The Erie County Legislature on Thursday opposed the placement of power-generating windmills in Lake Erie—a move that lawmakers hope dissuades the New York Power Authority from erecting a wind farm off the county’s shoreline.
Erie became at least the seventh of nine New York counties fronting Lake Erie or Lake Ontario to oppose the placement of offshore windmills. Nearby, the Chautauqua County Legislature stated its opposition in the summer of 2010. A majority of Niagara County lawmakers this year agreed to oppose a wind farm in Lake Ontario.
The Power Authority has said it will take such statements into account. But a spokeswoman responded to the Erie County Legislature’s action by saying that while the authority respects the legislators’ views, it will continue gathering public comment for its “Great Lakes Offshore Wind Project” without ruling out locations.
“The New York Power Authority is keeping its options open concerning the project location in order to continue listening to the greatest amount of public input possible,” spokeswoman Connie Cullen said, “and to give the many different facets of the general public an opportunity to be heard.”
In a statement approved 13-2, legislators said they feared a wind farm could dislodge toxins in the lake bed, affect shipping lanes, threaten wildlife with electrical shorts and harm sport fishing — all threats that have yet to be studied for the Great Lakes project.
“The installation of a wind farm would create a change in scenery, with a negative effect on the beauty of Lake Erie, which is admired by visitors to Western New York and residents alike,” the statement said before concluding, “the Erie County Legislature opposes the exploitation of Lake Erie as a site for a wind farm.”
An advocate for renewable forms of energy lamented the Legislature’s decision, especially as workers in Japan struggle to contain a nuclear reactor stricken during the massive earthquake there last week.
“We are extremely disappointed that Erie County would choose to take clean, safe, renewable energy options off the table,” said Brian Smith, Western New York program director for the Citizens Campaign for the Environment. “In particular, as we watch the horror unravel in Japan, we should be embracing the potential for clean energy, not fearing it.
“There are issues that we need to take a serious look at,” he continued. “But that is why we have a rigorous environmental review process to address these issues. We think that a resolution in opposition at this point is very premature.”
The project must face environmental reviews by the state Department of Environmental Conservation and the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers before construction could begin, perhaps in 2014, the Power Authority has stated.
The agency intends to select a company to place up to 166 windmills in Lake Erie and/or Lake Ontario, to let the more-constant offshore gales generate electricity. The authority would buy the electricity under a multiyear agreement, guaranteeing a revenue stream for a developer willing to spend an estimated $1 billion. The cluster, or clusters, of windmills would occupy a tiny percentage of either lake’s massive expanse, the authority says.
The plan has advocates and critics.
“As I studied wind energy and the proposal, I found there is absolutely no net benefits for Erie County from the GLOW Project,” Thomas Marks of Derby, executive director of a group called Great Lakes Wind Truth, said in a letter to the Legislature last month.
“This wind folly only benefits big foreign companies,” he wrote. “It does nothing for the little guy. There are no long-term jobs.”
The primary sponsor of the Legislature's statment was Legislator Lynne M. Dixon, an Independent from Hamburg who votes with the Republican bloc. Lawmakers considered her resolution and a similar measure by Legislator Daniel M. Kozub, a Democrat also from Hamburg.
Kozub's version said the Legislature opposes an off-shore wind farm -- but pending further study, and it said the Legislature supports windmills on land as a source of clean energy.
With a procedural feint, Dixon's statement won the day. Legislator Thomas A. Loughran, D-Amherst, suggested both remain in a committee to be merged. The Republicans went along in sending away Kozub's resolution but then placed Dixon's up for a vote with help from Chairwoman Barbara Miller-Williams, D-Buffalo, and some Democrats who often vote with her.
Loughran voted against the Dixon measure to protest being misled. Majority Leader Maria R. Whyte, D-Buffalo, said she voted against the Dixon statement because she wants more study on the project before she takes a position.
SOURCE
Friday, March 18, 2011
NYPA Reviewing Proposals on Wind Project
Williamson, N.Y. - The New York Power Authority is reviewing five proposals for its Great Lakes Offshore Wind Project (GLOW), according to a spokesperson.
In April 2009, NYPA introduced the plan to the public. GLOW would place dozens of wind turbines in Lake Erie and/or Lake Ontario to help produce a renewable source of energy. Many lakeside residents have raised concerns over the look of turbines and their impact on the environment, among other issues.
NYPA said it has and will continue to gather public input, but plans to proceed. Towns such as Webster, Greece and Irondequoit have passed resolutions against GLOW, but it is unclear what impact they will have.
Wayne County has also passed a resolution to thwart this project, but Williamson's town supervisor says he's concerned whether it will hold up the project.
NYPA says it will continue to review public input and is expecting to hold further public meetings on the topic.
In April 2009, NYPA introduced the plan to the public. GLOW would place dozens of wind turbines in Lake Erie and/or Lake Ontario to help produce a renewable source of energy. Many lakeside residents have raised concerns over the look of turbines and their impact on the environment, among other issues.
NYPA said it has and will continue to gather public input, but plans to proceed. Towns such as Webster, Greece and Irondequoit have passed resolutions against GLOW, but it is unclear what impact they will have.
Wayne County has also passed a resolution to thwart this project, but Williamson's town supervisor says he's concerned whether it will hold up the project.
NYPA says it will continue to review public input and is expecting to hold further public meetings on the topic.
Poor growth takes shine off renewables
Just over three years ago, Iberdrola, the Spanish utility, spun off 20 per cent of its renewable energy subsidiary, the world’s largest wind farm operator. Outside investors who bought in paid €5.30 a share. Last week, after seeing the shares consistently trade below their offer price, the Spanish company said it would buy back the shares. It will pay €3 a share.
“This is a great deal for Iberdrola shareholders, but not for shareholders [in Iberdrola Renovables],” says Alberto Gandolfi, an analyst at UBS. “Iberdrola sold at the top, bought the company back later with a more established asset base and less execution risk.”
Investors will receive both cash and shares in the more liquid Iberdrola, thereby gaining exposure to its other operations, as well as the renewables business. Nevertheless, those who backed the offer are still being offered a low value exit.
The decision by the Spanish utility comes after a sector-wide underperformance. The industry has been buffeted by factors including the financial crisis, regulatory uncertainty and a sharp drop in demand for power. Shares in Iberdrola Renovables’ peers, Portugal’s EDP Renováveis, and France’s EDF Energies Nouvelles have all fallen below their flotation prices.
The poor performance of the sector was also one of the main reasons why Enel, the Italian utility, had to reduce the flotation price of its subsidiary, Enel Green Power, last autumn. And last month EDP Renováveis reported that full-year net profits had dropped by almost a third as financing costs for its debt rose.
Read the entire article
“This is a great deal for Iberdrola shareholders, but not for shareholders [in Iberdrola Renovables],” says Alberto Gandolfi, an analyst at UBS. “Iberdrola sold at the top, bought the company back later with a more established asset base and less execution risk.”
Investors will receive both cash and shares in the more liquid Iberdrola, thereby gaining exposure to its other operations, as well as the renewables business. Nevertheless, those who backed the offer are still being offered a low value exit.
The decision by the Spanish utility comes after a sector-wide underperformance. The industry has been buffeted by factors including the financial crisis, regulatory uncertainty and a sharp drop in demand for power. Shares in Iberdrola Renovables’ peers, Portugal’s EDP Renováveis, and France’s EDF Energies Nouvelles have all fallen below their flotation prices.
The poor performance of the sector was also one of the main reasons why Enel, the Italian utility, had to reduce the flotation price of its subsidiary, Enel Green Power, last autumn. And last month EDP Renováveis reported that full-year net profits had dropped by almost a third as financing costs for its debt rose.
Read the entire article
Thursday, March 17, 2011
Inconvenient Truth: Wind Energy Has Killed More Americans Than Nuclear
There has been quite a bit of hysteria among some major media outlets in the past few days regarding the potential dangers of nuclear power. Some have even suggested that the benefits of nuclear energy do not outweigh its potential dangers to human life.
The dangers of nuclear power, while serious, need to be put in perspective. To that end, here's an interesting fact you won't be hearing from the mainstream press: wind energy has killed more Americans than nuclear energy.
You read that right. According to the Caithness Windfarm Information Forum, there were 35 fatalities associated with wind turbines in the United States from 1970 through 2010. Nuclear energy, by contrast, did not kill a single American in that time.
The meltdown at Three Mile Island in 1979 did not kill or injure anyone, since the power plant's cement containment apparatus did its job - the safety measures put in place were effective. Apparently the safety measures associated with wind energy are not adequate to prevent loss of life.
Nuclear accounts for about nine percent of America's energy, according to the Energy Information Administration, and has yet to cause a single fatality here. Wind, on the other hand, provides the United States with only 0.7 percent of its energy, and has been responsible for 35 deaths in the United States alone. So if we're trying to weigh the costs and benefits of each, it seems wind fares far worse than nuclear. Yet no one seems to be discussing plans to halt production of all new wind farms until Americans' safety can be guaranteed.
Of course there are potential dangers to nuclear energy that the nation, thankfully, has not had to endure. But when assessing the dangers of a given technology, it usually helps to look at what has actually happened, not what could maybe, possibly, conceivably happen in the event of a Biblical-scale disaster.
Unfortunately, doomsday scenarios tend to get far more media play than level-headed analysis.
The dangers of nuclear power, while serious, need to be put in perspective. To that end, here's an interesting fact you won't be hearing from the mainstream press: wind energy has killed more Americans than nuclear energy.
You read that right. According to the Caithness Windfarm Information Forum, there were 35 fatalities associated with wind turbines in the United States from 1970 through 2010. Nuclear energy, by contrast, did not kill a single American in that time.
The meltdown at Three Mile Island in 1979 did not kill or injure anyone, since the power plant's cement containment apparatus did its job - the safety measures put in place were effective. Apparently the safety measures associated with wind energy are not adequate to prevent loss of life.
Nuclear accounts for about nine percent of America's energy, according to the Energy Information Administration, and has yet to cause a single fatality here. Wind, on the other hand, provides the United States with only 0.7 percent of its energy, and has been responsible for 35 deaths in the United States alone. So if we're trying to weigh the costs and benefits of each, it seems wind fares far worse than nuclear. Yet no one seems to be discussing plans to halt production of all new wind farms until Americans' safety can be guaranteed.
Of course there are potential dangers to nuclear energy that the nation, thankfully, has not had to endure. But when assessing the dangers of a given technology, it usually helps to look at what has actually happened, not what could maybe, possibly, conceivably happen in the event of a Biblical-scale disaster.
Unfortunately, doomsday scenarios tend to get far more media play than level-headed analysis.
Iberdrola pulls wind project from state list
A communications manager for Iberdrola Renewables says the company remains interested in pursuing a wind project in Hammond despite withdrawing the proposed Stone Church Wind Farm from a state list of potential energy projects.
"We don't want people to come away thinking we're not interested," Paul N. Copleman said Wednesday. "We feel this is still a good area for a project."
The New York Independent System Operator is responsible for overseeing operations for New York's nearly 11,000 miles of high-voltage transmission lines and the dispatch of more than 500 electric power generators. It maintains a running list of potential power projects, called an interconnection queue. Iberdrola added the Hammond project to the queue in 2008, and withdrew it earlier this month.
Uncertainty in Hammond, according to Mr. Copleman, including what he says are restrictive recommendations from the town's wind committee and a yearlong moratorium on wind power development that expires in July, has ground the company's progress to a halt.
Read the entire article
"We don't want people to come away thinking we're not interested," Paul N. Copleman said Wednesday. "We feel this is still a good area for a project."
The New York Independent System Operator is responsible for overseeing operations for New York's nearly 11,000 miles of high-voltage transmission lines and the dispatch of more than 500 electric power generators. It maintains a running list of potential power projects, called an interconnection queue. Iberdrola added the Hammond project to the queue in 2008, and withdrew it earlier this month.
Uncertainty in Hammond, according to Mr. Copleman, including what he says are restrictive recommendations from the town's wind committee and a yearlong moratorium on wind power development that expires in July, has ground the company's progress to a halt.
Read the entire article
Wednesday, March 16, 2011
Hammond Wind Farm Put on Hold
The Spanish-owned company that wants to build 75 wind turbines in the St. Lawrence County town of Hammond has put the project on hold. Iberdrola says it's waiting for Hammond to finalize its zoning laws for wind power. David Sommerstein has more.
Click here to listen to the audio recording of the interview...
In a letter to the town board, Iberdrola said it’s pulling its Hammond project out of the queue for consideration by New York’s power grid operator. It’s been waiting in that line for two and a half years. Company spokesman Paul Copleman said there was an air of uncertainty regarding Hammond’s rules for siting wind towers. That air of uncertainty has hindered our ability to further the development process.
Hammond is in the middle of its second moratorium on wind farm construction. It’s set to expire at the end of July.
Like many communities confronting industrial-scale wind power in the North Country, Hammond’s been bitterly divided over a pile of wind farm-related issues - who’s signed land contracts with the company and who hasn’t, how far turbines should be from houses, property lines, and the St. Lawrence River, and potential conflicts of interest. Two councilmen have recused themselves because their families have signed deals with Iberdrola.
Town supervisor Ron Bertram says he understands why Iberdrola’s reluctant to move forward. But he says residents’ lifestyles and property values need to be protected. Bertram says the town’s wind advisory committee submitted its final report Monday night. It recommends maximum noise levels and a way for compensating homeowners if their property values drop, among other measures. Bertram says the town board has already begun sorting through those recommendations. He hopes to have a wind power siting law in place by the time the moratorium expires.
In the past, Iberdrola has hinted some of those measures could be dealbreakers. But speaking yesterday, Iberdrola’s Paul Copleman said the company’s willing to wait. I don’t think we want people to think this step means we’re any less interested in developing a project. We continue to work within the process that’s been afforded to us and are appreciative of the opportunity to continue working with people who are considering what it would mean to have a wind farm in the area. Copleman says the Hammond project will have to go to the back of the line behind other wind farms with the state power grid. But he says he doesn’t believe that will delay development.
For North Country Public Radio, I’m David Sommerstein.
Click here to listen to the audio recording of the interview...
In a letter to the town board, Iberdrola said it’s pulling its Hammond project out of the queue for consideration by New York’s power grid operator. It’s been waiting in that line for two and a half years. Company spokesman Paul Copleman said there was an air of uncertainty regarding Hammond’s rules for siting wind towers. That air of uncertainty has hindered our ability to further the development process.
Hammond is in the middle of its second moratorium on wind farm construction. It’s set to expire at the end of July.
Like many communities confronting industrial-scale wind power in the North Country, Hammond’s been bitterly divided over a pile of wind farm-related issues - who’s signed land contracts with the company and who hasn’t, how far turbines should be from houses, property lines, and the St. Lawrence River, and potential conflicts of interest. Two councilmen have recused themselves because their families have signed deals with Iberdrola.
Town supervisor Ron Bertram says he understands why Iberdrola’s reluctant to move forward. But he says residents’ lifestyles and property values need to be protected. Bertram says the town’s wind advisory committee submitted its final report Monday night. It recommends maximum noise levels and a way for compensating homeowners if their property values drop, among other measures. Bertram says the town board has already begun sorting through those recommendations. He hopes to have a wind power siting law in place by the time the moratorium expires.
In the past, Iberdrola has hinted some of those measures could be dealbreakers. But speaking yesterday, Iberdrola’s Paul Copleman said the company’s willing to wait. I don’t think we want people to think this step means we’re any less interested in developing a project. We continue to work within the process that’s been afforded to us and are appreciative of the opportunity to continue working with people who are considering what it would mean to have a wind farm in the area. Copleman says the Hammond project will have to go to the back of the line behind other wind farms with the state power grid. But he says he doesn’t believe that will delay development.
For North Country Public Radio, I’m David Sommerstein.
NY Assembly Bill Would Create Wind Project Siting Task Force
The siting of wind facilities in New York is by and large a local affair. Unlike some states, New York does not have in place a comprehensive statewide framework for wind energy facility siting. Enter the state legislature.
Assembly Bill A04793 would establish a New York state task force on wind generating facilities siting to study the need to implement a uniform statewide policy regarding the siting and permitting of wind energy production facilities. The bill, referred to the Energy Committee, has no Senate “same as” as of 3/14/2011.
The Senate does have pending a somewhat related bill pending, however. Senate Bill S01086 would authorize and direct NYSERDA to conduct a comprehensive study of the potential siting processes required to establish wind energy production facilities. The Senate bill has been referred to the Energy and Telecommunications Committee.
With the legislative session set to end in a few months, at this juncture passage of either bill seems somewhat remote.
Text of Bill A04793
Text of Bill S01086
Assembly Bill A04793 would establish a New York state task force on wind generating facilities siting to study the need to implement a uniform statewide policy regarding the siting and permitting of wind energy production facilities. The bill, referred to the Energy Committee, has no Senate “same as” as of 3/14/2011.
The Senate does have pending a somewhat related bill pending, however. Senate Bill S01086 would authorize and direct NYSERDA to conduct a comprehensive study of the potential siting processes required to establish wind energy production facilities. The Senate bill has been referred to the Energy and Telecommunications Committee.
With the legislative session set to end in a few months, at this juncture passage of either bill seems somewhat remote.
Text of Bill A04793
Text of Bill S01086
Turbine foes host forum on wind power downside
Local resident Elaine Pacheco was among the crowd of more than 100 on Saturday who listened in rapt attention as Executive Director Lisa Linowes of Industrial Wind Action detailed the costs, both environmental and financial, of wind turbines.
The crowd was drawn by a grassroots group, FairWindCT, that has formed in opposition to the proposal by BNE Energy, Inc. to build six wind turbines in town, each standing up to 492 feet tall when the blade is at its vertical limit.
Linowes said the power generated by wind creates no polluting emissions, but offered few other positives. "What I am trying to do today is balance out what is in the (BNE Energy) application," Linowes said.
She detailed many limitations faced by the large-scale development of wind power around the region, including a lack of existing power transmission capacity from the remote areas most conducive to wind power. Linowes challenged many of the contentions and assumptions detailed in the application, including the potential $400,000 tax windfall for the town and the applicant's contention that property values will hold up once the turbines rise.
The crowd was drawn by a grassroots group, FairWindCT, that has formed in opposition to the proposal by BNE Energy, Inc. to build six wind turbines in town, each standing up to 492 feet tall when the blade is at its vertical limit.
Linowes said the power generated by wind creates no polluting emissions, but offered few other positives. "What I am trying to do today is balance out what is in the (BNE Energy) application," Linowes said.
She detailed many limitations faced by the large-scale development of wind power around the region, including a lack of existing power transmission capacity from the remote areas most conducive to wind power. Linowes challenged many of the contentions and assumptions detailed in the application, including the potential $400,000 tax windfall for the town and the applicant's contention that property values will hold up once the turbines rise.
Tuesday, March 15, 2011
Can wind farms aid criminals?
Could wind farms in Northern New York unwittingly help drug smugglers?
That is a question the federal government may have to tackle if the Department of Homeland Security does as Sen. Charles E. Schumer, D-N.Y., has asked, and deploys military-grade radar along the U.S.-Canadian border to nab low-flying aircraft. The Defense Department has warned that wind turbines interfere with radar and has opposed their placement near military installations.
Turbines' effect on radar hasn't been a big issue along the St. Lawrence River and Lake Ontario, where developers have eyed a number of locations for wind farms. That could change if DHS deploys the more sophisticated radar — something Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano strongly hinted last week could happen.
"It's certainly something we study," said James H. Madden, project manager for Cape Vincent Wind Farm, where 84 turbines are proposed.
Read the entire article
That is a question the federal government may have to tackle if the Department of Homeland Security does as Sen. Charles E. Schumer, D-N.Y., has asked, and deploys military-grade radar along the U.S.-Canadian border to nab low-flying aircraft. The Defense Department has warned that wind turbines interfere with radar and has opposed their placement near military installations.
Turbines' effect on radar hasn't been a big issue along the St. Lawrence River and Lake Ontario, where developers have eyed a number of locations for wind farms. That could change if DHS deploys the more sophisticated radar — something Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano strongly hinted last week could happen.
"It's certainly something we study," said James H. Madden, project manager for Cape Vincent Wind Farm, where 84 turbines are proposed.
Read the entire article
Monday, March 14, 2011
WindTamer seeks name change
Rochester wind turbine company WindTamer Corp. is looking to change its name to Arista Power Inc.
Shareholders will vote on the name change at the annual stockholder meeting to be held May 18.
If approved, the company’s wind turbines still will bear the WindTamer brand name.
In a statement, CEO William Schmitz said the name change “reflects the fact that we have significantly broadened our suite of product offerings” in recent months. Those additional offerings include its Power on Demand system of battery storage that stores and distributes power from such renewable sources as wind and solar.
Shareholders will vote on the name change at the annual stockholder meeting to be held May 18.
If approved, the company’s wind turbines still will bear the WindTamer brand name.
In a statement, CEO William Schmitz said the name change “reflects the fact that we have significantly broadened our suite of product offerings” in recent months. Those additional offerings include its Power on Demand system of battery storage that stores and distributes power from such renewable sources as wind and solar.
Sunday, March 13, 2011
Prattsburgh officials applaud wind ruling
Rochester — Prattsburgh town officials are celebrating a court ruling giving a developer five months to put in substantial work on a 16-turbine wind farm in the town.
“I think it’s good news,” said town Supervisor Al Wordingham. “It may not be a homer, but it’s a double.”
According to a complex March 7th ruling by state Supreme Court Justice John Ark, windfarm developer Ecogen and the town must work out a road use agreement that satisfies both parties. If necessary, Ark said he will determine the final agreement between the long-time combatants.
After the agreement is signed, Ecogen has exactly 168 days to make substantial progress in the project it has insisted for two years is “shovel-ready.”
“I don’t think they can do it,” said Prattsburgh’s attorney Ed Hourihan, of Bond, Schoeneck and King. “They don’t have the turbines, they don’t have the contracts, they don’t have all of their permits.”
The key issue in Ark’s ruling is the matter of vested rights — the right to carry out a project because of the work already put into it.
Ark ruled a settlement with Ecogen by a lame-duck town board in December 2009 was based on the mistaken impression the developer already had vested rights in the project.
But any delay in going forward with the project was “partly attributable” to Ecogen’s actions, Ark said. In addition, Ark ruled Ecogen has not put in the substantial work needed to secure vested rights.
Hourihan said the decision based on vested rights also gives the town a powerful tool in any appeals court.
“The appellate court has said it very simply,” he said. “No vested rights — no project.”
The town also is in a strong position to appeal based on the board’s right to rescind a December decision that led to the current lawsuit, Hourihan said.
Ecogen and the town have been at odds several times during the past few years, with tensions increasing after February 2009, when residents in nearby Cohocton complained about intolerable noise levels at the operating First Wind wind farm. The board considered a moratorium in order to look at the noise issue, but dropped it when Ecogen threatened to file a lawsuit.
Ecogen did sue the town following fall, charging the town had failed to approve a road use agreement opposed by pro-wind board members.
After several pro-wind board members were ousted by 2-to-1 margins in the November elections, Ecogen threatened another lawsuit if the current board did not reach a favorable settlement by the end of the year.
The settlement was swiftly approved by the lame-duck board, then rescinded by the new board — and the year-long litigation between Ecogen and Prattsburgh in Ark’s court began.
Since then, the town has enacted a moratorium on wind-related construction, in order to develop a “wind utility law.” The moratorium is still in place.
While Ark noted Ecogen could claim it is “grandfathered” in and allowed to begin work, Hourihan said the ban is “in effect and in full force” for any wind-related activity.
Ecogen and its financial backer, Pattern Energy, have declined to comment throughout the proceedings.
However, Ecogen attorney Robert Burgdorf told the Democrat and Chronicle Thursday the developer "is pleased the court recognized its right to proceed with this important project."
Wordingham said the town board has not made any decision on whether it wants to appeal the ruling. Some officials believe Ecogen may want to appeal the ruling in order to ask for more time, he said.
“It’s early days yet,” he said. “The road use agreement is on my desk. We look at it. We sign it. Let the clock begin.”
“I think it’s good news,” said town Supervisor Al Wordingham. “It may not be a homer, but it’s a double.”
According to a complex March 7th ruling by state Supreme Court Justice John Ark, windfarm developer Ecogen and the town must work out a road use agreement that satisfies both parties. If necessary, Ark said he will determine the final agreement between the long-time combatants.
After the agreement is signed, Ecogen has exactly 168 days to make substantial progress in the project it has insisted for two years is “shovel-ready.”
“I don’t think they can do it,” said Prattsburgh’s attorney Ed Hourihan, of Bond, Schoeneck and King. “They don’t have the turbines, they don’t have the contracts, they don’t have all of their permits.”
The key issue in Ark’s ruling is the matter of vested rights — the right to carry out a project because of the work already put into it.
Ark ruled a settlement with Ecogen by a lame-duck town board in December 2009 was based on the mistaken impression the developer already had vested rights in the project.
But any delay in going forward with the project was “partly attributable” to Ecogen’s actions, Ark said. In addition, Ark ruled Ecogen has not put in the substantial work needed to secure vested rights.
Hourihan said the decision based on vested rights also gives the town a powerful tool in any appeals court.
“The appellate court has said it very simply,” he said. “No vested rights — no project.”
The town also is in a strong position to appeal based on the board’s right to rescind a December decision that led to the current lawsuit, Hourihan said.
Ecogen and the town have been at odds several times during the past few years, with tensions increasing after February 2009, when residents in nearby Cohocton complained about intolerable noise levels at the operating First Wind wind farm. The board considered a moratorium in order to look at the noise issue, but dropped it when Ecogen threatened to file a lawsuit.
Ecogen did sue the town following fall, charging the town had failed to approve a road use agreement opposed by pro-wind board members.
After several pro-wind board members were ousted by 2-to-1 margins in the November elections, Ecogen threatened another lawsuit if the current board did not reach a favorable settlement by the end of the year.
The settlement was swiftly approved by the lame-duck board, then rescinded by the new board — and the year-long litigation between Ecogen and Prattsburgh in Ark’s court began.
Since then, the town has enacted a moratorium on wind-related construction, in order to develop a “wind utility law.” The moratorium is still in place.
While Ark noted Ecogen could claim it is “grandfathered” in and allowed to begin work, Hourihan said the ban is “in effect and in full force” for any wind-related activity.
Ecogen and its financial backer, Pattern Energy, have declined to comment throughout the proceedings.
However, Ecogen attorney Robert Burgdorf told the Democrat and Chronicle Thursday the developer "is pleased the court recognized its right to proceed with this important project."
Wordingham said the town board has not made any decision on whether it wants to appeal the ruling. Some officials believe Ecogen may want to appeal the ruling in order to ask for more time, he said.
“It’s early days yet,” he said. “The road use agreement is on my desk. We look at it. We sign it. Let the clock begin.”
Saturday, March 12, 2011
Turbine project delayed again
Defective turbine blades will set back the completion of Potsdam's hydroelectric project by about a month.
Village Administrator David H. Fenton said Friday the problem was discovered when workers assembling the components in Barrie, Ontario, noticed that air pockets had formed in the stainless steel castings. The air pockets left several holes in the steel, raising concerns about the strength of the blades.
The twin turbines have four blades each on them, with a ninth blade sent over as a spare part. The blades were made by Orengine International Ltd. of Genova, Italy.
"Five of the blades were not considered serviceable," Mr. Fenton said. "They will have to recast all of the turbine blades."
Read the entire article
Village Administrator David H. Fenton said Friday the problem was discovered when workers assembling the components in Barrie, Ontario, noticed that air pockets had formed in the stainless steel castings. The air pockets left several holes in the steel, raising concerns about the strength of the blades.
The twin turbines have four blades each on them, with a ninth blade sent over as a spare part. The blades were made by Orengine International Ltd. of Genova, Italy.
"Five of the blades were not considered serviceable," Mr. Fenton said. "They will have to recast all of the turbine blades."
Read the entire article
Friday, March 11, 2011
Ruling: Wind farm can proceed in Prattsburgh
A judge has ruled that an energy-development company may proceed with a wind farm in Prattsburgh, Steuben County, over the objections of the town board, though the company must complete a substantial amount of work in a short period of time or the deal's off.
For nearly a decade, Ecogen Wind LLC has been seeking approval to erect about three dozen wind turbines in Prattsburgh and neighboring Italy, Yates County.
Shortly after several candidates who opposed the project were elected to the Prattsburgh board in November 2009, but before they took office, the Erie County company filed suit against the town. Lame-duck town board members who were not hostile to the project then agreed to settle the lawsuit and allow the project to go forward.
When the new board members were seated in January 2010, they attempted to rescind the lawsuit settlement, leading to a protracted legal fight.
State Supreme Court Judge John Ark, who presided over a five-day trial in January and February, said in a ruling released Thursday that the current town board could not void the settlement with Ecogen. The company's lawyers had argued that the 2009 legal settlement had given them "vested" rights to undertake the project that could not legally be taken away.
Ark directed the town and company to negotiate an agreement for use of town roads, an item left open when the parties began their legal warfare. Once done, Ark said, the company then must complete a "substantial" amount of work on the project to fully "vest" their rights. He gave them 24 weeks to do that.
Edward Hourihan, a Pittsford lawyer who represented the town, said Thursday morning that he had not yet discussed the decision with his clients and did not know if they would appeal it.
He asserted, though, that Ecogen "is not in a position to vest any rights. They're far from being able to do that." He said they lack financing, turbines, necessary permits and approval for work in the town of Italy, and could not comply with Ark's 24-week time limit.
A Rochester lawyer who represents the company, Robert Burgdorf, said Ecogen "is pleased the court recognized its right to proceed with this important project." Burgdorf said the company "looks forward to developing this uniquely productive wind resource."
For nearly a decade, Ecogen Wind LLC has been seeking approval to erect about three dozen wind turbines in Prattsburgh and neighboring Italy, Yates County.
Shortly after several candidates who opposed the project were elected to the Prattsburgh board in November 2009, but before they took office, the Erie County company filed suit against the town. Lame-duck town board members who were not hostile to the project then agreed to settle the lawsuit and allow the project to go forward.
When the new board members were seated in January 2010, they attempted to rescind the lawsuit settlement, leading to a protracted legal fight.
State Supreme Court Judge John Ark, who presided over a five-day trial in January and February, said in a ruling released Thursday that the current town board could not void the settlement with Ecogen. The company's lawyers had argued that the 2009 legal settlement had given them "vested" rights to undertake the project that could not legally be taken away.
Ark directed the town and company to negotiate an agreement for use of town roads, an item left open when the parties began their legal warfare. Once done, Ark said, the company then must complete a "substantial" amount of work on the project to fully "vest" their rights. He gave them 24 weeks to do that.
Edward Hourihan, a Pittsford lawyer who represented the town, said Thursday morning that he had not yet discussed the decision with his clients and did not know if they would appeal it.
He asserted, though, that Ecogen "is not in a position to vest any rights. They're far from being able to do that." He said they lack financing, turbines, necessary permits and approval for work in the town of Italy, and could not comply with Ark's 24-week time limit.
A Rochester lawyer who represents the company, Robert Burgdorf, said Ecogen "is pleased the court recognized its right to proceed with this important project." Burgdorf said the company "looks forward to developing this uniquely productive wind resource."
Thursday, March 10, 2011
Cape Vincent group doing survey on support, opposition to wind
While the Town Council works on a townwide survey on development, including wind power projects, a pro-wind-power group has begun a short survey of its own.
Voters for Wind is calling all of the registered voters in the town and asking whether they support or oppose wind power development.
"We want to be better prepared for the elections and to know where to put the right people in office," said Beth A. White, president of the group. "We're trying to get as up-to-date information as possible."
Voters for Wind considered conducting a similar survey before the 2009 election, she said, but didn't, and underestimated the turnout needed. Two candidates critical of wind power development were elected to the Town Council during those elections.
Read the entire article
Voters for Wind is calling all of the registered voters in the town and asking whether they support or oppose wind power development.
"We want to be better prepared for the elections and to know where to put the right people in office," said Beth A. White, president of the group. "We're trying to get as up-to-date information as possible."
Voters for Wind considered conducting a similar survey before the 2009 election, she said, but didn't, and underestimated the turnout needed. Two candidates critical of wind power development were elected to the Town Council during those elections.
Read the entire article
Tuesday, March 08, 2011
ONE VIEWER’S REACTION TO SEEING WINDFALL
Since seeing the film, Windfall, yesterday afternoon at the Clayton Opera House, I have been reflecting on how fortunate the other members of the audience and I were that this film was made, and that it was made available to be shown here.
I have been reviewing every scene in the film in my head, and thinking how directly applicable it was in so many respects to the dramas that are being played out presently in Cape Vincent, Clayton, Hammond, and Lyme. The parallels are numerous and spot on.
One of the characteristics of human nature is the tendency to want to be sure that your own feelings and reactions to any situation are valid. In your mind and in your heart you want to better understand yourself by seeing and hearing others living through a comparable experience. In Windfall, we saw a beautifully crafted film that, with great sensitivity and care, does exactly that.
I think – I hope – that seeing Windfall yesterday is going to cause most people who were in the audience to allow themselves to get justifiably more angry in a way that they may have not completely allowed themselves to feel so far – even with all of the shenanigans and blatantly unethical conduct they have seen displayed by some of their local officials. Anger is a counter-productive force when not well channeled and properly directed. But well directed anger is an entirely appropriate emotion to have under the present circumstances. We need more of it. Well directed anger often must precede more participatory citizenship.
There is no doubt that the "anger quotient" has been going up and up over the continuing and persistent threat to trash our St. Lawrence and Lake Ontario shoreline towns. That's good. But we need to see that response kicked up a few notches and spread among our troubled but still silent fellow citizens who too often behave like passive onlookers. Watching Windfall will help to do that -- in a serious and careful way.
I think in the coming weeks and months people are going to react to Windfall by saying to themselves, "I have a perfect right to feel angry that these wind companies are coming in here trying to radically change the nature of my town in a fundamental and profound way – – and all they can tell me is, essentially, that I will learn to get used to it. And I'm also angry at my lifelong neighbors and friends who are doing business with the wind developers with complete disregard for how it's going to affect the majority of their fellow citizens."
The Windfall movie does not cast the large landowner wind leaseholders in a negative way. The leaseholders who are interviewed come across as very decent people who simply did not comprehend or appreciate how invasive and unwanted the wind turbines would be to others. They approach the issue – aside from the matter of needing and wanting another source of income -- with an almost complete obliviousness to the ways in which the turbines would destroy the atmosphere and an entire way of life for the majority (yes, the majority) of the residents of Meredith, NY. (If only it were obliviousness that we were dealing with in our current struggles here.)
Among the things that I hope Windfall will reinforce in the minds of those who saw it is that there is not anything wrong – not anything remotely selfish – about passionately protecting the rural quietude and rare beauty of the Thousand Islands Region. Our treasured views of land and water and sky, our clear dark star-filled nights, without the contamination of hundreds of giant twirling machines and red blinking lights, is something to be protected with no apologies to anyone.
Because Windfall does not deteriorate to the level of character assassination and name-calling on either side, it is going to be very difficult for any pro-Big Wind viewers in the audience (those who had the good judgment to come) to criticize it for driving a wedge even deeper into the community. At the same time, Windfall reminds its viewers that it is entirely legitimate to feel profoundly sad and distressed, and thoroughly un-accepting of misguided development and shoddy underhanded dealings that make such bad deals possible.
I am very hopeful that as we move further into this critical local election year that the collective will to protect our shoreline towns will become an iron determination. Intolerance of local public corruption and uncompromising insistence on preserving our most valuable natural assets will continue to grow faster and become more widespread among our residents -- stimulated, in part, as a result of seeing Windfall.
There are dozens of responsible and proper ways to act upon anger channeled and applied to block the unethically corrupted processes that are still slowly grinding away leading to what would be the essential destruction of our towns. Without a broad-based and high level of citizen anger and indignation, those grinding processes will ultimately work in favor of the Big Wind corporations and their local leaseholder accomplices.
Take back your town. Windfall has shown us that it can be done, and how it should be done.
Thanks and congratulations to Windfall creator and director, Laura Israel, and to all those who helped in any way to bring this fine documentary to us.
I have been reviewing every scene in the film in my head, and thinking how directly applicable it was in so many respects to the dramas that are being played out presently in Cape Vincent, Clayton, Hammond, and Lyme. The parallels are numerous and spot on.
One of the characteristics of human nature is the tendency to want to be sure that your own feelings and reactions to any situation are valid. In your mind and in your heart you want to better understand yourself by seeing and hearing others living through a comparable experience. In Windfall, we saw a beautifully crafted film that, with great sensitivity and care, does exactly that.
I think – I hope – that seeing Windfall yesterday is going to cause most people who were in the audience to allow themselves to get justifiably more angry in a way that they may have not completely allowed themselves to feel so far – even with all of the shenanigans and blatantly unethical conduct they have seen displayed by some of their local officials. Anger is a counter-productive force when not well channeled and properly directed. But well directed anger is an entirely appropriate emotion to have under the present circumstances. We need more of it. Well directed anger often must precede more participatory citizenship.
There is no doubt that the "anger quotient" has been going up and up over the continuing and persistent threat to trash our St. Lawrence and Lake Ontario shoreline towns. That's good. But we need to see that response kicked up a few notches and spread among our troubled but still silent fellow citizens who too often behave like passive onlookers. Watching Windfall will help to do that -- in a serious and careful way.
I think in the coming weeks and months people are going to react to Windfall by saying to themselves, "I have a perfect right to feel angry that these wind companies are coming in here trying to radically change the nature of my town in a fundamental and profound way – – and all they can tell me is, essentially, that I will learn to get used to it. And I'm also angry at my lifelong neighbors and friends who are doing business with the wind developers with complete disregard for how it's going to affect the majority of their fellow citizens."
The Windfall movie does not cast the large landowner wind leaseholders in a negative way. The leaseholders who are interviewed come across as very decent people who simply did not comprehend or appreciate how invasive and unwanted the wind turbines would be to others. They approach the issue – aside from the matter of needing and wanting another source of income -- with an almost complete obliviousness to the ways in which the turbines would destroy the atmosphere and an entire way of life for the majority (yes, the majority) of the residents of Meredith, NY. (If only it were obliviousness that we were dealing with in our current struggles here.)
Among the things that I hope Windfall will reinforce in the minds of those who saw it is that there is not anything wrong – not anything remotely selfish – about passionately protecting the rural quietude and rare beauty of the Thousand Islands Region. Our treasured views of land and water and sky, our clear dark star-filled nights, without the contamination of hundreds of giant twirling machines and red blinking lights, is something to be protected with no apologies to anyone.
Because Windfall does not deteriorate to the level of character assassination and name-calling on either side, it is going to be very difficult for any pro-Big Wind viewers in the audience (those who had the good judgment to come) to criticize it for driving a wedge even deeper into the community. At the same time, Windfall reminds its viewers that it is entirely legitimate to feel profoundly sad and distressed, and thoroughly un-accepting of misguided development and shoddy underhanded dealings that make such bad deals possible.
I am very hopeful that as we move further into this critical local election year that the collective will to protect our shoreline towns will become an iron determination. Intolerance of local public corruption and uncompromising insistence on preserving our most valuable natural assets will continue to grow faster and become more widespread among our residents -- stimulated, in part, as a result of seeing Windfall.
There are dozens of responsible and proper ways to act upon anger channeled and applied to block the unethically corrupted processes that are still slowly grinding away leading to what would be the essential destruction of our towns. Without a broad-based and high level of citizen anger and indignation, those grinding processes will ultimately work in favor of the Big Wind corporations and their local leaseholder accomplices.
Take back your town. Windfall has shown us that it can be done, and how it should be done.
Thanks and congratulations to Windfall creator and director, Laura Israel, and to all those who helped in any way to bring this fine documentary to us.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)