The developer of the Galloo Island Wind Farm told north country contractors Friday he is pushing construction back a year, blaming a lawsuit the town of Henderson filed against the town of Hounsfield.
"Upstate had hoped to start this year," said Robert W. Burgdorf, a representative of developer Upstate NY Power Corp. "But at this point, it's pretty clear, there are still permitting issues and a lawsuit with the town of Henderson."
The remarks were made during a briefing attended by more than 200 business owners, union representatives and contractors Friday at the Watertown Elks Club. The event was organized by the developer and the Jefferson County Industrial Development Agency.
The developer said the delay is unrelated to the New York Power Authority's refusal to buy power from this or any other wind farm based in Jefferson County.
"We're some time from the project starting," Mr. Burgdorf said. "We're here to learn what resources and expertise are available so maybe we can design the project to use them better."
Upstate NY Power had pushed for local approvals to be done by the end of 2009 so it could secure financing and start construction by the end of 2010 to make the project eligible for a 30 percent rebate through federal stimulus money.
The developers persuaded JCIDA to stop work on a model payment-in-lieu-of-taxes agreement to work on one for the Galloo Island site, then pushed that PILOT agreement through a badly divided Jefferson County Legislature.
The primary reason for the rush, Mr. Burgdorf told the JCIDA and the Legislature late last year, was the 2010 expiration of federal legislation giving alternative energy projects such as wind power a 30 percent construction cost rebate. Under that plan, construction had to start before the program expired.
"It looks like the grants are going to be extended for another year, which gives us a little breathing room," Mr. Burgdorf said. "The goal is to catch the 2011 season, but that's only a goal."
The site plan for the project says housing for construction workers will hold up to 130 people. Typically, about 50 to 100 workers will be on the island during the three construction seasons, in 2011, 2012 and 2013. The peak is expected to be in 2012, with 125 workers on site.
The transmission line represents an additionalr 110 to 150 jobs, Mr. Burgdorf said.
"If it goes in the water, which is what the legislators wanted, there won't be much in the way of jobs," he said. "But if it's the proposed route or another alternative route, it could add a significant number of jobs."
In November, the county Board of Legislators called for the transmission line to take a direct underwater route to Scriba. But when the payment-in-lieu-of-taxes agreement was approved in February, the legislators understood that the developer had agreed to switch its preferred route to one that ran through Hounsfield to National Grid's Coffeen Street substation.
Mr. Burgdorf touted additional indirect jobs through suppliers and movers, as well as jobs in restaurants, lodging and retail. He said the developer has yet to select a general contractor or choose a turbine model.
Contractors and business owners said they attended because of the business opportunity.
"We poured the concrete with the Maple Ridge project," said James L. Hagan of Northland Associates, Syracuse. "We're very interested in pouring the concrete with this project."
Donald C. Alexander, chief executive officer of the Jefferson County Industrial Development Agency, said, "This demonstrates the interest in economic development projects in the community. We need to stimulate these types of things."
Saturday, May 08, 2010
Friday, May 07, 2010
Group asks AG to probe official of First Wind by Naomi Schalit
AUGUSTA, Maine — A citizens' group has asked Maine's Attorney General to investigate former Public Utilities Commission Chairman Kurt Adams after revelations that he accepted a grant of "equity units" in a wind power company while still on the state's payroll.
Adams left the commission in May 2008 to go to work as senior vice president for First Wind and said the equity units “had no value at all” and thus should not trigger state conflict of interest or improper gift laws.
The two co-chairs of the Citizens Task Force on Wind Power, Steve Thurston, a part-time resident of Roxbury, and Monique Aniel of Mexico, wrote the letter to Mills requesting the investigation. When the grant of equity shares to Adams was revealed, Thurston said he felt he had to act. “This is troubling to me,” he said. “Somebody needs to get to the bottom of this, these issues need to be investigated.”
A spokeswoman for Attorney General Janet Mills was noncommittal when asked whether the AG’s office is investigating Adams.
Kate Simmons at first said her office does not comment on current investigations. Asked, “There is no investigation yet?” Simmons replied, “How do you know?”
The Maine Center for Public Interest Reporting learned this week that the revelations about Adams have prompted First Wind to review its hiring of Adams. A spokesman for the energy company, John Lamontagne, said, “We are confident the review will conclude that the company and Mr. Adams acted properly.”
A message left for Adams on Thursday was not returned. An e-mail to First Wind requesting comment from Adams drew a response from the company’s spokesman. “Kurt is unavailable for comment,” responded Lamontagne.
An earlier story by the Center reported that Adams received 1.2 million units of equity while still at the commission. First Wind has not put a value on the equity units in its Securities and Exchange Commission filings. The company said the units of equity are not the same as stock options.
A recent First Wind filing with the federal SEC for 2009 shows Adams’ $1.3 million compensation included $315,000 in salary, $658,000 in stock awards, $29,000 of “other” compensation and $315,000 in “nonequity incentives.”
First Wind constructs, operates and owns wind turbines across the country, including farms at Mars Hill and at Stetson Mountain. Two other projects are in the works for Maine in Oakfield and Rollins Mountain in Lincoln.
Adams said in a previous interview that at the time they were awarded to him, the equity units — which he called “stock” in an interview with the Center — had “no value at all” and therefore shouldn’t fall under any state laws that bar improper gifts to public officials.
Under state law it is a criminal violation if a “public servant ... solicits, accepts or agrees to accept any pecuniary benefit from a person if the public servant knows or reasonably should know that the purpose of the donor in making the gift is to influence the public servant in the performance of the public servant’s official duties or vote, or is intended as a reward for action on the part of the public servant.”
Another development in the case came to light when the Center filed a Freedom of Access Act request for PUC records related to Adams’ dealings with wind power companies.
Those records appear to contradict Adams’ earlier statements about when he recused himself from matters concerning First Wind.
In an April interview, Adams told the Center that he had only negotiated with First Wind for a short time before he signed a contract with them in 2008. Adams told the Center that to ensure no conflicts occurred, “when I was at the PUC, I recused myself from anything related to First Wind from when I accepted employment to when I left.”
But there’s confusion about when Adams signed that contract: Despite the fact that a First Wind filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission declared he had signed the contract in May 2008, both Adams and First Wind attorney Paul Wilson say that he signed the contract in April 2008. Wilson attributed the confusion to a “clerical error.”
The confusion continues: According to the documents recently obtained by the Center, Adams actually began recusing himself from First Wind-related issues in December 2007. During Adams’ tenure as PUC chairman, the agency took what veteran Washington, D.C., utilities attorney Greg Williams called an “unusual” intervention with federal regulators to help out First Wind’s Stetson Mountain wind farm.
Stetson had been excluded by the regional transmission authority from a potentially lucrative power auction because of problems with transmission of its power, and the commission ultimately lodged a protest of that exclusion.
The PUC records obtained under the Center’s request regarding that intervention show that staff and commissioners were discussing the issue in December 2007, more than four months before Adams said he signed a contract with First Wind and first recused himself.
In an e-mail dated Dec. 12, 2007, from Kurt Adams to staff attorney Lisa Fink — cc’d to commissioners Sharon Reishus and Vendean Vafiades — whose subject line is “RE: Stetson Wind — FCM letter from ISO” Adams wrote:
“I am aware of a potential conflict that I have with this matter. It just popped up. Can you take me out of the loop on this for now? Thanks, K”
During a Dec. 17, 2007, commission meeting, Adams recused himself from discussion about item number 14 on the agenda, which was a discussion of the Stetson Wind case — and left the room. The audio recording of the meeting was provided to the Center.
“Now the record can reflect I’m leaving the bench,” Adams said in the recording. An unidentified female voice in the background of the digital recording said, “He says he’s got some kind of potential conflict.”
In neither of the two instances did Adams refer specifically to the nature of the conflict.
PUC attorney Joanne Steneck said there is no written record of why Adams recused himself in the First Wind-related matters in December 2007.
The task force, whose leaders filed the request for an investigation, is an informal coalition of local groups, many of which are fighting wind power developments. Co-chair Thurston’s great-grandfather built a camp on Roxbury Pond in 1925 that’s still owned by his family and he and others around the pond are battling a proposal from a company led by former Gov. Angus King to put turbines on the ridge surrounding the pond.
The Maine Center for Public Interest Reporting is a nonpartisan, nonprofit journalism organization based in Hallowell. It may be reached at mainecenter@gmail.com. The website is pinetreewatchdog.org.
Adams left the commission in May 2008 to go to work as senior vice president for First Wind and said the equity units “had no value at all” and thus should not trigger state conflict of interest or improper gift laws.
The two co-chairs of the Citizens Task Force on Wind Power, Steve Thurston, a part-time resident of Roxbury, and Monique Aniel of Mexico, wrote the letter to Mills requesting the investigation. When the grant of equity shares to Adams was revealed, Thurston said he felt he had to act. “This is troubling to me,” he said. “Somebody needs to get to the bottom of this, these issues need to be investigated.”
A spokeswoman for Attorney General Janet Mills was noncommittal when asked whether the AG’s office is investigating Adams.
Kate Simmons at first said her office does not comment on current investigations. Asked, “There is no investigation yet?” Simmons replied, “How do you know?”
The Maine Center for Public Interest Reporting learned this week that the revelations about Adams have prompted First Wind to review its hiring of Adams. A spokesman for the energy company, John Lamontagne, said, “We are confident the review will conclude that the company and Mr. Adams acted properly.”
A message left for Adams on Thursday was not returned. An e-mail to First Wind requesting comment from Adams drew a response from the company’s spokesman. “Kurt is unavailable for comment,” responded Lamontagne.
An earlier story by the Center reported that Adams received 1.2 million units of equity while still at the commission. First Wind has not put a value on the equity units in its Securities and Exchange Commission filings. The company said the units of equity are not the same as stock options.
A recent First Wind filing with the federal SEC for 2009 shows Adams’ $1.3 million compensation included $315,000 in salary, $658,000 in stock awards, $29,000 of “other” compensation and $315,000 in “nonequity incentives.”
First Wind constructs, operates and owns wind turbines across the country, including farms at Mars Hill and at Stetson Mountain. Two other projects are in the works for Maine in Oakfield and Rollins Mountain in Lincoln.
Adams said in a previous interview that at the time they were awarded to him, the equity units — which he called “stock” in an interview with the Center — had “no value at all” and therefore shouldn’t fall under any state laws that bar improper gifts to public officials.
Under state law it is a criminal violation if a “public servant ... solicits, accepts or agrees to accept any pecuniary benefit from a person if the public servant knows or reasonably should know that the purpose of the donor in making the gift is to influence the public servant in the performance of the public servant’s official duties or vote, or is intended as a reward for action on the part of the public servant.”
Another development in the case came to light when the Center filed a Freedom of Access Act request for PUC records related to Adams’ dealings with wind power companies.
Those records appear to contradict Adams’ earlier statements about when he recused himself from matters concerning First Wind.
In an April interview, Adams told the Center that he had only negotiated with First Wind for a short time before he signed a contract with them in 2008. Adams told the Center that to ensure no conflicts occurred, “when I was at the PUC, I recused myself from anything related to First Wind from when I accepted employment to when I left.”
But there’s confusion about when Adams signed that contract: Despite the fact that a First Wind filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission declared he had signed the contract in May 2008, both Adams and First Wind attorney Paul Wilson say that he signed the contract in April 2008. Wilson attributed the confusion to a “clerical error.”
The confusion continues: According to the documents recently obtained by the Center, Adams actually began recusing himself from First Wind-related issues in December 2007. During Adams’ tenure as PUC chairman, the agency took what veteran Washington, D.C., utilities attorney Greg Williams called an “unusual” intervention with federal regulators to help out First Wind’s Stetson Mountain wind farm.
Stetson had been excluded by the regional transmission authority from a potentially lucrative power auction because of problems with transmission of its power, and the commission ultimately lodged a protest of that exclusion.
The PUC records obtained under the Center’s request regarding that intervention show that staff and commissioners were discussing the issue in December 2007, more than four months before Adams said he signed a contract with First Wind and first recused himself.
In an e-mail dated Dec. 12, 2007, from Kurt Adams to staff attorney Lisa Fink — cc’d to commissioners Sharon Reishus and Vendean Vafiades — whose subject line is “RE: Stetson Wind — FCM letter from ISO” Adams wrote:
“I am aware of a potential conflict that I have with this matter. It just popped up. Can you take me out of the loop on this for now? Thanks, K”
During a Dec. 17, 2007, commission meeting, Adams recused himself from discussion about item number 14 on the agenda, which was a discussion of the Stetson Wind case — and left the room. The audio recording of the meeting was provided to the Center.
“Now the record can reflect I’m leaving the bench,” Adams said in the recording. An unidentified female voice in the background of the digital recording said, “He says he’s got some kind of potential conflict.”
In neither of the two instances did Adams refer specifically to the nature of the conflict.
PUC attorney Joanne Steneck said there is no written record of why Adams recused himself in the First Wind-related matters in December 2007.
The task force, whose leaders filed the request for an investigation, is an informal coalition of local groups, many of which are fighting wind power developments. Co-chair Thurston’s great-grandfather built a camp on Roxbury Pond in 1925 that’s still owned by his family and he and others around the pond are battling a proposal from a company led by former Gov. Angus King to put turbines on the ridge surrounding the pond.
The Maine Center for Public Interest Reporting is a nonpartisan, nonprofit journalism organization based in Hallowell. It may be reached at mainecenter@gmail.com. The website is pinetreewatchdog.org.
North wind farm market dries up
Four proposed wind farms in Jefferson County will never get off the drawing board unless they can find someone to buy their power. And the most likely buyer — the New York Power Authority — has refused to purchase any electricity generated by wind here.
The decision is in retaliation to the county Legislature's 14-0 vote in March to oppose NYPA's plan to put wind turbines in Lake Ontario.
"We have no plans to enter into any agreement in Jefferson County based on the vote of the county legislature," said Richard M. Kessel, president and chief executive officer of New York Power Authority. "We respect their decision, and we won't place any of our wind turbines in the area, but we won't enter into any agreement with any wind power project in the county."
In Jefferson County, Acciona Wind Energy USA's St. Lawrence Wind Farm, BP Alternative Energy's Cape Vincent Wind Farm and Iberdrola's Horse Creek Wind Farm are still in the local approval process.
But the one approved project that is most threatened by NYPA's refusal is Galloo Island Wind Farm.
Developer Upstate NY Power Corp and backer Pattern Energy Group LP, San Francisco, need to find $500 million from investors just to cover the cost of putting the project on the island.
Investors don't want to bank on the price of electricity alone, because that fluctuates. And right now, electricity prices remain low — 2009 brought the lowest average price for electricity on the wholesale market run by the New York Independent System Operator in its 10-year history.
So to finance its project, Upstate NY Power will need to show it can bring solid returns to banks and other investors for years to come.
To do so, it will need the stability of a power purchase agreement, a guarantee from a utility or large end-user that it will buy Upstate's electricity. Those agreements generally last 10 years.
Without that or a contract with the state for renewable energy credits from the power that is deemed environmentally friendly, it becomes "much more difficult to get financing," said Carol E. Murphy, executive director of the Alliance for Clean Energy New York.
"You need to have something to show the bank," she said.
For electricity producers in New York, NYPA is a natural buyer as the largest state-owned power organization in the country. Jefferson County wind producers won't have that option.
Upstate NY Power representative Robert W. Burgdorf, attorney with Nixon Peabody, Rochester, refused to confirm that the developer has already been turned down by NYPA.
He acknowledged that the developer doesn't have an agreement to sell electricity yet, and added, "It's part of a typical wind project to search for one."
The developer could get an agreement with another utility or end user or try to tap into the state's Renewable Portfolio Standard. Through the New York State Energy Research and Development Authority, the state offers 10-year contracts for renewable energy credits in a competitive bidding process. The electricity is still sold on the state's wholesale market.
The most recent state contracts were announced in March to eight of 29 proposals.
Lewis County's Maple Ridge Wind Farm secured a contract in the first round of the program's funding.
The project also has a 10-year contract with NSTAR Green in Massachusetts to provide 30 megawatts of power to that green arm of NSTAR Electric.
Ms. Murphy said the agreements aren't just good for developers — they're also good for utilities and large users, so they can better predict what their long-range electricity costs will be.
"And for the utility, large user or power authority, it's really a hedge against the volatility of the gas and oil market," Ms. Murphy said.
The decision is in retaliation to the county Legislature's 14-0 vote in March to oppose NYPA's plan to put wind turbines in Lake Ontario.
"We have no plans to enter into any agreement in Jefferson County based on the vote of the county legislature," said Richard M. Kessel, president and chief executive officer of New York Power Authority. "We respect their decision, and we won't place any of our wind turbines in the area, but we won't enter into any agreement with any wind power project in the county."
In Jefferson County, Acciona Wind Energy USA's St. Lawrence Wind Farm, BP Alternative Energy's Cape Vincent Wind Farm and Iberdrola's Horse Creek Wind Farm are still in the local approval process.
But the one approved project that is most threatened by NYPA's refusal is Galloo Island Wind Farm.
Developer Upstate NY Power Corp and backer Pattern Energy Group LP, San Francisco, need to find $500 million from investors just to cover the cost of putting the project on the island.
Investors don't want to bank on the price of electricity alone, because that fluctuates. And right now, electricity prices remain low — 2009 brought the lowest average price for electricity on the wholesale market run by the New York Independent System Operator in its 10-year history.
So to finance its project, Upstate NY Power will need to show it can bring solid returns to banks and other investors for years to come.
To do so, it will need the stability of a power purchase agreement, a guarantee from a utility or large end-user that it will buy Upstate's electricity. Those agreements generally last 10 years.
Without that or a contract with the state for renewable energy credits from the power that is deemed environmentally friendly, it becomes "much more difficult to get financing," said Carol E. Murphy, executive director of the Alliance for Clean Energy New York.
"You need to have something to show the bank," she said.
For electricity producers in New York, NYPA is a natural buyer as the largest state-owned power organization in the country. Jefferson County wind producers won't have that option.
Upstate NY Power representative Robert W. Burgdorf, attorney with Nixon Peabody, Rochester, refused to confirm that the developer has already been turned down by NYPA.
He acknowledged that the developer doesn't have an agreement to sell electricity yet, and added, "It's part of a typical wind project to search for one."
The developer could get an agreement with another utility or end user or try to tap into the state's Renewable Portfolio Standard. Through the New York State Energy Research and Development Authority, the state offers 10-year contracts for renewable energy credits in a competitive bidding process. The electricity is still sold on the state's wholesale market.
The most recent state contracts were announced in March to eight of 29 proposals.
Lewis County's Maple Ridge Wind Farm secured a contract in the first round of the program's funding.
The project also has a 10-year contract with NSTAR Green in Massachusetts to provide 30 megawatts of power to that green arm of NSTAR Electric.
Ms. Murphy said the agreements aren't just good for developers — they're also good for utilities and large users, so they can better predict what their long-range electricity costs will be.
"And for the utility, large user or power authority, it's really a hedge against the volatility of the gas and oil market," Ms. Murphy said.
Thursday, May 06, 2010
Changes to Alabama wind farm
ALABAMA - A public session was held Wednesday to discuss the changes made to the Alabama Ledge Wind Farm Project.
A Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) that studies the effect the wind turbines might have on the area has already been prepared, but since project developer Horizon LLC is proposing changes to the project, the Town Board has required the company to complete a supplemental DEIS.
The public meeting was held to establish what town residents would like the supplemental DEIS to include, based on the changes proposed to the project.
Project manager for Horizon, Gary Davidson explained that in a nutshell, the changes have made the project smaller.
"Basically, we expect the new studies to show an overall reduction in environmental impacts because the project is smaller," he said.
In 2008, the wind farm was to include 56 turbines that ranged anywhere from 80 megawatts to 117 megawatts. Now, there will be a no more than 40 turbines with a maximum capacity of 80 megawatts of power.
The number of overhead collection power lines will also be reduced, and Davidson said that most if not all lines can be run underground now. The project will call for less access roads, about 18.7 miles total. Originally, 23 miles were requested.
Besides a reduction in the number of turbines, the locations of the turbines that remain will be shifted to accomodate the environment, agricultural impacts, and surrounding landowners, said Davidson.
The location of the substation is proposed to be south of White Road and Judge Road.
After Davidson explained the proposed changes to the project, Andrew Reilly spoke to the public about where the town is in regard to the overall project.
Reilly is a consultant from Wendel Duchscherer Architects and Engineers. He was hired by the town to oversee the process and to help board members and residents of the town to understand how SEQR works.
Reilly said, "Tonight is all about generating enough information to make a rational decision about this project. After comments from this evening, the Town Board can direct the applicant (Horizon) to answer to these concerns in the supplemental DEIS."
Dave Bencic, a resident of Batavia-Oakfield Town Line Road, took the opportunity to air his concerns. He mentioned that geese and other birds are always in the sky around where the turbines are proposed to be.
He said that the DEIS estimates that 166 birds will be killed a year, but the document claims that there are so many birds in the area, that number won't make a significant impact. Bencic also mentioned that there are bald eagles in the area.
Bencic wondered what would happen once there are dead birds laying around the bases of the turbines. He assumed that they would attract coyotes, wild dogs, and turkey vultures. The turkey vultures drawn to the carcasses could easily be killed by the turbines as well.
He went on to ask questions about television reception near turbines, wondering if the new digital signals were studied in the DEIS and requesting that it be revisited in the supplemental DEIS.
Bencic also asked about the possiblity of well water loss, and demanded that Horizon be forced to incur expenses to provide acceptable water if their project causes a loss in well water to surrounding homes and farms.
He pointed out that in the DEIS, as a solution to "shadow flicker" in homes, it suggests that homeowners close their shades or install shutters. Bencic says that his house on Town Line Road will experience flickering sunlight through the blades of five different turbines at different times during the day. He asked that the Town Board not accept the installation of shades as a remedy for shadow flicker.
As he concluded his list of concerns, Bencic insinuated that Horizon has attempted to, "... glaze over liability and danger to make (the project) appear safe and risk free."
He pleaded with the Town Board to review the DEIS, the supplemental and the final impact statement (once they are completed) and to just say no to the project altogether for the safety of Alabama.
A few residents of the town questioned whether or not Horizon was going to take their comments seriously. Davidson said that they would address all issues in the supplemental, but it will be up to the Town Board to decide what issues are included.
Board member Max Maerten said he planned to make the supplemental DEIS as detailed as possible.
"I can't ask a single person in this town to put something up in their backyard that I wouldn't want to put up in mine," he said. He said he has been taking the project very seriously and has been going over all information with a fine-toothed comb.
"We don't take any of your comments lightly," he assured residents. "We just want to know what it is that needs further study so we can make sure Horizon takes care of it in the supplemental DEIS."
Residents of Alabama have until May 15 to submit written comments regarding the proposed wind farm and it's impacts to the environment to the town hall.
A Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) that studies the effect the wind turbines might have on the area has already been prepared, but since project developer Horizon LLC is proposing changes to the project, the Town Board has required the company to complete a supplemental DEIS.
The public meeting was held to establish what town residents would like the supplemental DEIS to include, based on the changes proposed to the project.
Project manager for Horizon, Gary Davidson explained that in a nutshell, the changes have made the project smaller.
"Basically, we expect the new studies to show an overall reduction in environmental impacts because the project is smaller," he said.
In 2008, the wind farm was to include 56 turbines that ranged anywhere from 80 megawatts to 117 megawatts. Now, there will be a no more than 40 turbines with a maximum capacity of 80 megawatts of power.
The number of overhead collection power lines will also be reduced, and Davidson said that most if not all lines can be run underground now. The project will call for less access roads, about 18.7 miles total. Originally, 23 miles were requested.
Besides a reduction in the number of turbines, the locations of the turbines that remain will be shifted to accomodate the environment, agricultural impacts, and surrounding landowners, said Davidson.
The location of the substation is proposed to be south of White Road and Judge Road.
After Davidson explained the proposed changes to the project, Andrew Reilly spoke to the public about where the town is in regard to the overall project.
Reilly is a consultant from Wendel Duchscherer Architects and Engineers. He was hired by the town to oversee the process and to help board members and residents of the town to understand how SEQR works.
Reilly said, "Tonight is all about generating enough information to make a rational decision about this project. After comments from this evening, the Town Board can direct the applicant (Horizon) to answer to these concerns in the supplemental DEIS."
Dave Bencic, a resident of Batavia-Oakfield Town Line Road, took the opportunity to air his concerns. He mentioned that geese and other birds are always in the sky around where the turbines are proposed to be.
He said that the DEIS estimates that 166 birds will be killed a year, but the document claims that there are so many birds in the area, that number won't make a significant impact. Bencic also mentioned that there are bald eagles in the area.
Bencic wondered what would happen once there are dead birds laying around the bases of the turbines. He assumed that they would attract coyotes, wild dogs, and turkey vultures. The turkey vultures drawn to the carcasses could easily be killed by the turbines as well.
He went on to ask questions about television reception near turbines, wondering if the new digital signals were studied in the DEIS and requesting that it be revisited in the supplemental DEIS.
Bencic also asked about the possiblity of well water loss, and demanded that Horizon be forced to incur expenses to provide acceptable water if their project causes a loss in well water to surrounding homes and farms.
He pointed out that in the DEIS, as a solution to "shadow flicker" in homes, it suggests that homeowners close their shades or install shutters. Bencic says that his house on Town Line Road will experience flickering sunlight through the blades of five different turbines at different times during the day. He asked that the Town Board not accept the installation of shades as a remedy for shadow flicker.
As he concluded his list of concerns, Bencic insinuated that Horizon has attempted to, "... glaze over liability and danger to make (the project) appear safe and risk free."
He pleaded with the Town Board to review the DEIS, the supplemental and the final impact statement (once they are completed) and to just say no to the project altogether for the safety of Alabama.
A few residents of the town questioned whether or not Horizon was going to take their comments seriously. Davidson said that they would address all issues in the supplemental, but it will be up to the Town Board to decide what issues are included.
Board member Max Maerten said he planned to make the supplemental DEIS as detailed as possible.
"I can't ask a single person in this town to put something up in their backyard that I wouldn't want to put up in mine," he said. He said he has been taking the project very seriously and has been going over all information with a fine-toothed comb.
"We don't take any of your comments lightly," he assured residents. "We just want to know what it is that needs further study so we can make sure Horizon takes care of it in the supplemental DEIS."
Residents of Alabama have until May 15 to submit written comments regarding the proposed wind farm and it's impacts to the environment to the town hall.
Crime Inc.: What the 'Greening of America' Really Means
NEW YORK — It's a safe bet that most Americans' first exposure to the concept of carbon trading or cap-and-trade legislation came during the most recent presidential campaign when both candidates advocated the need to make protecting the environment a government mandate instead of the moral obligation it's always been. In the past few months President Barack Obama has repeatedly stated that a comprehensive energy/environmental law, including cap-and-trade, is an absolute priority of his administration.
Cap-and-Trade
Simply put, the idea behind the cap-and-trade plan is this: The federal government would set limits or cap the amount of pollutant a business could create. If the business chose to emit levels exceeding the cap they would have to find a business not using its full allotment and purchase the surplus from them. Needless-to-say, for the concept to work there would need to be a highly centralized infrastructure to facilitate the transactions, matching buyers to sellers.
The CCX: A Dream Come True?
For people like Richard Sandor and former Vice-President Al Gore the focus on "green politics" represented the culmination of years of planning and a giant step towards a massive payday.
With a big helping hand from then Illinois State Senator Barack Obama, Sandor's brainchild, The Chicago Climate Exchange, opened for business in 2003 billing itself as "North America's only cap-and-trade system for greenhouse gases..." In other words, the facilitator for a scheme not quite hatched. Sandor, a long-time economist turned environmentalist shared his vision during a 1990 interview with the Wall Street Journal, saying, "Air and water are no longer the free goods that economics once assumed. They must be redefined as property rights so that they can be efficiently allocated." The statement didn't get a lot of attention back then but today seems prophetic. Sandor claims his idea of efficient allocation, also known as carbon trading, will develop into a $10 trillion industry.
Assembling the Team
During 2000 and 2001, the Joyce Foundation, a progressive trust with assets near $1 billion, known for funding groups like Center for American Progress and Tides Foundation, provided grants to CCX totaling $1.1 million. State Senator Obama served on the foundation's board of directors during that time and was instrumental in awarding the grants.
Shortly after the first grant was approved, the president of The Joyce Foundation, Paula DiPerna, left to join the executive team of CCX. Other notables with familiar names soon followed.
• Former Vice-President Al Gore became part-owner of CCX when his company, Generation Investment Management, made a sizeable investment. Gore brought with him his senior partner at GIM, David Blood, former CEO of Goldman Sachs Asset Management, along with a company chalk full of former Goldman Sachs' executives
• Goldman Sachs itself soon joined the team buying a ten percent interest in CCX
• Maurice Strong, once linked to Tongsun Park, the central figure in the United Nation's oil-for-food scandal in 2005 and one of the architects of the Kyoto Protocol, joined the CCX board of directors
• Carlton Bartels was one of the first, and perhaps most important, additions to the CCX roster. As CEO of a company called CO2e, Bartels developed and delivered the actual guts of the exchange — a system for facilitating and managing the actual carbon trades
Strange Bedfellows
Just three weeks after filing for a patent for his carbon trade system, Bartels was killed during the attacks of 9/11. Bartels' death opened the door for a new partner to join CCX, easily the oddest fit of them all: Fannie Mae. In a move still unexplained, the quasi-governmental mortgage agency, led by CEO Franklin Raines, purchased the rights to the system from Bartel's widow. A patent on the invention was granted to Raines and Fannie Mae on November 7, 2006, ironically, the day after the Democrats regained control of Congress. According to Barbara Hollingsworth of the Washington Examiner, the patent covers both the "cap" and "trade" parts of Obama's top domestic energy initiative and gives Fannie Mae proprietary control over the automated trading system used by Sandor's CCX.
When asked about the patent recently Fannie Mae communications director Amy Bonitatibus told the Washington Examiner, "Fannie Mae earns no money on this patent. We can't conjecture as to the cap-and-trade legislation." A source close to Fannie Mae, however, says a plan is in place to funnel future earnings from the patent to a non-profit housing organization called Enterprise Community Partners. Ironically, Raines, who left Fannie Mae in 2004 amidst allegations that he inflated earnings reports in order to collect higher bonuses ($52 million in bonuses over 5-years; $90 million in total compensation), serves on the board of trustees at Enterprise. In a continuation of theme, Goldman Sachs also has a representative on the board in the person of Alicia Glen.
Off to See the Wizard
In December 2009 The Joyce Foundation awarded Raines and Enterprise a $200,000 grant to launch Emerald Cities Collaborative. According to its website, "The Emerald Cities Collaborative (ECC) is a start-up, national coalition of diverse groups that includes unions, labor groups, community organizations, social justice advocates, development intermediaries, research and technical assistance providers, socially responsible businesses, and elected officials."
Emerald Cities' goal is "the greening of our nation's central cities and the creation of a "new vital economic sector." The collaborative is headed up by Joel Rogers, widely recognized as the "man behind the curtain" of today's progressive political movement. Rogers founded the powerful Apollo Alliance, the group recognized as having shaped much of the Obama administration's stimulus bill. Former White House green jobs "czar," Van Jones, described Rogers influence this way: "The best thinking that he represents… is now represented in the White House."
Also represented on the Emerald Cities board of directors, Gerald Hudson, executive director of SEIU (also on the Apollo Alliance advisory board); Phaedra Ellis-Lamkins, CEO of Green For All (created by Van Jones), and Doris Koo, CEO of Enterprise Community Partners, along with a collection of other union and community activist regulars.
The Bottom Line
The "environmental movement," once the bastion of peace loving hippies and Earth mothers, is potentially the booming business of the 21st century. Billions of dollars currently change hands each year in the name of the environment and, by all accounts, the surface is only scratched.
To date the missing piece of the puzzle has been a government mandate, something cap-and-trade legislation will remedy. Those already in the game stand to reap a fortune on the backs of average Americans who will see their energy bills "necessarily skyrocket," as President Obama explained, as businesses pass along the new cost of doing what they do in a "green America."
It's interesting to note that without the specter of a government mandate, the Chicago Climate Exchange would hold no value. Likewise Fannie Mae's patented trading system and Emerald Cities' prospects for "a new vital economic sector" would be nothing more than fool's gold.
Equally troubling is the blatant acknowledgement by those involved in this high stakes green rush that power and profit are the only real benefits to be had. The words of Joel Rogers: "I hope you all realized that you could eliminate every power plant in America today and you can stop every car in America. Take out the entire power generation sector and you still would not be anywhere near 80 percent below 1990 levels. You would be closer to around 60 percent... it would be around 68 percent and this is with bringing the economy to a complete halt… basically."
Crime Inc. – what do they know and when did they know it… and how much will it cost the American people?
Cap-and-Trade
Simply put, the idea behind the cap-and-trade plan is this: The federal government would set limits or cap the amount of pollutant a business could create. If the business chose to emit levels exceeding the cap they would have to find a business not using its full allotment and purchase the surplus from them. Needless-to-say, for the concept to work there would need to be a highly centralized infrastructure to facilitate the transactions, matching buyers to sellers.
The CCX: A Dream Come True?
For people like Richard Sandor and former Vice-President Al Gore the focus on "green politics" represented the culmination of years of planning and a giant step towards a massive payday.
With a big helping hand from then Illinois State Senator Barack Obama, Sandor's brainchild, The Chicago Climate Exchange, opened for business in 2003 billing itself as "North America's only cap-and-trade system for greenhouse gases..." In other words, the facilitator for a scheme not quite hatched. Sandor, a long-time economist turned environmentalist shared his vision during a 1990 interview with the Wall Street Journal, saying, "Air and water are no longer the free goods that economics once assumed. They must be redefined as property rights so that they can be efficiently allocated." The statement didn't get a lot of attention back then but today seems prophetic. Sandor claims his idea of efficient allocation, also known as carbon trading, will develop into a $10 trillion industry.
Assembling the Team
During 2000 and 2001, the Joyce Foundation, a progressive trust with assets near $1 billion, known for funding groups like Center for American Progress and Tides Foundation, provided grants to CCX totaling $1.1 million. State Senator Obama served on the foundation's board of directors during that time and was instrumental in awarding the grants.
Shortly after the first grant was approved, the president of The Joyce Foundation, Paula DiPerna, left to join the executive team of CCX. Other notables with familiar names soon followed.
• Former Vice-President Al Gore became part-owner of CCX when his company, Generation Investment Management, made a sizeable investment. Gore brought with him his senior partner at GIM, David Blood, former CEO of Goldman Sachs Asset Management, along with a company chalk full of former Goldman Sachs' executives
• Goldman Sachs itself soon joined the team buying a ten percent interest in CCX
• Maurice Strong, once linked to Tongsun Park, the central figure in the United Nation's oil-for-food scandal in 2005 and one of the architects of the Kyoto Protocol, joined the CCX board of directors
• Carlton Bartels was one of the first, and perhaps most important, additions to the CCX roster. As CEO of a company called CO2e, Bartels developed and delivered the actual guts of the exchange — a system for facilitating and managing the actual carbon trades
Strange Bedfellows
Just three weeks after filing for a patent for his carbon trade system, Bartels was killed during the attacks of 9/11. Bartels' death opened the door for a new partner to join CCX, easily the oddest fit of them all: Fannie Mae. In a move still unexplained, the quasi-governmental mortgage agency, led by CEO Franklin Raines, purchased the rights to the system from Bartel's widow. A patent on the invention was granted to Raines and Fannie Mae on November 7, 2006, ironically, the day after the Democrats regained control of Congress. According to Barbara Hollingsworth of the Washington Examiner, the patent covers both the "cap" and "trade" parts of Obama's top domestic energy initiative and gives Fannie Mae proprietary control over the automated trading system used by Sandor's CCX.
When asked about the patent recently Fannie Mae communications director Amy Bonitatibus told the Washington Examiner, "Fannie Mae earns no money on this patent. We can't conjecture as to the cap-and-trade legislation." A source close to Fannie Mae, however, says a plan is in place to funnel future earnings from the patent to a non-profit housing organization called Enterprise Community Partners. Ironically, Raines, who left Fannie Mae in 2004 amidst allegations that he inflated earnings reports in order to collect higher bonuses ($52 million in bonuses over 5-years; $90 million in total compensation), serves on the board of trustees at Enterprise. In a continuation of theme, Goldman Sachs also has a representative on the board in the person of Alicia Glen.
Off to See the Wizard
In December 2009 The Joyce Foundation awarded Raines and Enterprise a $200,000 grant to launch Emerald Cities Collaborative. According to its website, "The Emerald Cities Collaborative (ECC) is a start-up, national coalition of diverse groups that includes unions, labor groups, community organizations, social justice advocates, development intermediaries, research and technical assistance providers, socially responsible businesses, and elected officials."
Emerald Cities' goal is "the greening of our nation's central cities and the creation of a "new vital economic sector." The collaborative is headed up by Joel Rogers, widely recognized as the "man behind the curtain" of today's progressive political movement. Rogers founded the powerful Apollo Alliance, the group recognized as having shaped much of the Obama administration's stimulus bill. Former White House green jobs "czar," Van Jones, described Rogers influence this way: "The best thinking that he represents… is now represented in the White House."
Also represented on the Emerald Cities board of directors, Gerald Hudson, executive director of SEIU (also on the Apollo Alliance advisory board); Phaedra Ellis-Lamkins, CEO of Green For All (created by Van Jones), and Doris Koo, CEO of Enterprise Community Partners, along with a collection of other union and community activist regulars.
The Bottom Line
The "environmental movement," once the bastion of peace loving hippies and Earth mothers, is potentially the booming business of the 21st century. Billions of dollars currently change hands each year in the name of the environment and, by all accounts, the surface is only scratched.
To date the missing piece of the puzzle has been a government mandate, something cap-and-trade legislation will remedy. Those already in the game stand to reap a fortune on the backs of average Americans who will see their energy bills "necessarily skyrocket," as President Obama explained, as businesses pass along the new cost of doing what they do in a "green America."
It's interesting to note that without the specter of a government mandate, the Chicago Climate Exchange would hold no value. Likewise Fannie Mae's patented trading system and Emerald Cities' prospects for "a new vital economic sector" would be nothing more than fool's gold.
Equally troubling is the blatant acknowledgement by those involved in this high stakes green rush that power and profit are the only real benefits to be had. The words of Joel Rogers: "I hope you all realized that you could eliminate every power plant in America today and you can stop every car in America. Take out the entire power generation sector and you still would not be anywhere near 80 percent below 1990 levels. You would be closer to around 60 percent... it would be around 68 percent and this is with bringing the economy to a complete halt… basically."
Crime Inc. – what do they know and when did they know it… and how much will it cost the American people?
Wednesday, May 05, 2010
Italy: 'No wind turbines'
Italy, N.Y. — After months of study and discussion, the Italy Town Board passed a resolution last week that will prohibit industrial wind turbines in all districts within the town. Italy has been dealing with the topic for nearly eight years.
A special meeting of the Italy Town Board was held on April 26. The resolution was adopted by a three to two roll call vote. Council members Tim Kinton and Malcolm MacKenzie voted against the resolution.
Supervisor Brad Jones says the town continues to fight the lawsuit filed by Ecogen last November after the Board rejected their application for an industrial-scale wind project.
He said a Motion for Dismissal was filed on April 21 and a hearing will be held on May 24 before Judge John Ark.
Jones said the previous town board did an good job. Ecogen offered incentives to the town and the board weighed the incentives and listened to the residents.
“In the end, said Jones, “They decided money and a snowplow just weren’t worth it, especially since the residents didn’t want wind turbines.
"This law gives us protection, Jones said. It will be tough for a wind turbine company to meet the standards. I thank everyone for their continued support in efforts to protect the health and welfare of our citizens, and to preserve the rural heritage and character of this beautiful region.” Jones said.
A special meeting of the Italy Town Board was held on April 26. The resolution was adopted by a three to two roll call vote. Council members Tim Kinton and Malcolm MacKenzie voted against the resolution.
Supervisor Brad Jones says the town continues to fight the lawsuit filed by Ecogen last November after the Board rejected their application for an industrial-scale wind project.
He said a Motion for Dismissal was filed on April 21 and a hearing will be held on May 24 before Judge John Ark.
Jones said the previous town board did an good job. Ecogen offered incentives to the town and the board weighed the incentives and listened to the residents.
“In the end, said Jones, “They decided money and a snowplow just weren’t worth it, especially since the residents didn’t want wind turbines.
"This law gives us protection, Jones said. It will be tough for a wind turbine company to meet the standards. I thank everyone for their continued support in efforts to protect the health and welfare of our citizens, and to preserve the rural heritage and character of this beautiful region.” Jones said.
Wind developers seek presence in Hammond
An Ogdensburg Journal article on April 28 suggests the invasion of Spanish wind developers is moving east and Cape Vincent will no longer be the only local town with a foreign wind company sales office in its presence. Industrial wind developer Iberdrola Renewables (aka Atlantic Wind, LLC) is eyeing an office on Main Street in Hammond in the hopes of becoming part of the fabric of this little town.
While the official opening of the office at the corner of Main Street and St. Lawrence Avenue has not been announced to the public, one would believe Iberdrola has been preparing for this move since their first wind measurement test tower was erected on the Pitcher farm in 2005. Since that time it appears they have attempted to determine if there is enough wind here as well as landowners willing to lease to them to make a project worthwhile. While it looked as though most of their work had been done behind the scenes with only a privileged few informed of what was happening, eventually residents found that, in addition to two town board members, there were several Hammond landowners who had already signed wind leases with this foreign company that finally made a formal appearance at a town board meeting in February 2010.
Normally a town would welcome a new business with open arms, particularly given the present economy. Unfortunately this company comes with mixed reviews, having a reputation of appearing to be secretive and divisive as well as a plan to industrialize the town with almost 500-foot structures topped with noise-producing whirling blades and red lights that blink all night.
If this company finds the majority of residents do not welcome its presence, it may have to do with the fact it has already changed Hammond in ways the present generation will never forget. The division that has been created between families, friends and neighbors will be Iberdrola's legacy as it continues its efforts to convince residents how much it can do to enhance their lives. The people of Hammond would be wise to keep an open mind and listen to all sides of the wind issue; www.croh.org is an informational source that provides facts about how wind issues are affecting people worldwide. The information it provides is not part of a corporate social marketing kit with wind turbines subliminally placed in the background of advertisements and the sources are not the opinion of an industry that is funded by Wall Street conglomerates like Goldman Sachs.
Mary Hamilton
Hammond
The writer is president of Concerned Residents of Hammond.
While the official opening of the office at the corner of Main Street and St. Lawrence Avenue has not been announced to the public, one would believe Iberdrola has been preparing for this move since their first wind measurement test tower was erected on the Pitcher farm in 2005. Since that time it appears they have attempted to determine if there is enough wind here as well as landowners willing to lease to them to make a project worthwhile. While it looked as though most of their work had been done behind the scenes with only a privileged few informed of what was happening, eventually residents found that, in addition to two town board members, there were several Hammond landowners who had already signed wind leases with this foreign company that finally made a formal appearance at a town board meeting in February 2010.
Normally a town would welcome a new business with open arms, particularly given the present economy. Unfortunately this company comes with mixed reviews, having a reputation of appearing to be secretive and divisive as well as a plan to industrialize the town with almost 500-foot structures topped with noise-producing whirling blades and red lights that blink all night.
If this company finds the majority of residents do not welcome its presence, it may have to do with the fact it has already changed Hammond in ways the present generation will never forget. The division that has been created between families, friends and neighbors will be Iberdrola's legacy as it continues its efforts to convince residents how much it can do to enhance their lives. The people of Hammond would be wise to keep an open mind and listen to all sides of the wind issue; www.croh.org is an informational source that provides facts about how wind issues are affecting people worldwide. The information it provides is not part of a corporate social marketing kit with wind turbines subliminally placed in the background of advertisements and the sources are not the opinion of an industry that is funded by Wall Street conglomerates like Goldman Sachs.
Mary Hamilton
Hammond
The writer is president of Concerned Residents of Hammond.
Clayton resident appeals to county legislature on wind
Cindy L. Grant, a Clayton resident aligned with Environmentally Concerned Citizens Organization, asked the Jefferson County Board of Legislators not to vote on a payment-in-lieu-of-taxes agreement for a proposed wind farm in Clayton.
Mrs. Grant has been a vocal opponent of the layout of the proposed Horse Creek Wind Farm, which would lie in the southern part of the town.
She told the board she was disappointed with the votes of Supervisor Justin A. Taylor and Councilman Donald I. Turcotte, who were the “no” votes against adopting a stricter wind zoning law on April 28.
“They wanted to see industrial wind come to Clayton because they said they wanted the revenue that would come to the town,” Mrs. Grant said. “We were heartbroken that our town supervisor would think more about the economics – and the economic benefits are very questionable – than about the health and safety of the citizens who live there.”
There are about two dozen landowners who would receive lease payments in the project. Mrs. Grant said there are about 300 landowners in the wind overlay district, where the project is planned.
“I ask you to not even consider any PILOT agreement for any wind project in Jefferson County until someone has thoroughly looked at the long-term economic benefits and costs to the taxpayers,” she said.
All taxing jurisdictions must approve a PILOT to abate property taxes before it occurs. The county board has vowed not to vote on another PILOT related to a wind project until a county-wide policy has been formulated.
Mrs. Grant has been a vocal opponent of the layout of the proposed Horse Creek Wind Farm, which would lie in the southern part of the town.
She told the board she was disappointed with the votes of Supervisor Justin A. Taylor and Councilman Donald I. Turcotte, who were the “no” votes against adopting a stricter wind zoning law on April 28.
“They wanted to see industrial wind come to Clayton because they said they wanted the revenue that would come to the town,” Mrs. Grant said. “We were heartbroken that our town supervisor would think more about the economics – and the economic benefits are very questionable – than about the health and safety of the citizens who live there.”
There are about two dozen landowners who would receive lease payments in the project. Mrs. Grant said there are about 300 landowners in the wind overlay district, where the project is planned.
“I ask you to not even consider any PILOT agreement for any wind project in Jefferson County until someone has thoroughly looked at the long-term economic benefits and costs to the taxpayers,” she said.
All taxing jurisdictions must approve a PILOT to abate property taxes before it occurs. The county board has vowed not to vote on another PILOT related to a wind project until a county-wide policy has been formulated.
Henderson panel OKs wind-law ideas
HENDERSON — The town's wind committee has agreed on recommendations for a zoning law that mirror recommendations in the towns of Orleans and Clayton.
The recommendations apply to wind energy facilities that would produce 100 kilowatts or more and would sell it directly to the wholesale grid.
Beyond the noise and setback recommendations, the committee also agreed that the town's waterfront property and tourism industry could suffer from a project in the town.
"The Committee concludes that any positives from the WEF that could be sited in Henderson may be overshadowed by the negatives," the committee's conclusion said.
On April 28, Clayton's wind committee's recommendations were voted down by the Town Council on a vote of 3-2 when a supermajority was required. Orleans' council has yet to act on its committee's recommendations.
In its April 23 report, the committee agreed setbacks should be:
■ 4,500 feet east of Route 3.
■ 2,000 feet from any public roadway.
■ 2,000 feet from nonparticipating property owners' property lines.
In noise standards, the committee called for a independent study of ambient noise levels. The members agreed that noise from the turbines should not be allowed to exceed five decibels of added noise above ambient levels at nonparticipating property owners' property lines. That's for noise measured on the A-weighted scale, considered to mimic what is audible to humans.
Low-frequency noise, or what is felt as opposed to heard by humans, is measured on the C-weighted scale. The difference between the C-weighted and A-weighted scale should not exceed 20 decibels, according to the committee. That is an effort to minimize irritation from vibrations.
The committee recommended a decommissioning clause calling for replacement or removal of wind farm turbines and parts at the end of 20 years or if the project ceases operation for more than eight months. The cost would be borne by the developer.
The committee called for a property value insurance plan for all properties within five miles of a project to compensate owners for any loss in property value of 5 percent or more within three years of construction.
The town should have a complaint board with an escrow account of $100,000 to investigate complaints by town residents, the committee said. The council should consider a five-mile radius around a project to protect historic sites.
The committee also encouraged the council to seek out several experts it talked to and engineering help in considering the zoning law.
The Town Council will discuss the committee's report at 5:30 tonight at the Henderson Community Building, 8939 Route 178. Paul G. Carr, engineering professor at Cornell University, Ithaca, and one of the founding partners of Bernier, Carr and Associates, Watertown, will make a presentation on sound to the council as part of the meeting.
The recommendations apply to wind energy facilities that would produce 100 kilowatts or more and would sell it directly to the wholesale grid.
Beyond the noise and setback recommendations, the committee also agreed that the town's waterfront property and tourism industry could suffer from a project in the town.
"The Committee concludes that any positives from the WEF that could be sited in Henderson may be overshadowed by the negatives," the committee's conclusion said.
On April 28, Clayton's wind committee's recommendations were voted down by the Town Council on a vote of 3-2 when a supermajority was required. Orleans' council has yet to act on its committee's recommendations.
In its April 23 report, the committee agreed setbacks should be:
■ 4,500 feet east of Route 3.
■ 2,000 feet from any public roadway.
■ 2,000 feet from nonparticipating property owners' property lines.
In noise standards, the committee called for a independent study of ambient noise levels. The members agreed that noise from the turbines should not be allowed to exceed five decibels of added noise above ambient levels at nonparticipating property owners' property lines. That's for noise measured on the A-weighted scale, considered to mimic what is audible to humans.
Low-frequency noise, or what is felt as opposed to heard by humans, is measured on the C-weighted scale. The difference between the C-weighted and A-weighted scale should not exceed 20 decibels, according to the committee. That is an effort to minimize irritation from vibrations.
The committee recommended a decommissioning clause calling for replacement or removal of wind farm turbines and parts at the end of 20 years or if the project ceases operation for more than eight months. The cost would be borne by the developer.
The committee called for a property value insurance plan for all properties within five miles of a project to compensate owners for any loss in property value of 5 percent or more within three years of construction.
The town should have a complaint board with an escrow account of $100,000 to investigate complaints by town residents, the committee said. The council should consider a five-mile radius around a project to protect historic sites.
The committee also encouraged the council to seek out several experts it talked to and engineering help in considering the zoning law.
The Town Council will discuss the committee's report at 5:30 tonight at the Henderson Community Building, 8939 Route 178. Paul G. Carr, engineering professor at Cornell University, Ithaca, and one of the founding partners of Bernier, Carr and Associates, Watertown, will make a presentation on sound to the council as part of the meeting.
Tuesday, May 04, 2010
Still wind in Hamlin
Remember all of the controversy in Hamlin over some proposed wind towers? Well, the company that wanted them doesn't seem interested anymore.
Iberdrola, the Spanish company that bought RG&E and NYSEG, had its eye on Hamlin for a wind farm. But the idea divided residents and generated tension between town officials and project opponents. Town officials eventually passed regulations allowing wind development, but a court struck them down in January 2009. After that, little was heard from the energy company.
Peter Terry took over as Hamlin supervisor this past January and says he hasn't had a single conversation with Iberdrola since taking office. The meteorological test towers that dotted the town are also gone. "They were taken down last fall," Terry says.
Iberdrola, the Spanish company that bought RG&E and NYSEG, had its eye on Hamlin for a wind farm. But the idea divided residents and generated tension between town officials and project opponents. Town officials eventually passed regulations allowing wind development, but a court struck them down in January 2009. After that, little was heard from the energy company.
Peter Terry took over as Hamlin supervisor this past January and says he hasn't had a single conversation with Iberdrola since taking office. The meteorological test towers that dotted the town are also gone. "They were taken down last fall," Terry says.
Monday, May 03, 2010
Maine Wind Revolving Door
Maine Public Broadcasting and the Bangor Daily News have quite a story from the Maine Center for Public Interest Reporting on how big wind and Maine government interact. From the Bangor Daily News story:
While he was Maine's chief utilities regulator, Kurt Adams accepted an ownership interest in a leading wind energy company.
One month later, in May 2008, he went to work for that company, First Wind, as a senior vice president.
More:
It's not clear how much the ownership interest — described as 1.2 million units of equity — that Adams received while still at the commission is worth, since First Wind has not put a value on the equity units in its Securities and Exchange Commission filings. The company said the units of equity are not the same as stock options.
A recent First Wind filing with the federal SEC for 2009 shows Adams' $1.3 million compensation included $315,000 in salary, $658,000 in stock awards, $29,000 of "other" compensation and $315,000 in "nonequity incentives."...
Adams said that at the time they were awarded to him, the equity units — which he called "stock" in an interview with the Maine Center for Public Interest Reporting — had "no value at all" and therefore shouldn't fall under any state laws that bar improper gifts to public officials.
As I've reported here and here, First Wind has some serious ties to the Obama administration through its lobbyists and investors. If this were all being done by an oil company there'd probably be a much bigger uproar, but because it's wind, it has an image as "clean" energy.
While he was Maine's chief utilities regulator, Kurt Adams accepted an ownership interest in a leading wind energy company.
One month later, in May 2008, he went to work for that company, First Wind, as a senior vice president.
More:
It's not clear how much the ownership interest — described as 1.2 million units of equity — that Adams received while still at the commission is worth, since First Wind has not put a value on the equity units in its Securities and Exchange Commission filings. The company said the units of equity are not the same as stock options.
A recent First Wind filing with the federal SEC for 2009 shows Adams' $1.3 million compensation included $315,000 in salary, $658,000 in stock awards, $29,000 of "other" compensation and $315,000 in "nonequity incentives."...
Adams said that at the time they were awarded to him, the equity units — which he called "stock" in an interview with the Maine Center for Public Interest Reporting — had "no value at all" and therefore shouldn't fall under any state laws that bar improper gifts to public officials.
As I've reported here and here, First Wind has some serious ties to the Obama administration through its lobbyists and investors. If this were all being done by an oil company there'd probably be a much bigger uproar, but because it's wind, it has an image as "clean" energy.
Benefits of wind power are unproven, hypothetical
A recent report from the Asthma and Allergy Foundation states that allergy sufferers may have to get used to early seasons such as the one experienced this year in the Northeast.
Dr. Dora Anne Mills, head of the Maine Center for Disease Control and Prevention, is quoted in the April 15 issue of the Portland Press Herald as saying that,” This is one of the many emerging public health concerns related to pollution and climate change.”
One of the most common alternative energy sources promoted by the U.S. government and the current Maine administration is wind power. In a paper that she wrote last February called “Wind Turbine Neuro-Acoustical Issues," Mills, an ardent proponent of wind power who denies sleep-related disturbances due to wind turbine noise, wrote that wind turbines in Maine would decrease the incidence of many diseases including asthma, allergies, lung cancer and cardiac diseases.
The statement was based on the assumption that wind power in Maine would displace conventional electrical power plants' fuel of coal, oil and gas, and that the sacrifice of the mountain ridges for the erection of thousands of turbines was a necessary trade-off for the health benefits that would accrue to Mainers from the decreased pollution.
On the surface, that seems like a reasonable position. But for those of us who have dug deeper into the hypothesis, the facts paint a very different picture that shows there is no connection between the goal of 2,700 megawatts of installed wind turbine capacity in Maine and improved air quality for Mainers.
First of all, there are no after-the-fact studies showing a correlation between the increase in electric generation from wind turbines and the decrease in greenhouse gas emissions and chronic disease. Those assumptions are purely hypothetical, untested and unmonitored by any government agency. There are no state or federal standards in place to verify the reality of those hypotheses. Mills’ statements about the climate benefits of wind power are not based on peer-reviewed studies, but are merely opinions without concrete substantiation.
Secondly, it is important to recognize that industrial wind turbines are gigantic machines weighing several hundred tons, not including the foundations, which are heavily reinforced with mats of steel bars. The Siemens turbines proposed by Angus King for his Record Hill Wind project in Roxbury weigh 304 tons. More than 6,600 tons of steel must be smelted and forged to build the 22 turbines proposed for that 50-megawatt wind project, which will actually produce about 12 megawatts at the 25 percent capacity factor achieved by land-based wind turbines in Maine.
To make that steel would require about 3,000 tons of “coking” coal and 9,000 tons of iron ore. More than 35 million tons of steel have been used to build the steel towers used for wind turbines in the period 2007-09. Steel production requires the use of coke, which is a byproduct of pulverized bituminous coal. Coke production is a major source of pollution in the production of steel. Air emissions such as coke-oven gases, naphthalene, ammonium compounds, crude light oil, sulfur and coke dust are released from coke ovens.
Steel production is a major user of coal, the very villain polluter that wind energy is supposed to suppress.
Are you beginning to get the picture? There are no demonstrated climate benefits in Maine, but substantial production of greenhouse gas emissions in the production of the turbines themselves.
Mills tells us that wind power will reduce the incidence of chronic diseases related to pollution because wind power displaces other pollution-producing power plants. That, in fact, has never been scientifically measured nor proven, and we know that no power plants have closed because of wind-produced electricity. To be more specific to Maine, wind power is generally more available at night, when grid demand is low. Because Maine already produces most of its electricity at night with renewable hydro and biomass, wind power will not replace fossil fuel generators, but rather will cause biomass plants and hydro-electric facilities to reduce output, providing no benefit but costing jobs in the forest industry.
Without taking into account the enormous amount of real pollution created by manufacturing turbines, and coupled with the absence of any proof that wind turbines in Maine will reduce fossil fuel use in electricity production, Mills’ claims seem misleading.
Mills has dismissed the complaints of people in Mars Hill, Freedom and Vinalhaven about the impacts on their lives from living too close to the turbines in these towns, and at the same time has advocated for the destruction of Maine’s treasured mountain landscapes for the benefit of an industry that relies heavily on government subsidies for its existence, while demonstrating none of the benefits attributed to it.
Rather than deluding us with unsubstantiated, non-peer reviewed and non-patient correlated epidemiological predictions about CO2 emissions and early allergies, Mills should sit down with the real people in this state who have been sleep-disturbed by the presence of those massive steel turbines.
Dr. Dora Anne Mills, head of the Maine Center for Disease Control and Prevention, is quoted in the April 15 issue of the Portland Press Herald as saying that,” This is one of the many emerging public health concerns related to pollution and climate change.”
One of the most common alternative energy sources promoted by the U.S. government and the current Maine administration is wind power. In a paper that she wrote last February called “Wind Turbine Neuro-Acoustical Issues," Mills, an ardent proponent of wind power who denies sleep-related disturbances due to wind turbine noise, wrote that wind turbines in Maine would decrease the incidence of many diseases including asthma, allergies, lung cancer and cardiac diseases.
The statement was based on the assumption that wind power in Maine would displace conventional electrical power plants' fuel of coal, oil and gas, and that the sacrifice of the mountain ridges for the erection of thousands of turbines was a necessary trade-off for the health benefits that would accrue to Mainers from the decreased pollution.
On the surface, that seems like a reasonable position. But for those of us who have dug deeper into the hypothesis, the facts paint a very different picture that shows there is no connection between the goal of 2,700 megawatts of installed wind turbine capacity in Maine and improved air quality for Mainers.
First of all, there are no after-the-fact studies showing a correlation between the increase in electric generation from wind turbines and the decrease in greenhouse gas emissions and chronic disease. Those assumptions are purely hypothetical, untested and unmonitored by any government agency. There are no state or federal standards in place to verify the reality of those hypotheses. Mills’ statements about the climate benefits of wind power are not based on peer-reviewed studies, but are merely opinions without concrete substantiation.
Secondly, it is important to recognize that industrial wind turbines are gigantic machines weighing several hundred tons, not including the foundations, which are heavily reinforced with mats of steel bars. The Siemens turbines proposed by Angus King for his Record Hill Wind project in Roxbury weigh 304 tons. More than 6,600 tons of steel must be smelted and forged to build the 22 turbines proposed for that 50-megawatt wind project, which will actually produce about 12 megawatts at the 25 percent capacity factor achieved by land-based wind turbines in Maine.
To make that steel would require about 3,000 tons of “coking” coal and 9,000 tons of iron ore. More than 35 million tons of steel have been used to build the steel towers used for wind turbines in the period 2007-09. Steel production requires the use of coke, which is a byproduct of pulverized bituminous coal. Coke production is a major source of pollution in the production of steel. Air emissions such as coke-oven gases, naphthalene, ammonium compounds, crude light oil, sulfur and coke dust are released from coke ovens.
Steel production is a major user of coal, the very villain polluter that wind energy is supposed to suppress.
Are you beginning to get the picture? There are no demonstrated climate benefits in Maine, but substantial production of greenhouse gas emissions in the production of the turbines themselves.
Mills tells us that wind power will reduce the incidence of chronic diseases related to pollution because wind power displaces other pollution-producing power plants. That, in fact, has never been scientifically measured nor proven, and we know that no power plants have closed because of wind-produced electricity. To be more specific to Maine, wind power is generally more available at night, when grid demand is low. Because Maine already produces most of its electricity at night with renewable hydro and biomass, wind power will not replace fossil fuel generators, but rather will cause biomass plants and hydro-electric facilities to reduce output, providing no benefit but costing jobs in the forest industry.
Without taking into account the enormous amount of real pollution created by manufacturing turbines, and coupled with the absence of any proof that wind turbines in Maine will reduce fossil fuel use in electricity production, Mills’ claims seem misleading.
Mills has dismissed the complaints of people in Mars Hill, Freedom and Vinalhaven about the impacts on their lives from living too close to the turbines in these towns, and at the same time has advocated for the destruction of Maine’s treasured mountain landscapes for the benefit of an industry that relies heavily on government subsidies for its existence, while demonstrating none of the benefits attributed to it.
Rather than deluding us with unsubstantiated, non-peer reviewed and non-patient correlated epidemiological predictions about CO2 emissions and early allergies, Mills should sit down with the real people in this state who have been sleep-disturbed by the presence of those massive steel turbines.
Sunday, May 02, 2010
PILOT proposed for new wind farm project
LOWVILLE — Local taxing jurisdictions are considering a payment-in-lieu-of-taxes agreement on the proposed 39-turbine Roaring Brook Wind Farm that is expected to pay out between $17 million and $24 million over 20 years.
"We're fine with it," said Martinsburg Town Supervisor Terry J. Thisse, whose board already has adopted the proposal. "It was what we were asking for."
Lowville Academy and Central School District board members have given their informal blessing to the terms of the agreement, District Superintendent Kenneth J. McAuliffe said. "I think they think the deal is fair," he said.
However, given the recent legal wranglings over the last payment from the existing wind farm here, board members may choose to hold off on approving this deal formally until they have a clearer picture of that situation, he said.
Lewis County legislators are slated to consider the offer Tuesday.
Atlantic Wind, a subsidiary of Iberdrola Renewables, is proposing a 78-megawatt wind farm on 5,280 acres just south of Maple Ridge Wind Farm. Iberdrola is part-owner of that 195-turbine wind farm, which also extends into the towns of Harrisburg and Lowville.
The Martinsburg town Planning Board in December approved a site plan for the Roaring Brook project.
The proposed PILOT would offer $8,000 per megawatt with an annual cost-of-living increase of 2.5 percent to 5 percent. If Iberdrola or a related developer approves higher per-megawatt payments on projects in Jefferson or Herkimer counties in Roaring Brook's first three years of payments, the per-megawatt amount would rise to the higher level.
Over the past couple of years, the developer had been floating a plan for $8,000 per megawatt without the payment escalator, Mr. McAuliffe said.
The terms of the proposed PILOT are similar to an agreement approved recently by the Herkimer County Legislature for Atlantic Wind's 37-turbine Hardscrabble Wind Farm project there.
According to a potential pay schedule assuming construction in 2011, the first-year payment could range from $671,980 to $722,358. Projected revenues over 20 years would range from a minimum of $17.17 million to a maximum of $23.89 million. The median payout would be about $20 million, or $1 million per year.
"Due to energy market conditions, among other reasons, the Company is not able to make any representations regarding when the project would be constructed and therefore when PILOT payments would actually commence," the proposed term sheet states.
While the Maple Ridge PILOT is administered by the county, the Roaring Brook one is to be handled by the Lewis County Industrial Development Agency.
The annual payments would be split among the county, school district and town. However, the breakdown will be determined, in consultation with the taxing jurisdictions, only after a formal application for financial assistance has been received by the company, said Ned E. Cole, Lewis County IDA's executive director.
Maple Ridge taxing jurisdictions received only $2.29 million of its $8.99 million annual payment in December.
The wind company claimed it should pay only the so-called "fallback amount" since it had been decertified from the Empire Zone program, through which it receives state reimbursement for the payments. While the wind farm was recertified in early April, the company is continuing to withhold the disputed $6.7 million — being held in an escrow account — while seeking assurance from the state Department of Taxation that reimbursements will be forthcoming. The taxing jurisdictions plan to seek a court order mandating the release of the funds unless the company does so voluntarily.
"We're fine with it," said Martinsburg Town Supervisor Terry J. Thisse, whose board already has adopted the proposal. "It was what we were asking for."
Lowville Academy and Central School District board members have given their informal blessing to the terms of the agreement, District Superintendent Kenneth J. McAuliffe said. "I think they think the deal is fair," he said.
However, given the recent legal wranglings over the last payment from the existing wind farm here, board members may choose to hold off on approving this deal formally until they have a clearer picture of that situation, he said.
Lewis County legislators are slated to consider the offer Tuesday.
Atlantic Wind, a subsidiary of Iberdrola Renewables, is proposing a 78-megawatt wind farm on 5,280 acres just south of Maple Ridge Wind Farm. Iberdrola is part-owner of that 195-turbine wind farm, which also extends into the towns of Harrisburg and Lowville.
The Martinsburg town Planning Board in December approved a site plan for the Roaring Brook project.
The proposed PILOT would offer $8,000 per megawatt with an annual cost-of-living increase of 2.5 percent to 5 percent. If Iberdrola or a related developer approves higher per-megawatt payments on projects in Jefferson or Herkimer counties in Roaring Brook's first three years of payments, the per-megawatt amount would rise to the higher level.
Over the past couple of years, the developer had been floating a plan for $8,000 per megawatt without the payment escalator, Mr. McAuliffe said.
The terms of the proposed PILOT are similar to an agreement approved recently by the Herkimer County Legislature for Atlantic Wind's 37-turbine Hardscrabble Wind Farm project there.
According to a potential pay schedule assuming construction in 2011, the first-year payment could range from $671,980 to $722,358. Projected revenues over 20 years would range from a minimum of $17.17 million to a maximum of $23.89 million. The median payout would be about $20 million, or $1 million per year.
"Due to energy market conditions, among other reasons, the Company is not able to make any representations regarding when the project would be constructed and therefore when PILOT payments would actually commence," the proposed term sheet states.
While the Maple Ridge PILOT is administered by the county, the Roaring Brook one is to be handled by the Lewis County Industrial Development Agency.
The annual payments would be split among the county, school district and town. However, the breakdown will be determined, in consultation with the taxing jurisdictions, only after a formal application for financial assistance has been received by the company, said Ned E. Cole, Lewis County IDA's executive director.
Maple Ridge taxing jurisdictions received only $2.29 million of its $8.99 million annual payment in December.
The wind company claimed it should pay only the so-called "fallback amount" since it had been decertified from the Empire Zone program, through which it receives state reimbursement for the payments. While the wind farm was recertified in early April, the company is continuing to withhold the disputed $6.7 million — being held in an escrow account — while seeking assurance from the state Department of Taxation that reimbursements will be forthcoming. The taxing jurisdictions plan to seek a court order mandating the release of the funds unless the company does so voluntarily.
Saturday, May 01, 2010
Orangeville: The sad realities of a town divided
Editor,
The "divide and conquer" techniques that Big Wind salesmen have successfully used time and time again in their financially-motivated exploitation of our beautiful state and its citizens, were evident once again at Orangeville's March 25 public hearing on Invenergy's Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for the proposed Stony Creek industrial wind installation. Sadly, despite the fact that this is the biggest, most divisive issue to ever hit our area -- resulting in ongoing lawsuits -- no local news media covered the hearing.
The story's the same in every town -- Camp Wyomoco was filled for the hearing, and citizens who used to be friends, sat divided. There is no doubt, complete and utter civil discord is the only thing reliably generated by this Enronesque Ponzi scheme -- its only beneficiaries, a few wealthy investors (primarily multi-national mega-corporations in search of increased bottom lines) in bed with our state and federal governments.
The only reason industrial wind power should exist today is if it can actually live up to its promoters' claims that it will meaningfully help reduce greenhouse gas emissions (i.e., CO2) -- not because of financial incentives being dangled like a carrot by Big Wind salesmen. However, the comments made by the 13 proponents at Orangeville's public hearing -- five of whom were Invenergy employees, and most of the other eight who were signed leaseholders, had nothing to do with the DEIS, and made perfectly clear once again, that "It's all about the money!" If industrial wind will reduce a tax bill, or bring a personal "windfall," who cares whether it actually does what they claim or not -- bring it on!
So who in NYS wouldn't like a tax reduction?!? But is selling out one's town and neighbors for a few bucks really what this country has come to?
Typical propaganda the wind industry has spent tons of money brainwashing the American public to believe, i.e. "emissions reductions" and "energy independence," were the basis of the Invenergy salesmen's and supporters' comments. The fact is, that with over 100,000 industrial wind turbines in the world today, CO2 emissions have not been significantly reduced.
In fact, Robert Bryce's newly-released book, "Power Hungry: The Myths of 'Green' Energy and the Real Fuels of the Future" (http://tiny.cc/bbu7b) documents the fact that industrial wind does not reduce CO2 emissions -- a fact that is corroborated by the statistics coming out of Denmark, which has taken the wind experiment further than any other country.
See also: "The Wind Farm Scam" (http://tiny.cc/tgxea) by Dr. John Etherington.
At least 22 Orangeville citizens made comments targeting specific inaccuracies and inadequacies in Invenergy's DEIS that the Orangeville Town Board is willing and anxious to overlook in their pursuit of perceived financial gain.
Just a few of the shortcomings cited regarding Invenergy's cut-and-pasted DEIS included:
- failure to provide an extensive listing of alternatives for the project, as is required by SEQRA,
- proposed setbacks which are less than what turbine developers recommend for the safety of their own workers -- which obviously fail to protect the health, safety, and welfare of all Orangeville citizens;
- proposed wind-industry-set sound levels which exceed World Health Organization and DEC recommendations;
- lack of citizen-requested, independent third-party studies;
- lack of studies and safeguards to assure protection of wells and aquifers;
- lack of a property value protection plan; etc.
It is so sad that this kind of division is what it has come down to in our towns -- all over over a few bucks, the duration of which will be short-lived at best.
As I sit and watch these scenarios play themselves out in our rural townships, I can't help but wonder: What happened to mutual respect? The Golden Rule? Treating other people the way you want to be treated?
I can't help but think that if we all heeded what Jesus told us was His second greatest commandment, "Love your neighbor as yourself," we wouldn't even be dealing with this mess.
Mary Kay Barton lives in Silver Lake.
The "divide and conquer" techniques that Big Wind salesmen have successfully used time and time again in their financially-motivated exploitation of our beautiful state and its citizens, were evident once again at Orangeville's March 25 public hearing on Invenergy's Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for the proposed Stony Creek industrial wind installation. Sadly, despite the fact that this is the biggest, most divisive issue to ever hit our area -- resulting in ongoing lawsuits -- no local news media covered the hearing.
The story's the same in every town -- Camp Wyomoco was filled for the hearing, and citizens who used to be friends, sat divided. There is no doubt, complete and utter civil discord is the only thing reliably generated by this Enronesque Ponzi scheme -- its only beneficiaries, a few wealthy investors (primarily multi-national mega-corporations in search of increased bottom lines) in bed with our state and federal governments.
The only reason industrial wind power should exist today is if it can actually live up to its promoters' claims that it will meaningfully help reduce greenhouse gas emissions (i.e., CO2) -- not because of financial incentives being dangled like a carrot by Big Wind salesmen. However, the comments made by the 13 proponents at Orangeville's public hearing -- five of whom were Invenergy employees, and most of the other eight who were signed leaseholders, had nothing to do with the DEIS, and made perfectly clear once again, that "It's all about the money!" If industrial wind will reduce a tax bill, or bring a personal "windfall," who cares whether it actually does what they claim or not -- bring it on!
So who in NYS wouldn't like a tax reduction?!? But is selling out one's town and neighbors for a few bucks really what this country has come to?
Typical propaganda the wind industry has spent tons of money brainwashing the American public to believe, i.e. "emissions reductions" and "energy independence," were the basis of the Invenergy salesmen's and supporters' comments. The fact is, that with over 100,000 industrial wind turbines in the world today, CO2 emissions have not been significantly reduced.
In fact, Robert Bryce's newly-released book, "Power Hungry: The Myths of 'Green' Energy and the Real Fuels of the Future" (http://tiny.cc/bbu7b) documents the fact that industrial wind does not reduce CO2 emissions -- a fact that is corroborated by the statistics coming out of Denmark, which has taken the wind experiment further than any other country.
See also: "The Wind Farm Scam" (http://tiny.cc/tgxea) by Dr. John Etherington.
At least 22 Orangeville citizens made comments targeting specific inaccuracies and inadequacies in Invenergy's DEIS that the Orangeville Town Board is willing and anxious to overlook in their pursuit of perceived financial gain.
Just a few of the shortcomings cited regarding Invenergy's cut-and-pasted DEIS included:
- failure to provide an extensive listing of alternatives for the project, as is required by SEQRA,
- proposed setbacks which are less than what turbine developers recommend for the safety of their own workers -- which obviously fail to protect the health, safety, and welfare of all Orangeville citizens;
- proposed wind-industry-set sound levels which exceed World Health Organization and DEC recommendations;
- lack of citizen-requested, independent third-party studies;
- lack of studies and safeguards to assure protection of wells and aquifers;
- lack of a property value protection plan; etc.
It is so sad that this kind of division is what it has come down to in our towns -- all over over a few bucks, the duration of which will be short-lived at best.
As I sit and watch these scenarios play themselves out in our rural townships, I can't help but wonder: What happened to mutual respect? The Golden Rule? Treating other people the way you want to be treated?
I can't help but think that if we all heeded what Jesus told us was His second greatest commandment, "Love your neighbor as yourself," we wouldn't even be dealing with this mess.
Mary Kay Barton lives in Silver Lake.
Friday, April 30, 2010
Wind-turbine project on hold causes concern in Allegany
An EverPower Renewables wind-turbine project that has been put on hold in the community of Howard has caused concern for town of Allegany officials where a similar EverPower wind-turbine farm has been proposed.
An article printed earlier this month in The Evening Tribune in Hornell said EverPower was notified April 1 by the New York State Energy and Research Agency that Howard Wind LLC’s proposal for Renewable Energy Credits from the project was not accepted by the state agency. Consequently, EverPower officials have to consider other options for the sale of credits and power from the project, stated Kevin Sheen, senior director for EverPower.
Mr. Sheen was further quoted in the article stating that the company “had to make the difficult decision to temporarily delay the commencement of construction while we review alternative strategies.” The 25-turbine commercial wind farm was to be constructed this month in the town of Howard.
The article stated that Renewable Energy Credits are certificates issued by a government agency to a power company that utilizes environmentally friendly methods to generate electricity. The certificates can in turn be traded and sold on the open market, providing an incentive to companies that produce “green” power.
The publication also stated that the “sudden decision to halt the (Howard) project comes as Terra Firma, which acquired EverPower last August for a reported $350 million, is experiencing financial troubles.
“The British private equity firm bought EMI Group PLC for about $3.8 billion in 2007, according to a report from KPMG. But with CD sales plummeting, funds might not be raised. According to the AP, $165 million will be needed to get through the year, and the company owes $6 billion of debt as of last March, mostly to Citigroup. The company needs to raise money by June 14 according to the AP, or risk defaulting on loans. If that happens, then Citigroup might seize EMI and cause it to be sold or broken up.”
In response to this, Mr. Sheen said Terra Firma invests in a wide variety of businesses on behalf of its clients worldwide.
“It is important to note that the investment made in EverPower is completely independent of the investment in EMI Records,” he said. “Funds committed to the growth of EverPower will not be affected, either positively or negatively, by changes in EMI records.”
Mr. Sheen said he believes the current Renewable Energy Credits program used in New York state needs to be overhauled. He said that of the 31 states that use this system, almost all use a market-based implementation. For example, at a project in Pennsylvania the company is currently in a long-term power-purchase agreement with First Energy in Ohio for the sale of the power and credits for the project.
Mr. Sheen said an overhaul of the current system in New York state “would certainly be very complicated to achieve a significant amendment to the current system.
“We firmly believe, however, that until (New York) improves the current program or adopts a better system, wind-energy companies will continue to deploy resources to other states with better policies,” Mr. Sheen said.
The publication stated that EverPower was established in 2002 and is currently developing seven projects in four states, with two in New York, three in Oregon and one each in Pennsylvania and Ohio.
“Wind projects are operating in communities all over the (United States) and can be a vital part of our energy future and a great contributor to the local and national economy in the future,” Mr. Sheen said. “EverPower is pleased to be working on a project that brings the environmental and economic benefits to Allegany and (New York state.)
The company has also proposed a 29-turbine commercial wind farm for the Chipmonk and Knapp Creek area in the town of Allegany. The proposed wind farm has been opposed by members of Concerned Citizens of Cattaraugus County. The group held a public forum earlier this month that was heavily attended by residents opposed to the wind farm. A public hearing conducted last week by the Allegany Planning Board drew a similar response from a large number of area residents.
“Our decision to delay construction in Howard and our decision to move forward with Allegany is not shaped in any way by other Terra Firma businesses,” Mr. Sheen said. “We will continue to make decisions on our wind portfolio based on the market conditions and the details of each project.”
Pat Eaton, town of Allegany supervisor, said the current issue with the Howard project has caused some concern for town officials.
“Our biggest concern is that EverPower has to pay all the costs” incurred by the town for the ongoing studies and consultant fees stemming from the project, Mr. Eaton said. “We don’t want to get stuck with all these bills.”
According to the town of Allegany comptroller, the town has received $160,000 from EverPower since January 2009, and to date has spent $129,194 of that amount. The comptroller said the town recently received additional funds from EverPower to pay consultant and research fees related to the project.
Mr. Eaton said he has left a message with Dan Spitzer, a Buffalo attorney who has been hired as a consultant on the wind-farm proposal.
“I’m waiting for advice on this from Mr. Spitzer,” Mr. Eaton said. “My main concern is to make sure (EverPower) pays their bills. If they can’t, the research stops.”
An article printed earlier this month in The Evening Tribune in Hornell said EverPower was notified April 1 by the New York State Energy and Research Agency that Howard Wind LLC’s proposal for Renewable Energy Credits from the project was not accepted by the state agency. Consequently, EverPower officials have to consider other options for the sale of credits and power from the project, stated Kevin Sheen, senior director for EverPower.
Mr. Sheen was further quoted in the article stating that the company “had to make the difficult decision to temporarily delay the commencement of construction while we review alternative strategies.” The 25-turbine commercial wind farm was to be constructed this month in the town of Howard.
The article stated that Renewable Energy Credits are certificates issued by a government agency to a power company that utilizes environmentally friendly methods to generate electricity. The certificates can in turn be traded and sold on the open market, providing an incentive to companies that produce “green” power.
The publication also stated that the “sudden decision to halt the (Howard) project comes as Terra Firma, which acquired EverPower last August for a reported $350 million, is experiencing financial troubles.
“The British private equity firm bought EMI Group PLC for about $3.8 billion in 2007, according to a report from KPMG. But with CD sales plummeting, funds might not be raised. According to the AP, $165 million will be needed to get through the year, and the company owes $6 billion of debt as of last March, mostly to Citigroup. The company needs to raise money by June 14 according to the AP, or risk defaulting on loans. If that happens, then Citigroup might seize EMI and cause it to be sold or broken up.”
In response to this, Mr. Sheen said Terra Firma invests in a wide variety of businesses on behalf of its clients worldwide.
“It is important to note that the investment made in EverPower is completely independent of the investment in EMI Records,” he said. “Funds committed to the growth of EverPower will not be affected, either positively or negatively, by changes in EMI records.”
Mr. Sheen said he believes the current Renewable Energy Credits program used in New York state needs to be overhauled. He said that of the 31 states that use this system, almost all use a market-based implementation. For example, at a project in Pennsylvania the company is currently in a long-term power-purchase agreement with First Energy in Ohio for the sale of the power and credits for the project.
Mr. Sheen said an overhaul of the current system in New York state “would certainly be very complicated to achieve a significant amendment to the current system.
“We firmly believe, however, that until (New York) improves the current program or adopts a better system, wind-energy companies will continue to deploy resources to other states with better policies,” Mr. Sheen said.
The publication stated that EverPower was established in 2002 and is currently developing seven projects in four states, with two in New York, three in Oregon and one each in Pennsylvania and Ohio.
“Wind projects are operating in communities all over the (United States) and can be a vital part of our energy future and a great contributor to the local and national economy in the future,” Mr. Sheen said. “EverPower is pleased to be working on a project that brings the environmental and economic benefits to Allegany and (New York state.)
The company has also proposed a 29-turbine commercial wind farm for the Chipmonk and Knapp Creek area in the town of Allegany. The proposed wind farm has been opposed by members of Concerned Citizens of Cattaraugus County. The group held a public forum earlier this month that was heavily attended by residents opposed to the wind farm. A public hearing conducted last week by the Allegany Planning Board drew a similar response from a large number of area residents.
“Our decision to delay construction in Howard and our decision to move forward with Allegany is not shaped in any way by other Terra Firma businesses,” Mr. Sheen said. “We will continue to make decisions on our wind portfolio based on the market conditions and the details of each project.”
Pat Eaton, town of Allegany supervisor, said the current issue with the Howard project has caused some concern for town officials.
“Our biggest concern is that EverPower has to pay all the costs” incurred by the town for the ongoing studies and consultant fees stemming from the project, Mr. Eaton said. “We don’t want to get stuck with all these bills.”
According to the town of Allegany comptroller, the town has received $160,000 from EverPower since January 2009, and to date has spent $129,194 of that amount. The comptroller said the town recently received additional funds from EverPower to pay consultant and research fees related to the project.
Mr. Eaton said he has left a message with Dan Spitzer, a Buffalo attorney who has been hired as a consultant on the wind-farm proposal.
“I’m waiting for advice on this from Mr. Spitzer,” Mr. Eaton said. “My main concern is to make sure (EverPower) pays their bills. If they can’t, the research stops.”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)