In a move that will further delay the already controversial Cape Wind project, the National Park Service announced Monday that Nantucket Sound was eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places. This decision came as a reaction to a request from the Mashpee Wampanoag of Cape Cod and the Aquinnah Wampanoag of Martha’s Vineyard, who claim the 130 proposed wind turbines would thwart their spiritual ritual of greeting the sunrise and disturb ancestral burial grounds.
In the works since 2001, this extensive wind project is the nation’s first planned offshore wind farm. It would cover 24 square miles in the sound, an area roughly the size of Manhattan. This latest development creates new hurdles by requiring more negotiations, further delaying the project. Locals hope that these new restrictions will convince the project’s developer, Energy Management Inc., to move the site. Interior Secretary Ken Salazar set a deadline of March 1 for the tribes and the project’s developer to figure out a solution.
Cedric Cromwell is the chairman of the Mashpee Wampanoag tribe. He told The New York Times that the decision confirms “what the Wampanoag people have known for thousands of years: that Nantucket Sound has significant archaeological, historic and cultural values and is sacred to our people.” Further, the tribes feel that the proposed wind turbines could destroy long-submerged tribal artifacts from thousands of years ago, when the sound was dry land.
The state is puzzled by the ruling. “The decision is without precedent in terms of implicating many square miles of what is, legally speaking, the high seas,” said Ian A. Bowles, the Massachusetts secretary of energy and environmental affairs. Nantucket Sound encompasses more than 500 square miles and is by far the largest body of water ever found eligible for listing on the national historic register. Bowles adds that things are not quite over for the energy project. “…As a procedural matter, it’s a good thing a decision was reached, and the secretary is getting personally involved to get it over the finish line.”
Mr. Cromwell’s tribe, which won federal recognition in 2007, is also currently seeking build a casino in the coming years.
Wednesday, January 06, 2010
Windmill that crashed was operating normally at the time
FENNER, N.Y. (AP) - The company that operates an industrial wind-power site in central New York says a 187-ton windmill that crashed to the ground on Dec. 27 was operating normally at the time of the accident.
Enel North America officials said Tuesday that crews recovered the computer from the turbine and analyzed data, which confirmed it was operating normally. The giant windmill was 1 of 20 atop a ridge in Fenner, 33 miles east of Syracuse.
Enel spokesman Hank Sennott said the computer data showed the rotational speed was reasonable and it didn't appear there was a blade strike.
Engineers are trying to determine the cause of the accident and expect to release a report by the end of the month.
Enel North America officials said Tuesday that crews recovered the computer from the turbine and analyzed data, which confirmed it was operating normally. The giant windmill was 1 of 20 atop a ridge in Fenner, 33 miles east of Syracuse.
Enel spokesman Hank Sennott said the computer data showed the rotational speed was reasonable and it didn't appear there was a blade strike.
Engineers are trying to determine the cause of the accident and expect to release a report by the end of the month.
IDA issues negative declaration for Hardscrabble Wind Project
Herkimer, N.Y.
The Herkimer County Industrial Development Agency has issued a negative declaration concerning the state environmental quality review for the proposed Atlantic Wind project in the towns of Fairfield and Norway, paving the way for the venture to move forward.
IDA Board of Directors Chairman John Piseck said Tuesday that the negative declaration means that it has been determined that the project will not result in significant, adverse environmental impacts.
“The town of Fairfield was the lead agency in the SEQR process, and the issuance of this negative declaration on our part satisfies our obligation to the project,” he said.
The Fairfield Town Council voted last month to accept the environmental impact statement, which summarizes the SEQR, giving them 30 days to deny, approve or approve with conditions a permit that allows the project within the municipality. Acceptance of the EIS, however, does not guarantee approval. A decision on the issuance of a permit is planned to come at the council’s Jan. 14 meeting.
As for the payment in lieu of taxes agreement for the proposed Hardscrabble Wind Power Project, IDA Executive Director Mark Feane said the negotiations are continuing.
“The agreement is not yet ready for a public hearing, as the final terms have not been agreed upon,” said Feane. “Until a public hearing has been held, the IDA can not take action on it.”
The Herkimer County Legislature adopted a resolution last year proposing the amount for annual payments in lieu of taxes related to wind energy projects. The per megawatt payment, set by the county at $8,000, means $592,000 annually could be split by the affected parties. With the agreement spanning 20 years, as proposed by the county, the project’s potential benefit totals over $11.8 million. Revenue-sharing agreements could set how the payments are divided, with the proposal calling for 20 percent for the county and 40 percent each to the towns and school district.
“The proposed PILOT agreement will be a deviation from our standard PILOT agreement, so it is subject to a public hearing,” said Feane. “Ultimately the decision on how the funds will shared between the taxing jurisdictions will come from the developer and the jurisdictions themselves.”
Feane added the IDA’s involvement in the process is to serve as a conduit. “The IDA, because of the legal powers granted to it, has the ability to affect the agreement,” he said. “The IDA is the entity through which the agreement will go through, but the terms will come from the involved parties.”
Atlantic Wind, a subsidiary of Iberdrola Renewables, is seeking to develop a $200 million wind powered generating facility of up to 74 megawatts in the towns of Fairfield and Norway that is anticipated to include approximately 37 wind turbines, each with a generating capacity of 2.0 megawatts, with 25 turbines in the town of Fairfield and 12 turbines in the town of Norway.
Each wind turbine will include a 90 meter diameter, three bladed rotor mounted on a 100 meter tall tubular steel tower with a maximum blade tip height of 476 feet above existing grade.
In addition to the wind turbines, the project will involve construction of two permanent 77 meter meteorological towers, a system of 14 miles of gravel access roads, 20 miles of buried and above-ground electrical interconnect, an interconnection facility to be built adjacent to an existing 115 kilovolt transmission line and an operations and maintenance building.
The Herkimer County Industrial Development Agency has issued a negative declaration concerning the state environmental quality review for the proposed Atlantic Wind project in the towns of Fairfield and Norway, paving the way for the venture to move forward.
IDA Board of Directors Chairman John Piseck said Tuesday that the negative declaration means that it has been determined that the project will not result in significant, adverse environmental impacts.
“The town of Fairfield was the lead agency in the SEQR process, and the issuance of this negative declaration on our part satisfies our obligation to the project,” he said.
The Fairfield Town Council voted last month to accept the environmental impact statement, which summarizes the SEQR, giving them 30 days to deny, approve or approve with conditions a permit that allows the project within the municipality. Acceptance of the EIS, however, does not guarantee approval. A decision on the issuance of a permit is planned to come at the council’s Jan. 14 meeting.
As for the payment in lieu of taxes agreement for the proposed Hardscrabble Wind Power Project, IDA Executive Director Mark Feane said the negotiations are continuing.
“The agreement is not yet ready for a public hearing, as the final terms have not been agreed upon,” said Feane. “Until a public hearing has been held, the IDA can not take action on it.”
The Herkimer County Legislature adopted a resolution last year proposing the amount for annual payments in lieu of taxes related to wind energy projects. The per megawatt payment, set by the county at $8,000, means $592,000 annually could be split by the affected parties. With the agreement spanning 20 years, as proposed by the county, the project’s potential benefit totals over $11.8 million. Revenue-sharing agreements could set how the payments are divided, with the proposal calling for 20 percent for the county and 40 percent each to the towns and school district.
“The proposed PILOT agreement will be a deviation from our standard PILOT agreement, so it is subject to a public hearing,” said Feane. “Ultimately the decision on how the funds will shared between the taxing jurisdictions will come from the developer and the jurisdictions themselves.”
Feane added the IDA’s involvement in the process is to serve as a conduit. “The IDA, because of the legal powers granted to it, has the ability to affect the agreement,” he said. “The IDA is the entity through which the agreement will go through, but the terms will come from the involved parties.”
Atlantic Wind, a subsidiary of Iberdrola Renewables, is seeking to develop a $200 million wind powered generating facility of up to 74 megawatts in the towns of Fairfield and Norway that is anticipated to include approximately 37 wind turbines, each with a generating capacity of 2.0 megawatts, with 25 turbines in the town of Fairfield and 12 turbines in the town of Norway.
Each wind turbine will include a 90 meter diameter, three bladed rotor mounted on a 100 meter tall tubular steel tower with a maximum blade tip height of 476 feet above existing grade.
In addition to the wind turbines, the project will involve construction of two permanent 77 meter meteorological towers, a system of 14 miles of gravel access roads, 20 miles of buried and above-ground electrical interconnect, an interconnection facility to be built adjacent to an existing 115 kilovolt transmission line and an operations and maintenance building.
Wind farm PILOT plan suspended
'ISSUES OF CONCERN': County, at IDA request, takes resolutions off agenda; request again up for debate
It's back to the drawing board with the proposed payment-in-lieu-of-taxes agreement for Galloo Island Wind Farm.
The Jefferson County Board of Legislators did not vote on the agreement Tuesday night as planned. Jefferson County Industrial Development Agency surprised the legislators by asking that the resolutions dealing with the PILOT be deleted from the agenda.
"Obviously, recently there has been issues that surfaced of concern to the board and we'll work to see if we can't resolve those issues," JCIDA Chief Executive Officer Donald C. Alexander said.
Legislature Chairman Kenneth D. Blankenbush said he received the written request a half-hour before the meeting began. He told the board he wants to return to a uniform tax-exempt policy for all wind power development in the county.
"Two years ago, we directed the IDA to develop what we were calling a uniform PILOT agreement," Mr. Blankenbush, R-Black River, said after he was re-elected chairman as part of the first meeting of the year. "That way, every development proposed in the county would not have to come to the board and work through the board for PILOT approval."
JCIDA brought the Galloo Island PILOT forward separately after the developer, Upstate NY Power Corp, requested all local approvals be done by the end of 2009 to qualify for a 30 percent rebate through federal stimulus money.
"I'm not saying let's throw out the whole PILOT," Mr. Blankenbush said after the meeting. "Every project is a little different, so we will need some flexibility."
All parts of the PILOT are back up for discussion, he said, including the length and payments. The proposed PILOT would have been a 20-year agreement, which, because of the term of financing, departs from the 15-year PILOT generally used.
On Monday night, Upstate NY Power Corp offered to move to an 18-year PILOT instead. By moving to full taxation after 18 years, the taxing jurisdictions would net roughly an additional $5.3 million over the proposed PILOT payments, based on 2010 tax rates.
Mr. Blankenbush said legislators also worry about the transmission line route for the Galloo Island project and the possibility that eminent domain would be used.
Representatives of the developer continued to stress the need for speed on approving a PILOT.
"Each passing day reduces the probability of success," said Robert W. Burgdorf, attorney with Nixon Peabody, Rochester, who represents Upstate NY Power. "There's no definitive deadline, but it becomes very difficult as time goes on to get everything done."
Despite the PILOT's removal from the board's agenda, about 20 members of the public voiced their support or displeasure for the proposal. About 100 people attended the meeting.
Robert E. Aliasso Jr., co-chairman of the Coalition for the Preservation of the Golden Crescent, encouraged the legislators to include job guarantees, an account with 125 percent of the expected decommissioning cost and a fund for helping businesses hurt by the wind facility through reduced tourism and property values.
"We certainly see several deficiencies with the PILOT," he said.
Supporters of the project from Hounsfield and unions asked the county to consider the additional money and jobs that would come from the wind farm.
"The members of my local union have been involved directly in the construction of over 500 wind turbines in Northern New York," said Dennis C. Affinati, business manager for IBEW Local 910. "Over 100 of my members and hundreds more from other trades participated in the project, which brought millions in wages and benefits."
During the meeting, Mr. Blankenbush also proposed coordinating with Oswego County to press regional concerns about an offshore wind farm possibility. New York Power Authority has released a request for proposals for developers to put up to 500 megawatts of wind power development in lakes Ontario and Erie.
"That concerns me more than any of the projects we are talking about now because how much control are we going to have?" he said.
After the meeting, he said the board would sit down and work through concerns about the PILOT agreement with JCIDA.
"It's important tonight to step back and take a better look at the proposals," Mr. Blankenbush said. "If we take our time doing that, it will be better for all the areas that are going to be affected."
It's back to the drawing board with the proposed payment-in-lieu-of-taxes agreement for Galloo Island Wind Farm.
The Jefferson County Board of Legislators did not vote on the agreement Tuesday night as planned. Jefferson County Industrial Development Agency surprised the legislators by asking that the resolutions dealing with the PILOT be deleted from the agenda.
"Obviously, recently there has been issues that surfaced of concern to the board and we'll work to see if we can't resolve those issues," JCIDA Chief Executive Officer Donald C. Alexander said.
Legislature Chairman Kenneth D. Blankenbush said he received the written request a half-hour before the meeting began. He told the board he wants to return to a uniform tax-exempt policy for all wind power development in the county.
"Two years ago, we directed the IDA to develop what we were calling a uniform PILOT agreement," Mr. Blankenbush, R-Black River, said after he was re-elected chairman as part of the first meeting of the year. "That way, every development proposed in the county would not have to come to the board and work through the board for PILOT approval."
JCIDA brought the Galloo Island PILOT forward separately after the developer, Upstate NY Power Corp, requested all local approvals be done by the end of 2009 to qualify for a 30 percent rebate through federal stimulus money.
"I'm not saying let's throw out the whole PILOT," Mr. Blankenbush said after the meeting. "Every project is a little different, so we will need some flexibility."
All parts of the PILOT are back up for discussion, he said, including the length and payments. The proposed PILOT would have been a 20-year agreement, which, because of the term of financing, departs from the 15-year PILOT generally used.
On Monday night, Upstate NY Power Corp offered to move to an 18-year PILOT instead. By moving to full taxation after 18 years, the taxing jurisdictions would net roughly an additional $5.3 million over the proposed PILOT payments, based on 2010 tax rates.
Mr. Blankenbush said legislators also worry about the transmission line route for the Galloo Island project and the possibility that eminent domain would be used.
Representatives of the developer continued to stress the need for speed on approving a PILOT.
"Each passing day reduces the probability of success," said Robert W. Burgdorf, attorney with Nixon Peabody, Rochester, who represents Upstate NY Power. "There's no definitive deadline, but it becomes very difficult as time goes on to get everything done."
Despite the PILOT's removal from the board's agenda, about 20 members of the public voiced their support or displeasure for the proposal. About 100 people attended the meeting.
Robert E. Aliasso Jr., co-chairman of the Coalition for the Preservation of the Golden Crescent, encouraged the legislators to include job guarantees, an account with 125 percent of the expected decommissioning cost and a fund for helping businesses hurt by the wind facility through reduced tourism and property values.
"We certainly see several deficiencies with the PILOT," he said.
Supporters of the project from Hounsfield and unions asked the county to consider the additional money and jobs that would come from the wind farm.
"The members of my local union have been involved directly in the construction of over 500 wind turbines in Northern New York," said Dennis C. Affinati, business manager for IBEW Local 910. "Over 100 of my members and hundreds more from other trades participated in the project, which brought millions in wages and benefits."
During the meeting, Mr. Blankenbush also proposed coordinating with Oswego County to press regional concerns about an offshore wind farm possibility. New York Power Authority has released a request for proposals for developers to put up to 500 megawatts of wind power development in lakes Ontario and Erie.
"That concerns me more than any of the projects we are talking about now because how much control are we going to have?" he said.
After the meeting, he said the board would sit down and work through concerns about the PILOT agreement with JCIDA.
"It's important tonight to step back and take a better look at the proposals," Mr. Blankenbush said. "If we take our time doing that, it will be better for all the areas that are going to be affected."
Tuesday, January 05, 2010
IEEE to Hold Multidisciplinary Conference on Innovative Smart Grid Technologies Hosted by NIST
PISCATAWAY, N.J.--(BUSINESS WIRE)--IEEE, the world's largest technical professional association, today announced its first Conference on Innovative Smart Grid Technologies, to be held January 19-21, 2010 at the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) conference center in Gaithersburg, Maryland. This groundbreaking event brings together a highly regarded roster of Smart Grid visionaries, industry experts, and researchers to share insight and vision into Smart Grid advancements and related emerging technologies.
Open to executives from the power, energy, communications, IT/computing industries, as well as government and academia, attendance at this important event is essential for anyone interested in Smart Grid technologies and their deployment.
NOTE: All registrations for the IEEE Conference on Innovative Smart Grid Technologies must be completed by January 8, 2010. Additional information, including the full conference program and registration details, can be found at: http://ewh.ieee.org/conf/isgt/2010/.
“The IEEE Conference on Innovative Smart Grid Technologies marks a historic milestone in the process of moving Smart Grid from the abstract into the concrete,” said Wanda Reder, President of the IEEE Power & Energy Society 2008-2009, and Chair of the IEEE Smart Grid Task Force. “Bringing together the best and brightest minds enables us to realize real, substantive gains in Smart Grid technology development. Successful Smart Grid deployment is imperative, not just in the U.S. but around the globe, and this event is an important step in the fulfillment of that mandate.”
(Click to read the entire press release)
Open to executives from the power, energy, communications, IT/computing industries, as well as government and academia, attendance at this important event is essential for anyone interested in Smart Grid technologies and their deployment.
NOTE: All registrations for the IEEE Conference on Innovative Smart Grid Technologies must be completed by January 8, 2010. Additional information, including the full conference program and registration details, can be found at: http://ewh.ieee.org/conf/isgt/2010/.
“The IEEE Conference on Innovative Smart Grid Technologies marks a historic milestone in the process of moving Smart Grid from the abstract into the concrete,” said Wanda Reder, President of the IEEE Power & Energy Society 2008-2009, and Chair of the IEEE Smart Grid Task Force. “Bringing together the best and brightest minds enables us to realize real, substantive gains in Smart Grid technology development. Successful Smart Grid deployment is imperative, not just in the U.S. but around the globe, and this event is an important step in the fulfillment of that mandate.”
(Click to read the entire press release)
For Cape Cod Wind Farm, New Hurdle Is Spiritual
BOSTON — In a new setback for a controversial wind farm proposed off Cape Cod, the National Park Service announced Monday that Nantucket Sound was eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places, guaranteeing further delays for the project.
Known as Cape Wind, the project is the nation’s first planned offshore wind farm and would cover 24 square miles in the sound, an area roughly the size of Manhattan. The park service decision came in response to a request from two Massachusetts Indian tribes, who said the 130 proposed wind turbines would thwart their spiritual ritual of greeting the sunrise, which requires unobstructed views across the sound, and disturb ancestral burial grounds.
The tribes — the Mashpee Wampanoag of Cape Cod and the Aquinnah Wampanoag of Martha’s Vineyard — sought the listing last fall, shortly before a final federal decision on the project was expected. The project has been in the works since 2001 and is strongly supported by Gov. Deval Patrick.
The decision by the National Park Service did not kill the Cape Wind plan, but it erected new hurdles by requiring more negotiations and, possibly, changes to the project, like moving it. Interior Secretary Ken Salazar set a deadline of March 1 for the tribes and the project’s developer, Energy Management Inc., to reach a compromise.
If they do not — a distinct possibility given the acrimony surrounding the project — Mr. Salazar can decide the project’s future himself after seeking suggestions from the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, an independent group. But even if Mr. Salazar lets the project move forward, the park service finding could help the tribes and opponents build a legal case against it.
Cedric Cromwell, chairman of the Mashpee Wampanoag tribe, said the decision confirmed “what the Wampanoag people have known for thousands of years: that Nantucket Sound has significant archaeological, historic and cultural values and is sacred to our people.”
Others said the finding was surprising because Nantucket Sound, which encompasses more than 500 square miles, is by far the largest body of water ever found eligible for listing on the national historic register. Other eligible bodies of water have included Walden Pond in Massachusetts, which covers about 60 acres, and Zuni Salt Lake in New Mexico, which is about 6,500 feet across, said Jeffrey Olson, a spokesman for the park service.
“The decision is without precedent in terms of implicating many square miles of what is, legally speaking, the high seas,” said Ian A. Bowles, the Massachusetts secretary of energy and environmental affairs. “But as a procedural matter, it’s a good thing a decision was reached, and the secretary is getting personally involved to get it over the finish line.”
A spokeswoman for Mr. Salazar said he planned to meet next week with representatives of the tribes and the developer in hopes of speeding a resolution.
The park service decision comes at a time when Mr. Cromwell’s tribe, which won federal recognition in 2007, is hoping to build a casino.
President Obama has championed wind energy during his first year in office, though he has not publicly taken sides in the Cape Wind battle. In addition to the tribes, the project’s opponents include homeowners and boaters on Cape Cod, who say it would hurt wildlife, fishing and tourism and spoil the beauty of Nantucket Sound. Senator Edward M. Kennedy, whose family compound in Hyannis Port looks out on the proposed wind farm site, was the project’s most powerful opponent until his death last August.
In seeking the historical designation, the Wampanoag tribes — whose name translates to “people of the first light” — said their view to the east across Nantucket Sound was integral to their identity and cultural traditions.
“Here is where we still arrive to greet the new day, watch for celestial observations in the night sky and follow the migration of the sun and stars in change with the season,” wrote Bettina Washington, historic preservation officer for the Aquinnah Wampanoag, in a letter to federal officials.
Supporters of Cape Wind have pointed out that the Aquinnah Wampanoag’s land is on the western side of Martha’s Vineyard, which does not face Nantucket Sound. But in its ruling, the National Park Service nonetheless said the sound was significant to both tribes.
“The sound is part of a larger, culturally significant landscape treasured by the Wampanoag tribes and inseparably associated with their history,” wrote Janet Snyder Matthews, who was the keeper of the National Register of Historic Places until she left the park service in December.
The tribes also argued that the wind turbines, which would be 440 feet tall, could destroy long-submerged tribal artifacts from thousands of years ago, when the sound was dry land. Such artifacts could “yield further confirmation of our cultural histories,” Ms. Washington wrote.
Known as Cape Wind, the project is the nation’s first planned offshore wind farm and would cover 24 square miles in the sound, an area roughly the size of Manhattan. The park service decision came in response to a request from two Massachusetts Indian tribes, who said the 130 proposed wind turbines would thwart their spiritual ritual of greeting the sunrise, which requires unobstructed views across the sound, and disturb ancestral burial grounds.
The tribes — the Mashpee Wampanoag of Cape Cod and the Aquinnah Wampanoag of Martha’s Vineyard — sought the listing last fall, shortly before a final federal decision on the project was expected. The project has been in the works since 2001 and is strongly supported by Gov. Deval Patrick.
The decision by the National Park Service did not kill the Cape Wind plan, but it erected new hurdles by requiring more negotiations and, possibly, changes to the project, like moving it. Interior Secretary Ken Salazar set a deadline of March 1 for the tribes and the project’s developer, Energy Management Inc., to reach a compromise.
If they do not — a distinct possibility given the acrimony surrounding the project — Mr. Salazar can decide the project’s future himself after seeking suggestions from the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, an independent group. But even if Mr. Salazar lets the project move forward, the park service finding could help the tribes and opponents build a legal case against it.
Cedric Cromwell, chairman of the Mashpee Wampanoag tribe, said the decision confirmed “what the Wampanoag people have known for thousands of years: that Nantucket Sound has significant archaeological, historic and cultural values and is sacred to our people.”
Others said the finding was surprising because Nantucket Sound, which encompasses more than 500 square miles, is by far the largest body of water ever found eligible for listing on the national historic register. Other eligible bodies of water have included Walden Pond in Massachusetts, which covers about 60 acres, and Zuni Salt Lake in New Mexico, which is about 6,500 feet across, said Jeffrey Olson, a spokesman for the park service.
“The decision is without precedent in terms of implicating many square miles of what is, legally speaking, the high seas,” said Ian A. Bowles, the Massachusetts secretary of energy and environmental affairs. “But as a procedural matter, it’s a good thing a decision was reached, and the secretary is getting personally involved to get it over the finish line.”
A spokeswoman for Mr. Salazar said he planned to meet next week with representatives of the tribes and the developer in hopes of speeding a resolution.
The park service decision comes at a time when Mr. Cromwell’s tribe, which won federal recognition in 2007, is hoping to build a casino.
President Obama has championed wind energy during his first year in office, though he has not publicly taken sides in the Cape Wind battle. In addition to the tribes, the project’s opponents include homeowners and boaters on Cape Cod, who say it would hurt wildlife, fishing and tourism and spoil the beauty of Nantucket Sound. Senator Edward M. Kennedy, whose family compound in Hyannis Port looks out on the proposed wind farm site, was the project’s most powerful opponent until his death last August.
In seeking the historical designation, the Wampanoag tribes — whose name translates to “people of the first light” — said their view to the east across Nantucket Sound was integral to their identity and cultural traditions.
“Here is where we still arrive to greet the new day, watch for celestial observations in the night sky and follow the migration of the sun and stars in change with the season,” wrote Bettina Washington, historic preservation officer for the Aquinnah Wampanoag, in a letter to federal officials.
Supporters of Cape Wind have pointed out that the Aquinnah Wampanoag’s land is on the western side of Martha’s Vineyard, which does not face Nantucket Sound. But in its ruling, the National Park Service nonetheless said the sound was significant to both tribes.
“The sound is part of a larger, culturally significant landscape treasured by the Wampanoag tribes and inseparably associated with their history,” wrote Janet Snyder Matthews, who was the keeper of the National Register of Historic Places until she left the park service in December.
The tribes also argued that the wind turbines, which would be 440 feet tall, could destroy long-submerged tribal artifacts from thousands of years ago, when the sound was dry land. Such artifacts could “yield further confirmation of our cultural histories,” Ms. Washington wrote.
Robert Ashodian January 2, 2010 Letter to Barry Ormsby
January 2, 2010
To: Mr. Alexander “Pete” Grannis
Commissioner
NYS Department of Environmental Conservation
625 Broadway
Albany, NY 12223-1750
From: Robert Ashodian
Re: DEC - Please Preserve and Protect Our Environment
I am a member of the Coalition for the Preservation of the Golden Crescent and Chairperson of the Henderson Harbor Area Chamber of Commerce’s Economic Development Committee. My exposure to the world of NYS politics and the various agencies of our government has been, until very recently, minor.
It has always been my opinion that the DEC makes every effort to protect our unique environment. At times it seems overly zealous in enforcing the seemingly endless list of regulations that prevent people from doing what they want to do and in punishing transgressors of environmental regulations. Get caught washing paint brushes in the lake, spilling a few ounces of oil in the water, or moving any rocks below the lake’s high water mark and you are in considerable trouble. Disturb identified wetlands, endanger any manner of wildlife, and your project is stopped dead in its tracks. Our local newspaper just the other day reported a $200 fine for a property owner in Watertown who disturbed a creek embankment on his property; he also had to reach an agreement related to silt fences. While as an individual I may protest such zealous enforcement, I have to concede this is to our collective good.
I have read the Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Hounsfield Wind Farm Project, and the rules seem to be totally different. I have a home along the Lake Ontario shore and have sailed past beautiful Galloo Island many times and have anchored off its shores. Local fishermen have visited the island for decades. The island is a breeding ground, habitat, migratory route and home for many species of living things in the air, on the ground and in the water.
Like so much of the land along the shoreline, the foundation is rock with a thin layer of soil. The islands that make up the gateway into the St. Lawrence River are similarly rock with a thin layer of soil. The foliage clings to life yet manages to survive and be the habitat for many creatures. Even the most casual reading of the FEIS makes it obvious that the ecology of Galloo Island will be destroyed by blasting, rock crushing, cement making, clear-cutting of woodland areas, roads, and foundations for 84 wind towers. Virtually the entire island will be covered by towers, roads, equipment, living quarters, electrical components, a mulch pit, and initially a cement making facility.
In a previous letter (January 2, 2010) I raised the issue of acoustics – not just the impact of sound radiating in the air, but the vibration and the sounds likely to be transmitted by what I called the “tuning fork effect” – 84 wind turbines anchored into solid rock by poured concrete. Who has any idea of the effect that collective harmonics from such combined structures will have on the creatures that live not only on the island, but spawn and feed in the surrounding waters? As far as I am aware this critical issue has not been even looked at. It is possible that an entire fishery could be destroyed. Shouldn’t someone care?
It appears from the diagrams and simulation photos available with the FEIS that many of the wind turbines have minimal set back from the lake and from the wetlands that make up the interior of Galloo Island. Each wind turbine requires hundreds of gallons of synthetic oil for lubrication. If a tower collapses anywhere on the island it would likely cause an oil spill that would make its way into the lake. Obviously any tower that collapsed directly into a wetland area or into the lake would create an even worse situation. How would such a spill be contained?
A tower collapsed at Altona, and another recently at Fenner. Construction at Maple Ridge was plagued with incipient tower collapse due to faulty concrete in some foundations. So the possibility is not remote.
Now, I have to ask – if I operated a marina, would the DEC allow me to store oil suspended or supported by any structure over the water or on land adjacent to the water? Any fuel or lubricating products stored on land must be fully surrounded by a reservoir facility that would contain the entire amount of fluid that might possibly spill. If I spill fuel oil on my land, it must be reported immediately to the DEC and the entire contaminated area dug out and disposed of. How will this be done when a tower collapses with hundreds of gallons of synthetic lubricant that will spill across the thin soil, likely into the lake and into the rock base below on Galloo Island?
I cannot imagine the DEC ever approving any project on my private land that would do 5% of the environmental devastation that will certainly happen on Galloo Island.
I have to ask, is the DEC’s role in this project simply to identify the harm that will be done, and then allow the developer to propose his limited version of mitigating action? Does the DEC stand by and simply say – this is what you will destroy, so our collective conscience is now clear?
Is the DEC’s role to preserve and protect or is it simply another politically driven arm of the state government? Was it, is it, simply being asked to look the other way, while our unique natural resources are destroyed because there is money to be made by others?
The DEC felt strongly enough about Galloo Island to attempt to buy it a few years ago. The DEC still has a few acres that are under its control. Galloo Island was set aside as a resource worth preserving and protecting. Are we to believe that the DEC has simply caved in to political pressure?
Going back to my earlier points – as an individual my understanding is that if I spill any fuel, fail to have a proper silt fence, or move any rocks below the lake’s high water mark, I will be punished. I will also be prevented, and rightfully so, from destroying wetlands, putting wetlands at risk, or putting all manner of living things at risk. But, would I be permitted to destroy forever an entire island and decimate the habitat, feeding and breeding grounds, and migration path of many species of otherwise protected animal life? Absolutely not -- this would be absurd. Typically what most small property owners wish to do is insignificant in the total scheme of things. But, the rules are the rules and they are rigorously enforced. Now we have this huge project on Galloo Island, which will impact the entire northeastern end of the lake. Yet, the DEC appears to be looking the other away either by its own volition (which seems unlikely to me), but perhaps more likely because it is under considerable political pressure to look the other way. As an individual property owner I cannot possibly imagine being granted the right to destroy so much, nor would I personally, in good conscience, even conceive of doing so regardless of the potential profit.
We look to the DEC to protect us from the short-term financial greed of others; greed that now threatens an entire ecosystem. ANWR is a relatively tiny spot in a vast Alaskan wilderness; a barren, frozen, unvisited, unseen place. It is protected. The northeastern end of Lake Ontario is an international destination for hundreds of thousands of visitors, a year round habitat for birds, fish, and many others forms of life. If the DEC cannot prevent the impending disaster due to environmental disregard and devastation of our natural resources for profit, who will?
I urge you to pursue our concerns.
Sincerely,
Robert Ashodian
14537 Harbor Road
PO Box 544
Henderson Harbor NY
To: Mr. Alexander “Pete” Grannis
Commissioner
NYS Department of Environmental Conservation
625 Broadway
Albany, NY 12223-1750
From: Robert Ashodian
Re: DEC - Please Preserve and Protect Our Environment
I am a member of the Coalition for the Preservation of the Golden Crescent and Chairperson of the Henderson Harbor Area Chamber of Commerce’s Economic Development Committee. My exposure to the world of NYS politics and the various agencies of our government has been, until very recently, minor.
It has always been my opinion that the DEC makes every effort to protect our unique environment. At times it seems overly zealous in enforcing the seemingly endless list of regulations that prevent people from doing what they want to do and in punishing transgressors of environmental regulations. Get caught washing paint brushes in the lake, spilling a few ounces of oil in the water, or moving any rocks below the lake’s high water mark and you are in considerable trouble. Disturb identified wetlands, endanger any manner of wildlife, and your project is stopped dead in its tracks. Our local newspaper just the other day reported a $200 fine for a property owner in Watertown who disturbed a creek embankment on his property; he also had to reach an agreement related to silt fences. While as an individual I may protest such zealous enforcement, I have to concede this is to our collective good.
I have read the Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Hounsfield Wind Farm Project, and the rules seem to be totally different. I have a home along the Lake Ontario shore and have sailed past beautiful Galloo Island many times and have anchored off its shores. Local fishermen have visited the island for decades. The island is a breeding ground, habitat, migratory route and home for many species of living things in the air, on the ground and in the water.
Like so much of the land along the shoreline, the foundation is rock with a thin layer of soil. The islands that make up the gateway into the St. Lawrence River are similarly rock with a thin layer of soil. The foliage clings to life yet manages to survive and be the habitat for many creatures. Even the most casual reading of the FEIS makes it obvious that the ecology of Galloo Island will be destroyed by blasting, rock crushing, cement making, clear-cutting of woodland areas, roads, and foundations for 84 wind towers. Virtually the entire island will be covered by towers, roads, equipment, living quarters, electrical components, a mulch pit, and initially a cement making facility.
In a previous letter (January 2, 2010) I raised the issue of acoustics – not just the impact of sound radiating in the air, but the vibration and the sounds likely to be transmitted by what I called the “tuning fork effect” – 84 wind turbines anchored into solid rock by poured concrete. Who has any idea of the effect that collective harmonics from such combined structures will have on the creatures that live not only on the island, but spawn and feed in the surrounding waters? As far as I am aware this critical issue has not been even looked at. It is possible that an entire fishery could be destroyed. Shouldn’t someone care?
It appears from the diagrams and simulation photos available with the FEIS that many of the wind turbines have minimal set back from the lake and from the wetlands that make up the interior of Galloo Island. Each wind turbine requires hundreds of gallons of synthetic oil for lubrication. If a tower collapses anywhere on the island it would likely cause an oil spill that would make its way into the lake. Obviously any tower that collapsed directly into a wetland area or into the lake would create an even worse situation. How would such a spill be contained?
A tower collapsed at Altona, and another recently at Fenner. Construction at Maple Ridge was plagued with incipient tower collapse due to faulty concrete in some foundations. So the possibility is not remote.
Now, I have to ask – if I operated a marina, would the DEC allow me to store oil suspended or supported by any structure over the water or on land adjacent to the water? Any fuel or lubricating products stored on land must be fully surrounded by a reservoir facility that would contain the entire amount of fluid that might possibly spill. If I spill fuel oil on my land, it must be reported immediately to the DEC and the entire contaminated area dug out and disposed of. How will this be done when a tower collapses with hundreds of gallons of synthetic lubricant that will spill across the thin soil, likely into the lake and into the rock base below on Galloo Island?
I cannot imagine the DEC ever approving any project on my private land that would do 5% of the environmental devastation that will certainly happen on Galloo Island.
I have to ask, is the DEC’s role in this project simply to identify the harm that will be done, and then allow the developer to propose his limited version of mitigating action? Does the DEC stand by and simply say – this is what you will destroy, so our collective conscience is now clear?
Is the DEC’s role to preserve and protect or is it simply another politically driven arm of the state government? Was it, is it, simply being asked to look the other way, while our unique natural resources are destroyed because there is money to be made by others?
The DEC felt strongly enough about Galloo Island to attempt to buy it a few years ago. The DEC still has a few acres that are under its control. Galloo Island was set aside as a resource worth preserving and protecting. Are we to believe that the DEC has simply caved in to political pressure?
Going back to my earlier points – as an individual my understanding is that if I spill any fuel, fail to have a proper silt fence, or move any rocks below the lake’s high water mark, I will be punished. I will also be prevented, and rightfully so, from destroying wetlands, putting wetlands at risk, or putting all manner of living things at risk. But, would I be permitted to destroy forever an entire island and decimate the habitat, feeding and breeding grounds, and migration path of many species of otherwise protected animal life? Absolutely not -- this would be absurd. Typically what most small property owners wish to do is insignificant in the total scheme of things. But, the rules are the rules and they are rigorously enforced. Now we have this huge project on Galloo Island, which will impact the entire northeastern end of the lake. Yet, the DEC appears to be looking the other away either by its own volition (which seems unlikely to me), but perhaps more likely because it is under considerable political pressure to look the other way. As an individual property owner I cannot possibly imagine being granted the right to destroy so much, nor would I personally, in good conscience, even conceive of doing so regardless of the potential profit.
We look to the DEC to protect us from the short-term financial greed of others; greed that now threatens an entire ecosystem. ANWR is a relatively tiny spot in a vast Alaskan wilderness; a barren, frozen, unvisited, unseen place. It is protected. The northeastern end of Lake Ontario is an international destination for hundreds of thousands of visitors, a year round habitat for birds, fish, and many others forms of life. If the DEC cannot prevent the impending disaster due to environmental disregard and devastation of our natural resources for profit, who will?
I urge you to pursue our concerns.
Sincerely,
Robert Ashodian
14537 Harbor Road
PO Box 544
Henderson Harbor NY
Albert H. Bowers III January 3, 2010 Letter to Barry Ormsby
January 3, 2010
To: The Honorable Barry Ormsby
8141 Swan Road
Adams, NY 13605
Re: Proposed Galloo Island Wind Turbine Project - Environmental Impact
Dear Barry:
I have read Mr. Burgdorf’s comments on Mr. Ashodian’s recent letter to the DEC. I have reviewed environmental impact statements in my professional career going back to what I believe to be the original one in the early 1970s for the Alaska Pipeline. My own review of the DEIS/FEIS for Galloo causes me to agree completely with Mr. Ashodian’s insightful comments. It is unprofessional in the extreme for Mr. Burgdorf, who does not seem to have any engineering or scientific qualifications, to trumpet that “The DEC has been deeply zealous and has required 2 years, and many millions of dollars worth of rigorous testing and studies on every imaginable potential environmental impact.”
My colleagues in The Coalition for the Preservation of the Golden Crescent and the Thousand Islands and I still have serious reservations about the document and the studies performed in support of it. Mr. Ashodian’s comments illustrate my own general impression of the studies undertaken by the DEC – that they have simply catalogued the more obvious aspects of the environmental destruction that will be accomplished in pursuing this project.
Mr. Burgdorf criticizes Mr. Ashodian for not backing up his assertions. I would suggest that is not Mr. Ashodian’s job. If a layman can find so many major deficiencies in the DEIS/FEIS, that is clear evidence that the document is inadequate and does not support its own presumptive conclusion – that the project should move forward.
Mr. Burgdorf cites the acoustical studies that were done as an example of the thoroughness of the DEC’s approach. I have, on several occasions, during the review of this project expressed my concerns about noise impacts on shoreline residents, particularly on Point Peninsula (this is also obviously a concern for similarly close areas of Henderson, Brownville, and Cape Vincent.),which is part of the Town of Lyme, where I serve on the Planning Board.
DEC produced a study by Tech Environmental that “proves” that the sound will not be a problem by the simple and unsupported expedient of assuming an ambient sound level of 50.7 decibels in this quiet rural area! This ignores the common nighttime condition of a stable atmosphere that produces a quiet windless condition on the surface while there is a steady wind powering the turbines at the level of the turbine blades. The likely ambient nighttime sound level under these conditions is in the range of 18 – 25 dB and the turbines will be noticeable under these conditions.
I also asked Clif Schneider and Chuck Ebbing to review this acoustical study by Tech Environmental. Clif has done considerable investigative work on the effects of the stable atmospheric condition I refer to above. Mr. Ebbing is are tired acoustical engineer who has taught acoustics at RPI. His succinct comment on the study was that if a student at RPI had submitted the study “he would have flunked Acoustics and English.”
The most glaring omission in the DEIS/FEIS is the absence of any proof that the turbines will accomplish their stated reason for being – that is that they will actually reduce consumption of fossil fuels and the resulting emissions of greenhouse gases. A substantial reduction in pollution would be required to justify the wholesale destruction of the pristine environment of Galloo Island and the potential environmental damage inflicted by the transmission lines that will carry the electricity produced. The report is strangely silent on this vital portion of the environmental impact. We are being asked to accept the notion that these wind machines will be the answer to our environmental problems, an assumption that is not supported by any available evidence.
Wind power has not, in this case or in general, been proven to reduce overall use of fossil fuels or reduction of greenhouse gases. Wind developers claim that WTG installations are “clean and green,” but do not supply any analyses to demonstrate that wind power actually reduces the use of fossil fuels or the emission of greenhouse gases The poor efficiency of wind power is not a result of deficiencies in the design of the turbines, but is simply a result of the natural variability in the wind’s velocity. We are asked to accept that all of the environmental problems created by the construction and operation of this proposed facility are acceptable or are in some way mitigated in order for the development to proceed.
We are asked to accept all of these negative effects based on the unsupported assumption that the electricity produced by the turbines will enable utility companies to significantly reduce their use of fossil fuels and the consequent emission of greenhouse gases.
This assumption that the WTG fulfill their intended purpose is questionable because of the extreme variability of the wind. The operation of the WTG effectively magnifies the variability of wind, as the kinetic energy in wind is a function of the cube of the wind speed. Thus a doubling of wind speed will cause the WTG to produce eight times the energy or conversely if the wind speed drops by half, the electricity will be merely one-eighth.
The only types of existing generators capable of accommodating the extreme variability of the wind are hydro-power and simple gas turbine powered generators. These are the generators that will need to be used to “fill-in” the approximately 70 % of the WTG rated capacity that is not produced by the wind turbines due to the natural variability and unpredictability of wind.
Obviously, to the extent that hydro-power is used to balance the variability of the wind, there will be no reduction in fuel usage or emissions as we will simply be substituting one form of non-polluting power for another.
If the balancing is done with simple gas turbines, it will require them to be operated in a very inefficient manner. This mode of operation is similar to a car being operated in a manner that includes sudden stops and jackrabbit starts. The fuel economy will be poor and a high ratio of unburned hydrocarbons will be emitted. There are a number of available studies that indicate that the provision of more efficient, combined-cycle gas turbines alone would be more efficient and reduce both the emissions and investment than the case of simple gas turbines combined with WTG installations. All we see from the wind energy proponents are the meaningless slogans they promote such as “Clean, Green and Free.”
Sincerely,Albert H. Bowers III,
Co-Chair The Coalition for the Preservation of the Golden Crescent and the Thousand Islands
To: The Honorable Barry Ormsby
8141 Swan Road
Adams, NY 13605
Re: Proposed Galloo Island Wind Turbine Project - Environmental Impact
Dear Barry:
I have read Mr. Burgdorf’s comments on Mr. Ashodian’s recent letter to the DEC. I have reviewed environmental impact statements in my professional career going back to what I believe to be the original one in the early 1970s for the Alaska Pipeline. My own review of the DEIS/FEIS for Galloo causes me to agree completely with Mr. Ashodian’s insightful comments. It is unprofessional in the extreme for Mr. Burgdorf, who does not seem to have any engineering or scientific qualifications, to trumpet that “The DEC has been deeply zealous and has required 2 years, and many millions of dollars worth of rigorous testing and studies on every imaginable potential environmental impact.”
My colleagues in The Coalition for the Preservation of the Golden Crescent and the Thousand Islands and I still have serious reservations about the document and the studies performed in support of it. Mr. Ashodian’s comments illustrate my own general impression of the studies undertaken by the DEC – that they have simply catalogued the more obvious aspects of the environmental destruction that will be accomplished in pursuing this project.
Mr. Burgdorf criticizes Mr. Ashodian for not backing up his assertions. I would suggest that is not Mr. Ashodian’s job. If a layman can find so many major deficiencies in the DEIS/FEIS, that is clear evidence that the document is inadequate and does not support its own presumptive conclusion – that the project should move forward.
Mr. Burgdorf cites the acoustical studies that were done as an example of the thoroughness of the DEC’s approach. I have, on several occasions, during the review of this project expressed my concerns about noise impacts on shoreline residents, particularly on Point Peninsula (this is also obviously a concern for similarly close areas of Henderson, Brownville, and Cape Vincent.),which is part of the Town of Lyme, where I serve on the Planning Board.
DEC produced a study by Tech Environmental that “proves” that the sound will not be a problem by the simple and unsupported expedient of assuming an ambient sound level of 50.7 decibels in this quiet rural area! This ignores the common nighttime condition of a stable atmosphere that produces a quiet windless condition on the surface while there is a steady wind powering the turbines at the level of the turbine blades. The likely ambient nighttime sound level under these conditions is in the range of 18 – 25 dB and the turbines will be noticeable under these conditions.
I also asked Clif Schneider and Chuck Ebbing to review this acoustical study by Tech Environmental. Clif has done considerable investigative work on the effects of the stable atmospheric condition I refer to above. Mr. Ebbing is are tired acoustical engineer who has taught acoustics at RPI. His succinct comment on the study was that if a student at RPI had submitted the study “he would have flunked Acoustics and English.”
The most glaring omission in the DEIS/FEIS is the absence of any proof that the turbines will accomplish their stated reason for being – that is that they will actually reduce consumption of fossil fuels and the resulting emissions of greenhouse gases. A substantial reduction in pollution would be required to justify the wholesale destruction of the pristine environment of Galloo Island and the potential environmental damage inflicted by the transmission lines that will carry the electricity produced. The report is strangely silent on this vital portion of the environmental impact. We are being asked to accept the notion that these wind machines will be the answer to our environmental problems, an assumption that is not supported by any available evidence.
Wind power has not, in this case or in general, been proven to reduce overall use of fossil fuels or reduction of greenhouse gases. Wind developers claim that WTG installations are “clean and green,” but do not supply any analyses to demonstrate that wind power actually reduces the use of fossil fuels or the emission of greenhouse gases The poor efficiency of wind power is not a result of deficiencies in the design of the turbines, but is simply a result of the natural variability in the wind’s velocity. We are asked to accept that all of the environmental problems created by the construction and operation of this proposed facility are acceptable or are in some way mitigated in order for the development to proceed.
We are asked to accept all of these negative effects based on the unsupported assumption that the electricity produced by the turbines will enable utility companies to significantly reduce their use of fossil fuels and the consequent emission of greenhouse gases.
This assumption that the WTG fulfill their intended purpose is questionable because of the extreme variability of the wind. The operation of the WTG effectively magnifies the variability of wind, as the kinetic energy in wind is a function of the cube of the wind speed. Thus a doubling of wind speed will cause the WTG to produce eight times the energy or conversely if the wind speed drops by half, the electricity will be merely one-eighth.
The only types of existing generators capable of accommodating the extreme variability of the wind are hydro-power and simple gas turbine powered generators. These are the generators that will need to be used to “fill-in” the approximately 70 % of the WTG rated capacity that is not produced by the wind turbines due to the natural variability and unpredictability of wind.
Obviously, to the extent that hydro-power is used to balance the variability of the wind, there will be no reduction in fuel usage or emissions as we will simply be substituting one form of non-polluting power for another.
If the balancing is done with simple gas turbines, it will require them to be operated in a very inefficient manner. This mode of operation is similar to a car being operated in a manner that includes sudden stops and jackrabbit starts. The fuel economy will be poor and a high ratio of unburned hydrocarbons will be emitted. There are a number of available studies that indicate that the provision of more efficient, combined-cycle gas turbines alone would be more efficient and reduce both the emissions and investment than the case of simple gas turbines combined with WTG installations. All we see from the wind energy proponents are the meaningless slogans they promote such as “Clean, Green and Free.”
Sincerely,Albert H. Bowers III,
Co-Chair The Coalition for the Preservation of the Golden Crescent and the Thousand Islands
Monday, January 04, 2010
Turbine zoning laws should protect local property values
There have been numerous papers written recently concerning the question of whether property values are affected by nearby wind farms. It's not a great leap of faith to realize that major structures close to residences like electrical transmission towers, highways, train tracks and wind turbines all affect the market value of our homes.
If a piece of property has leases for a number of wind turbines bringing substantial annual revenue, it has a positive effect on these homes. If a nearby property has no wind turbines, I contend that it will have a negative effect on property values.
If a parcel has three wind turbines which bring in, say, $15,000 a year, that will be a real asset in increasing the value of the property on the market. Even if the turbines are close to the house and are heard, the message delivered by the noise is that we are here making you money when we make noise.
It is a well-known fact that the annoyance associated with a noise source is affected by your control of and view of the noise source.
Many of us use dishwashers and vacuum cleaners and tolerate the annoyance, because it won't last 24-7 and it produces real benefits to us, even though nastadons living in the house can rumble about the disturbance.
So, if you benefit from a noise source, you tolerate it much more than if you don't benefit. Quiet dishwashers and vacuum cleaners are available for more money, but many manufacturers have given up really quieting these devices, because of these facts. If you apply this reasoning to the issue of the effect of nearby wind turbines on property values: hearing the turbine noise, seeing the turbine in operation, is much worse than just hearing it, particularly if you benefit from the presence of the turbines.
On Sunday, Dec. 27, Nancy Madsen wrote a balanced and well-reasoned article in the Watertown Times regarding property values near wind turbines. I agree with her final comments. "Based on his results, Mr. (Kurt) Kielisch suggested that property owners ask for a property value assurance agreement, where a developer would pay the difference between a property's sale price and the value of comparable property outside of a wind power development if the property loses value. 'If you really believe that the value won't decline, guarantee that fact,"' he said.
Turbine zoning laws should provide this protection to their citizens.
Charles Ebbing
LaFargeville
If a piece of property has leases for a number of wind turbines bringing substantial annual revenue, it has a positive effect on these homes. If a nearby property has no wind turbines, I contend that it will have a negative effect on property values.
If a parcel has three wind turbines which bring in, say, $15,000 a year, that will be a real asset in increasing the value of the property on the market. Even if the turbines are close to the house and are heard, the message delivered by the noise is that we are here making you money when we make noise.
It is a well-known fact that the annoyance associated with a noise source is affected by your control of and view of the noise source.
Many of us use dishwashers and vacuum cleaners and tolerate the annoyance, because it won't last 24-7 and it produces real benefits to us, even though nastadons living in the house can rumble about the disturbance.
So, if you benefit from a noise source, you tolerate it much more than if you don't benefit. Quiet dishwashers and vacuum cleaners are available for more money, but many manufacturers have given up really quieting these devices, because of these facts. If you apply this reasoning to the issue of the effect of nearby wind turbines on property values: hearing the turbine noise, seeing the turbine in operation, is much worse than just hearing it, particularly if you benefit from the presence of the turbines.
On Sunday, Dec. 27, Nancy Madsen wrote a balanced and well-reasoned article in the Watertown Times regarding property values near wind turbines. I agree with her final comments. "Based on his results, Mr. (Kurt) Kielisch suggested that property owners ask for a property value assurance agreement, where a developer would pay the difference between a property's sale price and the value of comparable property outside of a wind power development if the property loses value. 'If you really believe that the value won't decline, guarantee that fact,"' he said.
Turbine zoning laws should provide this protection to their citizens.
Charles Ebbing
LaFargeville
Maple Ridge withholds payment
LAWSUIT FILED: Wind farm owner holding balance until issue of Empire Zone decertification is resolved
LOWVILLE — Lewis County has received only one-quarter of its requested $8.99 million payment from Maple Ridge Wind Farm, with the balance being held until its Empire Zone status is cleared up.
Flat Rock Windpower, the company under which the 195-turbine wind farm was developed, also is seeking court approval of a proposed escrow agreement that local taxing jurisdictions recently rejected — and the possible repayment of millions of dollars already sent to the county, towns and school districts.
Based on a 15-year payment-in-lieu-of-taxes plan, the county billed Flat Rock for $8.99 million but received a payment of only $2.29 million, according to County Treasurer Vicki A. Roy. That amount is the fall-back payment required under terms of the PILOT if Empire Zone benefits are rescinded.
"Our position has been and remains that the jurisdictions are entitled to the full payment under the PILOT," County Attorney Richard J. Graham said.
The funding is being shared among affected taxing jurisdictions through an agreement based on 2004 and 2005 tax rates.
Along with making the lesser payment, Flat Rock on Wednesday also filed a lawsuit in state Supreme Court against the county and other involved taxing jurisdictions — the towns of Martinsburg, Harrisburg, Lowville and Watson and the Lowville, Copenhagen and South Lewis school districts — that provides its justification for withholding the full payment.
The amount billed by the county was based on the wind farm's 140-tower Phase I being covered under the state Empire Zone program, which reimburses tax payments to eligible companies that have created jobs or made capital investments. The lawsuit, filed by David M. Schraver of Rochester law firm Nixon Peabody, claims the PILOT plan requires Flat Rock to pay only a so-called "fallback amount" on those towers, since the state Department of Economic Development in June notified Flat Rock that it had been decertified from the Empire Zone program.
Officials from the company and taxing jurisdictions in August informally appealed the decision during a meeting with the commissioner of economic development in Utica, but were unsuccessful, the suit states.
Flat Rock — like 368 other decertified businesses — has since submitted a formal appeal that is to be reviewed by the state Empire Zone Designation Board. While that board ruled on a handful of companies Dec. 15, it has not convened since then and no hearing schedule has been established.
According to the lawsuit, Flat Rock has put a balance of $6.7 million into an escrow account with U.S. Bank that will be given to local taxing jurisdictions upon Empire Zone recertification. Flat Rock recently asked the municipalities to enter such an escrow agreement, but attorneys for the jurisdictions ultimately recommended against the proposal.
"In communicating their rejection of Flat Rock's proposal, the taxing jurisdictions made clear that payment of any amount less than the invoiced amount would be treated as an event of default under the PILOT agreement," the lawsuit said.
The company is seeking court orders preventing the municipalities from taking such action and directing that the escrow funding be distributed according to terms of the rejected agreement, which was not included in court filings.
Since the Empire Zone decertifications were made retroactive to Jan. 1, 2008, Flat Rock also is seeking a judicial ruling that its payments since 2008 be recalculated to the fallback amount.
While not stated in the lawsuit, such a determination could mean that local municipalities would have to pay back much of Flat Rock's $8.6 million payment from a year ago.
Recertification of the wind farm likely would end any legal and financial wrangling. According to Flat Rock's lawsuit, the company had offered to "exhaust all anticipated appeals at its expense in the event that the ... decision was unfavorable."
Flat Rock was decertified because of its designation as a "shirt-changer," defined as a company reincorporated as a different entity that claimed it created jobs when it actually just transferred employees from one entity to the other. Flat Rock Windpower apparently was included in the category based on its 2006 financial report to Empire State Development, Mr. Graham said.
The county attorney on Thursday declined to comment specifically on the lawsuit, saying that he and other attorneys had yet to review the document fully.
"We will be meeting shortly with other taxing jurisdictions to plot a course of action," Mr. Graham said.
Affected municipalities budgeted for fallback payments to avoid a potential revenue shortfall next year. If the wind farm retains Empire Zone benefits, the unbudgeted revenue would bolster their respective budgets.
LOWVILLE — Lewis County has received only one-quarter of its requested $8.99 million payment from Maple Ridge Wind Farm, with the balance being held until its Empire Zone status is cleared up.
Flat Rock Windpower, the company under which the 195-turbine wind farm was developed, also is seeking court approval of a proposed escrow agreement that local taxing jurisdictions recently rejected — and the possible repayment of millions of dollars already sent to the county, towns and school districts.
Based on a 15-year payment-in-lieu-of-taxes plan, the county billed Flat Rock for $8.99 million but received a payment of only $2.29 million, according to County Treasurer Vicki A. Roy. That amount is the fall-back payment required under terms of the PILOT if Empire Zone benefits are rescinded.
"Our position has been and remains that the jurisdictions are entitled to the full payment under the PILOT," County Attorney Richard J. Graham said.
The funding is being shared among affected taxing jurisdictions through an agreement based on 2004 and 2005 tax rates.
Along with making the lesser payment, Flat Rock on Wednesday also filed a lawsuit in state Supreme Court against the county and other involved taxing jurisdictions — the towns of Martinsburg, Harrisburg, Lowville and Watson and the Lowville, Copenhagen and South Lewis school districts — that provides its justification for withholding the full payment.
The amount billed by the county was based on the wind farm's 140-tower Phase I being covered under the state Empire Zone program, which reimburses tax payments to eligible companies that have created jobs or made capital investments. The lawsuit, filed by David M. Schraver of Rochester law firm Nixon Peabody, claims the PILOT plan requires Flat Rock to pay only a so-called "fallback amount" on those towers, since the state Department of Economic Development in June notified Flat Rock that it had been decertified from the Empire Zone program.
Officials from the company and taxing jurisdictions in August informally appealed the decision during a meeting with the commissioner of economic development in Utica, but were unsuccessful, the suit states.
Flat Rock — like 368 other decertified businesses — has since submitted a formal appeal that is to be reviewed by the state Empire Zone Designation Board. While that board ruled on a handful of companies Dec. 15, it has not convened since then and no hearing schedule has been established.
According to the lawsuit, Flat Rock has put a balance of $6.7 million into an escrow account with U.S. Bank that will be given to local taxing jurisdictions upon Empire Zone recertification. Flat Rock recently asked the municipalities to enter such an escrow agreement, but attorneys for the jurisdictions ultimately recommended against the proposal.
"In communicating their rejection of Flat Rock's proposal, the taxing jurisdictions made clear that payment of any amount less than the invoiced amount would be treated as an event of default under the PILOT agreement," the lawsuit said.
The company is seeking court orders preventing the municipalities from taking such action and directing that the escrow funding be distributed according to terms of the rejected agreement, which was not included in court filings.
Since the Empire Zone decertifications were made retroactive to Jan. 1, 2008, Flat Rock also is seeking a judicial ruling that its payments since 2008 be recalculated to the fallback amount.
While not stated in the lawsuit, such a determination could mean that local municipalities would have to pay back much of Flat Rock's $8.6 million payment from a year ago.
Recertification of the wind farm likely would end any legal and financial wrangling. According to Flat Rock's lawsuit, the company had offered to "exhaust all anticipated appeals at its expense in the event that the ... decision was unfavorable."
Flat Rock was decertified because of its designation as a "shirt-changer," defined as a company reincorporated as a different entity that claimed it created jobs when it actually just transferred employees from one entity to the other. Flat Rock Windpower apparently was included in the category based on its 2006 financial report to Empire State Development, Mr. Graham said.
The county attorney on Thursday declined to comment specifically on the lawsuit, saying that he and other attorneys had yet to review the document fully.
"We will be meeting shortly with other taxing jurisdictions to plot a course of action," Mr. Graham said.
Affected municipalities budgeted for fallback payments to avoid a potential revenue shortfall next year. If the wind farm retains Empire Zone benefits, the unbudgeted revenue would bolster their respective budgets.
Friday, January 01, 2010
Wind watchers in Prattsburgh still waiting
ROCHESTER, NY -- Less than a fortnight before a new town board assumes power Friday in Prattsburgh, members of the outgoing board signed a settlement agreement with the company Ecogen Wind LLC, in Ecogen v. Town of Prattsburgh, Ind. No. 09-16082.
They are waiting this week to learn whether a state court judge will approve it. State Supreme Court Justice Stephen Lindley asked individuals challenging the settlement to file their opposition papers by Tuesday.
Complicating the situation: Two minority board members filed a court action early this month requesting separate counsel in the matter, claiming town attorney John Leyden had a conflict of interest. That case is 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.
The outgoing town board planned to convene a meeting Tuesday night to approve Leyden’s fees for work on the litigation. But the two minority board members and the incoming board oppose the payments, according to attorney Edward Hourihan of Bond, Schoeneck & King PLLC, who represents Steven Kula and Charles Shick.
Justice Lindley initially was expected to rule on both the settlement and the minority board members’ request for counsel by the end of the week.
Also before Justice Lindley is an Article 78 action Ecogen filed against the Town of Italy, Ecogen v. Town of Italy, Ind. No. 09-15485. In that case, Ecogen asked the court to review why its special use application under the town’s new wind zoning law was rejected.
The Italy town board asked the court to transfer the case to a judge in Yates County, where the property and interested parties are located.
During oral arguments earlier this month, Justice Lindley said from the bench that he would transfer the case to Yates — but might review the case there himself.
The judge’s decision on the motion to transfer venue could come at any moment, Italy’s special counsel, attorney Edward Premo of Harter Secrest & Emery LLP in Rochester, said Tuesday afternoon.
They are waiting this week to learn whether a state court judge will approve it. State Supreme Court Justice Stephen Lindley asked individuals challenging the settlement to file their opposition papers by Tuesday.
Complicating the situation: Two minority board members filed a court action early this month requesting separate counsel in the matter, claiming town attorney John Leyden had a conflict of interest. That case is 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.
The outgoing town board planned to convene a meeting Tuesday night to approve Leyden’s fees for work on the litigation. But the two minority board members and the incoming board oppose the payments, according to attorney Edward Hourihan of Bond, Schoeneck & King PLLC, who represents Steven Kula and Charles Shick.
Justice Lindley initially was expected to rule on both the settlement and the minority board members’ request for counsel by the end of the week.
Also before Justice Lindley is an Article 78 action Ecogen filed against the Town of Italy, Ecogen v. Town of Italy, Ind. No. 09-15485. In that case, Ecogen asked the court to review why its special use application under the town’s new wind zoning law was rejected.
The Italy town board asked the court to transfer the case to a judge in Yates County, where the property and interested parties are located.
During oral arguments earlier this month, Justice Lindley said from the bench that he would transfer the case to Yates — but might review the case there himself.
The judge’s decision on the motion to transfer venue could come at any moment, Italy’s special counsel, attorney Edward Premo of Harter Secrest & Emery LLP in Rochester, said Tuesday afternoon.
Wednesday, December 30, 2009
German Industrial Wind Turbine Fire
‘Windkraftanlage defekt – Leuchtfeuer in 130 Meter Höhe’
[Wind turbine fault — Fire at 130 meters]
Fallen turbine
More information needed on collapses
New Yorkers need to understand why a 300-foot tall wind turbine weighing 187 tons collapsed in a Madison County cornfield.
The collapse is not an isolated incident. However just because such a failure is uncommon provides no excuse not to aggressively pursue the reasons why. All across the state communities are facing pressure to site wind turbines. As these local governments proceed they must know why the turbine fell.
The turbine near Fenner in northern Madison County came crashing to the ground Sunday before sunrise. Less than 10 years old, the structure fell more than 1,000 feet away from a house or road. That is fortunate.
The owners of the 20-turbine wind farm, Canastota Windpower LLC., a subsidiary of Enel North America Inc. based in Andover, Mass., were investigating the circumstances earlier this week. Such an investigation by the owner is certainly necessary but is not adequate.
Besides the Fenner site, which can produce as much as 30 megawatts of electricity, the company operates a 6.6 megawatt facility in Gainesville, Wyoming County, and owns wind farms in Minnesota, Kansas, Texas and Newfoundland.
Another industrial turbine toppled in New York earlier this year — in Altona, Franklin County. There the blades of a 392-foot-tall turbine spun out of control after the braking system malfunctioned, causing a fire and a partial collapse of the structure.
The collapses and malfunctions of wind turbines do not disqualify the technology from being used. But wind turbines are like any evolving technology — knowledge and higher degrees of safety are developed by a thorough analysis of the causes of every failure.
Independent engineers need to determine whether soil conditions, design flaws, construction short cuts, poor manufacturing or lack of maintenance contributed to the failure.
Given the vast economic and political interest in exploiting the wind to create electricity, New York state should immediately take control of this investigation with a goal of providing improved building code standards for any turbine built in New York. The investigation should also include rigorous inspection criteria for existing wind turbines to determine any potential flaws.
Attorney General Andrew M. Cuomo's office is well suited to execute this independent appraisal. It has the expertise, the authority and the credibility to deliver a report and recommend new design and construction requirements, which will assure New Yorkers that the burgeoning wind generation business is not a threat to their safety. Mr. Cuomo should take control and initiate the required investigation immediately.
New Yorkers need to understand why a 300-foot tall wind turbine weighing 187 tons collapsed in a Madison County cornfield.
The collapse is not an isolated incident. However just because such a failure is uncommon provides no excuse not to aggressively pursue the reasons why. All across the state communities are facing pressure to site wind turbines. As these local governments proceed they must know why the turbine fell.
The turbine near Fenner in northern Madison County came crashing to the ground Sunday before sunrise. Less than 10 years old, the structure fell more than 1,000 feet away from a house or road. That is fortunate.
The owners of the 20-turbine wind farm, Canastota Windpower LLC., a subsidiary of Enel North America Inc. based in Andover, Mass., were investigating the circumstances earlier this week. Such an investigation by the owner is certainly necessary but is not adequate.
Besides the Fenner site, which can produce as much as 30 megawatts of electricity, the company operates a 6.6 megawatt facility in Gainesville, Wyoming County, and owns wind farms in Minnesota, Kansas, Texas and Newfoundland.
Another industrial turbine toppled in New York earlier this year — in Altona, Franklin County. There the blades of a 392-foot-tall turbine spun out of control after the braking system malfunctioned, causing a fire and a partial collapse of the structure.
The collapses and malfunctions of wind turbines do not disqualify the technology from being used. But wind turbines are like any evolving technology — knowledge and higher degrees of safety are developed by a thorough analysis of the causes of every failure.
Independent engineers need to determine whether soil conditions, design flaws, construction short cuts, poor manufacturing or lack of maintenance contributed to the failure.
Given the vast economic and political interest in exploiting the wind to create electricity, New York state should immediately take control of this investigation with a goal of providing improved building code standards for any turbine built in New York. The investigation should also include rigorous inspection criteria for existing wind turbines to determine any potential flaws.
Attorney General Andrew M. Cuomo's office is well suited to execute this independent appraisal. It has the expertise, the authority and the credibility to deliver a report and recommend new design and construction requirements, which will assure New Yorkers that the burgeoning wind generation business is not a threat to their safety. Mr. Cuomo should take control and initiate the required investigation immediately.
Tuesday, December 29, 2009
Local residents fear dangers of more turbines after one collapses
FENNER, N.Y. (WKTV) - Local residents are wondering if one wind turbine could collapse in Madison County, then it is very possible for a turbine to fall anywhere.
Fairfield resident Jim Salamone thinks why couldn't it happen in his back yard.
Salamone, who is opposed to the proposed wind turbine projects in Fairfield says he was not surprised when he woke up to find out a wind turbine had collapsed in Fenner. He says the meteorological tower that used to be right across from his home already collapsed because of wind and ice.
Meteorological towers are used to measure wind in areas where developers want to put turbines. Salamone says the meteorological tower that collapsed near his home was the third one to do so in as many years.
Salamone says he wonders if those towers can collapse so easily, and if a tall turbine can also collapse how safe is his property living so close to a proposed site.
"They must be 1250 feet from your house, 500 feet from the road. So if a 476 foot wind turbine comes down 500 feet from the road that is only going to leave you, what 24 feet (that) if the blade breaks that is has to travel before it could go through your car." said Salamone.
Salamone says he is not opposed to a wind turbine project if they are put in the right place, but he says the rolling hills near most homes in Fairfield, is not the right location for large turbines.
In response to the proposed Fairfield project, Paul Copleman Communications Manager for Iberdrola Renewables says the company has no higher priority than safety.
"With over 3,500 megawatts of wind projects operating in 17 states, and a number of projects under development all over the country, Iberdrola Renewables requires strict safety guidelines during wind farm development, construction and operation, and designs all projects with appropriate setbacks and community input." said Copleman.
Speaking about the Fairfield project, Copleman says the company is currently awaiting permits for environmental and wetlands portion of the project. He says they are hopeful to start construction in Fairfield in 2010.
Fairfield resident Jim Salamone thinks why couldn't it happen in his back yard.
Salamone, who is opposed to the proposed wind turbine projects in Fairfield says he was not surprised when he woke up to find out a wind turbine had collapsed in Fenner. He says the meteorological tower that used to be right across from his home already collapsed because of wind and ice.
Meteorological towers are used to measure wind in areas where developers want to put turbines. Salamone says the meteorological tower that collapsed near his home was the third one to do so in as many years.
Salamone says he wonders if those towers can collapse so easily, and if a tall turbine can also collapse how safe is his property living so close to a proposed site.
"They must be 1250 feet from your house, 500 feet from the road. So if a 476 foot wind turbine comes down 500 feet from the road that is only going to leave you, what 24 feet (that) if the blade breaks that is has to travel before it could go through your car." said Salamone.
Salamone says he is not opposed to a wind turbine project if they are put in the right place, but he says the rolling hills near most homes in Fairfield, is not the right location for large turbines.
In response to the proposed Fairfield project, Paul Copleman Communications Manager for Iberdrola Renewables says the company has no higher priority than safety.
"With over 3,500 megawatts of wind projects operating in 17 states, and a number of projects under development all over the country, Iberdrola Renewables requires strict safety guidelines during wind farm development, construction and operation, and designs all projects with appropriate setbacks and community input." said Copleman.
Speaking about the Fairfield project, Copleman says the company is currently awaiting permits for environmental and wetlands portion of the project. He says they are hopeful to start construction in Fairfield in 2010.
Legislators, reject Galloo Wind PILOT
The Jefferson County Board of Legislators should not approve the Galloo Island Wind Farm PILOT. This project is just the first step of a large scheme to develop offshore wind farms in lakes Ontario and Erie. Commissioner Richard Kessel of the New York Power Authority announced that the authority will be taking bids for offshore wind turbine farms this spring. The state's Environmental Quality Review Law requires that there be a review of the combined projects, but so far this has not occurred. Don't expect a review as DEC Commissioner Pete Grannis is willing to work with the developers. The DEC rarely stops a project. At the Nov. 24 hearing by the Jefferson County legislators, the board passed a resolution asking the transmission line from Galloo Island be laid underwater down to Scriba near Oswego so as not to impact valuable farmland. The wind farm developer never batted an eye and was not concerned with the cost. They knew about the proposed offshore wind farms because of a meeting held by NYPA at Oswego on Nov. 13. At that meeting NYPA showed maps of the proposed offshore wind farms and the Galloo Island underwater transmission line would go right through the proposed sites.
Once these wind farms are established, they will forever change the Great Lakes, and not for the better. The minimal amount of power produced will go downstate, or haven't you noticed all the major power lines go south. The millions of taxpayer stimulus money will go to foreign investors like Iberdola. There is excess hydropower already in NNY, and more research should be done to improve existing hydro. We should be looking at all other types of renewable energy.
Denying the Galloo Island Wind PILOT might be the last chance the Jefferson County legislators will ever have to change the course of events. They should remember that this fall local elections in communities along Lake Ontario and the St. Lawrence River were won by wind turbine opponents.
Joseph E. Lamendola
Once these wind farms are established, they will forever change the Great Lakes, and not for the better. The minimal amount of power produced will go downstate, or haven't you noticed all the major power lines go south. The millions of taxpayer stimulus money will go to foreign investors like Iberdola. There is excess hydropower already in NNY, and more research should be done to improve existing hydro. We should be looking at all other types of renewable energy.
Denying the Galloo Island Wind PILOT might be the last chance the Jefferson County legislators will ever have to change the course of events. They should remember that this fall local elections in communities along Lake Ontario and the St. Lawrence River were won by wind turbine opponents.
Joseph E. Lamendola
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)