Sheffield fly-over approaching from the East - 10.4.2010 from Energize Vermont on Vimeo
Thursday, October 07, 2010
Wednesday, October 06, 2010
Planners OK final impact statement
ST. LAWRENCE WIND FARM: Town of Cape Vincent panel says noise levels unlikely to exceed state limits
CAPE VINCENT — The town Planning Board approved St. Lawrence Wind Farm's final environmental impact statement, finding that noise levels in the proposed wind farm are unlikely to exceed state thresholds and accepting the developer's proposal for a noise complaint resolution plan.
The Planning Board approved the impact statement and its own findings Sept. 15. Those actions complete the environmental review process under the State Environmental Quality Review Act.
The findings were obtained through a Freedom of Information request. Attorney Todd M. Mathes, Whiteman Osterman & Hanna, Albany, said in an e-mail that the requirement for a Freedom of Information request was to ensure a timely response "given the absence of a clerk." Former Town Clerk Jeri Ann Mason resigned Sept. 15.
The board's action recognizes the studies that developer Acciona Wind Energy USA completed, permits that state and federal agencies have required and mitigation measures that the developer proposed.
"The benefits to the Town outweigh the identified environmental impacts associated with the project, all of which have been minimized to the maximum extent practicable," the findings said.
The two noise firms — the developer's primary consultant, Hessler Associates Inc., Haymarket, Va., and the town's independent noise consultant, Cavanaugh Tocci Associates Inc., Sudbury, Mass. — sent dueling opinions on noise levels in the months leading up to the final statement's acceptance.
David M. Hessler used sound levels that were an average of 44 decibels during the summer and 37 decibels during the winter when the wind is blowing.
According to a state Department of Environmental Conservation guideline, noise exceeding 6 decibels above ambient is considered intrusive or objectionable. If ambient noise levels have been overstated in the impact statement, it will allow higher levels of noise from turbines without violating DEC limits.
Hessler Associates' analysis showed the array of turbines would not create noise above 6 decibels above ambient.
"As acknowledged by each of Hessler's analyses and reports, wind and weather conditions will develop from time to time causing Project sound levels to increase over the nominally predicted level," the findings said.
William J. Elliot of Cavanaugh Tocci said Hessler's data did not statistically support the correlation between wind speed and noise. To get a stronger correlation, the wind speed and noise levels would have to be taken at the same location, but they were not, he said.
Cavanaugh Tocci experts had measurements that averaged 5 decibels below the levels Mr. Hessler predicted in his regression analysis. They recorded the sound levels at specific wind speeds.
"While CTA's more conservative approach is instructive, in either case, total noise from Project operation, even during the wintertime condition ... should generally remain below levels which would be considered unacceptable for a rural nighttime environment (45dBA)," the findings said.
The developer proposed a noise complaint resolution plan to rectify cases in which generated noise exceeds background conditions above the DEC guideline of 6 decibels.
"The implementation of such a plan will fully and adequately address the risk, in the event that the background noise is, in fact, closer to the more conservative levels determined by CTA than to the levels determined by Hessler," the findings said.
To follow that plan, the developer will have a community relations employee explain ambient noise before construction, have safety and environmental compliance briefings, create channels for registering a complaint and formalize a resolution process.
Acciona may now submit a complete site plan application for the 51-turbine wind power project. Planning Board Chairman Richard J. Edsall said the board, at a regular monthly meeting, would set a date to accept the application. The board then would accept it on that date, at a special meeting. A public hearing would occur within two months and the board must act two months later.
The findings repeat the benefits: no emissions from the project, four to six permanent jobs, about 200 construction jobs and money for the taxing jurisdictions based on a payment-in-lieu-of-taxes agreement.
The findings outline some unavoidable adverse impacts, including soil and water disturbance from site preparation. Long-term effects include visual intrusion, noise production, wildlife habitat changes and some bird and bat deaths.
"With the incorporation of these mitigation measures, the Project is expected to result in positive, long-term overall impacts that will offset the adverse effects that cannot otherwise be avoided," the findings said.
CAPE VINCENT — The town Planning Board approved St. Lawrence Wind Farm's final environmental impact statement, finding that noise levels in the proposed wind farm are unlikely to exceed state thresholds and accepting the developer's proposal for a noise complaint resolution plan.
The Planning Board approved the impact statement and its own findings Sept. 15. Those actions complete the environmental review process under the State Environmental Quality Review Act.
The findings were obtained through a Freedom of Information request. Attorney Todd M. Mathes, Whiteman Osterman & Hanna, Albany, said in an e-mail that the requirement for a Freedom of Information request was to ensure a timely response "given the absence of a clerk." Former Town Clerk Jeri Ann Mason resigned Sept. 15.
The board's action recognizes the studies that developer Acciona Wind Energy USA completed, permits that state and federal agencies have required and mitigation measures that the developer proposed.
"The benefits to the Town outweigh the identified environmental impacts associated with the project, all of which have been minimized to the maximum extent practicable," the findings said.
The two noise firms — the developer's primary consultant, Hessler Associates Inc., Haymarket, Va., and the town's independent noise consultant, Cavanaugh Tocci Associates Inc., Sudbury, Mass. — sent dueling opinions on noise levels in the months leading up to the final statement's acceptance.
David M. Hessler used sound levels that were an average of 44 decibels during the summer and 37 decibels during the winter when the wind is blowing.
According to a state Department of Environmental Conservation guideline, noise exceeding 6 decibels above ambient is considered intrusive or objectionable. If ambient noise levels have been overstated in the impact statement, it will allow higher levels of noise from turbines without violating DEC limits.
Hessler Associates' analysis showed the array of turbines would not create noise above 6 decibels above ambient.
"As acknowledged by each of Hessler's analyses and reports, wind and weather conditions will develop from time to time causing Project sound levels to increase over the nominally predicted level," the findings said.
William J. Elliot of Cavanaugh Tocci said Hessler's data did not statistically support the correlation between wind speed and noise. To get a stronger correlation, the wind speed and noise levels would have to be taken at the same location, but they were not, he said.
Cavanaugh Tocci experts had measurements that averaged 5 decibels below the levels Mr. Hessler predicted in his regression analysis. They recorded the sound levels at specific wind speeds.
"While CTA's more conservative approach is instructive, in either case, total noise from Project operation, even during the wintertime condition ... should generally remain below levels which would be considered unacceptable for a rural nighttime environment (45dBA)," the findings said.
The developer proposed a noise complaint resolution plan to rectify cases in which generated noise exceeds background conditions above the DEC guideline of 6 decibels.
"The implementation of such a plan will fully and adequately address the risk, in the event that the background noise is, in fact, closer to the more conservative levels determined by CTA than to the levels determined by Hessler," the findings said.
To follow that plan, the developer will have a community relations employee explain ambient noise before construction, have safety and environmental compliance briefings, create channels for registering a complaint and formalize a resolution process.
Acciona may now submit a complete site plan application for the 51-turbine wind power project. Planning Board Chairman Richard J. Edsall said the board, at a regular monthly meeting, would set a date to accept the application. The board then would accept it on that date, at a special meeting. A public hearing would occur within two months and the board must act two months later.
The findings repeat the benefits: no emissions from the project, four to six permanent jobs, about 200 construction jobs and money for the taxing jurisdictions based on a payment-in-lieu-of-taxes agreement.
The findings outline some unavoidable adverse impacts, including soil and water disturbance from site preparation. Long-term effects include visual intrusion, noise production, wildlife habitat changes and some bird and bat deaths.
"With the incorporation of these mitigation measures, the Project is expected to result in positive, long-term overall impacts that will offset the adverse effects that cannot otherwise be avoided," the findings said.
Wind Panel Visiting Iberdrola's Maple Ridge Wind Farm
HAMMOND - The Hammond Wind Committee will visit Iberdrola's Maple Ridge Wind Farm on Saturday to get a first-hand look at an industrial wind project.
A group will leave the village hall at 9 a.m., destined for a two to three hour tour of the Lowville facility.
A report on the tour will be made at the next wind committee meeting, to be held Oct. 18 at 7 p.m. in the village hall.
During Monday evening's meeting, the committee revisited its policy on making comments in public, specifically addressing how contact with the media is to be handled.
Dr. Stephen D. Sarfaty said his understanding of the communication policy consists of "no interval contact with the media."
"Our voice is in these meetings," he said. "The public voice is at the meetings. There should be no individual, ex-parte contact."
The committee agreed, establishing a question and answer session for the media at the end of each committee meeting.
Donald A. Ceresoli Jr. made a preliminary report on the noise sub-committee's findings, suggesting that the study is a work in progress and that sub-group findings are certainly not factual.
Mr. Ceresoli said he had taken 14 readings, including some on Oak Point, Wooster, and Ireland roads, as well as others on state Highway 37 and county Route 3. His average reading was 41.3 decibels.
Ann Root, a community volunteer, reported that she and her daughter, Allison, had taken readings on two separate occassions. One evening, she said, 14 readings were taken, one every mile, on the Calaboga Road (which turns into county Route 6), for an average of 37.2 decibels. The other group of 10 readings, taken in the morning in the Triangle, Pleasant Valley, Newell and Conger road areas, resulted in a 34.5 decibel average.
Thomas Chapman, another community volunteer, also reported readings of 30 to 40 decibels.
Iberdrola Business Developer Jenny L. Burke, during a discussion on environmental issues, said that Iberdrola has been conducting environmental studies in Hammond, beginning with a preliminary avian risk assessment in 2005 (this study, she said, was updated in 2010).
Other studies, Ms. Burke said, have included a habitat assessment, raptor migration surveys (fall, spring, and winter), which included studies on both the native short-eared owl and bald eagle, a waterfowl survey, nocturnal radar study, bird migration survey, including grassland breeding birds, a preliminary bat risk assessment, as well as acoustical monitoring.
She said Iberdrola had been working diligently to meet Department of Environmental Conservation standards and that results of all the studies would be made available to the public as soon as Iberdrola is able to issue an Enviromental Impact Statement to the town board (when the current moratorium is lifted).
Upcoming meeting topics are to include:
Oct. 18 - Maple Ridge report; groundwater effects; television and cellular phone reception; well impacts; property owner complaints; and blasting during construction. A real estate broker from the Cape Vincent/Orleans area is also expected to report on property value impacts.
Nov. 1 - Sound and Health; also, the director of Save the River will present on the group's request for a three-year moratorium for wind power development on the St. Lawrence River.
Nov. 15 - Report on the Chateaugay Wind Farm tour (Nov. 13); ice throw; blade throw; and tower collapse.
Nov. 29 - Visual impacts.
Dec. 6 - Assurances in law; go through law and determine changes.
Dec. 20 - Summarize and finalize report to town board.
A group will leave the village hall at 9 a.m., destined for a two to three hour tour of the Lowville facility.
A report on the tour will be made at the next wind committee meeting, to be held Oct. 18 at 7 p.m. in the village hall.
During Monday evening's meeting, the committee revisited its policy on making comments in public, specifically addressing how contact with the media is to be handled.
Dr. Stephen D. Sarfaty said his understanding of the communication policy consists of "no interval contact with the media."
"Our voice is in these meetings," he said. "The public voice is at the meetings. There should be no individual, ex-parte contact."
The committee agreed, establishing a question and answer session for the media at the end of each committee meeting.
Donald A. Ceresoli Jr. made a preliminary report on the noise sub-committee's findings, suggesting that the study is a work in progress and that sub-group findings are certainly not factual.
Mr. Ceresoli said he had taken 14 readings, including some on Oak Point, Wooster, and Ireland roads, as well as others on state Highway 37 and county Route 3. His average reading was 41.3 decibels.
Ann Root, a community volunteer, reported that she and her daughter, Allison, had taken readings on two separate occassions. One evening, she said, 14 readings were taken, one every mile, on the Calaboga Road (which turns into county Route 6), for an average of 37.2 decibels. The other group of 10 readings, taken in the morning in the Triangle, Pleasant Valley, Newell and Conger road areas, resulted in a 34.5 decibel average.
Thomas Chapman, another community volunteer, also reported readings of 30 to 40 decibels.
Iberdrola Business Developer Jenny L. Burke, during a discussion on environmental issues, said that Iberdrola has been conducting environmental studies in Hammond, beginning with a preliminary avian risk assessment in 2005 (this study, she said, was updated in 2010).
Other studies, Ms. Burke said, have included a habitat assessment, raptor migration surveys (fall, spring, and winter), which included studies on both the native short-eared owl and bald eagle, a waterfowl survey, nocturnal radar study, bird migration survey, including grassland breeding birds, a preliminary bat risk assessment, as well as acoustical monitoring.
She said Iberdrola had been working diligently to meet Department of Environmental Conservation standards and that results of all the studies would be made available to the public as soon as Iberdrola is able to issue an Enviromental Impact Statement to the town board (when the current moratorium is lifted).
Upcoming meeting topics are to include:
Oct. 18 - Maple Ridge report; groundwater effects; television and cellular phone reception; well impacts; property owner complaints; and blasting during construction. A real estate broker from the Cape Vincent/Orleans area is also expected to report on property value impacts.
Nov. 1 - Sound and Health; also, the director of Save the River will present on the group's request for a three-year moratorium for wind power development on the St. Lawrence River.
Nov. 15 - Report on the Chateaugay Wind Farm tour (Nov. 13); ice throw; blade throw; and tower collapse.
Nov. 29 - Visual impacts.
Dec. 6 - Assurances in law; go through law and determine changes.
Dec. 20 - Summarize and finalize report to town board.
Tuesday, October 05, 2010
Italy supervisor sees progress in lawsuit
Italy, N.Y. — Town Supervisor Brad Jones says he’s satisfied with the way things went during a Sept. 27 courtroom session in Rochester before Judge John J. Ark.
Ark is presiding over the case filed by Ecogen LLC against the Town of Italy.
Ecogen is trying to force the town to permit the construction of up to 17 wind turbines in Italy as part of a utility scale wind development that would span both Italy and Prattsburgh.
There is a similar case between Ecogen and the Town of Prattsburgh that is also being heard by Ark.
The Sept. 27 session was to go over responses to a series of questions Ark posed to all the parties involved in the cases.
Ark has yet to hand down his decision in a motion for dismissal filed by the Town of Italy, but Jones says his optimism lies in some of the questions and suggestions that were discussed.
The bottom line is, the judge has asked Ecogen to take two weeks to consider some of the alternatives that were discussed in the courtroom and in his chambers.
Jones says those alternatives include:
• Ark suggested that the parties take another look at engineering studies done in the spring that, if used as the basis for regulation, could require that wind turbines be built 4,000 feet from a neighboring property.
• Ecogen considering a project with much smaller turbines.
• Ecogen considering a project located in southern Prattsburgh, where more agricultural land users may welcome the development and leases. If Ecogen moves the project to southern Prattsburgh, Jones said the Town of Italy would offer assistance to the company in marketing the parcels of land the company purchased in Italy. Jones says he would like to see the parcels targeted for sustainable agriculture use, which would benefit the town’s tax base and allow Ecogen to go to an area where the turbines would have the support of the locals.
Jones said Italy officials are working on a letter to send to Ecogen laying out the alternatives, but he’s not sure when the next court session will be scheduled.
The town of Italy is without legal representation at this point. The town’s former legal firm, Harter, Secrest & Emery was released by Ark in September at the firm’s request because the town of Italy is not able to pay the firm’s bills, which total around $200,000.
During the Sept. 8 hearing about that motion, Jones told Ark the town’s property tax levy might have to increase by 20 to 30 percent in order to pay the entire bill from one annual budget.
Jones says the town is still in discussions about a payment plan with the firm.
Ark is presiding over the case filed by Ecogen LLC against the Town of Italy.
Ecogen is trying to force the town to permit the construction of up to 17 wind turbines in Italy as part of a utility scale wind development that would span both Italy and Prattsburgh.
There is a similar case between Ecogen and the Town of Prattsburgh that is also being heard by Ark.
The Sept. 27 session was to go over responses to a series of questions Ark posed to all the parties involved in the cases.
Ark has yet to hand down his decision in a motion for dismissal filed by the Town of Italy, but Jones says his optimism lies in some of the questions and suggestions that were discussed.
The bottom line is, the judge has asked Ecogen to take two weeks to consider some of the alternatives that were discussed in the courtroom and in his chambers.
Jones says those alternatives include:
• Ark suggested that the parties take another look at engineering studies done in the spring that, if used as the basis for regulation, could require that wind turbines be built 4,000 feet from a neighboring property.
• Ecogen considering a project with much smaller turbines.
• Ecogen considering a project located in southern Prattsburgh, where more agricultural land users may welcome the development and leases. If Ecogen moves the project to southern Prattsburgh, Jones said the Town of Italy would offer assistance to the company in marketing the parcels of land the company purchased in Italy. Jones says he would like to see the parcels targeted for sustainable agriculture use, which would benefit the town’s tax base and allow Ecogen to go to an area where the turbines would have the support of the locals.
Jones said Italy officials are working on a letter to send to Ecogen laying out the alternatives, but he’s not sure when the next court session will be scheduled.
The town of Italy is without legal representation at this point. The town’s former legal firm, Harter, Secrest & Emery was released by Ark in September at the firm’s request because the town of Italy is not able to pay the firm’s bills, which total around $200,000.
During the Sept. 8 hearing about that motion, Jones told Ark the town’s property tax levy might have to increase by 20 to 30 percent in order to pay the entire bill from one annual budget.
Jones says the town is still in discussions about a payment plan with the firm.
Group forms to oppose wind turbines
Their hands may be tied but their mouths aren’t gagged.
This was the message delivered to town council last Monday night by a group of concerned citizens joined together into the West Lincoln Wind Action Group (WLWAG) — a grassroots community organization representing concerns with a proposed wind turbine development by IPC.
“We are here tonight to convey the concerns of residents,” said Cam Pritchard, a representative for the group.
“The installation of these turbines will divide and ruin our township,” he added.
The WLWAG presented numerous articles and studies linking wind turbines with a host of negative effects including health issues, decreased property values and health effects on both wild and domesticated animals.
Representatives from the group requested council’s help in producing an information package to be on hand at the three libraries in the township. Specifically the group requested some help in photocopying the package which will contain information from both IPC and the WLWAG’s own research.
“Many people don’t know this is coming down the pipe,” said Neil Switzer, a representative for the WLWAG, adding, “it’s all being done behind the scenes.”
The group also called council to press the region to have the regional health officer compile a report on wind energy with specific focus on a May 2010 report from the chief medical officer of health for Ontario that found negligible health affects associated with wind turbines at appropriate setbacks. The WLWAG asked council for the review since they claim new information on the subject has come to light.
“There’s some major impacts people are recording,” said Switzer, who added, “we want an updated report.”
The group also proposed to council that they join a growing list of 67 Ontario municipalities requesting a moratorium on industrial wind turbine development in the province until further research is done.
“Every week there are more municipalities signing on,” said Switzer, adding, “you’re not muzzled.”
He pointed out that although the Green Energy Act has removed any power in regards to green energy development from municipal government, the town council can still voice its concerns along with a growing number of like minded municipalities.
Switzer also explained that West Lincoln is unique in that unlike many municipalities who discovered problems after the establishment of wind turbines it still isn’t to late to “get ahead of this thing.”
Members of council applauded what they said was a considerable amount of work done by the WLWAG since its inception two weeks ago.
“I was very impressed with the amount of work you gentlemen have done,” said mayor Katie Trombetta.
Council also voiced support for the group’s resolutions pending an examination by staff and agreed to assist in the dissemination of the information package.
Alderman Mike Rehner pointed out that while he supports green energy the solution should not also adversely affect people as well.
“We don’t want to burn coal but we don’t want to affect people with something else,” he said, pointing out that the turbines should be placed somewhere in the township where they will not affect homes and families.
This was the message delivered to town council last Monday night by a group of concerned citizens joined together into the West Lincoln Wind Action Group (WLWAG) — a grassroots community organization representing concerns with a proposed wind turbine development by IPC.
“We are here tonight to convey the concerns of residents,” said Cam Pritchard, a representative for the group.
“The installation of these turbines will divide and ruin our township,” he added.
The WLWAG presented numerous articles and studies linking wind turbines with a host of negative effects including health issues, decreased property values and health effects on both wild and domesticated animals.
Representatives from the group requested council’s help in producing an information package to be on hand at the three libraries in the township. Specifically the group requested some help in photocopying the package which will contain information from both IPC and the WLWAG’s own research.
“Many people don’t know this is coming down the pipe,” said Neil Switzer, a representative for the WLWAG, adding, “it’s all being done behind the scenes.”
The group also called council to press the region to have the regional health officer compile a report on wind energy with specific focus on a May 2010 report from the chief medical officer of health for Ontario that found negligible health affects associated with wind turbines at appropriate setbacks. The WLWAG asked council for the review since they claim new information on the subject has come to light.
“There’s some major impacts people are recording,” said Switzer, who added, “we want an updated report.”
The group also proposed to council that they join a growing list of 67 Ontario municipalities requesting a moratorium on industrial wind turbine development in the province until further research is done.
“Every week there are more municipalities signing on,” said Switzer, adding, “you’re not muzzled.”
He pointed out that although the Green Energy Act has removed any power in regards to green energy development from municipal government, the town council can still voice its concerns along with a growing number of like minded municipalities.
Switzer also explained that West Lincoln is unique in that unlike many municipalities who discovered problems after the establishment of wind turbines it still isn’t to late to “get ahead of this thing.”
Members of council applauded what they said was a considerable amount of work done by the WLWAG since its inception two weeks ago.
“I was very impressed with the amount of work you gentlemen have done,” said mayor Katie Trombetta.
Council also voiced support for the group’s resolutions pending an examination by staff and agreed to assist in the dissemination of the information package.
Alderman Mike Rehner pointed out that while he supports green energy the solution should not also adversely affect people as well.
“We don’t want to burn coal but we don’t want to affect people with something else,” he said, pointing out that the turbines should be placed somewhere in the township where they will not affect homes and families.
Saturday, October 02, 2010
Our Energy Future: Determined by Science or Lobbyists?" Presented by John Droz, Jr.
Friday, October 15 at 7:00 P.M.
Rapids Theater, 1711 Main Street, Niagara Falls New York
"Our nation's energy policy involves serious technical, economic and environmental challenges and it's important that citizens get educated on such technical matters - and then insist that their representatives make decisions based on science rather than politics" Droz said. "There is well over a trillion dollars at stake regarding electrical energy - in addition to potentially enormous impacts on our environment. This is worth getting up-to-speed on."
John Droz has undergraduate degrees in physics and mathematics from Boston College, and a graduate degree in Physics from Syracuse University.
The New York Power Authority has put together a plan to industrialize Lake Erie and or Ontario with 166 wind turbines. They are only weeks away from naming the developer, this presentation could not have come at a more important time for our Lakes.
Rapids Theater, 1711 Main Street, Niagara Falls New York
"Our nation's energy policy involves serious technical, economic and environmental challenges and it's important that citizens get educated on such technical matters - and then insist that their representatives make decisions based on science rather than politics" Droz said. "There is well over a trillion dollars at stake regarding electrical energy - in addition to potentially enormous impacts on our environment. This is worth getting up-to-speed on."
John Droz has undergraduate degrees in physics and mathematics from Boston College, and a graduate degree in Physics from Syracuse University.
The New York Power Authority has put together a plan to industrialize Lake Erie and or Ontario with 166 wind turbines. They are only weeks away from naming the developer, this presentation could not have come at a more important time for our Lakes.
Wind turbines unlikely to save planet
The Ontario government, as a result of the Green Energy Act 2009, is planning to erect industrial wind turbines in several sites across the province.
"Good", we said. "It's about time." After all, we are in favour of reducing our dependency on fossil fuels, and wanting to cut down on greenhouse gas emissions. And wind is a free, renewable resource, so this is good for all of us, right?
Boy, were we naive.
The plan is for mega turbines - nearly 50 storeys high - that dwarf the turbines we currently see along the Great Lakes. Lots of them: on farmland, and possibly out in the lakes.
If they're going to save the planet, you'd probably give them the thumbs up, wouldn't you? Well, it doesn't take much digging to see that they're not likely to save the planet.
Wind energy isn't very efficient, according to William Palmer, an engineer who has presented internationally on the subject. He says that, because the winds come and go, wind turbines work at an average of 27% capacity. What's more, Ontario has no ability to store wind energy, so what we don't use immediately is wasted. Storage facilities could be created - at great cost - in addition to the huge cost of the turbines themselves.
In a perfect world, we shouldn't demur at the cost, but countries like Britain, well ahead of us in wind energy, are now having to face the stark reality of "fuel poverty" - the cost of fuel exceeding one's ability to pay. So, if wind energy is going to be expensive and inefficient, we'd like to know before we open our hydro bill.
Adding insult to injury, according to Palmer, is the fact the net effect of wind turbines on global warming is insignificant. Why? Because most of Canada's harmful emissions are not caused by electricity production, and because the fossil fuel systems needed to back up wind power lose their efficiency when they have to be started, stopped and restarted as winds come and go. Further, we are shocked to learn that, despite its tens of thousands of wind turbines, Germany, the poster child for wind energy, has yet to close a single coal-fired plant.
But wait - it gets worse. Globally, in 2008-09, there were 35 cases of blade failure (blades breaking off and hurtling to the ground). People have been killed by these things. Canada's blade failure rate is already four times greater than in Europe - not surprising when you consider extreme weather is a contributing factor.
Blade failure and ice thrown from blades would not be as concerning if turbines were installed away from populated areas, as they tend to be in Europe. But the Green Energy Act of Ontario has allowed industrial wind turbines to be built as close as 550 meters from homes. The World Health Organization recommends 1.5 to 2 kilometres, but in Ontario, we will soon have the largest wind turbines in the world, combined with the shortest setback distances in the world.
This presents another set of problems. Dr. Robert McMurtry, former dean of medicine at the University of Western Ontario, says we really don't know the long-term effects of wind turbines on human health. He says people all over the globe have reported ill effects, and the Ontario government is pushing its wind power plan through in the absence of conclusive research.
We think this is poor decision-making. Remember depo prevara, thalidomide, and UFFI?
Dr. Nina Pierpont, author of Wind Turbine Syndrome, says, "many people living within 2 km of these giants get . . . so sick that they . . . abandon (as in, lock the door and leave) their homes. Nobody wants to buy their acoustically toxic homes." This process has become known as expropriation without compensation.
While we are sympathetic to Premier Dalton McGuinty's plight, we'd like to see him do his homework. The wind energy campaign caters to that part of us that wants to believe it's the right thing to do. Our son suffers from asthma - we'd love to see coal plants become a thing of the past. But the Ontario wind turbine plan is fraught with problems, We'd appreciate it if the government would at least be honest about what it's getting us into. We don't like being forced to buy a pig in a poke.
McGuinty says he'd like to be remembered as the education premier of Ontario. Let's hope he's not remembered as the premier who made us wiser but sadder.
Laurie Kay and Sandy Oswick are London residents.
"Good", we said. "It's about time." After all, we are in favour of reducing our dependency on fossil fuels, and wanting to cut down on greenhouse gas emissions. And wind is a free, renewable resource, so this is good for all of us, right?
Boy, were we naive.
The plan is for mega turbines - nearly 50 storeys high - that dwarf the turbines we currently see along the Great Lakes. Lots of them: on farmland, and possibly out in the lakes.
If they're going to save the planet, you'd probably give them the thumbs up, wouldn't you? Well, it doesn't take much digging to see that they're not likely to save the planet.
Wind energy isn't very efficient, according to William Palmer, an engineer who has presented internationally on the subject. He says that, because the winds come and go, wind turbines work at an average of 27% capacity. What's more, Ontario has no ability to store wind energy, so what we don't use immediately is wasted. Storage facilities could be created - at great cost - in addition to the huge cost of the turbines themselves.
In a perfect world, we shouldn't demur at the cost, but countries like Britain, well ahead of us in wind energy, are now having to face the stark reality of "fuel poverty" - the cost of fuel exceeding one's ability to pay. So, if wind energy is going to be expensive and inefficient, we'd like to know before we open our hydro bill.
Adding insult to injury, according to Palmer, is the fact the net effect of wind turbines on global warming is insignificant. Why? Because most of Canada's harmful emissions are not caused by electricity production, and because the fossil fuel systems needed to back up wind power lose their efficiency when they have to be started, stopped and restarted as winds come and go. Further, we are shocked to learn that, despite its tens of thousands of wind turbines, Germany, the poster child for wind energy, has yet to close a single coal-fired plant.
But wait - it gets worse. Globally, in 2008-09, there were 35 cases of blade failure (blades breaking off and hurtling to the ground). People have been killed by these things. Canada's blade failure rate is already four times greater than in Europe - not surprising when you consider extreme weather is a contributing factor.
Blade failure and ice thrown from blades would not be as concerning if turbines were installed away from populated areas, as they tend to be in Europe. But the Green Energy Act of Ontario has allowed industrial wind turbines to be built as close as 550 meters from homes. The World Health Organization recommends 1.5 to 2 kilometres, but in Ontario, we will soon have the largest wind turbines in the world, combined with the shortest setback distances in the world.
This presents another set of problems. Dr. Robert McMurtry, former dean of medicine at the University of Western Ontario, says we really don't know the long-term effects of wind turbines on human health. He says people all over the globe have reported ill effects, and the Ontario government is pushing its wind power plan through in the absence of conclusive research.
We think this is poor decision-making. Remember depo prevara, thalidomide, and UFFI?
Dr. Nina Pierpont, author of Wind Turbine Syndrome, says, "many people living within 2 km of these giants get . . . so sick that they . . . abandon (as in, lock the door and leave) their homes. Nobody wants to buy their acoustically toxic homes." This process has become known as expropriation without compensation.
While we are sympathetic to Premier Dalton McGuinty's plight, we'd like to see him do his homework. The wind energy campaign caters to that part of us that wants to believe it's the right thing to do. Our son suffers from asthma - we'd love to see coal plants become a thing of the past. But the Ontario wind turbine plan is fraught with problems, We'd appreciate it if the government would at least be honest about what it's getting us into. We don't like being forced to buy a pig in a poke.
McGuinty says he'd like to be remembered as the education premier of Ontario. Let's hope he's not remembered as the premier who made us wiser but sadder.
Laurie Kay and Sandy Oswick are London residents.
Friday, October 01, 2010
Properties ‘virtually unmarketable’
A survey by a local realtor may have confirmed the worst suspicions of Stan Mundy, whose home is closest to Chevron’s wind farm northeast of Casper.
Glen Taylor, of Equity Brokers in Casper, did a real estate survey Sept. 10, 2010, and concluded properties directly adjacent to the Chevron Wind Towers are now “virtually unmarketable” at “any realistic price.”
In his report, Taylor said no residential properties have sold in his three-road survey area since October 2009, and 10 are presently on the market (five that were listed in the past two years didn’t sell).
Taylor wrote, “No reasonable buyer would choose a property close to the wind towers over a property that isn’t close to wind towers unless the price is so low that the investment would be a no brainer.”
Taylor said in his report that rural property close to town is usually in good demand, and noted he’s the agent for one parcel in the area. He has had over 50 inquiries on his listing in about two months, but 40 dropped interest after learning about the location.
“In follow-up with the inquiries, the number one reason for not having genuine interest in this property is because of the proximity of the wind towers,” Taylor wrote in his report.
Taylor did the survey at the request of Natrona County State Representative Mike Gilmore. Gilmore is a long-time friend of Mundy’s, and had asked Taylor for assistance after hearing about Mundy’s property situation.
“Some people are saying Stan’s just a nut, and he needs to get over it,” Gilmore said about Mundy’s dispute with the county. “But his issue had some merit, and I felt he might need a little ammunition … he’s not asking for money or anything from the company, he just didn’t want those towers, like 800 feet from his house. He has a legitimate complaint.”
Noting that the towers are on Chevron’s property, Gilmore said, “ … I’m a real private property rights advocate, so much so I fought against the Highway
Department’s wanting to condemn land for snow fences. But the wind is different. It’s unique, it’s big, it’s this massive structure you’ve got to look through to see the mountain.”
Gilmore said wind energy needed to be developed in Wyoming, and that energy companies have jumped into it now because of generous tax breaks. He then added, “ … but the jobs really didn’t materialize, and the taxes aren’t coming along either … we’ve devalued our own property.
“It’s something in this next session that maybe we need to look into,” he said.
Mundy, meanwhile, said he’s looking into several options in his ongoing battle with the county.
He missed his property tax protest hearing before the County Board of Equalization (composed of three county commissioners) when they denied his request to change the date. Mundy told them he would be away attending his daughter’s graduation from Army boot camp in South Carolina.
The discussion by the commissioners on changing the hearing date included in Commissioner Barb Peryam calling Mundy a “son of a bitch” and threatening to “sic planning and zoning and code enforcement” on him. The commissioners turned down Mundy’s request to reschedule, noting the cost of paying for another official hearing reporter.
“She’s apologized to the other commissioners,” Mundy said of Peryam’s comments, “but she hasn’t apologized to me.
“I had called, before this all transpired, to the State Board of Equalization to see if they would hear my tax appeal because I didn’t think I could get a fair shake with our commission … because Rob Hendry is going to profit from wind industry, just like my property value is going to go down because of the wind industry,” Mundy said. “I was told the county would have to certify it, and I would have to go through the county to get to state level. I said to heck with it.”
After his hearing date change was denied, he wrote a letter to Gov. Dave Freudenthal protesting the situation. A few days ago he received a reply from an aide to the governor, who said they were aware of the events that had transpired, and again told him that legally his property tax protest must begin at the county level.
The letter also stated, however, that, “Your issue with siting was one of the primary drivers for establishing the minimum state setbacks that were passed during the 2010 Wyoming legislative session. The governor’s office is well aware that the legislation doesn’t help you. However, your advocacy has helped others in similar circumstances.”
Mundy says he’s not certain now whether he can, or will, request another hearing before the County Board of Equalization.
“I still don’t think I can get a fair hearing,” he said.
Glen Taylor, of Equity Brokers in Casper, did a real estate survey Sept. 10, 2010, and concluded properties directly adjacent to the Chevron Wind Towers are now “virtually unmarketable” at “any realistic price.”
In his report, Taylor said no residential properties have sold in his three-road survey area since October 2009, and 10 are presently on the market (five that were listed in the past two years didn’t sell).
Taylor wrote, “No reasonable buyer would choose a property close to the wind towers over a property that isn’t close to wind towers unless the price is so low that the investment would be a no brainer.”
Taylor said in his report that rural property close to town is usually in good demand, and noted he’s the agent for one parcel in the area. He has had over 50 inquiries on his listing in about two months, but 40 dropped interest after learning about the location.
“In follow-up with the inquiries, the number one reason for not having genuine interest in this property is because of the proximity of the wind towers,” Taylor wrote in his report.
Taylor did the survey at the request of Natrona County State Representative Mike Gilmore. Gilmore is a long-time friend of Mundy’s, and had asked Taylor for assistance after hearing about Mundy’s property situation.
“Some people are saying Stan’s just a nut, and he needs to get over it,” Gilmore said about Mundy’s dispute with the county. “But his issue had some merit, and I felt he might need a little ammunition … he’s not asking for money or anything from the company, he just didn’t want those towers, like 800 feet from his house. He has a legitimate complaint.”
Noting that the towers are on Chevron’s property, Gilmore said, “ … I’m a real private property rights advocate, so much so I fought against the Highway
Department’s wanting to condemn land for snow fences. But the wind is different. It’s unique, it’s big, it’s this massive structure you’ve got to look through to see the mountain.”
Gilmore said wind energy needed to be developed in Wyoming, and that energy companies have jumped into it now because of generous tax breaks. He then added, “ … but the jobs really didn’t materialize, and the taxes aren’t coming along either … we’ve devalued our own property.
“It’s something in this next session that maybe we need to look into,” he said.
Mundy, meanwhile, said he’s looking into several options in his ongoing battle with the county.
He missed his property tax protest hearing before the County Board of Equalization (composed of three county commissioners) when they denied his request to change the date. Mundy told them he would be away attending his daughter’s graduation from Army boot camp in South Carolina.
The discussion by the commissioners on changing the hearing date included in Commissioner Barb Peryam calling Mundy a “son of a bitch” and threatening to “sic planning and zoning and code enforcement” on him. The commissioners turned down Mundy’s request to reschedule, noting the cost of paying for another official hearing reporter.
“She’s apologized to the other commissioners,” Mundy said of Peryam’s comments, “but she hasn’t apologized to me.
“I had called, before this all transpired, to the State Board of Equalization to see if they would hear my tax appeal because I didn’t think I could get a fair shake with our commission … because Rob Hendry is going to profit from wind industry, just like my property value is going to go down because of the wind industry,” Mundy said. “I was told the county would have to certify it, and I would have to go through the county to get to state level. I said to heck with it.”
After his hearing date change was denied, he wrote a letter to Gov. Dave Freudenthal protesting the situation. A few days ago he received a reply from an aide to the governor, who said they were aware of the events that had transpired, and again told him that legally his property tax protest must begin at the county level.
The letter also stated, however, that, “Your issue with siting was one of the primary drivers for establishing the minimum state setbacks that were passed during the 2010 Wyoming legislative session. The governor’s office is well aware that the legislation doesn’t help you. However, your advocacy has helped others in similar circumstances.”
Mundy says he’s not certain now whether he can, or will, request another hearing before the County Board of Equalization.
“I still don’t think I can get a fair hearing,” he said.
Thursday, September 30, 2010
First Wind refinances Cohocton
First Wind has refinanced $42 million in outstanding construction debt on its 125MW Cohocton I wind farm in New York State. The developer increased leverage on the asset, with Bank of Tokyo Mitsubishi UFJ, Commerzbank, Deutsche Bank and Nord/LB participating in a new 7.5-year financing that closed earlier this month.
The original $95.5 million non-recourse term loan was provided by Nord/LB and HSH Nordbank in March 2009 with an interest rate of 4.26% (Libor plus 400bp) and..
The original $95.5 million non-recourse term loan was provided by Nord/LB and HSH Nordbank in March 2009 with an interest rate of 4.26% (Libor plus 400bp) and..
Wednesday, September 29, 2010
Layoffs Watch ‘10: DE Shaw Cans 150 Employees
And if you thought it was just secretaries bearing getting the boot, think again!
The cuts were “across the board,” including partners and portfolio managers. And they weren’t just something David came up with on a whim over lunch but part of “a strategic review undertaken by management as a result of large investor outflows this year.” So, there’s that.
The cuts were “across the board,” including partners and portfolio managers. And they weren’t just something David came up with on a whim over lunch but part of “a strategic review undertaken by management as a result of large investor outflows this year.” So, there’s that.
Monday, September 27, 2010
New York Power Authority mum on wind farm plans
Public officials in Irondequoit and Niagara County have added their voices to the growing call for more information about bids to the New York Power Authority regarding an offshore wind farm.
The Power Authority, an independent arm of state government, is considering five proposals from wind-energy developers to erect turbines in the near-shore waters of Lake Ontario or Lake Erie.
The agency has repeatedly refused to release any information about the proposals — including denying request from a state senator.
Most recently, authority general counsel Terryl Brown denied an appeal of a Democrat and Chronicle request for the proposals under the state Freedom of Information law. Brown said disclosing any information would impair the authority's ability to negotiate with the developers.
If information such as the proposed location of turbines was made public now, Brown said, "interested third parties" might try to "pressure the bidder to withdraw or reconsider" and the developers themselves might try to "manipulate the process."
The Westchester County-based Power Authority intends to keep all information confidential until its staff selects one or more proposals and its trustees vote on them, spokeswoman Connie Cullen said. That is expected to happen in early 2011, she said.
Meanwhile, at two more public meetings last week, officials complained they're being kept in the dark.
Irondequoit Town Supervisor Mary Joyce D'Aurizio complained about Power Authority secrecy at a meeting Tuesday and said her requests for information had been spurned. Town lawmakers questioned the offshore wind-farm concept at the meeting but deferred action on a resolution of opposition until October.
Their counterparts in Greece and Webster have already passed such resolutions, as have lawmakers in four other counties along the Lake Ontario shoreline. A Monroe County Legislature resolution opposing offshore wind drew 12 backers, three short of a majority.
The authority's unwillingness to share information was cited by the author of the Monroe resolution, Rick Antelli, R-Greece, and by Webster Supervisor Ronald Nesbitt.
Authority officials have asked local lawmakers to delay passing judgment on the offshore concept until one or more developers are selected and details of the proposal are made public.
The one county legislature that has endorsed the offshore idea, Niagara, has been reconsidering that endorsement. Lawmakers there met for several hours Tuesday evening, and a Power Authority official made a presentation.
But several lawmakers complained about poor information sharing, and the official declined to answer several questions, including whether any of the proposals call for turbines off the Niagara County shoreline, according to Alan Isselhard, a Wayne County opponent of the authority's offshore concept who attended the meeting.
"They simply don't wish to have people asking questions and try to avoid this as much as possible," said Isselhard, who also addressed Niagara lawmakers Tuesday and said he "made a big deal of their contempt for FOI."
The Democrat and Chronicle filed an FOI request shortly after the authority received the five offshore proposals on June 1. The media group received neither the required acknowledgement of its request nor a denial until after it had filed an appeal a month later. Authority officials said they had sent both responses in a timely manner, but the Democrat and Chronicle had no record of receiving them.
The FOI denial cited the exemption in the law for material whose public disclosure would impair a contract award.
The authority's response to the media group's appeal was received Sept. 10 — about two months past the legal deadline for responding.
Robert Freeman, executive director of the New York Committee on Open Government, said he thought the grounds for denying the appeal were "bogus" and said the authority should make public basic information about the proposals such as the names of the firms who submitted them and the locations where they would like to site turbines.
"I don't see how that in any way diminishes the ability of the Power Authority to negotiate a contract that protects the taxpayers," he said.
State Sen. George Maziarz, R-Newfane, Niagara County, the chairman of the Senate energy committee, filed his own FOI request for the offshore wind proposals in mid-August. Maziarz and his staff insist they have not received an acknowledgement, which is supposed to be sent within five business days, or a denial letter.
Cullen said both had been sent in a timely fashion to Maziarz's office e-mail account, and said the Power Authority had received an automated reply in each case.
She supplied copies of the automated replies, a type of generic response that many political offices use.
When shown the auto-replies, Maziarz's communications director, Adam Tabelski, said he remained certain that neither FOI response had arrived.
"We check the inbox and the junk folder religiously, and carefully," he said.
"That we would miss one of these messages is unlikely. To miss both would be impossible."
SORR@DemocratandChronicle.com
The Power Authority, an independent arm of state government, is considering five proposals from wind-energy developers to erect turbines in the near-shore waters of Lake Ontario or Lake Erie.
The agency has repeatedly refused to release any information about the proposals — including denying request from a state senator.
Most recently, authority general counsel Terryl Brown denied an appeal of a Democrat and Chronicle request for the proposals under the state Freedom of Information law. Brown said disclosing any information would impair the authority's ability to negotiate with the developers.
If information such as the proposed location of turbines was made public now, Brown said, "interested third parties" might try to "pressure the bidder to withdraw or reconsider" and the developers themselves might try to "manipulate the process."
The Westchester County-based Power Authority intends to keep all information confidential until its staff selects one or more proposals and its trustees vote on them, spokeswoman Connie Cullen said. That is expected to happen in early 2011, she said.
Meanwhile, at two more public meetings last week, officials complained they're being kept in the dark.
Irondequoit Town Supervisor Mary Joyce D'Aurizio complained about Power Authority secrecy at a meeting Tuesday and said her requests for information had been spurned. Town lawmakers questioned the offshore wind-farm concept at the meeting but deferred action on a resolution of opposition until October.
Their counterparts in Greece and Webster have already passed such resolutions, as have lawmakers in four other counties along the Lake Ontario shoreline. A Monroe County Legislature resolution opposing offshore wind drew 12 backers, three short of a majority.
The authority's unwillingness to share information was cited by the author of the Monroe resolution, Rick Antelli, R-Greece, and by Webster Supervisor Ronald Nesbitt.
Authority officials have asked local lawmakers to delay passing judgment on the offshore concept until one or more developers are selected and details of the proposal are made public.
The one county legislature that has endorsed the offshore idea, Niagara, has been reconsidering that endorsement. Lawmakers there met for several hours Tuesday evening, and a Power Authority official made a presentation.
But several lawmakers complained about poor information sharing, and the official declined to answer several questions, including whether any of the proposals call for turbines off the Niagara County shoreline, according to Alan Isselhard, a Wayne County opponent of the authority's offshore concept who attended the meeting.
"They simply don't wish to have people asking questions and try to avoid this as much as possible," said Isselhard, who also addressed Niagara lawmakers Tuesday and said he "made a big deal of their contempt for FOI."
The Democrat and Chronicle filed an FOI request shortly after the authority received the five offshore proposals on June 1. The media group received neither the required acknowledgement of its request nor a denial until after it had filed an appeal a month later. Authority officials said they had sent both responses in a timely manner, but the Democrat and Chronicle had no record of receiving them.
The FOI denial cited the exemption in the law for material whose public disclosure would impair a contract award.
The authority's response to the media group's appeal was received Sept. 10 — about two months past the legal deadline for responding.
Robert Freeman, executive director of the New York Committee on Open Government, said he thought the grounds for denying the appeal were "bogus" and said the authority should make public basic information about the proposals such as the names of the firms who submitted them and the locations where they would like to site turbines.
"I don't see how that in any way diminishes the ability of the Power Authority to negotiate a contract that protects the taxpayers," he said.
State Sen. George Maziarz, R-Newfane, Niagara County, the chairman of the Senate energy committee, filed his own FOI request for the offshore wind proposals in mid-August. Maziarz and his staff insist they have not received an acknowledgement, which is supposed to be sent within five business days, or a denial letter.
Cullen said both had been sent in a timely fashion to Maziarz's office e-mail account, and said the Power Authority had received an automated reply in each case.
She supplied copies of the automated replies, a type of generic response that many political offices use.
When shown the auto-replies, Maziarz's communications director, Adam Tabelski, said he remained certain that neither FOI response had arrived.
"We check the inbox and the junk folder religiously, and carefully," he said.
"That we would miss one of these messages is unlikely. To miss both would be impossible."
SORR@DemocratandChronicle.com
Prattsburgh able to pay its legal bills
Prattsburgh, NY — With a legal showdown over two wind farm lawsuits set for Monday, the ability of the involved towns to pay their lawyers has come into question.
Supreme Court Justice John Ark recently allowed the town of Italy ’s law firm, Harter Secrest and Emery to step down because the town reportedly owes them more than $175,000. Ark ’s decision came despite assurances by Italy officials the town could pay the legal fees over time.
Italy and its neighbor, Prattsburgh, have been defending separate, but related, lawsuits filed by wind developer Ecogen for nearly a year.
Prattsburgh will pay its current wind farm-related legal bills by the end of the year and expects to continue its battle as long as needed, town Supervisor Al Wordingham said.
The Prattsburgh town board agreed Monday to pay attorneys from Bond Schoeneck and King $55,000 this year, in return for a reduction of the current legal costs pegged around $70,000, according to Wordingham.
The higher cost would have extended payments into 2011, he said.
Ark is expected to meet Monday with representatives from Italy , Prattsburgh and Ecogen to discuss their answers to a series of questions he posed recently. A decision is expected some time after the meeting.
Italy and Prattsburgh have been defending lawsuits brought by Ecogen, since November 2009 and January 2010, respectively.
Ecogen claims it should be allowed to proceed immediately with plans to set up 16 turbines in Prattsburgh, with a substation and 17 turbines planned for Italy.
While Ecogen alleges the town of Italy has no legal right to deny them building permits last fall, the situation in Prattsburgh is more complicated.
After two pro-wind Prattsburgh board members were defeated in their bid for re-election in November, Ecogen threatened it would sue the town if issues were not resolved before the new board was seated.
The lame-duck Prattsburgh board hurriedly approved a 3-2 agreement with Ecogen in December, giving the developer the ability to determine hauling routes and road use agreements without town approval.
When the new town board rescinded the agreement in January, Ecogen went to court.
Wordingham said he believes Ecogen’s main strategy always has been to outspend the towns, but added Prattsburgh’s budget will absorb the legal costs and could pay for an appeal, if needed.
“But I don’t know why we’re talking about an appeal,” Wordingham said. “I’m not planning on losing.”
Ark apparently believes any ruling will simply touch off an appeal by the losing side.
According to The Chronicle-Express , in Penn Yan, Ark told Italy officials “The likelihood is that this litigation is going to go on for a long time… We’re in uncharted territory.”
Wordingham said the majority of the town board is committed to fighting the developer since a larger issue is at stake.
“What would be irresponsible is giving in,” he said. “This is about home rule. The agreement in December basically gave the keys to the town to Ecogen. They could do whatever they wanted, whenever they wanted for the next 20 years. This would set precedent throughout the state.”
Supreme Court Justice John Ark recently allowed the town of Italy ’s law firm, Harter Secrest and Emery to step down because the town reportedly owes them more than $175,000. Ark ’s decision came despite assurances by Italy officials the town could pay the legal fees over time.
Italy and its neighbor, Prattsburgh, have been defending separate, but related, lawsuits filed by wind developer Ecogen for nearly a year.
Prattsburgh will pay its current wind farm-related legal bills by the end of the year and expects to continue its battle as long as needed, town Supervisor Al Wordingham said.
The Prattsburgh town board agreed Monday to pay attorneys from Bond Schoeneck and King $55,000 this year, in return for a reduction of the current legal costs pegged around $70,000, according to Wordingham.
The higher cost would have extended payments into 2011, he said.
Ark is expected to meet Monday with representatives from Italy , Prattsburgh and Ecogen to discuss their answers to a series of questions he posed recently. A decision is expected some time after the meeting.
Italy and Prattsburgh have been defending lawsuits brought by Ecogen, since November 2009 and January 2010, respectively.
Ecogen claims it should be allowed to proceed immediately with plans to set up 16 turbines in Prattsburgh, with a substation and 17 turbines planned for Italy.
While Ecogen alleges the town of Italy has no legal right to deny them building permits last fall, the situation in Prattsburgh is more complicated.
After two pro-wind Prattsburgh board members were defeated in their bid for re-election in November, Ecogen threatened it would sue the town if issues were not resolved before the new board was seated.
The lame-duck Prattsburgh board hurriedly approved a 3-2 agreement with Ecogen in December, giving the developer the ability to determine hauling routes and road use agreements without town approval.
When the new town board rescinded the agreement in January, Ecogen went to court.
Wordingham said he believes Ecogen’s main strategy always has been to outspend the towns, but added Prattsburgh’s budget will absorb the legal costs and could pay for an appeal, if needed.
“But I don’t know why we’re talking about an appeal,” Wordingham said. “I’m not planning on losing.”
Ark apparently believes any ruling will simply touch off an appeal by the losing side.
According to The Chronicle-Express , in Penn Yan, Ark told Italy officials “The likelihood is that this litigation is going to go on for a long time… We’re in uncharted territory.”
Wordingham said the majority of the town board is committed to fighting the developer since a larger issue is at stake.
“What would be irresponsible is giving in,” he said. “This is about home rule. The agreement in December basically gave the keys to the town to Ecogen. They could do whatever they wanted, whenever they wanted for the next 20 years. This would set precedent throughout the state.”
Sunday, September 26, 2010
Wind farm conflicts need addressing
State-required disclosure lists show a few dozen public officials in the region stand to gain thousands, even hundreds of thousands, of dollars from lease agreements with companies building wind turbines in their towns. There is so much wrong with this that it’s hard to know where to start.
New York state must go further than simply requiring disclosure and instead shift at least a portion of wind farm approvals to the county or state level. These projects are much too large for the “yes” or “no” decision to be left to small-town leaders when either these leaders or those close to them might stand to benefit financially.
The issue is parallel to that of the hydro-fracking controversy in the Southern Tier and Central New York. In each case, energy companies hope to utilize a natural resource in rural regions where jobs are scarce and incomes low. Some landowners stand to benefit mightily from lease agreements, while others may stew at not getting that opportunity. In either case, lack of an appropriate regulatory framework leads to risk of government officials acting in their own best interests instead of in the interests of their constituents.
That sentiment exists outside Lowville, where the mother of all wind farms in our region sits. Drive up Route 12 through and past Lowville along Route 177, and you will be staggered by the sheer number of turbines in the Maple Ridge — 195 of them in all. They’ve transformed the landscape in central Lewis County.
You’ll be equally staggered, however, by the windfall some officials in towns up that way are receiving. Fully 12 of them may earn a combined $7.5 million — or up to that amount — over the lifetime of the wind turbines. That’s an enormous amount of money, and not simply in the North Country.
It is impossible to believe that a leader in a small town full of residents with modest incomes isn’t going to be dazzled by an energy developer dangling the prospect of five-figure or six-figure checks. Human nature being what it is, we all dream of somehow hitting it rich. But once that lease offer is made, an official’s dreams of wealth could conflict with his neighbors’ hopes for their community.
In a small town, too, it’s not simply that the lease offer goes to a key official. It could go to the official’s brother, or nephew, or good friend. In any of these cases, a public official’s judgment is at risk of being compromised.
A larger question is that of public trust in government. In the town of Lowville, Gordon Yancey is upset that public officials, including his brother Edward Yancey, got lease agreements related to Maple Ridge. His view, that “they made their sweetheart, backdoor deals long before anything was made public,” can be cancerous in a community when large portions of the populace share it. If the governed have no faith in their leaders, or if they believe their leaders are in it only for themselves, then the very fabric of our democracy is damaged.
All of this is reason why approval of wind farm projects needs to be multi-layered, in hopes that county and state officials at more of a distance from the scene can show impartial judgment.
Transparency is fine, but the greater need is assurance to the public that projects were judged by individuals who do not have a vested interest in the outcome.
New York state must go further than simply requiring disclosure and instead shift at least a portion of wind farm approvals to the county or state level. These projects are much too large for the “yes” or “no” decision to be left to small-town leaders when either these leaders or those close to them might stand to benefit financially.
The issue is parallel to that of the hydro-fracking controversy in the Southern Tier and Central New York. In each case, energy companies hope to utilize a natural resource in rural regions where jobs are scarce and incomes low. Some landowners stand to benefit mightily from lease agreements, while others may stew at not getting that opportunity. In either case, lack of an appropriate regulatory framework leads to risk of government officials acting in their own best interests instead of in the interests of their constituents.
That sentiment exists outside Lowville, where the mother of all wind farms in our region sits. Drive up Route 12 through and past Lowville along Route 177, and you will be staggered by the sheer number of turbines in the Maple Ridge — 195 of them in all. They’ve transformed the landscape in central Lewis County.
You’ll be equally staggered, however, by the windfall some officials in towns up that way are receiving. Fully 12 of them may earn a combined $7.5 million — or up to that amount — over the lifetime of the wind turbines. That’s an enormous amount of money, and not simply in the North Country.
It is impossible to believe that a leader in a small town full of residents with modest incomes isn’t going to be dazzled by an energy developer dangling the prospect of five-figure or six-figure checks. Human nature being what it is, we all dream of somehow hitting it rich. But once that lease offer is made, an official’s dreams of wealth could conflict with his neighbors’ hopes for their community.
In a small town, too, it’s not simply that the lease offer goes to a key official. It could go to the official’s brother, or nephew, or good friend. In any of these cases, a public official’s judgment is at risk of being compromised.
A larger question is that of public trust in government. In the town of Lowville, Gordon Yancey is upset that public officials, including his brother Edward Yancey, got lease agreements related to Maple Ridge. His view, that “they made their sweetheart, backdoor deals long before anything was made public,” can be cancerous in a community when large portions of the populace share it. If the governed have no faith in their leaders, or if they believe their leaders are in it only for themselves, then the very fabric of our democracy is damaged.
All of this is reason why approval of wind farm projects needs to be multi-layered, in hopes that county and state officials at more of a distance from the scene can show impartial judgment.
Transparency is fine, but the greater need is assurance to the public that projects were judged by individuals who do not have a vested interest in the outcome.
Thursday, September 23, 2010
Wind power discussions settle few questions
After hearing two versions of the wind farm story, some Niagara County legislators still aren’t sure they’re for or against one in Lake Ontario.
Back-to-back presentations by Brad Jones, an opponent of corporate/industrial wind farming, and Sharon Laudisi, business development manager for New York Power Authority, seemed to raise more questions than they answered Tuesday about the effects of an offshore wind farm between Youngstown and Wilson.
Either presenter offered lots of opinion and speculation, but little hard data, to bolster their views of a wind farm helping or hurting the local economy.
Both billed as “experts” on the topic, Jones and Laudisi disagreed about virtually everything, from likely job creation to the likelihood of host community benefits for affected municipalities to the wisdom of wind power, generally.
Jones is supervisor of the Yates County town of Italy, which got sued by Ecogen LLC (now Pattern Energy) last year after it denied the company a permit to construct a 19-turbine wind farm. Since Jones took office this past January, his town board repealed zoning incentives for wind-farm developers and effectively outlawed wind farms throughout the town.
Laudisi speaks for NYPA, which last year put out a call for proposals to develop a 40- to 160-turbine wind farm in particular areas of either Lake Erie or Lake Ontario, the latter between Youngstown and Wilson. Five proposals are under review now, according to the agency.
The experts were invited to address the Legislature ahead of a special committee’s recommendation whether the body should be for or against a local, offshore wind farm. The Legislature previously went on the record encouraging the possibility, but this past summer, opposition erupted in the Youngstown area, especially.
Where supporters saw a wind farm generating jobs and economic development in the county, opponents see it hurting tourism and driving down lakeside property values. Legislators Clyde Burmaster of Ransomville, David Godfrey of Wilson and John Syracuse of Newfane now want the body to declare an offshore wind farm is not welcome here.
The special committee’s charge, basically, is to weigh the pros and cons of offshore wind-farming. To that end, it’s seeking answers to four broad questions: What are the effects of a wind farm on the economy, environment, electric customers and the lakeside communities that would be faced with the farm?
The cases for and against wind power
Based on his research of existing onshore wind projects, Brad Jones claims host
communities almost always lose more than they receive for tolerating the massive turbines. Local job creation and new business startup would be insignificant, he speculated. Turbine construction and maintenance would be boat-based and the employees “imported, because their skills are specialized,” he said; spin-off development seems unlikely, given that supply chains usually are proprietary and materials are imported.
There would be no host community “benefits” from an offshore developer — such as payments in lieu of property tax or power discounts — because Lake Ontario is not a taxing jurisdiction, Jones said.
Meanwhile, turbines would litter the lake horizon and, assuming a certain area around them is “protected,” would disrupt fishing and boating, he said. Studies of wind farms’’ effects on wildlife, including birds and bats, are “flawed” or nonexistent, he added.
Wind power is a politically correct — and economically disastrous — energy alternative, Jones claimed. Construction and maintenance are wildly expensive, less power is generated at a higher cost and it’s going forward only because of “extremely generous government incentives,” he said.
The more rational investment would be in upgrading existing power transmission infrastructure, which is known to be inefficient, and making a deal to land hydropower from Quebec, where hydro plants currently are shut down for a lack of demand, Jones said.
Laudisi spins a different story.
NYPA is pursuing wind power to help meet the state’s mandate for more power to come from renewable sources, she said; its approach is not to invest in only one type, such as hydropower, but “a little bit of everything.” Wind power will always be a secondary source, she added; it’s being developed to supplement, not replace, primary sources such as coal and gas. Canada and other states in the Great Lakes basin, including Ohio and Michigan, are already developing Great Lakes Offshore Wind , or GLOW, projects, meaning New York is behind.
Development of a GLOW farm in Western New York would generate about 500 construction jobs and 80 permanent jobs, Laudisi said — although she was careful not to promise jobs for residents of host communities. NYPA’s Request For Proposals “requests” local labor be used but does not require it, she said. The agency views the project as offering employment and specialty job training to recession-racked New York state residents, not just Western New Yorkers.
As construction and round-the-clock maintenance will be boat-based, Laudisi suggested there’s “a distinct possibility” boat captains, engineers and public relations specialists are among the skilled workers who’d be hired locally. Also, NYPA previously held a series of “Get Listed” events for businesses wanting more information about the industry’s needs; with some retooling, local manufacturers could get in the supply game, she said. In Europe, where commercial wind-farming has been in progress a few decades, turbine parts typically are manufactured near the farms, she added.
As for host community benefits for the municipalities affected by a GLOW farm — such as, perhaps, cheaper electricity for residents — Laudisi said that’s a possible topic for negotiation by the municipalities, the developer and NYPA. The agency will not require developers to enter host community agreements, but it will “encourage” them to make nice with affected communities, she said.
The GLOW proposal calls for use of underground cables, not new overhead lines, to transmit wind power from turbines to a substation on shore, according to Laudisi.
The cost-effectiveness of wind power compared with current sources is hard to predict, Laudisi said. The cost per kilowatt hour will depend on variables including distance between the farm and an onshore substation, as well as availability of Department of Energy subsidies, she said. Jones predicted a 24-cent increase in the cost of a kilowatt hour, while NYPA says current estimates range from 19 cents to 40 cents per wind-generated kwh.
Lawmakers leery of NYPA
To legislators’ questions about the impact higher-cost power would have on locals’ electric bills, Laudisi said NYPA’s view is the “average” impact would be negligible. If a kilowatt hour costs 3 cents here, 21 cents in Long Island and 26 cents in New York City, she said, the statewide average is 15 cents per kwh — making the 19-cent wind-generated kwh “not so bad.”
People are willing to pay a premium for green power, she asserted. The increased cost, spread among all NYPA customers, might be a dollar more per month per customer, she added.
Laudisi declined to say whether any of the five proposals being reviewed by NYPA now involves offshore Lake Ontario. Several times during her presentation, however, she seemed to drop hints that it won’t be preferred by developers because of physical issues. It’s a deeper lake than Erie, making turbines more costly to build. In Lake Ontario offshore Niagara County, the setback of a wind farm would be only 2 miles, not 3 to 4 as in Erie locations; Jones earlier noted the likelihood of turbine operation being audible onshore from 2 miles away but not 4. Also, Laudisi said, if there is not an existing substation between Youngstown and Wilson, the developer would have to build one.
Legislators came away from the talks with conflicting views. Some, like Tony Nemi, I-Lockport, and Vincent Sandonato, R-Niagara Falls, see GLOW’s potential to spark new local enterprise and say they’re not yet convinced the negatives would outweigh the benefits; Nemi said he’s thinking particularly about the host community benefits the county could wrest from the developer of a Lake Ontario project. “It’d be nice to make locally generated power work for us, instead of downstate, for a change,” he said.
Other lawmakers said Laudisi was too short on specifics about GLOW’s possible impacts on Niagara County. Her vagueness reminded them that Niagara ought to be leery of whatever NYPA’s selling.
“Based on the past relationships that this county has had with NYPA, I have a lot of reservations; a lot of information was not given that should be. ... It just doesn’t feel right,” said Dan Sklarski, D-Niagara. “More importantly, I think about the people who live (lakeside); they bought land and built out there for a reason, the view, and they’ve been willing to pay the price for it, in their home prices and their property taxes. Without question, the value of their homes would be affected (by a wind farm). They’re opposed and I agree with them.”
John Ceretto, R-Lewiston, said Laudisi’s emphasis on the statewide benefits of wind power raised a red flag for him. It’s another case of “downstate” exploiting Niagara, he suggested.
Paul Wojtaszek, R-North Tonawanda, said Laudisi’s words made him think Niagara County/Lake Ontario was added to the GLOW map of potential sites as an afterthought only. NYPA is “trying to appear as though they’re treating us equally, but as (Laudisi) got more into her presentation, she made it pretty clear (Lake Ontario) isn’t an optimum site for developers.”
Majority Leader Rick Updegrove, R-Lockport, said NYPA officials did not answer questions of impact well enough Tuesday but he’s giving the agency the benefit of the doubt, for now.
“There were a lot of good questions raised from the opposition; I’m not sure the NYPA representatives had time to answer them all (during a Legislature meeting). We will keep asking; and we will give the power authority the opportunity to answer,” he said. “I have some reservations, but I remain open-minded.”
Back-to-back presentations by Brad Jones, an opponent of corporate/industrial wind farming, and Sharon Laudisi, business development manager for New York Power Authority, seemed to raise more questions than they answered Tuesday about the effects of an offshore wind farm between Youngstown and Wilson.
Either presenter offered lots of opinion and speculation, but little hard data, to bolster their views of a wind farm helping or hurting the local economy.
Both billed as “experts” on the topic, Jones and Laudisi disagreed about virtually everything, from likely job creation to the likelihood of host community benefits for affected municipalities to the wisdom of wind power, generally.
Jones is supervisor of the Yates County town of Italy, which got sued by Ecogen LLC (now Pattern Energy) last year after it denied the company a permit to construct a 19-turbine wind farm. Since Jones took office this past January, his town board repealed zoning incentives for wind-farm developers and effectively outlawed wind farms throughout the town.
Laudisi speaks for NYPA, which last year put out a call for proposals to develop a 40- to 160-turbine wind farm in particular areas of either Lake Erie or Lake Ontario, the latter between Youngstown and Wilson. Five proposals are under review now, according to the agency.
The experts were invited to address the Legislature ahead of a special committee’s recommendation whether the body should be for or against a local, offshore wind farm. The Legislature previously went on the record encouraging the possibility, but this past summer, opposition erupted in the Youngstown area, especially.
Where supporters saw a wind farm generating jobs and economic development in the county, opponents see it hurting tourism and driving down lakeside property values. Legislators Clyde Burmaster of Ransomville, David Godfrey of Wilson and John Syracuse of Newfane now want the body to declare an offshore wind farm is not welcome here.
The special committee’s charge, basically, is to weigh the pros and cons of offshore wind-farming. To that end, it’s seeking answers to four broad questions: What are the effects of a wind farm on the economy, environment, electric customers and the lakeside communities that would be faced with the farm?
The cases for and against wind power
Based on his research of existing onshore wind projects, Brad Jones claims host
communities almost always lose more than they receive for tolerating the massive turbines. Local job creation and new business startup would be insignificant, he speculated. Turbine construction and maintenance would be boat-based and the employees “imported, because their skills are specialized,” he said; spin-off development seems unlikely, given that supply chains usually are proprietary and materials are imported.
There would be no host community “benefits” from an offshore developer — such as payments in lieu of property tax or power discounts — because Lake Ontario is not a taxing jurisdiction, Jones said.
Meanwhile, turbines would litter the lake horizon and, assuming a certain area around them is “protected,” would disrupt fishing and boating, he said. Studies of wind farms’’ effects on wildlife, including birds and bats, are “flawed” or nonexistent, he added.
Wind power is a politically correct — and economically disastrous — energy alternative, Jones claimed. Construction and maintenance are wildly expensive, less power is generated at a higher cost and it’s going forward only because of “extremely generous government incentives,” he said.
The more rational investment would be in upgrading existing power transmission infrastructure, which is known to be inefficient, and making a deal to land hydropower from Quebec, where hydro plants currently are shut down for a lack of demand, Jones said.
Laudisi spins a different story.
NYPA is pursuing wind power to help meet the state’s mandate for more power to come from renewable sources, she said; its approach is not to invest in only one type, such as hydropower, but “a little bit of everything.” Wind power will always be a secondary source, she added; it’s being developed to supplement, not replace, primary sources such as coal and gas. Canada and other states in the Great Lakes basin, including Ohio and Michigan, are already developing Great Lakes Offshore Wind , or GLOW, projects, meaning New York is behind.
Development of a GLOW farm in Western New York would generate about 500 construction jobs and 80 permanent jobs, Laudisi said — although she was careful not to promise jobs for residents of host communities. NYPA’s Request For Proposals “requests” local labor be used but does not require it, she said. The agency views the project as offering employment and specialty job training to recession-racked New York state residents, not just Western New Yorkers.
As construction and round-the-clock maintenance will be boat-based, Laudisi suggested there’s “a distinct possibility” boat captains, engineers and public relations specialists are among the skilled workers who’d be hired locally. Also, NYPA previously held a series of “Get Listed” events for businesses wanting more information about the industry’s needs; with some retooling, local manufacturers could get in the supply game, she said. In Europe, where commercial wind-farming has been in progress a few decades, turbine parts typically are manufactured near the farms, she added.
As for host community benefits for the municipalities affected by a GLOW farm — such as, perhaps, cheaper electricity for residents — Laudisi said that’s a possible topic for negotiation by the municipalities, the developer and NYPA. The agency will not require developers to enter host community agreements, but it will “encourage” them to make nice with affected communities, she said.
The GLOW proposal calls for use of underground cables, not new overhead lines, to transmit wind power from turbines to a substation on shore, according to Laudisi.
The cost-effectiveness of wind power compared with current sources is hard to predict, Laudisi said. The cost per kilowatt hour will depend on variables including distance between the farm and an onshore substation, as well as availability of Department of Energy subsidies, she said. Jones predicted a 24-cent increase in the cost of a kilowatt hour, while NYPA says current estimates range from 19 cents to 40 cents per wind-generated kwh.
Lawmakers leery of NYPA
To legislators’ questions about the impact higher-cost power would have on locals’ electric bills, Laudisi said NYPA’s view is the “average” impact would be negligible. If a kilowatt hour costs 3 cents here, 21 cents in Long Island and 26 cents in New York City, she said, the statewide average is 15 cents per kwh — making the 19-cent wind-generated kwh “not so bad.”
People are willing to pay a premium for green power, she asserted. The increased cost, spread among all NYPA customers, might be a dollar more per month per customer, she added.
Laudisi declined to say whether any of the five proposals being reviewed by NYPA now involves offshore Lake Ontario. Several times during her presentation, however, she seemed to drop hints that it won’t be preferred by developers because of physical issues. It’s a deeper lake than Erie, making turbines more costly to build. In Lake Ontario offshore Niagara County, the setback of a wind farm would be only 2 miles, not 3 to 4 as in Erie locations; Jones earlier noted the likelihood of turbine operation being audible onshore from 2 miles away but not 4. Also, Laudisi said, if there is not an existing substation between Youngstown and Wilson, the developer would have to build one.
Legislators came away from the talks with conflicting views. Some, like Tony Nemi, I-Lockport, and Vincent Sandonato, R-Niagara Falls, see GLOW’s potential to spark new local enterprise and say they’re not yet convinced the negatives would outweigh the benefits; Nemi said he’s thinking particularly about the host community benefits the county could wrest from the developer of a Lake Ontario project. “It’d be nice to make locally generated power work for us, instead of downstate, for a change,” he said.
Other lawmakers said Laudisi was too short on specifics about GLOW’s possible impacts on Niagara County. Her vagueness reminded them that Niagara ought to be leery of whatever NYPA’s selling.
“Based on the past relationships that this county has had with NYPA, I have a lot of reservations; a lot of information was not given that should be. ... It just doesn’t feel right,” said Dan Sklarski, D-Niagara. “More importantly, I think about the people who live (lakeside); they bought land and built out there for a reason, the view, and they’ve been willing to pay the price for it, in their home prices and their property taxes. Without question, the value of their homes would be affected (by a wind farm). They’re opposed and I agree with them.”
John Ceretto, R-Lewiston, said Laudisi’s emphasis on the statewide benefits of wind power raised a red flag for him. It’s another case of “downstate” exploiting Niagara, he suggested.
Paul Wojtaszek, R-North Tonawanda, said Laudisi’s words made him think Niagara County/Lake Ontario was added to the GLOW map of potential sites as an afterthought only. NYPA is “trying to appear as though they’re treating us equally, but as (Laudisi) got more into her presentation, she made it pretty clear (Lake Ontario) isn’t an optimum site for developers.”
Majority Leader Rick Updegrove, R-Lockport, said NYPA officials did not answer questions of impact well enough Tuesday but he’s giving the agency the benefit of the doubt, for now.
“There were a lot of good questions raised from the opposition; I’m not sure the NYPA representatives had time to answer them all (during a Legislature meeting). We will keep asking; and we will give the power authority the opportunity to answer,” he said. “I have some reservations, but I remain open-minded.”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)