion is returnable Jan. 6.
Prattsburgh
Early last week Justice Lindley issued a temporary restraining order to prevent Prattsburgh from voting on the proposed Ecogen settlement before it investigated whether its minority board members are entitled to independent counsel.
The board convened Monday and voted 3-2 that the two minority members do not require independent counsel under Local Law No. 1, (similar to Public Officers Law No. 18).
During a telephone hearing late Tuesday afternoon, Justice Lindley lifted the TRO to allow Prattsburgh to vote on the proposed settlement. He did not yet rule on whether the town conducted an adequate investigation of the minority board members' request.
Prattsburgh did not vote on the settlement at its scheduled meeting Tuesday night, however since one of the three pro-settlement board members was absent.
Attorney Edward Hourihan of Bond, Schoeneck & King PLLC in Rochester, represents minority board members Steven Kula and Charles Shick and said the next board meeting will be held Friday night.
If the settlement is approved, the town is expected to seek court approval under Town Law §68.
"There's a lot of head scratching by the board and town attorney as to how Judge Lindley's decision is to be acted on," Hourihan said Wednesday morning. "Our contention was that Ecogen and the outgoing board were just attempting to railroad this through before the new board comes in. "
The town attorney for Prattsburgh, John Leyden, did not return calls for comment before press time.
"Ecogen is basically going to court to overturn the election results," said Anthony Carter, a Town of Italy property owner who attended Wednesday's hearing.
Ecogen attorneys Bloom and Robert Burgdorf declined to comment on the case.
Turbine company blows off Kittery
KITTERY, Maine — The town could well be out nearly $200,000 for a wind turbine that never performed up to expectations, now that the Canadian company that manufactured it has declared bankruptcy.
The town was to be repaid $191,028 by Entegrity Wind Systems Inc., beginning in June, when the town announced the turbine at the Kittery transfer station was producing only 15 percent of the electricity expected.
Under the terms of the agreement with Entegrity, the company would make monthly payments starting in July with a balloon payment this month for the remainder of the cost of the turbine.
To date, Kittery hasn't received any money.
"It's unfortunate," said Town Manager Jon Carter. "The energy committee did everything in the right vein, the town did everything in the right vein. Unfortunately, wind levels as far inland as Kittery are not the most efficient for wind turbines."
The 50-kilowatt turbine installed in October 2008 failed significantly, producing less than 11,000 kilowatt hours of electricity. Entegrity had estimated it would generate 70,000 kilowatt hours.
Entegrity Chief Executive Officer James Heath was unavailable for comment Wednesday. However, according to published reports in Prince Edward Island, Canada, and Boulder, Colo. — where Entegrity had a sales office — the company went into bankruptcy in October.
At the time, it owed $3 million to Toronto-based Mercantile Finance Services and more than $6 million to other creditors, the Boulder Daily Camera reported.
Carter said he has been in contact with Heath right up to the present and said the reason for the bankruptcy was "the recession and business practices." He referred further questions to Heath.
Carter said "we had been monitoring the bankruptcy proceedings, but there wasn't too much we could do about it."
He said Heath is trying to form a new company, and "he's still hoping to honor his agreement with us."
The turbine is still in place at the transfer station. According to Carter, Entegrity contracted with a computer company that monitored several hundred turbines, including the one in Kittery. The town also had a card that it could use to regulate the turbine. When the center shut down because of nonpayment from Entegrity, the turbine blade locked and the card was rendered inoperable, he said.
Carter said he is in talks with Cianbro Corporation, which has a wind division. He has also talked with the computer company and determined the town might be able to regain control of the turbine for $1,200 a year. One path he is pursuing is having Cianbro take over maintenance and keep the turbine running.
Asked why the town would want to run a poorly performing turbine, he said, "if the asset is standing still, is that best for it or is it the best idea to get it going again?"
Another possibility might be selling the turbine, which the Town Council has the authority to do.
"There's no rush here," he said. "It is discouraging, but we're going to keep an eye on what's happening and keep our options open."
The town was to be repaid $191,028 by Entegrity Wind Systems Inc., beginning in June, when the town announced the turbine at the Kittery transfer station was producing only 15 percent of the electricity expected.
Under the terms of the agreement with Entegrity, the company would make monthly payments starting in July with a balloon payment this month for the remainder of the cost of the turbine.
To date, Kittery hasn't received any money.
"It's unfortunate," said Town Manager Jon Carter. "The energy committee did everything in the right vein, the town did everything in the right vein. Unfortunately, wind levels as far inland as Kittery are not the most efficient for wind turbines."
The 50-kilowatt turbine installed in October 2008 failed significantly, producing less than 11,000 kilowatt hours of electricity. Entegrity had estimated it would generate 70,000 kilowatt hours.
Entegrity Chief Executive Officer James Heath was unavailable for comment Wednesday. However, according to published reports in Prince Edward Island, Canada, and Boulder, Colo. — where Entegrity had a sales office — the company went into bankruptcy in October.
At the time, it owed $3 million to Toronto-based Mercantile Finance Services and more than $6 million to other creditors, the Boulder Daily Camera reported.
Carter said he has been in contact with Heath right up to the present and said the reason for the bankruptcy was "the recession and business practices." He referred further questions to Heath.
Carter said "we had been monitoring the bankruptcy proceedings, but there wasn't too much we could do about it."
He said Heath is trying to form a new company, and "he's still hoping to honor his agreement with us."
The turbine is still in place at the transfer station. According to Carter, Entegrity contracted with a computer company that monitored several hundred turbines, including the one in Kittery. The town also had a card that it could use to regulate the turbine. When the center shut down because of nonpayment from Entegrity, the turbine blade locked and the card was rendered inoperable, he said.
Carter said he is in talks with Cianbro Corporation, which has a wind division. He has also talked with the computer company and determined the town might be able to regain control of the turbine for $1,200 a year. One path he is pursuing is having Cianbro take over maintenance and keep the turbine running.
Asked why the town would want to run a poorly performing turbine, he said, "if the asset is standing still, is that best for it or is it the best idea to get it going again?"
Another possibility might be selling the turbine, which the Town Council has the authority to do.
"There's no rush here," he said. "It is discouraging, but we're going to keep an eye on what's happening and keep our options open."
Saturday, December 19, 2009
Towns should be proactive on wind turbine rules
As the cold winter wind whips through the region, there’s one bright spot to think about — the state’s potential to harness that energy into electricity.
But that potential also brings concerns about wind turbines making noise, harming birds and disturbing the bucolic landscape.
That’s why municipalities need to take a proactive stance similar to what the town of Victor did this week.
The town board adopted a law that sets up rules regarding wind turbines. Although there are currently no wind turbines in Victor, the board decided to be proactive after seeing problems elsewhere.
Specifically, town boards in Prattsburgh and Italy have confronted lawsuits from a wind energy company.
Despite the issues, wind power is an alternative energy that belongs in a strategy of reducing this country’s dependence on fossil fuels.
Wind power doesn’t pollute and it’s a way to reduce carbon dioxide emissions. And New York’s high electricity rates have long been a concern of businesses.
In terms of wind power, New York state ranks 15th in wind energy potential, according to the American Wind Energy Association. The Lake Ontario region is well suited, and the New York Power Authority is soliciting proposals from developers for lake-based turbines.
Several wind energy companies have cropped up in the region, and there’s potential to grow those, which means more job opportunities.
On Wednesday, the state Public Service Commission gave those efforts a boost when it pledged $200 million to help further develop the production of electricity by wind, water and biomass. The goal now is to have renewable energy providing 30 percent of electricity consumption in the state by 2015.
Town governments are right to be cautious about wind power, while recognizing their responsibility to help diversify energy resources.
But that potential also brings concerns about wind turbines making noise, harming birds and disturbing the bucolic landscape.
That’s why municipalities need to take a proactive stance similar to what the town of Victor did this week.
The town board adopted a law that sets up rules regarding wind turbines. Although there are currently no wind turbines in Victor, the board decided to be proactive after seeing problems elsewhere.
Specifically, town boards in Prattsburgh and Italy have confronted lawsuits from a wind energy company.
Despite the issues, wind power is an alternative energy that belongs in a strategy of reducing this country’s dependence on fossil fuels.
Wind power doesn’t pollute and it’s a way to reduce carbon dioxide emissions. And New York’s high electricity rates have long been a concern of businesses.
In terms of wind power, New York state ranks 15th in wind energy potential, according to the American Wind Energy Association. The Lake Ontario region is well suited, and the New York Power Authority is soliciting proposals from developers for lake-based turbines.
Several wind energy companies have cropped up in the region, and there’s potential to grow those, which means more job opportunities.
On Wednesday, the state Public Service Commission gave those efforts a boost when it pledged $200 million to help further develop the production of electricity by wind, water and biomass. The goal now is to have renewable energy providing 30 percent of electricity consumption in the state by 2015.
Town governments are right to be cautious about wind power, while recognizing their responsibility to help diversify energy resources.
Friday, December 18, 2009
Wind Turbine Syndrome: A Report on a Natural Experiment - Nina Pierpont, MD, PhD
Executive Summary
12/17/2009
The core of the book is a scientific report presenting original, primary research on symptomatic people living near large industrial wind turbines (1.5-3 MW) erected since 2004.
These are the findings:
1) Wind turbines cause wind turbine syndrome. We know this because people have symptoms when they are close to turbines and the symptoms go away when they are away from turbines. The study families themselves figured out that they had to move away from turbines to be rid of their symptoms, and nine out of ten have moved. Some sold and some abandoned their homes.
2) People do not abandon their homes out of “annoyance,” and Wind Turbine Syndrome is not a subset of annoyance.
3) The symptom cluster is consistent from person to person, hence the term “syndrome.”
4) The symptoms are sleep disturbance, headache, tinnitus (ringing in ears), ear pressure, dizziness, vertigo (spinning dizziness), nausea, visual blurring, tachycardia (fast heart rate), irritability, problems with concentration and memory, and panic episodes associated with sensations of movement or quivering inside the body that arise while awake or asleep.
5) Children are affected as well as adults, especially older adults.
6) People with pre-existing migraine disorder, motion sensitivity, or damage to inner ear structures (such as hearing loss from industrial noise exposure) are more susceptible than other people to Wind Turbine Syndrome. These results are statistically significant (p < 0.01).
7) Wind Turbine Syndrome symptoms are not statistically associated with pre-existing anxiety or other mental health disorders.
8) The sample size of 10 families/38 people was large enough for statistical significance with regard to susceptibility or risk factors.
9) The susceptibility factors are clues to the pathophysiology of Wind Turbine Syndrome. The symptom complex resembles syndromes caused by vestibular (inner ear balance organ) "Wind Turbine Syndrome" book Executive Summary dysfunction. The proposed mechanism is disturbance to balance and position sense by noise and/or vibration, especially low frequency components of the noise and vibration.
10) An extensive review of recent medical literature reveals how balance-related neural signals affect a variety of brain areas and functions, including spatial awareness, spatial memory, spatial problem-solving, fear, anxiety, autonomic functions (like digestion and heartbeat), and aversive learning. These known neural relationships provide a robust anatomic and physiologic framework for Wind Turbine Syndrome.
11) Medical and technical literature on resonance of sound or vibration within body cavities (chest, skull, eyes, throat, ears) is reviewed, since study subjects experienced these effects.
12) Published studies of documented low frequency noise exposure (both experimental and environmental) are reviewed. These demonstrate effects on people similar or identical to Wind Turbine Syndrome. Indeed, one published study from Germany in 1996 may indeed be Wind Turbine Syndrome.
13) Recent survey studies of people who live near wind turbines in Sweden and the Netherlands are reviewed. These show that people are severely annoyed at noise from wind turbines at much lower A-weighted noise levels than for traffic, train, or aircraft noise.
14) Recommendations from the World Health Organization on environmental noise with low frequency components are reviewed.
15) Published studies of effects of environmental noise on children’s learning are reviewed.
16) With regard to Wind Turbine Syndrome, further research is needed to prove its physical causes and physiologic mechanisms, determine how many people are affected, and to further explore how it affects special populations, such as children.
17) This study and other studies reviewed in the report indicate that safe setbacks will be at least 2 km (1.24 miles), and longer for larger turbines and in more varied topography.
The book further includes:
A) Full case histories—the words and experiences of all the study subjects (including children), presented in an organized tabular format.
B) The report presented again in non-scientific, layman's language, explaining the medical, technical, and statistical aspects of the study. This section is illustrated.
C) Peer reviews and commentary by scientists and university physicians.
D) Introduction, complete list of scientific and medical references, glossary, and list of abbreviations. "Wind Turbine Syndrome" book Executive Summary
Wind%20Turbine%20Syndrome%20Exec%20Sum.pdf
12/17/2009
The core of the book is a scientific report presenting original, primary research on symptomatic people living near large industrial wind turbines (1.5-3 MW) erected since 2004.
These are the findings:
1) Wind turbines cause wind turbine syndrome. We know this because people have symptoms when they are close to turbines and the symptoms go away when they are away from turbines. The study families themselves figured out that they had to move away from turbines to be rid of their symptoms, and nine out of ten have moved. Some sold and some abandoned their homes.
2) People do not abandon their homes out of “annoyance,” and Wind Turbine Syndrome is not a subset of annoyance.
3) The symptom cluster is consistent from person to person, hence the term “syndrome.”
4) The symptoms are sleep disturbance, headache, tinnitus (ringing in ears), ear pressure, dizziness, vertigo (spinning dizziness), nausea, visual blurring, tachycardia (fast heart rate), irritability, problems with concentration and memory, and panic episodes associated with sensations of movement or quivering inside the body that arise while awake or asleep.
5) Children are affected as well as adults, especially older adults.
6) People with pre-existing migraine disorder, motion sensitivity, or damage to inner ear structures (such as hearing loss from industrial noise exposure) are more susceptible than other people to Wind Turbine Syndrome. These results are statistically significant (p < 0.01).
7) Wind Turbine Syndrome symptoms are not statistically associated with pre-existing anxiety or other mental health disorders.
8) The sample size of 10 families/38 people was large enough for statistical significance with regard to susceptibility or risk factors.
9) The susceptibility factors are clues to the pathophysiology of Wind Turbine Syndrome. The symptom complex resembles syndromes caused by vestibular (inner ear balance organ) "Wind Turbine Syndrome" book Executive Summary dysfunction. The proposed mechanism is disturbance to balance and position sense by noise and/or vibration, especially low frequency components of the noise and vibration.
10) An extensive review of recent medical literature reveals how balance-related neural signals affect a variety of brain areas and functions, including spatial awareness, spatial memory, spatial problem-solving, fear, anxiety, autonomic functions (like digestion and heartbeat), and aversive learning. These known neural relationships provide a robust anatomic and physiologic framework for Wind Turbine Syndrome.
11) Medical and technical literature on resonance of sound or vibration within body cavities (chest, skull, eyes, throat, ears) is reviewed, since study subjects experienced these effects.
12) Published studies of documented low frequency noise exposure (both experimental and environmental) are reviewed. These demonstrate effects on people similar or identical to Wind Turbine Syndrome. Indeed, one published study from Germany in 1996 may indeed be Wind Turbine Syndrome.
13) Recent survey studies of people who live near wind turbines in Sweden and the Netherlands are reviewed. These show that people are severely annoyed at noise from wind turbines at much lower A-weighted noise levels than for traffic, train, or aircraft noise.
14) Recommendations from the World Health Organization on environmental noise with low frequency components are reviewed.
15) Published studies of effects of environmental noise on children’s learning are reviewed.
16) With regard to Wind Turbine Syndrome, further research is needed to prove its physical causes and physiologic mechanisms, determine how many people are affected, and to further explore how it affects special populations, such as children.
17) This study and other studies reviewed in the report indicate that safe setbacks will be at least 2 km (1.24 miles), and longer for larger turbines and in more varied topography.
The book further includes:
A) Full case histories—the words and experiences of all the study subjects (including children), presented in an organized tabular format.
B) The report presented again in non-scientific, layman's language, explaining the medical, technical, and statistical aspects of the study. This section is illustrated.
C) Peer reviews and commentary by scientists and university physicians.
D) Introduction, complete list of scientific and medical references, glossary, and list of abbreviations. "Wind Turbine Syndrome" book Executive Summary
Wind%20Turbine%20Syndrome%20Exec%20Sum.pdf
White House set to increase clean energy tax credits by $5bn
The White House is proposing a $5bn (£3bn) increase in clean energy tax credits as part of a push to spur green collar job growth and expand US renewable energy capacity.
The proposal, unveiled yesterday by vice president Jo Biden, would extend existing tax breaks for manufacturers in the wind, geothermal and solar sectors in the US, raising the current $2.3bn cap on tax credits to $7.3bn.
If Congress approves the initiative, new or expanded factories that make products such as wind turbines, solar panels and electric vehicles would get a 30 per cent tax credit.
Vice president Biden said the first round of tax credits had proved an " overwhelming success" and that there were more qualified applicants than expected.
"While the public and private sectors are creating a demand for new industries such as wind, solar, high-speed rail and medical IT, we need to do more to ensure that we make these products in America," he said in a statement.
The administration received more than 1,000 applications for the initial $2.3bn round of tax breaks. Of these, 600 were granted tax credits, but a large number of eligible proposals are thought to have been rejected due to the cap on the amount of money available. The successful applicants will be announced early next year.
The White House said the money for the new tax credits would come from $200bn in savings from the bank bailout fund, which the administration has extended until next year.
The plan also calls for increased investment in public works, small business tax cuts and incentives for homeowners who retrofit their houses to be more energy efficient.
In addition to the tax break announcement, Biden's office also released a progress report this week on the US transformation to a clean energy economy.
It stated that by the end of next year the country will be committed to more than 15GW of new wind, solar and geothermal energy capacity, adding that the Department of the Interior has fast-tracked 30 renewable energy projects on federal lands in recent months.
It also said that $16bn of support for the electric car industry will mean three new electric vehicle plants and 30 new battery and other electric vehicle manufacturing plants will be opened in the next six years.
Meanwhile, new efficiency standards on appliances and white goods are being introduced at a rate of six a year and a programme to improve the energy efficiency of the homes of half a million low-income Americans will also be finished by the end of 2010, the vice president's office said.
The announcements are part of a US charm offensive designed to convince countries at the Copenhagen summit this week that the administration is fully committed to delivering cuts in carbon emissions.
The US has faced fierce criticism in recent days for failing to commit to sufficiently ambitious emission reduction targets or table an overall funding pledge to help poorer countries cope with climate change.
In an indication of the growing tensions at the talks, German chancellor Angela Merkel yesterday sided with poorer nations in criticising the US commitment to cut emissions by just four per cent on 1990 levels by 2020, arguing the target was "not ambitious".
The proposal, unveiled yesterday by vice president Jo Biden, would extend existing tax breaks for manufacturers in the wind, geothermal and solar sectors in the US, raising the current $2.3bn cap on tax credits to $7.3bn.
If Congress approves the initiative, new or expanded factories that make products such as wind turbines, solar panels and electric vehicles would get a 30 per cent tax credit.
Vice president Biden said the first round of tax credits had proved an " overwhelming success" and that there were more qualified applicants than expected.
"While the public and private sectors are creating a demand for new industries such as wind, solar, high-speed rail and medical IT, we need to do more to ensure that we make these products in America," he said in a statement.
The administration received more than 1,000 applications for the initial $2.3bn round of tax breaks. Of these, 600 were granted tax credits, but a large number of eligible proposals are thought to have been rejected due to the cap on the amount of money available. The successful applicants will be announced early next year.
The White House said the money for the new tax credits would come from $200bn in savings from the bank bailout fund, which the administration has extended until next year.
The plan also calls for increased investment in public works, small business tax cuts and incentives for homeowners who retrofit their houses to be more energy efficient.
In addition to the tax break announcement, Biden's office also released a progress report this week on the US transformation to a clean energy economy.
It stated that by the end of next year the country will be committed to more than 15GW of new wind, solar and geothermal energy capacity, adding that the Department of the Interior has fast-tracked 30 renewable energy projects on federal lands in recent months.
It also said that $16bn of support for the electric car industry will mean three new electric vehicle plants and 30 new battery and other electric vehicle manufacturing plants will be opened in the next six years.
Meanwhile, new efficiency standards on appliances and white goods are being introduced at a rate of six a year and a programme to improve the energy efficiency of the homes of half a million low-income Americans will also be finished by the end of 2010, the vice president's office said.
The announcements are part of a US charm offensive designed to convince countries at the Copenhagen summit this week that the administration is fully committed to delivering cuts in carbon emissions.
The US has faced fierce criticism in recent days for failing to commit to sufficiently ambitious emission reduction targets or table an overall funding pledge to help poorer countries cope with climate change.
In an indication of the growing tensions at the talks, German chancellor Angela Merkel yesterday sided with poorer nations in criticising the US commitment to cut emissions by just four per cent on 1990 levels by 2020, arguing the target was "not ambitious".
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)