CAPE VINCENT — The developer of St. Lawrence Wind Farm has released a revised list of town officials who have land contracts with the developer.
Acciona Wind Energy USA LLC, which has proposed the 53-turbine, 79.5-megawatt project, included the amount town officials or their relatives with contracts had been paid through Aug. 19.
The disclosure fulfills the requirements of the Wind Industry Ethics Code, which was introduced by state Attorney General Andrew M. Cuomo in July.
"What's important to us is that the level of disclosure we've done as far as any potential conflict of interest is far beyond what other industries have done in New York state," project manager Peter E. Zedick said. "There are competing interests on every issue and we're taking the high road in the level of disclosure we've given."
Town Councilman Marty T. Mason has leases and power line easements from 2005 on three parcels that brought between $5,000 and $20,000. Councilman Donald J. Mason has a lease for a parcel that accrued $5,000 to $20,000 in payments for him.
The two also have or have relatives with leases for Cape Vincent Wind Farm, as reported by developer BP Alternative Energy. BP's report gives the annual estimated value of the lease as opposed to what has been paid through mid-2009. The Times reported on the BP disclosure Feb. 24.
BP estimated that the lease with Marty Mason is worth $24,400 annually. His parents also have a lease, with a possible value of $1,500 per year, and his sister is Town Clerk Jeri Ann Mason.
Councilman Donald Mason's brother has a lease with BP, valued at $1,500 annually.
Code Enforcement Officer Alan N. Wood owns multiple parcels with leases with Acciona that have totaled between $5,000 and $20,000 for him and other owners. Planning Board member Karen Bourcy is related to Mr. Wood and the other owners of Wood Farm.
In Lyme, new Councilman Donald R. Bourquin has a brother with a transmission line easement, which has brought in less than $5,000. His two brothers also have leases with BP, with values of $8,133 and $2,633 annually.
Two members of the Thousand Islands Central School District Board of Education also are listed with relatives with leases with Acciona.
Thursday, March 04, 2010
DEC releases Galloo findings
The conclusion of the state environmental quality review process has led developers to cut two turbines from the plan for Galloo Island Wind Farm.
The state Department of Environmental Conservation, which has been the lead agency on the review, released its findings Wednesday. Those findings included the elimination of two turbines to preserve habitat for the upland sandpiper, a state-listed threatened species.
That process leaves the project with 82 turbines and a nameplate capacity of 246 megawatts.
"In DEC's judgment, as set out earlier in these findings, avian impacts have been mitigated or avoided to the maximum extent practicable," wrote Jack A. Nasca, chief of energy projects and management. "The same applies to impacts to other coastal resources such as scenic qualities."
The findings pave the way for DEC to make a determination on eight permit approvals, some in conjunction with other agencies.
DEC concluded that the greatest possible effects of the wind farm are the change in the view from the mainland and the possibility of bird and bat deaths.
The department determined that the layout would result in a loss of habitat that supports state-listed threatened or endangered grassland bird species, particularly the short-eared owl, Northern harrier and upland sandpiper.
In addition to the two turbines that are removed from the plan, four other turbines are next to the grassland area. To mitigate the loss of 58 acres of that habitat, the developer will purchase 250 acres of suitable habitat on the mainland to replace it.
As part of the requirements of the state incidental take permit, DEC placed restrictions on construction activities, required the developer to mow every three years after nesting season and called for a control program for pale swallowwort which already has been submitted. If state-listed threatened or endangered species are killed, DEC may require additional studies and operational controls, including turbine shutdown.
About two-tenths of an acre of forest wetlands and 1.8 acres of land adjacent to DEC-regulated wetlands will be filled permanently. To make up for that harm, the developer will create a half-acre of wetland and 3.65 acres of protected forestland on an adjacent area.
Though the project is at least 5.6 miles from the mainland, the department noted the project is visible from a wide swath of shore and many historically and culturally sensitive locations.
DEC concurred with the state Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation on several possibilities for mitigating those changed viewsheds. They include funding improved access and interpretation at Sackets Harbor Battlefield State Historic Site, renovation of Pickering Beach Museum and Stone Hospital at Madison Barracks in Sackets Harbor, additional amenities and signs at Robert G. Wehle State Park in Henderson and upgraded signs at Westcott Beach State Park's scenic overlook on Route 3.
The environmental review process began in April 2008, when DEC wrested lead agency status from the town of Hounsfield Planning Board. After the developer Upstate NY Power Corp. released a draft environmental impact statement, DEC required additional bird and bat studies.
The developer submitted the final environmental impact statement Dec. 23. The town of Hounsfield Planning Board conditionally approved the site plan for the project Jan. 6.
The state Department of Environmental Conservation, which has been the lead agency on the review, released its findings Wednesday. Those findings included the elimination of two turbines to preserve habitat for the upland sandpiper, a state-listed threatened species.
That process leaves the project with 82 turbines and a nameplate capacity of 246 megawatts.
"In DEC's judgment, as set out earlier in these findings, avian impacts have been mitigated or avoided to the maximum extent practicable," wrote Jack A. Nasca, chief of energy projects and management. "The same applies to impacts to other coastal resources such as scenic qualities."
The findings pave the way for DEC to make a determination on eight permit approvals, some in conjunction with other agencies.
DEC concluded that the greatest possible effects of the wind farm are the change in the view from the mainland and the possibility of bird and bat deaths.
The department determined that the layout would result in a loss of habitat that supports state-listed threatened or endangered grassland bird species, particularly the short-eared owl, Northern harrier and upland sandpiper.
In addition to the two turbines that are removed from the plan, four other turbines are next to the grassland area. To mitigate the loss of 58 acres of that habitat, the developer will purchase 250 acres of suitable habitat on the mainland to replace it.
As part of the requirements of the state incidental take permit, DEC placed restrictions on construction activities, required the developer to mow every three years after nesting season and called for a control program for pale swallowwort which already has been submitted. If state-listed threatened or endangered species are killed, DEC may require additional studies and operational controls, including turbine shutdown.
About two-tenths of an acre of forest wetlands and 1.8 acres of land adjacent to DEC-regulated wetlands will be filled permanently. To make up for that harm, the developer will create a half-acre of wetland and 3.65 acres of protected forestland on an adjacent area.
Though the project is at least 5.6 miles from the mainland, the department noted the project is visible from a wide swath of shore and many historically and culturally sensitive locations.
DEC concurred with the state Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation on several possibilities for mitigating those changed viewsheds. They include funding improved access and interpretation at Sackets Harbor Battlefield State Historic Site, renovation of Pickering Beach Museum and Stone Hospital at Madison Barracks in Sackets Harbor, additional amenities and signs at Robert G. Wehle State Park in Henderson and upgraded signs at Westcott Beach State Park's scenic overlook on Route 3.
The environmental review process began in April 2008, when DEC wrested lead agency status from the town of Hounsfield Planning Board. After the developer Upstate NY Power Corp. released a draft environmental impact statement, DEC required additional bird and bat studies.
The developer submitted the final environmental impact statement Dec. 23. The town of Hounsfield Planning Board conditionally approved the site plan for the project Jan. 6.
Bombshell: Obama Admin. Caught Red-Handed Working with Big Wind Energy Lobbyists, Misleading American People
“It is almost impossible to know who is the government and who the lobbyists. They have merged into one single animal with different faces.” – Dr. Gabriel Calzada, Spanish economics professor and researcher
BACKGROUND: Last March, Spanish economics professor Gabriel Calzada published an academic analysis that showed for every green job created in Spain, 2.2 jobs were lost as an opportunity cost. This finding contradicted the Obama Administration’s claim that massive subsidies for wind and solar energy would create jobs. Calzada’s study gained national attention from the media and policymakers, making it difficult for the Administration to advance such failed policies. The Administration’s response? Huddle with big wind lobbyists and other special-interest groups to collaborate on a taxpayer-funded “rebuttal” to Calzada’s work. When the media and some in Congress inquired about the highly unusual step the Administration took in analyzing and responding to an analysis of the Spanish experience with renewable energy and green jobs, senior level government officials were not forthright or honest in their response.
Washington, DC – A day after being sworn into office, President Obama issued a memorandum to the heads of executive departments and agencies “reaffirming the commitment to accountability and transparency.” In the memo, the President states “All agencies should adopt a presumption in favor of disclosure, in order to renew their commitment to the principles embodied in FOIA [Freedom of Information Act], and to usher in a new era of open Government.” The President has also promised on numerous occasions that lobbyists will have no influence over his Administration.
Despite calls for increased transparency and openness, recent U.S. Energy Department documents obtained through FOIA requests and reported by The Chicago Tribune show significant collusion among Energy Department officials and the American Wind Energy Association (AWEA), as well as other third party special-interest groups, including the left-of-center Center for American Progress.
Assistant secretary of energy Cathy Zoi, who has held top positions at Al Gore’s Alliance for Climate Protection, is charged with crafting renewable energy policy for the Obama Administration. According to FOIA-obtained emails, Zoi and her team worked hand-in-hand with big wind’s lobby – AWEA – and other special-interest groups to rebut and discredit a groundbreaking study published by Dr. Gabriel Calzada, of Madrid’s King Juan Carlos University, that examined Span’s experience with renewable energy mandates and so-called “green jobs.”
Dr. Calzada’s original academic research squarely contradicts the Obama Administration’s position on taxpayer-funded green jobs. Calzada determined that for every “green job” the Spanish government created, 2.2 jobs were destroyed as an opportunity cost. They also found that 9 out of 10 government-created “green jobs” are temporary, highlighted the fact that Spain’s unemployment is at an all-time high, and noted that overall carbon emissions – which are said to decrease under “the greening of the economy” – actually increased.
This research on Spain’s failed attempted to create a government-mandated “green economy” served as a major setback for those who favor top-down federal energy mandates, subsidies and handouts – such as AWEA and the President himself. According to the FOIA-secured emails, high-level Energy Department officials worked with AWEA and other special-interest groups to collaborate on a taxpayer-funded rebuttal.
“This Administration may publicly pride itself on being open, transparent, and free from lobbyist influence, but these emails and internal documents demonstrate that actions speak much louder than words,” said Thomas J. Pyle, president of the Institute for Energy Research. “Dr. Calzada led and conducted a sound analysis of Spain’s failed experience with renewable energy mandates. For his work to be targeted by top U.S. government officials is disturbing. What’s worse, though, is how closely this Administration’s ties are with far-left special-interests lobbyists.”
According to a FOIA-obtained email, one Energy Department official stated, “This is the first time we’ve been asked to response so directly (right?).” His colleague responded, “That is probably true. But we can let DOE [Head Quarters] tell them why they wanted it, especially if this is the first time.”
Additional information:
Study: Spanish Green Jobs/Renewable Energy Study
Rebuttal: NREL Rebuttal to Spanish Green Jobs/Renewable Energy Study
Blog post: IER Response to DOE/NREL rebuttal
Note: The Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) obtained this information through a FOIA request. Christopher Horner, a senior fellow at CEI, posted his thoughts HERE.
BACKGROUND: Last March, Spanish economics professor Gabriel Calzada published an academic analysis that showed for every green job created in Spain, 2.2 jobs were lost as an opportunity cost. This finding contradicted the Obama Administration’s claim that massive subsidies for wind and solar energy would create jobs. Calzada’s study gained national attention from the media and policymakers, making it difficult for the Administration to advance such failed policies. The Administration’s response? Huddle with big wind lobbyists and other special-interest groups to collaborate on a taxpayer-funded “rebuttal” to Calzada’s work. When the media and some in Congress inquired about the highly unusual step the Administration took in analyzing and responding to an analysis of the Spanish experience with renewable energy and green jobs, senior level government officials were not forthright or honest in their response.
Washington, DC – A day after being sworn into office, President Obama issued a memorandum to the heads of executive departments and agencies “reaffirming the commitment to accountability and transparency.” In the memo, the President states “All agencies should adopt a presumption in favor of disclosure, in order to renew their commitment to the principles embodied in FOIA [Freedom of Information Act], and to usher in a new era of open Government.” The President has also promised on numerous occasions that lobbyists will have no influence over his Administration.
Despite calls for increased transparency and openness, recent U.S. Energy Department documents obtained through FOIA requests and reported by The Chicago Tribune show significant collusion among Energy Department officials and the American Wind Energy Association (AWEA), as well as other third party special-interest groups, including the left-of-center Center for American Progress.
Assistant secretary of energy Cathy Zoi, who has held top positions at Al Gore’s Alliance for Climate Protection, is charged with crafting renewable energy policy for the Obama Administration. According to FOIA-obtained emails, Zoi and her team worked hand-in-hand with big wind’s lobby – AWEA – and other special-interest groups to rebut and discredit a groundbreaking study published by Dr. Gabriel Calzada, of Madrid’s King Juan Carlos University, that examined Span’s experience with renewable energy mandates and so-called “green jobs.”
Dr. Calzada’s original academic research squarely contradicts the Obama Administration’s position on taxpayer-funded green jobs. Calzada determined that for every “green job” the Spanish government created, 2.2 jobs were destroyed as an opportunity cost. They also found that 9 out of 10 government-created “green jobs” are temporary, highlighted the fact that Spain’s unemployment is at an all-time high, and noted that overall carbon emissions – which are said to decrease under “the greening of the economy” – actually increased.
This research on Spain’s failed attempted to create a government-mandated “green economy” served as a major setback for those who favor top-down federal energy mandates, subsidies and handouts – such as AWEA and the President himself. According to the FOIA-secured emails, high-level Energy Department officials worked with AWEA and other special-interest groups to collaborate on a taxpayer-funded rebuttal.
“This Administration may publicly pride itself on being open, transparent, and free from lobbyist influence, but these emails and internal documents demonstrate that actions speak much louder than words,” said Thomas J. Pyle, president of the Institute for Energy Research. “Dr. Calzada led and conducted a sound analysis of Spain’s failed experience with renewable energy mandates. For his work to be targeted by top U.S. government officials is disturbing. What’s worse, though, is how closely this Administration’s ties are with far-left special-interests lobbyists.”
According to a FOIA-obtained email, one Energy Department official stated, “This is the first time we’ve been asked to response so directly (right?).” His colleague responded, “That is probably true. But we can let DOE [Head Quarters] tell them why they wanted it, especially if this is the first time.”
Additional information:
Study: Spanish Green Jobs/Renewable Energy Study
Rebuttal: NREL Rebuttal to Spanish Green Jobs/Renewable Energy Study
Blog post: IER Response to DOE/NREL rebuttal
Note: The Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) obtained this information through a FOIA request. Christopher Horner, a senior fellow at CEI, posted his thoughts HERE.
Wednesday, March 03, 2010
Tilting at Windmills - A Finger Lakes family and their quite village brace for the big wind
Earthship vs. Windmill The Yeagers found peace and quiet … and then came the roaring wind.
Jim and Theresa Yeager were looking for a lovely, quiet place in the country, a peaceful slice of the American dream. Their baby boy Sebastian was sick—sick, they feared, because he was growing up in the urban wasteland of Deptford, New Jersey, a crowded suburb of Philadelphia. He couldn’t sleep, he kept throwing up, his development was lagging.
A growing toddler, Sebastian was struggling “like he was a newborn,” Theresa says. When a medical test revealed high lead in Sebastian’s blood stream, they decided right then to get out of the city and follow their dream to live more naturally.
The pastoral hills of the southern Finger Lakes looked like just the place. In October 2005 the Yeagers and Theresa’s father, Roy Messner, bought 113 acres of rolling land in Prattsburgh (pop. 2,000), a rural village sixty miles south of Rochester, New York. Their dream was an Earthship, a natural and environmentally sustainable home wedged into the hillside as snugly as a Hobbit hole in The Lord of the Rings.
The house, made from recycled materials, would be wrapped into a hillside or bermed with landscape to support heating and cooling, with energy coming from the sun or wind. Rainwater would be for drinking. Wastewater would be recycled in botanical planters. They’d grow food both inside and outside the house.
The first step was building a recycled tire-and-earth wrap for the house. They did it by hand and with joy. “We love our mountain,” Theresa says. “We like living in no man’s land.” They loved the pastoral rolling hills and woods, gentle streams, friendly neighbors, the brisk breeze that promised natural wind power. When Sebastian was diagnosed with autism and ypersensitivity to sound—any sound—they were especially thankful for their decision to enfold their house in the embrace of the earth.
“Sebastian can’t handle the sound of a vacuum cleaner,” says Jim Yeager. “He can’t take noises, can’t take even the wind in his ears.” Then the big wind came. Country wind as loud as a New Jersey expressway began to roar.
The sleepy villages of southern New York and northern Pennsylvania are being shaken by sudden change because of the exploding global demand for affordable energy. Big energy companies from Texas to Boston are puncturing the sky with windmills as tall as the Statue of Liberty to harvest the wind, or plunging pipes into the Earth, miles deep and across, to suck natural gas from the shale. The region is sitting on a Saudi Arabia of gas and oil, folks say. And the wind blowing across the lovely hills is an energy prize, whispering gold, some of the most powerful wind in the East.
The Yeagers had heard there was “wind interest” in Prattsburgh, and being eager to live naturally and “go green,” they thought it sounded like a good idea. They didn’t know that three months before they bought their dream land, local controversy over a proposal to erect ninety wind turbines, each roughly 400 feet tall, in tiny Prattsburgh had landed the village in the New York Times.
Local resident Tom Cadigan, 59, who moved to the village with his wife, Kay, to enjoy the peaceful view from their home, told the Times, “My gosh, it looks like there’s going to be five around us. The whole neighborhood could be driven right out.”
The Yeagers had landed right in the middle of a controversy afflicting many towns around the country as wind farms proliferate. In Prattsburgh and elsewhere the people who would benefit financially from wind farms, including local governments and private leaseholders, often find themselves facing off against neighbors who worry about visual and noise pollution and declining home values. In Prattsburgh, the town and school district point to hundreds of thousands of dollars in revenue from the wind farm. The issues surrounding wind turbines have pitted neighbor against neighbor and even divided some families. Prowind and anti-wind politicians have fought for votes, shaping town elections.
Ironically, the Yeagers were planning to cash in on the wind themselves with a residential wind energy system for home electricity. As the Earthship construction was underway,
Theresa’s father built a modest house nearby for himself. Shortly after he moved in, EcoGen and First Wind Inc. began creating gusts of controversy in small towns like Prattsburgh, Cohocton, and Italy—communities of 2,500 residents or less and encompassing approximately fifty square miles. Maps showing the proposed locations for the 400-foot wind turbines depict the southern FingerLakes region as a pincushion for some 150 industrial windmills.
Although Cohocton residents gave the goahead to wind energy companies, other towns like Prattsburgh and Italy fought to keep their rural settings quiet and unobstructed.
In 2007 the Cohocton project was underway with the building of thirty-four Clipper C-96 2.5 Megawatt turbines.
The Yeagers’ fears about the location of their home—fit into a south-facing hillside—in close proximity to proposed wind turbine sites made the on-again-off-again progress of their Earthship even more distressing.
“When we first saw on the maps that there would be a turbine up behind our dad’s house we weren’t thrilled, but we thought we could deal. It would be 2,000 feet away from us,” says Theresa. When they discovered that another turbine was slated to be right across the road, less than 800 feet away, they were stunned.
“I asked how I was able to get a building permit if the turbine was going to be so close,” says Jim. “The town supervisor told me he hadn’t known anything about that location when I applied for my building permits.”
Despite his difficulties, at age five son Sebastian is flourishing like never before, and the Yeagers credit the peaceful country lifestyle. Sebastian sleeps now, he hardly throws up anymore, and he’s learning to communicate with some sign language and gestures.
The droning noises that some neighbors hear from wind turbines haven’t reached their home site yet. But although an earth-bermed house will help with some of the noise issues, Theresa says that the school bus stop will be in “hard hat” zone according to the wind industry’s specifications. Not to mention, their front yard will be too, limiting the play area for all of the children.
“Heck,” cuts in Messner, “if the (proposed) turbine fell over like the one in Fenner, New York, did a couple weeks ago, it would land right on my house.”
The Yeagers fret over complaints from other local residents. Cohocton turbine leaseholder and farmer Hal Graham and his wife, Judy, say they endure sleepless nights and aggravating noise from the turbines.
“They stole our peace with a smile on their faces,” says Judy. Hal has been speaking out about the unexpected noise problems from the newly erected turbines for a year now.
The sound has been described as that of a jet engine taking off, an expressway, or the constant drone of a tractor. The Grahams say that leaseholders in Cohocton were told the sound of the turbines was likened to that of a refrigerator running, but that’s not what they hear.
Hal Graham has gone as far as Watertown, New York, seventy miles north of Syracuse, to speak to other communities about the impact of wind turbines. He has officially apologized to his neighbors for the mistake he made in signing a contract with First Wind, a wind energy company located in Boston, Massachusetts. At several of the board meetings in Prattsburgh, Cohocton neighbors have voiced concerns about the noise issues. At one point they were told something was going to be done to solve the issue—a spokesman from First Wind suggested that mufflers would be put on the engines.
But Judy Graham says that while two of the nearest turbines have had smaller wings put on to help with the sound issues, “its actually louder. The noise is just terrible.”
Judy and Hal are sixth-generation farmers living in the old farmhouse they restored themselves. “We put a deck out on the back years ago and used to love going out at night and entertaining under the stars or just enjoying the peace and quiet,” says Judy.
“We can’t do that anymore.” She also says that she’s been suffering from headaches, their golden retriever barks constantly now, and they often lose their television signal when the turbines turn to face the wind.
And the noise of the wind turbines isn’t the only health concern the Yeagers have. Cases of “flicker-effect”—a flickering of sunlight off of the blades, which is caused by the angle of the sunlight early and late in the day—is said to contribute to migraines.
Messner has suffered from migraines in the past but has, thankfully, been able to go off his daily medication since coming to these hills in Prattsburgh, but he’s worried that his migraines will return. “Early morning flicker at the bus stop could also affect Sebastian’s entire day,” adds Jim.
Last November Dr. Nina Pierpont MD PhD published her research on the effects of industrial turbines on human health. The title of the book is Wind Turbine Syndrome: A Report on a Natural Experiment (Santa Fe, NM: K-Selected Books, 2009). “Wind Turbine Syndrome” is a term she coined to describe the myriad detrimental health effects she discovered in many of her research subjects living in close proximity (1,000 to 2,000 feet) to a turbine. Symptoms include earaches, ear pressure and ringing in the ears, nausea, dizziness, inability to concentrate, headaches, migraines, vision disturbances, inability to sleep, and more.
The Yeagers are emboldened by the fact that the small town of Italy successfully fought against wind farms, but it took them years. The Italy town board has offered Prattsburgh and the citizen group, Advocates for Prattsburgh, their recently written moratorium agreement and wind power industry regulations while Prattsburgh is still in debate.
Although First Wind just recently backed out of its Prattsburg project, another company, EcoGen, is still fighting for its right to build in the village. EcoGen filed suit against the village of Prattsburgh for breach of contract just months after they proposed imminent domain for electric line rights-of-way. EcoGen’s lawsuit against the town for holding up progress on their development has since been rescinded, but the struggle for both sides continues. The energy company’s proposed number of turbines has also dropped from around fifty to sixteen.
Theresa Yeager expressed her concerns for her autistic son and her family to EcoGen representatives after she was told by a sound engineer for the town of Prattsburgh that she should move the house.
The energy company was not deaf to her needs, she says. Tom Hagner of EcoGen heard the Yeager’s concerns, and, according to Theresa, began “looking into moving back some of the proposed turbines.” But Theresa was told by her son’s occupational therapists at school that the relocation of the turbines would still be too close for Sebastian.
They’ve already moved the Earthship once—by hand—and can’t do it again. “We can’t move the Earthship back any farther. There’s a pond too close, and Sebastian has no fear or understanding of the danger of falling in.”
“In this environment—without the noise, the lights, and constant distractions—Sebastian is developing and,” Theresa adds emphatically, “he’s sleeping!” She smiles a moment and then says, “we’re doing the same things for Sebastian here as we were doing in New Jersey, so if it had nothing to do with the environment, then why is he having such major progress now?”
“The setbacks [the distance the turbine must be from residential areas] of these structures aren’t enough.” worries Theresa. “In other countries, which have been putting up turbines for more years than we have, they’re finding that their setbacks aren’t far enough.” Dr. Pierpont recommends setbacks of at least 1.5 miles from human habitation.
For now, the Yeagers are hoping that town officials will vote for a moratorium on building and that EcoGen will fix the location of many of their proposed turbines in Prattsburgh.
At a public hearing on February 15, there was strong support for a moratorium on EcoGen’s turbines at the town meeting, but the final vote has been stayed until next month, at the earliest. Jim says, “We’ll keep building our house this summer and hope they realize that building turbines that close to a home is ridiculous.”
Prattsburgh town councilwoman, Anneka Raiden-Snaith, says she would tell other communities considering wind turbines on their hilltops that “there’s a lot to consider, but, most importantly, because noise and vibration issues haven’t been fully resolved,” she says “regulations must reflect adequate setbacks from residences and property lines.”
“We’re hoping that the town will set up good laws to keep people safe.” adds Theresa. “It’s just that the laws haven’t caught up to the technology yet.”
Those in support of the wind turbines hang signs that say, “We support clean, renewable, energy.” Opponents argue—who doesn’t? But for them, while energy consumption and solutions are environmental, they are a people issue first and foremost. Meanwhile, Theresa and Jim Yeager keep building their dream house, the Earthship, hoping the windmills won’t come too close, or be too loud, but mostly waiting out forces beyond their control—waiting to see which way the wind blows.
Angela Cannon-Crothers is a freelance writer and outdoor educator living in the Finger Lakes region of New York
mountain%20home.pdf
Jim and Theresa Yeager were looking for a lovely, quiet place in the country, a peaceful slice of the American dream. Their baby boy Sebastian was sick—sick, they feared, because he was growing up in the urban wasteland of Deptford, New Jersey, a crowded suburb of Philadelphia. He couldn’t sleep, he kept throwing up, his development was lagging.
A growing toddler, Sebastian was struggling “like he was a newborn,” Theresa says. When a medical test revealed high lead in Sebastian’s blood stream, they decided right then to get out of the city and follow their dream to live more naturally.
The pastoral hills of the southern Finger Lakes looked like just the place. In October 2005 the Yeagers and Theresa’s father, Roy Messner, bought 113 acres of rolling land in Prattsburgh (pop. 2,000), a rural village sixty miles south of Rochester, New York. Their dream was an Earthship, a natural and environmentally sustainable home wedged into the hillside as snugly as a Hobbit hole in The Lord of the Rings.
The house, made from recycled materials, would be wrapped into a hillside or bermed with landscape to support heating and cooling, with energy coming from the sun or wind. Rainwater would be for drinking. Wastewater would be recycled in botanical planters. They’d grow food both inside and outside the house.
The first step was building a recycled tire-and-earth wrap for the house. They did it by hand and with joy. “We love our mountain,” Theresa says. “We like living in no man’s land.” They loved the pastoral rolling hills and woods, gentle streams, friendly neighbors, the brisk breeze that promised natural wind power. When Sebastian was diagnosed with autism and ypersensitivity to sound—any sound—they were especially thankful for their decision to enfold their house in the embrace of the earth.
“Sebastian can’t handle the sound of a vacuum cleaner,” says Jim Yeager. “He can’t take noises, can’t take even the wind in his ears.” Then the big wind came. Country wind as loud as a New Jersey expressway began to roar.
The sleepy villages of southern New York and northern Pennsylvania are being shaken by sudden change because of the exploding global demand for affordable energy. Big energy companies from Texas to Boston are puncturing the sky with windmills as tall as the Statue of Liberty to harvest the wind, or plunging pipes into the Earth, miles deep and across, to suck natural gas from the shale. The region is sitting on a Saudi Arabia of gas and oil, folks say. And the wind blowing across the lovely hills is an energy prize, whispering gold, some of the most powerful wind in the East.
The Yeagers had heard there was “wind interest” in Prattsburgh, and being eager to live naturally and “go green,” they thought it sounded like a good idea. They didn’t know that three months before they bought their dream land, local controversy over a proposal to erect ninety wind turbines, each roughly 400 feet tall, in tiny Prattsburgh had landed the village in the New York Times.
Local resident Tom Cadigan, 59, who moved to the village with his wife, Kay, to enjoy the peaceful view from their home, told the Times, “My gosh, it looks like there’s going to be five around us. The whole neighborhood could be driven right out.”
The Yeagers had landed right in the middle of a controversy afflicting many towns around the country as wind farms proliferate. In Prattsburgh and elsewhere the people who would benefit financially from wind farms, including local governments and private leaseholders, often find themselves facing off against neighbors who worry about visual and noise pollution and declining home values. In Prattsburgh, the town and school district point to hundreds of thousands of dollars in revenue from the wind farm. The issues surrounding wind turbines have pitted neighbor against neighbor and even divided some families. Prowind and anti-wind politicians have fought for votes, shaping town elections.
Ironically, the Yeagers were planning to cash in on the wind themselves with a residential wind energy system for home electricity. As the Earthship construction was underway,
Theresa’s father built a modest house nearby for himself. Shortly after he moved in, EcoGen and First Wind Inc. began creating gusts of controversy in small towns like Prattsburgh, Cohocton, and Italy—communities of 2,500 residents or less and encompassing approximately fifty square miles. Maps showing the proposed locations for the 400-foot wind turbines depict the southern FingerLakes region as a pincushion for some 150 industrial windmills.
Although Cohocton residents gave the goahead to wind energy companies, other towns like Prattsburgh and Italy fought to keep their rural settings quiet and unobstructed.
In 2007 the Cohocton project was underway with the building of thirty-four Clipper C-96 2.5 Megawatt turbines.
The Yeagers’ fears about the location of their home—fit into a south-facing hillside—in close proximity to proposed wind turbine sites made the on-again-off-again progress of their Earthship even more distressing.
“When we first saw on the maps that there would be a turbine up behind our dad’s house we weren’t thrilled, but we thought we could deal. It would be 2,000 feet away from us,” says Theresa. When they discovered that another turbine was slated to be right across the road, less than 800 feet away, they were stunned.
“I asked how I was able to get a building permit if the turbine was going to be so close,” says Jim. “The town supervisor told me he hadn’t known anything about that location when I applied for my building permits.”
Despite his difficulties, at age five son Sebastian is flourishing like never before, and the Yeagers credit the peaceful country lifestyle. Sebastian sleeps now, he hardly throws up anymore, and he’s learning to communicate with some sign language and gestures.
The droning noises that some neighbors hear from wind turbines haven’t reached their home site yet. But although an earth-bermed house will help with some of the noise issues, Theresa says that the school bus stop will be in “hard hat” zone according to the wind industry’s specifications. Not to mention, their front yard will be too, limiting the play area for all of the children.
“Heck,” cuts in Messner, “if the (proposed) turbine fell over like the one in Fenner, New York, did a couple weeks ago, it would land right on my house.”
The Yeagers fret over complaints from other local residents. Cohocton turbine leaseholder and farmer Hal Graham and his wife, Judy, say they endure sleepless nights and aggravating noise from the turbines.
“They stole our peace with a smile on their faces,” says Judy. Hal has been speaking out about the unexpected noise problems from the newly erected turbines for a year now.
The sound has been described as that of a jet engine taking off, an expressway, or the constant drone of a tractor. The Grahams say that leaseholders in Cohocton were told the sound of the turbines was likened to that of a refrigerator running, but that’s not what they hear.
Hal Graham has gone as far as Watertown, New York, seventy miles north of Syracuse, to speak to other communities about the impact of wind turbines. He has officially apologized to his neighbors for the mistake he made in signing a contract with First Wind, a wind energy company located in Boston, Massachusetts. At several of the board meetings in Prattsburgh, Cohocton neighbors have voiced concerns about the noise issues. At one point they were told something was going to be done to solve the issue—a spokesman from First Wind suggested that mufflers would be put on the engines.
But Judy Graham says that while two of the nearest turbines have had smaller wings put on to help with the sound issues, “its actually louder. The noise is just terrible.”
Judy and Hal are sixth-generation farmers living in the old farmhouse they restored themselves. “We put a deck out on the back years ago and used to love going out at night and entertaining under the stars or just enjoying the peace and quiet,” says Judy.
“We can’t do that anymore.” She also says that she’s been suffering from headaches, their golden retriever barks constantly now, and they often lose their television signal when the turbines turn to face the wind.
And the noise of the wind turbines isn’t the only health concern the Yeagers have. Cases of “flicker-effect”—a flickering of sunlight off of the blades, which is caused by the angle of the sunlight early and late in the day—is said to contribute to migraines.
Messner has suffered from migraines in the past but has, thankfully, been able to go off his daily medication since coming to these hills in Prattsburgh, but he’s worried that his migraines will return. “Early morning flicker at the bus stop could also affect Sebastian’s entire day,” adds Jim.
Last November Dr. Nina Pierpont MD PhD published her research on the effects of industrial turbines on human health. The title of the book is Wind Turbine Syndrome: A Report on a Natural Experiment (Santa Fe, NM: K-Selected Books, 2009). “Wind Turbine Syndrome” is a term she coined to describe the myriad detrimental health effects she discovered in many of her research subjects living in close proximity (1,000 to 2,000 feet) to a turbine. Symptoms include earaches, ear pressure and ringing in the ears, nausea, dizziness, inability to concentrate, headaches, migraines, vision disturbances, inability to sleep, and more.
The Yeagers are emboldened by the fact that the small town of Italy successfully fought against wind farms, but it took them years. The Italy town board has offered Prattsburgh and the citizen group, Advocates for Prattsburgh, their recently written moratorium agreement and wind power industry regulations while Prattsburgh is still in debate.
Although First Wind just recently backed out of its Prattsburg project, another company, EcoGen, is still fighting for its right to build in the village. EcoGen filed suit against the village of Prattsburgh for breach of contract just months after they proposed imminent domain for electric line rights-of-way. EcoGen’s lawsuit against the town for holding up progress on their development has since been rescinded, but the struggle for both sides continues. The energy company’s proposed number of turbines has also dropped from around fifty to sixteen.
Theresa Yeager expressed her concerns for her autistic son and her family to EcoGen representatives after she was told by a sound engineer for the town of Prattsburgh that she should move the house.
The energy company was not deaf to her needs, she says. Tom Hagner of EcoGen heard the Yeager’s concerns, and, according to Theresa, began “looking into moving back some of the proposed turbines.” But Theresa was told by her son’s occupational therapists at school that the relocation of the turbines would still be too close for Sebastian.
They’ve already moved the Earthship once—by hand—and can’t do it again. “We can’t move the Earthship back any farther. There’s a pond too close, and Sebastian has no fear or understanding of the danger of falling in.”
“In this environment—without the noise, the lights, and constant distractions—Sebastian is developing and,” Theresa adds emphatically, “he’s sleeping!” She smiles a moment and then says, “we’re doing the same things for Sebastian here as we were doing in New Jersey, so if it had nothing to do with the environment, then why is he having such major progress now?”
“The setbacks [the distance the turbine must be from residential areas] of these structures aren’t enough.” worries Theresa. “In other countries, which have been putting up turbines for more years than we have, they’re finding that their setbacks aren’t far enough.” Dr. Pierpont recommends setbacks of at least 1.5 miles from human habitation.
For now, the Yeagers are hoping that town officials will vote for a moratorium on building and that EcoGen will fix the location of many of their proposed turbines in Prattsburgh.
At a public hearing on February 15, there was strong support for a moratorium on EcoGen’s turbines at the town meeting, but the final vote has been stayed until next month, at the earliest. Jim says, “We’ll keep building our house this summer and hope they realize that building turbines that close to a home is ridiculous.”
Prattsburgh town councilwoman, Anneka Raiden-Snaith, says she would tell other communities considering wind turbines on their hilltops that “there’s a lot to consider, but, most importantly, because noise and vibration issues haven’t been fully resolved,” she says “regulations must reflect adequate setbacks from residences and property lines.”
“We’re hoping that the town will set up good laws to keep people safe.” adds Theresa. “It’s just that the laws haven’t caught up to the technology yet.”
Those in support of the wind turbines hang signs that say, “We support clean, renewable, energy.” Opponents argue—who doesn’t? But for them, while energy consumption and solutions are environmental, they are a people issue first and foremost. Meanwhile, Theresa and Jim Yeager keep building their dream house, the Earthship, hoping the windmills won’t come too close, or be too loud, but mostly waiting out forces beyond their control—waiting to see which way the wind blows.
Angela Cannon-Crothers is a freelance writer and outdoor educator living in the Finger Lakes region of New York
mountain%20home.pdf
Senators seek to block stimulus money for overseas
A group of Democratic senators is urging the Obama administration to suspend an economic stimulus program aimed at financing renewable energy, complaining that money is going to projects that are creating jobs in foreign countries.
The four senators, led by Chuck Schumer of New York, wrote to Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner on Tuesday to request a moratorium on the Recovery Act program. They asked that the moratorium remain in place until they can pass legislation mandating stimulus aid flow only to projects which preserve and create U.S. jobs.
"A critical Recovery Act priority is investment in the domestic renewable and clean energy industry, not investment in foreign manufacturers," the senators wrote in the letter, obtained Tuesday by The Associated Press. The letter, which will be disclosed at a news conference Wednesday, was also signed by Sens. Sherrod Brown of Ohio, Robert Casey of Pennsylvania and Jon Tester of Montana.
The lawmakers cited a report by the Investigative Reporting Workshop which found that a majority of the program's grants went to foreign-owned companies, and that a majority of the turbines purchased with the money were built by foreign manufacturers.
"This is not the intended use of Recovery Act funds," they wrote.
A Treasury Department spokesman declined to comment Tuesday.
Dan Leistikow, a spokesman at the Energy Department, which was copied in on the letter, said the program has helped put Americans to work, and said it funds only projects built in the U.S. He added that the Recovery Act has helped attract more than $10 billion of foreign investment into this country's wind industry, including new manufacturing plants.
"It's the opposite of outsourcing, and we should encourage — not discourage — those kinds of investments," Leistikow said.
While some of the grants go to foreign-owned companies, the administration argues that more than half the components, measured by their value, are built in this country and all the energy projects are installed in this country.
Last fall, a joint venture was announced involving China's Shenyang Power Group, Cielo Wind Power LP of Austin, Texas, and a private equity firm, U.S. Renewable Energy Group, to build a $1.5 billion Texas wind energy project. Because the wind turbines are to be manufactured in China, Schumer wrote to Energy Secretary Steven Chu last November urging him to reject federal funding for the project.
"The idea that stimulus funds would be used to create jobs overseas is quite troubling," Schumer wrote, "and, therefore, I urge you to reject any request for stimulus money unless the high-value components, including the wind turbines, are manufactured in the United States."
In response, Chu wrote that the program in question is "available to all qualifying entities; it is not a discretionary grant program administered by the Department of Energy." He also said all the money awarded from the program helps put Americans to work.
"All of the wind turbine installation jobs are created here in America," Chu said.
On Tuesday, Walt Hornaday, president of Cielo Wind Power, said the company has not yet applied for federal money. He said it is looking at several federal grant programs, including one that would provide 30 percent of approved costs, or around $450 million.
He took issue with Schumer's characterization of jobs, saying a majority of those created for the project would be in the United States.
The four senators, led by Chuck Schumer of New York, wrote to Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner on Tuesday to request a moratorium on the Recovery Act program. They asked that the moratorium remain in place until they can pass legislation mandating stimulus aid flow only to projects which preserve and create U.S. jobs.
"A critical Recovery Act priority is investment in the domestic renewable and clean energy industry, not investment in foreign manufacturers," the senators wrote in the letter, obtained Tuesday by The Associated Press. The letter, which will be disclosed at a news conference Wednesday, was also signed by Sens. Sherrod Brown of Ohio, Robert Casey of Pennsylvania and Jon Tester of Montana.
The lawmakers cited a report by the Investigative Reporting Workshop which found that a majority of the program's grants went to foreign-owned companies, and that a majority of the turbines purchased with the money were built by foreign manufacturers.
"This is not the intended use of Recovery Act funds," they wrote.
A Treasury Department spokesman declined to comment Tuesday.
Dan Leistikow, a spokesman at the Energy Department, which was copied in on the letter, said the program has helped put Americans to work, and said it funds only projects built in the U.S. He added that the Recovery Act has helped attract more than $10 billion of foreign investment into this country's wind industry, including new manufacturing plants.
"It's the opposite of outsourcing, and we should encourage — not discourage — those kinds of investments," Leistikow said.
While some of the grants go to foreign-owned companies, the administration argues that more than half the components, measured by their value, are built in this country and all the energy projects are installed in this country.
Last fall, a joint venture was announced involving China's Shenyang Power Group, Cielo Wind Power LP of Austin, Texas, and a private equity firm, U.S. Renewable Energy Group, to build a $1.5 billion Texas wind energy project. Because the wind turbines are to be manufactured in China, Schumer wrote to Energy Secretary Steven Chu last November urging him to reject federal funding for the project.
"The idea that stimulus funds would be used to create jobs overseas is quite troubling," Schumer wrote, "and, therefore, I urge you to reject any request for stimulus money unless the high-value components, including the wind turbines, are manufactured in the United States."
In response, Chu wrote that the program in question is "available to all qualifying entities; it is not a discretionary grant program administered by the Department of Energy." He also said all the money awarded from the program helps put Americans to work.
"All of the wind turbine installation jobs are created here in America," Chu said.
On Tuesday, Walt Hornaday, president of Cielo Wind Power, said the company has not yet applied for federal money. He said it is looking at several federal grant programs, including one that would provide 30 percent of approved costs, or around $450 million.
He took issue with Schumer's characterization of jobs, saying a majority of those created for the project would be in the United States.
Tuesday, March 02, 2010
Cause of collapse at Fenner wind farm still unknown as investigation continues
Nearly two months after a 187-ton windmill collapsed in a cornfield in Fenner, neighbors, local officials, energy advocates and the wind farm’s other 19 turbines are still waiting for answers.
Turbine 18, which once stood 212 feet from the ground to the center hub and 329 feet to the tip of a blade at its full height, fell to the ground the early hours of Dec. 27, shaking up residents who lived among the giants for nearly a decade and industry officials who had never seen a similar failure.
Officials from Enel North America had hoped to release a report on the accident by the end of January. But the investigation and cleanup process was held up by winter weather conditions which slowed the team of forensic engineers tasked with determining the cause.
Enel spokesman Hank Sennott said samples of the concrete foundation, reinforced steel and soil at the turbine’s base have been sent out for analysis.
In the coming weeks, workers will be performing similar tests on the farm’s other 19 turbines.
“We want to compare what we see in some of the other turbines to what we found at Turbine 18,” Sennott said.
Because the work will involve some excavation, Sennott said turbines under investigation will likely be fenced off to keep residents from getting too close to the heavy equipment.
In the aftermath of the accident, officials were able to determine that Turbine 18 was operating at reasonable speeds before it collapsed by recovering the windmill’s computer, which links to the facility's monitoring system.
Enel North America oversees about 260 turbines in the United States and Canada. The windmills in Fenner, which have the capacity to power up to 10,000 homes, have been dormant since the accident.
“We’re just as curious us everyone else is to find out what happened and get the turbines started up again,” Sennott said. “But we’re not going to start up the other turbines until we’re convinced we know what happened.”
Turbine 18, which once stood 212 feet from the ground to the center hub and 329 feet to the tip of a blade at its full height, fell to the ground the early hours of Dec. 27, shaking up residents who lived among the giants for nearly a decade and industry officials who had never seen a similar failure.
Officials from Enel North America had hoped to release a report on the accident by the end of January. But the investigation and cleanup process was held up by winter weather conditions which slowed the team of forensic engineers tasked with determining the cause.
Enel spokesman Hank Sennott said samples of the concrete foundation, reinforced steel and soil at the turbine’s base have been sent out for analysis.
In the coming weeks, workers will be performing similar tests on the farm’s other 19 turbines.
“We want to compare what we see in some of the other turbines to what we found at Turbine 18,” Sennott said.
Because the work will involve some excavation, Sennott said turbines under investigation will likely be fenced off to keep residents from getting too close to the heavy equipment.
In the aftermath of the accident, officials were able to determine that Turbine 18 was operating at reasonable speeds before it collapsed by recovering the windmill’s computer, which links to the facility's monitoring system.
Enel North America oversees about 260 turbines in the United States and Canada. The windmills in Fenner, which have the capacity to power up to 10,000 homes, have been dormant since the accident.
“We’re just as curious us everyone else is to find out what happened and get the turbines started up again,” Sennott said. “But we’re not going to start up the other turbines until we’re convinced we know what happened.”
NYPA rep backs out of meeting on wind
A New York Power Authority representative scheduled to speak at a meeting of a fledgling community action committee has backed out of the engagement.
The Wednesday meeting at the H. Douglas Barclay Courthouse, Pulaski, still will take place, James H. McGowan said.
The Syracuse-based attorney said the group, while still without a name, has seven members from Oswego and Jefferson counties and aims to "defend the interests of the towns and counties confronted with the enormous challenges presented by the industrial wind complex" being proposed by NYPA.
NYPA has asked for developers to submit proposals on building towers for up to 500 megawatts of wind power in possible sites in Lake Ontario and Lake Erie. In mid-February, the Jefferson County Board of Legislators' Planning and Development Committee passed a resolution opposing the authority's plan to put a wind farm in Lake Ontario.
Meanwhile, Jefferson County leaders are scheduling a date for a NYPA representative to make a presentation about the proposal.
"There's a lot at stake here," said Legislator Barry M. Ormsby, chairman of the county Planning and Development Committee. "They have made contact with the chairman that they would like to meet with our board. I believe he's still waiting for confirmation on that meeting."
Mr. Ormsby, R-Belleville, also is a member of the action committee.
"Between the boating and sport fishing and the potential for property values to plummet along the lakefront, there's a lot to discuss," he said. "It's a total desecration of the eastern basin of the lake, and I don't think I'm overstating that," Mr. Ormsby said. "This NYPA project would be sitting in the most pristine waters here in the north country."
A message left with NYPA late Friday was not returned.
The Wednesday meeting at the H. Douglas Barclay Courthouse, Pulaski, still will take place, James H. McGowan said.
The Syracuse-based attorney said the group, while still without a name, has seven members from Oswego and Jefferson counties and aims to "defend the interests of the towns and counties confronted with the enormous challenges presented by the industrial wind complex" being proposed by NYPA.
NYPA has asked for developers to submit proposals on building towers for up to 500 megawatts of wind power in possible sites in Lake Ontario and Lake Erie. In mid-February, the Jefferson County Board of Legislators' Planning and Development Committee passed a resolution opposing the authority's plan to put a wind farm in Lake Ontario.
Meanwhile, Jefferson County leaders are scheduling a date for a NYPA representative to make a presentation about the proposal.
"There's a lot at stake here," said Legislator Barry M. Ormsby, chairman of the county Planning and Development Committee. "They have made contact with the chairman that they would like to meet with our board. I believe he's still waiting for confirmation on that meeting."
Mr. Ormsby, R-Belleville, also is a member of the action committee.
"Between the boating and sport fishing and the potential for property values to plummet along the lakefront, there's a lot to discuss," he said. "It's a total desecration of the eastern basin of the lake, and I don't think I'm overstating that," Mr. Ormsby said. "This NYPA project would be sitting in the most pristine waters here in the north country."
A message left with NYPA late Friday was not returned.
The Brewing Tempest Over Wind Power by ROBERT BRYCE
Imagine this scenario: The oil and gas industry launches an aggressive global drilling program with a new type of well. Thousands of these new wells, once operational, emit a noxious odor so offensive that many of the people living within a mile of them are kept awake at night. Some are even forced to move out of their homes. It's easy to predict the reaction: denunciations of the industry, countless lawsuits, and congressional investigations.
Now substitute wind for oil and gas and consider the noise complaints being lodged against wind projects around the world.
The Obama administration has made the increased use of wind power to generate electricity a top priority. In 2009 alone, U.S. wind generation capacity increased by 39%. But more wind power means more giant turbines closer to more people. And if current trends continue, that spells trouble.
In 2007, a phalanx of wind turbines were built around Charlie Porter's property in rural northern Missouri. Soon, Mr. Porter began to have trouble sleeping. So did his wife and daughter. The noise, he told me, made sleeping almost impossible. "We tried everything—earplugs, leaving the TV station on all night." Nothing worked. Late last year he moved his family off their 20-acre farm.
Mr. Porter's story is no isolated event. Rural residents in Texas, Maine, Pennsylvania, Oregon, New York, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Canada, New Zealand, Australia, France and England have been complaining about the noise from wind turbines, particularly about sleep deprivation. Dozens of news stories—most of them published in rural newspapers—have documented the problem.
I've spoken to nine other people in New York, Wisconsin, Ontario, New Zealand, Nova Scotia and England who live, or lived, near wind turbines. All complained of the noise, with sleep deprivation being the most common complaint. For example, Janet Warren, who raises sheep near Makara, New Zealand, told me via email that the turbines near her home emit "continuous noise and vibration," which disturb her sleep and are causing "loss of concentration, irritability, and short-term memory effects."
Complaints about sleep disruption—as well as the deleterious health effects caused by the pulsing, low-frequency noise emitted by the giant turbines—are a central element of an emerging citizen backlash against the booming global wind industry.
Lawsuits that focus on noise pollution are now pending in Maine, Pennsylvania and New Zealand. In New Zealand, more than 750 complaints have been lodged against a large wind project near Makara since it began operating last April. The European Platform Against Windfarms lists 388 groups in 20 European countries. Canada has more than two dozen antiwind groups. In the U.S. there are about 100 such groups, and state legislators in Vermont recently introduced a bill that will require wind turbines be located no closer than 1.25 miles from any residence.
In theory, big wind projects should only be built in desolate areas. But the reality is that many turbines are being installed close to homes. Wind developers put a turbine within 550 meters of Mr. Porter's house. Hal Graham, a retired office manager in Cohocton, N.Y., complains about the noise pollution caused by a turbine 300 meters from his home. Tony Moyer, a plumbing superintendent in Eden, Wis., grumbles about the noise generated by three turbines built within 425 meters of his house.
Doctors and acoustics experts from the U.S. to Australia report a raft of symptoms that they blame on wind turbine noise, including sleep disturbance, headaches and vertigo. Dr. Nina Pierpont, a pediatrician in Malone, N.Y., has studied 36 people affected by wind turbine noise since 2004 at her own expense. The people she interviewed were widely dispersed; they lived in the U.S., Canada, England, Ireland and Italy. She found that the collection of symptoms she calls "wind turbine syndrome" disappeared as soon as people moved out of their noise-affected homes and into new locations at least five miles from any turbines.
Across the border, Ontario-based orthopedic surgeon Dr. Robert McMurtry has been researching wind turbine noise for the past 18 months. Dr. McMurtry, a fellow of the Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Canada, counts more than 100 people in Ontario he believes are experiencing adverse effects from turbine noise. "It has compromised their health," he says.
The wind lobby has publicly rejected these claims. In December, the American Wind Energy Association in conjunction with the Canadian Wind Energy Association, issued a report titled "Wind Turbine Sound and Health Effects: An Expert Review Panel." It declared: "There is no evidence that the audible or sub-audible sounds emitted by wind turbines have any direct adverse physiological effects." It also suggested that some of the symptoms being attributed to wind turbine noise were likely psychosomatic and asserted that the vibrations from the turbines are "too weak to be detected by, or to affect, humans."
Yet the report also noted that in "the area of wind turbine health effects, no case-control or cohort studies have been conducted as of this date." True enough—but it means there are no studies to prove or disprove the case. It also says that "a small number of sensitive people" may be "stressed" by wind turbine noise and suffer sleep deprivation. But who gets to define "sensitive" and "small number"? And if turbine noise and sleep disturbance aren't problems, then why are people in so many different locations complaining in almost identical ways? Such questions are only going to be pressed with more urgency in the future.
By 2030, environmental and lobby groups are pushing for the U.S. to produce 20% of its electricity from wind. According to the Department of Energy, meeting that goal will require the U.S. to have about 300,000 megawatts of wind capacity, an eightfold increase over current levels. Installing tens of thousands of new turbines inevitably means they'll be located closer to populated areas.
The health effects of low-frequency noise on humans are not well understood. The noise in question often occurs at, or below, decibel levels that are commonly considered a public nuisance. And detecting low-frequency noise requires sophisticated acoustic gear. For all of these reasons, this issue should be investigated. If policy makers are serious about considering all of the impacts of "green" energy, then an impartial, international study of the effects of wind turbine noise should be undertaken without delay.
Mr. Bryce is the managing editor of Energy Tribune. His fourth book, "Power Hungry: The Myths of 'Green' Energy and the Real Fuels of the Future," will be published in April by PublicAffairs.
Now substitute wind for oil and gas and consider the noise complaints being lodged against wind projects around the world.
The Obama administration has made the increased use of wind power to generate electricity a top priority. In 2009 alone, U.S. wind generation capacity increased by 39%. But more wind power means more giant turbines closer to more people. And if current trends continue, that spells trouble.
In 2007, a phalanx of wind turbines were built around Charlie Porter's property in rural northern Missouri. Soon, Mr. Porter began to have trouble sleeping. So did his wife and daughter. The noise, he told me, made sleeping almost impossible. "We tried everything—earplugs, leaving the TV station on all night." Nothing worked. Late last year he moved his family off their 20-acre farm.
Mr. Porter's story is no isolated event. Rural residents in Texas, Maine, Pennsylvania, Oregon, New York, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Canada, New Zealand, Australia, France and England have been complaining about the noise from wind turbines, particularly about sleep deprivation. Dozens of news stories—most of them published in rural newspapers—have documented the problem.
I've spoken to nine other people in New York, Wisconsin, Ontario, New Zealand, Nova Scotia and England who live, or lived, near wind turbines. All complained of the noise, with sleep deprivation being the most common complaint. For example, Janet Warren, who raises sheep near Makara, New Zealand, told me via email that the turbines near her home emit "continuous noise and vibration," which disturb her sleep and are causing "loss of concentration, irritability, and short-term memory effects."
Complaints about sleep disruption—as well as the deleterious health effects caused by the pulsing, low-frequency noise emitted by the giant turbines—are a central element of an emerging citizen backlash against the booming global wind industry.
Lawsuits that focus on noise pollution are now pending in Maine, Pennsylvania and New Zealand. In New Zealand, more than 750 complaints have been lodged against a large wind project near Makara since it began operating last April. The European Platform Against Windfarms lists 388 groups in 20 European countries. Canada has more than two dozen antiwind groups. In the U.S. there are about 100 such groups, and state legislators in Vermont recently introduced a bill that will require wind turbines be located no closer than 1.25 miles from any residence.
In theory, big wind projects should only be built in desolate areas. But the reality is that many turbines are being installed close to homes. Wind developers put a turbine within 550 meters of Mr. Porter's house. Hal Graham, a retired office manager in Cohocton, N.Y., complains about the noise pollution caused by a turbine 300 meters from his home. Tony Moyer, a plumbing superintendent in Eden, Wis., grumbles about the noise generated by three turbines built within 425 meters of his house.
Doctors and acoustics experts from the U.S. to Australia report a raft of symptoms that they blame on wind turbine noise, including sleep disturbance, headaches and vertigo. Dr. Nina Pierpont, a pediatrician in Malone, N.Y., has studied 36 people affected by wind turbine noise since 2004 at her own expense. The people she interviewed were widely dispersed; they lived in the U.S., Canada, England, Ireland and Italy. She found that the collection of symptoms she calls "wind turbine syndrome" disappeared as soon as people moved out of their noise-affected homes and into new locations at least five miles from any turbines.
Across the border, Ontario-based orthopedic surgeon Dr. Robert McMurtry has been researching wind turbine noise for the past 18 months. Dr. McMurtry, a fellow of the Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Canada, counts more than 100 people in Ontario he believes are experiencing adverse effects from turbine noise. "It has compromised their health," he says.
The wind lobby has publicly rejected these claims. In December, the American Wind Energy Association in conjunction with the Canadian Wind Energy Association, issued a report titled "Wind Turbine Sound and Health Effects: An Expert Review Panel." It declared: "There is no evidence that the audible or sub-audible sounds emitted by wind turbines have any direct adverse physiological effects." It also suggested that some of the symptoms being attributed to wind turbine noise were likely psychosomatic and asserted that the vibrations from the turbines are "too weak to be detected by, or to affect, humans."
Yet the report also noted that in "the area of wind turbine health effects, no case-control or cohort studies have been conducted as of this date." True enough—but it means there are no studies to prove or disprove the case. It also says that "a small number of sensitive people" may be "stressed" by wind turbine noise and suffer sleep deprivation. But who gets to define "sensitive" and "small number"? And if turbine noise and sleep disturbance aren't problems, then why are people in so many different locations complaining in almost identical ways? Such questions are only going to be pressed with more urgency in the future.
By 2030, environmental and lobby groups are pushing for the U.S. to produce 20% of its electricity from wind. According to the Department of Energy, meeting that goal will require the U.S. to have about 300,000 megawatts of wind capacity, an eightfold increase over current levels. Installing tens of thousands of new turbines inevitably means they'll be located closer to populated areas.
The health effects of low-frequency noise on humans are not well understood. The noise in question often occurs at, or below, decibel levels that are commonly considered a public nuisance. And detecting low-frequency noise requires sophisticated acoustic gear. For all of these reasons, this issue should be investigated. If policy makers are serious about considering all of the impacts of "green" energy, then an impartial, international study of the effects of wind turbine noise should be undertaken without delay.
Mr. Bryce is the managing editor of Energy Tribune. His fourth book, "Power Hungry: The Myths of 'Green' Energy and the Real Fuels of the Future," will be published in April by PublicAffairs.
Prattsburgh board to vote on contesting Ecogen lawsuit
Prattsburgh, N.Y.
The Prattsburgh Town Board is expected to vote tonight on whether to fight a lawsuit filed by wind developer Ecogen.
The special meeting, at 6 p.m. in the Town Hall basement, follows a four-hour informational meeting Saturday held by the board.
Town Supervisor Al Wordingham said Saturday was an opportunity to present a clear view on what Ecogen’s plan to erect 17 towering turbines means to the town and its residents.
“Some of the people have never taken the time to understand,” Wordingham said. “Now tomorrow, we’ll listen to public comments for two minutes each. But this isn’t question and answer. We did all that Saturday.”
Wordingham said the board will base its final decision on “the content of what is said” and not on the number of people for or against fighting the lawsuit.
The new lawsuit asks the state Supreme Court to overturn action by the newly-elected board to rescind a legal settlement with Ecogen. Members of the prior town board struck a deal with the company in December before leaving office.
The December settlement cleared the way for Ecogen to begin constructing 17 wind turbines in Prattsburgh. Critics of the settlement charged the agreement violated home rule by taking away most of the town’s authority.
One key concern for residents may be the cost of fighting Ecogen in court.
Wordingham said the town’s potential defense team from Bond, Schoeneck and King agreed last week to wait until January 2012 to bill the town for legal services.
“And we’re already taking donations from people to help with the cost,” he said. “A lot of people.”
The board also voted, 4-1, Saturday to enact a six-month moratorium on any industrial wind development in the town. A strong supporter of Ecogen, Council-woman Stacey Bottoni voted against the moratorium.
The moratorium is designed to allow the recently appointed town Zoning Commission time to study wind development in the area and make recommendations for a town wind law.
Wordingham said if the court reinstates the December settlement, Ecogen would be exempt from the ban.
The Prattsburgh Town Board is expected to vote tonight on whether to fight a lawsuit filed by wind developer Ecogen.
The special meeting, at 6 p.m. in the Town Hall basement, follows a four-hour informational meeting Saturday held by the board.
Town Supervisor Al Wordingham said Saturday was an opportunity to present a clear view on what Ecogen’s plan to erect 17 towering turbines means to the town and its residents.
“Some of the people have never taken the time to understand,” Wordingham said. “Now tomorrow, we’ll listen to public comments for two minutes each. But this isn’t question and answer. We did all that Saturday.”
Wordingham said the board will base its final decision on “the content of what is said” and not on the number of people for or against fighting the lawsuit.
The new lawsuit asks the state Supreme Court to overturn action by the newly-elected board to rescind a legal settlement with Ecogen. Members of the prior town board struck a deal with the company in December before leaving office.
The December settlement cleared the way for Ecogen to begin constructing 17 wind turbines in Prattsburgh. Critics of the settlement charged the agreement violated home rule by taking away most of the town’s authority.
One key concern for residents may be the cost of fighting Ecogen in court.
Wordingham said the town’s potential defense team from Bond, Schoeneck and King agreed last week to wait until January 2012 to bill the town for legal services.
“And we’re already taking donations from people to help with the cost,” he said. “A lot of people.”
The board also voted, 4-1, Saturday to enact a six-month moratorium on any industrial wind development in the town. A strong supporter of Ecogen, Council-woman Stacey Bottoni voted against the moratorium.
The moratorium is designed to allow the recently appointed town Zoning Commission time to study wind development in the area and make recommendations for a town wind law.
Wordingham said if the court reinstates the December settlement, Ecogen would be exempt from the ban.
Monday, March 01, 2010
Tilting at Windmills
You know the saying: Ignorance is bliss. Unfortunately for the American taxpayer, when it comes to the wind turbine industry, ignorance is not as blissful as it is infuriating. According to a new report by the Investigative Reporting Workshop (in coordination with ABC's World News with Diane Sawyer and the Watchdog Institute), Obama can now add wind turbines to his growing list of failures within the stimulus package.
Renewable energy industry is growing; wind turbines are a key avenue of that growth. Obama has said he would like to be a leader in clean energy but that the United States is struggling to make this goal a reality. He's right, but that's only half the story. The Workshop reports that $2.1 billion in stimulus grants have been given to wind, solar and geothermal companies to make good on Obama's objective but almost 80% of those went to foreign companies. A bankrupt Australian company nabbed the largest grant so far-$178 million. With that, Babcock & Brown built "a Texas wind farm using turbines made by a Japanese company."
Even Senator Charles Schumer (D-NY), hardly a foe of Obama's stimulus package, was disappointed with the news that foreign companies were receiving-4 to 1-stimulus funds and jobs on renewable energy-related projects. In an interview with ABC News he said: "Very few jobs here, lots of jobs in China. That is not what I intended or any other legislator who voted for the stimulus intended...It is fine that the Chinese make them. But why don't we use the stimulus money to start building up an industry to build them here, that was the very point of the stimulus."
Of the 80% of stimulus grants going to wind facilities, the majority of those are turbines which prevail in popularity both with renewable energy advocates, professional and laymen alike. If the 4 to 1 ratio is frightening, never fear: According to StimulusWatch.org, several organizations around the country are receiving your tax dollars-I mean stimulus money-to fund large-scale wind turbine projects. The National Science Foundation is receiving $435,231 in grant money to work on a wind turbine project in Buford, Wyoming. Likewise, the Department of Energy received nearly $25 million to "design, construct, and ultimately have responsibility for the operation of the Large Wind Turbine Blade Test Facility" through the Massachusetts Clean Energy Center. According to the report, no jobs are being created through those projects.
While the stimulus funds for energy projects are creating little to no jobs in the United States, they number they produce overseas is maddening. Allow the numbers to illuminate: The Renewable Energy Policy Project did a study and estimated that for every 1 megawatt of wind energy that is developed, 4.3 jobs are created. There were about 1,219 turbines built by foreign-owned manufacturers which equates to 2,279.5 megawatts. If you crunch the Renewable Energy Policy Project's numbers, the installation of these turbines may have created as many as 6,838 manufacturing jobs -- anywhere but here.
Such news may cause taxpayers to pause and evaluate the cost-benefit ratio of the turbines. Estimates vary but some sources say it can cost $300,000 to transport the turbines and a 2007 estimate by Windustry reported that a commercial scale wind turbine cost $3.5 million installed.
If one wind turbine produces 1.8 megawatts of energy -- enough energy for 500 households per year -- and each household spends on average $2,150 on their energy bill per year, the turbine saves $1.75 million per year in energy. At a cost of $3.5 million installed, a wind turbine will have earned its proverbial keep in two years.
While the math works out, the economics still don't. Turbines are only entirely beneficial if American taxpayer dollars were given to companies here to give to American workers here to construct them and if they worked like a charm once they were built. Unfortunately, therein, as the Bard would say, lies the rub.
In Minnesota, for example, a state which spent $3.3 million on eleven wind turbines, but which regularly experiences cold, winter weather, discovered this year their turbines freeze up when it's freezing. Apparently the hydraulic fluid which propels the turbines was supposed to work in colder temperature but failed to. There's a plan in progress to heat the fluid but as Minnesota native Ed Morrissey of Hot Air reported: "That will drastically reduce the net energy gain from each turbine, depending on how much heating the turbine fluid needs to stop congealing in the winter. Since cold weather here lasts anywhere from 4-6 months, that makes it mighty inefficient as an energy resource."
Blame could rest on the shoulder of the state on one side, the manufacturer on the other, and obviously this is an isolated incident. But if each American family only saves a few dollars every month after the wind turbines run efficiently and after they pay for themselves but their tax dollars were sent overseas for others to build them in the first place, is there a true cost benefit besides the warm, fuzzy feeling that we're all utilizing clean energy? Like his stimulus package, Obama's ideas work only if the theory is put into practice.
Renewable energy industry is growing; wind turbines are a key avenue of that growth. Obama has said he would like to be a leader in clean energy but that the United States is struggling to make this goal a reality. He's right, but that's only half the story. The Workshop reports that $2.1 billion in stimulus grants have been given to wind, solar and geothermal companies to make good on Obama's objective but almost 80% of those went to foreign companies. A bankrupt Australian company nabbed the largest grant so far-$178 million. With that, Babcock & Brown built "a Texas wind farm using turbines made by a Japanese company."
Even Senator Charles Schumer (D-NY), hardly a foe of Obama's stimulus package, was disappointed with the news that foreign companies were receiving-4 to 1-stimulus funds and jobs on renewable energy-related projects. In an interview with ABC News he said: "Very few jobs here, lots of jobs in China. That is not what I intended or any other legislator who voted for the stimulus intended...It is fine that the Chinese make them. But why don't we use the stimulus money to start building up an industry to build them here, that was the very point of the stimulus."
Of the 80% of stimulus grants going to wind facilities, the majority of those are turbines which prevail in popularity both with renewable energy advocates, professional and laymen alike. If the 4 to 1 ratio is frightening, never fear: According to StimulusWatch.org, several organizations around the country are receiving your tax dollars-I mean stimulus money-to fund large-scale wind turbine projects. The National Science Foundation is receiving $435,231 in grant money to work on a wind turbine project in Buford, Wyoming. Likewise, the Department of Energy received nearly $25 million to "design, construct, and ultimately have responsibility for the operation of the Large Wind Turbine Blade Test Facility" through the Massachusetts Clean Energy Center. According to the report, no jobs are being created through those projects.
While the stimulus funds for energy projects are creating little to no jobs in the United States, they number they produce overseas is maddening. Allow the numbers to illuminate: The Renewable Energy Policy Project did a study and estimated that for every 1 megawatt of wind energy that is developed, 4.3 jobs are created. There were about 1,219 turbines built by foreign-owned manufacturers which equates to 2,279.5 megawatts. If you crunch the Renewable Energy Policy Project's numbers, the installation of these turbines may have created as many as 6,838 manufacturing jobs -- anywhere but here.
Such news may cause taxpayers to pause and evaluate the cost-benefit ratio of the turbines. Estimates vary but some sources say it can cost $300,000 to transport the turbines and a 2007 estimate by Windustry reported that a commercial scale wind turbine cost $3.5 million installed.
If one wind turbine produces 1.8 megawatts of energy -- enough energy for 500 households per year -- and each household spends on average $2,150 on their energy bill per year, the turbine saves $1.75 million per year in energy. At a cost of $3.5 million installed, a wind turbine will have earned its proverbial keep in two years.
While the math works out, the economics still don't. Turbines are only entirely beneficial if American taxpayer dollars were given to companies here to give to American workers here to construct them and if they worked like a charm once they were built. Unfortunately, therein, as the Bard would say, lies the rub.
In Minnesota, for example, a state which spent $3.3 million on eleven wind turbines, but which regularly experiences cold, winter weather, discovered this year their turbines freeze up when it's freezing. Apparently the hydraulic fluid which propels the turbines was supposed to work in colder temperature but failed to. There's a plan in progress to heat the fluid but as Minnesota native Ed Morrissey of Hot Air reported: "That will drastically reduce the net energy gain from each turbine, depending on how much heating the turbine fluid needs to stop congealing in the winter. Since cold weather here lasts anywhere from 4-6 months, that makes it mighty inefficient as an energy resource."
Blame could rest on the shoulder of the state on one side, the manufacturer on the other, and obviously this is an isolated incident. But if each American family only saves a few dollars every month after the wind turbines run efficiently and after they pay for themselves but their tax dollars were sent overseas for others to build them in the first place, is there a true cost benefit besides the warm, fuzzy feeling that we're all utilizing clean energy? Like his stimulus package, Obama's ideas work only if the theory is put into practice.
Sunday, February 28, 2010
Friday, February 26, 2010
ENERGY: Huffing and puffing over wind power
Did the federal government, as some have said, give millions of dollars in stimulus funds to a non-producing wind farm in the Southern Tier town of Cohocton? Not exactly.
Cohocton Wind is a 50-turbine project with a total 125-megawatt generation capacity - the potential to power 50,000 homes, say officials with First Wind, Cohocton Wind's parent company. In September, the project was awarded $74.6 million in federal stimulus funds from the US Departments of Energy and Treasury - part of a large block of funding meant to encourage renewable energy development nationwide.
That grant's come under protest, however, by Congress member Eric Massa, who wrote the president to ask that the funding be revoked.
"We should not be rewarding anything, let alone cash grants, to companies like this that have abused the public trust and created such a toxic atmosphere in our region on the topic of wind power," Massa wrote.
The project's been plagued by controversy, including lawsuits and an attorney general's office investigation into First Wind and other wind power development companies. Since the project came online in January, it's been dogged by questions about what it's actually producing electricity-wise - lately that's been one of the most persistent issues. Massa made the claim in his letter, which he sent in September, that the project wasn't producing any power, information he said he received from the organization that operates New York's power grid.
"Nobody knows what they produce or what they don't produce," Massa said in an interview last week. "They demand the privacy of a private corporation and the subsidies of a public utility."
But John Lamontagne, a First Wind spokesperson, says the turbines produced 133,370 megawatt hours of electricity from when they came online in January, to the end of September. That's enough energy to power 1,200 homes with average monthly electricity consumption.
The wind farm hasn't produced the amount of energy the company would like, but it's had some maintenance issues involving gears and blades, Lamontagne says. The same issues plagued the company's Steel Winds development in Lackawanna, near Buffalo.
"The project hasn't been at 100 percent," he says.
The New York Independent Systems Operator, the body that operates the state's power grid, issues a yearly report detailing the amount of electricity produced by the state's individual power plants. Cohocton Wind's status as a producer was not included in this year's report, because the farm only came online in January. It should be included in next year's report, however. Calls to the ISO were not returned by this paper's deadline.
Massa's comments illustrate just one aspect of the ongoing feud between wind farm critics and developers. Critics say that wind companies oversell the turbines' performance and play down potential drawbacks such as noise, visual impact, and an intermittent electric supply. Wind developers say the turbines are vital clean energy generators that will help the US reduce dependence on fossil fuels, and that they serve as an economic benefit to the communities they're in.
The federal stimulus money serves as an incentive to develop wind farms, which is exactly what the government intended. But these recent grants -about $475 million went out to renewable energy projects across the country - replaced tax credits. It's a swap of sorts - the companies get upfront funding and agree to forgo the tax credits in future years. The idea was to create upfront funding for companies that, thanks to the economy, were having trouble getting financing, say statements from the US Departments of Energy and Treasury.
The stimulus money came with no restrictions on how it can be used - whether it's to finish an uncompleted project, to add on to an existing project, or to pay back investors. In Cohocton Wind's case the project was already finished by January of this year.
Massa said he was told initially that First Wind was going to use the money for repairs to its wind generators, and that the parts would come from overseas - and that would violate the Buy American clause of the stimulus act, he said.� But First Wind's Lamontagne says the money might be reinvested in the development of other renewable projects.
"We have no clue where the money's going," Massa said. "We have no way of knowing. They're under no obligation to tell anyone where the taxpayer money is going."
Massa said that his plea to revoke Cohocton Wind's stimulus funding has gone unheeded. The check's been cut, he said, and while he'd like to see the action reversed, he doesn't expect that will happen.
And he doesn't have much faith in the wind companies operating in the Southern Tier: not just First Wind, but Ecogen, and others as well.
First Wind, formerly known as UPC, was one of a handful of wind power companies operating in New York that was investigated by the state attorney general. The office wanted to probe allegations that wind company officials improperly sought land-use agreements, and whether public officials were given improper benefits to influence official actions.
The investigation resulted in a code of conduct, developed by the AG and agreed to by the wind companies. First Wind was one of the initial adopters. The code prohibited wind companies from providing gifts or benefits to municipal officials or their families, and required lease agreement disclosures.
Massa, however, said that some of these companies are already violating the spirit, if not the letter of the code. Ecogen, for example, is suing the Towns of Prattsburgh and Italy, claiming that both town boards have prevented the company from moving forward with proposed wind power projects.
"They have millions and millions of dollars to spend on attorneys and they know these small towns don't have any money at all," Massa said. "What they do is they just go in and overrun the ability of the community to defend itself."
Cohocton Wind is a 50-turbine project with a total 125-megawatt generation capacity - the potential to power 50,000 homes, say officials with First Wind, Cohocton Wind's parent company. In September, the project was awarded $74.6 million in federal stimulus funds from the US Departments of Energy and Treasury - part of a large block of funding meant to encourage renewable energy development nationwide.
That grant's come under protest, however, by Congress member Eric Massa, who wrote the president to ask that the funding be revoked.
"We should not be rewarding anything, let alone cash grants, to companies like this that have abused the public trust and created such a toxic atmosphere in our region on the topic of wind power," Massa wrote.
The project's been plagued by controversy, including lawsuits and an attorney general's office investigation into First Wind and other wind power development companies. Since the project came online in January, it's been dogged by questions about what it's actually producing electricity-wise - lately that's been one of the most persistent issues. Massa made the claim in his letter, which he sent in September, that the project wasn't producing any power, information he said he received from the organization that operates New York's power grid.
"Nobody knows what they produce or what they don't produce," Massa said in an interview last week. "They demand the privacy of a private corporation and the subsidies of a public utility."
But John Lamontagne, a First Wind spokesperson, says the turbines produced 133,370 megawatt hours of electricity from when they came online in January, to the end of September. That's enough energy to power 1,200 homes with average monthly electricity consumption.
The wind farm hasn't produced the amount of energy the company would like, but it's had some maintenance issues involving gears and blades, Lamontagne says. The same issues plagued the company's Steel Winds development in Lackawanna, near Buffalo.
"The project hasn't been at 100 percent," he says.
The New York Independent Systems Operator, the body that operates the state's power grid, issues a yearly report detailing the amount of electricity produced by the state's individual power plants. Cohocton Wind's status as a producer was not included in this year's report, because the farm only came online in January. It should be included in next year's report, however. Calls to the ISO were not returned by this paper's deadline.
Massa's comments illustrate just one aspect of the ongoing feud between wind farm critics and developers. Critics say that wind companies oversell the turbines' performance and play down potential drawbacks such as noise, visual impact, and an intermittent electric supply. Wind developers say the turbines are vital clean energy generators that will help the US reduce dependence on fossil fuels, and that they serve as an economic benefit to the communities they're in.
The federal stimulus money serves as an incentive to develop wind farms, which is exactly what the government intended. But these recent grants -about $475 million went out to renewable energy projects across the country - replaced tax credits. It's a swap of sorts - the companies get upfront funding and agree to forgo the tax credits in future years. The idea was to create upfront funding for companies that, thanks to the economy, were having trouble getting financing, say statements from the US Departments of Energy and Treasury.
The stimulus money came with no restrictions on how it can be used - whether it's to finish an uncompleted project, to add on to an existing project, or to pay back investors. In Cohocton Wind's case the project was already finished by January of this year.
Massa said he was told initially that First Wind was going to use the money for repairs to its wind generators, and that the parts would come from overseas - and that would violate the Buy American clause of the stimulus act, he said.� But First Wind's Lamontagne says the money might be reinvested in the development of other renewable projects.
"We have no clue where the money's going," Massa said. "We have no way of knowing. They're under no obligation to tell anyone where the taxpayer money is going."
Massa said that his plea to revoke Cohocton Wind's stimulus funding has gone unheeded. The check's been cut, he said, and while he'd like to see the action reversed, he doesn't expect that will happen.
And he doesn't have much faith in the wind companies operating in the Southern Tier: not just First Wind, but Ecogen, and others as well.
First Wind, formerly known as UPC, was one of a handful of wind power companies operating in New York that was investigated by the state attorney general. The office wanted to probe allegations that wind company officials improperly sought land-use agreements, and whether public officials were given improper benefits to influence official actions.
The investigation resulted in a code of conduct, developed by the AG and agreed to by the wind companies. First Wind was one of the initial adopters. The code prohibited wind companies from providing gifts or benefits to municipal officials or their families, and required lease agreement disclosures.
Massa, however, said that some of these companies are already violating the spirit, if not the letter of the code. Ecogen, for example, is suing the Towns of Prattsburgh and Italy, claiming that both town boards have prevented the company from moving forward with proposed wind power projects.
"They have millions and millions of dollars to spend on attorneys and they know these small towns don't have any money at all," Massa said. "What they do is they just go in and overrun the ability of the community to defend itself."
Thursday, February 25, 2010
Ecogen's New Prattsburgh Lawsuit
Notice of Motion for Enforcement Settlement
Notice%20of%20Motion%20to%20Enforce%20Settlmeent%20and%20Affidavit%20in%20Support%20of%20Motion%20to%20Enforce%20Settlement.pdf
Petitioner's Memorandum of Law
Petitioner%27s%20Memorandum%20of%20Law%20in%20Support%20of%20Motion%20to%20Enforce%20Settlement.pdf
Notice%20of%20Motion%20to%20Enforce%20Settlmeent%20and%20Affidavit%20in%20Support%20of%20Motion%20to%20Enforce%20Settlement.pdf
Petitioner's Memorandum of Law
Petitioner%27s%20Memorandum%20of%20Law%20in%20Support%20of%20Motion%20to%20Enforce%20Settlement.pdf
How stimulus saved renewable energy
On a mountain top 80 miles northeast of Bangor, Maine, in country where houses and gravel pits are mere pinpricks on a map green with forest, Paul Gaynor is making stimulus work.
Gaynor, chief executive of First Wind, is using $40 million in federal funds to help build a wind farm that will produce enough power for 13,000 homes and has created 200construction jobs.
Without stimulus, First Wind's project -- and most renewable energy projects across the country -- may not have happened.
"To us, it's been essential to get through the nuclear winter of financing ability," Gaynor said, referring to the dark days of early 2009 right after the financial collapse. "The recovery act was the bridge that got us from a broken market to one where projects actually get done."
Because of the way tax incentives worked prior to stimulus, few industries were more dependent on Wall Street profits than renewable energy.
Pre-stimulus, renewable energy developments were funded largely by big banks. As an incentive to expand clean, homegrown power, the government offered generous tax credits.
The credit wasn't limited to just big banks, said Ethan Zindler, head of North American research at Bloomberg New Energy Finance, a firm that tracks renewable energy investments. But the banks had the money and understood the rules, so they were by far the biggest financiers.
But tax credits only work when you're paying taxes. When Wall Street profits dried up and their tax bill fell, almost all funding for new renewable energy froze up.
"The market for financing large-scale power projects collapsed," said Zindler. "Stimulus fixed that."
Stimulus fixed it by changing the tax credit to an outright government grant worth roughly the same amount.
There is no limit to the amount that can be spent under the grant program, although it is set to expire at the end of this year. The government originally estimated it would cost taxpayers $5 billion.
The Energy Department said that from the start of the program in July though September, the last month for which data is available, over $1 billion has been paid to finance 32 projects nationwide.
It's hard to say for sure how many projects stimulus saved or what the renewable energy industry would look like without it, said Zindler.
In 2009, some 9,000 megawatts of renewable energy was built in this country, he said. The vast majority of that was wind power.
That's just slightly less than 2008, although without stimulus he estimated that maybe only half the 2009 projects would have been built.
Numbers from the American Wind Energy Association suggest that even fewer projects could have gotten built.
In years when Congress let a previous tax credit lapse, investments in wind energy fell by 75%.
That wouldn't bode well for President Obama's stated goal of doubling the country's renewable energy capacity by 2012.
And it wouldn't bode well for companies like First Wind, or anyone hoping to get a job in renewable energy.
The company's Maine project is actually an expansion of an existing $160-million facility right across the street that was completed last year.
First Wind took that tax credit and rolled it right over into the current expansion. Even on a frigid day in January, Gaynor said more than a hundred people are busy on the mountain constructing the new facility.
"It's a beehive of activity up there," he said.
Before 2010 is out, First Wind hopes to construct another 4 to 6 projects -- all partially paid for with stimulus money.
Gaynor, chief executive of First Wind, is using $40 million in federal funds to help build a wind farm that will produce enough power for 13,000 homes and has created 200construction jobs.
Without stimulus, First Wind's project -- and most renewable energy projects across the country -- may not have happened.
"To us, it's been essential to get through the nuclear winter of financing ability," Gaynor said, referring to the dark days of early 2009 right after the financial collapse. "The recovery act was the bridge that got us from a broken market to one where projects actually get done."
Because of the way tax incentives worked prior to stimulus, few industries were more dependent on Wall Street profits than renewable energy.
Pre-stimulus, renewable energy developments were funded largely by big banks. As an incentive to expand clean, homegrown power, the government offered generous tax credits.
The credit wasn't limited to just big banks, said Ethan Zindler, head of North American research at Bloomberg New Energy Finance, a firm that tracks renewable energy investments. But the banks had the money and understood the rules, so they were by far the biggest financiers.
But tax credits only work when you're paying taxes. When Wall Street profits dried up and their tax bill fell, almost all funding for new renewable energy froze up.
"The market for financing large-scale power projects collapsed," said Zindler. "Stimulus fixed that."
Stimulus fixed it by changing the tax credit to an outright government grant worth roughly the same amount.
There is no limit to the amount that can be spent under the grant program, although it is set to expire at the end of this year. The government originally estimated it would cost taxpayers $5 billion.
The Energy Department said that from the start of the program in July though September, the last month for which data is available, over $1 billion has been paid to finance 32 projects nationwide.
It's hard to say for sure how many projects stimulus saved or what the renewable energy industry would look like without it, said Zindler.
In 2009, some 9,000 megawatts of renewable energy was built in this country, he said. The vast majority of that was wind power.
That's just slightly less than 2008, although without stimulus he estimated that maybe only half the 2009 projects would have been built.
Numbers from the American Wind Energy Association suggest that even fewer projects could have gotten built.
In years when Congress let a previous tax credit lapse, investments in wind energy fell by 75%.
That wouldn't bode well for President Obama's stated goal of doubling the country's renewable energy capacity by 2012.
And it wouldn't bode well for companies like First Wind, or anyone hoping to get a job in renewable energy.
The company's Maine project is actually an expansion of an existing $160-million facility right across the street that was completed last year.
First Wind took that tax credit and rolled it right over into the current expansion. Even on a frigid day in January, Gaynor said more than a hundred people are busy on the mountain constructing the new facility.
"It's a beehive of activity up there," he said.
Before 2010 is out, First Wind hopes to construct another 4 to 6 projects -- all partially paid for with stimulus money.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)