EWN Special: "Winds of Change"

BUFFALO, NY (WKBW) - The New York Power Authority is looking to get into the wind energy business with a plan that would place hundreds of wind turbines on the waters of Lake Erie.

"Right now we've kind of rough estimated that we are looking for a project between, or projects between 150 and 500 megawatts. So there is a big spread," says Lou Paonessa from NYPA.

That could mean as many as 100 wind turbines rising from the waters of Lake Erie, set out a few miles from shore and standing up to 400 feet tall.

While the plan could take up to three or four years to come to pass, opponents are wasting no time voicing their opposition.

"This is being advanced by private interests under the guise of being green, but I don't think it's going to look very green to have a lake covered in windmills with flashing beacons at night," says John Reinhold, an advocate against the windmills.

Watch the video to see John Borsa's special report, "Winds of Change".

Bingham residents cancel meeting, discuss wind farm anyway

BINGHAM -- Officials canceled a public meeting about a wind development project Wednesday night, but that didn't stop some residents from airing their opinions in the parking lot.

Town officials are still wondering why 600 postcards they say were sent to the post office never made it to residents' mailboxes.

"Not a soul has gotten one," said Selectman Steven Steward. Rather than have just a handful of people attend, selectmen and wind farm development officials from First Wind agreed to postpone the meeting.

In an interview Thursday, Alec Jarvis, with First Wind, provided updated information about the project's potential distance from homes, its possible tax benefits and the company's perceived financial health.

Residents will learn more on Wednesday, Dec. 1, about the proposed project to construct about 10 turbines in Bingham, with a total of up to 50 stretching north through Brighton Plantation, Mayfield Township, Kingsbury Plantation and Blanchard Township.

The meeting on Dec. 1 will be from 4 p.m. to 8 p.m. at Quimby Middle School.

First Wind, which also operates Stetson Wind in Washington County, has been gathering wind data for about nine months from the ridge in northeast Bingham. While details are emerging, a turbine would likely top Johnson Mountain, Jarvis said.

The land for the proposed site is owned by Plum Creek and E.D. Bessey & Son, which buys and sells log wood. Both companies are willing to lease their property.

Jarvis said only one home is less than two miles from the turbines' proposed site.

When asked why the company is looking to the Bingham area, he said the strong wind currents were "first and foremost" in the decision. The region also appears to have suitable locations below 2,700 feet for turbines. Development at higher elevations would harm a more-sensitive environment.

The area is relatively isolated, he added, and already has a network of logging roads, which would limit the number of new roads that would be built.

But some residents remain wary of the proposed change.

Standing in the parking lot outside the blackened windows of the Quimby Middle School gym on Wednesday night, six residents said the potential project would hurt their small community.

"If we start putting windmills on all our hills, it will ruin the quality of what we have. This valley is all we have left," said Evelyn Beane, of Bingham.

She is not opposed to wind power, she said, but turbines should be located off the coast, where wind is strong and the energy produced benefits Maine residents.

Margy Flynn, of Bingham described the proposed project as a "temporary fix" that would not sustain long-term jobs or economic benefits.

First Wind officials have said the project could produce six to 12 long-term, full-time jobs.

The project would essentially hand taxpayer money to the Boston-based company, said Roderick Belanger, of Moscow, referring to federal stimulus funds granted to the company.

"I think it's just a waste of taxpayer money," he said. "There's no benefit to the state of Maine or this community when it's all said and done."

The U.S. government has granted hundreds of millions of dollars to First Wind, according to an Oct. 25 article in Reuters. In July, the company received a $117 million loan guarantee from the Department of Energy. Since Sept. 2009, it has received $254 million in grants from the U.S. Treasury.

The company's financial future may depend on continued government support, according to a Nov. 14 article in the Maine Sunday Telegram. One apparent hitch in the company's financial future happened in October when it failed to go public and sell stock to investors.

While opponents at the time said it was an example of the company's vulnerability, Jarvis said the company's health is not in jeopardy.

"It would have been an opportunity for an additional source of funding," he said. "It has not affected our development efforts in Bingham."

First Wind is mostly owned by private equity firm Madison Dearborn and hedge fund operator D.E. Shaw and has never been profitable, according to Reuters.

Jarvis said he encourages people to attend all informational meetings and take tours of the company's facilities. He emphasized the benefit of new legislation that mandates payment of $4,000 per turbine to go toward a host community benefit agreement.

The town may also form a tax-increment financing district to capture shifts in property value and then spend the money on economic development projects, he said. If the TIF district is not formed, he agreed taxes would most likely go down, but the resulting increased valuation would cause loss of education subsidy, he said.

In the meantime, the mailing misstep will remain a mystery. First Wind sent the notices from Portland to the town's post office on Nov. 4, to then be given to residents, Jarvis said. The company paid for the postage for the notices, which provided the date and time of Wednesday's meeting.

Cathy Atkins, the town's postmaster, said she doesn't remember ever receiving the postcards. While she's been on vacation recently, "I've had two people working for me, and they're very reliable," she said.

Cape Vincent residents demand Edsall's ouster

CAPE VINCENT — Several town residents frustrated with Planning Board Chairman Richard J. Edsall demanded his resignation at a well-attended Town Council meeting Thursday night.

Hester M. Chase, founder of the St. Lawrence River Public Power Association and one of the nearly 200 people who attended the meeting at the Cape Vincent Recreation Park, said Mr. Edsall was not fit to represent the Planning Board because, among other reasons, he has financial contracts with BP Alternative Energy.

Supervisor Urban C. Hirschey and Councilman Brooks J. Bragdon tried to pass a motion to restrict Mr. Edsall from voting on wind issues that come before the Planning Board, but the other three council members voted against it.

Many others at the meeting agreed with Ms. Chase.

Read entire article

Petition for Public Hearing - Saddleback Ridge Wind project-Maine

Please click on the following link to sign a petition calling for the DEP to hold a public hearing on noise and scenic impacts for the Saddleback Ridge Wind project. The application was accepted for processing and the deadline for requesting a public hearing is December 6. This is the first application where interested parties have had the ability to submit credible, conflicting technical evidence within the 20 day period required by DEP rules. Rufus Brown has been engaged to draft the necessary documentation, drawing from his experience in the Record Hill Wind, Oakfield, and Spruce Mountain applications. The purpose of the petition is to demonstrate to DEP that there is widespread support for a hearing.
http://www.gopetition.com/petition/40741.html

“Wind Turbine Syndrome and the Brain” (Pierpont)

The following is the text of Pierpont’s keynote address before the “First International Symposium on the Global Wind Industry and Adverse Health Effects: Loss of Social Justice?” in Picton, Ontario, Canada, October 30, 2010. It is followed by a discussion of several other relevant talks at the symposium by Drs. Alec Salt, Michael Nissenbaum, Christopher Hanning, and Mr. Richard James.

(Click to read the entire article)

First Wind Marks the Start of Construction on Milford II Project

First Wind, an independent U.S.-based wind energy company, held a ceremony today to commemorate the start of construction of the 102 MW expansion of the company's Utah-based Milford Wind project. As part of the ceremony, local and community leaders joined First Wind at the project site in Milford, Utah to recognize the economic and environmental benefits of the project along with the significance of recent project milestones that include a long-term power purchase agreement (PPA) and construction financing, both of which were critical in spurring the current construction activity.

Milford Mayor Bryan Sherwood and Millard County Commission Chair Daron Smith joined with First Wind officials and others in signing their names to a turbine blade that will be erected on the wind project.

The Milford Wind Phase II Project will have the capacity to generate up to 102 MW of clean energy upon its completion, enough to power about 22,000 homes. Located in Millard and Beaver County, Utah, the construction associated with the installation of 68 additional 1.5 MW GE turbines for the second phase of the project began in July, with foundations being poured in October.

The construction will be a source of revenue and new jobs to the surrounding area. For example, the 204 MW Milford I project, which went online in November 2009, supported more than 300 development and construction jobs, and First Wind directly spent about $30 million with Utah-based businesses developing and building the first phase of the project and another $50 million in statewide spending on items such as wages, taxes and more.

"We are very pleased to accelerate our construction activities for the second phase of the Milford Wind project," said David Hastings, Vice President of Western Development for First Wind. "The expansion and continued success of Milford Wind is a testament to the project and the commitment of our stakeholders, the State of Utah, our host counties of Beaver and Millard, our PPA partners - SCPPA, LADWP and Glendale, our landowner group including the federal Bureau of Land Management, our contractor and subcontractors, and of course our lenders."

RMT, which led the construction for the Milford I project and is currently building First Wind's Kahuku project in Oahu, Hawaii and the Sheffield Wind project in Vermont, is again leading construction activities for the Milford II project.

"We are pleased to continue our partnership with First Wind to expand the Milford Wind project," said Frank Greb, Vice President and General Manager for RMT. "As with the first phase of the project, RMT will hire local workers and subcontractors whenever possible to ensure that the construction of this expansion maximizes the economic benefits for the surrounding community and Utah."

Power Purchase Agreement with SCPPA

Completed on October 18, 2010, the long-term power purchase agreement (PPA) to supply the cities of Los Angeles and Glendale with renewable energy represented a significant milestone for the Milford II project. Once completed, the second phase of the Milford Wind project will add to the already significant renewable energy that is being produced and delivered to Los Angeles, Burbank and Pasadena through the first phase of the project. The 102 MW expansion will utilize the 88-mile generator lead that was built from the Milford Wind project to the Intermountain Power Plant in Delta, which then connects the site to the electrical grid.

"This PPA for Milford II is significant as it builds on the successful long-term PPA we signed in 2007 for Milford I, which at its time was a landmark for a publicly owned utility," said Bill D. Carnahan, Executive Director of the Southern California Public Power Authority (SCPPA). "As with the Milford I PPA, SCPPA will contract with First Wind for the long-term agreement, prepay for the energy, and sign power sales agreements with the participants to sell them the output of the project to repay SCPPA's costs including the ongoing operating expenses."

Project Financing

In addition to the PPA, First Wind recently secured financing for the project. RBS Securities Inc. was lead arranger and bookrunner for this loan. The following banks acted as joint lead arrangers for the financing: Banco Espirito Santo S.A. New York Branch, Santander Investment Securities Inc., CoBank, ACB, and SG Americas Securities, LLC.

"The commitment from these banks is evidence of both the strength of this project and the promise of the wind industry," said Steve Schauer, Senior Vice President of Finance for First Wind. "We sincerely appreciate their commitment to both the Milford I and now the Milford II projects and to renewable energy. We look forward to building our relationship with each of them."

"RBS is very pleased to have played a leading role in First Wind's financing of the Milford II project," said Richard Randall, RBS Managing Director. "We applaud First Wind's dedication and the Joint Lead Arrangers' commitment in successfully closing this financing. The financing of the Milford II project, following the success of the first Milford project last year demonstrates the tremendous vision of the Milford Wind project and First Wind to bring low cost renewable power to southern California."

When completed, the combined phases of the Milford Wind project will have the capacity to generate enough to power the equivalent of more than 65,000 homes annually. With an aggregate of 306 MW of clean, wind energy between the two projects, the power produced by Milford Wind will be the equivalent of decreasing carbon dioxide emissions by over 310,000 tons annually, according to the Environmental Protection Agency's (U.S. EPA) Emissions and Generation Resource Integrated Database (E-GRID).

Another View: Wind protesters really prophets who warn of dire peril ahead

In response to the editorial "Anti-wind protests undercut their own case" (Nov. 10): There will come a time when perception becomes reality.

What once held promise as a cure for harmful emissions as an energy source that could reduce our dependency on foreign countries and fossil fuels will be recognized as a bad trade.

Wind energy is a low-value, high-cost, unreliable non-solution to our energy needs. Its massive environmental footprint is the antithesis of "tread lightly and leave a small footprint" Earth-friendliness.

The three dozen protesters who stood out in the biting rain and who were arrested will in time be vindicated in the eyes of the editors and others in the aftermath and awakening of the greatest fraud ever perpetrated on the public and the environment.

This is, was and will always be about the money. Multinationals like G.E., Iberdrola, ShellWind, BP Wind, UPC Wind, First Wind, Second Wind, Italian Vento Power Corporation IVPC and others are not concerned about environmental or public benefits.

They are content to destroy our natural resources by policies that force us to pay for their environmental destruction and blight.

As stimulus funding has failed to produce industry-claimed green jobs, it will vanish. Wind developers will be seen as carpetbaggers, leaving behind a graveyard wake of 440-foot steel towers with fiberglass, concrete and transmission fluids.

Wind turbine oils and toxic neodymium will contaminate our aquifers. Our soil will be littered by 400-foot steel and fiberglass failing wind turbines, each with 8,000 parts, in place of scenic splendor that once defined the region.

The only thing standing between predatory wind multinationals and the integrity of the environment of Maine are the patriots willing to be arrested to defend our most precious assets, rights and the public trust.

They may be ridiculed by some now, but they have my enduring gratitude for their selflessness, wisdom, vision, patriotism and actions taken to defend public and environmental interests.

First, do no harm. Conservation measures should be exhausted before we permit the shift of our wealth in resource and monetary terms to multinationals in exchange for unreliable, cost-prohibitive, redundant, habitat-and-scenic-vista-damaging, bird-and-bat-killing, home-and-property-devaluating, quiet-enjoyment-destroying and community-dividing wind energy.

Ecogen group unwilling to find middle ground

Prattsburgh, NY — Wind developer Ecogen apparently sees no compromise in its ongoing lawsuit with the town of Prattsburgh.

In a written response to state Supreme Court Justice John J. Ark, Ecogen’s attorney Robert W. Burgdorf said the town’s offer of remote location for the turbines would “effectively kill” the project in Prattsburgh.

Prattsburgh officials counter the new location was included in Ecogen’s original plan and would solve a number of problems, including noise issues.

“They’re not going to bother anybody down there,” said town Councilman Chuck Shick.
The debate was launched after Ark recommended the battling parties work out a solution, in order to avoid costly future litigation.

Ecogen filed the lawsuit last January against the current Prattsburgh town board, claiming a resolution passed 3-2 in December by the former town board allows the developer to go ahead immediately with plans to put up 16 turbines.

The current town board rescinded the December resolution 4-1 at the beginning of the year, saying it was illegal and violated home rule laws.

Ecogen still sees the earlier resolution as valid, Burgdorf wrote Ark on Oct. 13.
But Ark wants a closer look at why the settlement was approved so quickly – a good sign, Shick said.

The December settlement was drawn up by then-town attorney John Leyden, with the support of former town Supervisor Harold McConnell.

The former board’s action came close on the heels of a lawsuit filed by Ecogen days after pro-wind board members McConnell and Sharon Quigley were soundly defeated in the November general election.

“(Ark) wants to hear why some decisions were made,” Shick said. “He wants John and Harold to explain their actions, under oath. I’d like to know that, myself.”

Shick and Councilman Steve Kula voted against the December agreement, and voted to rescind it in January as members of the new board.

Prattsburgh officials say Ecogen can put turbines in a remote area in the town originally included in the developer’s site plan. The original plan called for 100 turbines to be set up in town, with 34 potential locations in Prattsburgh’s southwestern corner, Shick said.

Burgdorf dismissed Prattsburgh’s proposal, saying the change would require years of environmental studies, new permits and new land control efforts.

“(It) would be an insurmountable task,” Burgdorf wrote to Ark.

However, Ark’s effort to get both sides to agree did lead to the first informal discussion this year between the town and Ecogen’s parent company, Pattern Energy.

New town Supervisor Al Wordingham declined to give specifics about the discussion, which occurred two weeks ago, but said it was “very positive.”

The wind farm project has been the source of debate in the town, stretching back to 2002 when the developer announced plans to put turbines in Prattsburgh.

Ecogen also planned to build 17 turbines in the neighboring town of Italy, in Yates County. Ecogen also is suing Italy, which turned down the project a year ago.

The projects were touted in the beginning by some Prattsburgh board members and many residents as a way to provide renewable energy, increase town revenues and provide income for landowners.

Other residents have strenuously opposed the projects on the grounds the turbines could irreparably harm people in the area, the environment, and the landscape.

Will turbines rise on Rollins Mountain?

LINCOLN - The gravel roads are in, climbing Rollins Mountain and the adjacent ridgelines that rise along the surrounding towns here in northeastern Penobscot County. They lead to concrete pads, crowned with beefy bolts anchored to bedrock. If the weather cooperates and work stays on schedule, a giant crane will begin erecting 389-foot-high steel towers on the pads next month.

By midsummer, 40 turbines stored in a neighboring town will be spinning above the forested landscape. A tour of the site last week suggests that Rollins appears on target to become Maine's next wind farm, helping the state meet its renewable energy goals and the region reduce its dependence on natural gas-fired electricity.

But opponents of industrial-scale wind power have a different perspective.

They see the developer -- Boston-based First Wind Holdings LLC -- in financial trouble and struggling to secure the money to complete the $130 million venture. They also see a new Congress that may balk at the subsidies that help support wind power, and a new state government that may be less friendly to wind energy development.

On the ground, Rollins seems like a done deal. But out of view, Maine's anti-wind power movement is trying to exploit shifting financial and political conditions to hobble First Wind, the state's most prominent wind developer -- and, by extension, other proposed projects.

This strategy helps explain why Friends of Lincoln Lakes and foes of wind power from around Maine last week invited statewide media to a well-choreographed demonstration here, during which five people were arrested and led to police cars.

At first glance, Rollins seems an unlikely rallying point. The project is not located in Maine's high, scenic mountains. Tote roads bisect low hills that have been harvested for timber. The Walmart outside town certifies Lincoln's status as a service center for this corner of the county. The pungent plume from Lincoln Paper and Tissue, the largest employer, says Lincoln is at ease with industry.

But hugging the shores of Mattanawcook Lake, this town also is a mecca for four-season recreation. It calls itself "the land of 14 lakes," and some residents who value the area's rural beauty and solitude don't want to see, or hear, the big turbines turning on the ridges. They've been joined by a vocal coalition of citizen groups that say evolving evidence shows the impact of wind farms on the landscape and nearby residents outweighs the benefits.

The next salvo in this ongoing war will be less visual: Opponents say they're preparing a legal challenge of Rollins' environmental permit, based on their contention that First Wind failed to prove it has the financial capacity to complete the project. The company so far has survived these assaults. Opponents have lost past appeals, including a test of the state's wind-siting law heard earlier this year by the Maine Supreme Judicial Court.

First Wind said it chose this area not only for the wind resource, but also because it's away from sensitive environmental areas. The road clearing and rock blasting being publicized by opponents are being done within permit standards, the company said, and adjacent forestland will be restored once the work is complete.

The project also is creating more than 200 construction jobs, and a burst of spending that's welcome in a community with above-average unemployment.

Regarding its financial capacity, First Wind said last week it has "a clear path" for financing and expects to make an announcement by year's end that it has secured third-party loans.

Opponents are skeptical. They were emboldened last month, after First Wind failed in its long-planned bid to go public and sell stock to investors. Documents filed in connection with the aborted sale show that its projects depend heavily on a federal stimulus program that took effect in 2009.

That program offers a cash grant for up to 30 percent of a project's cost in lieu of an investment tax credit. First Wind received $254 million in grants for four projects, including the nearby Stetson II wind farm. In its public offering filing, First Wind states that if the incentives are cut or eliminated, or if government reduces its support for wind, it would hurt the company's ability to get financing.

New projects must be under way in 2010 to qualify for the grants. That's one reason, opponents say, First Wind needed to break ground for Rollins this fall.

With the program set to expire, the wind industry is lobbying Congress to extend the incentives during the current lame duck session. They face a less-certain future next year in the new, Republican-controlled House.

Reacting to this scenario, First Wind said last week that although the program is important, most project financing comes from private capital markets and investors. It also expects a prior subsidy to remain in effect until 2012.

"If the program expires at the end of the year, we will adjust our planning and financing to reflect the program that's in place," said John Lamontagne, the company's spokesman.

Opponents, however, say this uncertainty raises questions about First Wind's financial capacity.

Lynne Williams, a lawyer for Friends of Lincoln Lakes, is charging that Maine's Department of Environmental Protection was lax in granting First Wind a permit to build Rollins, because the company failed to demonstrate that it had the money to finish the job.

Williams points to a letter in the Rollins application from Michael Alvarez, First Wind's president. The letter summarizes First Wind's intent to fund the $130 million project with both company financing and money from unrelated, third parties, such as banks. This is a common arrangement in wind projects.

The letter also notes that the turbines, valued at $80 million and acquired through a loan to be paid at the close of third-party financing, are stored in Chester. It says First Wind will make the balance of construction costs -- $50 million -- available prior to closing on third-party financing. It attaches a consolidated financial statement as evidence.

"As indicated in those financials, First Wind has liquid financial assets in excess of the $50 million required to complete construction," Alvarez wrote.

But that cash may not be available today, according to Lawrence Dwight, a financial planner and wind power critic in Wilton. Dwight reviewed First Wind's financial statement as of Sept. 30.

The statement listed assets of $140 million and liabilities of $205 million, with some large loans due next year. Cash on hand was roughly $31 million, Dwight found. The challenge for First Wind, Dwight said, will be to nail down financing in the coming months to complete Rollins.

Rollins has an important asset that makes it attractive to lenders -- a long-term power contract. Last year, the Public Utilities Commission directed Central Maine Power Co. and Bangor Hydro-Electric to buy power from the 60-megawatt project for 20 years.

Meanwhile, First Wind says it's continuing to move ahead with plans to develop other projects, including Bower's Mountain in eastern Maine, Oakfield in Aroostook County and sites in Rumford and Bingham.

That awareness has foes focused on the state's recent wind-siting law, under which Rollins received its permits. Opponents will try to convince the new Republican-controlled Legislature to revisit the law, which streamlines the review process in specific locations. They also plan to petition the DEP to amend existing noise regulations, which critics say allow turbines too close to homes.

Wind opponents also plan to take their case to Gov.-elect Paul LePage. Outgoing Gov. John Baldacci is a strong supporter of wind energy. contrast, LePage has questioned the state's commitment to wind power. He has expressed more interest in energy projects that compete on price.

First Wind has its own spin on prices, and will outline the benefits of stable long-term rates. And it will pick up LePage's campaign theme of creating jobs and economic growth, citing the hundreds of millions of dollars the industry has spent in Maine so far.

"We are excited to work with his administration and continue our investment in Maine," Lamontagne said.

Real Wind Info for Me

Consultant Wants Views On Wind Law

MORRISTOWN - When the Morristown Wind Committee presented the town board with its proposed wind energy facilities law on May 11, the document lacked noise standards and setback distances.

After members of the committee told the board they felt unqualified to recommend specific limits on noise and setbacks, the wind ordinance was passed along to LaBella Associates, P.C. - a consulting firm hired by the town to assist with the law's development.

Nearly six months later, LaBella has returned the draft law to Morristown with suggestions for improvement - none of which establish noise standards or setback distances.

"Before suggestions for the completion of this section can be offered, further discussion with the committee or with the board will be necessary to understand the town's intent," wrote Mark W. Tayrien, AICP, the director of LaBella's planning division.

Read the entire article

First Wind SEC Filing for Confidential Treatment

UNITED STATES
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
November 4, 2010
ORDER GRANTING CONFIDENTIAL TREATMENT
UNDER THE SECURITIES ACT OF 1933
First Wind Holdings Inc.
File No. 333-152671 - CF#24849
_____________________

First Wind Holdings Inc. submitted an application under Rule 406 requesting confidential treatment for information it excluded from the Exhibits to a Form S-1 registration statement filed on July 31, 2008, as amended.
Based on representations by First Wind Holdings Inc. that this information qualifies as confidential commercial or financial information under the Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. 552(b)(4), the Division of Corporation Finance has determined not to publicly disclose it. Accordingly, excluded information from the following exhibit(s) will not be released to the public for the time period(s) specified:
Exhibit 10.1 through December 1, 2015 Exhibit 10.2 through December 1, 2015 Exhibit 10.3 through December 1, 2015
Exhibit 10.4 through December 1, 2015 Exhibit 10.7 through January 1, 2012 Exhibit 10.10 through July 1, 2013
Exhibit 10.11 through July 1, 2013 Exhibit 10.12 through July 1, 2013 Exhibit 10.13 through July 1, 2013
Exhibit 10.14 through July 1, 2013 Exhibit 10.17 through January 17, 2018
Exhibit 10.28 through October 15, 2020
Exhibit 10.29 through October 15, 2020 Exhibit 10.30 through October 15, 2020
For the Commission, by the Division of Corporation Finance, pursuant to delegated authority:
Brigitte Lippmann
Special Counsel

An ebb tide for wind-farm developers

The political environment in Cape Vincent spirals downward toward complete chaos, as evinced by the most recent meeting of the Planning Board. A meeting whose agenda was dedicated to subdivision proposals was largely conscripted by the seemingly endless debate over wind-power development, and the bitter battle impinged on the lives and rights of people who were before the Planning Board with legitimate, nonwind-related business.

A similar but less dramatic situation exists in Hammond, and in Lyme, and has potential to erupt to some degree in Henderson. All of this is over proposals to erect wind farms, mostly by investors far from the north country. If everyone took a deep breath and looked toward the horizon and away from their own back yard for a moment, they might see something that makes their battling meaningless.

There are significant signs that a combination of the free-market system, a new Congress and a new state administration might put an end to the fight over wind farms because the policies and economic conditions that have allowed them to grow are all but gone.

The economic reality of wind-farm development has always relied on two things: government subsidies in some form, and a growing cost of electricity. In the middle of this decade, both federal and state governments were pushing financial aid to alternative energy projects, and because its technology is largely developed, wind power was a darling of the renewable energy crowd. Significant tax abatements promoted wind-power developments, direct subsidies made them even more attractive, and rising costs of natural gas (and pressure to retire coal-fired power plants) made higher energy costs more acceptable.

Read the entire item

Binsley Quietly Resigns from Cape Vincent Town Planning Board

CAPE VINCENT, N.Y. — After a stormy Cape Vincent town Planning Board meeting Wednesday, filled with tensions between the board’s chairman and a town citizen, board member Andrew R. Binsley privately resigned his post.

“Here’s my resignation,” Binsley told town Supervisor Urban C. Hirschey, handing him a piece of paper after the meeting. “This is my last meeting.”

As Planning Board Chairman Richard J. Edsall began the meeting by asking for members’ approval of the board’s Oct. 13 minutes, Hester M. Chase, 4866 Bedford Corners Rd., stood up to raise concerns about minutes from an Oct. 27 special meeting, which were not addressed for approval Wednesday.

“According to the by-laws of this Planning Board, the public at this time has a right to make a comment, oral or written,” Chase said.

The “Planning Board By-Laws,” which Chase was apparently referring to, Section 3, Article III, reads, “Commentary from the general public shall be received prior to the conduct of the regular business agenda. Comments may be presented orally or in writing. Each speaker shall state his or her name and address and shall be limited to a maximum of five (5) minutes.”

Edsall replied, “Will you sit down please?”

“No, I will not,” she said. “This is my right. It is every person in this room’s right.”

She continued, “And we’re gonna start getting our rights straight, Mr. Edsall. You guys are lawless.”

With Chase still attempting to speak, the board approved the Oct. 13 minutes with a motion made by board member George A. Mingle and seconded by Binsley.

In its next three orders of business, the Planning Board held public hearings before giving the OK for a property owners to make subdivisions and consolidations for lots.

“For this item only, would anyone in the public like to speak,” Edsall asked of the first land consolidation.

A man standing in the crowd of nearly 30 said, “This board is corrupt, I don’t think they should be making any decisions on any process going on.”

The chairman replied, “The comments are not relevant to that subdivision.”

Criticism from anti-wind proponents has come heavily during recent town Planning Board meetings since the state attorney general’s office launched an investigation in to some board members’ ethics regarding wind farm development in August.

During the Planning Board’s Oct. 27 meeting, John L. Byrne, chairman of the Wind Power Ethics Group (WPEG), announced his group will sue the board on grounds that it breached the Environmental Quality Review Act for the proposed St. Lawrence Wind Farm project.

“We believe what’s going to happen at the meeting here this month, they’re going to ask for more time to submit a more complete record in December,” Byrne said of the town.

Edsall, however, said the earliest discussions on wind power development would not be until February 2011.

Binsley did not return a call Wednesday night for comment.

Litchfield supervisor resigns amid wind project criticism

LITCHFIELD — For months, Litchfield town Supervisor Wayne Casler has been berated for what some have called a conflict of interest between his elected position and his work for a paving company that could benefit if a proposed wind farm comes to town.

Now, Casler has said he’s had enough.

After more than two decades in office, he and his wife, Karen Casler, the town’s appointed bookkeeper, will resign their positions at the end of the month, he announced at a Town Board meeting Tuesday.

Wayne and Karen Casler did not return calls Wednesday. Town Board members, however, said the supervisor cited constant criticism and attacks from those combating a proposed wind farm as his reason for stepping down.

“I’m still quite shocked,” Town Board member Jim Entwistle said. “I thought he had a conflict of interest with the wind proposal, and I stated that. But it’s just disappointing that he has to resign over one issue after 23 years of service.”

Resident Pat Christensen, who recently organized the citizens group Litchfield United, has questioned Wayne Casler’s role at the paving company.

“Just because he’s resigned his position does not mean all is forgiven,” Christensen said. “I’m waiting for the hammer to come down. If this isn’t an admission of guilt, I don’t know what is.”

The firestorm aimed at Wayne Casler ignited last year after Albany-based NorthWind and Power said it wanted to build an eight-to-12 turbine wind farm on Dry Hill.

Wayne Casler, whose term as supervisor would have expired in 2011, also is the regional controller for Barrett Paving Materials, a company that owns more than 100 acres of land on Dry Hill. NorthWind has said it is not interested in using Barrett’s land for the project, but the company could be selected to provide materials if it’s approved.

Meanwhile, the town, which does not have laws governing wind farms, then set out to create regulations – a tense process that has dragged on for months and made loud outbursts at town meetings a regular occurrence.

The O-D has reported that NorthWind wrote a letter to Wayne Casler in January suggesting the town adopt height regulations that would benefit its own project. Shortly after, the board was discussing regulations the company suggested. The town also recently hired another Barrett Paving employee as a private consultant on wind noise at Casler’s suggestion.

And at an October board meeting, Casler acknowledged his employment at Barrett could be a conflict of interest. Still, he said, he would continue to work on a proposed wind farm law and only recuse himself from discussions if a specific proposal came before the Town Board. NorthWind has yet to submit a formal proposal.

Sheila Salvatore, who heads Save Sauquoit Valley Views, a citizens group that opposes the project, said the Caslers’ resignations are another example of the polarizing affects wind projects have on small towns.

“The wind industry has come into town and encouraged division with the promise of money,” Salvatore said. “I feel Mr. Casler is just the latest victim. The sooner we rid our area of this destructive force, the better.”

Resident Ken Kotary said he’s known Wayne Casler his entire life and was upset to hear he’s stepping down.

“He’s been a tremendous asset to the town, and he’s taken the blunt of this criticism,” Kotary said. “I told him after the meeting last night, ‘You don’t deserve the abuse you’ve been getting.”

The Town Board has not yet decided how to fill the positions vacated by the Caslers. The board can leave the supervisor’s position vacant or can appoint someone to fill out the remainder of the term, which expires in 2011.

“I’m not sure which way we’re going to go,” board member Kate Entwistle said. “I’m not sure anyone really wants to be put in this position because of the turmoil.”