HAMMOND -- A sound expert told the Wind Advisory Committee that Hammond's "rural soundscape" will be changed with the construction of wind turbines and that it would be foolish to take any wind developer's sound level plan as gospel.
Clifford P. Schneider, Cape Vincent, who retired from the state Department of Environmental Conservation's Fish and Wildlife Division, told the committee that he became interested in measuring wind turbine sound in 2006, after he was appointed to Cape Vincent's Town Council. With Cape Vincent immersed in its own wind power issues, Mr. Schneider said, he was not satisfied with the initial sound study performed by commercial wind developer AES-Acciona Energy, which sought a project in Cape Vincent.
He said the wind developer did only a few sound readings at noisy locations at the noisiest times of the day. Mr. Schneider did a "mobile survey" of the entire town of Cape Vincent. He said he found that the developer's findings were limited and neglected to consider nighttime, worst-case wind conditions and noise impacts.
Mr. Schneider described Hammond's evenings as calm, quiet times during which the noise from turbines would not be masked. The result, he said, would be turbine noise that is "very noticeable."
At the heart of the issue of turbine noise, according to Mr. Schneider, are two questions: What is the existing noise level in Hammond? And what will a wind farm project do to those sound levels?
DEC, Mr. Schneider said, measures background noise and says that any new source should be no more than six decibels above the standing background noise level.
He measured the noise level at about 30 decibels inside Hammond's village hall. Mr. Schneider played a recording of a German wind farm, increasing the noise levels all the way up to 25 decibels.
"It's not going to drive everyone crazy, but it will affect some people," he said.
Besides his "systematic sampling" advice, Mr. Schneider suggested building a strong compliance survey and complaint resolution and property value assurance plan into the town wind law. By doing this, he said, the committee would be requiring the developer to provide a more inclusive and careful plan that would better ensure proper placement of turbines.
Committee member Michele McQueer said she would like to hear from a sound expert from Iberdrola. Facilitator David B. Duff said he will attempt to make that happen for the next meeting, scheduled for 7 p.m. June 7 in the village hall.
Wednesday, May 26, 2010
Another health problem caused by turbines
Several months ago, a neighbor and I drove through the industrial wind complex in Lewis County. While doing so, I experienced a severe case of vertigo and my passenger became nauseous. This definitely caused me concern as the only other time this had happened was when I had driven through another turbine complex in the Southwest.
I was therefore drawn to the article in the Sunday edition of the Watertown Daily Times exclaiming "Hospital shows off balance center." Was the need for a balance center at Lewis County General Hospital generated by the installation of industrial turbines spinning in all directions for miles while drivers were trying to navigate the roads? How many people from Lowville and surrounding areas had sought help for balance problems in other communities before the need was realized in Lewis County? Why had balance problems and vertigo become a priority in that region?
Obviously, there is a growing need to diagnose issues stemming from vertigo or the hospital would not have found it necessary in this economic environment to spend $100,000 to open a balance center. That led me to wonder if the developer had contributed these funds as part of a mitigation agreement. If not, why not? I also wondered if those suffering from balance and vertigo problems connected this life-altering condition with the probable cause.
The article left the readers with many unanswered questions that I am hoping will be forthcoming in the near future. Living in Cape Vincent and being threatened with driving in and around industrial turbines that will no doubt cause me to experience vertigo behind the wheel, I now fear for the health, safety and welfare of my neighbors and visitors to this area.
I am grateful for the appearance of this article as hopefully it will bring to the forefront another subject that should be inserted into any wind law passed in the Cape along with a demand for necessary mitigation to resolve vertigo and other balance health issues created by the installation of turbines.
Perhaps another benefit of the article is the ability of those living in and around the turbines in Lewis County to understand their balance conditions did not come out of nowhere, there is a reason and they are not alone.
L. Sam De Long
Cape Vincent
I was therefore drawn to the article in the Sunday edition of the Watertown Daily Times exclaiming "Hospital shows off balance center." Was the need for a balance center at Lewis County General Hospital generated by the installation of industrial turbines spinning in all directions for miles while drivers were trying to navigate the roads? How many people from Lowville and surrounding areas had sought help for balance problems in other communities before the need was realized in Lewis County? Why had balance problems and vertigo become a priority in that region?
Obviously, there is a growing need to diagnose issues stemming from vertigo or the hospital would not have found it necessary in this economic environment to spend $100,000 to open a balance center. That led me to wonder if the developer had contributed these funds as part of a mitigation agreement. If not, why not? I also wondered if those suffering from balance and vertigo problems connected this life-altering condition with the probable cause.
The article left the readers with many unanswered questions that I am hoping will be forthcoming in the near future. Living in Cape Vincent and being threatened with driving in and around industrial turbines that will no doubt cause me to experience vertigo behind the wheel, I now fear for the health, safety and welfare of my neighbors and visitors to this area.
I am grateful for the appearance of this article as hopefully it will bring to the forefront another subject that should be inserted into any wind law passed in the Cape along with a demand for necessary mitigation to resolve vertigo and other balance health issues created by the installation of turbines.
Perhaps another benefit of the article is the ability of those living in and around the turbines in Lewis County to understand their balance conditions did not come out of nowhere, there is a reason and they are not alone.
L. Sam De Long
Cape Vincent
Tuesday, May 25, 2010
Wind farms in Benton's future
Benton, N.Y. — Since 2006 the Town of Benton has been working with Empire State Wind on a proposal to put wind turbines in Benton.
Public meetings have been held and town officials and residents seem to be in agreement that the town would be a good location to harness the wind power.
Little had been heard from Empire State Wind Energy in the last several months. Company president
Keith Pitman attended the May 12 town board meeting to give an update on their project and the wind industry.
“The good news is right now we are prepared to take Benton and go with the project,” said Pitman, adding,
“We are definitely of the opinion that we want to do a project here in Benton.”
However, when Councilwoman Becky Jensen asked about how long it would be before the project starts, Pitman couldn’t give a direct answer, stating,“It could be tomorrow or months from now. We will keep working on it.”
Pitman said there have been many changes in the wind industry over the last four years. The greatest obstacle he noted is in acquiring equipment. As wind power was introduced in New York State , the price of equipment was high and now Pitman says it is leveling off.
“We are a small buyer,” he said, explaining the company is being cautious about buying equipment. He noted that a tower collapsed in Fenner in December and all wind turbines in that project have been shut down since the collapse.
The day after Pitman visited, news articles about a five-month investigation on the Fenner tower collapse, which was the first in the United States, pointed to a need to reinforce the foundations on the remaining 18 turbines. More investigation will be conducted. The company expects the turbines to be back in operation by late summer or early fall.
Benton Supervisor Bob Clark asked Pitman if the company is looking at other vendors for equipment. Pitman said some vendors have dropped out and others consolidated in the last few years. The company will look for equipment compatible to Benton’s needs, he said.
“I believe, I am still positive (in the project),” Clark said.“I just ask you to look closely at setbacks.”
“We are aware of the laws and are in tune with the town,” Pitman answered. He said the issues in Benton should be minimal.
Public meetings have been held and town officials and residents seem to be in agreement that the town would be a good location to harness the wind power.
Little had been heard from Empire State Wind Energy in the last several months. Company president
Keith Pitman attended the May 12 town board meeting to give an update on their project and the wind industry.
“The good news is right now we are prepared to take Benton and go with the project,” said Pitman, adding,
“We are definitely of the opinion that we want to do a project here in Benton.”
However, when Councilwoman Becky Jensen asked about how long it would be before the project starts, Pitman couldn’t give a direct answer, stating,“It could be tomorrow or months from now. We will keep working on it.”
Pitman said there have been many changes in the wind industry over the last four years. The greatest obstacle he noted is in acquiring equipment. As wind power was introduced in New York State , the price of equipment was high and now Pitman says it is leveling off.
“We are a small buyer,” he said, explaining the company is being cautious about buying equipment. He noted that a tower collapsed in Fenner in December and all wind turbines in that project have been shut down since the collapse.
The day after Pitman visited, news articles about a five-month investigation on the Fenner tower collapse, which was the first in the United States, pointed to a need to reinforce the foundations on the remaining 18 turbines. More investigation will be conducted. The company expects the turbines to be back in operation by late summer or early fall.
Benton Supervisor Bob Clark asked Pitman if the company is looking at other vendors for equipment. Pitman said some vendors have dropped out and others consolidated in the last few years. The company will look for equipment compatible to Benton’s needs, he said.
“I believe, I am still positive (in the project),” Clark said.“I just ask you to look closely at setbacks.”
“We are aware of the laws and are in tune with the town,” Pitman answered. He said the issues in Benton should be minimal.
Spain admits that the green energy as sold to Obama is a disaster
The Spanish government leaks a report that admits the ominous economic consequences of betting in favor of renewable energies.
The president of the United States, Barack Obama, doesn't seem to have chosen the right model to copy for his "green economy," Spain. After the government of José Luís Rodríguez Zapatero demonized a study of different experts about the fatal economic consequences of renewable energies, an internal document from the Spanish cabinet that it is even more negative has just been leaked.
To one of the authors of the first report, Gabriel Calzada, "the government has leaked it intentionally in order to turn the media against renewable energies and to be stronger in negotiations with businesses."
Because even though Zapatero himself opposes abandoning his grand bet, some voices - such as the minister of Industry, Miguel Sebastián - are beginning to express their worry over the enormous debt that has been generated by the investment in so-called clean energies, which could even delay Spain's exit from the economic crisis.
On eight occasions, the occupant of the White House referred to the Spanish model as an example to follow. The paradox is that it is a model that Obama himself wants Spain to abandon, as made clear in his call to Zapatero last week in which he asked him to change his strategy on the crisis.
The internal report of the Spanish administration admits that the price of electricity has gone up, as well as the debt, due to the extra costs of solar and wind energy. Even the government numbers indicate that each green job created costs more than 2.2 traditional jobs, as was shown in the report of the Juan de Mariana Institute. Besides that, the official document is almost a copy point by point of the one that led to Calzada being denounced [lit. "vetoed"] by the Spanish Embassy in an act in the U.S. Congress.
The presentation recognizes explicitly that "the increase of the electric bill is principally due to the cost of renewable energies." In fact, the increase in the extra costs of this industry explains more than 120% of the variation in the bill and has prevented the reduction in the costs of conventional electricity production to be reflected on the bills of the citizens.
If the document indicates that the development of renewable energies has had a positive impact, especially in the reduction of emissions, it has also admitted that the evolution has been too fast, due to subsidies.
"Between 2004 and 2010, the quantity of subsidies has been multiplied by five,",says the text of the Spanish Ministry. In 2009 alone they were doubled from the previous year to 5,045 million euros, the equivalent of the whole public investment in I+D+i ["Investigación + Desarrollo + Innovación tecnológica", or "research, development, and technological innovation"] in Spain.
The numbers in the long run are even scarier. The government itself says that the alternative energies sector will receive 126 billion euros in the next 25 years. Just an example: The owners of solar plants make 12 times more than what they pay for the energy coming from fossil fuel combustion. The majority are subsidies charged to the consumer.
The conclusion is that with the economy at the point of bankruptcy, it is not possible to keep injecting money in such a costly sector. And the government seems to realize this now.
But aside from all this, Obama's green energy project might cost him votes. The republican Rand Paul, animated by the tea party movement, won the primary on Tuesday for Kentucky's U.S. Senate seat owing to, among other things, being a fierce critic of the president's agenda on climate change.
Obama has made the focus of his economic and environmental politics a change towards a "green economy," which, to the judgment of some analysts, could be a risk for the recovery of the world's biggest economy.
The president of the United States, Barack Obama, doesn't seem to have chosen the right model to copy for his "green economy," Spain. After the government of José Luís Rodríguez Zapatero demonized a study of different experts about the fatal economic consequences of renewable energies, an internal document from the Spanish cabinet that it is even more negative has just been leaked.
To one of the authors of the first report, Gabriel Calzada, "the government has leaked it intentionally in order to turn the media against renewable energies and to be stronger in negotiations with businesses."
Because even though Zapatero himself opposes abandoning his grand bet, some voices - such as the minister of Industry, Miguel Sebastián - are beginning to express their worry over the enormous debt that has been generated by the investment in so-called clean energies, which could even delay Spain's exit from the economic crisis.
On eight occasions, the occupant of the White House referred to the Spanish model as an example to follow. The paradox is that it is a model that Obama himself wants Spain to abandon, as made clear in his call to Zapatero last week in which he asked him to change his strategy on the crisis.
The internal report of the Spanish administration admits that the price of electricity has gone up, as well as the debt, due to the extra costs of solar and wind energy. Even the government numbers indicate that each green job created costs more than 2.2 traditional jobs, as was shown in the report of the Juan de Mariana Institute. Besides that, the official document is almost a copy point by point of the one that led to Calzada being denounced [lit. "vetoed"] by the Spanish Embassy in an act in the U.S. Congress.
The presentation recognizes explicitly that "the increase of the electric bill is principally due to the cost of renewable energies." In fact, the increase in the extra costs of this industry explains more than 120% of the variation in the bill and has prevented the reduction in the costs of conventional electricity production to be reflected on the bills of the citizens.
If the document indicates that the development of renewable energies has had a positive impact, especially in the reduction of emissions, it has also admitted that the evolution has been too fast, due to subsidies.
"Between 2004 and 2010, the quantity of subsidies has been multiplied by five,",says the text of the Spanish Ministry. In 2009 alone they were doubled from the previous year to 5,045 million euros, the equivalent of the whole public investment in I+D+i ["Investigación + Desarrollo + Innovación tecnológica", or "research, development, and technological innovation"] in Spain.
The numbers in the long run are even scarier. The government itself says that the alternative energies sector will receive 126 billion euros in the next 25 years. Just an example: The owners of solar plants make 12 times more than what they pay for the energy coming from fossil fuel combustion. The majority are subsidies charged to the consumer.
The conclusion is that with the economy at the point of bankruptcy, it is not possible to keep injecting money in such a costly sector. And the government seems to realize this now.
But aside from all this, Obama's green energy project might cost him votes. The republican Rand Paul, animated by the tea party movement, won the primary on Tuesday for Kentucky's U.S. Senate seat owing to, among other things, being a fierce critic of the president's agenda on climate change.
Obama has made the focus of his economic and environmental politics a change towards a "green economy," which, to the judgment of some analysts, could be a risk for the recovery of the world's biggest economy.
Monday, May 24, 2010
Wind tower proposal could become law next month
After about two years of work, the Dunkirk Town Board may vote on a wind energy conversion system, or WECS, law at their June board meeting.
Once the proposal becomes law, town of Dunkirk residents will be permitted to build small, residential-use wind towers that have a total generation capacity of 100 kilowatts or less.
"Unless we have something come up that we didn't expect, yes, (we'll vote on the proposal after the public hearing)," said Town Supervisor Richard Purol. "I think we're that close that we should be able to do it."
Purol has distributed to the town board what may be the final draft of the WECS law.
"We went through it all, looked for typos and added everything in there that we've been putting together for a while, so that I had something to give to the board," Purol said. "Now, they've got something to look at."
The town board will hold a workshop and special meeting May 26 to discuss the proposed legislation and to take the next step toward making it town law.
"The reason we're going to have a workshop and special meeting is because if the board finds that there's nothing wrong with it (the law), I can't declare a public hearing unless it's at a meeting."
With board approval, the town will schedule a public hearing for June 8, prior to their regular monthly meeting. It will be the public's final opportunity to voice their concerns on the WECS law.
It's likely the board will vote on the legislation at that meeting, barring the unexpected.
Purol reflected on the law-drafting work, as the town approaches a vote.
"Once you start something, you want to finish it. It's unfortunate that it had to take as long as it did. But we're only going for the small WECS. We're not going for anything as far as commercial goes, or any big wind farms - nothing like that. So it should have been pretty much cut-and-dried, but when you start looking at it, we want to make sure everything is OK."
A resident interested in building a wind tower on his property will need town board approval to do so, according to the way the law is written.
Rather than going through a zoning process - and in order to avoid requests for variances - the town board will have a simple up-or-down vote.
If the resident asks to construct a tower that meets the law's requirements, he will be allowed to build it. If not, then the resident will not be given board approval.
"You either meet the criteria, or you don't," Purol said.
When the law-drafting process first started, the board passed a moratorium on the construction of wind towers within the town. It prevented residents from building a WECS before a law was passed.
Last year, at least one resident expressed interest in installing a tower on his property, Purol said.
"But that was last year," he said. "I really don't know if he's still interested or not. I haven't heard from him."
Once the proposal becomes law, town of Dunkirk residents will be permitted to build small, residential-use wind towers that have a total generation capacity of 100 kilowatts or less.
"Unless we have something come up that we didn't expect, yes, (we'll vote on the proposal after the public hearing)," said Town Supervisor Richard Purol. "I think we're that close that we should be able to do it."
Purol has distributed to the town board what may be the final draft of the WECS law.
"We went through it all, looked for typos and added everything in there that we've been putting together for a while, so that I had something to give to the board," Purol said. "Now, they've got something to look at."
The town board will hold a workshop and special meeting May 26 to discuss the proposed legislation and to take the next step toward making it town law.
"The reason we're going to have a workshop and special meeting is because if the board finds that there's nothing wrong with it (the law), I can't declare a public hearing unless it's at a meeting."
With board approval, the town will schedule a public hearing for June 8, prior to their regular monthly meeting. It will be the public's final opportunity to voice their concerns on the WECS law.
It's likely the board will vote on the legislation at that meeting, barring the unexpected.
Purol reflected on the law-drafting work, as the town approaches a vote.
"Once you start something, you want to finish it. It's unfortunate that it had to take as long as it did. But we're only going for the small WECS. We're not going for anything as far as commercial goes, or any big wind farms - nothing like that. So it should have been pretty much cut-and-dried, but when you start looking at it, we want to make sure everything is OK."
A resident interested in building a wind tower on his property will need town board approval to do so, according to the way the law is written.
Rather than going through a zoning process - and in order to avoid requests for variances - the town board will have a simple up-or-down vote.
If the resident asks to construct a tower that meets the law's requirements, he will be allowed to build it. If not, then the resident will not be given board approval.
"You either meet the criteria, or you don't," Purol said.
When the law-drafting process first started, the board passed a moratorium on the construction of wind towers within the town. It prevented residents from building a WECS before a law was passed.
Last year, at least one resident expressed interest in installing a tower on his property, Purol said.
"But that was last year," he said. "I really don't know if he's still interested or not. I haven't heard from him."
Wind won't solve energy problems
I would like to respond to the May 15 letter "Support local wind projects." Like the author, I once naively believed that wind was the answer to our energy problems. I believed it would free us from the more conventional energy producers, the most important of which is coal. I was then appointed to the Hamlin Wind Tower Committee, charged with the investigating this very topic. This is what I learned:
Wind generators have a very "big" problem. It's called "intermittency" (they do not produce a consistent flow of electricity.) The end result is that no coal-fired generating facilities can be eliminated. In fact, coal facilities need to run at full capacity to maintain efficiency. As more wind turbines are built, more fossil fueled generators will need to be brought online as "backups." As the letter writer notes, negatives for existing energy sources abound, and wind energy is no exception. He says the main issue is aesthetics. He is wrong. Other issues are health, distance from homes, and misinformation — they don't work as advertised.
JERRY L. BORKHOLDER
HAMLIN
Wind generators have a very "big" problem. It's called "intermittency" (they do not produce a consistent flow of electricity.) The end result is that no coal-fired generating facilities can be eliminated. In fact, coal facilities need to run at full capacity to maintain efficiency. As more wind turbines are built, more fossil fueled generators will need to be brought online as "backups." As the letter writer notes, negatives for existing energy sources abound, and wind energy is no exception. He says the main issue is aesthetics. He is wrong. Other issues are health, distance from homes, and misinformation — they don't work as advertised.
JERRY L. BORKHOLDER
HAMLIN
Wind safety - Expand certification rule for towers
The collapse of a wind turbine in Clinton County in March 2009 initially perplexed experts and interested novices alike.
Yet the state Public Service Commission has concluded that flawed wiring installation allowed the tower to tumble at the Noble Altona Wind Park run by Noble Environmental Power LLC, the state's biggest wind developer.
When the structures lose power, they are programmed to shut down automatically. Otherwise, out-of-control, spinning turbines can bring a tower down in some cases.
It does not happen often, but it happens. A 300-foot tall, 187-ton wind turbine came crashing down in a Madison County cornfield near Fenner late last December. That is still being investigated by the owner, Enel North America Inc.
The fall of the turbine in Clinton County and the failure of a second one at the site, both due to wiring problems, have sparked a new regulation. The PSC now requires wind power developers to ensure that emergency controls will shut off turbines during power losses.
The PSC regulation will be part of the certification process for wind projects 80 megawatts and larger. But what about those less than 80 megawatts, such as the proposed St. Lawrence Wind Farm in Cape Vincent, which is slated for 79.5 megawatts?
Safety controls need to be certified for all wind farms, not just those that meet or exceed the 80 megawatts threshold.
Siting wind turbines is extremely important. Zoning debates and community discussion are crucial, and not frivolous. It has been shown that a turbine can fall. That is why every turbine should be placed where it can do the least damage if it comes crashing down.
Public safety must be the highest priority in this process. The state should exert stronger oversight of wind development, but is failing to lead the way in regulating the new industry. That leaves it to counties, local governments and ordinary citizens to monitor safety issues.
But they are ill-equipped to do so.
Yet the state Public Service Commission has concluded that flawed wiring installation allowed the tower to tumble at the Noble Altona Wind Park run by Noble Environmental Power LLC, the state's biggest wind developer.
When the structures lose power, they are programmed to shut down automatically. Otherwise, out-of-control, spinning turbines can bring a tower down in some cases.
It does not happen often, but it happens. A 300-foot tall, 187-ton wind turbine came crashing down in a Madison County cornfield near Fenner late last December. That is still being investigated by the owner, Enel North America Inc.
The fall of the turbine in Clinton County and the failure of a second one at the site, both due to wiring problems, have sparked a new regulation. The PSC now requires wind power developers to ensure that emergency controls will shut off turbines during power losses.
The PSC regulation will be part of the certification process for wind projects 80 megawatts and larger. But what about those less than 80 megawatts, such as the proposed St. Lawrence Wind Farm in Cape Vincent, which is slated for 79.5 megawatts?
Safety controls need to be certified for all wind farms, not just those that meet or exceed the 80 megawatts threshold.
Siting wind turbines is extremely important. Zoning debates and community discussion are crucial, and not frivolous. It has been shown that a turbine can fall. That is why every turbine should be placed where it can do the least damage if it comes crashing down.
Public safety must be the highest priority in this process. The state should exert stronger oversight of wind development, but is failing to lead the way in regulating the new industry. That leaves it to counties, local governments and ordinary citizens to monitor safety issues.
But they are ill-equipped to do so.
Health risk of wind turbines debated
Both sides in the wind farm debate say health and safety evidence is on their side.
A group of Brown County residents working to stop the wind farm proposed for the southern part of the county cites reports from the World Health Organization and the National Institutes of Health that suggest wind turbines located too close to homes or schools cause negative health impacts.
"It is my opinion as a physician that the best evidence supports that building large wind energy turbines in close proximity to humans has a negative impact on the health," wrote Dr. Herbert Coussons, a Wrightstown resident and Brown County Citizens for Responsible Wind Energy board member.
The wind farm proposal could cause sleep disorders, he said.
But the Chicago-based company seeking to build 100 wind turbines in four southern Brown County communities says that argument is wrong.
"Some opponents have made up scary names to create false fears about wind turbines and health, but there is no science to back up their scare campaign," according to officials for Invenergy LLC.
The company's proposed Ledge Wind project in the towns of Morrison, Glenmore, Rockland and Wrightstown awaits siting guidelines from the Wisconsin Public Service Commission.
"There are more than 20,000 wind turbines currently operational in the U.S., and there is prodigious evidence nationwide that wind turbines are safe and produce no negative health effects," said Kevin Parzyck, project manager for the Ledge Wind project.
The Brown County Human Services Committee and Board of Health will hold a joint meeting at 5:30 p.m. Tuesday to listen to health and safety arguments.
"That's all we'll cover, safety and health," said Supervisor Patrick Evans, chairman of the Human Services Committee. "We're not going to get off on tangents."
Evans said he hopes the Board of Health will eventually make a recommendation on the issue.
In its presentation to the Green Bay Area Chamber of Commerce's policy committee last month, the citizens group quoted Dr. Christopher Hanning, a sleeping disorder physician in England who wrote: "In my expert opinion … I have no doubt that wind turbine noise emissions cause sleep disturbance and ill health."
In January, the PSC approved the Glacier Hills wind farm project in Columbia County proposed by Wisconsin Electric Power Company. At that time, the board wrote: "The Commission also finds that, while members of the public are concerned about possible health effects associated with the project, there is not sufficient evidence in the record to conclude that the project would cause adverse health effects."
The American Wind Energy Association said evidence of negative health effects from wind turbines is lacking.
"We are not aware of any scientifically peer-reviewed information demonstrating a link between wind turbines and negative health effects," according to the organization's Web site. Thousands of people around the world live near wind turbines without ill consequences."
A group of Brown County residents working to stop the wind farm proposed for the southern part of the county cites reports from the World Health Organization and the National Institutes of Health that suggest wind turbines located too close to homes or schools cause negative health impacts.
"It is my opinion as a physician that the best evidence supports that building large wind energy turbines in close proximity to humans has a negative impact on the health," wrote Dr. Herbert Coussons, a Wrightstown resident and Brown County Citizens for Responsible Wind Energy board member.
The wind farm proposal could cause sleep disorders, he said.
But the Chicago-based company seeking to build 100 wind turbines in four southern Brown County communities says that argument is wrong.
"Some opponents have made up scary names to create false fears about wind turbines and health, but there is no science to back up their scare campaign," according to officials for Invenergy LLC.
The company's proposed Ledge Wind project in the towns of Morrison, Glenmore, Rockland and Wrightstown awaits siting guidelines from the Wisconsin Public Service Commission.
"There are more than 20,000 wind turbines currently operational in the U.S., and there is prodigious evidence nationwide that wind turbines are safe and produce no negative health effects," said Kevin Parzyck, project manager for the Ledge Wind project.
The Brown County Human Services Committee and Board of Health will hold a joint meeting at 5:30 p.m. Tuesday to listen to health and safety arguments.
"That's all we'll cover, safety and health," said Supervisor Patrick Evans, chairman of the Human Services Committee. "We're not going to get off on tangents."
Evans said he hopes the Board of Health will eventually make a recommendation on the issue.
In its presentation to the Green Bay Area Chamber of Commerce's policy committee last month, the citizens group quoted Dr. Christopher Hanning, a sleeping disorder physician in England who wrote: "In my expert opinion … I have no doubt that wind turbine noise emissions cause sleep disturbance and ill health."
In January, the PSC approved the Glacier Hills wind farm project in Columbia County proposed by Wisconsin Electric Power Company. At that time, the board wrote: "The Commission also finds that, while members of the public are concerned about possible health effects associated with the project, there is not sufficient evidence in the record to conclude that the project would cause adverse health effects."
The American Wind Energy Association said evidence of negative health effects from wind turbines is lacking.
"We are not aware of any scientifically peer-reviewed information demonstrating a link between wind turbines and negative health effects," according to the organization's Web site. Thousands of people around the world live near wind turbines without ill consequences."
Thursday, May 20, 2010
Goldwind appoints US CEO as part of Americas expansion
US: Chinese turbine manufacturer Goldwind has appointed First Wind vice-president and chief financial officer Tim Rosenzweig to be the CEO of Goldwind USA.
On announcing the appointment, Goldwind said Rosenzweig would be taking up the position with immediate effect. It said his brief would be to build the company's presence in both North and South America.
Rosenzweig was part of the launch team for UPC Wind, which later became First Wind. Prior to this he has been a vice-president at a private equity fund and a vice-president at GE Capital Services Group in Hong Kong.
Speaking about the appointment Goldwind CEO Wu Gang said: "He brings an impressive breadth of skills and depth of experience to our CEO position. His combination of skills and experience growing companies in the sector from the ground floor to function seamlessly in the local market will be invaluable to our efforts to build Goldwind into a premier business in the Americas."
Goldwind launched its US offshoot last year and plans to add manufacturing facilities in the country. Earlier this year it also became the first Chinese manufacturer to install its turbines on US soil.
The 1.5MW permanent-magnetic direct drive turbines (the 77/1500 type) were installed on the 'Uilk' wind farm project at Pipestone Town, Minnesota.
On announcing the appointment, Goldwind said Rosenzweig would be taking up the position with immediate effect. It said his brief would be to build the company's presence in both North and South America.
Rosenzweig was part of the launch team for UPC Wind, which later became First Wind. Prior to this he has been a vice-president at a private equity fund and a vice-president at GE Capital Services Group in Hong Kong.
Speaking about the appointment Goldwind CEO Wu Gang said: "He brings an impressive breadth of skills and depth of experience to our CEO position. His combination of skills and experience growing companies in the sector from the ground floor to function seamlessly in the local market will be invaluable to our efforts to build Goldwind into a premier business in the Americas."
Goldwind launched its US offshoot last year and plans to add manufacturing facilities in the country. Earlier this year it also became the first Chinese manufacturer to install its turbines on US soil.
The 1.5MW permanent-magnetic direct drive turbines (the 77/1500 type) were installed on the 'Uilk' wind farm project at Pipestone Town, Minnesota.
Wednesday, May 19, 2010
First Wind SEC filing change questioned by Naomi Schalit Senior Reporter
Business experts say that energy company First Wind was within its rights to amend an SEC filing last week to declare that it did not, as the company had previously stated in an earlier filing, award Public Utilities Commission Chairman Kurt Adams an ownership interest while he was on the state payroll, a possible violation of state law.
But one expert says that the amendment, which came after the Maine Center for Public Interest Reporting published details of the grant to Adams, could itself raise questions with SEC regulators.
“The SEC is fairly liberal in permitting parties to amend their disclosure document,” said securities law expert Manning G. Warren III of the Louis S. Brandeis School of Law at the University of Louisville. But the amended filing, said Warren, “suggests that the company is acknowledging a rather significant error in terms of granting him those restricted stocks while he was a public servant.”
First Wind is in the process of filing disclosure documents — called an “S1” — with the SEC before a public offering of stock to raise money for the company.
“They’re trying to fix it for the sake of making sure that the investing public believes everything was done properly,” said Warren. “These filings go into the [SEC’s] division of corporation finance when there’s an amendment like this. If it gives them concern that perhaps the issuer is changing the facts given the adverse public-ity of your story, they might refer it to the enforcement division.”
State law regulates gifts to public servants. It’s 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.”
The statute applies also to anyone who “knowingly gives, offers, or promises any pecuniary benefit” for the purposes of influencing a public official. To avoid any conflict of interest, Adams said in a previous interview, “I recused myself from anything related to First Wind from when I accepted employment to when I left. I followed the statute by the book, told my employer and my colleagues.” The Maine Center for Public Interest Reporting, in a previous story, reported that Adams recused himself from First Wind-related matters at the PUC beginning in December, 2007.
First Wind’s SEC filings from earlier this year show that the award was a complex transaction that essentially started a vesting period for 1.2 million “equity units” on the date that Adams signed an employment agreement with the company. That date was April 16, 2008, while Adams was still the chairman of the PUC. He went to work for First Wind, a developer of wind farms in Maine and across the country, on May 19, 2008.
But after the story broke that Adams had taken the units while still on the state payroll, company officials launched an internal investigation of Adams’ hiring. The result of that investigation was released last week.
“Neither First Wind nor Kurt intended for the vesting to begin on that date [April 16, 2008],” said company spokesman John Lamontagne. “The amended S1 reflects the original intent and the corrections that have been made to the employment agreement.”
The amendment contradicts earlier statements made by both First Wind attorney Paul Wilson and Adams.
Adams and company officials acknowledge that he signed an employment agreement with First Wind on April 16, 2008, while he was still chairman of the state’s PUC. Adams also said that he got what he called “stock options” as part of his employment agreement with First Wind.
“Those stock options, the grant date is on the 16th,” he said. But he claimed they had “no value” and therefore would not trigger any state laws barring improper gifts by industries to state regulators.
Similarly, First Wind attorney Paul Wilson also told the Center that what he called “restricted units” had been granted to Adams on April 16, 2008. “There was an offer letter that the company signed and he signed, a restricted unit agreement that he signed on April 16th,” said Wilson.
A coalition of groups opposed to large-scale wind power development in the state asked Maine Attorney General Janet Mills to investigate whether First Wind’s grant of equity to Adams violated state laws. Mills’ office would neither confirm nor deny whether or not an investigation was taking place.
S1 disclosure filings with the SEC customarily include statements about adverse circumstances that could affect the welfare of the company.
“So if there is a pending or threatened state action against the company, then that should be disclosed to investors in the S1,” said University of California at Davis Law School professor Robert W. Hillman. While the latest, amended version of First Wind’s S1 includes a reference to a now-closed investigation of the company by New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo, there is no reference to a possible investigation by Maine’s chief legal officer.
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.
But one expert says that the amendment, which came after the Maine Center for Public Interest Reporting published details of the grant to Adams, could itself raise questions with SEC regulators.
“The SEC is fairly liberal in permitting parties to amend their disclosure document,” said securities law expert Manning G. Warren III of the Louis S. Brandeis School of Law at the University of Louisville. But the amended filing, said Warren, “suggests that the company is acknowledging a rather significant error in terms of granting him those restricted stocks while he was a public servant.”
First Wind is in the process of filing disclosure documents — called an “S1” — with the SEC before a public offering of stock to raise money for the company.
“They’re trying to fix it for the sake of making sure that the investing public believes everything was done properly,” said Warren. “These filings go into the [SEC’s] division of corporation finance when there’s an amendment like this. If it gives them concern that perhaps the issuer is changing the facts given the adverse public-ity of your story, they might refer it to the enforcement division.”
State law regulates gifts to public servants. It’s 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.”
The statute applies also to anyone who “knowingly gives, offers, or promises any pecuniary benefit” for the purposes of influencing a public official. To avoid any conflict of interest, Adams said in a previous interview, “I recused myself from anything related to First Wind from when I accepted employment to when I left. I followed the statute by the book, told my employer and my colleagues.” The Maine Center for Public Interest Reporting, in a previous story, reported that Adams recused himself from First Wind-related matters at the PUC beginning in December, 2007.
First Wind’s SEC filings from earlier this year show that the award was a complex transaction that essentially started a vesting period for 1.2 million “equity units” on the date that Adams signed an employment agreement with the company. That date was April 16, 2008, while Adams was still the chairman of the PUC. He went to work for First Wind, a developer of wind farms in Maine and across the country, on May 19, 2008.
But after the story broke that Adams had taken the units while still on the state payroll, company officials launched an internal investigation of Adams’ hiring. The result of that investigation was released last week.
“Neither First Wind nor Kurt intended for the vesting to begin on that date [April 16, 2008],” said company spokesman John Lamontagne. “The amended S1 reflects the original intent and the corrections that have been made to the employment agreement.”
The amendment contradicts earlier statements made by both First Wind attorney Paul Wilson and Adams.
Adams and company officials acknowledge that he signed an employment agreement with First Wind on April 16, 2008, while he was still chairman of the state’s PUC. Adams also said that he got what he called “stock options” as part of his employment agreement with First Wind.
“Those stock options, the grant date is on the 16th,” he said. But he claimed they had “no value” and therefore would not trigger any state laws barring improper gifts by industries to state regulators.
Similarly, First Wind attorney Paul Wilson also told the Center that what he called “restricted units” had been granted to Adams on April 16, 2008. “There was an offer letter that the company signed and he signed, a restricted unit agreement that he signed on April 16th,” said Wilson.
A coalition of groups opposed to large-scale wind power development in the state asked Maine Attorney General Janet Mills to investigate whether First Wind’s grant of equity to Adams violated state laws. Mills’ office would neither confirm nor deny whether or not an investigation was taking place.
S1 disclosure filings with the SEC customarily include statements about adverse circumstances that could affect the welfare of the company.
“So if there is a pending or threatened state action against the company, then that should be disclosed to investors in the S1,” said University of California at Davis Law School professor Robert W. Hillman. While the latest, amended version of First Wind’s S1 includes a reference to a now-closed investigation of the company by New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo, there is no reference to a possible investigation by Maine’s chief legal officer.
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.
Tuesday, May 18, 2010
Residents weigh in on NYPA offshore project
MAYVILLE - Chautauqua County is at a Dickensian crossroads, according to Doug Champ.
As chairman of the annual Chautauqua County Energy Conference, Champ sees opportunity in developing offshore wind power locally.
During the County Legislature's April meeting, Champ asked lawmakers to consider the future - using the phrase "a tale of two counties."
Champ wants local officials to be fully educated about the potential for a local wind power project. The opportunity, he said, is one which can create jobs and development in the county as well as address the nation's energy issues.
The New York Power Authority has identified Lake Erie and Lake Ontario as possible sites for turbines and is expected to name a developer for its Great Lakes Offshore Wind Project in early 2011.
"Offshore wind is coming," Champ said. "If we choose to ignore it and its potential, it will shift somewhere else."
In asking legislators to support the development of wind technology locally, Champ mentioned both the recent coal mine accident in West Virginia and the BP oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico.
"The impact of those have yet to be found," Champ said. "Undoubtedly they will have tremendous impacts on the environment and they will continue to be a problem associated with fossil fuels."
Champ said he stands willing to educate legislators and the public about the alternative energy source, possibly chairing a committee on the subject.
"I believe this county can step forward and compose itself a plan," Champ said. "If we do not step forward with this kind of promotion for this county to utilize all its resources, we will be a tale of two counties - the one with and the one without. I suggest that you think about its future. Utilize the potential alternative energy and job creation and development that exists."
Champ's comments were followed immediately by an opposing viewpoint, given by Tom Marks, New York Director of the Great Lakes Sport Fishing Counsel.
Critical of industrial-sized wind turbines, Marks said the machines are not green and alleged that developers cannot promise delivery of their product.
"They have to be backed up by coal, nuclear, hydro or some other dependable source of energy," Marks said. "Wind is green, but on a smaller scale - if you put it on a house or a building. ... We can have wind energy, but not on the industrial scale."
Marks went on to criticize putting turbines in the Great Lakes and claimed that such turbines will cause property values to drop.
"The Great Lakes is not a place to put wind turbines," Marks said. "These are national treasures. They don't need to be disgraced with wind turbines. Our sunsets, our view - there is an economic and environmental value to that. It encourages tourism. It will represent a tremendous loss of property value and this can be argued and challenged all you want, but believe me, when people have a view of an industrial site behind their house, the value is going to decline. The rest of us in the county will have to pick up that tab because the assessments will drop, so it's going to cost everybody in the county money."
Marks questioned how turbines will benefit local residents, claiming that the state will be the real beneficiary. Additionally, he claimed that the developers hired will likely be foreign companies already familiar with the technology.
"We can't let businesses come in here from overseas with no risk at all, taking our tax dollars to erect these structures," Marks said. "Once the incentives are finished, 10 to 15 years down the road, these businesses won't be able to stand on their own and they'll collapse. What will we do then with those wind turbines out in the lake? We'll foot the bill either to keep them running or tear them down. If they're not profitable, we'll end up tearing them down."
Later in the meeting, the legislature approved a motion opposing such projects.
The motion was initially sponsored by Dunkirk Democrats Shaun Heenan and Keith Ahlstrom as well as George Borrello, R-Irving.
The motion opposes the New York Power Authority developing wind-generating projects in the New York waters of Lake Erie and Lake Ontario. The three legislators are calling on local, state and federal elected officials to question NYPA on its proposal.
As chairman of the annual Chautauqua County Energy Conference, Champ sees opportunity in developing offshore wind power locally.
During the County Legislature's April meeting, Champ asked lawmakers to consider the future - using the phrase "a tale of two counties."
Champ wants local officials to be fully educated about the potential for a local wind power project. The opportunity, he said, is one which can create jobs and development in the county as well as address the nation's energy issues.
The New York Power Authority has identified Lake Erie and Lake Ontario as possible sites for turbines and is expected to name a developer for its Great Lakes Offshore Wind Project in early 2011.
"Offshore wind is coming," Champ said. "If we choose to ignore it and its potential, it will shift somewhere else."
In asking legislators to support the development of wind technology locally, Champ mentioned both the recent coal mine accident in West Virginia and the BP oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico.
"The impact of those have yet to be found," Champ said. "Undoubtedly they will have tremendous impacts on the environment and they will continue to be a problem associated with fossil fuels."
Champ said he stands willing to educate legislators and the public about the alternative energy source, possibly chairing a committee on the subject.
"I believe this county can step forward and compose itself a plan," Champ said. "If we do not step forward with this kind of promotion for this county to utilize all its resources, we will be a tale of two counties - the one with and the one without. I suggest that you think about its future. Utilize the potential alternative energy and job creation and development that exists."
Champ's comments were followed immediately by an opposing viewpoint, given by Tom Marks, New York Director of the Great Lakes Sport Fishing Counsel.
Critical of industrial-sized wind turbines, Marks said the machines are not green and alleged that developers cannot promise delivery of their product.
"They have to be backed up by coal, nuclear, hydro or some other dependable source of energy," Marks said. "Wind is green, but on a smaller scale - if you put it on a house or a building. ... We can have wind energy, but not on the industrial scale."
Marks went on to criticize putting turbines in the Great Lakes and claimed that such turbines will cause property values to drop.
"The Great Lakes is not a place to put wind turbines," Marks said. "These are national treasures. They don't need to be disgraced with wind turbines. Our sunsets, our view - there is an economic and environmental value to that. It encourages tourism. It will represent a tremendous loss of property value and this can be argued and challenged all you want, but believe me, when people have a view of an industrial site behind their house, the value is going to decline. The rest of us in the county will have to pick up that tab because the assessments will drop, so it's going to cost everybody in the county money."
Marks questioned how turbines will benefit local residents, claiming that the state will be the real beneficiary. Additionally, he claimed that the developers hired will likely be foreign companies already familiar with the technology.
"We can't let businesses come in here from overseas with no risk at all, taking our tax dollars to erect these structures," Marks said. "Once the incentives are finished, 10 to 15 years down the road, these businesses won't be able to stand on their own and they'll collapse. What will we do then with those wind turbines out in the lake? We'll foot the bill either to keep them running or tear them down. If they're not profitable, we'll end up tearing them down."
Later in the meeting, the legislature approved a motion opposing such projects.
The motion was initially sponsored by Dunkirk Democrats Shaun Heenan and Keith Ahlstrom as well as George Borrello, R-Irving.
The motion opposes the New York Power Authority developing wind-generating projects in the New York waters of Lake Erie and Lake Ontario. The three legislators are calling on local, state and federal elected officials to question NYPA on its proposal.
Committee Debating PILOT Vs. Full Taxation
HAMMOND - If the town decides to opt out of section 487 of New York State's Real Property Law, any company looking to build a windmill farm in Hammond, according to Jane Powers, director of St. Lawrence County Real Property Office, would be required to pay taxing jurisdictions a total of $42,929 for each two- megawatt turbine.
Mrs. Powers was the guest speaker Monday evening, as the wind advisory committee to the Hammond Town Board met at Hammond Central School.
Section 487, Mrs. Powers said, provides exemption from taxation for certain solar or wind energy systems or farm waste energy systems. While section 487's current effective date stands at Jan. 1, 2011, Mrs. Powers said that Governor David Paterson is currently working with NYSERDA (New York State Energy Research and Development Authority) to extend the deadline to Jan. 1, 2013.
"If the deadline is not extended," she said, "all turbines would be subject to full taxation."
With the state's goal of producing 25 percent of its energy from renewable sources by 2013, Mrs. Powers said, section 487 allows for taxation exemptions for a period of 15 years. She said she feels the deadline will be extended.
Based on Jan. 2010 town and county tax rates and school tax rates from the current calendar school year (2009-2010), Mrs. Powers made her best estimate as to what opting out of section 487 would mean for the town when it comes to taxation.
By opting out of section 487, Mrs. Powers said, there is no Payment in Lieu of Taxes (PILOT) agreement and a wind company would be fully taxed at the current rates for each individual turbine.
Each two-megawatt turbine, she said, was hypothetically assessed at $2 million. Full taxation for such a turbine, Mrs. Powers estimated, would work out to be $42,929, or about $16,000 for St. Lawrence County, $900 for the town, $900 for the Hammond Volunteer Fire Department, $1,200 in chargebacks, nearly $24,000 for Hammond Central School, and another $50 for the Hammond library.
The same two-megawatt turbine, under a PILOT agreement, Mrs. Powers said, would see a wind company responsible for a total of $16,000 in taxation, or approximately $6,000 for the county, $300 for the town of Hammond, $450 in chargebacks, almost $9,000 for HCS, and another $20 for the library.
"There are a lot of players involved," Mrs. Powers said. "Its a balancing act and someone is going to have to negotiate.
"If you want the project," she continued, "you will be asked by the wind company to enter into a PILOT agreement. If you don't want the project...."
Wind advisory committee member Steven Sarfaty asked why the town would want to go with the PILOT option, given the huge discrepancy in tax payments.
Mrs. Powers explained that wind farms are expensive to construct and maintain and that wind companies "would expect taxes to be reduced."
Following Mrs. Powers' presentation, the committee went back to work on its charge of taking a "hard look" at the existing wind ordinance.
"We've been here how many times now, and accomplished nothing," said Leonard Bickelhaupt, committee member. "We've got to pick something - I don't care what - and go with it."
Facilitator David B. Duff asked the committee to identify large areas of concern that all committee members can address for next week's meeting, to be held Monday at 7 p.m. in the Village Hall.
"This committee needs momentum," he said. "A list of major issues must be prioritized."
Three primary concerns were named, including economic viability (to include property value effects), setback distances (to involve noise, shadow, health/safety, wildlife, and visual impacts), and "processing issues" (i.e. complaint resolution, decommissioning, ownership succession, etc.).
The topic of noise will be addressed at next week's meeting.
Committee members now have versions of the law that they can "apply an electronic sticky note" to, addressing areas of concern and issues they may have with certain sections within the law. Mr. Duff suggested committee members start listing resolutions along with their concerns.
Committee members will be making their suggestions as to noise issues via e-mail over the course of the week.
The goal is to end up with one working document containing all committee member's additions.
Mrs. Powers was the guest speaker Monday evening, as the wind advisory committee to the Hammond Town Board met at Hammond Central School.
Section 487, Mrs. Powers said, provides exemption from taxation for certain solar or wind energy systems or farm waste energy systems. While section 487's current effective date stands at Jan. 1, 2011, Mrs. Powers said that Governor David Paterson is currently working with NYSERDA (New York State Energy Research and Development Authority) to extend the deadline to Jan. 1, 2013.
"If the deadline is not extended," she said, "all turbines would be subject to full taxation."
With the state's goal of producing 25 percent of its energy from renewable sources by 2013, Mrs. Powers said, section 487 allows for taxation exemptions for a period of 15 years. She said she feels the deadline will be extended.
Based on Jan. 2010 town and county tax rates and school tax rates from the current calendar school year (2009-2010), Mrs. Powers made her best estimate as to what opting out of section 487 would mean for the town when it comes to taxation.
By opting out of section 487, Mrs. Powers said, there is no Payment in Lieu of Taxes (PILOT) agreement and a wind company would be fully taxed at the current rates for each individual turbine.
Each two-megawatt turbine, she said, was hypothetically assessed at $2 million. Full taxation for such a turbine, Mrs. Powers estimated, would work out to be $42,929, or about $16,000 for St. Lawrence County, $900 for the town, $900 for the Hammond Volunteer Fire Department, $1,200 in chargebacks, nearly $24,000 for Hammond Central School, and another $50 for the Hammond library.
The same two-megawatt turbine, under a PILOT agreement, Mrs. Powers said, would see a wind company responsible for a total of $16,000 in taxation, or approximately $6,000 for the county, $300 for the town of Hammond, $450 in chargebacks, almost $9,000 for HCS, and another $20 for the library.
"There are a lot of players involved," Mrs. Powers said. "Its a balancing act and someone is going to have to negotiate.
"If you want the project," she continued, "you will be asked by the wind company to enter into a PILOT agreement. If you don't want the project...."
Wind advisory committee member Steven Sarfaty asked why the town would want to go with the PILOT option, given the huge discrepancy in tax payments.
Mrs. Powers explained that wind farms are expensive to construct and maintain and that wind companies "would expect taxes to be reduced."
Following Mrs. Powers' presentation, the committee went back to work on its charge of taking a "hard look" at the existing wind ordinance.
"We've been here how many times now, and accomplished nothing," said Leonard Bickelhaupt, committee member. "We've got to pick something - I don't care what - and go with it."
Facilitator David B. Duff asked the committee to identify large areas of concern that all committee members can address for next week's meeting, to be held Monday at 7 p.m. in the Village Hall.
"This committee needs momentum," he said. "A list of major issues must be prioritized."
Three primary concerns were named, including economic viability (to include property value effects), setback distances (to involve noise, shadow, health/safety, wildlife, and visual impacts), and "processing issues" (i.e. complaint resolution, decommissioning, ownership succession, etc.).
The topic of noise will be addressed at next week's meeting.
Committee members now have versions of the law that they can "apply an electronic sticky note" to, addressing areas of concern and issues they may have with certain sections within the law. Mr. Duff suggested committee members start listing resolutions along with their concerns.
Committee members will be making their suggestions as to noise issues via e-mail over the course of the week.
The goal is to end up with one working document containing all committee member's additions.
Monday, May 17, 2010
Noble Environmental Power faces questions over wind turbine collapse
An investigation into a wind turbine that collapsed in New York State last year has found that wiring in the machine may have been “incorrectly” installed.
The state’s largest wind developer, Noble Environmental Power, could now find itself required to gain third-party certification for other turbines it has built in the state to answer questions hanging over its operating practice.
The investigation by New York’s Department of Public Service found that the collapse of one turbine and failure of a second at the 65-turbine Noble Altona Windpark was the result of a wiring system that prevented the turbines from being automatically shut down in the event of a loss of electric power.
The day of the collapse – March 6, 2009 – had seen contractors working on a bank of relays at the site, which may have resulted in the loss of power. Turbine 42 and Turbine 59 did not shut down as expected during the incident.
“Questionable”
The New York State Public Service Commission said Noble Environmental had been unable to explain why the “questionable” wiring would have been present in two of its turbines. Therefore, it has asked the wind farm owner if there is any reason why it should require certification of the safety of its other turbines in the state.
Noble Environmental runs 612 megawatts of wind generating capacity in New York State and 216MW in development.
The Commission said the wind farm operator had now introduced a software program that should detect any other instances of bad wiring in its turbines, and that the problem “should not recur”.
But, it said the investigation into the turbine collapse had uncovered “a number of instances where best practices may not have been followed in terms of monitoring operations and where compliance with quality assurance/quality control measures and manufacturer’s recommendations for inspection and maintenance of turbines may not have been fully implemented by Noble”.
“Responsibility”
Commission Chairman Garry Brown said: “This Commission takes very seriously its responsibility to ensure that the electric corporations it
regulates provide safe and reliable electric service.
“As we continue to encourage and promote development of new wind farms in New York State to help us create greater amounts of renewable energy, we must make sure that those installing and operating wind turbines do so properly, and with all necessary safeguards in place.”
Noble Environmental Power has said safety is of “utmost importance” to the company. The firm is currently reviewing the Commission’s ruling.
The Commission said it would be adding a requirement on other wind developers proposing wind farms in the state to secure third-party certification for their turbines.
The state’s largest wind developer, Noble Environmental Power, could now find itself required to gain third-party certification for other turbines it has built in the state to answer questions hanging over its operating practice.
The investigation by New York’s Department of Public Service found that the collapse of one turbine and failure of a second at the 65-turbine Noble Altona Windpark was the result of a wiring system that prevented the turbines from being automatically shut down in the event of a loss of electric power.
The day of the collapse – March 6, 2009 – had seen contractors working on a bank of relays at the site, which may have resulted in the loss of power. Turbine 42 and Turbine 59 did not shut down as expected during the incident.
“Questionable”
The New York State Public Service Commission said Noble Environmental had been unable to explain why the “questionable” wiring would have been present in two of its turbines. Therefore, it has asked the wind farm owner if there is any reason why it should require certification of the safety of its other turbines in the state.
Noble Environmental runs 612 megawatts of wind generating capacity in New York State and 216MW in development.
The Commission said the wind farm operator had now introduced a software program that should detect any other instances of bad wiring in its turbines, and that the problem “should not recur”.
But, it said the investigation into the turbine collapse had uncovered “a number of instances where best practices may not have been followed in terms of monitoring operations and where compliance with quality assurance/quality control measures and manufacturer’s recommendations for inspection and maintenance of turbines may not have been fully implemented by Noble”.
“Responsibility”
Commission Chairman Garry Brown said: “This Commission takes very seriously its responsibility to ensure that the electric corporations it
regulates provide safe and reliable electric service.
“As we continue to encourage and promote development of new wind farms in New York State to help us create greater amounts of renewable energy, we must make sure that those installing and operating wind turbines do so properly, and with all necessary safeguards in place.”
Noble Environmental Power has said safety is of “utmost importance” to the company. The firm is currently reviewing the Commission’s ruling.
The Commission said it would be adding a requirement on other wind developers proposing wind farms in the state to secure third-party certification for their turbines.
Collapse of Wind Turbine Investigation Complete; Additional Safety Review Needed
STATE OF NEW YORK
Public Service Commission
Garry A. Brown, Chairman
Three Empire State Plaza, Albany, NY 12223
Further Details: James Denn
james_denn@dps.state.ny.us | 518.474.7080
http://www.dps.state.ny.us 10046/10-E-0149
PSC SEEKS DETAILS FROM WIND FARM DEVELOPER
— Collapse of Wind Turbine Investigation Complete; Additional Safety Review Needed —
Albany, NY—05/13/10—The New York State Public Service Commission (Commission), today received a report regarding Department of Public Service staff’s investigation into the collapse of a wind turbine at the Noble Altona Windpark owned by an affiliate of Noble Environmental Power, LLC (Noble). As a result of the investigation, the Commission will order Noble to show cause why it should not be required to demonstrate, through a third-party certification or otherwise, that its wind farms in New York are providing safe wholesale electric service, and that all quality assurance and quality control program measures and manufacturer’s recommendations for inspection and maintenance of turbines, towers and related facilities have
been implemented for the facilities in New York.
“This Commission takes very seriously its responsibility to ensure that the electric corporations it regulates provide safe and reliable electric service,” said Commission Chairman Garry Brown. “As we continue to encourage and promote development of new wind farms in New York State to help us create greater amounts of renewable energy, we must make sure that those installing and operating wind turbines do so properly, and with all necessary safeguards in place.”
The Commission’s decision today stems from Staff’s investigation into the collapse of a wind turbine at the 65-unit Noble Altona Windpark in Clinton County on March 6, 2009. The investigation concluded that the physical collapse of one turbine, and the failure of another, was the result of certain wiring being incorrectly installed. The incorrect wiring prevented the turbines from going into an automatic shut-down mode due to loss of electric power, which in fact did occur the day of the collapse when contractors changed settings on a bank of relays.
Noble Environmental Power, LLC, the parent of Noble Altona, has 612 megawatts (MW) of wind projects in operation in New York, and an additional 216 MW under development. The firm is the largest wind energy developer in the state. During the course of staff’s intensive and thorough investigation, the wind farm owner was unable to satisfactorily explain why the questionable wiring would have been present in two of its turbines. The investigation also revealed a number of instances where best practices may not have been followed in terms of monitoring operations and where compliance with quality assurance/quality control measures and manufacturer’s recommendations for inspection and maintenance of turbines may not have been fully implemented by Noble.
On a positive note, as a result of the Altona incident, a diagnostic verification program has been created by the turbine manufacturer to detect the presence of the aberrant turbine wiring that had interfered with the safe mode operation. Thus, this particular problem should not recur.
In addition to specific requirements being imposed on Noble, the Commission will be advising those proposing regulated wind farms of its plan to include a certificate condition requiring such companies to demonstrate, prior to facility operation, through a third-party certification or otherwise, that the emergency control system will safely shut down the wind turbine upon loss of power and that the control system meets manufacturer's specifications for the facility. The Commission also expects to include a certificate condition requiring compliance with manufacturer’s recommendations for inspection and maintenance of turbines, towers and related
facilities.
The Commission’s decision (and the staff investigation team's report), when issued, may be obtained by going to the Commission Documents section of the Commission’s Web site at www.dps.state.ny.us and entering Case Number 10-E-0149 in the input box labeled “Search for Case/Matter Number.” Many libraries offer free Internet access. Commission orders may also be obtained from the Commission’s Files Office, 14th floor, Three Empire State Plaza, Albany, NY 12223 (518-474-2500).
Public Service Commission
Garry A. Brown, Chairman
Three Empire State Plaza, Albany, NY 12223
Further Details: James Denn
james_denn@dps.state.ny.us | 518.474.7080
http://www.dps.state.ny.us 10046/10-E-0149
PSC SEEKS DETAILS FROM WIND FARM DEVELOPER
— Collapse of Wind Turbine Investigation Complete; Additional Safety Review Needed —
Albany, NY—05/13/10—The New York State Public Service Commission (Commission), today received a report regarding Department of Public Service staff’s investigation into the collapse of a wind turbine at the Noble Altona Windpark owned by an affiliate of Noble Environmental Power, LLC (Noble). As a result of the investigation, the Commission will order Noble to show cause why it should not be required to demonstrate, through a third-party certification or otherwise, that its wind farms in New York are providing safe wholesale electric service, and that all quality assurance and quality control program measures and manufacturer’s recommendations for inspection and maintenance of turbines, towers and related facilities have
been implemented for the facilities in New York.
“This Commission takes very seriously its responsibility to ensure that the electric corporations it regulates provide safe and reliable electric service,” said Commission Chairman Garry Brown. “As we continue to encourage and promote development of new wind farms in New York State to help us create greater amounts of renewable energy, we must make sure that those installing and operating wind turbines do so properly, and with all necessary safeguards in place.”
The Commission’s decision today stems from Staff’s investigation into the collapse of a wind turbine at the 65-unit Noble Altona Windpark in Clinton County on March 6, 2009. The investigation concluded that the physical collapse of one turbine, and the failure of another, was the result of certain wiring being incorrectly installed. The incorrect wiring prevented the turbines from going into an automatic shut-down mode due to loss of electric power, which in fact did occur the day of the collapse when contractors changed settings on a bank of relays.
Noble Environmental Power, LLC, the parent of Noble Altona, has 612 megawatts (MW) of wind projects in operation in New York, and an additional 216 MW under development. The firm is the largest wind energy developer in the state. During the course of staff’s intensive and thorough investigation, the wind farm owner was unable to satisfactorily explain why the questionable wiring would have been present in two of its turbines. The investigation also revealed a number of instances where best practices may not have been followed in terms of monitoring operations and where compliance with quality assurance/quality control measures and manufacturer’s recommendations for inspection and maintenance of turbines may not have been fully implemented by Noble.
On a positive note, as a result of the Altona incident, a diagnostic verification program has been created by the turbine manufacturer to detect the presence of the aberrant turbine wiring that had interfered with the safe mode operation. Thus, this particular problem should not recur.
In addition to specific requirements being imposed on Noble, the Commission will be advising those proposing regulated wind farms of its plan to include a certificate condition requiring such companies to demonstrate, prior to facility operation, through a third-party certification or otherwise, that the emergency control system will safely shut down the wind turbine upon loss of power and that the control system meets manufacturer's specifications for the facility. The Commission also expects to include a certificate condition requiring compliance with manufacturer’s recommendations for inspection and maintenance of turbines, towers and related
facilities.
The Commission’s decision (and the staff investigation team's report), when issued, may be obtained by going to the Commission Documents section of the Commission’s Web site at www.dps.state.ny.us and entering Case Number 10-E-0149 in the input box labeled “Search for Case/Matter Number.” Many libraries offer free Internet access. Commission orders may also be obtained from the Commission’s Files Office, 14th floor, Three Empire State Plaza, Albany, NY 12223 (518-474-2500).
Sunday, May 16, 2010
Wind PILOT
The payment-in-lieu-of-taxes plan for the Galloo Island Wind Farm was not supposed to be a model for other wind power projects. Yet that is what's happening in the debate over a zoning law regulating wind power developments in the town of Cape Vincent.
There, the terms of the Galloo Island PILOT plan are being used to estimate possible PILOT payments for BP Alternative Energy's 124-megawatt project in a debate over the town's proposal to regulate noise levels.
It is a consequence of the JCIDA's failure to follow the intent of the Legislature. But county lawmakers are not blameless. They share in the responsibiliy for approving the Galloo Island PILOT for Upstate NY Power Corp. instead of rejecting it until the JCIDA complied with the Legislature's directions.
The JCIDA has insisted all along that the 20-year Galloo Island PILOT presented for later approval by the county Legislature was specific to that project. However, the JCIDA ignored the county's original instructions to come up with a model that would be applied to all wind power projects.
No PILOT has been negotiated for the Cape Vincent project, but the developer's reliance on the Galloo plan to project payments to municipalities is a troubling sign that it will be presumed as the basis for the future talks. The exception is becoming the standard. That shouldn't surprise anyone. Developers will want nothing less than the preferential treatment other projects receive as a matter of fairness.
That would be avoidable if the JCIDA had done what was expected of it. Before it goes any further, the county Legislature must put a halt to the speculation. Where is Kenneth Blankenbush, chairman of the county Legislature? He should immediately lead the board through a discussion of its mistakes. Then the Legislature should rescind the Galloo Island PILOT and replace it with a tax exemption policy that does not grant more than developers are entitled to by law.
There, the terms of the Galloo Island PILOT plan are being used to estimate possible PILOT payments for BP Alternative Energy's 124-megawatt project in a debate over the town's proposal to regulate noise levels.
It is a consequence of the JCIDA's failure to follow the intent of the Legislature. But county lawmakers are not blameless. They share in the responsibiliy for approving the Galloo Island PILOT for Upstate NY Power Corp. instead of rejecting it until the JCIDA complied with the Legislature's directions.
The JCIDA has insisted all along that the 20-year Galloo Island PILOT presented for later approval by the county Legislature was specific to that project. However, the JCIDA ignored the county's original instructions to come up with a model that would be applied to all wind power projects.
No PILOT has been negotiated for the Cape Vincent project, but the developer's reliance on the Galloo plan to project payments to municipalities is a troubling sign that it will be presumed as the basis for the future talks. The exception is becoming the standard. That shouldn't surprise anyone. Developers will want nothing less than the preferential treatment other projects receive as a matter of fairness.
That would be avoidable if the JCIDA had done what was expected of it. Before it goes any further, the county Legislature must put a halt to the speculation. Where is Kenneth Blankenbush, chairman of the county Legislature? He should immediately lead the board through a discussion of its mistakes. Then the Legislature should rescind the Galloo Island PILOT and replace it with a tax exemption policy that does not grant more than developers are entitled to by law.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)