An ill wind is blowing over Italy's green revolution, as the Mafia seek to capitalise on generous grants for renewable energy.
They rise up high above the sun-scorched countryside, looking out over hilltop villages, palm trees, neatly-tended vineyards and olive groves.
But for all their promises of a clean, green future, Italy's windfarms have now acquired a somewhat dirtier whiff - as the latest industry to be infiltrated by the country's mobsters.
Attracted by the prospect of generous grants designed to boost the use of alternative energies, the so-called "eco Mafia" has begun fraudulently creaming off millions of euros from both the Italian government and the European Union.
And nowhere has the industry's reputation become more tarnished than Sicily, where windmills now dot the horizon in Mafia strongholds like Corleone, the town better known as the setting for the Godfather films.
"Nothing earns more than a wind farm," said Edoardo Zanchini, an environmental campaigner who has investigated Mafia infiltration of the industry. "Anything that creates wealth interests the Mafia."
It is not just Italian criminals, however, who have spotted the potential for corruption. Recent research by Kroll, the international corporate security firm, has discovered examples all over Europe of so-called "clean energy" schemes being used to to line criminals' pockets rather than save the planet. Some involve windmills that stand derelict or are simply never built, while others are used to launder profits from other crime enterprises.
"Renewable energy seems like a good thing, run by saintly people saving the world," said Jason Wright, a senior director with Kroll, which performs background checks on renewable energy schemes on behalf of legitimate investors, and which has documented a sharp rise in the number of wind farms with suspect ownership.
"But a lot of people want to jump on board a sure-fire revenue spinner. I wouldn't say the entire sector is corrupt, but there is a small percentage of corrupt projects."
The level of fraud has prompted calls for tighter restrictions on the use of public money in funding renewable energy, for which EU bureaucrats have grand ambitions. Brussels has ordered all 27 EU nations to ensure that one-fifth of their energy is renewable by 2020, and in recent years has given out an average of €5 billion (£4.1 billion) annually in loans and grants. The levels of subsidy allow some wind farm owners to claim generous premiums for every watt of electricity they generate.
In Italy, for example, power from wind farms is sold at a guaranteed rate of €180 per kwh – the highest rate in the world. In a country where the Mafia has years of expertise at buying corrupt politicians and intimidating rivals, the result is perhaps inevitable, creating a new breed of entrepreneur known as the "lords of the wind".
Around 30 wind farms have been built in Sicily, with another 60 planned, often to the anger of local people, who say they blight an otherwise picturesque landscape. Dino Leggio, 33, a barman in Corleone, claimed that many of the turbines that now dotted the island made money only for politicians and the Mafia.
"Nobody consulted ordinary people about putting up these huge great things," he told The Sunday Telegraph. "They are very tall, and very ugly. Before they start pumping millions of euros into wind farms, they should fix the roads, which are in a terrible state."
While many of the wind farms in Sicily are in legitimate hands, some have already attracted the attention of the police. Last year, detectives launched a major investigation into suspicions that Mafia clans had colluded with corrupt businessmen and local politicians to secure control of a project to construct wind turbines in the Trapani area of western Sicily.
Eight people were arrested in Operation "Eolo", named after Aeolus, the ancient Greek god of winds, on charges of bribing officials in the coastal town of Mazara del Vallo with gifts of luxury cars and individual bribes of €30,000-70,000.
Police wiretaps showed the extent of the Mafia's infiltration of the wind energy sector when they intercepted an alleged Mafioso telling his wife: "Not one turbine blade will be built in Mazara unless I agree to it."
In another operation last November, codenamed "Gone With the Wind", 15 people were arrested on suspicion of trying to embezzle up to €30 million in EU funds. Among those arrested on fraud charges was the president of Italy's National Wind Energy Association, Oreste Vigorito. He has not been convictued of an offence and denies any wrongdoing.
Further afield, scandals have emerged in Spain, Romania, Bulgaria and Corsica, among others. In one alleged scam on the Canary Islands, a mayor, five officials and two developers are fighting criminal charges that include abuse of office, bribery and misappropriation of land in an attempt to secure EU subsidies.
One case in Spain, meanwhile, involved a solar energy plant which claimed, miraculously, to be generating electricity at night. Investigators found that that the power was in fact being produced by diesel generators - the "green" subsidies paid for the plant were so generous that the owners still made a handsome profit.
As well as the prospect of fraudulent grant money, wind farms are also attractive to criminals seeking to invest money from illegal activities such as drug dealing, prostitution and illegal waste dumping. Some Mafia clans have illicitly secured licenses to build a wind farm and then sold them on to legitimate firms who have invested in good faith.
"Foreign investors are often not aware who they are dealing with," said Mr Wright. "You start to be alarmed if the shareholders have a background in something like pizzerias."
John Etherington, a former professor of ecology at the University of Wales and author of The Wind Farm Scam, said the industry was vulnerable to corruption because of poor regulation. The EU, which has an anti-fraud unit, currently has no criminal proceedings on any wind farm cases, insisting it is the responsibility of member states to monitor funding.
"It has been a matter of policy in the wind farm industry to make the financing of it both opaque and complicated," said Mr Etherington. "In all countries across Europe the customer is not told how much they are paying for it, and the whole financing of the industry is coming out of subsidy on electricity generation."
Despite the scandals over Mafia infiltration, there have been very few protests against wind farms in Italy. Instead, farmers have leapt at the chance to rent out their land for wind farm construction at a time when the price of agricultural produce such as grapes and tomatoes has plummeted.
"Why get up early every morning to work the land, and run the risk of not being able to sell your crops for a good price, when you can sit at home and take 10,000 euros a year in rent?" said Nicola Angelo, a Sicilian businessman. "People here have swallowed the idea of wind farms, even though they have ruined the landscape."
But David Moss, a British building contractor based in the Sicilian hilltop town of Salemi, which is surrounded by whirring turbines, suggested that was not the only reason for the absence of wind-farm "Nimbyism".
"In the UK, if a company proposed putting up 100 turbines across the countryside, there would be an uproar," he said. "In Italy, everyone keeps quiet because they are afraid to stand up to the Mafia."
Sunday, September 05, 2010
Saturday, September 04, 2010
Niagara County committee looks at Lake Ontario wind project
Like many towns in Jefferson County, Niagara County legislators have formed a committee to consider the positives and drawbacks of wind power in their area. In this case, they're looking at a possible offshore wind power project backed by the New York Power Authority.
The committee has two weeks to finish its work.
NYPA has not yet said where its five bidders want an offshore project. But the authority has said it will not put a project in Eastern Lake Ontario.
The committee has two weeks to finish its work.
NYPA has not yet said where its five bidders want an offshore project. But the authority has said it will not put a project in Eastern Lake Ontario.
Friday, September 03, 2010
Political group spins wind energy as waste of public funds, failure in the making
A political group protested the state's plans to spend public money on New Jersey's new offshore wind industry.
About 20 members or supporters of Americans for Prosperity rallied Thursday in front of the five windmills at the Atlantic County Utilities Authority to denounce offshore wind as a public waste of money.
They also called on lawmakers to kill a program that sells carbon credits. The Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative is a 10-state cooperative with a goal of cutting carbon dioxide emissions by 10 percent by 2018.
Under the program, states sell carbon "credits" through auctions and invest the money in clean-energy technologies such as wind power. The 10 states will hold the next auction Wednesday.
Americans for Prosperity spokesman Steven Lonegan said this program is secretive and will lead to higher electric bills in New Jersey.
"This will destroy this economy and no less than that," he said. "But it gets worse. The money raised in revenues to the state will be poured into this hare-brained scheme to build (offshore) windmills that are destined to fail."
Somers Point attorney Seth Grossman, who represents the local political group Liberty and Prosperity, said he was late for Thursday's protest because he was held up in bankruptcy court, where he is representing someone and where there is a big backlog of cases.
Grossman said increasing electricity rates will only lead to more bankruptcies in New Jersey.
Three companies, including Fishermen's Energy of Cape May, have won early approvals from the state Board of Public Utilities to build offshore wind farms between Atlantic City and Avalon.
Fishermen's Energy plans to build six turbines in a demonstration project 2.8 miles off the resort next year and a larger project 11 miles from shore. The company declined to comment on Thursday's protest.
Meanwhile, Gov. Chris Christie, who defeated Lonegan in last year's Republican primary, signed a bill that provides as much as $100 million in tax credits to new wind-energy companies that open in Paulsboro, Gloucester County. The law also creates an artificial market for this source of energy, which at least initially is expected to be more expensive than other sources of power.
Lonegan compared New Jersey's move to build offshore wind to its calamitous decision to build incinerators in the 1980s during a landfill shortage. Five county trash authorities built incinerators only to have trouble paying for them when rules were relaxed over interstate trash hauling.
"This is not about the environment. This is a money-making scheme between big business and big government," he said.
Local supporters of the group said they oppose the program for fear it will lead to higher utility rates.
"The little guy is broke," Northfield retiree Nate Nathanson said. "He's being utilitied and taxed to death."
Dennis Mahon, also of Northfield, said he would consider moving out of state if utility bills get steeper.
"It's another reason for me to ask, ‘Why should I stay here?'" he said. "What are we going to sacrifice to build these ridiculous windmills 20 miles at sea?"
The protest took place in front of the ACUA's five windmills at its complex off Route 30.
The authority leased land to Community Energy, which built the five windmills in 2003. The windmills' new owner, Blue Arc of Houston, maintains them and sells electricity generated by the blades to the authority at a steeply discounted rate.
That saves the authority about $600,000 per year in electricity bills, President Rick Dovey said.
About 20 members or supporters of Americans for Prosperity rallied Thursday in front of the five windmills at the Atlantic County Utilities Authority to denounce offshore wind as a public waste of money.
They also called on lawmakers to kill a program that sells carbon credits. The Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative is a 10-state cooperative with a goal of cutting carbon dioxide emissions by 10 percent by 2018.
Under the program, states sell carbon "credits" through auctions and invest the money in clean-energy technologies such as wind power. The 10 states will hold the next auction Wednesday.
Americans for Prosperity spokesman Steven Lonegan said this program is secretive and will lead to higher electric bills in New Jersey.
"This will destroy this economy and no less than that," he said. "But it gets worse. The money raised in revenues to the state will be poured into this hare-brained scheme to build (offshore) windmills that are destined to fail."
Somers Point attorney Seth Grossman, who represents the local political group Liberty and Prosperity, said he was late for Thursday's protest because he was held up in bankruptcy court, where he is representing someone and where there is a big backlog of cases.
Grossman said increasing electricity rates will only lead to more bankruptcies in New Jersey.
Three companies, including Fishermen's Energy of Cape May, have won early approvals from the state Board of Public Utilities to build offshore wind farms between Atlantic City and Avalon.
Fishermen's Energy plans to build six turbines in a demonstration project 2.8 miles off the resort next year and a larger project 11 miles from shore. The company declined to comment on Thursday's protest.
Meanwhile, Gov. Chris Christie, who defeated Lonegan in last year's Republican primary, signed a bill that provides as much as $100 million in tax credits to new wind-energy companies that open in Paulsboro, Gloucester County. The law also creates an artificial market for this source of energy, which at least initially is expected to be more expensive than other sources of power.
Lonegan compared New Jersey's move to build offshore wind to its calamitous decision to build incinerators in the 1980s during a landfill shortage. Five county trash authorities built incinerators only to have trouble paying for them when rules were relaxed over interstate trash hauling.
"This is not about the environment. This is a money-making scheme between big business and big government," he said.
Local supporters of the group said they oppose the program for fear it will lead to higher utility rates.
"The little guy is broke," Northfield retiree Nate Nathanson said. "He's being utilitied and taxed to death."
Dennis Mahon, also of Northfield, said he would consider moving out of state if utility bills get steeper.
"It's another reason for me to ask, ‘Why should I stay here?'" he said. "What are we going to sacrifice to build these ridiculous windmills 20 miles at sea?"
The protest took place in front of the ACUA's five windmills at its complex off Route 30.
The authority leased land to Community Energy, which built the five windmills in 2003. The windmills' new owner, Blue Arc of Houston, maintains them and sells electricity generated by the blades to the authority at a steeply discounted rate.
That saves the authority about $600,000 per year in electricity bills, President Rick Dovey said.
Thursday, September 02, 2010
Mountain slayers and profiteers
Developers of mountaintop industrial wind are touting many promised benefits — from reduced greenhouse gas emissions and decreased dependence on fossil fuels to a huge economic renaissance.
These are all false promises spun to enhance public acceptance.
In recent months, as I have studied the economic and ecological impacts of mountaintop industrial wind, I have been amazed at the distortions and misrepresentations of the wind developers who, unfortunately, have been accepted without question by many in the media.
As an environmentalist, I have for decades supported a move away from our addiction to oil to more eco-friendly renewable energy, including wind.
However, when I hear the developers spin the tragic Gulf oil spill to justify their desire to use our tax dollars to destroy Maine mountaintops with as many as 1,800 400-foot turbines spread over 360 miles, I am appalled by how this “justification“ is so disingenuous.
The truth is that only about 1 percent of our electricity is generated by oil. In Maine, almost all of our oil consumption is used for heat and transportation. Generating 2700 MW of mountaintop wind will not reduce our oil consumption or prevent ecological disasters like the spill in the Gulf.
Another favorite tactic of the developers is to promote mountaintop industrial wind as a panacea for climate change. While it may seem counter-intuitive, this also is a false promise.
There has never been a coal- or oil-fired power plant closed down due to wind generation. Indeed, in Europe and China, where wind power has become a significant source of electric energy, greenhouse gases have actually increased significantly.
It is simply not true that mountaintop wind will reduce greenhouse gases. Since wind is intermittent and not reliable, it is necessary to maintain backup power, or what is called “spinning reserve” to replace the wind power when the wind is not blowing. This has resulted in the need to build additional carbon-emitting power plants.
In China, this has meant a new coal-fired plant coming online each week. When the wind is blowing, it is necessary to reduce power from conventional sources. It is simply not possible to just turn oil and coal power plants on and off in response to constantly changing winds. They can be ramped down, but their efficiency is compromised and the amount of carbon emitted actually increases.
If the technology were available to store wind energy, the problem of intermittency could be overcome. Unfortunately, this is decades away.
In the case of mountaintop industrial wind, it is necessary to add to the carbon calculation the loss of carbon-sequestering forests due to massive clear-cutting on ridge lines and the construction of roads and power lines.
If the 1,800 turbines were constructed, as much as 50,000 acres of carbon-sequestering forest would have to be clear-cut. In addition, turbines require electricity to run, which does not come from the turbines, but must be generated on site by diesel generators or brought in on separate power lines.
Each turbine also requires as much as 200 gallons of oil lubricant, which must be changed on a regular basis.
One study done in Colorado determined that wind power increased carbon emissions by 10 percent.
Finally, it is particularly disturbing to hear developers tout the economic benefits of mountaintop industrial wind. There is simply no way in a cost-benefit analysis that mountaintop industrial wind comes out as a good economic option. The cost of wind generation is two to three times more than conventional power — and this does not include the added cost of CMP’s $1.4 billion “bogus upgrade,” which is necessary to hook up the industrial wind.
Our tax dollars in the form of huge subsidies are the only reason mountaintop wind, with its incredibly low efficiency, is being pursued. It is ironic that our tax dollars are paying for mountaintop wind, which will ultimately raise our electricity rates.
Developers like to tout the benefits of jobs and local/state tax revenues. Yes, it is true that during the mountaintop leveling and construction phase several hundred temporary jobs are created, but after construction is complete about one permanent job for each 12 turbines is created — so 360 miles of destroyed mountaintop would ultimately generate about 150 jobs.
While local property taxes may decline, this has not been documented in any place in Maine where wind has been installed.
What has been documented is that home values drop from 20 to 40 percent within a two-mile radius of a wind turbine. People do not want to live near industrial wind plants because of noise and visual pollution. State and county government may collect some tax dollars, but this will be more than offset by reduced tourism and declining recreational dollars.
This is why North Carolina put a moratorium on mountaintop industrial wind. It realized mountaintop industrial wind would destroy the economic engine fueled by its pristine mountains.
In the end, the only folks who will benefit are the developers, who will walk away with millions of our tax dollars. Mountaintop wind can be called nothing less than an economic scam concocted by a few mountain slayers and profiteers.
Anybody who takes the time to seriously study mountaintop wind will come to understand its exorbitant cost and its negative environmental impact. A thorough and objective review of current literature could only lead one to the conclusion that mountaintop industrial wind is a disaster and should be abandoned.
It would be far better to target the investment of our $5 billion in tax dollars earmarked for mountaintop wind to conservation through efficiency and weatherization. This approach would actually decrease our oil consumption, reduce greenhouse gases and create thousands of permanent jobs and business opportunities — things that mountaintop wind simply does not come even close to accomplishing.
These are all false promises spun to enhance public acceptance.
In recent months, as I have studied the economic and ecological impacts of mountaintop industrial wind, I have been amazed at the distortions and misrepresentations of the wind developers who, unfortunately, have been accepted without question by many in the media.
As an environmentalist, I have for decades supported a move away from our addiction to oil to more eco-friendly renewable energy, including wind.
However, when I hear the developers spin the tragic Gulf oil spill to justify their desire to use our tax dollars to destroy Maine mountaintops with as many as 1,800 400-foot turbines spread over 360 miles, I am appalled by how this “justification“ is so disingenuous.
The truth is that only about 1 percent of our electricity is generated by oil. In Maine, almost all of our oil consumption is used for heat and transportation. Generating 2700 MW of mountaintop wind will not reduce our oil consumption or prevent ecological disasters like the spill in the Gulf.
Another favorite tactic of the developers is to promote mountaintop industrial wind as a panacea for climate change. While it may seem counter-intuitive, this also is a false promise.
There has never been a coal- or oil-fired power plant closed down due to wind generation. Indeed, in Europe and China, where wind power has become a significant source of electric energy, greenhouse gases have actually increased significantly.
It is simply not true that mountaintop wind will reduce greenhouse gases. Since wind is intermittent and not reliable, it is necessary to maintain backup power, or what is called “spinning reserve” to replace the wind power when the wind is not blowing. This has resulted in the need to build additional carbon-emitting power plants.
In China, this has meant a new coal-fired plant coming online each week. When the wind is blowing, it is necessary to reduce power from conventional sources. It is simply not possible to just turn oil and coal power plants on and off in response to constantly changing winds. They can be ramped down, but their efficiency is compromised and the amount of carbon emitted actually increases.
If the technology were available to store wind energy, the problem of intermittency could be overcome. Unfortunately, this is decades away.
In the case of mountaintop industrial wind, it is necessary to add to the carbon calculation the loss of carbon-sequestering forests due to massive clear-cutting on ridge lines and the construction of roads and power lines.
If the 1,800 turbines were constructed, as much as 50,000 acres of carbon-sequestering forest would have to be clear-cut. In addition, turbines require electricity to run, which does not come from the turbines, but must be generated on site by diesel generators or brought in on separate power lines.
Each turbine also requires as much as 200 gallons of oil lubricant, which must be changed on a regular basis.
One study done in Colorado determined that wind power increased carbon emissions by 10 percent.
Finally, it is particularly disturbing to hear developers tout the economic benefits of mountaintop industrial wind. There is simply no way in a cost-benefit analysis that mountaintop industrial wind comes out as a good economic option. The cost of wind generation is two to three times more than conventional power — and this does not include the added cost of CMP’s $1.4 billion “bogus upgrade,” which is necessary to hook up the industrial wind.
Our tax dollars in the form of huge subsidies are the only reason mountaintop wind, with its incredibly low efficiency, is being pursued. It is ironic that our tax dollars are paying for mountaintop wind, which will ultimately raise our electricity rates.
Developers like to tout the benefits of jobs and local/state tax revenues. Yes, it is true that during the mountaintop leveling and construction phase several hundred temporary jobs are created, but after construction is complete about one permanent job for each 12 turbines is created — so 360 miles of destroyed mountaintop would ultimately generate about 150 jobs.
While local property taxes may decline, this has not been documented in any place in Maine where wind has been installed.
What has been documented is that home values drop from 20 to 40 percent within a two-mile radius of a wind turbine. People do not want to live near industrial wind plants because of noise and visual pollution. State and county government may collect some tax dollars, but this will be more than offset by reduced tourism and declining recreational dollars.
This is why North Carolina put a moratorium on mountaintop industrial wind. It realized mountaintop industrial wind would destroy the economic engine fueled by its pristine mountains.
In the end, the only folks who will benefit are the developers, who will walk away with millions of our tax dollars. Mountaintop wind can be called nothing less than an economic scam concocted by a few mountain slayers and profiteers.
Anybody who takes the time to seriously study mountaintop wind will come to understand its exorbitant cost and its negative environmental impact. A thorough and objective review of current literature could only lead one to the conclusion that mountaintop industrial wind is a disaster and should be abandoned.
It would be far better to target the investment of our $5 billion in tax dollars earmarked for mountaintop wind to conservation through efficiency and weatherization. This approach would actually decrease our oil consumption, reduce greenhouse gases and create thousands of permanent jobs and business opportunities — things that mountaintop wind simply does not come even close to accomplishing.
Wednesday, September 01, 2010
AG launches investigation into Cape Vincent wind dealings
The state Attorney General’s office has launched an investigation into possible misconduct by Cape Vincent officials for wind turbine farms proposed by Acciona Energia and British Petroleum.
In an Aug, 13 letter, the state ordered all documents from the town council and planning board related to wind development be turned over.
Two out of five town board members and three out of five planning board members either personally have agreements to lease their land to wind developers or have relatives with wind leases.
One current state senator is also reported to have a contract with a wind developer.
The Watertown Times recently reported that, “State Sen. Darrel Aubertine receives more than a $1,000 annually from a Cape Vincent wind developer even though his spokesman said there are no plans to build a turbine on his property.”
As reported in the Feb. 23, 2008 issue of The Valley News, Aubertine’s disclosure statement, filed May 15, 2007 with the state Legislative Ethics Commission, does not list any interests or contracts with any wind-power companies.
His disclosure statements show he and his wife Margaret own a total of just more than 600 acres of land.
His most recent filing does show income from a St. Lawrence County wind farm.
Oswego County officials have been closely observing all that is happening with wind farms in the north country, as one proposed project would site the high-powered transmission lines somewhere within the county boundaries.
One proposed route for the Galloo Island project would bring the lines through the Village of Pulaski, a plan that county lawmakers oppose because the county coffer relies on the fishing industry that could be substantially impacted.
The original path of the line was to run from Henderson to Ellisburg, Sandy Creek and Pulaski to a National Grid line in Mexico.
A change in the route had the lines running into Hounsfield and along Route 12F to an electric substation on Outer Coffeen Street in Watertown.
The most recent proposal is actually four proposals and public meetings are scheduled for each potentially impacted municipality.
The prospect of wind farms has sharply divided communities and opponents of the two proposed wind farms at Cape Vincent reportedly brought the investigation to fruition. The opponents complained that the process was tainted by conflicts of interest on the town board and planning board.
“There is civil unrest in Cape Vincent,” Legislator Shawn Doyle said. “When you have over 200 people going to a meeting within a town divided, something’s going to break.”
Doyle and former U.S. Ambassador and State Senator H. Douglas Barclay represent the county in wind matters. Doyle has attended dozens of meetings in the past two years in Oswego, Jefferson and St. Lawrence counties.
Aubertine spokesperson Drew Mangione said last week that the senator cannot comment on the current investigation.
It is not known when the investigation will conclude.
In an Aug, 13 letter, the state ordered all documents from the town council and planning board related to wind development be turned over.
Two out of five town board members and three out of five planning board members either personally have agreements to lease their land to wind developers or have relatives with wind leases.
One current state senator is also reported to have a contract with a wind developer.
The Watertown Times recently reported that, “State Sen. Darrel Aubertine receives more than a $1,000 annually from a Cape Vincent wind developer even though his spokesman said there are no plans to build a turbine on his property.”
As reported in the Feb. 23, 2008 issue of The Valley News, Aubertine’s disclosure statement, filed May 15, 2007 with the state Legislative Ethics Commission, does not list any interests or contracts with any wind-power companies.
His disclosure statements show he and his wife Margaret own a total of just more than 600 acres of land.
His most recent filing does show income from a St. Lawrence County wind farm.
Oswego County officials have been closely observing all that is happening with wind farms in the north country, as one proposed project would site the high-powered transmission lines somewhere within the county boundaries.
One proposed route for the Galloo Island project would bring the lines through the Village of Pulaski, a plan that county lawmakers oppose because the county coffer relies on the fishing industry that could be substantially impacted.
The original path of the line was to run from Henderson to Ellisburg, Sandy Creek and Pulaski to a National Grid line in Mexico.
A change in the route had the lines running into Hounsfield and along Route 12F to an electric substation on Outer Coffeen Street in Watertown.
The most recent proposal is actually four proposals and public meetings are scheduled for each potentially impacted municipality.
The prospect of wind farms has sharply divided communities and opponents of the two proposed wind farms at Cape Vincent reportedly brought the investigation to fruition. The opponents complained that the process was tainted by conflicts of interest on the town board and planning board.
“There is civil unrest in Cape Vincent,” Legislator Shawn Doyle said. “When you have over 200 people going to a meeting within a town divided, something’s going to break.”
Doyle and former U.S. Ambassador and State Senator H. Douglas Barclay represent the county in wind matters. Doyle has attended dozens of meetings in the past two years in Oswego, Jefferson and St. Lawrence counties.
Aubertine spokesperson Drew Mangione said last week that the senator cannot comment on the current investigation.
It is not known when the investigation will conclude.
Research wind power, look at Wolfe Island
I have watched the problems that Cape Vincent and Clayton are experiencing due to the foreign-owned energy giants wanting to put in 400-foot-tall industrial wind turbines near people's homes. I know of a family who could end up with 32 industrial wind turbines within a mile and a half of their home.
My husband and I have been looking to buy a home in the country, but we have decided to wait because we would never want to live near any industrial turbines. We feel sorry for the property owners who have now found out that the developers can take away their property rights and peaceful nights. These property owners bought homes in the country for the tranquil settings, and they never dreamed that something this large and disruptive could be placed 500 feet from their property line.
At first I thought that industrial wind turbines might solve energy problems. It sounded like it would be clean, free energy. But when I started looking into it, I found out this is not true. Please do your own research by going to www.WindPowerFacts.Info which explains the many sides to industrial wind, including how it will never help reduce the CO2 emissions and how it could hurt our country. Also check out www.WindAction.org and www.CROH.Info.
Everyone should also go to Cape Vincent at night and witness the red lights flashing from the industrial wind turbines on Wolfe Island and consider what it would be like to live with 32 of them so close by your home.
Vivian Czerwinski
Clayton
My husband and I have been looking to buy a home in the country, but we have decided to wait because we would never want to live near any industrial turbines. We feel sorry for the property owners who have now found out that the developers can take away their property rights and peaceful nights. These property owners bought homes in the country for the tranquil settings, and they never dreamed that something this large and disruptive could be placed 500 feet from their property line.
At first I thought that industrial wind turbines might solve energy problems. It sounded like it would be clean, free energy. But when I started looking into it, I found out this is not true. Please do your own research by going to www.WindPowerFacts.Info which explains the many sides to industrial wind, including how it will never help reduce the CO2 emissions and how it could hurt our country. Also check out www.WindAction.org and www.CROH.Info.
Everyone should also go to Cape Vincent at night and witness the red lights flashing from the industrial wind turbines on Wolfe Island and consider what it would be like to live with 32 of them so close by your home.
Vivian Czerwinski
Clayton
Tuesday, August 31, 2010
Exposed: Mass Audubon's financial interest in Cape Wind
Mass Audubon is identified as a Minerals Management Service (MMS) identified "Key Partner" involved in the collection of avian data, analysis and commenting upon the same in the Cape Wind project environmental review under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). NEPA analysis should remain objective. However, Mass Audubon offered their "support" for Cape Wind during this project NEPA review in their 2006 press release called "Challenge".
“Challenge” condition of Mass Audubon's Cape Wind "support" is agency acceptance of Adaptive Management monitoring and mitigation (AM). Adaptive Management is an umbrella term for "monitoring", counting bird carcass and carcass parts caused by Cape Wind; and "mitigation", attempts to reduce harm to wildlife caused by this project. Challenge defines the AM service term, "beginning at the construction phase and continuing for at least three years post-construction", and source of funding, "monitoring and mitigation should be funded by Cape Wind".
U.S. Fish and Wildlife, with purview over the endangered species under the ESA Section 7 review process, provided their comments on Cape Wind on April 21, 2008 to then Cape Wind Project Manager of MMS on the draft environmental impact statement (DEIS): "The current framework that MMS is proposing would forgo refinement of pre-construction study protocols and set in motion an adaptive management process that would be doomed to failure because effective techniques to perform post-construction monitoring simply do not exist."
Comparing similar AM contracts, and based on the duration of the term expressed in “Challenge”, the condition of Mass Audubon’s "support" for Cape Wind has a value of approximately $8 million dollars. Yet, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service comments to MMS challenge Mass Audubon's "support" condition of Cape Wind is "doomed to failure".
Confirming their financial interest in the outcome of the Cape Wind permitting process, Mass Audubon issued a June 25, 2010 press release stating that they will, “continue to analyze and report on Cape Wind through”, “EMS adaptive management plan; and 4. Avian monitoring and mitigation plan implementation during the construction and three year post-construction phases of the project."
Mass Audubon's February 23, 2005 comments on the Cape Wind DEIS to then Cape Wind project manager state: "By utilizing other bird mortality data provided in the DEIS, Mass Audubon staff scientists arrived at avian mortalities that ranged from 2,300 to 6,600 collision deaths per year."
Mass Audubon’s supports Cape Wind despite their staff scientists’ estimation the project will cause up to 6,600 avian mortalities per year. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service comments suggest Cape Wind represents immitigable harm to endangered and migratory wildlife. Interior Secretary Salazar has vowed that Best Science will form the basis of decisions regarding federal actions. However, the Cape Wind Record of Decision incorporates Mass Audubon’s bias, "support" for Cape Wind, in which Mass Audubon has expressed financial interest by their stated intent to implement the AM service, "funded by Cape Wind".
Barbara Durkin of Northboro, MA 01532 Telephone: (508) 612-4133
“Challenge” condition of Mass Audubon's Cape Wind "support" is agency acceptance of Adaptive Management monitoring and mitigation (AM). Adaptive Management is an umbrella term for "monitoring", counting bird carcass and carcass parts caused by Cape Wind; and "mitigation", attempts to reduce harm to wildlife caused by this project. Challenge defines the AM service term, "beginning at the construction phase and continuing for at least three years post-construction", and source of funding, "monitoring and mitigation should be funded by Cape Wind".
U.S. Fish and Wildlife, with purview over the endangered species under the ESA Section 7 review process, provided their comments on Cape Wind on April 21, 2008 to then Cape Wind Project Manager of MMS on the draft environmental impact statement (DEIS): "The current framework that MMS is proposing would forgo refinement of pre-construction study protocols and set in motion an adaptive management process that would be doomed to failure because effective techniques to perform post-construction monitoring simply do not exist."
Comparing similar AM contracts, and based on the duration of the term expressed in “Challenge”, the condition of Mass Audubon’s "support" for Cape Wind has a value of approximately $8 million dollars. Yet, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service comments to MMS challenge Mass Audubon's "support" condition of Cape Wind is "doomed to failure".
Confirming their financial interest in the outcome of the Cape Wind permitting process, Mass Audubon issued a June 25, 2010 press release stating that they will, “continue to analyze and report on Cape Wind through”, “EMS adaptive management plan; and 4. Avian monitoring and mitigation plan implementation during the construction and three year post-construction phases of the project."
Mass Audubon's February 23, 2005 comments on the Cape Wind DEIS to then Cape Wind project manager state: "By utilizing other bird mortality data provided in the DEIS, Mass Audubon staff scientists arrived at avian mortalities that ranged from 2,300 to 6,600 collision deaths per year."
Mass Audubon’s supports Cape Wind despite their staff scientists’ estimation the project will cause up to 6,600 avian mortalities per year. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service comments suggest Cape Wind represents immitigable harm to endangered and migratory wildlife. Interior Secretary Salazar has vowed that Best Science will form the basis of decisions regarding federal actions. However, the Cape Wind Record of Decision incorporates Mass Audubon’s bias, "support" for Cape Wind, in which Mass Audubon has expressed financial interest by their stated intent to implement the AM service, "funded by Cape Wind".
Barbara Durkin of Northboro, MA 01532 Telephone: (508) 612-4133
Cape Wind Wins Crucial State Court Approval
The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court on Tuesday voted 4-2 in favor of a case that would allow permits for the Cape Wind offshore wind turbine project, according to press reports out of Boston.
The decision helps clear the way for construction of 130 turbines in Nantucket Sound as the first offshore wind project in the U.S. The approval came in the face of opposition from some key residents, as well as communities in the region.
The court backed a 2009 decision by the Energy Facilities Siting Board to OK permits for Cape Wind, despite the rejection from the Cape Cod Commission.
Still to come is an approval by the state's Department of Public Utilities for Cape Wind's power purchase agreement with utility National Grid (NGG) .
The decision helps clear the way for construction of 130 turbines in Nantucket Sound as the first offshore wind project in the U.S. The approval came in the face of opposition from some key residents, as well as communities in the region.
The court backed a 2009 decision by the Energy Facilities Siting Board to OK permits for Cape Wind, despite the rejection from the Cape Cod Commission.
Still to come is an approval by the state's Department of Public Utilities for Cape Wind's power purchase agreement with utility National Grid (NGG) .
Vt. wind project cleared for construction
Officials with a Vermont wind power company just granted the final permits for a 16-turbine project on mountaintops in Sheffield say they're looking forward to getting started.
Matt Kearns of First Wind calls the decision by Vermont Environmental Court Judge Merideth Wright "a good day."
In a decision issued last week, Wright upheld the stormwater permits issued to First Wind, the parent company of the group seeking to install the turbines on Granby Mountain and Libby Hill in Sheffield.
The project was held up after seven neighbors challenged the project's permits.
One of the neighbors, Paul Brouha of Sutton, said that it's likely they will ask the judge to reconsider her decision.
Matt Kearns of First Wind calls the decision by Vermont Environmental Court Judge Merideth Wright "a good day."
In a decision issued last week, Wright upheld the stormwater permits issued to First Wind, the parent company of the group seeking to install the turbines on Granby Mountain and Libby Hill in Sheffield.
The project was held up after seven neighbors challenged the project's permits.
One of the neighbors, Paul Brouha of Sutton, said that it's likely they will ask the judge to reconsider her decision.
Monday, August 30, 2010
Towns to reap wind money
As part of the payback for hosting St. Lawrence Wind Farm, the towns of Cape Vincent and Lyme will have developer money to plant vegetative screens and improve cultural resources.
The state Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation approved a plan for the developer to spend $128,790 in Cape Vincent and $14,310 in Lyme. That money is set aside to mitigate the "adverse impact" to historic and cultural resources because the structures would be part of the scenery.
While the proposed 51 turbines would stand in the northern agricultural district of Cape Vincent, the transmission line would run through both towns to a connection point near Chaumont.
Referring to St. Lawrence Wind Farm, the office said in a May 12 letter: "We do believe that SLW has made a good faith effort to explore all reasonable alternatives."
The letter and other information about the mitigation measures are included in the project's final environmental impact statement. The town Planning Board will meet at 7 p.m. Sept. 15 at the Cape Vincent Recreation Park, 602 S. James St., where it could approve the statement and release its findings, which is the final step in the state environmental quality review process.
Through discussions with town officials that began with an October 2008 meeting, developer Acciona Wind Energy USA agreed to pay to bury the electric line and transformer at Tibbetts Point Lighthouse, paint the buildings at the lighthouse, restore the clock and tower at Cape Vincent Fire Hall, restore Market Street Cemetery and renovate the community vault at Three Mile Bay Cemetery.
The remainder of money for each town will go toward vegetative screening at qualified historic buildings. According to the proposed mitigation plan from the developer, each town will decide which applications from eligible historic buildings are approved.
Lyme hasn't agreed to the terms yet.
"During this time if the town decides to participate in the mitigation the funds will be released by SLW for the identified projects," the office's letter said. "If the town chooses not to participate then we recommend that those funds be reprogrammed for projects elsewhere."
Because of the standing moratorium on wind development in Lyme, the Town Council will ask a pending committee to investigate the visual mitigation measures. The committee, which also will look into the economics of wind power development, will be formed after the town advertises the positions for those interested.
At the July Town Council meeting in Lyme, the council agreed to pay $6,200 to Timothy J. Mason, Chaumont, to renovate the cemetery vault. The work includes stone repointing and slate roof replacement.
"The repair is complete," Supervisor Scott G. Aubertine said. "It had to get done."
From the suggestions the town officials had, it was the only project the state office approved.
"Hopefully, we can get reimbursed," he said.
The state Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation approved a plan for the developer to spend $128,790 in Cape Vincent and $14,310 in Lyme. That money is set aside to mitigate the "adverse impact" to historic and cultural resources because the structures would be part of the scenery.
While the proposed 51 turbines would stand in the northern agricultural district of Cape Vincent, the transmission line would run through both towns to a connection point near Chaumont.
Referring to St. Lawrence Wind Farm, the office said in a May 12 letter: "We do believe that SLW has made a good faith effort to explore all reasonable alternatives."
The letter and other information about the mitigation measures are included in the project's final environmental impact statement. The town Planning Board will meet at 7 p.m. Sept. 15 at the Cape Vincent Recreation Park, 602 S. James St., where it could approve the statement and release its findings, which is the final step in the state environmental quality review process.
Through discussions with town officials that began with an October 2008 meeting, developer Acciona Wind Energy USA agreed to pay to bury the electric line and transformer at Tibbetts Point Lighthouse, paint the buildings at the lighthouse, restore the clock and tower at Cape Vincent Fire Hall, restore Market Street Cemetery and renovate the community vault at Three Mile Bay Cemetery.
The remainder of money for each town will go toward vegetative screening at qualified historic buildings. According to the proposed mitigation plan from the developer, each town will decide which applications from eligible historic buildings are approved.
Lyme hasn't agreed to the terms yet.
"During this time if the town decides to participate in the mitigation the funds will be released by SLW for the identified projects," the office's letter said. "If the town chooses not to participate then we recommend that those funds be reprogrammed for projects elsewhere."
Because of the standing moratorium on wind development in Lyme, the Town Council will ask a pending committee to investigate the visual mitigation measures. The committee, which also will look into the economics of wind power development, will be formed after the town advertises the positions for those interested.
At the July Town Council meeting in Lyme, the council agreed to pay $6,200 to Timothy J. Mason, Chaumont, to renovate the cemetery vault. The work includes stone repointing and slate roof replacement.
"The repair is complete," Supervisor Scott G. Aubertine said. "It had to get done."
From the suggestions the town officials had, it was the only project the state office approved.
"Hopefully, we can get reimbursed," he said.
Friday, August 27, 2010
How Much Power Does It Take to Run a Wind Turbine?
Jerry Graf is a concerned citizen who happens to have a Master’s degree in mechanical engineering. He recently read an item in his local paper about a school district that contemplated investing over a quarter million dollars in roof-top wind turbines. “There was a quote from someone in charge of school facilities that indicated they had no idea how much electricity the turbines would actually generate. As I got further into the details myself, I realized the turbines would actually produce next to nothing,” he says.
The incident got Graf interested in analyzing other wind installations. He uses the turbine maker’s published power curve to figure out what the electrical output is likely to be. The power curve is just the turbine’s electrical output plotted against wind speed. But these curves are just estimates. They don’t account for one factor that can be important, particularly for megawatt-scale turbines: the amount of electrical power the turbine itself consumes.
Big turbines often incorporate rechargeable batteries or ultracapacitors to power their own electrical systems. When those get depleted, the power must come from the grid. This power goes into running equipment such as yaw mechanisms that keep the blades turned into the wind; blade-pitch controls that meter the spinning rotor; aircraft lights and data-collection electronics; oil heaters, pumps, and coolers for the multi-ton gearbox; and hydraulic brakes for locking blades down in high winds.
Turbines in northern climes also need blade heaters to prevent icing. Reports I’ve seen say these heaters can consume up to 20% of a turbine’s rated power output. Many big turbines also need dehumidifiers and heaters in their nacelles. And until recently, large turbines employed doubly-fed induction generators that bleed power from the grid to create their magnetic fields. (It should be said, though, that designs now on the drawing boards use permanent magnets instead.)
Instances of low or no wind pose another problem. Large turbines may need to use their generators as motors to help get the blades turning. And some wind skeptics have posed a question about the direct-drive turbines now emerging from the labs: Large ships frequently must expend energy to slowly turn their heavy driveshafts when at port to prevent them from sagging. Could the same be said of these superlarge wind turbines?
Wind-farm operators don’t say much about turbine-power demands. Typically, turbine-power consumption is one of the factors that gets lumped into a wind-farm’s operation and maintenance costs. I’ve never found either a wind-farm operator or a wind-turbine maker willing to discuss these costs. It would not be much of an exaggeration to say the wind industry treats such information as a state secret.
That’s unfortunate. Wind boosters open themselves up to skepticism about their industry’s viability when they don’t disclose real figures about the power their turbines generate and consume. Cynics might be tempted to claim we could reach a point where we’ve commissioned so many wind turbines that we’ll need to build new coal-fired power plants to run them. Without hard data, who’s to say they aren’t right?
The incident got Graf interested in analyzing other wind installations. He uses the turbine maker’s published power curve to figure out what the electrical output is likely to be. The power curve is just the turbine’s electrical output plotted against wind speed. But these curves are just estimates. They don’t account for one factor that can be important, particularly for megawatt-scale turbines: the amount of electrical power the turbine itself consumes.
Big turbines often incorporate rechargeable batteries or ultracapacitors to power their own electrical systems. When those get depleted, the power must come from the grid. This power goes into running equipment such as yaw mechanisms that keep the blades turned into the wind; blade-pitch controls that meter the spinning rotor; aircraft lights and data-collection electronics; oil heaters, pumps, and coolers for the multi-ton gearbox; and hydraulic brakes for locking blades down in high winds.
Turbines in northern climes also need blade heaters to prevent icing. Reports I’ve seen say these heaters can consume up to 20% of a turbine’s rated power output. Many big turbines also need dehumidifiers and heaters in their nacelles. And until recently, large turbines employed doubly-fed induction generators that bleed power from the grid to create their magnetic fields. (It should be said, though, that designs now on the drawing boards use permanent magnets instead.)
Instances of low or no wind pose another problem. Large turbines may need to use their generators as motors to help get the blades turning. And some wind skeptics have posed a question about the direct-drive turbines now emerging from the labs: Large ships frequently must expend energy to slowly turn their heavy driveshafts when at port to prevent them from sagging. Could the same be said of these superlarge wind turbines?
Wind-farm operators don’t say much about turbine-power demands. Typically, turbine-power consumption is one of the factors that gets lumped into a wind-farm’s operation and maintenance costs. I’ve never found either a wind-farm operator or a wind-turbine maker willing to discuss these costs. It would not be much of an exaggeration to say the wind industry treats such information as a state secret.
That’s unfortunate. Wind boosters open themselves up to skepticism about their industry’s viability when they don’t disclose real figures about the power their turbines generate and consume. Cynics might be tempted to claim we could reach a point where we’ve commissioned so many wind turbines that we’ll need to build new coal-fired power plants to run them. Without hard data, who’s to say they aren’t right?
Protect people against foreign wind developers
A lot of us who live in the north country have seen firsthand what the foreign energy companies have done to our small-town quality of life. Everyone here knew their neighbors and tried to help one another. When the large property owners were approached over five years ago to sign leases to have 400-foot-tall industrial wind turbines on their property, they were never told of all the negative stuff and how they would be affecting their neighbors. We know so much more now. It's sad to see how people aren't talking to each other. Some people are trying to sell their homes to move away from this potential disaster before it's too late.
I think the developer should have to buy out any landowner who doesn't want to live under or near these industrial turbines. And they should be paid for what their home is worth before the industrial wind turbines came. The developer should also be paying to test for water quality and quantity before and after they blast to put in the concrete bases for the turbines. Individual property owners can't fight these giant foreign-owned energy companies, so safeguards need to be in place now to protect our citizens.
New York state can and probably will take away our school state aid if the schools start receiving revenue from the industrial wind turbines since any payments would be considered income. So our taxes will probably have to go up.
None of the four townships that host the Maple Ridge Power Project have seen a reduction in their town taxes. Not one. They have also had problems collecting what was due them from the same company who wants to put industrial turbines here.
I think we should protect the people who live here now and make sure that there are strict guidelines so our citizens are not hurt. The power from these turbines is needed in New York City and other large cities, so let them erect them down there and not here.
Marian Vaadi
LaFargeville
I think the developer should have to buy out any landowner who doesn't want to live under or near these industrial turbines. And they should be paid for what their home is worth before the industrial wind turbines came. The developer should also be paying to test for water quality and quantity before and after they blast to put in the concrete bases for the turbines. Individual property owners can't fight these giant foreign-owned energy companies, so safeguards need to be in place now to protect our citizens.
New York state can and probably will take away our school state aid if the schools start receiving revenue from the industrial wind turbines since any payments would be considered income. So our taxes will probably have to go up.
None of the four townships that host the Maple Ridge Power Project have seen a reduction in their town taxes. Not one. They have also had problems collecting what was due them from the same company who wants to put industrial turbines here.
I think we should protect the people who live here now and make sure that there are strict guidelines so our citizens are not hurt. The power from these turbines is needed in New York City and other large cities, so let them erect them down there and not here.
Marian Vaadi
LaFargeville
Orleans rejects Iberdrola's bid to erect two wind test towers
Iberdrola Renewables' application for two new meteorological test towers was not accepted by the Planning Board last week because the towers would sit outside the town's overlay district, where test towers and wind turbines are allowed.
Brad P. Millett, zoning officer for the town of Orleans, said Wednesday that the wind power developer would need a use variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals or an amendment to the district by the Town Council. The earliest the developer could receive a variance is at the ZBA's October meeting. Amending the overlay district would require a public hearing and local law change, a process that takes several months.
Iberdrola Communications manager Paul N. Copleman said the developer is considering both options.
Iberdrola submitted the application as a possible restoration of Horse Creek Wind Farm. The Clayton Planning Board in June declined to grant the company a request for a third extension for the 126-megawatt wind farm, originally planned for the southern part of Clayton and Orleans. The developer is planning to resubmit an application for the project, which was in the middle of a state environmental quality review.
Brad P. Millett, zoning officer for the town of Orleans, said Wednesday that the wind power developer would need a use variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals or an amendment to the district by the Town Council. The earliest the developer could receive a variance is at the ZBA's October meeting. Amending the overlay district would require a public hearing and local law change, a process that takes several months.
Iberdrola Communications manager Paul N. Copleman said the developer is considering both options.
Iberdrola submitted the application as a possible restoration of Horse Creek Wind Farm. The Clayton Planning Board in June declined to grant the company a request for a third extension for the 126-megawatt wind farm, originally planned for the southern part of Clayton and Orleans. The developer is planning to resubmit an application for the project, which was in the middle of a state environmental quality review.
Hammond group calling for wind farm moratorium
Concerned Residents of Hammond is throwing its support behind Save the River's request for a three-year moratorium on industrial wind development along the St. Lawrence River.
The Hammond group said it also is endorsing the findings of a recently released report by ornithologists Gerald Smith and William Evans that suggests a moratorium is needed to study the effect of wind development on bird and bat populations on both sides of the river.
"Bats perform a huge service to the human population, as they are one of the first lines of defense against the mosquito-borne West Nile virus, as well as eastern equine encephalitis that is becoming a serious problem in areas just south of us in Oneida and Oswego counties, where they are now spraying toxic chemicals to help control the outbreaks," President Mary D. Hamilton said.
The Hammond group said it also is endorsing the findings of a recently released report by ornithologists Gerald Smith and William Evans that suggests a moratorium is needed to study the effect of wind development on bird and bat populations on both sides of the river.
"Bats perform a huge service to the human population, as they are one of the first lines of defense against the mosquito-borne West Nile virus, as well as eastern equine encephalitis that is becoming a serious problem in areas just south of us in Oneida and Oswego counties, where they are now spraying toxic chemicals to help control the outbreaks," President Mary D. Hamilton said.
Thursday, August 26, 2010
Will town opposition block offshore turbines?
The Greece and Webster Town Boards have formalized their opposition to a potential Lake Ontario offshore wind project. So have a minority of Monroe county legislators, all of them Republicans.
But will that be enough to sway state Power Authority officials, who are facilitating a process that could put wind farms in Lakes Erie and Ontario? An authority spokesperson wouldn't give a firm answer early this week. She also wouldn't say what sort of weight the towns' resolutions carry.
"The Power Authority is keeping its options open concerning the project location in order to continue listening to the greatest amount of public input possible," said NYPA spokesperson Connie Cullen.
Before the authority asked for proposals, its consultants identified some spots that might be conducive to offshore wind development. One of them stretched from Greece east past the Wayne County line. Wayne County's Board of Supervisors also opposes the project.
Power Authority officials said early in the process that they wouldn't advance proposals along communities that oppose the projects. So Greece, Webster, and the Republican county legislators are playing into that promise in hopes of preventing wind towers from going up within their sight. Whether that works, it seems, will depend on how the Power Authority determines whether there's community opposition.
There's one other variable in all of this: Irondequoit. Town officials haven't taken a position yet. During a recent meeting, town Supervisor Mary Joyce D'Aurizio instructed the board to study on the issue. If the town supports NYPA's efforts, or at least doesn't oppose them, that would give NYPA a friendly location.
But will that be enough to sway state Power Authority officials, who are facilitating a process that could put wind farms in Lakes Erie and Ontario? An authority spokesperson wouldn't give a firm answer early this week. She also wouldn't say what sort of weight the towns' resolutions carry.
"The Power Authority is keeping its options open concerning the project location in order to continue listening to the greatest amount of public input possible," said NYPA spokesperson Connie Cullen.
Before the authority asked for proposals, its consultants identified some spots that might be conducive to offshore wind development. One of them stretched from Greece east past the Wayne County line. Wayne County's Board of Supervisors also opposes the project.
Power Authority officials said early in the process that they wouldn't advance proposals along communities that oppose the projects. So Greece, Webster, and the Republican county legislators are playing into that promise in hopes of preventing wind towers from going up within their sight. Whether that works, it seems, will depend on how the Power Authority determines whether there's community opposition.
There's one other variable in all of this: Irondequoit. Town officials haven't taken a position yet. During a recent meeting, town Supervisor Mary Joyce D'Aurizio instructed the board to study on the issue. If the town supports NYPA's efforts, or at least doesn't oppose them, that would give NYPA a friendly location.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)