Re: Ecogen v. Town of Italy
Dear Concerned Citizens;
A hearing before the Honorable Judge Ark on the Town of Italy's motion to dismiss the lawsuit filed by Ecogen on November 4, 2009 is scheduled for:
When: Thursday, June 17, 10:30 a.m.
Where: Yates County Court House
(415 Liberty St., Penn Yan, Yates County, NY)
Ecogen's lawsuit is asking that the court award them a permit for the Italy-Prattsburgh project and declare that they are "vested", enabling them to proceed with their proposed development. Ecogen is asking for this legal relief despite the Town’s perfectly legal legislative denial of their application on October 5, 2009. The lawsuit was filed immediately after (and in retaliation for the results of) the November 3, 2009 elections in Italy and Prattsburgh.
Please come. Urge your friends and neighbors to come.
Sincerely,
The Finger Lakes Preservation Association
Saturday, June 12, 2010
Friday, June 11, 2010
Wind turbine opponent speaks in Greece
If there was any question about where Alan Isselhard stood on the issue of offshore wind turbines in Lake Ontario, it was answered by the very first thing he said.
"We want to see the offshore turbine project defeated. That's what we're after," Isselhard said Thursday evening to about 125 people crowded into the small sanctuary of Lakeview Community Church on Edgemere Drive in Greece.
Based on the crowd's reaction, most of them were after the same thing.
Isselhard, who lives on the lakeshore in Huron, Wayne County, has become a leading opponent of the New York Power Authority's plan to promote construction of dozens of huge turbines in one or more wind farms in Lake Ontario or Lake Erie.
He said his group, Great Lakes Concerned Citizens, is pressing the Monroe County Legislature to join colleagues in the three counties to the east in opposing the offshore project. "Unfortunately, Monroe County is dragging its feet and doing nothing, increasing the chances this project will be located in the lake off Monroe County," he said.
The county legislator who represents Greece shoreline neighborhoods, Republican Rick Antelli, attended the meeting and said a resolution to oppose the project is being discussed by some lawmakers.
The power authority announced a week ago that it had received five proposals from wind developers. Officials have declined to say what companies submitted the proposals, how many turbines each wants to build and where in the lakes they would put them.
The authority has laid out five areas it found suitable for wind farms — the eastern ends of lakes Erie and Ontario, and areas in Lake Ontario off parts of Monroe, Wayne and Niagara counties.
Isselhard and several other speakers ticked off a long list of reasons why they believe putting them anywhere is a bad idea — bird and fish impacts, noise, visual pollution, oil leaks, navigation impediments and diminution of shoreline property values.
"It would be the beginning of the industrializing and the trashing of this beautiful resource," he said.
Authority spokeswoman Connie Cullen has previously said information about the winning proposal would be made public only after the group's board voted on the matter, months from now. She initially said "state procurement law" forbade the release of information, but later said it was authority policy to say nothing. "Releasing bid information ... before an award is made would jeopardize the interests of taxpayers to get the best price and businesses to receive fair evaluation," she said.
"We want to see the offshore turbine project defeated. That's what we're after," Isselhard said Thursday evening to about 125 people crowded into the small sanctuary of Lakeview Community Church on Edgemere Drive in Greece.
Based on the crowd's reaction, most of them were after the same thing.
Isselhard, who lives on the lakeshore in Huron, Wayne County, has become a leading opponent of the New York Power Authority's plan to promote construction of dozens of huge turbines in one or more wind farms in Lake Ontario or Lake Erie.
He said his group, Great Lakes Concerned Citizens, is pressing the Monroe County Legislature to join colleagues in the three counties to the east in opposing the offshore project. "Unfortunately, Monroe County is dragging its feet and doing nothing, increasing the chances this project will be located in the lake off Monroe County," he said.
The county legislator who represents Greece shoreline neighborhoods, Republican Rick Antelli, attended the meeting and said a resolution to oppose the project is being discussed by some lawmakers.
The power authority announced a week ago that it had received five proposals from wind developers. Officials have declined to say what companies submitted the proposals, how many turbines each wants to build and where in the lakes they would put them.
The authority has laid out five areas it found suitable for wind farms — the eastern ends of lakes Erie and Ontario, and areas in Lake Ontario off parts of Monroe, Wayne and Niagara counties.
Isselhard and several other speakers ticked off a long list of reasons why they believe putting them anywhere is a bad idea — bird and fish impacts, noise, visual pollution, oil leaks, navigation impediments and diminution of shoreline property values.
"It would be the beginning of the industrializing and the trashing of this beautiful resource," he said.
Authority spokeswoman Connie Cullen has previously said information about the winning proposal would be made public only after the group's board voted on the matter, months from now. She initially said "state procurement law" forbade the release of information, but later said it was authority policy to say nothing. "Releasing bid information ... before an award is made would jeopardize the interests of taxpayers to get the best price and businesses to receive fair evaluation," she said.
An Energy Strategy for Grown-Ups
Wind power is not a realistic substitute for oil.
The tragic Gulf oil spill has produced overreaction ("end offshore drilling"), demagoguery ("Obama's Katrina") and bad policy recommendations ("We must generate 20% of our electricity from windmills"). None of this helps clean up and move forward. If we want both clean energy and a high standard of living, here are 10 steps for thoughtful grown-ups:
1) Figure out what went wrong and make it unlikely to happen again. We don't stop flying after a terrible airplane crash, and we won't stop drilling offshore after this terrible spill. Thirty percent of U.S. oil production (and 25% of natural gas) comes from thousands of active wells in the Gulf of Mexico. Without it, gasoline prices would skyrocket and we would depend more on tankers from the Middle East with worse safety records than American offshore drillers.
2) Learn a safety lesson from the U.S. nuclear industry: accountability. For 60 years, reactors on U.S. Navy ships have operated without killing one sailor. Why? The career of the ship's commander can be ended by a mistake. The number of deaths from nuclear accidents at U.S. commercial reactors is also zero.
3) Determine what the president's cleanup plan was and where the people and the equipment were to implement it. In 1990, after the Exxon Valdez spill, a new law required that the president "ensure" the cleanup of a spill and have the people and equipment to do it. President Obama effectively delegated this job to the spiller. Is that a president's only real option today? If so, what should future presidents have on hand for backup if the spiller can't perform?
4) Put back on the table more onshore resources for oil and natural gas. Drilling in a few thousand acres along the edge of the 19-million acre Alaska National Wildlife Refuge and at other onshore locations would produce vast oil supplies. A spill on land could be contained much more easily than one located a mile deep in water.
5) Electrify half our cars and trucks. This is ambitious, but it is the best way to reduce U.S. oil consumption, cutting it by one-third to about 13 million barrels a day. A Brookings Institution study says we could electrify half our cars and trucks without building one new power plant if we plug in our cars at night.
6) Invest in energy research and development. A cost-competitive, 500-mile-range battery would virtually guarantee electrification of half our cars and trucks. Reduce the cost of solar power by a factor of four. Find a way for utilities to make money from the CO2 produced by their coal plants.
7) Stop pretending wind power has anything to do with reducing America's dependence on oil. Windmills generate electricity—not transportation fuel. Wind has become the energy pet rock of the 21st century and a taxpayer rip-off. According to the Energy Information Administration, wind produces only 1.3% of U.S. electricity but receives federal taxpayer subsidies 25 times as much per megawatt hour as subsidies for all other forms of electricity production combined. Wind can be an energy supplement, but it has nothing to do with ending our dependence on oil.
8) If we need more green electricity, build nuclear plants. The 100 commercial nuclear plants we already have produce 70% of our pollution-free, carbon-free electricity. Yet the U.S. has just broken ground on our first new reactor in 30 years, while China starts one every three months and France is 80% nuclear. We wouldn't mothball our nuclear Navy if we were going to war. We shouldn't mothball our nuclear plants if we want low-cost, reliable green energy.
9) Focus on conservation. In the region where I live, the Tennessee Valley Authority could close four of its dirtiest coal plants if we reduced our per capita use of electricity to the national average.
10) Make sure liability limits are appropriate for spill damage. The Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund, funded by a per-barrel fee on industry, should be adjusted to pay for cleanup and to compensate those hurt by spills. An industry insurance program like that of the nuclear industry is also an attractive model to consider.
These 10 steps forward could help America grow stronger after this tragic event.
Mr. Alexander is a Republican senator from Tennessee and the chairman of the Senate Republican Conference.
The tragic Gulf oil spill has produced overreaction ("end offshore drilling"), demagoguery ("Obama's Katrina") and bad policy recommendations ("We must generate 20% of our electricity from windmills"). None of this helps clean up and move forward. If we want both clean energy and a high standard of living, here are 10 steps for thoughtful grown-ups:
1) Figure out what went wrong and make it unlikely to happen again. We don't stop flying after a terrible airplane crash, and we won't stop drilling offshore after this terrible spill. Thirty percent of U.S. oil production (and 25% of natural gas) comes from thousands of active wells in the Gulf of Mexico. Without it, gasoline prices would skyrocket and we would depend more on tankers from the Middle East with worse safety records than American offshore drillers.
2) Learn a safety lesson from the U.S. nuclear industry: accountability. For 60 years, reactors on U.S. Navy ships have operated without killing one sailor. Why? The career of the ship's commander can be ended by a mistake. The number of deaths from nuclear accidents at U.S. commercial reactors is also zero.
3) Determine what the president's cleanup plan was and where the people and the equipment were to implement it. In 1990, after the Exxon Valdez spill, a new law required that the president "ensure" the cleanup of a spill and have the people and equipment to do it. President Obama effectively delegated this job to the spiller. Is that a president's only real option today? If so, what should future presidents have on hand for backup if the spiller can't perform?
4) Put back on the table more onshore resources for oil and natural gas. Drilling in a few thousand acres along the edge of the 19-million acre Alaska National Wildlife Refuge and at other onshore locations would produce vast oil supplies. A spill on land could be contained much more easily than one located a mile deep in water.
5) Electrify half our cars and trucks. This is ambitious, but it is the best way to reduce U.S. oil consumption, cutting it by one-third to about 13 million barrels a day. A Brookings Institution study says we could electrify half our cars and trucks without building one new power plant if we plug in our cars at night.
6) Invest in energy research and development. A cost-competitive, 500-mile-range battery would virtually guarantee electrification of half our cars and trucks. Reduce the cost of solar power by a factor of four. Find a way for utilities to make money from the CO2 produced by their coal plants.
7) Stop pretending wind power has anything to do with reducing America's dependence on oil. Windmills generate electricity—not transportation fuel. Wind has become the energy pet rock of the 21st century and a taxpayer rip-off. According to the Energy Information Administration, wind produces only 1.3% of U.S. electricity but receives federal taxpayer subsidies 25 times as much per megawatt hour as subsidies for all other forms of electricity production combined. Wind can be an energy supplement, but it has nothing to do with ending our dependence on oil.
8) If we need more green electricity, build nuclear plants. The 100 commercial nuclear plants we already have produce 70% of our pollution-free, carbon-free electricity. Yet the U.S. has just broken ground on our first new reactor in 30 years, while China starts one every three months and France is 80% nuclear. We wouldn't mothball our nuclear Navy if we were going to war. We shouldn't mothball our nuclear plants if we want low-cost, reliable green energy.
9) Focus on conservation. In the region where I live, the Tennessee Valley Authority could close four of its dirtiest coal plants if we reduced our per capita use of electricity to the national average.
10) Make sure liability limits are appropriate for spill damage. The Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund, funded by a per-barrel fee on industry, should be adjusted to pay for cleanup and to compensate those hurt by spills. An industry insurance program like that of the nuclear industry is also an attractive model to consider.
These 10 steps forward could help America grow stronger after this tragic event.
Mr. Alexander is a Republican senator from Tennessee and the chairman of the Senate Republican Conference.
Thursday, June 10, 2010
Offshore windmills for lake get mixed spin
The New York Power Authority faced the stiff wind of opposition Wednesday when it briefed Erie County’s public on plans to stand power-generating windmills somewhere in Lake Erie.
Yes, many of the more than 60 observers supported the project. The Citizens Campaign for the Environment displayed 2,000 signatures on its “Give Wind a Chance” petition, and the group’s Western New York director, Brian Smith, stressed that “saying no to offshore wind power is equivalent to saying yes to our continued reliance on fossil fuels.”
But lake-lovers from Hamburg and other shoreline communities said at the County Legislature hearing that they see offshore windmills as a blight, especially for a once-polluted lake that has been revived.
Put the turbines on land where they can be more easily monitored, they said.
“I cannot understand, for the life of me, why it has to be in the lake,” said Bill Maher of Lakeshore Road, Hamburg, adding later, “It’s like the Lake Erie Monster coming alive again.”
Sharon Laudisi, the Power Authority’s business development manager, repeated that the project must face the rigors of several environmental reviews laid down by the state Department of Environmental Conservation and the Army Corps of Engineers.
Further, the Power Authority has yet to decide where the up to 166 windmills will stand in Lake Erie and Lake Ontario in a combined undertaking. She said construction will not likely begin before 2014 and will affect a tiny percentage of Lake Erie’s expanse. And there’s no assurance that both lakes will be used, she said.
The Power Authority will not build or finance the windmills itself. That will be the role of the preferred developer, to be selected late this year or early next from the five that have presented proposals.
The authority will buy the electricity under a multiyear agreement, guaranteeing a revenue stream for the developer willing to spend an estimated $1 billion.
When he announced the receipt of five proposals Friday, Richard M. Kessel, the authority’s president and chief executive officer, said the authority was following Gov. David A. Paterson’s goal that New York supply 30 percent of its power needs through renewable sources by 2015.
Constant ocean breezes have spun offshore windmills in Europe for years. But the Power Authority’s Great Lakes Offshore Wind Project could be this nation’s first. Offshore projects in other regions of the country are further along in the review process.
The authority says its undertaking would be the world’s first wind farm on fresh water, where the machinery is not subject to the corrosive effects of saltwater.
The County Legislature has no direct role in decisions on where to place the windmills, but a statement of opposition could discourage the Power Authority from siting any Lake Erie windmills off Erie County.
The Chautauqua County Legislature recently voted to state its opposition to wind projects in Lake Erie. The Oswego County Legislature and the Jefferson County Board of Legislatorscq also have stated their opposition to wind projects off their shores in Lake Ontario.
“We could go on record telling the state that we are opposed,” said Erie County Legislator Daniel M. Kozub, D-Hamburg, chairman of the committee that conducted the hearing Wednesday.
“They either listen to us or they don’t listen to us,” Kozub said, explaining that he has not made up his mind on the matter.
Legislator Lynne M. Dixon, I-Hamburg, already has proposed a statement opposing “the exploitation of Lake Erie,” and she questioned whether residents will receive their best information on the project only when it’s too late to stop it.
The audience Wednesday appeared almost evenly divided between those who support offshore wind projects and those who don’t, at least offshore wind projects in Lake Erie. Both the proponents and critics cited the gusher now fouling the Gulf of Mexico as evidence.
“Why are we doing this? Well, the gulf is a perfect reason,” said the Power Authority’s Laudisi.
“You can do any environmental-impact study you want,” Diane Kozak of Lackawanna said. “I’m sure they did that for BP in the gulf.
“Think outside the box,” she added. “Use a brownfield.”
Yes, many of the more than 60 observers supported the project. The Citizens Campaign for the Environment displayed 2,000 signatures on its “Give Wind a Chance” petition, and the group’s Western New York director, Brian Smith, stressed that “saying no to offshore wind power is equivalent to saying yes to our continued reliance on fossil fuels.”
But lake-lovers from Hamburg and other shoreline communities said at the County Legislature hearing that they see offshore windmills as a blight, especially for a once-polluted lake that has been revived.
Put the turbines on land where they can be more easily monitored, they said.
“I cannot understand, for the life of me, why it has to be in the lake,” said Bill Maher of Lakeshore Road, Hamburg, adding later, “It’s like the Lake Erie Monster coming alive again.”
Sharon Laudisi, the Power Authority’s business development manager, repeated that the project must face the rigors of several environmental reviews laid down by the state Department of Environmental Conservation and the Army Corps of Engineers.
Further, the Power Authority has yet to decide where the up to 166 windmills will stand in Lake Erie and Lake Ontario in a combined undertaking. She said construction will not likely begin before 2014 and will affect a tiny percentage of Lake Erie’s expanse. And there’s no assurance that both lakes will be used, she said.
The Power Authority will not build or finance the windmills itself. That will be the role of the preferred developer, to be selected late this year or early next from the five that have presented proposals.
The authority will buy the electricity under a multiyear agreement, guaranteeing a revenue stream for the developer willing to spend an estimated $1 billion.
When he announced the receipt of five proposals Friday, Richard M. Kessel, the authority’s president and chief executive officer, said the authority was following Gov. David A. Paterson’s goal that New York supply 30 percent of its power needs through renewable sources by 2015.
Constant ocean breezes have spun offshore windmills in Europe for years. But the Power Authority’s Great Lakes Offshore Wind Project could be this nation’s first. Offshore projects in other regions of the country are further along in the review process.
The authority says its undertaking would be the world’s first wind farm on fresh water, where the machinery is not subject to the corrosive effects of saltwater.
The County Legislature has no direct role in decisions on where to place the windmills, but a statement of opposition could discourage the Power Authority from siting any Lake Erie windmills off Erie County.
The Chautauqua County Legislature recently voted to state its opposition to wind projects in Lake Erie. The Oswego County Legislature and the Jefferson County Board of Legislatorscq also have stated their opposition to wind projects off their shores in Lake Ontario.
“We could go on record telling the state that we are opposed,” said Erie County Legislator Daniel M. Kozub, D-Hamburg, chairman of the committee that conducted the hearing Wednesday.
“They either listen to us or they don’t listen to us,” Kozub said, explaining that he has not made up his mind on the matter.
Legislator Lynne M. Dixon, I-Hamburg, already has proposed a statement opposing “the exploitation of Lake Erie,” and she questioned whether residents will receive their best information on the project only when it’s too late to stop it.
The audience Wednesday appeared almost evenly divided between those who support offshore wind projects and those who don’t, at least offshore wind projects in Lake Erie. Both the proponents and critics cited the gusher now fouling the Gulf of Mexico as evidence.
“Why are we doing this? Well, the gulf is a perfect reason,” said the Power Authority’s Laudisi.
“You can do any environmental-impact study you want,” Diane Kozak of Lackawanna said. “I’m sure they did that for BP in the gulf.
“Think outside the box,” she added. “Use a brownfield.”
Cape Wind opponents draw environmental and political parallels to Gulf oil disaster
MARTHA’S VINEYARD, Mass. – As opponents of a massive wind energy factory in Nantucket Sound watch the impact of energy giant BP’s oil blowout on the ocean and delicate ecosystems of the Louisiana coast, they are drawing parallels between the energy projects and warning that another environmental disaster is likely to happen in the waters off Cape Cod.
Opponents say that the Cape Wind project, the first offshore wind energy plant in the country, will destroy marine and avian life of the Sound, as well as cultural and historic treasures, create a hazard to public safety and cost taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars.
And despite Interior’s insistence the department abided by every required regulation in reviewing and approving the Cape Wind project, opponents continue to question procedural exceptions and the connections between Cape Wind and members of the Obama administration.
The controversial wind turbine plant proposal was approved by Interior Secretary Ken Salazar April 28, a week after the BP explosion that killed 11 men and began spewing crude oil into the Gulf of Mexico.
The approval came despite an avalanche of opposition from the Mashpee and Aquinnah Wampanoag nations, and an array of environmental groups, local, state and federal elected officials, shipping and airport authorities and federal agencies, including the National Register of Historic Places.
Cheryl Andrews-Maltais, chairwoman of the Aquinnah Wampanoag Nation on Martha’s Vineyard, said President Barack Obama’s comments during a May 17 press conference on the BP disaster reflect what the tribe has been saying all along about Cape Wind.
“Cape Wind got a no-bid sweetheart deal on the federal lands and waters of Nantucket Sound that had already been designated as a marine sanctuary and monument decades ago. They got a waiver on the open vetting process and on balancing the need versus the benefit of taking of public lands for private development and profit.”
The Cape Wind proposal includes 130 wind turbine generators towering 440 feet above water level across 24 square miles of the sound; a 66.5-mile buried submarine transmission cable system; an electric service platform with 40,000 gallons of oil; a helicopter landing pad; and two 115-kilovolt lines crossing 25 miles to the mainland power grid.
Nantucket Sound is sacred to the Wampanoag nations – the People of the First Light. The wind energy plant would obscure their view of the rising sun in ceremony and would destroy the ocean bed, which was once dry land where their ancestors lived and died.
Obama’s comments about the government’s responsibility to “reduce threats to our environment” were bitterly ironic to the Wampanoag nations.
“The construction of Cape Wind isn’t a ‘threat’ to our environment, it is an absolute certainty,” Andrews-Maltais said. “It is the total destruction of the only known submerged Paleo-Indian archeological site in existence today.”
Most painful, she said, were Obama’s comments about growing up in Hawaii “where the ocean is sacred. … (and) an integral part of who (the Hawaiians) are.”
“Why is it that the president is recognizing all of this for everyone else except for us? We feel that he is marginalizing or dismissing us as Indians, almost like we don’t have the same reverence, responsibility, culture and right to practice our religious traditions as the Hawaiians or any other federally recognized tribe,” Andrews-Maltais said.
The Federal Aviation Administration approved the project in May, reversing its earlier opinion that the wind factory is a “presumed hazard” to the 400,000 flights that cross the area annually. The approval followed Cape Wind’s agreement to provide between $1 million and $12 million to modernize a nearby radar facility to mitigate the effects of electromagnetic interference from the wind factory’s turbines.
The mitigation is akin to the untested “safety procedures” that failed on the BP oil rig, opponents said.
The measures to upgrade radar systems are “unproven theoretical mitigation,” said the Alliance to Save Nantucket Sound, which has filed two notices of intent to file suit against the Interior Department’s decision in federal district court in Washington.
“This is an entirely political decision that flies in the face of public safety and the recommendations of the pilots who use this airspace every day,” said Audra Parker, the organization’s president and CEO.
Also in May, National Grid announced that its ratepayers would purchase half of Cape Wind’s power at a premium of $442 million over the course of the 15-year agreement. The total cost of the project’s power would add $884 million to Massachusetts residential and commercial ratepayers’ bills.
Cape Wind is also depending on as much as $600 million in stimulus funds to offset the $2 billion-plus cost of constructing the plant, much of which will go to foreign countries, such as China, which manufactures the Siemens turbines that will be used for the Cape Wind project.
The Investigative Reporting Workshop found more than 80 percent of the first $1 billion in stimulus funds to wind energy companies went to foreign firms. The administration has since handed out another $1 billion, bringing the total given out to $2.1 billion with more than 79 percent going to overseas companies.
Barbara Durkin, an environmental activist who has investigated and documented the Cape Wind project for the past seven years, said Cape Wind’s approval was “based on politics, not science.”
“The Gulf disaster is a harbinger of what should be expected in Nantucket Sound by Secretary Salazar’s rubber-stamping of Cape Wind.
“The cozy relationships between MMS (Minerals Management Service) and the oil industry echo cozy relationships between the White House and the wind industry,” Durkin said, naming White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel and National Economic Council Director Lawrence H. Summers as having connections to wind energy and private equity companies.
Cape Wind Associates is a joint venture between Energy Management Inc. and Wind Management Inc. of Boston, which is a subsidiary of UPC, a European-based wind energy company that’s been known as First Wind in the U.S. since May 2008.
Former New York Sun managing editor Ira Stoll uncovered some of the political connections on his Web site, Future of Capitalism, reporting last fall that First Wind received $115 million in stimulus funds.
First Wind owners include the D.E. Shaw Group, a private equity, hedge fund and technology investment company, and Madison Dearborn Partners, a private equity firm that specializes in leveraged buyouts.
Summers held a $5.2 million a year job at the D.E. Shaw Group, and Madison Dearborn is the firm of which Emanuel said, “They’ve been not only supporters of mine, they’re friends of mine.”
Emanuel has received more than $98,000 in campaign contributions from Madison Dearborn Partners, according to www.opensecrets.org.
Asked what role, if any, Summers and Emanuel played in the process of approving the Cape Wind project, Salazar spokeswoman Kendra Barkoff said, “They had no role.”
But Emanuel and Summers were recently involved in discussions regarding the $2 billion Shepherds Flat project in Oregon, the Washington Post reported.
The Pentagon threatened to stop the Shepherds Flat project and other planned wind projects in other states, because the giant turbines could interfere with the Air Force’s radar systems. The owners, Caithness Energy, worried a delay would cause a loss of eligibility for federal stimulus funds.
“Pentagon officials have met with aides to White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel, National Economic Council Director Lawrence H. Summers and White House energy and climate change adviser Carol Browner in an effort to resolve the impasse,” the Post reported in April.
By the end of April, the heavy political fire had worked, and the Pentagon dropped its opposition, according to The Oregonian.
Opponents say that the Cape Wind project, the first offshore wind energy plant in the country, will destroy marine and avian life of the Sound, as well as cultural and historic treasures, create a hazard to public safety and cost taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars.
And despite Interior’s insistence the department abided by every required regulation in reviewing and approving the Cape Wind project, opponents continue to question procedural exceptions and the connections between Cape Wind and members of the Obama administration.
The controversial wind turbine plant proposal was approved by Interior Secretary Ken Salazar April 28, a week after the BP explosion that killed 11 men and began spewing crude oil into the Gulf of Mexico.
The approval came despite an avalanche of opposition from the Mashpee and Aquinnah Wampanoag nations, and an array of environmental groups, local, state and federal elected officials, shipping and airport authorities and federal agencies, including the National Register of Historic Places.
Cheryl Andrews-Maltais, chairwoman of the Aquinnah Wampanoag Nation on Martha’s Vineyard, said President Barack Obama’s comments during a May 17 press conference on the BP disaster reflect what the tribe has been saying all along about Cape Wind.
“Cape Wind got a no-bid sweetheart deal on the federal lands and waters of Nantucket Sound that had already been designated as a marine sanctuary and monument decades ago. They got a waiver on the open vetting process and on balancing the need versus the benefit of taking of public lands for private development and profit.”
The Cape Wind proposal includes 130 wind turbine generators towering 440 feet above water level across 24 square miles of the sound; a 66.5-mile buried submarine transmission cable system; an electric service platform with 40,000 gallons of oil; a helicopter landing pad; and two 115-kilovolt lines crossing 25 miles to the mainland power grid.
Nantucket Sound is sacred to the Wampanoag nations – the People of the First Light. The wind energy plant would obscure their view of the rising sun in ceremony and would destroy the ocean bed, which was once dry land where their ancestors lived and died.
Obama’s comments about the government’s responsibility to “reduce threats to our environment” were bitterly ironic to the Wampanoag nations.
“The construction of Cape Wind isn’t a ‘threat’ to our environment, it is an absolute certainty,” Andrews-Maltais said. “It is the total destruction of the only known submerged Paleo-Indian archeological site in existence today.”
Most painful, she said, were Obama’s comments about growing up in Hawaii “where the ocean is sacred. … (and) an integral part of who (the Hawaiians) are.”
“Why is it that the president is recognizing all of this for everyone else except for us? We feel that he is marginalizing or dismissing us as Indians, almost like we don’t have the same reverence, responsibility, culture and right to practice our religious traditions as the Hawaiians or any other federally recognized tribe,” Andrews-Maltais said.
The Federal Aviation Administration approved the project in May, reversing its earlier opinion that the wind factory is a “presumed hazard” to the 400,000 flights that cross the area annually. The approval followed Cape Wind’s agreement to provide between $1 million and $12 million to modernize a nearby radar facility to mitigate the effects of electromagnetic interference from the wind factory’s turbines.
The mitigation is akin to the untested “safety procedures” that failed on the BP oil rig, opponents said.
The measures to upgrade radar systems are “unproven theoretical mitigation,” said the Alliance to Save Nantucket Sound, which has filed two notices of intent to file suit against the Interior Department’s decision in federal district court in Washington.
“This is an entirely political decision that flies in the face of public safety and the recommendations of the pilots who use this airspace every day,” said Audra Parker, the organization’s president and CEO.
Also in May, National Grid announced that its ratepayers would purchase half of Cape Wind’s power at a premium of $442 million over the course of the 15-year agreement. The total cost of the project’s power would add $884 million to Massachusetts residential and commercial ratepayers’ bills.
Cape Wind is also depending on as much as $600 million in stimulus funds to offset the $2 billion-plus cost of constructing the plant, much of which will go to foreign countries, such as China, which manufactures the Siemens turbines that will be used for the Cape Wind project.
The Investigative Reporting Workshop found more than 80 percent of the first $1 billion in stimulus funds to wind energy companies went to foreign firms. The administration has since handed out another $1 billion, bringing the total given out to $2.1 billion with more than 79 percent going to overseas companies.
Barbara Durkin, an environmental activist who has investigated and documented the Cape Wind project for the past seven years, said Cape Wind’s approval was “based on politics, not science.”
“The Gulf disaster is a harbinger of what should be expected in Nantucket Sound by Secretary Salazar’s rubber-stamping of Cape Wind.
“The cozy relationships between MMS (Minerals Management Service) and the oil industry echo cozy relationships between the White House and the wind industry,” Durkin said, naming White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel and National Economic Council Director Lawrence H. Summers as having connections to wind energy and private equity companies.
Cape Wind Associates is a joint venture between Energy Management Inc. and Wind Management Inc. of Boston, which is a subsidiary of UPC, a European-based wind energy company that’s been known as First Wind in the U.S. since May 2008.
Former New York Sun managing editor Ira Stoll uncovered some of the political connections on his Web site, Future of Capitalism, reporting last fall that First Wind received $115 million in stimulus funds.
First Wind owners include the D.E. Shaw Group, a private equity, hedge fund and technology investment company, and Madison Dearborn Partners, a private equity firm that specializes in leveraged buyouts.
Summers held a $5.2 million a year job at the D.E. Shaw Group, and Madison Dearborn is the firm of which Emanuel said, “They’ve been not only supporters of mine, they’re friends of mine.”
Emanuel has received more than $98,000 in campaign contributions from Madison Dearborn Partners, according to www.opensecrets.org.
Asked what role, if any, Summers and Emanuel played in the process of approving the Cape Wind project, Salazar spokeswoman Kendra Barkoff said, “They had no role.”
But Emanuel and Summers were recently involved in discussions regarding the $2 billion Shepherds Flat project in Oregon, the Washington Post reported.
The Pentagon threatened to stop the Shepherds Flat project and other planned wind projects in other states, because the giant turbines could interfere with the Air Force’s radar systems. The owners, Caithness Energy, worried a delay would cause a loss of eligibility for federal stimulus funds.
“Pentagon officials have met with aides to White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel, National Economic Council Director Lawrence H. Summers and White House energy and climate change adviser Carol Browner in an effort to resolve the impasse,” the Post reported in April.
By the end of April, the heavy political fire had worked, and the Pentagon dropped its opposition, according to The Oregonian.
Wind Power: A Photographic Essay
If our liberal rulers are to be believed, we must forsake the abundant and highly efficient energy sources lying unused under our feet, and take a great leap forward into the realm of green technology. This is dominated by windmills, which until recently were regarded as quaint remnants of the Middle Ages.
Wind energy doesn't generate much power, but it should provide a cash bonanza for Obama's crony capitalist backers at GE. Like biofuels, the wind energy boondoggle can be summed up in a single word: FAIL. At least windmills make for some interesting photography:
Perry town Board Wind Moritorium
On Wednesday June 9, 2010 Perry, New York, one Town Councilwoman Tracy Rozanski and three Town Councilmen Roger Paddock, Del Bell and Gerry Sahrle voted AYE on the moratorium for wind and Supervisor James Brick voted NO against the moratorium. Thank you Town Council, this hasn't been easy on you.
After a four and a half year long fight, three town board elections and hard work the Perry Town Board voted in a one year moratorium on wind. CHRN (Citizens for a Healthy Rural Neighborhood) has accomplished what they have worked so hard to achieve. We are headed in the right direction! No IWT! On to the new wind law.
We are highly indebted to the members of CHRN and all of you here in our area, across New York State, and far and wide! Thank you for all of your information, research, meeting participation, speeches, presentations, letter to the editors, ads, support, friendships and prayers in helping to make this event take place.
Perseverance is an investment, Success is the Return!
God Bless Each and Every One of You!
Sincerely, Gerry and Valary Sahrle
7438 Myers Road
Perry, NY 14530
1-585-237-2338
After a four and a half year long fight, three town board elections and hard work the Perry Town Board voted in a one year moratorium on wind. CHRN (Citizens for a Healthy Rural Neighborhood) has accomplished what they have worked so hard to achieve. We are headed in the right direction! No IWT! On to the new wind law.
We are highly indebted to the members of CHRN and all of you here in our area, across New York State, and far and wide! Thank you for all of your information, research, meeting participation, speeches, presentations, letter to the editors, ads, support, friendships and prayers in helping to make this event take place.
Perseverance is an investment, Success is the Return!
God Bless Each and Every One of You!
Sincerely, Gerry and Valary Sahrle
7438 Myers Road
Perry, NY 14530
1-585-237-2338
Wednesday, June 09, 2010
County seeks protection on taxation of wind farms
Jefferson County taxpayers could be left paying town and school district taxes for a wind farm if the developer fails to pay the project taxes, warns Paul J. Warneck, Jefferson County director of real property services.
County officials are worried that taxpayers will have limited recourse if a wind farm leasing land for its turbines does not make its tax or payment-in-lieu-of-taxes payments. Only projects where the turbines would be on land owned by the developer, such as Galloo Island Wind Farm, would provide some security to the county.
"If we needed to sell the project, we could sell it with the rights of way and wires, which have value," Mr. Warneck said.
Such protection will not be part of a uniform tax-exempt policy (UTEP), but would be considered as part of individual project development agreements (PDA) with taxing jurisdictions and developers, said Donald C. Alexander, Jefferson County Industrial Development Agency's chief executive officer.
"If it does become more of a concern, it will be mapped out in the PDA," he said. "The policy is a fairly simple, overarching document."
The county's concern more likely would surface if another wind developer submitted an application for a PILOT.
Now, leases likely would be recorded as suffix parcels without requiring a subdivision. But with that, the county could put a tax lien only on the turbine itself, Mr. Warneck said.
Each town can choose to have the leased properties put on the tax roll differently, he said.
"There is huge exposure to the county on any of these large projects," he said.
Under PILOT agreements, the agency takes title to the property. If the wind farm operator ceases operation and doesn't pay the agency the PILOT, the agency returns title to the developer.
That pushes the taxes on the property back to full taxation.
"During the next cycle, the county has to make the school and the town whole if the company doesn't pay taxes," Mr. Warneck said.
With the protection under the Galloo Island project, the county is responsible for paying Hounsfield and Sackets Harbor Central School District their shares of the $2.14 million PILOT payments. Without that, the county would be responsible for those jurisdiction's shares of about $7.7 million, which is what the project would pay under full taxation, according to earlier investigations by the Times.
The smallest project in the county would have full taxation at about $1.9 million.
In addition, the county's representative on the agency board wants to see that safeguards included on the Galloo Island Wind Farm also are secured for future projects through the policy.
In February, the county Board of Legislators agreed to a payment-in-lieu-of-taxes agreement for Galloo Island Wind Farm that serves as the starting point for the policy. Two separate resolutions also afforded the county protection if the owner abandons the project.
The first calls for an agreement with JCIDA that the agency will not vacate the PILOT to the property for a year. That keeps the county from paying full property taxes on the wind farm to the town and school district if the developer pulls out.
The second resolution makes the county a party to a decommissioning agreement with the developer and the town of Hounsfield. The decommissioning bond would increase as required by the county to match current costs.
"Those issues are not found in PILOT agreements," Mr. Alexander said. "They are found in PDAs — project development agreements — that go into thousands of details that support PILOTs and everything else we do."
But county Legislator Kent D. Burto, R-Carthage, an agency board member, said, "It really should be part of the UTEP."
Mr. Alexander said he hadn't heard any complaints from the taxing jurisdictions on the Galloo Island PILOT. Mr. Burto said none of the other legislators has talked to him about additions to the policy.
JCIDA's governance committee will meet at 8 a.m. today in the agency's conference room, 800 Starbuck Ave., to discuss the uniform policy.
The agency's staff, taxing jurisdictions and developers have some discretion in working out the details, which are approved by boards at the taxing jurisdictions and the agency.
"We have a pretty good relationship with the taxing jurisdictions," Mr. Alexander said. "When something requires action, we ask them for it. Without that relationship, we couldn't operate."
County officials are worried that taxpayers will have limited recourse if a wind farm leasing land for its turbines does not make its tax or payment-in-lieu-of-taxes payments. Only projects where the turbines would be on land owned by the developer, such as Galloo Island Wind Farm, would provide some security to the county.
"If we needed to sell the project, we could sell it with the rights of way and wires, which have value," Mr. Warneck said.
Such protection will not be part of a uniform tax-exempt policy (UTEP), but would be considered as part of individual project development agreements (PDA) with taxing jurisdictions and developers, said Donald C. Alexander, Jefferson County Industrial Development Agency's chief executive officer.
"If it does become more of a concern, it will be mapped out in the PDA," he said. "The policy is a fairly simple, overarching document."
The county's concern more likely would surface if another wind developer submitted an application for a PILOT.
Now, leases likely would be recorded as suffix parcels without requiring a subdivision. But with that, the county could put a tax lien only on the turbine itself, Mr. Warneck said.
Each town can choose to have the leased properties put on the tax roll differently, he said.
"There is huge exposure to the county on any of these large projects," he said.
Under PILOT agreements, the agency takes title to the property. If the wind farm operator ceases operation and doesn't pay the agency the PILOT, the agency returns title to the developer.
That pushes the taxes on the property back to full taxation.
"During the next cycle, the county has to make the school and the town whole if the company doesn't pay taxes," Mr. Warneck said.
With the protection under the Galloo Island project, the county is responsible for paying Hounsfield and Sackets Harbor Central School District their shares of the $2.14 million PILOT payments. Without that, the county would be responsible for those jurisdiction's shares of about $7.7 million, which is what the project would pay under full taxation, according to earlier investigations by the Times.
The smallest project in the county would have full taxation at about $1.9 million.
In addition, the county's representative on the agency board wants to see that safeguards included on the Galloo Island Wind Farm also are secured for future projects through the policy.
In February, the county Board of Legislators agreed to a payment-in-lieu-of-taxes agreement for Galloo Island Wind Farm that serves as the starting point for the policy. Two separate resolutions also afforded the county protection if the owner abandons the project.
The first calls for an agreement with JCIDA that the agency will not vacate the PILOT to the property for a year. That keeps the county from paying full property taxes on the wind farm to the town and school district if the developer pulls out.
The second resolution makes the county a party to a decommissioning agreement with the developer and the town of Hounsfield. The decommissioning bond would increase as required by the county to match current costs.
"Those issues are not found in PILOT agreements," Mr. Alexander said. "They are found in PDAs — project development agreements — that go into thousands of details that support PILOTs and everything else we do."
But county Legislator Kent D. Burto, R-Carthage, an agency board member, said, "It really should be part of the UTEP."
Mr. Alexander said he hadn't heard any complaints from the taxing jurisdictions on the Galloo Island PILOT. Mr. Burto said none of the other legislators has talked to him about additions to the policy.
JCIDA's governance committee will meet at 8 a.m. today in the agency's conference room, 800 Starbuck Ave., to discuss the uniform policy.
The agency's staff, taxing jurisdictions and developers have some discretion in working out the details, which are approved by boards at the taxing jurisdictions and the agency.
"We have a pretty good relationship with the taxing jurisdictions," Mr. Alexander said. "When something requires action, we ask them for it. Without that relationship, we couldn't operate."
Tuesday, June 08, 2010
Carr Advises Hammond To Increase Tower Setbacks
HAMMOND - A Cornell University engineering professor urged the Hammond Wind Advisory Committee to increase the setbacks in its wind energy law to two and a half times the height of a tower.
Dr. Paul G. Carr, one of the retired founders of the engineering firm Bernier and Carr, urged the panel to consider the safety of area residents.
Dr. Carr recommended extending setbacks to two and a half times the total height of a tower, including the extended blade. This would put 400-foot turbines 1,000 feet from roads and homes.
Hammond's current law requires a 400-foot tower needing to be only 600 feet from a property line or public road.
Turbine developer, Vesta, in its safety manual, according to Dr. Carr, recommends its workers not to stay within 1,300 feet of turbines unless absolutely necessary.
"People become blinded and entrenched in their positions," Dr. Carr said of "those bitterly opposed and those 100 percent for" wind turbine projects.
Dr. Carr urged the committee to consider the health, welfare, and the safety of the public as its top priority in drafting an ordinannce.
"One thing that should be held paramount," he said, "is finding that balance."
Dr. Carr said that the appropriateness of how and where the turbines will be sited include several common factors, including aesthetics, sound, wildlife, shadow flicker, public safety, and property values.
"Setbacks, ideally, should be adopted first," Dr. Carr said, "and then presented to the developer. Commonly, wind overlay districts developed by individual towns vary greatly from what developers may think is best."
The current Hammond wind energy facilities local law calls for setbacks of "the greater of one and one-half times the total tower height or 500 feet from the nearest" site boundary property line, public road, and nearest edge of the wind overlay district.
The ordinance calls for "the greater of two and one-half times the total tower height or 1,500 feet from the nearest off-site residence existing at the time of application," and, "one and a half times the total height" from any structure or aboveground utilities.
Finding the background noise in various areas around the town of Hammond, Dr. Carr said, will also be essential in developing noise standards and setbacks.
"The town should hire an independent acoustical consultant to establish ambient noise," he said.
A noise expert from Iberdrola Renewables is expected to be the featured speaker June 21 at 7 p.m. in the Hammond Village Community Center.
Dr. Paul G. Carr, one of the retired founders of the engineering firm Bernier and Carr, urged the panel to consider the safety of area residents.
Dr. Carr recommended extending setbacks to two and a half times the total height of a tower, including the extended blade. This would put 400-foot turbines 1,000 feet from roads and homes.
Hammond's current law requires a 400-foot tower needing to be only 600 feet from a property line or public road.
Turbine developer, Vesta, in its safety manual, according to Dr. Carr, recommends its workers not to stay within 1,300 feet of turbines unless absolutely necessary.
"People become blinded and entrenched in their positions," Dr. Carr said of "those bitterly opposed and those 100 percent for" wind turbine projects.
Dr. Carr urged the committee to consider the health, welfare, and the safety of the public as its top priority in drafting an ordinannce.
"One thing that should be held paramount," he said, "is finding that balance."
Dr. Carr said that the appropriateness of how and where the turbines will be sited include several common factors, including aesthetics, sound, wildlife, shadow flicker, public safety, and property values.
"Setbacks, ideally, should be adopted first," Dr. Carr said, "and then presented to the developer. Commonly, wind overlay districts developed by individual towns vary greatly from what developers may think is best."
The current Hammond wind energy facilities local law calls for setbacks of "the greater of one and one-half times the total tower height or 500 feet from the nearest" site boundary property line, public road, and nearest edge of the wind overlay district.
The ordinance calls for "the greater of two and one-half times the total tower height or 1,500 feet from the nearest off-site residence existing at the time of application," and, "one and a half times the total height" from any structure or aboveground utilities.
Finding the background noise in various areas around the town of Hammond, Dr. Carr said, will also be essential in developing noise standards and setbacks.
"The town should hire an independent acoustical consultant to establish ambient noise," he said.
A noise expert from Iberdrola Renewables is expected to be the featured speaker June 21 at 7 p.m. in the Hammond Village Community Center.
DEC won't claim review
The state Department of Environmental Conservation isn't interested in taking over the environmental review of dormant Horse Creek Wind Farm.
Clayton's joint village and town Planning Board didn't give the project a third yearlong suspension during its environmental review process. Developer Iberdrola Renewable had asked for the suspension so it could further investigate the potential harm of the 62-turbine project to Indiana bats, a federally listed endangered species.
Iberdrola's spokesman said Friday that the company will submit a new application and start the environmental review process over.
During discussion Thursday, Planning Board members hypothesized that DEC could assert itself as lead agency for the review process, a role held by the Planning Board when the application was active.
Planning Board alternate Duane C. Hazelton said he had called DEC in Albany and officials there had said they don't want to take over a SEQR process on the project.
Town attorney Joseph W. Russell said the developer's attorney also had asked whether DEC would take over the review, again getting a negative answer.
"We have not had any formal requests," DEC spokeswoman Maureen F. Wren said. "And if we were to receive such a request, it would be highly unlikely that the DEC would step in."
She acknowledged several informal discussions.
The department was lead agency for the review of the Galloo Island Wind Farm in Hounsfield, but the two projects are fundamentally different.
"The issues raised thus far do seem to be viewed as local land-use issues," she said. "In Galloo Island, those issues were more focused on natural resources."
DEC considered the noise and setback issues prevalent in the Horse Creek environmental impact statement as of primarily local concern.
Clayton's joint village and town Planning Board didn't give the project a third yearlong suspension during its environmental review process. Developer Iberdrola Renewable had asked for the suspension so it could further investigate the potential harm of the 62-turbine project to Indiana bats, a federally listed endangered species.
Iberdrola's spokesman said Friday that the company will submit a new application and start the environmental review process over.
During discussion Thursday, Planning Board members hypothesized that DEC could assert itself as lead agency for the review process, a role held by the Planning Board when the application was active.
Planning Board alternate Duane C. Hazelton said he had called DEC in Albany and officials there had said they don't want to take over a SEQR process on the project.
Town attorney Joseph W. Russell said the developer's attorney also had asked whether DEC would take over the review, again getting a negative answer.
"We have not had any formal requests," DEC spokeswoman Maureen F. Wren said. "And if we were to receive such a request, it would be highly unlikely that the DEC would step in."
She acknowledged several informal discussions.
The department was lead agency for the review of the Galloo Island Wind Farm in Hounsfield, but the two projects are fundamentally different.
"The issues raised thus far do seem to be viewed as local land-use issues," she said. "In Galloo Island, those issues were more focused on natural resources."
DEC considered the noise and setback issues prevalent in the Horse Creek environmental impact statement as of primarily local concern.
Monday, June 07, 2010
Critics of pact say work with NYPA far from over
An agreement now is in place to bring $16 million and 20 megawatts of hydropower here, but officials say there is plenty of work still to be done to ensure the effective use of the resources and to tackle other New York Power Authority-related issues.
Those who had been critical of the pact — and who have raised a number of issues about how the region has been treated by NYPA — plan to continue pushing for a better deal for the communities that play host to the St. Lawrence-FDR Power Project.
Massena Supervisor Joseph D. Gray and Waddington Supervisor Mark Scott have been vocal in their criticism of the power authority and their desire that host communities be better compensated for the sacrifices made to allow the hydropower project to operate here.
Both men had hoped to pressure NYPA to pay interest on the $16 million, which has been sitting in the state authority's coffers for nearly a decade.
But other members of the Local Government Task Force, the group ultimately responsible for coming up with the plan NYPA signed last week, said requests for the interest repeatedly had been denied. The group voted to move forward with a contract that did not include interest payments.
While the contract has been signed, neither Mr. Scott nor Mr. Gray is prepared to deem the issue over.
"I think there's a lot of issues that we still need to speak with the power authority about," Mr. Scott said. "While we're pleased with the money and power coming to the community, I don't think this is the end."
Despite the group's decision to move forward with a contract that did not gain the approval of all members, Mr. Gray said he does not feel the concerns raised by any of the members were ignored.
"I don't think anything is over with," Mr. Gray said. "I think, here in Massena, the discussions will go on as long as Massena and the power authority are here. I would hope that relationship will continue to evolve."
My. Gray's main concern is putting the money and power to work in a meaningful way.
"The bottom line is, this money needs to be turned into jobs as quickly as possible," he said. "Those jobs aren't more people on the county payroll with the IDA. We need to make sure the money we spend on economic-development projects are more specifically put forth as job-development projects."
Despite the agreement, a number of NYPA-related issues remain.
Community members have asked the group to look into topics including the repair or reconstruction of shorelines impacted by the power dam; issues related to fishing, docks and boat launches, the use of lands returned during the relicensing, and recreation and other concerns.
Local Government Task Force Chairman Robert O. McNeil has said the group will pick up a number of those issues now that the creation of the St. Lawrence River Valley Redevelopment Agency has succeeded.
Mr. Scott said the group also should continue conversations about how NYPA can give back to the host communities — a discussion he believes is long overdue.
"I think we need to encourage the power authority to do whatever they can to make up for past losses to the host communities," he said. "For 50 years, they hadn't paid the communities anything, so a lot has been lost. I think they recognize that, and I'm hopeful, as we continue discussions, that there will be additional benefits."
In terms of the task force, Mr. Gray said he hopes there also will be discussion about how the group functions and what its role is moving forward.
"There was a time when I thought the task force may be moot or have run its course," he said. "As I get more into this job, and this project that is the task force, I think its importance has solidified for me."
The task force is scheduled to hold a public meeting at 7 p.m. Thursday at the Waddington library.
Those who had been critical of the pact — and who have raised a number of issues about how the region has been treated by NYPA — plan to continue pushing for a better deal for the communities that play host to the St. Lawrence-FDR Power Project.
Massena Supervisor Joseph D. Gray and Waddington Supervisor Mark Scott have been vocal in their criticism of the power authority and their desire that host communities be better compensated for the sacrifices made to allow the hydropower project to operate here.
Both men had hoped to pressure NYPA to pay interest on the $16 million, which has been sitting in the state authority's coffers for nearly a decade.
But other members of the Local Government Task Force, the group ultimately responsible for coming up with the plan NYPA signed last week, said requests for the interest repeatedly had been denied. The group voted to move forward with a contract that did not include interest payments.
While the contract has been signed, neither Mr. Scott nor Mr. Gray is prepared to deem the issue over.
"I think there's a lot of issues that we still need to speak with the power authority about," Mr. Scott said. "While we're pleased with the money and power coming to the community, I don't think this is the end."
Despite the group's decision to move forward with a contract that did not gain the approval of all members, Mr. Gray said he does not feel the concerns raised by any of the members were ignored.
"I don't think anything is over with," Mr. Gray said. "I think, here in Massena, the discussions will go on as long as Massena and the power authority are here. I would hope that relationship will continue to evolve."
My. Gray's main concern is putting the money and power to work in a meaningful way.
"The bottom line is, this money needs to be turned into jobs as quickly as possible," he said. "Those jobs aren't more people on the county payroll with the IDA. We need to make sure the money we spend on economic-development projects are more specifically put forth as job-development projects."
Despite the agreement, a number of NYPA-related issues remain.
Community members have asked the group to look into topics including the repair or reconstruction of shorelines impacted by the power dam; issues related to fishing, docks and boat launches, the use of lands returned during the relicensing, and recreation and other concerns.
Local Government Task Force Chairman Robert O. McNeil has said the group will pick up a number of those issues now that the creation of the St. Lawrence River Valley Redevelopment Agency has succeeded.
Mr. Scott said the group also should continue conversations about how NYPA can give back to the host communities — a discussion he believes is long overdue.
"I think we need to encourage the power authority to do whatever they can to make up for past losses to the host communities," he said. "For 50 years, they hadn't paid the communities anything, so a lot has been lost. I think they recognize that, and I'm hopeful, as we continue discussions, that there will be additional benefits."
In terms of the task force, Mr. Gray said he hopes there also will be discussion about how the group functions and what its role is moving forward.
"There was a time when I thought the task force may be moot or have run its course," he said. "As I get more into this job, and this project that is the task force, I think its importance has solidified for me."
The task force is scheduled to hold a public meeting at 7 p.m. Thursday at the Waddington library.
Sunday, June 06, 2010
Tax credits key factor in Cape Wind energy cost
National Grid and Cape Wind submitted testimony Friday to the state Department of Public Utilities to support a deal they have cut for half the power generated by the Nantucket Sound wind farm.
But at least one vocal opponent of the project is claiming the state agency should restart the clock in its review of the agreement because of an error in the public notice of the case.
“The DPU notice is flawed, deceptive and misleading,” said Barbara Durkin, a longtime opponent of the plan by Cape Wind Associates LLC to build 130 wind turbines in the Sound.
Durkin sent a letter to the state inspector general in which she also questioned the likelihood that Cape Wind would be completed in time to take advantage of tax credits.
The DPU notice announcing the public hearings on the energy deal incorrectly states that a price of 20.7 cents per kilowatt hour for power from Cape Wind's turbines assumed the project would receive two types of federal tax credits.
Projects such as Cape Wind are typically only allowed to take advantage of one of the tax credits – either an investment tax credit equal to 30 percent of the project's cost or a production tax credit based on the energy the project produces.
The DPU simply included what National Grid told the state agency, spokesman Tim Shevlin said Friday.
This type of error does not invalidate the notice because it is immaterial to the purpose of notifying the public of the hearings, according to Robert Keough, a spokesman for the state Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs.
“We fully expect there to be interest in this proposed contract among the public,” he wrote in an e-mail to the Times.
There are three hearings scheduled across the state to gather public comment on the agreement, including at Nantucket High School on June 21 at 6 p.m.
In separate interviews with the Times Friday, Cape Wind and National Grid officials agreed the notice was wrong but said that the proposed price for the power is based on the project receiving the more lucrative investment tax credit and that they expect to get the tax credit.
If the project does not receive the investment tax credit, the price National Grid would pay for the Cape Wind power would increase to 22.8 cents per kilowatt hour, according to the power purchase agreement the companies filed with the state. If the production tax credit is not granted, the price would go up to 23.5 cents per kilowatt hour.
“We have every reason to believe that they are going to be extended and supported by Congress,” National Grid deputy general counsel Ronald Gerwatowski said Friday of the tax incentives.
But at least one vocal opponent of the project is claiming the state agency should restart the clock in its review of the agreement because of an error in the public notice of the case.
“The DPU notice is flawed, deceptive and misleading,” said Barbara Durkin, a longtime opponent of the plan by Cape Wind Associates LLC to build 130 wind turbines in the Sound.
Durkin sent a letter to the state inspector general in which she also questioned the likelihood that Cape Wind would be completed in time to take advantage of tax credits.
The DPU notice announcing the public hearings on the energy deal incorrectly states that a price of 20.7 cents per kilowatt hour for power from Cape Wind's turbines assumed the project would receive two types of federal tax credits.
Projects such as Cape Wind are typically only allowed to take advantage of one of the tax credits – either an investment tax credit equal to 30 percent of the project's cost or a production tax credit based on the energy the project produces.
The DPU simply included what National Grid told the state agency, spokesman Tim Shevlin said Friday.
This type of error does not invalidate the notice because it is immaterial to the purpose of notifying the public of the hearings, according to Robert Keough, a spokesman for the state Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs.
“We fully expect there to be interest in this proposed contract among the public,” he wrote in an e-mail to the Times.
There are three hearings scheduled across the state to gather public comment on the agreement, including at Nantucket High School on June 21 at 6 p.m.
In separate interviews with the Times Friday, Cape Wind and National Grid officials agreed the notice was wrong but said that the proposed price for the power is based on the project receiving the more lucrative investment tax credit and that they expect to get the tax credit.
If the project does not receive the investment tax credit, the price National Grid would pay for the Cape Wind power would increase to 22.8 cents per kilowatt hour, according to the power purchase agreement the companies filed with the state. If the production tax credit is not granted, the price would go up to 23.5 cents per kilowatt hour.
“We have every reason to believe that they are going to be extended and supported by Congress,” National Grid deputy general counsel Ronald Gerwatowski said Friday of the tax incentives.
Wind farm developer set to apply again
HORSE CREEK: Its extension period voted down by Clayton, Iberdrola gets ready to start from scratch
CLAYTON — Horse Creek Wind Farm's developer said Friday that an application for the project will be submitted again.
On Thursday night, the joint town and village Planning Board voted down a measure to extend a suspension of consideration of the project for a third yearlong period.
As a result, Iberdrola Renewables, developer of the proposed 62-turbine project, must submit a new application, which would start at square one, with choosing lead agency for the state environmental quality review.
"While we would have liked to have received the extension since the delay was largely beyond our control, we continue to believe the area is a good site for a wind farm, and will continue pursuing the Horse Creek development by resubmitting the appropriate materials," communications manager Paul N. Copleman wrote in an e-mail.
He did not say when that would happen.
Town Supervisor Justin A. Taylor said in an e-mail Saturday that the town had $8,000 in legal fees and $7,000 in non-legal fees related to the now-dead application.
Opponents of the project as it stood were relieved at the board's decision.
"As the Planning Board members mentioned, a lot has happened in those years and a lot of information has come to light," said Cindy L. Grant, member of Environmentally Concerned Citizens Organization, which has called for stricter zoning of the project.
But project supporters said they believe the delay actually will help the project.
"I don't believe it is going to be a setback whatsoever," said Kevin J. Forkey, a leading landowner in the project. "It might be beneficial because it will give us a chance to revisit all aspects of the project."
Even restarting the lengthy environmental review process could be good for the project, he said.
"The only change possible is lead agency and that would probably be to our benefit," he said.
He suggested that Iberdrola held up partly because of the town's extended discussion on zoning law revisions.
In May 2009, after the second extension from the Planning Board, Jenny L. Burke, business manager for Iberdrola, told the Town Council that the company would have to know what the changes in the zoning law would be if key studies would be continued. That included working on a biological assessment of Indiana bats and submitting a supplemental draft environmental impact statement.
In her letter requesting the third extension, Ms. Burke pointed to ongoing uncertainty about the project's effect on Indiana bats, a federally listed endangered species.
"While zoning uncertainties persisted until last month, we are now in a better position to move forward with a planned layout, and study the environmental, community and engineering implications," Mr. Copleman wrote Friday. "As before our requested extension, we continue to work with state and federal officials to evaluate what this project may mean for the Indiana Bat."
Mr. Forkey said he'd appreciate an opportunity to talk about the environmental benefits of the project, such as burning more than 6 million tons of coal less over 20 years to create electricity.
"The only issues that seem to be discussed are the supposed health and safety risks and monetary benefits," he said.
While he downplayed the health and safety arguments, Mrs. Grant said they deserve more scrutiny than they received in the first application.
"Clearly, the noise issue would be more closely looked at," she said. "The health and safety of the citizens would be compromised if the project had been constructed as Iberdrola had wished."
CLAYTON — Horse Creek Wind Farm's developer said Friday that an application for the project will be submitted again.
On Thursday night, the joint town and village Planning Board voted down a measure to extend a suspension of consideration of the project for a third yearlong period.
As a result, Iberdrola Renewables, developer of the proposed 62-turbine project, must submit a new application, which would start at square one, with choosing lead agency for the state environmental quality review.
"While we would have liked to have received the extension since the delay was largely beyond our control, we continue to believe the area is a good site for a wind farm, and will continue pursuing the Horse Creek development by resubmitting the appropriate materials," communications manager Paul N. Copleman wrote in an e-mail.
He did not say when that would happen.
Town Supervisor Justin A. Taylor said in an e-mail Saturday that the town had $8,000 in legal fees and $7,000 in non-legal fees related to the now-dead application.
Opponents of the project as it stood were relieved at the board's decision.
"As the Planning Board members mentioned, a lot has happened in those years and a lot of information has come to light," said Cindy L. Grant, member of Environmentally Concerned Citizens Organization, which has called for stricter zoning of the project.
But project supporters said they believe the delay actually will help the project.
"I don't believe it is going to be a setback whatsoever," said Kevin J. Forkey, a leading landowner in the project. "It might be beneficial because it will give us a chance to revisit all aspects of the project."
Even restarting the lengthy environmental review process could be good for the project, he said.
"The only change possible is lead agency and that would probably be to our benefit," he said.
He suggested that Iberdrola held up partly because of the town's extended discussion on zoning law revisions.
In May 2009, after the second extension from the Planning Board, Jenny L. Burke, business manager for Iberdrola, told the Town Council that the company would have to know what the changes in the zoning law would be if key studies would be continued. That included working on a biological assessment of Indiana bats and submitting a supplemental draft environmental impact statement.
In her letter requesting the third extension, Ms. Burke pointed to ongoing uncertainty about the project's effect on Indiana bats, a federally listed endangered species.
"While zoning uncertainties persisted until last month, we are now in a better position to move forward with a planned layout, and study the environmental, community and engineering implications," Mr. Copleman wrote Friday. "As before our requested extension, we continue to work with state and federal officials to evaluate what this project may mean for the Indiana Bat."
Mr. Forkey said he'd appreciate an opportunity to talk about the environmental benefits of the project, such as burning more than 6 million tons of coal less over 20 years to create electricity.
"The only issues that seem to be discussed are the supposed health and safety risks and monetary benefits," he said.
While he downplayed the health and safety arguments, Mrs. Grant said they deserve more scrutiny than they received in the first application.
"Clearly, the noise issue would be more closely looked at," she said. "The health and safety of the citizens would be compromised if the project had been constructed as Iberdrola had wished."
Saturday, June 05, 2010
State gets five off-shore wind power bids
Five formal proposals to build wind turbines in the New York waters of Lake Ontario or Lake Erie have been submitted to the New York Power Authority.
Authority officials released the number this morning in Buffalo but declined to say anything else about the proposals.
The state-chartered authority, which operates enormous hydroelectric generating plants on the Niagara and St. Lawrence rivers, has been promoting the construction of one or more wind farms in the lakes with a total generating capacity of up to 500 megawatts — roughly the capacity of the Ginna nuclear power plant in Wayne County.
The authority has laid out five general areas it believes suitable for turbines located two miles or more offshore — the eastern ends of Ontario and Erie, and the waters of Lake Ontario off parts of Monroe, Wayne and Niagara counties.
Offshore farms, common in northern Europe but nonexistent in North America, are intended to take advantage of the stronger, more consistent winds found over large bodies of water. Numerous wind farms have been proposed for the Great Lakes and Atlantic Ocean coastline, but none of them are close to construction.
The Power Authority’s offshore wind idea has been greeted very coolly in communities east of Rochester, and more warmly in those to the west. Officials in Monroe County have been publicly neutral.
Proposals from wind-farm developers were due to the authority Tuesday. At a news conference in Buffalo this morning, authority president Richard Kessel said the proposals would be reviewed and one or more developers chosen by late this year or early in 2011. He said he hoped turbines could be in service by 2015.
Officials said he was barred by state procurement law from discussing details of the proposals during the initial review phase.
Authority officials released the number this morning in Buffalo but declined to say anything else about the proposals.
The state-chartered authority, which operates enormous hydroelectric generating plants on the Niagara and St. Lawrence rivers, has been promoting the construction of one or more wind farms in the lakes with a total generating capacity of up to 500 megawatts — roughly the capacity of the Ginna nuclear power plant in Wayne County.
The authority has laid out five general areas it believes suitable for turbines located two miles or more offshore — the eastern ends of Ontario and Erie, and the waters of Lake Ontario off parts of Monroe, Wayne and Niagara counties.
Offshore farms, common in northern Europe but nonexistent in North America, are intended to take advantage of the stronger, more consistent winds found over large bodies of water. Numerous wind farms have been proposed for the Great Lakes and Atlantic Ocean coastline, but none of them are close to construction.
The Power Authority’s offshore wind idea has been greeted very coolly in communities east of Rochester, and more warmly in those to the west. Officials in Monroe County have been publicly neutral.
Proposals from wind-farm developers were due to the authority Tuesday. At a news conference in Buffalo this morning, authority president Richard Kessel said the proposals would be reviewed and one or more developers chosen by late this year or early in 2011. He said he hoped turbines could be in service by 2015.
Officials said he was barred by state procurement law from discussing details of the proposals during the initial review phase.
Friday, June 04, 2010
Couple settle lawsuit on wind turbine noise
HOLLIDAYSBURG - The lawsuit between a Blair County couple and a company that operates Allegheny Ridge Wind Farm has been settled.
"All I can say about the resolution is that it's confidential," Pittsburgh attorney Bradley S. Tupi said Thursday. "I can't talk about the settlement."
Tupi represented Todd and Jill Stull, the Portage RD couple who sued in May 2008, complaining that the wind turbine noise had destroyed their quality of life.
They moved to the Juniata Township farm in 1992, and the turbine farm, which borders their property and spans five townships, went into operation in 2007.
The court case between the Stulls and Allegheny Ridge Wind Farm LLC was on track for a jury trial in July before Blair County Judge Daniel Milliron.
Tupi recently filed the decision on the settlement, with no details, at the Blair County Courthouse.
Allegheny Ridge attorney Jason Richey, who has been contesting the complaints and challenging the Stulls' requests for information, filed nothing at the courthouse regarding the settlement.
Richey and the Stulls did not return phone calls for comment.
Everyone involved in the case has agreed to the confidentiality clause, Tupi said.
The Portage Township supervisors were aware of the settlement and its confidentiality clause.
"The township didn't have to pay anything," Supervisor Kenneth Trimbath said. "This was between [Allegheny Ridge] and the Stulls."
The township paid about $420 in legal fees to attorney Walter Wall in connection with the lawsuit. It called the money well spent.
"We had our lawyers involved to keep us out of it," township Manager Bruce Brunett said, "And it worked."
Juniata Township supervisors previously tried to help resolve the Stulls' complaint by working with the wind farm operators and then by hiring an independent company to measure the turbine noise.
But after the study came back showing the wind turbine noise lower than levels permitted by ordinance, solicitor Michael Routch advised supervisors that the township was not in a position to do more.
Other Juniata Township residents, in addition to the Stulls, have complained about turbine noise from the Allegheny Ridge Wind Farm.
"Tell them to contact me," Tupi said.
Mirror Staff Writer Kay Stephens is at 946-7456. Staff Writer David Hurst is at 946-7457.
"All I can say about the resolution is that it's confidential," Pittsburgh attorney Bradley S. Tupi said Thursday. "I can't talk about the settlement."
Tupi represented Todd and Jill Stull, the Portage RD couple who sued in May 2008, complaining that the wind turbine noise had destroyed their quality of life.
They moved to the Juniata Township farm in 1992, and the turbine farm, which borders their property and spans five townships, went into operation in 2007.
The court case between the Stulls and Allegheny Ridge Wind Farm LLC was on track for a jury trial in July before Blair County Judge Daniel Milliron.
Tupi recently filed the decision on the settlement, with no details, at the Blair County Courthouse.
Allegheny Ridge attorney Jason Richey, who has been contesting the complaints and challenging the Stulls' requests for information, filed nothing at the courthouse regarding the settlement.
Richey and the Stulls did not return phone calls for comment.
Everyone involved in the case has agreed to the confidentiality clause, Tupi said.
The Portage Township supervisors were aware of the settlement and its confidentiality clause.
"The township didn't have to pay anything," Supervisor Kenneth Trimbath said. "This was between [Allegheny Ridge] and the Stulls."
The township paid about $420 in legal fees to attorney Walter Wall in connection with the lawsuit. It called the money well spent.
"We had our lawyers involved to keep us out of it," township Manager Bruce Brunett said, "And it worked."
Juniata Township supervisors previously tried to help resolve the Stulls' complaint by working with the wind farm operators and then by hiring an independent company to measure the turbine noise.
But after the study came back showing the wind turbine noise lower than levels permitted by ordinance, solicitor Michael Routch advised supervisors that the township was not in a position to do more.
Other Juniata Township residents, in addition to the Stulls, have complained about turbine noise from the Allegheny Ridge Wind Farm.
"Tell them to contact me," Tupi said.
Mirror Staff Writer Kay Stephens is at 946-7456. Staff Writer David Hurst is at 946-7457.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)