Six new windmills may be on the horizon for the old Bethlehem Steel site.
The Lackawanna Board of Education last week approved a payment-in- lieu-of-tax agreement that would pay the school district more than a half million dollars over 15 years for two new windmills the company behind the project plans to erect in Lackawanna.
The company, First Wind, in January acknowledged its plans to add two more windmills in Lackawanna and four on the Hamburg side of the Bethlehem site.
While the project is tax exempt, the company would pay the Lackawanna School District a total of $525,000 over 15 years, or $35,000 a year, according to the agreement the School Board approved unanimously.
A phone call to First Wind was not returned.
Lackawanna Mayor Norman L. Polanski said the School Board’s approval is good news for the project.
“I’m very excited, because I want to see these windmills going in and that was the tie-up,” Polanski said of the School Board’s contract.
First Wind offered the city 15-year PILOT payments of $451,000 for the two new windmills, the mayor said. The county would receive about $288,000, he said.
The school district, however, originally was seeking more than the company was offering, Polanski said.
“To be honest with you, [the company] said the schools were being ridiculous,” the mayor said. “The schools were demanding $1.6 million total — for the two windmills. That’s just not going to happen. It would kill the project.”
Now, with the school district on board, the mayor hopes the city also will be signing a PILOT agreement soon.
“Basically, I told [company officials] the last time we met in my office, I didn’t care if the schools got a little more than the city,” the mayor said. “I just wanted this thing to move.”
The new towers will be about 240 feet tall, and with the blades, the windmills will be about 400 feet tall — the same as the eight turbines currently along the Lackawanna shoreline. The city receives $100,000 a year in payments for the eight windmills currently operating, Polanski said.
As for the four new windmills on the Hamburg side, the town and Frontier Central School District will split most of the payments received for those turbines.
Hamburg Supervisor Steven J. Walters has said First Wind has agreed to payment in lieu taxes of $10,000 for each megawatt generated by the four turbines.
Sunday, July 18, 2010
Saturday, July 17, 2010
Cape official's conduct requires explanation
The actions of the town of Cape Vincent Planning Board Chairman Richard Edsall should be a concern to everyone in Jefferson County. While he and his family hold wind contracts that could yield them over $54,000, he has voted on important wind issues.
He has also made himself a strong advocate of wind development in Cape Vincent, while declining to request an opinion from the Jefferson County Board of Ethics as to whether he should be voting on or participating in wind-related issues.
Mr. Edsall has stated repeatedly that Cape Vincent needs a wind law and yet on June 14, 2006, he wrote the town board to let them know that the Planning Board recommends the town board abandon the wind law process. This raises the question as to whether he wants a law or not. Perhaps he feels that, as an advocate of wind power, he can negotiate a project application through the site plan review process that will be friendlier to his personal financial interests.
He was also instrumental in hiring the law firm Whiteman Osterman & Hanna of Albany. Their website explains how they have worked for wind developers in the past. The developer-friendly law firm has done nothing to protect the citizens of Cape Vincent and has done everything to promote the developers' agenda.
In June, I was present at a Planning Board meeting. After the regular meeting was finished, the chairman said there will not be another meeting until July. Right after that, to my surprise, I became aware of another meeting that was not announced to the public.
It was in a back room in the town office building. Present at this meeting were four Planning Board members, as well as two town board members, the Planning Board chairman's wife and the zoning officer.
Why would Mr. Edsall hold a private meeting while the town is in a controversy over wind development? He and his family are some of the largest recipients of wind lease money. I feel a public explanation would be in order to set the record straight.
John Byrne
Cape Vincent
He has also made himself a strong advocate of wind development in Cape Vincent, while declining to request an opinion from the Jefferson County Board of Ethics as to whether he should be voting on or participating in wind-related issues.
Mr. Edsall has stated repeatedly that Cape Vincent needs a wind law and yet on June 14, 2006, he wrote the town board to let them know that the Planning Board recommends the town board abandon the wind law process. This raises the question as to whether he wants a law or not. Perhaps he feels that, as an advocate of wind power, he can negotiate a project application through the site plan review process that will be friendlier to his personal financial interests.
He was also instrumental in hiring the law firm Whiteman Osterman & Hanna of Albany. Their website explains how they have worked for wind developers in the past. The developer-friendly law firm has done nothing to protect the citizens of Cape Vincent and has done everything to promote the developers' agenda.
In June, I was present at a Planning Board meeting. After the regular meeting was finished, the chairman said there will not be another meeting until July. Right after that, to my surprise, I became aware of another meeting that was not announced to the public.
It was in a back room in the town office building. Present at this meeting were four Planning Board members, as well as two town board members, the Planning Board chairman's wife and the zoning officer.
Why would Mr. Edsall hold a private meeting while the town is in a controversy over wind development? He and his family are some of the largest recipients of wind lease money. I feel a public explanation would be in order to set the record straight.
John Byrne
Cape Vincent
Thursday, July 15, 2010
Clean energy bearing up in difficult times
Rumours of the death of the clean energy industry in the recession were exaggerated, it seems: new investment in clean energy technologies, companies and projects “held steady” in the second quarter at $33.9bn globally, according to a new analysis by Bloomberg New Energy Finance.
This represented a slight decline of 1.5 per cent from the first quarter of 2010, and the year-on-year drop was more marked, with this year’s Q2 showing a 3 per cent fall from investment figures for the same period last year.
Michael Liebreich, chief executive of Bloomberg New Energy Finance, said this was good going, given the Greek and Eurozone crises, the continuing tightness of credit, and the sluggish US economic recovery.
“Despite continuing worries about the macro-economy, investors remain relatively optimistic about clean energy’s longer term prospects,” he said.
But this global figure masks a shifting pattern of clean energy investments around the world. Investments in European projects fell in the second quarter, while China continued its extraordinary build-out of clean energy, and the US showed evidence of a bounceback, according to the Bloomberg New Energy Finance analysis.
Last year, China installed a whopping 14,000MW of new wind turbine capacity. Europe came nowhere near.
Europe is falling far behind China on asset financing for clean energy - China attracted $40.3bn of asset finance for clean energy in the past year, says Bloomberg New Energy Finance, compared with $29.3bn in Europe. Project financing in Europe has also fallen in each of the last four quarters.
Three major IPOs also failed to materialise - Solyndra and First Wind in the US, and Enel Green Power in Europe. Tesla Motors did manage a $202m IPO in June.
These investment figures make clean energy a substantial sector of the world economy. Analysts estimate that $200bn will be invested in clean energy this year. That is, an investment figure higher than the global revenues of the luxury goods market. Higher than the global annual sales of mobile phones.
Investment is not the same as revenues, and revenues from clean energy are harder to calculate. But by any measure this is a sizeable industry, and still growing at a clip - at least in some regions.
This represented a slight decline of 1.5 per cent from the first quarter of 2010, and the year-on-year drop was more marked, with this year’s Q2 showing a 3 per cent fall from investment figures for the same period last year.
Michael Liebreich, chief executive of Bloomberg New Energy Finance, said this was good going, given the Greek and Eurozone crises, the continuing tightness of credit, and the sluggish US economic recovery.
“Despite continuing worries about the macro-economy, investors remain relatively optimistic about clean energy’s longer term prospects,” he said.
But this global figure masks a shifting pattern of clean energy investments around the world. Investments in European projects fell in the second quarter, while China continued its extraordinary build-out of clean energy, and the US showed evidence of a bounceback, according to the Bloomberg New Energy Finance analysis.
Last year, China installed a whopping 14,000MW of new wind turbine capacity. Europe came nowhere near.
Europe is falling far behind China on asset financing for clean energy - China attracted $40.3bn of asset finance for clean energy in the past year, says Bloomberg New Energy Finance, compared with $29.3bn in Europe. Project financing in Europe has also fallen in each of the last four quarters.
Three major IPOs also failed to materialise - Solyndra and First Wind in the US, and Enel Green Power in Europe. Tesla Motors did manage a $202m IPO in June.
These investment figures make clean energy a substantial sector of the world economy. Analysts estimate that $200bn will be invested in clean energy this year. That is, an investment figure higher than the global revenues of the luxury goods market. Higher than the global annual sales of mobile phones.
Investment is not the same as revenues, and revenues from clean energy are harder to calculate. But by any measure this is a sizeable industry, and still growing at a clip - at least in some regions.
Monroe legislators asked to oppose offshore wind towers
A Monroe County legislator is recommending that his colleagues go on record opposing the possible location of wind turbines in the local waters of Lake Ontario.
Rick Antelli, a Republican lawmaker whose district includes the lakeshore in Greece, introduced a non-binding resolution Monday to oppose what he termed "an experimental project by the New York Power Authority."
The state-chartered Power Authority has been promoting construction of one or more wind farms in the near-shore waters of Lake Ontario or Lake Erie for more than a year. It received five proposals from wind energy developers in June. They won't say where developers want to build their turbines, which would tower more than 400 feet above the water.
"I'm responding to the request of the residents in my district's highly populated waterfront," Antelli said. At a meeting in his district last month, many residents expressed concern that offshore turbines would ruin their view of the lake, devalue their property and cause other problems.
The possible construction of wind farms two to five miles off the shore has been controversial in some areas. Opponents have been pressing Monroe lawmakers to condemn the project, as have their counterparts in four other shoreline counties — Wayne, Oswego, Jefferson and Chautauqua. Niagara County legislators have endorsed it.
Another Monroe County legislator, Vincent Esposito, said Wednesday that Antelli should have held back his resolution.
"I think it's incredibly premature to take any formal action opposing this project. We won't know what it means for our region until later this year," said Esposito, a Democrat whose district includes Irondequoit's Lake Ontario shoreline. He said he may introduce a counter-resolution.
Lawmakers won't formally vote on Antelli's resolution but can sign it before it's sent to the authority. He said he couldn't predict the reaction of other lawmakers. "A lot of them have expressed support, but we'll wait and see."
The authority hopes that private developers will erect one or more offshore wind farms, with turbines that could number from a few dozen to more than 100.
Though developers were free to choose their own locations, the Power Authority identified five general areas in the lakes it believed were technically suitable for wind turbines. One of them spanned the shoreline from Greece to Webster.
Authority officials have said no information about the proposals will be made public until they choose a project, perhaps by year's end.
The Democrat and Chronicle has filed a Freedom of Information Law request for material from the five proposals.
The authority turned down the request, and an administrative appeal is pending.
Esposito said he has been pressing the authority to release basic information about the five proposals, including the proposed locations and number of turbines.
Monroe lawmakers, he said, shouldn't take a position until learning more about location, job creation and possible payments by energy developers to local governments.
"These are all things I want to see play out before making a decision," Esposito said.
Antelli, however, sees no reason to hold back.
"I've waited months. I've done my research, and I'm responding to the requests of the residents," Antelli said.
"He has to answer to his constituents. I answer to mine."
Rick Antelli, a Republican lawmaker whose district includes the lakeshore in Greece, introduced a non-binding resolution Monday to oppose what he termed "an experimental project by the New York Power Authority."
The state-chartered Power Authority has been promoting construction of one or more wind farms in the near-shore waters of Lake Ontario or Lake Erie for more than a year. It received five proposals from wind energy developers in June. They won't say where developers want to build their turbines, which would tower more than 400 feet above the water.
"I'm responding to the request of the residents in my district's highly populated waterfront," Antelli said. At a meeting in his district last month, many residents expressed concern that offshore turbines would ruin their view of the lake, devalue their property and cause other problems.
The possible construction of wind farms two to five miles off the shore has been controversial in some areas. Opponents have been pressing Monroe lawmakers to condemn the project, as have their counterparts in four other shoreline counties — Wayne, Oswego, Jefferson and Chautauqua. Niagara County legislators have endorsed it.
Another Monroe County legislator, Vincent Esposito, said Wednesday that Antelli should have held back his resolution.
"I think it's incredibly premature to take any formal action opposing this project. We won't know what it means for our region until later this year," said Esposito, a Democrat whose district includes Irondequoit's Lake Ontario shoreline. He said he may introduce a counter-resolution.
Lawmakers won't formally vote on Antelli's resolution but can sign it before it's sent to the authority. He said he couldn't predict the reaction of other lawmakers. "A lot of them have expressed support, but we'll wait and see."
The authority hopes that private developers will erect one or more offshore wind farms, with turbines that could number from a few dozen to more than 100.
Though developers were free to choose their own locations, the Power Authority identified five general areas in the lakes it believed were technically suitable for wind turbines. One of them spanned the shoreline from Greece to Webster.
Authority officials have said no information about the proposals will be made public until they choose a project, perhaps by year's end.
The Democrat and Chronicle has filed a Freedom of Information Law request for material from the five proposals.
The authority turned down the request, and an administrative appeal is pending.
Esposito said he has been pressing the authority to release basic information about the five proposals, including the proposed locations and number of turbines.
Monroe lawmakers, he said, shouldn't take a position until learning more about location, job creation and possible payments by energy developers to local governments.
"These are all things I want to see play out before making a decision," Esposito said.
Antelli, however, sees no reason to hold back.
"I've waited months. I've done my research, and I'm responding to the requests of the residents," Antelli said.
"He has to answer to his constituents. I answer to mine."
Wednesday, July 14, 2010
Town board will extend wind tower moratorium
Mike Janisch, a resident of the town of Dunkirk, has been waiting to construct a wind tower on his property for a considerable amount of time. Following the Dunkirk Town Board meeting Tuesday, it appears Janisch will have to continue to wait.
After listening to individuals' concerns during a public hearing that was held prior to their meeting, the town board voted to table a proposed local law governing the construction of small wind energy conversion systems in the town.
Because the town's moratorium on the construction of wind towers is set to expire Aug. 20, the town will hold a public hearing Aug. 10 at 6:45 p.m. to get public input on their decision to extend the moratorium another 90 days.
The 90-day extension will give the board time to re-examine the legislation they had drafted. They will vote on the extension following the Aug. 10 hearing.
During the public hearing Tuesday, Janisch voiced his concerns over the local law as it was drafted.
He questioned the town board's decision on the maximum tower height of 120 feet. While he indicated he's not looking to build a mammoth tower, he said he had intended to build a windmill that would climb about 150 feet into the air - measuring from the base of the tower to the top of the propeller.
The local law is explicit in the amount of property a resident needs to own in order to build a tower.
The legislation also details how far a wind tower must be from the road, other property lines and other structures. The town board inserted specific language in the law to protect other property owners from the possibility of a wind tower collapsing.
With nobody living near him, Janisch said, the town board should consider including some sort of variance process, when it comes to the application and enforcement of setback and height restrictions.
"If it were to fall, it would fall on my house," Janisch said of the wind tower he hopes to build. He added that he obviously doesn't expect the tower to fall.
Lisa DiFrancisco, of Erie, Pa., who said she has experience working with various municipalities on wind energy laws, shared her perspective on the law from an industry standpoint.
The town board's intention may be to promote wind energy, "but it is preventing people from being able to put up a tower with this law," she said.
Mark Rand, a town of Portland resident, has already built a windmill on his property. He went through a year-long, "onerous" process that included 4,000 pages of documentation in order to build his tower in Portland, he said.
He claimed the town of Dunkirk's proposed local law is based more on fear than it is on science.
"If you don't want them in your town, you've created the law to do that," he said.
Speaking from his experience, he explained wind tower noise is a result of them being built too low. When windmills are short, they are blasted with turbulent winds, which rattle the tower. If a wind tower is built 30 feet or so above the tree line, they operate relatively quietly, he said.
"There should be a minimum height limit rather than a maximum height," he said.
Rand invited the town board to visit his property in Portland to experience a wind tower first-hand.
"You'll hear the lake, before you hear the noise (from the tower)," he said.
James Joy, chairman of the Town of Pomfret Planning Board, encouraged the town to table the law, so they can see the legislation that Pomfret has developed.
Technology has changed since the town of Pomfret first instituted its local wind energy law, and the town planning board has been attempting to adapt its law to fit with recent scientific and technological advancements, Joy said.
Admitting that the board had "learned something" during the hearing, Town Supervisor Richard Purol agreed with the rest of the town board that the legislation should be further explored.
As a result, the board voted to table the local law and hold a public hearing to discuss the extension of the town's moratorium.
"I don't think there would be any harm in tabling it," said Councilman Robert Penharlow.
After listening to individuals' concerns during a public hearing that was held prior to their meeting, the town board voted to table a proposed local law governing the construction of small wind energy conversion systems in the town.
Because the town's moratorium on the construction of wind towers is set to expire Aug. 20, the town will hold a public hearing Aug. 10 at 6:45 p.m. to get public input on their decision to extend the moratorium another 90 days.
The 90-day extension will give the board time to re-examine the legislation they had drafted. They will vote on the extension following the Aug. 10 hearing.
During the public hearing Tuesday, Janisch voiced his concerns over the local law as it was drafted.
He questioned the town board's decision on the maximum tower height of 120 feet. While he indicated he's not looking to build a mammoth tower, he said he had intended to build a windmill that would climb about 150 feet into the air - measuring from the base of the tower to the top of the propeller.
The local law is explicit in the amount of property a resident needs to own in order to build a tower.
The legislation also details how far a wind tower must be from the road, other property lines and other structures. The town board inserted specific language in the law to protect other property owners from the possibility of a wind tower collapsing.
With nobody living near him, Janisch said, the town board should consider including some sort of variance process, when it comes to the application and enforcement of setback and height restrictions.
"If it were to fall, it would fall on my house," Janisch said of the wind tower he hopes to build. He added that he obviously doesn't expect the tower to fall.
Lisa DiFrancisco, of Erie, Pa., who said she has experience working with various municipalities on wind energy laws, shared her perspective on the law from an industry standpoint.
The town board's intention may be to promote wind energy, "but it is preventing people from being able to put up a tower with this law," she said.
Mark Rand, a town of Portland resident, has already built a windmill on his property. He went through a year-long, "onerous" process that included 4,000 pages of documentation in order to build his tower in Portland, he said.
He claimed the town of Dunkirk's proposed local law is based more on fear than it is on science.
"If you don't want them in your town, you've created the law to do that," he said.
Speaking from his experience, he explained wind tower noise is a result of them being built too low. When windmills are short, they are blasted with turbulent winds, which rattle the tower. If a wind tower is built 30 feet or so above the tree line, they operate relatively quietly, he said.
"There should be a minimum height limit rather than a maximum height," he said.
Rand invited the town board to visit his property in Portland to experience a wind tower first-hand.
"You'll hear the lake, before you hear the noise (from the tower)," he said.
James Joy, chairman of the Town of Pomfret Planning Board, encouraged the town to table the law, so they can see the legislation that Pomfret has developed.
Technology has changed since the town of Pomfret first instituted its local wind energy law, and the town planning board has been attempting to adapt its law to fit with recent scientific and technological advancements, Joy said.
Admitting that the board had "learned something" during the hearing, Town Supervisor Richard Purol agreed with the rest of the town board that the legislation should be further explored.
As a result, the board voted to table the local law and hold a public hearing to discuss the extension of the town's moratorium.
"I don't think there would be any harm in tabling it," said Councilman Robert Penharlow.
State lawmakers, residents in a huff over wind farm plan
State lawmakers meet with a select few at yacht club
YOUNGSTOWN — An offshore wind power project in New York state seems imminent, local officials said Monday — but not in Niagara County if they have anything to say about it.
State Assemblywoman Francine DelMonte, who along with state Sen. George Maziarz, met with a number of local officials, property owners and community stakeholders to discuss their disapproval of the New York Power Authority’s $1 billion Great Lakes Offshore Wind Project. The project which could lead to the construction of up to 166 wind turbines along Niagara County’s Lake Ontario shoreline is what Maziarz called the proposed wind farm another “typical, empty” promise from the New York Power Authority.
“When you have P.T. Barnum, a carnival barker, coming by to sell you jobs, telling you the windmills are going to be manufactured here in Niagara County, everybody is going to be working, great jobs. Who wouldn’t sign up for this?” Maziarz said of Kessel. “The problem is, excuse my bluntness, we have been screwed for so long by those people.”
The meeting, held at the Youngstown Yacht Club, was not open to all and several people were turned away Monday night. Mayor Neil Riordan said the meeting was invitation only due to limited space at the yacht club.
Maziarz said despite NYPA’s claims of job creation stemming from the wind project, he believes it would do little in terms of economic development for Western New York and do more to pad the pockets of the Power Authority.
The companies which manufacture the windmills are mostly foreign, coming from Denmark, while the five contractors who have submitted a request for proposal are all believed to be from out of state.
The Power Authority is looking to place large-scale wind farms in either Lake Ontario, Lake Erie — or both in an effort to channel the nation’s most productive wind region east of the great plains. NYPA’s attempts in Central New York to establish offshore wind power have been quelled as local governments in the counties of Wayne, Jefferson and Oswego have formally adopted resolutions opposing the construction of offshore wind farms. One county in New York state has supported NYPA’s proposal — Niagara County — a decisions that doesn’t sit well with DelMonte.
She criticized county representatives suggesting they may have jumped the gun in support of the project before hearing from residents in their respective districts.
“I was taken aback a little by that decision (by the Legislature),” DelMonte said before reading the May 5, 2009, county Legislature resolution aloud.
The Legislature voted “In support of NYPA’s proposal to construct a large wind energy farm off the shores of Lake Ontario and would like to be included in any conversations and/or meetings that are held relative to this project. So that Niagara County can offer its resources in any step of the process,” the resolution said.
The resolution goes on to offer assistance from the Niagara County Industrial Development Agency in terms of tax breaks and financial incentives.
County Legislature Clyde Burmaster, R-Ransomville said he will be co-sponsoring a resolution which will look to rescind that decision and put the county on record opposing any Power Authority wind farm along the shores of Lake Ontario.
“There was very little information available to the Legislature at the time as to the impact of this (resolution),” Burmaster said. “I think that resolution came out rather quickly and since that time with more information, more community input and so forth, the Legislature, is, as I pointed out, going to put a resolution through that should negate that (previous) resolution.”
While elected officials focused on politics, local charter boat captains, homeowners, and pleasure boaters expressed their concerns over the loss of fishing habitat, boating lanes, environmental concerns and in turn, loss of revenues for lakefront communities. Those in attendance said shipping lanes to the Welland Canal would be severely compromised, lake water levels would increase significantly resulting in soil erosion for lakefront property owners. Dredging would be required to run wires beneath the lake floor, stirring up potentially harmful waste and chemicals detrimental the Lake Ontario ecosystem.
Dick Roach, a Youngstown boater and fisherman, cited a 2003 Army Corps of Engineers report which said the great lake states from Minnesota to New York generate $22 billion in boating, fishing and lakefront tourism-related revenues. New York state alone receives more than $2.5 billion of that.
“And we are talking about putting windmills in to displace some of this industry,” Roach said. “If Western New York gets a quarter of that it’s $675 million and those are yearly numbers.”
The project, which will be the world’s first fresh water wind farm would generate between 120- to 500-megawatts of power, but the cost of the project isn’t said to be economically feasible. John Reinhold, commodore of the Youngstown Yacht Club said the cost of construction for offshore windmills is twice the cost of onshore windmills.
With the Village of Youngstown one of the key stakeholders in the proposed windfarm, as NYPA has earmarked the mouth of the Niagara River, near Fort Niagara as a potential site for construction, Riordan said officials statewide should understand the negative impact of the proposal.
“NYPA’s backing of the Lake Ontario Wind Farm, once again demonstrates the (their) arrogance and ignorance regarding environmental, economic and natural resource negative impact of this project,” Riordan said. “Lake Ontario’s centuries old history, natural vistas, rich fishing, sailing, boating, resources must not and cannot be destroyed by boardroom bureaucrats.”
DelMonte encouraged those in attendance to write to their elected officials and demand resolutions be put in place opposing the Lake Ontario Wind Project. She added meetings should be held in public, where citizens can voice their concerns to those in power. She said while ultimately NYPA’s seven-member board of trustees has the ultimate decision on the project, she will do everything in her power to make it known Niagara County should not be a home for NYPA’s wind farm.
NYPA officials were not in attendance, at the request of Maziarz and DelMonte.
YOUNGSTOWN — An offshore wind power project in New York state seems imminent, local officials said Monday — but not in Niagara County if they have anything to say about it.
State Assemblywoman Francine DelMonte, who along with state Sen. George Maziarz, met with a number of local officials, property owners and community stakeholders to discuss their disapproval of the New York Power Authority’s $1 billion Great Lakes Offshore Wind Project. The project which could lead to the construction of up to 166 wind turbines along Niagara County’s Lake Ontario shoreline is what Maziarz called the proposed wind farm another “typical, empty” promise from the New York Power Authority.
“When you have P.T. Barnum, a carnival barker, coming by to sell you jobs, telling you the windmills are going to be manufactured here in Niagara County, everybody is going to be working, great jobs. Who wouldn’t sign up for this?” Maziarz said of Kessel. “The problem is, excuse my bluntness, we have been screwed for so long by those people.”
The meeting, held at the Youngstown Yacht Club, was not open to all and several people were turned away Monday night. Mayor Neil Riordan said the meeting was invitation only due to limited space at the yacht club.
Maziarz said despite NYPA’s claims of job creation stemming from the wind project, he believes it would do little in terms of economic development for Western New York and do more to pad the pockets of the Power Authority.
The companies which manufacture the windmills are mostly foreign, coming from Denmark, while the five contractors who have submitted a request for proposal are all believed to be from out of state.
The Power Authority is looking to place large-scale wind farms in either Lake Ontario, Lake Erie — or both in an effort to channel the nation’s most productive wind region east of the great plains. NYPA’s attempts in Central New York to establish offshore wind power have been quelled as local governments in the counties of Wayne, Jefferson and Oswego have formally adopted resolutions opposing the construction of offshore wind farms. One county in New York state has supported NYPA’s proposal — Niagara County — a decisions that doesn’t sit well with DelMonte.
She criticized county representatives suggesting they may have jumped the gun in support of the project before hearing from residents in their respective districts.
“I was taken aback a little by that decision (by the Legislature),” DelMonte said before reading the May 5, 2009, county Legislature resolution aloud.
The Legislature voted “In support of NYPA’s proposal to construct a large wind energy farm off the shores of Lake Ontario and would like to be included in any conversations and/or meetings that are held relative to this project. So that Niagara County can offer its resources in any step of the process,” the resolution said.
The resolution goes on to offer assistance from the Niagara County Industrial Development Agency in terms of tax breaks and financial incentives.
County Legislature Clyde Burmaster, R-Ransomville said he will be co-sponsoring a resolution which will look to rescind that decision and put the county on record opposing any Power Authority wind farm along the shores of Lake Ontario.
“There was very little information available to the Legislature at the time as to the impact of this (resolution),” Burmaster said. “I think that resolution came out rather quickly and since that time with more information, more community input and so forth, the Legislature, is, as I pointed out, going to put a resolution through that should negate that (previous) resolution.”
While elected officials focused on politics, local charter boat captains, homeowners, and pleasure boaters expressed their concerns over the loss of fishing habitat, boating lanes, environmental concerns and in turn, loss of revenues for lakefront communities. Those in attendance said shipping lanes to the Welland Canal would be severely compromised, lake water levels would increase significantly resulting in soil erosion for lakefront property owners. Dredging would be required to run wires beneath the lake floor, stirring up potentially harmful waste and chemicals detrimental the Lake Ontario ecosystem.
Dick Roach, a Youngstown boater and fisherman, cited a 2003 Army Corps of Engineers report which said the great lake states from Minnesota to New York generate $22 billion in boating, fishing and lakefront tourism-related revenues. New York state alone receives more than $2.5 billion of that.
“And we are talking about putting windmills in to displace some of this industry,” Roach said. “If Western New York gets a quarter of that it’s $675 million and those are yearly numbers.”
The project, which will be the world’s first fresh water wind farm would generate between 120- to 500-megawatts of power, but the cost of the project isn’t said to be economically feasible. John Reinhold, commodore of the Youngstown Yacht Club said the cost of construction for offshore windmills is twice the cost of onshore windmills.
With the Village of Youngstown one of the key stakeholders in the proposed windfarm, as NYPA has earmarked the mouth of the Niagara River, near Fort Niagara as a potential site for construction, Riordan said officials statewide should understand the negative impact of the proposal.
“NYPA’s backing of the Lake Ontario Wind Farm, once again demonstrates the (their) arrogance and ignorance regarding environmental, economic and natural resource negative impact of this project,” Riordan said. “Lake Ontario’s centuries old history, natural vistas, rich fishing, sailing, boating, resources must not and cannot be destroyed by boardroom bureaucrats.”
DelMonte encouraged those in attendance to write to their elected officials and demand resolutions be put in place opposing the Lake Ontario Wind Project. She added meetings should be held in public, where citizens can voice their concerns to those in power. She said while ultimately NYPA’s seven-member board of trustees has the ultimate decision on the project, she will do everything in her power to make it known Niagara County should not be a home for NYPA’s wind farm.
NYPA officials were not in attendance, at the request of Maziarz and DelMonte.
Tuesday, July 13, 2010
Empire Wind pulls the plug on Benton
Benton, N.Y. — Benton Town Supervisor Bob Clark received an unexpected telephone call on Tuesday, July 6. The caller was Keith Pittman, president and C.E.O. of Empire State Wind Energy, who told Clark his company had decided installing wind turbines in Benton would not be a profitable situation.
Clark said he was quite surprised by the company pull-out. Empire State Wind had been courting the town with proposals since 2007.
In October of 2007 the town board signed a host community agreement to support a project if it was compatible.
The agreement set an upper limit of 25 wind turbines and called for 75 percent of the project’s annual net revenue to be paid to the town. Payments were to be made in addition to any property taxation or negotiated PILOTS (payments in lieu of taxes).
The 15-year agreement also was to include an option for Benton to purchase the power generation project after 10 years.
Clark says after thinking about the conversation he tried to call Pittman back at the company office in Oneida and only got a recorded message. The company’s website is no longer in operation, and there was no reponse to a phone call from The Chronicle-Express at press time.
Empire Wind Energy was founded by billionaire B. Thomas Golisano and Pittman, who was a former Massena Electric Department superintendent. Golisano is the founder of Paychex and owner of the Buffalo Sabres.
It was announced on July 6 that ESWE would not continue to pursue a project planned in Alfred. Golisano is an Alfred State alumni and a friend of college president John Anderson. The college had supported placing 8-10 turbines on the campus.
According to a report in The Hornell Evening Tribune, Anderson said, “The primary reason for the decision was driven by the decline in wholesale electricity prices - a decline that began some 18 months ago and gives no indication at this time of rebounding.”
The Alfred area had been working towards the project for two years. Like Benton, the local governments had time but little money invested.
Clark said by agreement, ESWE had reimbursed Benton for legal fees involved. Time spent on meetings for the proposal, is another matter. Benton Town Board members and others traveled to Fenner and Cohocton in search of answers to questions and to get a sense of the visual and noise affect wind turbines have on a community.
Benton planning and zoning boards met to formulate laws to deal with wind turbines. Even after the final draft was presented, changes were made. In December 2009 a height limit was set at 408 feet.
While surrounding towns and counties faced some strong opposition to wind turbines, the Town of Benton met with little or no opposition. Informational meetings were held and attended by many residents, most showing positive interest in the green energy source. Members of the Mennonite community showed strong interest.
In the few years ESWE has been in business, Pittman and Golisano have approached many upstate towns and counties about wind projects.
In 2007 Golisano told a crowd of 200 in Albion that the company formed in mid-2006 would give more money to host towns and an option for ownership. Pittman proposed a potential for upwards of $125,000 a year profit for each turbine.
In Somerset, the town board (Niagara County) rejected a proposed host community agreement in 2008.
A report in New York Wind Power Education Project Bulletin dated March 2008 stated: “Empire advertises itself as a company devoted to building only those wind projects that will benefit the host community in its entirety. Golisano previously criticized wind projects that he claimed would benefit only a few local lease holders, and his company promises to give the largest possible share of benefits to the host community.” Somerset Supervisor Richard Meyers said Empire had offered the town three times the amount of other wind developers. However, several board members were suspicious. Town Attorney Robert Robertson asked, ‘Why would a company want to do that?’”
Minutes from the Somerset Town board meeting on May 13, 2008 include a rejection of the town Host Community Agreement in its entirety with no counter proposal. Supervisor Meyers said Pittman stated investors wanted to know why the agreement was changed since they have signed with other towns.
To the north in the towns of Huron, Wolcott , Butler, Sodus, Rose and Galen, similar agreements have fallen by the wayside recently.
What about the future of wind energy in Benton?
Clark says nothing is planned down the road. Another company, Global Wind Harvest has a windtest tower on Lovejoy Road, but Clark has not heard from that company lately. In September 2007
Dan Albano, project manager for GWH cautioned board members that Golisano should develop the project first, then go to the town. “Empire gets people excited, then pulls out,” Albano said at the time.
“The town board is not against wind turbines, we need to look at priorities, “Clark said.
Clark said he was quite surprised by the company pull-out. Empire State Wind had been courting the town with proposals since 2007.
In October of 2007 the town board signed a host community agreement to support a project if it was compatible.
The agreement set an upper limit of 25 wind turbines and called for 75 percent of the project’s annual net revenue to be paid to the town. Payments were to be made in addition to any property taxation or negotiated PILOTS (payments in lieu of taxes).
The 15-year agreement also was to include an option for Benton to purchase the power generation project after 10 years.
Clark says after thinking about the conversation he tried to call Pittman back at the company office in Oneida and only got a recorded message. The company’s website is no longer in operation, and there was no reponse to a phone call from The Chronicle-Express at press time.
Empire Wind Energy was founded by billionaire B. Thomas Golisano and Pittman, who was a former Massena Electric Department superintendent. Golisano is the founder of Paychex and owner of the Buffalo Sabres.
It was announced on July 6 that ESWE would not continue to pursue a project planned in Alfred. Golisano is an Alfred State alumni and a friend of college president John Anderson. The college had supported placing 8-10 turbines on the campus.
According to a report in The Hornell Evening Tribune, Anderson said, “The primary reason for the decision was driven by the decline in wholesale electricity prices - a decline that began some 18 months ago and gives no indication at this time of rebounding.”
The Alfred area had been working towards the project for two years. Like Benton, the local governments had time but little money invested.
Clark said by agreement, ESWE had reimbursed Benton for legal fees involved. Time spent on meetings for the proposal, is another matter. Benton Town Board members and others traveled to Fenner and Cohocton in search of answers to questions and to get a sense of the visual and noise affect wind turbines have on a community.
Benton planning and zoning boards met to formulate laws to deal with wind turbines. Even after the final draft was presented, changes were made. In December 2009 a height limit was set at 408 feet.
While surrounding towns and counties faced some strong opposition to wind turbines, the Town of Benton met with little or no opposition. Informational meetings were held and attended by many residents, most showing positive interest in the green energy source. Members of the Mennonite community showed strong interest.
In the few years ESWE has been in business, Pittman and Golisano have approached many upstate towns and counties about wind projects.
In 2007 Golisano told a crowd of 200 in Albion that the company formed in mid-2006 would give more money to host towns and an option for ownership. Pittman proposed a potential for upwards of $125,000 a year profit for each turbine.
In Somerset, the town board (Niagara County) rejected a proposed host community agreement in 2008.
A report in New York Wind Power Education Project Bulletin dated March 2008 stated: “Empire advertises itself as a company devoted to building only those wind projects that will benefit the host community in its entirety. Golisano previously criticized wind projects that he claimed would benefit only a few local lease holders, and his company promises to give the largest possible share of benefits to the host community.” Somerset Supervisor Richard Meyers said Empire had offered the town three times the amount of other wind developers. However, several board members were suspicious. Town Attorney Robert Robertson asked, ‘Why would a company want to do that?’”
Minutes from the Somerset Town board meeting on May 13, 2008 include a rejection of the town Host Community Agreement in its entirety with no counter proposal. Supervisor Meyers said Pittman stated investors wanted to know why the agreement was changed since they have signed with other towns.
To the north in the towns of Huron, Wolcott , Butler, Sodus, Rose and Galen, similar agreements have fallen by the wayside recently.
What about the future of wind energy in Benton?
Clark says nothing is planned down the road. Another company, Global Wind Harvest has a windtest tower on Lovejoy Road, but Clark has not heard from that company lately. In September 2007
Dan Albano, project manager for GWH cautioned board members that Golisano should develop the project first, then go to the town. “Empire gets people excited, then pulls out,” Albano said at the time.
“The town board is not against wind turbines, we need to look at priorities, “Clark said.
Public Hearing on Bath Town Wind Law Monday
Bath, NY — BATH– Bath town board members are looking for input on their proposed wind farm law.
The board will hold a public hearing at 7 p.m. Monday on the law, which resulted after council members enacted a moratorium to develop regulations in the event the town is ever approached by a wind farm developers
Councilwoman Rob in Lattimer said there is little reason to believe the town is a potential site for wind energy development now.
“But never say never,” Lattimer said. “Technology is advancing all the time and this seems like an opportune time to put in a law.”
Lattimer represented the town on a wind law committee which including Planning Board President Jim Emo and environmentalist Jim Arthur.
The group considered local wind laws already in place, including the towns of Fremont, Howard and Cohocton, Lattimer said.
While Cohocton is the only town with an operating wind farm, developers are looking at three other sites, in the towns of Hartsville, Howard and Prattsburgh.
Of the three sites, the 8-year-old Prattsburgh project has been the most contentious. After years of discord over setbacks, noise and potential hazards to the environment and people, and the financial benefits of Prattsburgh project, it is now before state Supreme Court Justice John Ark.
Lattimer said the result of the Bath committee meetings was a compromise, often between wide differences in what the regulations should entail.
The end product provides a law allowing property owners to take advantage of what wind developers may offer in the future, she said.
The committee’s proposed law includes:
Setbacks:
?1,000 feet from off-site residences
?1.1 times the turbine’s total height from the nearest property line, public road right of way and above ground utility – an approximate distance of 450-550 feet.
?1.5 times the turbine’s total height from above ground utilities -- approximately 700 feet.
?100 feet from state-identified wetlands
The law also restricts sound levels to 50 decibels or lower at the nearest off-site residence.
One unusual feature in the town’s sound regulations is a proposal to allow noise to exceed 50 decibels if the sound levels are normally higher than the 50 dB range.
“Well, street noise can exceed that,” Lattimer said. “You can tolerate a little more if it’s already higher… It’s not always objectionable noise. What we were trying to do is strike that balance.”
Bath’s proposed law provides a tough stance for violations, with a wind company expected to fix a problem within 90 days, with extensions approved by the town board. The board may also revoke a wind energy permit, if a developer fails to provide comply with a remedial plan.
The law received initial approval by the town board last month.
It could be adopted Monday night, depending on public input, Lattimer said.
Lattimer said the law can be amended to respond to advancing technology or new studies on the effect of turbines on people or the environment.
“I was more concerned about hitting a balance,” she said. “We couldn’t ban windmills and we can’t be reckless with property owners’ rights.”
The board will hold a public hearing at 7 p.m. Monday on the law, which resulted after council members enacted a moratorium to develop regulations in the event the town is ever approached by a wind farm developers
Councilwoman Rob in Lattimer said there is little reason to believe the town is a potential site for wind energy development now.
“But never say never,” Lattimer said. “Technology is advancing all the time and this seems like an opportune time to put in a law.”
Lattimer represented the town on a wind law committee which including Planning Board President Jim Emo and environmentalist Jim Arthur.
The group considered local wind laws already in place, including the towns of Fremont, Howard and Cohocton, Lattimer said.
While Cohocton is the only town with an operating wind farm, developers are looking at three other sites, in the towns of Hartsville, Howard and Prattsburgh.
Of the three sites, the 8-year-old Prattsburgh project has been the most contentious. After years of discord over setbacks, noise and potential hazards to the environment and people, and the financial benefits of Prattsburgh project, it is now before state Supreme Court Justice John Ark.
Lattimer said the result of the Bath committee meetings was a compromise, often between wide differences in what the regulations should entail.
The end product provides a law allowing property owners to take advantage of what wind developers may offer in the future, she said.
The committee’s proposed law includes:
Setbacks:
?1,000 feet from off-site residences
?1.1 times the turbine’s total height from the nearest property line, public road right of way and above ground utility – an approximate distance of 450-550 feet.
?1.5 times the turbine’s total height from above ground utilities -- approximately 700 feet.
?100 feet from state-identified wetlands
The law also restricts sound levels to 50 decibels or lower at the nearest off-site residence.
One unusual feature in the town’s sound regulations is a proposal to allow noise to exceed 50 decibels if the sound levels are normally higher than the 50 dB range.
“Well, street noise can exceed that,” Lattimer said. “You can tolerate a little more if it’s already higher… It’s not always objectionable noise. What we were trying to do is strike that balance.”
Bath’s proposed law provides a tough stance for violations, with a wind company expected to fix a problem within 90 days, with extensions approved by the town board. The board may also revoke a wind energy permit, if a developer fails to provide comply with a remedial plan.
The law received initial approval by the town board last month.
It could be adopted Monday night, depending on public input, Lattimer said.
Lattimer said the law can be amended to respond to advancing technology or new studies on the effect of turbines on people or the environment.
“I was more concerned about hitting a balance,” she said. “We couldn’t ban windmills and we can’t be reckless with property owners’ rights.”
Wind Industry Ramps Up Energy Bill Lobbying
With the prospect dimming that the energy bill being cobbled together behind closed doors in the Senate will include a cap on carbon, the wind industry is ramping up its lobbying efforts this week to ensure that its priorities don’t get left behind in the rush to secure 60 votes.
I just got off the phone with Rob Gramlich, a senior vice president for policy at the American Wind Energy Association (AWEA), the leading lobbying group for the U.S. wind industry. He says wind industry CEOs are preparing to lobby senators in the coming days to strengthen key provisions in climate and energy legislation that could benefit the industry.
AWEA is calling for an increase in the so-called renewable electricity standard (RES) included in various energy and climate proposals currently on the table. A federal RES would require that a certain percentage of the country’s electricity be produced from renewable sources like wind and solar.
Without the votes for an economy-wide cap on carbon emissions, an RES appears likely to be one of the central provisions in a climate and energy package, leaving liberal Democrats with the task of claiming victory on a bill that falls far short of their policy goals.
AWEA is working to increase the RES well above the requirement included in the energy bill passed by the Senate Energy & Natural Resources Committee last year, which calls for 15 percent of the nation’s electricity to come from renewables by 2021. The group is advocating for a proposal to increase the RES to 25 percent by 2025.
Gramlich says the group will be targeting farm-state Democrats and Republicans in wind-rich regions, dispatching the heads of number of major wind developers to lobby key senators.
“There are a number of swing vote members who could come onto the legislation, there are farm-state Republicans who support wind energy in particular,” Gramlich said, arguing that a higher RES could help get 60 votes for an energy and climate bill.
But Republicans are also calling for a so-called “diverse” energy standard that would allow nuclear energy and coal with carbon capture technology to count in the overall standard, a proposal that rankles many in the wind industry. Sen. Richard Lugar’s (R-Ind.) energy proposal includes such a standard.
I just got off the phone with Rob Gramlich, a senior vice president for policy at the American Wind Energy Association (AWEA), the leading lobbying group for the U.S. wind industry. He says wind industry CEOs are preparing to lobby senators in the coming days to strengthen key provisions in climate and energy legislation that could benefit the industry.
AWEA is calling for an increase in the so-called renewable electricity standard (RES) included in various energy and climate proposals currently on the table. A federal RES would require that a certain percentage of the country’s electricity be produced from renewable sources like wind and solar.
Without the votes for an economy-wide cap on carbon emissions, an RES appears likely to be one of the central provisions in a climate and energy package, leaving liberal Democrats with the task of claiming victory on a bill that falls far short of their policy goals.
AWEA is working to increase the RES well above the requirement included in the energy bill passed by the Senate Energy & Natural Resources Committee last year, which calls for 15 percent of the nation’s electricity to come from renewables by 2021. The group is advocating for a proposal to increase the RES to 25 percent by 2025.
Gramlich says the group will be targeting farm-state Democrats and Republicans in wind-rich regions, dispatching the heads of number of major wind developers to lobby key senators.
“There are a number of swing vote members who could come onto the legislation, there are farm-state Republicans who support wind energy in particular,” Gramlich said, arguing that a higher RES could help get 60 votes for an energy and climate bill.
But Republicans are also calling for a so-called “diverse” energy standard that would allow nuclear energy and coal with carbon capture technology to count in the overall standard, a proposal that rankles many in the wind industry. Sen. Richard Lugar’s (R-Ind.) energy proposal includes such a standard.
Moratorium Extended In Hammond
HAMMOND - Councilman James Langtry accused his fellow board members of being "gutless" and told Supervisor Ron W. Bertram that he had "no more backbone than a snake on the ground," before the Hammond Town Board voted 3-0 to extend the wind energy facilities law moratorium for a year.
"Do you have to ask?" Mr. Langtry snapped when it was his turn to vote, to which Mr. Bertram said, "We'll leave that blank then."
Councilman James Pitcher, who has signed a lease with Iberdrola Renewables Inc., recused himself.
Prior to the vote, Mr. Langtry had moved to extend the moratorium until Dec. 31, 2010, but his motion was never seconded.
"CROH (Concerned Residents of Hammond) is running this town, that's plain to see," he said, adding to the remainder of the board, "You're getting paid off."
Councilman Dr. James R. Tague then moved to extend the moratorium for a year and was seconded by Councilman Douglas E. Delosh.
The extension of the moratorium follows immediately on the heels of a six-month moratorium that was established by the new town board after it took office in January. That town board created a wind committee to take a look at concerns about the Wind Energy Facilities Law that was passed in Dec. of 2009 by the outgoing board.
Nine of the 10 current wind committee members recommended that the moratorium be extended for an additional year.
Joining Mr. Langtry in his criticism of the board was Sonja Kocan, during citizen's participation.
Mrs. Kocan dominated the public comment period, also accusing several board members of being in cahoots with CROH, questioning the revenues that would have been brought in had Iberdrola been allowed to continue the permitting process, as well as raising her concerns about CROH Vice-President Allan Newell's role on the wind committee.
"Your wind committee meetings are a joke," she said.
Mr. Langtry, after venting his frustrations with the board and its decision to extend the moratorium, didn't last until the meeting's end.
Upon Mr. Bertram's reading of the supervisor's report, Mr. Langtry asked, "Anyone take a look at the lawyer's fees?"
"He's asking a question!" Mrs. Kocan shouted from the public. When he felt he was ignored by the remainder of the board, Mr. Langtry stood up and said, "That's right, I don't count," and left the meeting. The Hammond Wind Committee meets next on July 21 at 6:30 p.m. at Hammond Central School. According to committee facilitator, David B. Duff, representatives from Iberdrola will be in attendance for a presentation on subjects ranging from the development process and permitting, to engineering, potential sound issues, and issues related to real property taxes.
A "roundtable" discussion is to follow Iberdrola's presentation, Mr. Duff said, with several local agencies and groups participating, including representatives from the St. Lawrence County Planning Office, St. Lawrence County Industrial Development Agency, St. Lawrence County Real Property Tax Office, Hammond Central School and Concerned Residents of Hammond, as well as from the Hammond town and planning boards.
"The intent of such a forum will be to develop a clear understanding of the developer's plans, as well as to further determine the role and interaction of the town, county, and school district and/or others involved in this process," Mr. Duff said.
"Do you have to ask?" Mr. Langtry snapped when it was his turn to vote, to which Mr. Bertram said, "We'll leave that blank then."
Councilman James Pitcher, who has signed a lease with Iberdrola Renewables Inc., recused himself.
Prior to the vote, Mr. Langtry had moved to extend the moratorium until Dec. 31, 2010, but his motion was never seconded.
"CROH (Concerned Residents of Hammond) is running this town, that's plain to see," he said, adding to the remainder of the board, "You're getting paid off."
Councilman Dr. James R. Tague then moved to extend the moratorium for a year and was seconded by Councilman Douglas E. Delosh.
The extension of the moratorium follows immediately on the heels of a six-month moratorium that was established by the new town board after it took office in January. That town board created a wind committee to take a look at concerns about the Wind Energy Facilities Law that was passed in Dec. of 2009 by the outgoing board.
Nine of the 10 current wind committee members recommended that the moratorium be extended for an additional year.
Joining Mr. Langtry in his criticism of the board was Sonja Kocan, during citizen's participation.
Mrs. Kocan dominated the public comment period, also accusing several board members of being in cahoots with CROH, questioning the revenues that would have been brought in had Iberdrola been allowed to continue the permitting process, as well as raising her concerns about CROH Vice-President Allan Newell's role on the wind committee.
"Your wind committee meetings are a joke," she said.
Mr. Langtry, after venting his frustrations with the board and its decision to extend the moratorium, didn't last until the meeting's end.
Upon Mr. Bertram's reading of the supervisor's report, Mr. Langtry asked, "Anyone take a look at the lawyer's fees?"
"He's asking a question!" Mrs. Kocan shouted from the public. When he felt he was ignored by the remainder of the board, Mr. Langtry stood up and said, "That's right, I don't count," and left the meeting. The Hammond Wind Committee meets next on July 21 at 6:30 p.m. at Hammond Central School. According to committee facilitator, David B. Duff, representatives from Iberdrola will be in attendance for a presentation on subjects ranging from the development process and permitting, to engineering, potential sound issues, and issues related to real property taxes.
A "roundtable" discussion is to follow Iberdrola's presentation, Mr. Duff said, with several local agencies and groups participating, including representatives from the St. Lawrence County Planning Office, St. Lawrence County Industrial Development Agency, St. Lawrence County Real Property Tax Office, Hammond Central School and Concerned Residents of Hammond, as well as from the Hammond town and planning boards.
"The intent of such a forum will be to develop a clear understanding of the developer's plans, as well as to further determine the role and interaction of the town, county, and school district and/or others involved in this process," Mr. Duff said.
Mass AG Demands Cape Wind $ Info
After jumping through nearly ten years of regulatory hurdles, environmental assessments and after finally receiving federal approval, America's first wind farm is facing another legal complication as Massachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakley demands to know the full cost of the project and just how much of the burden taxpayers will shoulder.
Cape Wind developers plan to erect 130 wind turbines in the waters of Nantucket Sound off the shores of Cape Cod. Coakley's office is demanding information on construction costs, operating expenditures and profit expectations. She's aiming to ensure customers pay a fair price for the energy project's power.
In May, Cape Wind struck a deal with National Grid for the utility provider to buy half the project's energy output for 20.7 cents per kilowatt hour beginning in 2013. The price would increase 3.5% each year for 15 years. Based on rate expectations, National Grid predicts typical residential customers will pay an increase of $1.59, or roughly 2%, per month.
Corey Welford, a spokesperson for the Attorney General released the following statement:
"We think that the underlying construction and operation costs of Cape Wind and profits to the project's investors are relevant to whether National Grid's contract with Cape Wind is cost effective and in the best interests of Massachusetts ratepayers. We have requested that the Department of Public Utilities order Cape Wind to provide this information."
Critics of Cape Wind estimate the project will cost well over a billion dollars, including millions shelled out by taxpayers in the form of energy subsidies.
Cape Wind's developers are not happy about the call for financial disclosure and argue they are being treated differently from other energy projects.
"We do have a concern that the attorney general is asking for information from Cape Wind that hasn't been provided by any energy company in Massachusetts, but the important thing is we believe we're going to be able to reach an agreement with the attorney general that will be able to move Cape Wind and Massachusetts forward with new jobs, cleaner air and greater energy independence," said Cape Wind spokesman Mark Rodgers.
"Cape Wind in 2013 may raise electricity prices by 2%, but set against a backdrop of fossil fuel prices having quadrupled before this last recession in just a few years that's the real risk to consumers," argued Rodgers. "Cape Wind can provide a stable price for 15-years."
Cape Wind aims to begin construction by year-end but the project is facing several lawsuits, including one put forth by a coalition of environmental groups. Mega-retailer Walmart has also challenged the value of Cape Wind, questioning National Grid's cost estimates in a filing with the state last month.
Cape Wind developers plan to erect 130 wind turbines in the waters of Nantucket Sound off the shores of Cape Cod. Coakley's office is demanding information on construction costs, operating expenditures and profit expectations. She's aiming to ensure customers pay a fair price for the energy project's power.
In May, Cape Wind struck a deal with National Grid for the utility provider to buy half the project's energy output for 20.7 cents per kilowatt hour beginning in 2013. The price would increase 3.5% each year for 15 years. Based on rate expectations, National Grid predicts typical residential customers will pay an increase of $1.59, or roughly 2%, per month.
Corey Welford, a spokesperson for the Attorney General released the following statement:
"We think that the underlying construction and operation costs of Cape Wind and profits to the project's investors are relevant to whether National Grid's contract with Cape Wind is cost effective and in the best interests of Massachusetts ratepayers. We have requested that the Department of Public Utilities order Cape Wind to provide this information."
Critics of Cape Wind estimate the project will cost well over a billion dollars, including millions shelled out by taxpayers in the form of energy subsidies.
Cape Wind's developers are not happy about the call for financial disclosure and argue they are being treated differently from other energy projects.
"We do have a concern that the attorney general is asking for information from Cape Wind that hasn't been provided by any energy company in Massachusetts, but the important thing is we believe we're going to be able to reach an agreement with the attorney general that will be able to move Cape Wind and Massachusetts forward with new jobs, cleaner air and greater energy independence," said Cape Wind spokesman Mark Rodgers.
"Cape Wind in 2013 may raise electricity prices by 2%, but set against a backdrop of fossil fuel prices having quadrupled before this last recession in just a few years that's the real risk to consumers," argued Rodgers. "Cape Wind can provide a stable price for 15-years."
Cape Wind aims to begin construction by year-end but the project is facing several lawsuits, including one put forth by a coalition of environmental groups. Mega-retailer Walmart has also challenged the value of Cape Wind, questioning National Grid's cost estimates in a filing with the state last month.
Monday, July 12, 2010
'Mock survey' by Lyme council is an insult
As a member of the working group that developed the wind law originally voted upon by the Lyme's town board, I had strongly suggested in a June 15 letter to the board that the law, being now nearly three years old, needs considerably more than just "tweaking" by the board. In the past three years, many of our residents and taxpayers have learned a great deal more about wind energy, its efficacy, its effects on our environment and the practices of wind developers.
The law as originally developed does not adequately protect residents from the damaging effects of low-frequency noise. The law does not protect residents from the significant devaluation of their property that is a virtual certainty with industrial-scale wind development. The law does not provide for dispute resolution if noise or flicker effects exceed the limits established in the law. The law does not adequately provide for the cost of removing wind-generating equipment that has become obsolete or ceased to operate. Neighboring towns are carefully exploring their options. Why is Lyme not doing this?
The board has ignored these issues, failing to reply to my letter, while continuing to tweak the law (gut it) in a series of work sessions. When I protested the presence of conflicted board members prior to the first work session, Supervisor Scott Aubertine threatened to have me "thrown out" of the meeting. Residents of Lyme are now being subjected to the same sort of ridiculous circus as our neighbors in Cape Vincent, by a number of apparently pro-BP members on the board. (Yes, you heard it right, they want us to use BP's guidelines — the company presently engaged in the destruction of the Gulf of Mexico, while continuing to lie about it).
The latest insult is that the board plans to send out a survey with only two questions; however, they are really not questions, but statements, to which respondents are expected to agree. The first includes the disclaimer, "I am not in favor of wind farms, but understand we cannot exclude them!" Welcome to Lyme, BP, and have it your way!
All residents of Lyme who oppose this approach are encouraged to attend the next town board meeting July 14 and let them know how you feel about their mock survey.
Albert H. Bowers III
Chaumont
The law as originally developed does not adequately protect residents from the damaging effects of low-frequency noise. The law does not protect residents from the significant devaluation of their property that is a virtual certainty with industrial-scale wind development. The law does not provide for dispute resolution if noise or flicker effects exceed the limits established in the law. The law does not adequately provide for the cost of removing wind-generating equipment that has become obsolete or ceased to operate. Neighboring towns are carefully exploring their options. Why is Lyme not doing this?
The board has ignored these issues, failing to reply to my letter, while continuing to tweak the law (gut it) in a series of work sessions. When I protested the presence of conflicted board members prior to the first work session, Supervisor Scott Aubertine threatened to have me "thrown out" of the meeting. Residents of Lyme are now being subjected to the same sort of ridiculous circus as our neighbors in Cape Vincent, by a number of apparently pro-BP members on the board. (Yes, you heard it right, they want us to use BP's guidelines — the company presently engaged in the destruction of the Gulf of Mexico, while continuing to lie about it).
The latest insult is that the board plans to send out a survey with only two questions; however, they are really not questions, but statements, to which respondents are expected to agree. The first includes the disclaimer, "I am not in favor of wind farms, but understand we cannot exclude them!" Welcome to Lyme, BP, and have it your way!
All residents of Lyme who oppose this approach are encouraged to attend the next town board meeting July 14 and let them know how you feel about their mock survey.
Albert H. Bowers III
Chaumont
Doctor: turbines cause health problems
HAMMOND — The author of "Wind Turbine Syndrome: A Report on a Natural Experiment" told the Hammond Wind Committee last week that 14 percent of the town's homes will be adversely affected if the entire wind overlay zone is filled with turbines.
The report by Nina Pierpont, a Malone physician and graduate of Johns Hopkins University and Princeton University, examined the health effects of wind turbines. At the meeting, she explained her research methods.
"A good patient history, we were taught, and my experience has borne out, provides a doctor with about 80 percent of the information he needs to diagnose a problem," she said. "I conducted thorough, structural clinical interviews of all my study subjects, directly interviewing all adults and older teens, and interviewing the parents of all child subjects."
Her research shows that turbines produce sounds that affect the mood of people and cause insomnia, headaches, vertigo and nausea.
Critics have suggested that Dr. Pierpont's research, theories and self-published book are unscientific and included only a handful of study subjects, while others agree that wind turbines actually do have adverse effects on the health of people living in proximity to them.
Regarding Hammond, she told committee members:
■ More than 150 households in the town would be affected by the wind overlay zone and 1,500-meter buffer, assuming the entire overlay has turbines in it.
■ As many as 316 residents are "highly likely" to develop migraines from the turbines.
■ Hammond's disproportionately high number of seniors makes its residents especially vulnerable to the turbines.
Wind committee members could not be reached for comment.
The wind committee meets next at 6:30 p.m. July 21 at Hammond Central School. David B. Duff, committee facilitator, says representatives from Iberdrola Renewables Inc. will be in attendance for a presentation.
The report by Nina Pierpont, a Malone physician and graduate of Johns Hopkins University and Princeton University, examined the health effects of wind turbines. At the meeting, she explained her research methods.
"A good patient history, we were taught, and my experience has borne out, provides a doctor with about 80 percent of the information he needs to diagnose a problem," she said. "I conducted thorough, structural clinical interviews of all my study subjects, directly interviewing all adults and older teens, and interviewing the parents of all child subjects."
Her research shows that turbines produce sounds that affect the mood of people and cause insomnia, headaches, vertigo and nausea.
Critics have suggested that Dr. Pierpont's research, theories and self-published book are unscientific and included only a handful of study subjects, while others agree that wind turbines actually do have adverse effects on the health of people living in proximity to them.
Regarding Hammond, she told committee members:
■ More than 150 households in the town would be affected by the wind overlay zone and 1,500-meter buffer, assuming the entire overlay has turbines in it.
■ As many as 316 residents are "highly likely" to develop migraines from the turbines.
■ Hammond's disproportionately high number of seniors makes its residents especially vulnerable to the turbines.
Wind committee members could not be reached for comment.
The wind committee meets next at 6:30 p.m. July 21 at Hammond Central School. David B. Duff, committee facilitator, says representatives from Iberdrola Renewables Inc. will be in attendance for a presentation.
Roaring Brook wind farm on hold
MARTINSBURG — A weak energy market may delay construction — perhaps indefinitely — of the proposed Roaring Brook wind farm.
While all involved taxing jurisdictions have now signed off on a payment-in-lieu-of-taxes plan, the developer has yet to determine whether and when construction will begin.
"Development work continues, but we are continuing to see soft pricing in the near-term energy market and consequently have not set a construction start date," Paul C. Copelman, a communications manager with Iberdrola Renewables, said via e-mail. "Still, it's a hugely important step to have agreed to terms with the taxing jurisdictions, and we are thankful for their hard work to help bring the project closer to fruition."
Atlantic Wind, a subsidiary of Iberdrola, is proposing a 39-turbine, 78-megawatt wind farm on 5,280 acres just south of the 195-turbine Maple Ridge Wind Farm. Iberdrola co-owns Maple Ridge.
The Lewis County Legislature and Martinsburg Town Council by early May approved a proposed PILOT agreement that would pay up to $24 million over 20 years.
And the final holdout, the Lowville Academy and Central School District board, signed off on the deal Tuesday.
"The board was very pleased with the terms," District Superintendent Kenneth J. McAuliffe said. "We're hoping this will help move it forward in the project planning."
School board members, while informally supportive of the plan, decided to withhold approval while $6.7 million withheld from last year's annual Maple Ridge payment remained in dispute, he said.
"There was reluctance until the other matter was adjudicated or at least settled," Mr. McAuliffe said.
Early last month, the wind farm and its taxing jurisdictions reached a tentative deal that would provide for release of the funds. All have since adopted it and are awaiting court approval of the settlement.
The proposed PILOT would offer $8,000 per megawatt with an annual cost-of-living increase of 2.5 percent to 5 percent. If Iberdrola or a related developer gives approval for higher per-megawatt payments on projects in Jefferson or Herkimer counties in Roaring Brook's first three years of payments, the per-megawatt amount would rise to the higher level.
The terms are similar to an agreement approved earlier this year by the Herkimer County Legislature for Atlantic Wind's 37-turbine Hardscrabble Wind Farm project there. Construction has since begun on that project.
According to a potential pay schedule assuming construction in 2011, projected revenues over 20 years would range from $17.17 million to $23.89 million.
While all involved taxing jurisdictions have now signed off on a payment-in-lieu-of-taxes plan, the developer has yet to determine whether and when construction will begin.
"Development work continues, but we are continuing to see soft pricing in the near-term energy market and consequently have not set a construction start date," Paul C. Copelman, a communications manager with Iberdrola Renewables, said via e-mail. "Still, it's a hugely important step to have agreed to terms with the taxing jurisdictions, and we are thankful for their hard work to help bring the project closer to fruition."
Atlantic Wind, a subsidiary of Iberdrola, is proposing a 39-turbine, 78-megawatt wind farm on 5,280 acres just south of the 195-turbine Maple Ridge Wind Farm. Iberdrola co-owns Maple Ridge.
The Lewis County Legislature and Martinsburg Town Council by early May approved a proposed PILOT agreement that would pay up to $24 million over 20 years.
And the final holdout, the Lowville Academy and Central School District board, signed off on the deal Tuesday.
"The board was very pleased with the terms," District Superintendent Kenneth J. McAuliffe said. "We're hoping this will help move it forward in the project planning."
School board members, while informally supportive of the plan, decided to withhold approval while $6.7 million withheld from last year's annual Maple Ridge payment remained in dispute, he said.
"There was reluctance until the other matter was adjudicated or at least settled," Mr. McAuliffe said.
Early last month, the wind farm and its taxing jurisdictions reached a tentative deal that would provide for release of the funds. All have since adopted it and are awaiting court approval of the settlement.
The proposed PILOT would offer $8,000 per megawatt with an annual cost-of-living increase of 2.5 percent to 5 percent. If Iberdrola or a related developer gives approval for higher per-megawatt payments on projects in Jefferson or Herkimer counties in Roaring Brook's first three years of payments, the per-megawatt amount would rise to the higher level.
The terms are similar to an agreement approved earlier this year by the Herkimer County Legislature for Atlantic Wind's 37-turbine Hardscrabble Wind Farm project there. Construction has since begun on that project.
According to a potential pay schedule assuming construction in 2011, projected revenues over 20 years would range from $17.17 million to $23.89 million.
Sunday, July 11, 2010
Hartsville's Wind Project Comes To A Halt
After 5 years of intense arguing over wind, the project is shelved.
WLEA/WCKR News has learned that the Hartsville wind project is not going to happen, not at this point anyway.
Hartsville wind farmers have received letters from wind company Eon. The letters say that the project is not going forward at this time.
This news has been confirmed by Eon attorney Jaqueline Murray, who tells WLEA/WCKR that the letters were mailed out to Hartsville wind farmers.
The proposed project was a very controversial one, and was the subject of many headlines for the past five years.
WLEA/WCKR News has learned that the Hartsville wind project is not going to happen, not at this point anyway.
Hartsville wind farmers have received letters from wind company Eon. The letters say that the project is not going forward at this time.
This news has been confirmed by Eon attorney Jaqueline Murray, who tells WLEA/WCKR that the letters were mailed out to Hartsville wind farmers.
The proposed project was a very controversial one, and was the subject of many headlines for the past five years.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)