Well, we brought you the New York State Towns Association’s legislative agenda, which calls for continued local control over wind and other energy facilities siting. Comes the policy agenda of the Alliance for Clean Energy, NY, which favors a state “one stop shop”, with local representation. The issue of (clean or otherwise) power plant siting oversight has been a constant irritant for municipalities, developers and utilities alike since the expiration of Article X some seven years ago.
ACE NY strongly supports the enactment of a law establishing a “one-stop shop” siting board for new power plants. We support a fuel neutral siting bill but believe that if any generation projects are provided with streamlined permitting, that priority should be provided for clean energy projects. Since clean energy generation sources should be the state’s preferred generation resources, they may warrant slightly different substantive and procedural treatment within a reenacted siting bill. A siting board would provide much-needed consistency in treatment of projects across the state; better interagency coordination of needed permit approvals; and clearer, streamlined time frames for all interested parties. ACE NY supports the inclusion of provisions for intervenor funding and inclusion of local representation on the board for specific project review, and is open to discussion as to the appropriate project size limit for inclusion in a new statewide siting law.
The policy agenda otherwise endorses more wind energy, including offshore.
Thursday, April 08, 2010
Noble scraps plans for second wind farm
CHATEAUGAY — Noble Environmental Power has abandoned its plan to build a second wind farm in Chateaugay.
“We got a letter from Noble, saying they are discontinuing with Chateaugay II,” Town Supervisor Donald Bilow said Wednesday. “It’s because of the market.
“I know the price of power is very low, and I think that’s the main reason.”
COSTS ‘NOT JUSTIFIED’
The town received the letter Tuesday, which also includes an announcement on the cancellation of a 100.5-megawatt Noble Alleghany Wind Park project in western New York.
The company, which operates 71 towers at the Chateaugay I Wind Park, planned to build 13 more towers in Chateaugay to produce 19.5 megawatts of electricity for sale on the state power grid.
But after review of anticipated construction costs and factoring in continued payouts to easement holders and poor rates on power-production credits from the New York State Energy Research and Development Authority, “Noble has concluded that the ongoing carrying costs are not justified,” the letter states.
LOSS TO LANDOWNERS
The cancelation of the project affects not only the town but numerous landowners who had contracts with Noble.
Steven Carter said his family farm was looking forward to the extra cash that wind-farm easements would bring.
“It was only going to be 14 towers, but everybody here wanted it. But with electricity, the wholesale price dropped. It’s so cheap now.
“This (project) was something good, not just for the people who were going to have the easements. Everybody benefited from the lower taxes. The land and school taxes had dropped, so there were benefits to them.
“We really could’ve used them,” he said of the Chateaugay II towers. “But that’s the way it goes for dairy farmers. It’s not often they give us something up here, and now they snatch it away.
“We got a letter from Noble, saying they are discontinuing with Chateaugay II,” Town Supervisor Donald Bilow said Wednesday. “It’s because of the market.
“I know the price of power is very low, and I think that’s the main reason.”
COSTS ‘NOT JUSTIFIED’
The town received the letter Tuesday, which also includes an announcement on the cancellation of a 100.5-megawatt Noble Alleghany Wind Park project in western New York.
The company, which operates 71 towers at the Chateaugay I Wind Park, planned to build 13 more towers in Chateaugay to produce 19.5 megawatts of electricity for sale on the state power grid.
But after review of anticipated construction costs and factoring in continued payouts to easement holders and poor rates on power-production credits from the New York State Energy Research and Development Authority, “Noble has concluded that the ongoing carrying costs are not justified,” the letter states.
LOSS TO LANDOWNERS
The cancelation of the project affects not only the town but numerous landowners who had contracts with Noble.
Steven Carter said his family farm was looking forward to the extra cash that wind-farm easements would bring.
“It was only going to be 14 towers, but everybody here wanted it. But with electricity, the wholesale price dropped. It’s so cheap now.
“This (project) was something good, not just for the people who were going to have the easements. Everybody benefited from the lower taxes. The land and school taxes had dropped, so there were benefits to them.
“We really could’ve used them,” he said of the Chateaugay II towers. “But that’s the way it goes for dairy farmers. It’s not often they give us something up here, and now they snatch it away.
Neighbors raise warning flags
Keuka Park, N.Y.
Speakers from Cohocton, Italy and Prattsburgh came to neighboring Jerusalem March 30 to share their experiences from encounters with wind turbine companies in the area. About 70 people, including people from Geneva, Wayne County, Barrington, Benton and Jerusalem, attended the session organized by the group, Jerusalem Preservation Association (JPA).
The JPA identifies itself as “Concerned citizens of Jerusalem united to preserve and protect the health, safety, well-being, natural environment, quality of life, and economic future of our town.”
Two of the speakers, Steve Kula of Prattsburgh, and Brad Jones of Italy, are elected town officials who oppose wind turbine developments in their towns.
The third speaker, Hal Graham from Cohocton, is a property owner who now speaks out against the company that installed a wind turbine on his property. An exchange between Graham and Wayne Hunt, who identified himself as a Cohocton Town Councilman, illustrated the kind of divisiveness that Kula warned the audience about. During a question and answer period at the end of the speaker’s presentations, Hunt stood and invited people to visit Cohocton, and he would arrange a tour of the wind farm. But Graham said the company is notified of these tours, and they adjust the turbines so there is no sound or vibration coming from them. He said as soon as the tours leave, they begin making noise again.
Following their exchange, a woman asked if JPA planned on organizing a session that would include speakers in support of wind farms. Mark Grant, who moderated the meeting, told her probably not, but said there’s no reason another group couldn’t do so.
Kula, a Prattsburgh town councilman, said he originally supported the development of a wind turbine farm there. “I originally thought, if the landowner wants it on their property, they should have the right,” he said.
But after several exchanges with Ecogen, the company planning a development in Prattsburgh, he’s changed his mind. The crystalizing moment for him came when he had to consider the conflict between his belief in landowner rights and the possibility that he, as a town councilman, might be called upon to support the takeover of land through eminent domain proceedings.
Prattsburgh now finds itself in the beginning stages of a legal battle with Ecogen, which he expects to cost the town hundreds of thousands of dollars.
He warned the audience, “If there’s a possibility your town could face this, time should be taken now to research. Don’t ignore the facts presented here today just because you happen to be in favor of wind farms.”
Kula told the group that while Prattsburgh had no zoning laws when the wind turbine companies first came to the area, the town now has a zoning commission. “We’re taking the steps now that we should have taken a decade ago,” he said.
Jones, newly elected as supervisor in the town of Italy, said that on April 28, Italy’s attorney will be seeking dismissal of a lawsuit Ecogen has filed against the town.
Following a detailed presentation in which he disputed most of the claims about clean power, reduction of U.S. dependence on foreign oil, and renewable energy made by wind farm companies, Jones said the Italy Town Board will be re-writing zoning regulations to prohibit wind turbine developments.
“We will not get bankrupted by this lawsuit. We’re not going to back down,” he said.
Jones later said towns should not write local laws regulating turbines. “You’re just opening the door for them,” he explained, adding the best way to avoid the issue is through “strict prohibition of industrialization in all sectors of the town.”
Graham, who lives with his wife on a 300-acre farm that was started by his great grandfather many years ago, said signing a lease with a wind turbine company was “the biggest mistake of my life.”
He said before construction of the turbine on his property, First Wind company officials said he and his wife would notice no more than the hum of a refrigerator. “Every time we asked questions about the noise, we were told not to worry,” he said.
Now, he says, the machine “sounds like a jet engine in your back yard that will never take off.” He said the noise has been measured at over 100 decibels (about the same as a power lawnmower at 3 ft.).
Graham advised other towns, “Keep fighting. Don’t let them come in.”
Speakers from Cohocton, Italy and Prattsburgh came to neighboring Jerusalem March 30 to share their experiences from encounters with wind turbine companies in the area. About 70 people, including people from Geneva, Wayne County, Barrington, Benton and Jerusalem, attended the session organized by the group, Jerusalem Preservation Association (JPA).
The JPA identifies itself as “Concerned citizens of Jerusalem united to preserve and protect the health, safety, well-being, natural environment, quality of life, and economic future of our town.”
Two of the speakers, Steve Kula of Prattsburgh, and Brad Jones of Italy, are elected town officials who oppose wind turbine developments in their towns.
The third speaker, Hal Graham from Cohocton, is a property owner who now speaks out against the company that installed a wind turbine on his property. An exchange between Graham and Wayne Hunt, who identified himself as a Cohocton Town Councilman, illustrated the kind of divisiveness that Kula warned the audience about. During a question and answer period at the end of the speaker’s presentations, Hunt stood and invited people to visit Cohocton, and he would arrange a tour of the wind farm. But Graham said the company is notified of these tours, and they adjust the turbines so there is no sound or vibration coming from them. He said as soon as the tours leave, they begin making noise again.
Following their exchange, a woman asked if JPA planned on organizing a session that would include speakers in support of wind farms. Mark Grant, who moderated the meeting, told her probably not, but said there’s no reason another group couldn’t do so.
Kula, a Prattsburgh town councilman, said he originally supported the development of a wind turbine farm there. “I originally thought, if the landowner wants it on their property, they should have the right,” he said.
But after several exchanges with Ecogen, the company planning a development in Prattsburgh, he’s changed his mind. The crystalizing moment for him came when he had to consider the conflict between his belief in landowner rights and the possibility that he, as a town councilman, might be called upon to support the takeover of land through eminent domain proceedings.
Prattsburgh now finds itself in the beginning stages of a legal battle with Ecogen, which he expects to cost the town hundreds of thousands of dollars.
He warned the audience, “If there’s a possibility your town could face this, time should be taken now to research. Don’t ignore the facts presented here today just because you happen to be in favor of wind farms.”
Kula told the group that while Prattsburgh had no zoning laws when the wind turbine companies first came to the area, the town now has a zoning commission. “We’re taking the steps now that we should have taken a decade ago,” he said.
Jones, newly elected as supervisor in the town of Italy, said that on April 28, Italy’s attorney will be seeking dismissal of a lawsuit Ecogen has filed against the town.
Following a detailed presentation in which he disputed most of the claims about clean power, reduction of U.S. dependence on foreign oil, and renewable energy made by wind farm companies, Jones said the Italy Town Board will be re-writing zoning regulations to prohibit wind turbine developments.
“We will not get bankrupted by this lawsuit. We’re not going to back down,” he said.
Jones later said towns should not write local laws regulating turbines. “You’re just opening the door for them,” he explained, adding the best way to avoid the issue is through “strict prohibition of industrialization in all sectors of the town.”
Graham, who lives with his wife on a 300-acre farm that was started by his great grandfather many years ago, said signing a lease with a wind turbine company was “the biggest mistake of my life.”
He said before construction of the turbine on his property, First Wind company officials said he and his wife would notice no more than the hum of a refrigerator. “Every time we asked questions about the noise, we were told not to worry,” he said.
Now, he says, the machine “sounds like a jet engine in your back yard that will never take off.” He said the noise has been measured at over 100 decibels (about the same as a power lawnmower at 3 ft.).
Graham advised other towns, “Keep fighting. Don’t let them come in.”
Wednesday, April 07, 2010
Property values blowing in the wind
Proposed turbine projects put damper on residential property sales in Cape Vincent
Sales records show that Cape Vincent has had a steeper decline in residential property sales than its neighbors and real estate professionals are starting to blame proposed wind power developments.
"People do not want to buy near windmills," said Amanda J. Miller, owner of Lake Ontario Realty, Dexter, who specializes in waterfront property sales. "They avoid purchasing in towns like Cape Vincent."
She presented her views and a report on property values to the Jefferson County Board of Legislators on Tuesday night.
In other countries that have had wind power development for a while, they have seen 40 percent to 60 percent drops in resale values, she said. Closer to home, she's had clients pull out of deals and refuse to consider areas that are possible sites for wind turbines.
"Even if people don't mind looking at it, they're not going to put their investment in an area where they're going to have turbines depreciate it," Ms. Miller said in a phone interview on Monday. "They don't want to look at them, see them, and others don't want to buy because they don't know what the wind turbines will do for property values."
National studies have gone both ways, some saying that wind turbines have no effect on property values and others saying the projects hurt property values.
Data on the local real estate trends were compiled by Clifford J. Schneider, a Cape Vincent resident and former fisheries biologist with the state Department of Environmental Conservation.
The analysis compared Cape Vincent sales, closing prices and days on market to those in Alexandria Bay, Brownville, Clayton and Lyme from 2000 through 2009. The analysis included houses of more than 1,000 square feet on the Jefferson-Lewis Board of Realtors Multiple Listing Service.
Both overall residential sales and a subset of waterfront residential sales were analyzed.
Closings for the 2006-09 period declined 8.4 percent in the other four towns and 15.4 percent in Cape Vincent, though that was not statistically significant.
In waterfront properties over the last decade, closings fell 12 percent in Cape Vincent and 4.6 percent in the four-town average. In the more recent 2006-09 period, closings fell 10 percent per year for the four-town average and 25 percent in Cape Vincent. The difference in the decline was statistically significant.
Cape Vincent had 10 residential property closings in 2009, three of which were waterfront.
"This should be a good wake-up call to people," Ms. Miller said.
Prices didn't vary much, with all categories rising for Cape Vincent and surrounding towns.
Average days on market declined for the four towns by 9.5 percent per year through the decade. Through the decade, the trend was a drop by 7.3 percent per year in Cape Vincent, but in 2006-09 the days on market increased 58.5 percent per year, while the four-town average increased 10 percent.
"There is some evidence that the Cape Vincent housing market is in a slump, more so than what would normally be credited to the decline in the general economy," the report said.
The economy is playing some role in the decreased number of sales.
"Things are slow partly because the overall economy is so bad," said Brooks J. Bragdon, a real estate sales agent and Cape Vincent councilman. "But things are even slower in areas overdeveloped by wind turbines."
Some local wind farm opponents are pushing for a property value assurance agreement, in which a developer would pay the difference between a property's sale price and the value of comparable property outside of a wind power development if the property loses value.
The two real estate professionals said that won't be enough.
"I don't put too much stock into it because the aesthetics of the area are so valuable that you can't put a dollar figure onto it," Mr. Bragdon said. "We should address the setbacks and make them reasonable according to the zoning law and comprehensive plan and state and federal rules without getting into compensating people for lost value."
Ms. Miller agreed.
"It doesn't take care of the tourism economy," she said. "There's no way to solve that."
Sales records show that Cape Vincent has had a steeper decline in residential property sales than its neighbors and real estate professionals are starting to blame proposed wind power developments.
"People do not want to buy near windmills," said Amanda J. Miller, owner of Lake Ontario Realty, Dexter, who specializes in waterfront property sales. "They avoid purchasing in towns like Cape Vincent."
She presented her views and a report on property values to the Jefferson County Board of Legislators on Tuesday night.
In other countries that have had wind power development for a while, they have seen 40 percent to 60 percent drops in resale values, she said. Closer to home, she's had clients pull out of deals and refuse to consider areas that are possible sites for wind turbines.
"Even if people don't mind looking at it, they're not going to put their investment in an area where they're going to have turbines depreciate it," Ms. Miller said in a phone interview on Monday. "They don't want to look at them, see them, and others don't want to buy because they don't know what the wind turbines will do for property values."
National studies have gone both ways, some saying that wind turbines have no effect on property values and others saying the projects hurt property values.
Data on the local real estate trends were compiled by Clifford J. Schneider, a Cape Vincent resident and former fisheries biologist with the state Department of Environmental Conservation.
The analysis compared Cape Vincent sales, closing prices and days on market to those in Alexandria Bay, Brownville, Clayton and Lyme from 2000 through 2009. The analysis included houses of more than 1,000 square feet on the Jefferson-Lewis Board of Realtors Multiple Listing Service.
Both overall residential sales and a subset of waterfront residential sales were analyzed.
Closings for the 2006-09 period declined 8.4 percent in the other four towns and 15.4 percent in Cape Vincent, though that was not statistically significant.
In waterfront properties over the last decade, closings fell 12 percent in Cape Vincent and 4.6 percent in the four-town average. In the more recent 2006-09 period, closings fell 10 percent per year for the four-town average and 25 percent in Cape Vincent. The difference in the decline was statistically significant.
Cape Vincent had 10 residential property closings in 2009, three of which were waterfront.
"This should be a good wake-up call to people," Ms. Miller said.
Prices didn't vary much, with all categories rising for Cape Vincent and surrounding towns.
Average days on market declined for the four towns by 9.5 percent per year through the decade. Through the decade, the trend was a drop by 7.3 percent per year in Cape Vincent, but in 2006-09 the days on market increased 58.5 percent per year, while the four-town average increased 10 percent.
"There is some evidence that the Cape Vincent housing market is in a slump, more so than what would normally be credited to the decline in the general economy," the report said.
The economy is playing some role in the decreased number of sales.
"Things are slow partly because the overall economy is so bad," said Brooks J. Bragdon, a real estate sales agent and Cape Vincent councilman. "But things are even slower in areas overdeveloped by wind turbines."
Some local wind farm opponents are pushing for a property value assurance agreement, in which a developer would pay the difference between a property's sale price and the value of comparable property outside of a wind power development if the property loses value.
The two real estate professionals said that won't be enough.
"I don't put too much stock into it because the aesthetics of the area are so valuable that you can't put a dollar figure onto it," Mr. Bragdon said. "We should address the setbacks and make them reasonable according to the zoning law and comprehensive plan and state and federal rules without getting into compensating people for lost value."
Ms. Miller agreed.
"It doesn't take care of the tourism economy," she said. "There's no way to solve that."
Tuesday, April 06, 2010
ARB ruling on wind power noise sets precedent
In a precedent setting move, a recently discovered decision of the provincial Assessment Review Board (ARB) has cut a homeowner's assessment in half because the house is located near a noisy hydro substation. The hydro plant serves a nearby wind farm producing "clean" electricity.
The decision of ARB member Ana Cristina Marques was issued following an appeal by Paul Thompson of the assessment on his house.
Thompson's one-storey home is located on the 10th Line in Amaranth Township. It was built in 1989 and sits on a lot with a frontage of 183 feet (55.7 metres) and a depth of 240 feet (73.15 metres).
In 2008, the Municipal Property Assessment Corp. assessed the 1,320-square-foot house at $255,000. Thompson agreed with the assessment except for one thing: The house sits across the road from a Canadian Hydro Developers transformer station. The station converts the output of the nearby Melancthon I wind plant into electricity for the Ontario power grid.
Thompson told me last month that the station emits a "wicked buzz" all day, every day, and that's what prompted him to appeal his assessment.
Evidence presented to the board at Thompson's appeal revealed that in April 2005, the township of Amaranth rezoned a 6.07 hectare (15-acre) parcel across the road from Thompson's home for the purpose of construction of a transformer station.
The station was built 360 metres (1,181 feet) away from Thompson's house. According to the Ontario Power Authority website, it serves the Melancthon I Wind Plant, a 67.5 MW facility in the southern portion of the Melancthon Township, Dufferin County, near the Town of Shelburne.
The first phase of the project utilizes 45 wind turbines. It became operational in March 2006, and the second and much larger phase (88 turbines) began producing electricity in March 2008.
The Ontario Power Authority website says that "manufacturers of modern wind turbines have ... reduced noise levels to that of a quiet whisper."
That may be so, but evidence at the ARB hearing showed that the power station associated with Melancthon I produced a constant hum measured at more than 40 decibels in Thompson's home. (According to a 1999 World Health Organization report, sleep disturbance occurs when there is a continuous noise exceeding its indoor guideline value of 30 decibels.)
Thompson introduced evidence at the hearing showing that the transformer station noise was audible within the house with the windows closed. He described the noise as a "nightmare" and a constant nuisance that not only affects his day-to-day activity, but also impacts the sales value and marketability of his property.
In reaching its decision to cut his assessment in half, board member Marques wrote, "The Board finds that the constant hum alleged by Mr. Thompson does exist and significantly reduces the current value of the subject property. The best evidence is the audio portion of the CD (Exhibit No. 1) and the testimony of both parties.
"Having heard this nuisance, apparently sanctioned by the Municipality, the Board accepts Mr. Thompson's testimony that the stigma of noise contamination has a negative impact on the value and marketability of the property, and that after learning of the hum, prospective purchasers will quickly lose interest in purchasing the property. The Board is satisfied that a very substantial reduction is warranted."
As I see it, Thompson's successful appeal of his assessment is only the first of many similar cases that are certain to follow. The result, of course, will be a significant reduction in the tax base of municipalities like Amaranth, which play host to wind turbine farms.
And now that the ARB, an arm of the Ontario government, has upheld a claim for loss of property value due to the proximity of a hydro substation and a wind farm, can a host of court cases and class action lawsuits for noise contamination and property devaluation be far behind?
Bob Aaron is a Toronto real estate lawyer and board member of the Tarion Warranty Corp. bob@aaron.ca.
The decision of ARB member Ana Cristina Marques was issued following an appeal by Paul Thompson of the assessment on his house.
Thompson's one-storey home is located on the 10th Line in Amaranth Township. It was built in 1989 and sits on a lot with a frontage of 183 feet (55.7 metres) and a depth of 240 feet (73.15 metres).
In 2008, the Municipal Property Assessment Corp. assessed the 1,320-square-foot house at $255,000. Thompson agreed with the assessment except for one thing: The house sits across the road from a Canadian Hydro Developers transformer station. The station converts the output of the nearby Melancthon I wind plant into electricity for the Ontario power grid.
Thompson told me last month that the station emits a "wicked buzz" all day, every day, and that's what prompted him to appeal his assessment.
Evidence presented to the board at Thompson's appeal revealed that in April 2005, the township of Amaranth rezoned a 6.07 hectare (15-acre) parcel across the road from Thompson's home for the purpose of construction of a transformer station.
The station was built 360 metres (1,181 feet) away from Thompson's house. According to the Ontario Power Authority website, it serves the Melancthon I Wind Plant, a 67.5 MW facility in the southern portion of the Melancthon Township, Dufferin County, near the Town of Shelburne.
The first phase of the project utilizes 45 wind turbines. It became operational in March 2006, and the second and much larger phase (88 turbines) began producing electricity in March 2008.
The Ontario Power Authority website says that "manufacturers of modern wind turbines have ... reduced noise levels to that of a quiet whisper."
That may be so, but evidence at the ARB hearing showed that the power station associated with Melancthon I produced a constant hum measured at more than 40 decibels in Thompson's home. (According to a 1999 World Health Organization report, sleep disturbance occurs when there is a continuous noise exceeding its indoor guideline value of 30 decibels.)
Thompson introduced evidence at the hearing showing that the transformer station noise was audible within the house with the windows closed. He described the noise as a "nightmare" and a constant nuisance that not only affects his day-to-day activity, but also impacts the sales value and marketability of his property.
In reaching its decision to cut his assessment in half, board member Marques wrote, "The Board finds that the constant hum alleged by Mr. Thompson does exist and significantly reduces the current value of the subject property. The best evidence is the audio portion of the CD (Exhibit No. 1) and the testimony of both parties.
"Having heard this nuisance, apparently sanctioned by the Municipality, the Board accepts Mr. Thompson's testimony that the stigma of noise contamination has a negative impact on the value and marketability of the property, and that after learning of the hum, prospective purchasers will quickly lose interest in purchasing the property. The Board is satisfied that a very substantial reduction is warranted."
As I see it, Thompson's successful appeal of his assessment is only the first of many similar cases that are certain to follow. The result, of course, will be a significant reduction in the tax base of municipalities like Amaranth, which play host to wind turbine farms.
And now that the ARB, an arm of the Ontario government, has upheld a claim for loss of property value due to the proximity of a hydro substation and a wind farm, can a host of court cases and class action lawsuits for noise contamination and property devaluation be far behind?
Bob Aaron is a Toronto real estate lawyer and board member of the Tarion Warranty Corp. bob@aaron.ca.
Officials at odds over wind law plans
TOWN OF LYME: Two asked to recuse selves over alleged conflicts of interest; setbacks back on the table
CHAUMONT — Two town officials have exchanged words on how the proposed Lyme law for wind turbine zoning should be revised and who should be involved.
Albert H. Bowers III, Planning Board member, wants Supervisor Scott G. Aubertine and Councilman Donald R. Bourquin to recuse themselves from the revision process. Mr. Aubertine has refused. Mr. Bourquin was unavailable Monday.
"By his behavior and assertions he has created an impression on the part of most people in the town that he is definitely in favor of the wind companies," Mr. Bowers said of Mr. Aubertine. "He is acting as if he has a conflict."
Mr. Aubertine said, "I don't see any reason why I should recuse myself. I'm not representing them and I do not have a financial interest in them."
Under reports from BP Alternative Energy and Acciona Wind Energy USA LLC, Mr. Bourquin has two brothers who have easements or leases with the two developers. But he said Monday that one brother's property has gone to his niece and the other brother's lease is just for a transmission line.
"Neither brother has valid contracts with developers for wind turbines," he said. "I don't own land, or have a contract myself."
He doesn't see a reason for recusing himself and legal counsel has agreed with him, he said.
"Anything about a discussion on zoning law concerns the whole town, not just them," Mr. Bourquin said.
A law passed May 7, 2008, was knocked down by state Supreme and Appellate courts. The courts upheld a protest petition, signed by owners of more than 20 percent of the land in the town who thought the town zoning law had "excessive" setback requirements that stifled development of wind power.
Under the original proposal, the turbines could be placed 4,500 feet from Lake Ontario, the Chaumont River, the village of Chaumont and the hamlet of Three Mile Bay.
Mr. Aubertine has floated again a compromise position that would lessen the setbacks from the village's limits to 3,000 feet and from seasonal roads to 600 feet. For other locations, such as along Route 12E from Chaumont to County Route 57, he proposes lengthening the setback to 2,500 feet.
In responding to a letter from Mr. Bowers, Mr. Aubertine cited a 2007 town survey that found 52 percent of residents supported wind power development in the town. Using that basis, Mr. Aubertine sought to reconcile the proposal from the Planning Board and suggestions from BP.
But Mr. Bowers said the town should not compromise with the developer or a portion of its population on a law that is supported by a majority of the residents.
"You can't compromise the opinion of a whole group with any portion of the group," he said.
The 2007 survey had a majority of residents call for setbacks of "not near" the waterfront or village of Chaumont or hamlet of Three Mile Bay. The 56 and 58 percent of people who chose that answer selected it after the options of 1,500, 3,000 and 4,500 feet were given.
Those two questions have caused considerable controversy in Lyme, with wind supporters saying they were confusing.
Mr. Bowers said a review of the comments attached by those respondents showed that 90 percent of them said they didn't want the turbines less than 4,500 feet away, which supported the setbacks written in the proposed law.
The Town Council will discuss the method for reviewing the law during its regular meeting at 6:30 p.m. April 14 at the town offices, 12175 Route 12E, Chaumont.
Mr. Aubertine said the council, Planning Board or a citizen's committee could be directed to work on changes.
"I will probably see what the town board would like to do with it," he said. "Now we have two board members who were Planning Board members and we all sat in on the work sessions two years ago, so we're probably the most qualified to sit down and go through the law again."
A second survey may also be discussed.
Mr. Bowers, who is also an organizer for the Coalition for the Preservation of the Golden Crescent and Thousand Islands Region, said the Planning Board is the proper place for the discussion.
"The Planning Board constructed the law in the first place," he said. "We have people on the Planning Board with great knowledge of wind power development."
CHAUMONT — Two town officials have exchanged words on how the proposed Lyme law for wind turbine zoning should be revised and who should be involved.
Albert H. Bowers III, Planning Board member, wants Supervisor Scott G. Aubertine and Councilman Donald R. Bourquin to recuse themselves from the revision process. Mr. Aubertine has refused. Mr. Bourquin was unavailable Monday.
"By his behavior and assertions he has created an impression on the part of most people in the town that he is definitely in favor of the wind companies," Mr. Bowers said of Mr. Aubertine. "He is acting as if he has a conflict."
Mr. Aubertine said, "I don't see any reason why I should recuse myself. I'm not representing them and I do not have a financial interest in them."
Under reports from BP Alternative Energy and Acciona Wind Energy USA LLC, Mr. Bourquin has two brothers who have easements or leases with the two developers. But he said Monday that one brother's property has gone to his niece and the other brother's lease is just for a transmission line.
"Neither brother has valid contracts with developers for wind turbines," he said. "I don't own land, or have a contract myself."
He doesn't see a reason for recusing himself and legal counsel has agreed with him, he said.
"Anything about a discussion on zoning law concerns the whole town, not just them," Mr. Bourquin said.
A law passed May 7, 2008, was knocked down by state Supreme and Appellate courts. The courts upheld a protest petition, signed by owners of more than 20 percent of the land in the town who thought the town zoning law had "excessive" setback requirements that stifled development of wind power.
Under the original proposal, the turbines could be placed 4,500 feet from Lake Ontario, the Chaumont River, the village of Chaumont and the hamlet of Three Mile Bay.
Mr. Aubertine has floated again a compromise position that would lessen the setbacks from the village's limits to 3,000 feet and from seasonal roads to 600 feet. For other locations, such as along Route 12E from Chaumont to County Route 57, he proposes lengthening the setback to 2,500 feet.
In responding to a letter from Mr. Bowers, Mr. Aubertine cited a 2007 town survey that found 52 percent of residents supported wind power development in the town. Using that basis, Mr. Aubertine sought to reconcile the proposal from the Planning Board and suggestions from BP.
But Mr. Bowers said the town should not compromise with the developer or a portion of its population on a law that is supported by a majority of the residents.
"You can't compromise the opinion of a whole group with any portion of the group," he said.
The 2007 survey had a majority of residents call for setbacks of "not near" the waterfront or village of Chaumont or hamlet of Three Mile Bay. The 56 and 58 percent of people who chose that answer selected it after the options of 1,500, 3,000 and 4,500 feet were given.
Those two questions have caused considerable controversy in Lyme, with wind supporters saying they were confusing.
Mr. Bowers said a review of the comments attached by those respondents showed that 90 percent of them said they didn't want the turbines less than 4,500 feet away, which supported the setbacks written in the proposed law.
The Town Council will discuss the method for reviewing the law during its regular meeting at 6:30 p.m. April 14 at the town offices, 12175 Route 12E, Chaumont.
Mr. Aubertine said the council, Planning Board or a citizen's committee could be directed to work on changes.
"I will probably see what the town board would like to do with it," he said. "Now we have two board members who were Planning Board members and we all sat in on the work sessions two years ago, so we're probably the most qualified to sit down and go through the law again."
A second survey may also be discussed.
Mr. Bowers, who is also an organizer for the Coalition for the Preservation of the Golden Crescent and Thousand Islands Region, said the Planning Board is the proper place for the discussion.
"The Planning Board constructed the law in the first place," he said. "We have people on the Planning Board with great knowledge of wind power development."
Maine Voices: Wind power unlikely to come close to breaking even
The campaign to pour billions in subsidies into this government-favored industry recalls the money wasted on ethanol.
FREEPORT - Tux Turkel has done a great job (March 30, "First Wind set to test the waters with IPO") in digging into the current wind power developments here in Maine.
He offers us facts and numbers that give us a rough picture of the cost and viability of wind power here.
Turkel reports that Maine lawmakers have set a goal of installing 2,000 megawatts of wind power by 2015.
He then quotes a local financial analyst who points out that, "Ratepayers are going to pay for all the government mandates," and "The market isn't driving this. The government is driving this."
The article suggests 2,000 megawatts of power will cost $4 billion. But it is not clear whether that is actual produced power or maximum capacity of the wind turbines.
The generally accepted "capacity ratio" for wind power is at best around 20 percent, which means you get 20 percent of the power that you could get if the turbines were producing at maximum capacity 24/7.
Wind power benefits from huge subsidies and tax incentives. It is in that context that we would do well to remember what has happened with another highly subsidized energy industry, biofuels.
That one was also aggressively promoted by government, politicians and environmentalists to solve our problems with dependence on foreign oil and risks to the global climate.
Seldom, if ever, have we seen such a graphic example of the law of unintended consequences. Ethanol has turned out to be a curse rather than an asset. The world's food supplies have been horribly distorted and strained, with resulting increases in prices. Machinery is being damaged.
The ecological damage to the planet is incalculable -- rain forests are being destroyed while the precious nutrients in our valuable farmlands are being sucked out and poured into our gas tanks.
And, it turns out that burning ethanol seems to be adding more nasty gases to our environment than gasoline.
Ethanol was foisted upon us by the same people who now want to give us wind power, solar power, biomass and an array of other "alternative, renewable energy sources." They want to do it the same way -- by rushing us all into completely unknown, unproven technologies with a hyped-up, emotional, quixotic, mindless fervor.
All the while, the Russians, Japanese and the Chinese are not at all interested in all this nonsense.
The Russians have contracted to build a number of their amazing BN 800 fast-breeder nuclear reactors for the Chinese for approximately $2 billion a unit. These reactors produce about 880 megawatts and they do it at about a 90 percent capacity ratio.
It is very likely that the reason the Russians have been so agreeable about arms reductions is that they can sell the Chinese nuclear materials gleaned from the decommissioned weapons to fuel these new plants.
This technology, referred to under different names such as integrated fast reactors (IFRs) has the potential to alter the course of history.
These plants are simple, highly efficient, completely safe and produce very, very little nuclear waste. When pro-rated over an average 30-year life span, these plants produce power at a cost much lower than any other technology yet devised.
And they produce no carbon dioxide!
But don't believe me. Do yourself and your country a big favor and buy the book "Prescription for the Planet" by Tom Blees. He describes the irony of all ironies.
Beginning in 1951, the United States started a program to prove the viability of a breeder reactor -- one that would produce more fuel than it burned.
The program, dubbed EBR-II, evolved at the Argonne West Laboratories in Idaho into a fully functioning IFR, producing electricity and feeding it into the grid.
First, Jimmy Carter shut it down, claiming it was a proliferation risk. Then, in 1994, Bill Clinton and John Kerry not only refused to restart this fully functional IFR prototype, but they had it dismantled and destroyed.
Blees suggests that they owed the environmentalists such a huge political debt that they had no choice.
The irony is that the Russians, Japanese and Chinese had been paying close attention all along and now are decades ahead of the United States with a technology that will lead the world into the 21st century.
But for that mindset that sold us on ethanol and now wants us to buy into wind power, the United States could be energy independent while selling this technology and building modern power plants all over the world. That would create millions of jobs and an enviable trade balance.
FREEPORT - Tux Turkel has done a great job (March 30, "First Wind set to test the waters with IPO") in digging into the current wind power developments here in Maine.
He offers us facts and numbers that give us a rough picture of the cost and viability of wind power here.
Turkel reports that Maine lawmakers have set a goal of installing 2,000 megawatts of wind power by 2015.
He then quotes a local financial analyst who points out that, "Ratepayers are going to pay for all the government mandates," and "The market isn't driving this. The government is driving this."
The article suggests 2,000 megawatts of power will cost $4 billion. But it is not clear whether that is actual produced power or maximum capacity of the wind turbines.
The generally accepted "capacity ratio" for wind power is at best around 20 percent, which means you get 20 percent of the power that you could get if the turbines were producing at maximum capacity 24/7.
Wind power benefits from huge subsidies and tax incentives. It is in that context that we would do well to remember what has happened with another highly subsidized energy industry, biofuels.
That one was also aggressively promoted by government, politicians and environmentalists to solve our problems with dependence on foreign oil and risks to the global climate.
Seldom, if ever, have we seen such a graphic example of the law of unintended consequences. Ethanol has turned out to be a curse rather than an asset. The world's food supplies have been horribly distorted and strained, with resulting increases in prices. Machinery is being damaged.
The ecological damage to the planet is incalculable -- rain forests are being destroyed while the precious nutrients in our valuable farmlands are being sucked out and poured into our gas tanks.
And, it turns out that burning ethanol seems to be adding more nasty gases to our environment than gasoline.
Ethanol was foisted upon us by the same people who now want to give us wind power, solar power, biomass and an array of other "alternative, renewable energy sources." They want to do it the same way -- by rushing us all into completely unknown, unproven technologies with a hyped-up, emotional, quixotic, mindless fervor.
All the while, the Russians, Japanese and the Chinese are not at all interested in all this nonsense.
The Russians have contracted to build a number of their amazing BN 800 fast-breeder nuclear reactors for the Chinese for approximately $2 billion a unit. These reactors produce about 880 megawatts and they do it at about a 90 percent capacity ratio.
It is very likely that the reason the Russians have been so agreeable about arms reductions is that they can sell the Chinese nuclear materials gleaned from the decommissioned weapons to fuel these new plants.
This technology, referred to under different names such as integrated fast reactors (IFRs) has the potential to alter the course of history.
These plants are simple, highly efficient, completely safe and produce very, very little nuclear waste. When pro-rated over an average 30-year life span, these plants produce power at a cost much lower than any other technology yet devised.
And they produce no carbon dioxide!
But don't believe me. Do yourself and your country a big favor and buy the book "Prescription for the Planet" by Tom Blees. He describes the irony of all ironies.
Beginning in 1951, the United States started a program to prove the viability of a breeder reactor -- one that would produce more fuel than it burned.
The program, dubbed EBR-II, evolved at the Argonne West Laboratories in Idaho into a fully functioning IFR, producing electricity and feeding it into the grid.
First, Jimmy Carter shut it down, claiming it was a proliferation risk. Then, in 1994, Bill Clinton and John Kerry not only refused to restart this fully functional IFR prototype, but they had it dismantled and destroyed.
Blees suggests that they owed the environmentalists such a huge political debt that they had no choice.
The irony is that the Russians, Japanese and Chinese had been paying close attention all along and now are decades ahead of the United States with a technology that will lead the world into the 21st century.
But for that mindset that sold us on ethanol and now wants us to buy into wind power, the United States could be energy independent while selling this technology and building modern power plants all over the world. That would create millions of jobs and an enviable trade balance.
Monday, April 05, 2010
Wolfe Islanders challenging tax assessments
PROPERTY: Residents claim wind turbines have depreciated the value of their homes
Some Wolfe Island residents are challenging their tax assessments, claiming that 86 wind turbines installed in the community have hurt property values but a spokesman for the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation says the agency has seen no evidence to support the homeowners' requests.
"It's difficult for us to determine the effects of a wind turbine until they go to sell," said Mike Contant, account manager for eastern Ontario.
"I'm not saying there won't be. It's a fairly new process."
The spokeswoman for Wolfe Island Residents for the Environment said she and her husband have submitted their application for a reduction.
"We specifically referred to the turbines," said Gail Kenney. "We stated that it was an introduction of industrialization into the rural area and that there has been an introduction of industrial noise and industrial lighting into the area."
The turbines have become the centre of controversy on Wolfe Island.
Islanders who agreed to have turbines installed on their properties receive about $7,000 in annual rental fees for each unit. Some of those who didn't say the towering structures have ruined the view and are noisy.
Victoria Stewart watched as two turbines were installed on her neighbours' property, 400 metres and 500 metres from the back of her home.
She put her house up for sale in October, found no buyer, and will try again to sell this year.
Stewart wonders if the turbines are making it difficult.
She, too, has appealed to assessment corporation, stating that "any increase to my municipal taxes would only be deemed unjust."
"I'm wondering if we should explore a class-action suit. We can't just sit here and take the depreciation of our land," Stewart said.
Contant said the corporation has been monitoring property values in western Ontario, where wind farms have been around a bit longer than on Wolfe Island.
"There is no impact," Contant said. "There hasn't been any influence yet. Right now we're not seeing any impact on market value."
The only way corporation will adjust assessments based on the proximity of wind turbines, Cont
ant said, is if property sales within a two-kilometre range of the machines fall and if there is a 10% reduction in house prices.
Until then, he said, "MPAC will defend value based on sales."
"We'll fight our assessments. This could be a one-year process. It could be a five-year process. Until we see changes there's nothing we can do."
Last year there were 165 applications for reconsideration out of the 2,045 properties in the Township of Frontenac Islands.
Contant said the number of appeals was high because 2009 was a reassessment year for everyone in Ontario.
As of yesterday, there were just 19 requests for reconsideration in the township.
The deadline for reassessment applications is tomorrow.
Kenney said she doesn't expect to win her case.
"I expect we're not going to get anywhere with this appeal but it's on file," she said. "Next year we will file and the next year we will file again to make a point (which) is these wind turbines have not been an asset to all of Wolfe Island and they have detracted from the quality of life."
Some Wolfe Island residents are challenging their tax assessments, claiming that 86 wind turbines installed in the community have hurt property values but a spokesman for the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation says the agency has seen no evidence to support the homeowners' requests.
"It's difficult for us to determine the effects of a wind turbine until they go to sell," said Mike Contant, account manager for eastern Ontario.
"I'm not saying there won't be. It's a fairly new process."
The spokeswoman for Wolfe Island Residents for the Environment said she and her husband have submitted their application for a reduction.
"We specifically referred to the turbines," said Gail Kenney. "We stated that it was an introduction of industrialization into the rural area and that there has been an introduction of industrial noise and industrial lighting into the area."
The turbines have become the centre of controversy on Wolfe Island.
Islanders who agreed to have turbines installed on their properties receive about $7,000 in annual rental fees for each unit. Some of those who didn't say the towering structures have ruined the view and are noisy.
Victoria Stewart watched as two turbines were installed on her neighbours' property, 400 metres and 500 metres from the back of her home.
She put her house up for sale in October, found no buyer, and will try again to sell this year.
Stewart wonders if the turbines are making it difficult.
She, too, has appealed to assessment corporation, stating that "any increase to my municipal taxes would only be deemed unjust."
"I'm wondering if we should explore a class-action suit. We can't just sit here and take the depreciation of our land," Stewart said.
Contant said the corporation has been monitoring property values in western Ontario, where wind farms have been around a bit longer than on Wolfe Island.
"There is no impact," Contant said. "There hasn't been any influence yet. Right now we're not seeing any impact on market value."
The only way corporation will adjust assessments based on the proximity of wind turbines, Cont
ant said, is if property sales within a two-kilometre range of the machines fall and if there is a 10% reduction in house prices.
Until then, he said, "MPAC will defend value based on sales."
"We'll fight our assessments. This could be a one-year process. It could be a five-year process. Until we see changes there's nothing we can do."
Last year there were 165 applications for reconsideration out of the 2,045 properties in the Township of Frontenac Islands.
Contant said the number of appeals was high because 2009 was a reassessment year for everyone in Ontario.
As of yesterday, there were just 19 requests for reconsideration in the township.
The deadline for reassessment applications is tomorrow.
Kenney said she doesn't expect to win her case.
"I expect we're not going to get anywhere with this appeal but it's on file," she said. "Next year we will file and the next year we will file again to make a point (which) is these wind turbines have not been an asset to all of Wolfe Island and they have detracted from the quality of life."
Investigation into Fenner wind turbine collapse nearly complete
The past several days have been a wind lover's dream, but the Fenner Wind Farm in Madison County hasn't been able to take advantage of that power since December, when one of the turbines collapsed. Our Katie Gibas tells us what's going on with the wind farm and why the investigation into the cause of the collapse is taking so long.
FENNER, N.Y. -- The winds are gusting and howling in Fenner, but their wind turbines haven't been turning since December.
"It hasn't affected us in money. It sure affected us in pride. We just love the wind farm. We want to see it up and running in a productive manner," said Russell Cary, Fenner Town Supervisor.
The wind farm's owner, Enel North America, decided to shut down the entire farm when one of the turbines collapsed in December. To be extra cautious, the turbines won't be started up until the investigation into the cause is complete. They've been testing the turbine itself, soil conditions and other turbines at the farm.
"Time and resources in terms of staff have been diverted. Obviously there's been a loss of revenue here. No one's really sat down to figure out how much that's been. We've been more focused on trying to find out what happened. But it's been a loss of revenue. It's been a distraction," said Hank Sennott, Enel North America Spokesperson.
The wind farm company's engineers and several other groups have been investigating since turbine 18 fell in December, and they say the process is taking longer than expected because there's no precedent to follow.
"The more the experts and consultants have looked, the more they've decided that they need to look a little further to check one more thing just to be exceedingly cautious," said Sennott.
"The idea that they aren't haphazardly just going in and starting them up and keeping them running, I mean this has been their track history right from the beginning. This has been a learning experience, and they're doing everything they can to make this a positive experience and I see that as a real plus," said Cary.
Representatives say they hope to have the results from their investigation in the next several weeks.
FENNER, N.Y. -- The winds are gusting and howling in Fenner, but their wind turbines haven't been turning since December.
"It hasn't affected us in money. It sure affected us in pride. We just love the wind farm. We want to see it up and running in a productive manner," said Russell Cary, Fenner Town Supervisor.
The wind farm's owner, Enel North America, decided to shut down the entire farm when one of the turbines collapsed in December. To be extra cautious, the turbines won't be started up until the investigation into the cause is complete. They've been testing the turbine itself, soil conditions and other turbines at the farm.
"Time and resources in terms of staff have been diverted. Obviously there's been a loss of revenue here. No one's really sat down to figure out how much that's been. We've been more focused on trying to find out what happened. But it's been a loss of revenue. It's been a distraction," said Hank Sennott, Enel North America Spokesperson.
The wind farm company's engineers and several other groups have been investigating since turbine 18 fell in December, and they say the process is taking longer than expected because there's no precedent to follow.
"The more the experts and consultants have looked, the more they've decided that they need to look a little further to check one more thing just to be exceedingly cautious," said Sennott.
"The idea that they aren't haphazardly just going in and starting them up and keeping them running, I mean this has been their track history right from the beginning. This has been a learning experience, and they're doing everything they can to make this a positive experience and I see that as a real plus," said Cary.
Representatives say they hope to have the results from their investigation in the next several weeks.
Wind turbines meet resistance at County hearing
The Wayne County Court House was packed on Wednesday night for the public hearing for resident comments on the proposed New York Power Authority (NYSPA) plan to build a series of wind turbines. The offshore wind farm would be the first such freshwater installation.
On December 1, 2009 NYSPA released a request for proposals for the development of offshore wind power projects in Lake Erie and Lake Ontario. The size and exact location for these projects is yet to be determined. A map released by NYSPA depicts portions of the Lake Ontario shoreline in Wayne County as potential locations for offshore wind farms.
NYSPA describes the project as “a utility-scale offshore wind farm between 120 mw and 500 mw total capacity.” The private development plans were suggested by NYSPA as an attempt to tap into a clean energy source and wean the American consumer off of foreign energy sources.
Some eastern New York State counties such as Niagara and Erie voiced support for the project. Job creation and clean energy were touted as solid reasoning behind the suggestions. After all, European countries have utilized offshore wind turbines as a vital source of power for years. The flat, unobstructed, high wind capturing turbines seemed like a simple answer for future energy needs.
NYSPA President Richard M. Kessel ran into a buzz saw of controversy as communities along the western shores of Lake Ontario overwhelmingly rejected the plans. Kessel indicated refusal to allow these off shore behemoths would turn away thousands of manufacturing and service jobs for the Upstate area.
Prior to Wednesday night’s meeting, both Oswego and Jefferson Counties to the east of Wayne County had already rejected the NYPA proposals. Kessel informed the Counties at a regional presentation of the project that the NYSPA would not build where there was opposition. Kessel said there were enough communities who wanted the project.
Sodus Supervisor Steve LeRoy had presented a resolution opposing the project, but it was tabled at the March 16th Board of Supervisors meeting in favor of obtaining input from the public prior to Board action. It was a forgone conclusion that the Board would probably reject the NYSPA proposal in the weeks leading up to the public hearing. LeRoy, as well as a host of other Board members, had received phone calls, letters and e-mails, the vast majority of which, opposed the plans.
Over 55 speakers had signed up prior to the public hearing, wishing to have their opinions heard. With a three minute time limit per speaker, the 7 p.m. meeting moved quickly as the majority voiced various concerns in speaking out against the offshore wind turbine plans.
Tom Agnello, President of the Blind Sodus Bay Association said his group opposed the plans on several fronts. A lack of solid information and disruption of sediments was highlighted.
Ken Redman said that getting permits for such an undertaking would be unbelievable, citing his six month battle just to get a retaining wall repaired. Al Isselhard from Wolcott cited the wind turbines as a hinderance to tourism.
“I see nothing but harm for what this project would bring. It would be nothing but a squatter on our Lake,” said Mary Isselhard. She suggested a tar & feather party for Kesel on his proposals. The lack of any financial gain to Wayne County, the cost versus return, environmental issues all came out with the parade of speakers.
Frank H. Moses, Montezuma Audubon Center Director feared a disruption of bird migration and said if the plan was to come to fruition, a long term study of the wildlife impact would be necessary. Bill Ross from Williamson noted that its seems “green jobs” cannot exist without taxpayer money.
Not all residents were in opposition to the offshore wind turbines. John Watson of Wolcott said he favored wind generated power 100%. “I would like to see America become energy independent.” Jim Wood from Sodus said that it was important to remember that the world is facing a crisis created by greenhouse gasses and it is our responsibility to create power where we can. He recommended that people keep an open mind to using wind power in the future.
Mark and Kass Vande from Sodus Point suggested that if Wayne County does not accept the project, somebody else would benefit from it. “We need energy independence,” said Kass.
Following the public hearing, LeRoy again voiced his opposition. Butler Supervisor Dave Spickerman agreed with several speakers at Wednesday’s public hearing that there simply was not enough information to reject all plans at this time. It was noted that although they were invited to speak before the Board and at Wednesday night’s meeting, NYSPA representatives had declined to do so. Any Board opposition quickly evaporated as soon as Ontario Supervisor Bob Kelsch said the deadline for the NYSPA proposals was June 1, 2010. The Board then voted unanimously to reject any and all proposals for the NYSPA suggested proposals
On December 1, 2009 NYSPA released a request for proposals for the development of offshore wind power projects in Lake Erie and Lake Ontario. The size and exact location for these projects is yet to be determined. A map released by NYSPA depicts portions of the Lake Ontario shoreline in Wayne County as potential locations for offshore wind farms.
NYSPA describes the project as “a utility-scale offshore wind farm between 120 mw and 500 mw total capacity.” The private development plans were suggested by NYSPA as an attempt to tap into a clean energy source and wean the American consumer off of foreign energy sources.
Some eastern New York State counties such as Niagara and Erie voiced support for the project. Job creation and clean energy were touted as solid reasoning behind the suggestions. After all, European countries have utilized offshore wind turbines as a vital source of power for years. The flat, unobstructed, high wind capturing turbines seemed like a simple answer for future energy needs.
NYSPA President Richard M. Kessel ran into a buzz saw of controversy as communities along the western shores of Lake Ontario overwhelmingly rejected the plans. Kessel indicated refusal to allow these off shore behemoths would turn away thousands of manufacturing and service jobs for the Upstate area.
Prior to Wednesday night’s meeting, both Oswego and Jefferson Counties to the east of Wayne County had already rejected the NYPA proposals. Kessel informed the Counties at a regional presentation of the project that the NYSPA would not build where there was opposition. Kessel said there were enough communities who wanted the project.
Sodus Supervisor Steve LeRoy had presented a resolution opposing the project, but it was tabled at the March 16th Board of Supervisors meeting in favor of obtaining input from the public prior to Board action. It was a forgone conclusion that the Board would probably reject the NYSPA proposal in the weeks leading up to the public hearing. LeRoy, as well as a host of other Board members, had received phone calls, letters and e-mails, the vast majority of which, opposed the plans.
Over 55 speakers had signed up prior to the public hearing, wishing to have their opinions heard. With a three minute time limit per speaker, the 7 p.m. meeting moved quickly as the majority voiced various concerns in speaking out against the offshore wind turbine plans.
Tom Agnello, President of the Blind Sodus Bay Association said his group opposed the plans on several fronts. A lack of solid information and disruption of sediments was highlighted.
Ken Redman said that getting permits for such an undertaking would be unbelievable, citing his six month battle just to get a retaining wall repaired. Al Isselhard from Wolcott cited the wind turbines as a hinderance to tourism.
“I see nothing but harm for what this project would bring. It would be nothing but a squatter on our Lake,” said Mary Isselhard. She suggested a tar & feather party for Kesel on his proposals. The lack of any financial gain to Wayne County, the cost versus return, environmental issues all came out with the parade of speakers.
Frank H. Moses, Montezuma Audubon Center Director feared a disruption of bird migration and said if the plan was to come to fruition, a long term study of the wildlife impact would be necessary. Bill Ross from Williamson noted that its seems “green jobs” cannot exist without taxpayer money.
Not all residents were in opposition to the offshore wind turbines. John Watson of Wolcott said he favored wind generated power 100%. “I would like to see America become energy independent.” Jim Wood from Sodus said that it was important to remember that the world is facing a crisis created by greenhouse gasses and it is our responsibility to create power where we can. He recommended that people keep an open mind to using wind power in the future.
Mark and Kass Vande from Sodus Point suggested that if Wayne County does not accept the project, somebody else would benefit from it. “We need energy independence,” said Kass.
Following the public hearing, LeRoy again voiced his opposition. Butler Supervisor Dave Spickerman agreed with several speakers at Wednesday’s public hearing that there simply was not enough information to reject all plans at this time. It was noted that although they were invited to speak before the Board and at Wednesday night’s meeting, NYSPA representatives had declined to do so. Any Board opposition quickly evaporated as soon as Ontario Supervisor Bob Kelsch said the deadline for the NYSPA proposals was June 1, 2010. The Board then voted unanimously to reject any and all proposals for the NYSPA suggested proposals
Saturday, April 03, 2010
Pierpont writes article for peer-reviewed clinical journal
April 3, 2010, for immediate release—Dr. Nina Pierpont has been asked by the editor of a leading, peer-reviewed American clinical journal to write a special article on Wind Turbine Syndrome. The journal is published both online and in hard copy, and is aimed primarily at audiologists, otolaryngologists, and neuro-otologists.
Pierpont accepted the invitation. The article will be peer-reviewed before publication and should appear online in the next month or two. Following that, it will be published in the hard copy edition of the journal.
This means, of course, that Pierpont’s research and her findings are being accepted by the clinical medical community.
Big Wind may not take her seriously—but the medical community evidently is beginning to.
Your town board, juiced up by wind salesmen, may not take her seriously—but the international community of otolaryngologists and neuro-otologists evidently is.
How so? Pierpont’s research was presented last month in a paper at the annual meeting of the Ménière’s Society, in Austria. It was widely praised. The presenter is an internationally acclaimed neuro-physiologist specializing in inner ear diseases at a front-rank American medical school.
(Don’t know what Ménière’s Disease is? Click here to find out and see how it is relevant to Wind Turbine Syndrome and why otolaryngologists and neuro-otologists are now closely tracking Pierpont’s research.)
Pierpont now has the technological capability to make presentations, by webcam (Skype), to groups of any size anywhere in the world.
She offers this service, free of charge (pro bono). Contact her at rushton@westelcom.com.
There is more. Pierpont is now using webcam (Skype) to testify as expert witness in lawsuits on wind turbine health effects. (She has been hired by several Midwestern law firms to do just that.) She will be happy to consider testifying as expert witness at your lawsuit, as well—again, by webcam (Skype). (Like all physicians, she charges a fee for giving expert testimony.)
Note that she can testify at foreign lawsuits, as well, so long as there is an interpreter and as long as the court permits it. Contact her at rushton@westelcom.com.
Let the wind developers ridicule Wind Turbine Syndrome in front of a judge, with Pierpont testifying and the international community of otolaryngologists rallying behind her—and the first of doubtless many peer-reviewed clinical articles on Wind Turbine Syndrome in hand.
» If you are a victim of Wind Turbine Syndrome and you’re sick and tired of being dismissed, ridiculed, called a NIMBY, flimflammed, and bullied by wind developers and government agencies, hire a crackerjack lawyer and contact Pierpont at rushton@westelcom.com. Let’s see how Big Wind’s bluster, phony evidence, and ludicrous reports hold up in court.
» If you live in a community which is considering wind turbines, and your town board seems determined to allow inadequate turbine setbacks (anything under 2 km is clinically unacceptable), inform your board that you are more than willing to sue them once the turbines go up. That you will hire Pierpont to give expert testimony against the board. Again, let’s see how Big Wind’s bluster, phony evidence, ludicrous reports, and bogus “experts” fare in court. It will be the greatest show on earth. (Pierpont actually enjoys devouring bozos, including bozo lawyers, in court. With that Yale, Princeton, Hopkins, Dartmouth-trained steeltrap mind, she’s remarkably good at it, in fact.)
Be prepared to win.
Pierpont accepted the invitation. The article will be peer-reviewed before publication and should appear online in the next month or two. Following that, it will be published in the hard copy edition of the journal.
This means, of course, that Pierpont’s research and her findings are being accepted by the clinical medical community.
Big Wind may not take her seriously—but the medical community evidently is beginning to.
Your town board, juiced up by wind salesmen, may not take her seriously—but the international community of otolaryngologists and neuro-otologists evidently is.
How so? Pierpont’s research was presented last month in a paper at the annual meeting of the Ménière’s Society, in Austria. It was widely praised. The presenter is an internationally acclaimed neuro-physiologist specializing in inner ear diseases at a front-rank American medical school.
(Don’t know what Ménière’s Disease is? Click here to find out and see how it is relevant to Wind Turbine Syndrome and why otolaryngologists and neuro-otologists are now closely tracking Pierpont’s research.)
Pierpont now has the technological capability to make presentations, by webcam (Skype), to groups of any size anywhere in the world.
She offers this service, free of charge (pro bono). Contact her at rushton@westelcom.com.
There is more. Pierpont is now using webcam (Skype) to testify as expert witness in lawsuits on wind turbine health effects. (She has been hired by several Midwestern law firms to do just that.) She will be happy to consider testifying as expert witness at your lawsuit, as well—again, by webcam (Skype). (Like all physicians, she charges a fee for giving expert testimony.)
Note that she can testify at foreign lawsuits, as well, so long as there is an interpreter and as long as the court permits it. Contact her at rushton@westelcom.com.
Let the wind developers ridicule Wind Turbine Syndrome in front of a judge, with Pierpont testifying and the international community of otolaryngologists rallying behind her—and the first of doubtless many peer-reviewed clinical articles on Wind Turbine Syndrome in hand.
» If you are a victim of Wind Turbine Syndrome and you’re sick and tired of being dismissed, ridiculed, called a NIMBY, flimflammed, and bullied by wind developers and government agencies, hire a crackerjack lawyer and contact Pierpont at rushton@westelcom.com. Let’s see how Big Wind’s bluster, phony evidence, and ludicrous reports hold up in court.
» If you live in a community which is considering wind turbines, and your town board seems determined to allow inadequate turbine setbacks (anything under 2 km is clinically unacceptable), inform your board that you are more than willing to sue them once the turbines go up. That you will hire Pierpont to give expert testimony against the board. Again, let’s see how Big Wind’s bluster, phony evidence, ludicrous reports, and bogus “experts” fare in court. It will be the greatest show on earth. (Pierpont actually enjoys devouring bozos, including bozo lawyers, in court. With that Yale, Princeton, Hopkins, Dartmouth-trained steeltrap mind, she’s remarkably good at it, in fact.)
Be prepared to win.
First Wind files Amendment 5 to SEC Registration Statement
Lots of great information about the process and financing of wind development in New York State and elsewhere contained in Amendment No. 5 to FORM S-1 REGISTRATION STATEMENT of First Wind Holdings, Inc. before the U.S. SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION, filed March 26, 2010. As we know, New York is desirable for wind development because of a rich wind resource, relatively high electricity rates and its progressive renewable energy policies such as the Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS). Here are some excerpts:
Our Portfolio of Wind Energy Projects
Operating Projects
Cohocton is a 125 MW project in Steuben County, New York. Cohocton commenced commercial operations in January 2009. The project consists of 50 2.5 MW Clipper turbines. Cohocton is the third largest wind project in the state of New York. Similar to Mars Hill (described below), Cohocton qualifies a portion of its energy for New England RECs. The project provides local benefits to the community through property tax revenue and economic development, along with local renewable power sales.
Cohocton wheels approximately 55% of its energy to ISO-NE where its RECs are sold to various counterparties. 40% of Cohocton’s RECs are sold to the New York State Energy Research and Development Authority (NYSERDA) under 10-year, fully financeable contracts. The remaining 5% of Cohocton’s RECs is sold into the voluntary REC market. Cohocton’s power is also sold directly into NYISO Zone C where it receives floating power prices. To stabilize Cohocton’s electricity revenue, we entered into a swap with an affiliate of Credit Suisse for approximately 70% of expected generation through the end of 2014. Cohocton was among the first recipients of an ARRA grant, receiving approximately $76 million in September 2009. The remainder of our construction costs at Cohocton are financed with a combination of senior project debt from HSH Nordbank and Norddeutsche Landesbank Girozentrale and structurally subordinated debt of CSSW, LLC. Our total installed development and construction costs for Cohocton were approximately $270 million, including approximately $10 million of financing-related costs and excluding prepaid turbine maintenance and warranty costs. We estimate Cohocton’s long-term NCF [net capacity factor] will be approximately 25% to 27%, as described further in “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations.”…
Steel Winds I
Steel Winds I, which commenced commercial operations in June 2007, is a 20 MW project on the shores of Lake Erie in Lackawanna, New York, just south of Buffalo. The larger site on which the project is located was formerly a steel mill. The project consists of eight 2.5 MW Clipper turbines, the first turbines of this type Clipper produced. We undertook this project primarily as a means of testing and gaining operating experience with the Clipper wind turbines. The project’s relatively small size allowed us to initially finance the project with 100% equity, which provided more flexibility as we worked with Clipper to understand the technology and deal with start-up issues that can be common in new turbine designs. We anticipate expanding Steel Winds in 2010 to bring the total project size to 35 MW, which we believe will introduce benefits of scale.
For power at Steel Winds I we receive floating power prices within New York Independent System Operator (NYISO) Zone A. To stabilize this revenue, we entered into a swap with an affiliate of Morgan Stanley. The volume of this swap is approximately 95% of Steel Winds’ expected output. This hedge expires at the end of 2016. In January 2010, we entered into a five-year PPA with an affiliate of Just Energy Income Fund for all RECs from the project. Steel Winds I qualifies for PTCs and MACRS depreciation and receives cash payments for electricity and RECs. Our total installed development and construction costs for Steel Winds I were approximately $35 million, excluding prepaid turbine maintenance and warranty costs, and are financed by a combination of equity and structurally subordinated debt of CSSW, LLC. We estimate Steel Winds I’s long-term NCF will be approximately 29% to 31%, as described further in “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations.”…
2010 Projects
… Steel Winds II
Steel Winds II is a 15 MW expansion project in Lackawanna, New York. It will consist of six 2.5 MW Clipper turbines and will use our existing infrastructure, including interconnection equipment and site personnel. We are currently in the process of securing the necessary land and other rights to conduct and operate the project. The project’s System Reliability Impact Study and Facilities Study is complete and we are working towards an interconnection agreement with the New York Independent System Operator (NYISO) and National Grid. While we continue to evaluate alternatives, we anticipate selling power from Steel Winds II directly into the market through NYISO Zone A and hedging our revenue with a financial swap. We estimate that our total installed development and construction costs for Steel Winds II will be approximately $40 million, including approximately $5 million of financing-related costs and excluding prepaid turbine maintenance and warranty costs. We estimate that Steel Winds II’s long-term NCF will be approximately 28% to 30%….
Purchase of Prattsburgh Real Property
On February 22, 2008, we entered into a purchase agreement with Windfarm Prattsburgh, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company and our indirect wholly owned subsidiary; UPC Wind Partners II, LLC; and BEC New York Properties, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company that is owned by Brian Caffyn, with respect to a parcel of land situated in the town of Prattsburgh, New York pursuant to which Windfarm Prattsburgh, LLC purchased the parcel of land from BEC New York Properties, LLC. Windfarm Prattsburgh, LLC agreed to purchase the parcel for (i) consideration of 152,527 Series A Units in UPC Wind Partners LLC to be granted to UPC Wind Partners II, LLC as the seller’s designee and (ii) a payment of $23,000 from Windfarm Prattsburgh, LLC to BEC New York Properties, LLC. In connection with that transaction, First Wind Holdings, LLC granted 152,527 Series A Units for non-cash consideration to UPC Wind Partners II, LLC….
Project Development Costs
… Should the Company decide to abandon or discontinue development of a Tier 1 project, previously capitalized costs are charged to expense in the period that such determination is made. At December 31, 2008, the Company determined that it was more likely than not that it would discontinue development of its Prattsburgh I project, which is located in New York. Upon reaching this determination, previously capitalized development costs of $3.5 million were expensed in December 2008 and included in project development expenditures in the statement of operations. In December 2009, the Company discontinued the development of the Prattsburgh I project….
Legal Proceedings
The Company is involved from time to time in litigation and disputes arising in the normal course of business, including proceedings contesting our permits or the operation of our projects. Management does not believe the following proceedings will, if determined adversely, have a material adverse effect on the financial condition, results of operations and liquidity of the Company:
On July 15, 2008, the Company was served with a civil subpoena by the New York State Attorney General relating to an investigation into its activities in the State of New York. In response to the subpoena, First Wind produced documents and information relating principally to the New York State Attorney General’s investigation into: (i) whether the Company improperly sought or obtained land-use agreements with citizens and public officials, (ii) whether improper benefits were given to public officials to influence their actions and (iii) whether the Company and its competitors entered into anti-competitive agreements or practices. The Company cooperated fully with the requests of the New York State Attorney General, with the assistance of outside counsel. Outside counsel also conducted its own internal investigation on behalf of the Company. On October 29, 2008, the Company voluntarily agreed to implement a Code of Conduct, created by the New York State Attorney General to govern the Company’s future conduct in connection with wind energy project development in New York State. The Company entered into a subsequent version of the New York code in October 2009. The Company has been advised by the New York State Attorney General’s office that it is not currently under investigation….
Source: First Wind SEC filing. See also “Wind-Power Developer First Wind To Price IPO In April” from Dow Jones (3/31)
Our Portfolio of Wind Energy Projects
Operating Projects
Cohocton is a 125 MW project in Steuben County, New York. Cohocton commenced commercial operations in January 2009. The project consists of 50 2.5 MW Clipper turbines. Cohocton is the third largest wind project in the state of New York. Similar to Mars Hill (described below), Cohocton qualifies a portion of its energy for New England RECs. The project provides local benefits to the community through property tax revenue and economic development, along with local renewable power sales.
Cohocton wheels approximately 55% of its energy to ISO-NE where its RECs are sold to various counterparties. 40% of Cohocton’s RECs are sold to the New York State Energy Research and Development Authority (NYSERDA) under 10-year, fully financeable contracts. The remaining 5% of Cohocton’s RECs is sold into the voluntary REC market. Cohocton’s power is also sold directly into NYISO Zone C where it receives floating power prices. To stabilize Cohocton’s electricity revenue, we entered into a swap with an affiliate of Credit Suisse for approximately 70% of expected generation through the end of 2014. Cohocton was among the first recipients of an ARRA grant, receiving approximately $76 million in September 2009. The remainder of our construction costs at Cohocton are financed with a combination of senior project debt from HSH Nordbank and Norddeutsche Landesbank Girozentrale and structurally subordinated debt of CSSW, LLC. Our total installed development and construction costs for Cohocton were approximately $270 million, including approximately $10 million of financing-related costs and excluding prepaid turbine maintenance and warranty costs. We estimate Cohocton’s long-term NCF [net capacity factor] will be approximately 25% to 27%, as described further in “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations.”…
Steel Winds I
Steel Winds I, which commenced commercial operations in June 2007, is a 20 MW project on the shores of Lake Erie in Lackawanna, New York, just south of Buffalo. The larger site on which the project is located was formerly a steel mill. The project consists of eight 2.5 MW Clipper turbines, the first turbines of this type Clipper produced. We undertook this project primarily as a means of testing and gaining operating experience with the Clipper wind turbines. The project’s relatively small size allowed us to initially finance the project with 100% equity, which provided more flexibility as we worked with Clipper to understand the technology and deal with start-up issues that can be common in new turbine designs. We anticipate expanding Steel Winds in 2010 to bring the total project size to 35 MW, which we believe will introduce benefits of scale.
For power at Steel Winds I we receive floating power prices within New York Independent System Operator (NYISO) Zone A. To stabilize this revenue, we entered into a swap with an affiliate of Morgan Stanley. The volume of this swap is approximately 95% of Steel Winds’ expected output. This hedge expires at the end of 2016. In January 2010, we entered into a five-year PPA with an affiliate of Just Energy Income Fund for all RECs from the project. Steel Winds I qualifies for PTCs and MACRS depreciation and receives cash payments for electricity and RECs. Our total installed development and construction costs for Steel Winds I were approximately $35 million, excluding prepaid turbine maintenance and warranty costs, and are financed by a combination of equity and structurally subordinated debt of CSSW, LLC. We estimate Steel Winds I’s long-term NCF will be approximately 29% to 31%, as described further in “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations.”…
2010 Projects
… Steel Winds II
Steel Winds II is a 15 MW expansion project in Lackawanna, New York. It will consist of six 2.5 MW Clipper turbines and will use our existing infrastructure, including interconnection equipment and site personnel. We are currently in the process of securing the necessary land and other rights to conduct and operate the project. The project’s System Reliability Impact Study and Facilities Study is complete and we are working towards an interconnection agreement with the New York Independent System Operator (NYISO) and National Grid. While we continue to evaluate alternatives, we anticipate selling power from Steel Winds II directly into the market through NYISO Zone A and hedging our revenue with a financial swap. We estimate that our total installed development and construction costs for Steel Winds II will be approximately $40 million, including approximately $5 million of financing-related costs and excluding prepaid turbine maintenance and warranty costs. We estimate that Steel Winds II’s long-term NCF will be approximately 28% to 30%….
Purchase of Prattsburgh Real Property
On February 22, 2008, we entered into a purchase agreement with Windfarm Prattsburgh, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company and our indirect wholly owned subsidiary; UPC Wind Partners II, LLC; and BEC New York Properties, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company that is owned by Brian Caffyn, with respect to a parcel of land situated in the town of Prattsburgh, New York pursuant to which Windfarm Prattsburgh, LLC purchased the parcel of land from BEC New York Properties, LLC. Windfarm Prattsburgh, LLC agreed to purchase the parcel for (i) consideration of 152,527 Series A Units in UPC Wind Partners LLC to be granted to UPC Wind Partners II, LLC as the seller’s designee and (ii) a payment of $23,000 from Windfarm Prattsburgh, LLC to BEC New York Properties, LLC. In connection with that transaction, First Wind Holdings, LLC granted 152,527 Series A Units for non-cash consideration to UPC Wind Partners II, LLC….
Project Development Costs
… Should the Company decide to abandon or discontinue development of a Tier 1 project, previously capitalized costs are charged to expense in the period that such determination is made. At December 31, 2008, the Company determined that it was more likely than not that it would discontinue development of its Prattsburgh I project, which is located in New York. Upon reaching this determination, previously capitalized development costs of $3.5 million were expensed in December 2008 and included in project development expenditures in the statement of operations. In December 2009, the Company discontinued the development of the Prattsburgh I project….
Legal Proceedings
The Company is involved from time to time in litigation and disputes arising in the normal course of business, including proceedings contesting our permits or the operation of our projects. Management does not believe the following proceedings will, if determined adversely, have a material adverse effect on the financial condition, results of operations and liquidity of the Company:
On July 15, 2008, the Company was served with a civil subpoena by the New York State Attorney General relating to an investigation into its activities in the State of New York. In response to the subpoena, First Wind produced documents and information relating principally to the New York State Attorney General’s investigation into: (i) whether the Company improperly sought or obtained land-use agreements with citizens and public officials, (ii) whether improper benefits were given to public officials to influence their actions and (iii) whether the Company and its competitors entered into anti-competitive agreements or practices. The Company cooperated fully with the requests of the New York State Attorney General, with the assistance of outside counsel. Outside counsel also conducted its own internal investigation on behalf of the Company. On October 29, 2008, the Company voluntarily agreed to implement a Code of Conduct, created by the New York State Attorney General to govern the Company’s future conduct in connection with wind energy project development in New York State. The Company entered into a subsequent version of the New York code in October 2009. The Company has been advised by the New York State Attorney General’s office that it is not currently under investigation….
Source: First Wind SEC filing. See also “Wind-Power Developer First Wind To Price IPO In April” from Dow Jones (3/31)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)