Worthington, Minn. — Friday's severe thunderstorm damaged at least six wind turbines in Lincoln County.
The storm produced strong winds, hail and a small tornado in the southwest region of Minnesota
The storm damaged wind turbines near the town of Lake Benton. said Lincoln County Emergency Management Director Jeanna Sommers. She says one machine appears a total loss.
"One-third of the top of it is bent down," Sommers said. "Blades are completely off of it."
Sommers says the storm damaged other nearby turbines as well. Some are missing blades. On others, strong winds tore from the top of the tower the hood that protects the turbine and electronic equipment housed inside.
The same storm also damaged farms and power lines. It also produced a tornado which caused at least minor damage for two-thirds of the houses in the town of Tyler. The county board is asking for a federal disaster declaration to help them deal with the storm damage.
Thursday, July 07, 2011
Wednesday, July 06, 2011
State regulators hear more testimony about Bowers Mountain wind project
BANGOR, Maine (NEWSCENTER) --The company planning to put wind turbines atop Bowers Mountain near Lincoln went before state regulators again on Wednesday. Opponents to the project also weighed in as the Land Use Regulation Commission held another day of public hearings on First Wind's proposed Bowers Mountain Wind Project.
The hearing was at the Spectacular Events Center in Bangor. On Wednesday, testimony was held as a question and answer session where stakeholders could question state officials from the various agencies that have been studying some of the environmental issues.
David Corrigan, a guide, and internet blogger who runs the website "Real Wind Info for ME" asked several pointed questions about the depth of research state officials did about the proposed projects impacts to wildlife.
"the major concerns today are about impacts to lynx which are federally threatened, impacts to three species of bats which are being fast tracked for federal endangered species listings and impacts to water quality in the area especially considering this is one of the largest fisheries in the state of maine," Corrigan explained.
A spokesperson for First Wind countered that state officials have a rigorous permitting process in place that has found no adverse impacts.
"i'd say so far it's going the way we expected it. The agencies are confirming what they confirmed to us earlier. That they don't see any major environemental issues in terms of ground water in terms of rare endangered species and in terms of visibility," said Neil Kiely, First Wind's director of development for the New England region.
The Land Use Regulation Commission says it expects to accept public comments for the next few weeks before closing the public comment period.
It hopes to have a final decision on the project later this fall
Tuesday, July 05, 2011
“Explicit cautionary notice to those responsible for Wind Turbine Siting decisions”
Officials from Federal, State and Local Government, and Bureaucrats in Relevant Departments
This notice is intended “Specifically Directors of Wind Developers, Publicly Elected
—The Waubra Foundation, Australia (6/29/11)
Be advised that, as a result of information gathered from the Waubra Foundation’s own field research, and from the clinical and acoustic research available internationally, the following serious medical conditions have been identified in people living, working, or visiting within 10km of operating wind turbine developments.
The onset of these conditions corresponds directly with the operation of wind turbines:
» chronic severe sleep deprivation;
» acute hypertensive crises;
» new onset hypertension;
» heart attacks (including Tako Tsubo episodes);
» worsening control of preexisting and previously stable medical problems such as angina, hypertension (high blood pressure), diabetes, migraines, tinnitus, depression, and post traumatic stress disorder;
» severe depression, with suicidal ideation;
» development of irreversible memory dysfunction, tinnitus, and hyperacusis.
Other symptoms include those described by medical practitioners such as Dr Amanda Harry, and Dr Nina Pierpont in her landmark Case Series Crossover Peer Reviewed Study (submission No 13 to the Australian Federal Senate Inquiry into Rural Wind Farms) and published in Dr Pierpont’s book entitled “Wind Turbine Syndrome, A Report on a Natural Experiment,” 2009, published by K-Selected Books, Santa Fe.
These serious health problems were also identified by Australian General Practitioner Dr David Iser in 2004. Dr Iser formally notified the Victorian Government of the time after his patients became unwell following the start up of the Toora wind project. His warnings were ignored without being properly investigated by the authorities and politicians.
All this and supportive material has been made available to the boards of the major developers, State Ministers for Health and Planning and senior health bureaucrats. The time for denial, and of using the Clean Energy Council to shoulder the increasingly difficult task of denying the link between adverse health and operating wind turbines, is over.
At the Toora and Waubra wind projects, some seriously ill affected residents have been bought out by the developers, but only after they signed confidentiality agreements specifically prohibiting them from speaking about their health problems. This buy-out activity would support a conclusion that developers are aware of the health problems.
Meanwhile, wind developments have continued, with developers asserting that their projects meet acceptable standards, and thereby implying that they cannot be causing health problems.
The Foundation is also concerned that Vibro-acoustic Disease (VAD), as recorded and described by Professor Mariana Alves-Pereira’s team from Portugal, will develop in people chronically exposed to wind turbines. The disease has already been identified in the occupants of a house with levels of infrasound and low frequency noise identical to levels the Foundation is recording in the homes of affected residents in Australia.
The Foundation is aware of over 20 families in Australia who have abandoned their homes because of serious ill health experienced since the turbines commenced operating near their homes. Most recently, five households from Waterloo in South Australia have relocated, where the larger 3 MW turbines have had a devastating impact on the health of these residents. Some of these people have walked away from their only financial asset, to live in a shed or a caravan on someone else’s land.
The Foundation notes the mid-2010 advice from the National Health and Medical Research Council that a “precautionary approach” be followed. We are not aware that either industry or planning authorities have adopted this exceedingly valuable and important advice.
The Foundation’s position, as the most technically informed entity in Australia upon the effects of wind turbines on human health, is this: Until the recommended studies are completed, developers and planning authorities will be negligent if human health is damaged as a result of their proceeding with, or allowing to proceed, further construction and approvals of turbines within 10km of homes. It is our advice that proceeding otherwise will result in serious harm to human health.
We remind those in positions of responsibility for the engineering, investment and planning decisions about project and turbine siting that their primary responsibility is to ensure that developments cause no harm to adjacent residents. And, if there is possibility of any such harm, then the project should be re-engineered or cancelled. To ignore existing evidence by continuing the current practice of siting turbines close to homes is to run the dangerous risk of breaching a fundamental duty of care, thus attracting grave liability.
Enquiries: Dr Sarah Laurie, Medical Director, 0439 865 914
Email address: sarah@waubrafoundation.com.au
This notice is intended “Specifically Directors of Wind Developers, Publicly Elected
—The Waubra Foundation, Australia (6/29/11)
Be advised that, as a result of information gathered from the Waubra Foundation’s own field research, and from the clinical and acoustic research available internationally, the following serious medical conditions have been identified in people living, working, or visiting within 10km of operating wind turbine developments.
The onset of these conditions corresponds directly with the operation of wind turbines:
» chronic severe sleep deprivation;
» acute hypertensive crises;
» new onset hypertension;
» heart attacks (including Tako Tsubo episodes);
» worsening control of preexisting and previously stable medical problems such as angina, hypertension (high blood pressure), diabetes, migraines, tinnitus, depression, and post traumatic stress disorder;
» severe depression, with suicidal ideation;
» development of irreversible memory dysfunction, tinnitus, and hyperacusis.
Other symptoms include those described by medical practitioners such as Dr Amanda Harry, and Dr Nina Pierpont in her landmark Case Series Crossover Peer Reviewed Study (submission No 13 to the Australian Federal Senate Inquiry into Rural Wind Farms) and published in Dr Pierpont’s book entitled “Wind Turbine Syndrome, A Report on a Natural Experiment,” 2009, published by K-Selected Books, Santa Fe.
These serious health problems were also identified by Australian General Practitioner Dr David Iser in 2004. Dr Iser formally notified the Victorian Government of the time after his patients became unwell following the start up of the Toora wind project. His warnings were ignored without being properly investigated by the authorities and politicians.
All this and supportive material has been made available to the boards of the major developers, State Ministers for Health and Planning and senior health bureaucrats. The time for denial, and of using the Clean Energy Council to shoulder the increasingly difficult task of denying the link between adverse health and operating wind turbines, is over.
At the Toora and Waubra wind projects, some seriously ill affected residents have been bought out by the developers, but only after they signed confidentiality agreements specifically prohibiting them from speaking about their health problems. This buy-out activity would support a conclusion that developers are aware of the health problems.
Meanwhile, wind developments have continued, with developers asserting that their projects meet acceptable standards, and thereby implying that they cannot be causing health problems.
The Foundation is also concerned that Vibro-acoustic Disease (VAD), as recorded and described by Professor Mariana Alves-Pereira’s team from Portugal, will develop in people chronically exposed to wind turbines. The disease has already been identified in the occupants of a house with levels of infrasound and low frequency noise identical to levels the Foundation is recording in the homes of affected residents in Australia.
The Foundation is aware of over 20 families in Australia who have abandoned their homes because of serious ill health experienced since the turbines commenced operating near their homes. Most recently, five households from Waterloo in South Australia have relocated, where the larger 3 MW turbines have had a devastating impact on the health of these residents. Some of these people have walked away from their only financial asset, to live in a shed or a caravan on someone else’s land.
The Foundation notes the mid-2010 advice from the National Health and Medical Research Council that a “precautionary approach” be followed. We are not aware that either industry or planning authorities have adopted this exceedingly valuable and important advice.
The Foundation’s position, as the most technically informed entity in Australia upon the effects of wind turbines on human health, is this: Until the recommended studies are completed, developers and planning authorities will be negligent if human health is damaged as a result of their proceeding with, or allowing to proceed, further construction and approvals of turbines within 10km of homes. It is our advice that proceeding otherwise will result in serious harm to human health.
We remind those in positions of responsibility for the engineering, investment and planning decisions about project and turbine siting that their primary responsibility is to ensure that developments cause no harm to adjacent residents. And, if there is possibility of any such harm, then the project should be re-engineered or cancelled. To ignore existing evidence by continuing the current practice of siting turbines close to homes is to run the dangerous risk of breaching a fundamental duty of care, thus attracting grave liability.
Enquiries: Dr Sarah Laurie, Medical Director, 0439 865 914
Email address: sarah@waubrafoundation.com.au
Saturday, July 02, 2011
Farce of the wind farms: Power produced drops 6% after calmest year this century
Some of Britain's most beautiful landscapes are blighted by wind farms that will not generate enough electricity for the future.
The Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC) has released figures which show a six per cent fall in the amount of electricity produced by Britain's onshore wind farms.
The department blames a drop in wind, revealing that 2010 was the calmest year this century, with onshore turbines producing only 1.9 per cent of all electricity in 2010, compared with two per cent the year before.
Some meteorologists believe that changes to the Atlantic jet stream could alter the pattern of winds over the next four decades, leading to uncertainty over the efficiency of wind power.
Dr David Brayshaw, a meteorologist from Reading University, says if wind speed lowers, it is obvious that less electricity will be generated by turbines.
But he adds, 'Predictions for long-term future changes in the North Atlantic jet stream are very uncertain, so average UK wind generation could go either up or down over this timeframe.'
A DECC spokesman said the wind speeds of 2010 had been 'unusually low'.
The annual average' load factor' for onshore wind in the UK is 27 per cent, meaning wind farms are operating at 27 per cent of their net capacity.
'This compares favourably to countries such as Germany, where the load factor is around 20 per cent,' said the spokesman.
'Even against a backdrop of the lowest average wind speeds this century in 2010 and the lowest rainfall since 2003, overall consumption of renewable energy in 2010 has risen significantly on the previous year.
'Offshore wind generation for example, increased by 75 per cent in 2010 on 2009 levels. And generation from on and off-shore wind farms combined was up 37 per cent in the first quarter of 2011 on the same period last year.'
EU targets dictate that 15 per cent of all energy, including transport and heat, is produced from renewable sources by 2020.
DECC called the EU target 'challenging' and said a soon-to-be-published report will show how the body will focus on overcoming barriers to utilising wind power and other technologies to deliver the 2020 targets.
But a damning report from conservation charity the John Muir Trust found that the UK’s wind farms were working at just 21 per cent of capacity last year.
Stuart Young, the author of the report, said: ‘Wind power is not what it’s cracked up to be.
'Over the two-year period studied, the wind farms in the UK consistently generated far less energy than wind proponents claim is typical.'
Developers of wind power have been accused of grossly exaggerating the amount of energy turbines will generate in order to get their hands on government subsidies.
Director of the Renewable Energy Foundation Dr John Constable said that even though wind farms had received subsidies of £5billion in the past nine years, they were failing to generate decent levels of power.
He said his calculations said subsidies will probably rise to £6billion a year by 2020 and even more in the following 10 years.
More than 3,600 turbines are expected to pop up throughout Britain over the next 10 years under plans by the Coalition government.
But many industry watchers are wondering why so much money is being thrown at wind farms in the UK - and whether vast swathes of the countryside should be set aside for more turbines.
The Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC) has released figures which show a six per cent fall in the amount of electricity produced by Britain's onshore wind farms.
The department blames a drop in wind, revealing that 2010 was the calmest year this century, with onshore turbines producing only 1.9 per cent of all electricity in 2010, compared with two per cent the year before.
Some meteorologists believe that changes to the Atlantic jet stream could alter the pattern of winds over the next four decades, leading to uncertainty over the efficiency of wind power.
Dr David Brayshaw, a meteorologist from Reading University, says if wind speed lowers, it is obvious that less electricity will be generated by turbines.
But he adds, 'Predictions for long-term future changes in the North Atlantic jet stream are very uncertain, so average UK wind generation could go either up or down over this timeframe.'
A DECC spokesman said the wind speeds of 2010 had been 'unusually low'.
The annual average' load factor' for onshore wind in the UK is 27 per cent, meaning wind farms are operating at 27 per cent of their net capacity.
'This compares favourably to countries such as Germany, where the load factor is around 20 per cent,' said the spokesman.
'Even against a backdrop of the lowest average wind speeds this century in 2010 and the lowest rainfall since 2003, overall consumption of renewable energy in 2010 has risen significantly on the previous year.
'Offshore wind generation for example, increased by 75 per cent in 2010 on 2009 levels. And generation from on and off-shore wind farms combined was up 37 per cent in the first quarter of 2011 on the same period last year.'
EU targets dictate that 15 per cent of all energy, including transport and heat, is produced from renewable sources by 2020.
DECC called the EU target 'challenging' and said a soon-to-be-published report will show how the body will focus on overcoming barriers to utilising wind power and other technologies to deliver the 2020 targets.
But a damning report from conservation charity the John Muir Trust found that the UK’s wind farms were working at just 21 per cent of capacity last year.
Stuart Young, the author of the report, said: ‘Wind power is not what it’s cracked up to be.
'Over the two-year period studied, the wind farms in the UK consistently generated far less energy than wind proponents claim is typical.'
Developers of wind power have been accused of grossly exaggerating the amount of energy turbines will generate in order to get their hands on government subsidies.
Director of the Renewable Energy Foundation Dr John Constable said that even though wind farms had received subsidies of £5billion in the past nine years, they were failing to generate decent levels of power.
He said his calculations said subsidies will probably rise to £6billion a year by 2020 and even more in the following 10 years.
More than 3,600 turbines are expected to pop up throughout Britain over the next 10 years under plans by the Coalition government.
But many industry watchers are wondering why so much money is being thrown at wind farms in the UK - and whether vast swathes of the countryside should be set aside for more turbines.
Monday, June 27, 2011
WIND FARM SWINDLE
The duping of Americans by the environmentalist movement continues, as wind farms use as much electricity from the fossil fuel grid as they produce. This article comes from reliable research derived for what I call the Wind Farm Swindle. The proof that it is a swindle, has been gathered from the very annals of the wind farm movement and from the companies involved in Turbine produced electricity itself.
If you've ever driven close to the huge wind turbine, I'm sure some of you have wondered how long it must take for the wind to start turning such large blades on some of these windmills and how they are stopped, when the wind gets too high for them to operate.
You won't hear anybody in the environmental movement or the renewable energy business tell you this, but as it turns out, all wind turbines use about the same amount of grid electricity as they produce. Large wind turbines require huge amounts of fossil fuel grid electricity to operate. Wind farms have to use electricity from the grid and of course, this large amount of grid electricity is never accounted for in relation to output figures.
Wind turbine functions that use fueled derived electricity are as follows:
•yaw mechanism (to keep the blade assembly perpendicular to the wind; also to untwist the electrical cables in the tower when necessary) -- the nacelle (turbine housing) and blades together, weigh 92 tons on a GE 1.5-MW turbine
•blade-pitch control (to keep the rotors spinning at a regular rate)
•lights, controllers, communication, sensors, metering, data collection, etc.
•heating the blades -- this may require 10%-20% of the turbine's nominal (rated) power
•heating and dehumidifying the nacelle -- according to Danish manufacturer Vestas, "power consumption for heating and dehumidification of the nacelle, must be expected during periods with increased humidity, low temperatures and low wind speeds"
•oil heater, pump, cooler, and filtering system in gearbox
•hydraulic brake (to lock the blades in very high wind)
•thyristors (to graduate the connection and disconnection between generator and grid) -- 1%-2% of the energy passing through is lost
•magnetizing the stator -- the induction generators used in most large grid-connected turbines require a "large" amount of continuous electricity from the grid to actively power the magnetic coils around the asynchronous "cage rotor" that encloses the generator shaft. At the rated wind speeds, it helps keep the rotor speed constant, and as the wind starts blowing it helps start the rotor turning (see next item); in the rated wind speeds, the stator may use power equal to 10% of the turbine's rated capacity in slower winds, possibly much more.
Using the generator as a motor (to help the blades start to turn when the wind speed is low or, as many suspect, to maintain the illusion that the facility is producing electricity when it is not, particularly during important site tours.) It surely seems possible that the grid-magnetized stator must work to help keep the 40-ton blade assembly spinning. Along with the gears which increase the blade rpm some 50 times for the generator, not just at cut-in (or for show in even less wind) but at least some of the way up towards the full rated wind speed; it may also be spinning the blades and rotor shaft to prevent warping when there is no wind.
What all this amounts to is, each wind turbine actually uses more than 60% of its rated capacity in its own operation. Thus, each wind farm as a whole, produces only less than 25% of its annual rated capacity. This means that wind farms use twice the amount of grid electricity for every amount of wind-generated electricity produced.
I'm sure this is news to most Americans, who thought and naturally assumed that wind turbines only produced electricity and it never occurred to a normal person that these devices would actually require Fossil Fueled electricity to operate. Since no records of electricity usage is ever kept at these wind farms, this alarming fact has never become public knowledge.
Since it is admitted by everyone that wind generated electricity only amounts to around 1% of our total produced electricity, these hidden facts bring that figure down to a negative percentage at best. Using more electricity than it produces, green electricity is the reason for Cap and Trade, since green credits can be bought and sold to the highest bidder.
Killing perhaps millions of endangered bird species per year, degrading human health in the same manner as is experienced with people living near high voltage power lines. Ruining many of the earth's most scenic spots, with these huge steel monstrosities and above all, doing nothing in alleviating any fossil fuel electricity usage is the reason these expensive and dangerous eyesores must go.
In today's economy, we cannot afford to spend billions of dollars on a Nigerian like fraud, such as the wind farm swindle.
If you've ever driven close to the huge wind turbine, I'm sure some of you have wondered how long it must take for the wind to start turning such large blades on some of these windmills and how they are stopped, when the wind gets too high for them to operate.
You won't hear anybody in the environmental movement or the renewable energy business tell you this, but as it turns out, all wind turbines use about the same amount of grid electricity as they produce. Large wind turbines require huge amounts of fossil fuel grid electricity to operate. Wind farms have to use electricity from the grid and of course, this large amount of grid electricity is never accounted for in relation to output figures.
Wind turbine functions that use fueled derived electricity are as follows:
•yaw mechanism (to keep the blade assembly perpendicular to the wind; also to untwist the electrical cables in the tower when necessary) -- the nacelle (turbine housing) and blades together, weigh 92 tons on a GE 1.5-MW turbine
•blade-pitch control (to keep the rotors spinning at a regular rate)
•lights, controllers, communication, sensors, metering, data collection, etc.
•heating the blades -- this may require 10%-20% of the turbine's nominal (rated) power
•heating and dehumidifying the nacelle -- according to Danish manufacturer Vestas, "power consumption for heating and dehumidification of the nacelle, must be expected during periods with increased humidity, low temperatures and low wind speeds"
•oil heater, pump, cooler, and filtering system in gearbox
•hydraulic brake (to lock the blades in very high wind)
•thyristors (to graduate the connection and disconnection between generator and grid) -- 1%-2% of the energy passing through is lost
•magnetizing the stator -- the induction generators used in most large grid-connected turbines require a "large" amount of continuous electricity from the grid to actively power the magnetic coils around the asynchronous "cage rotor" that encloses the generator shaft. At the rated wind speeds, it helps keep the rotor speed constant, and as the wind starts blowing it helps start the rotor turning (see next item); in the rated wind speeds, the stator may use power equal to 10% of the turbine's rated capacity in slower winds, possibly much more.
Using the generator as a motor (to help the blades start to turn when the wind speed is low or, as many suspect, to maintain the illusion that the facility is producing electricity when it is not, particularly during important site tours.) It surely seems possible that the grid-magnetized stator must work to help keep the 40-ton blade assembly spinning. Along with the gears which increase the blade rpm some 50 times for the generator, not just at cut-in (or for show in even less wind) but at least some of the way up towards the full rated wind speed; it may also be spinning the blades and rotor shaft to prevent warping when there is no wind.
What all this amounts to is, each wind turbine actually uses more than 60% of its rated capacity in its own operation. Thus, each wind farm as a whole, produces only less than 25% of its annual rated capacity. This means that wind farms use twice the amount of grid electricity for every amount of wind-generated electricity produced.
I'm sure this is news to most Americans, who thought and naturally assumed that wind turbines only produced electricity and it never occurred to a normal person that these devices would actually require Fossil Fueled electricity to operate. Since no records of electricity usage is ever kept at these wind farms, this alarming fact has never become public knowledge.
Since it is admitted by everyone that wind generated electricity only amounts to around 1% of our total produced electricity, these hidden facts bring that figure down to a negative percentage at best. Using more electricity than it produces, green electricity is the reason for Cap and Trade, since green credits can be bought and sold to the highest bidder.
Killing perhaps millions of endangered bird species per year, degrading human health in the same manner as is experienced with people living near high voltage power lines. Ruining many of the earth's most scenic spots, with these huge steel monstrosities and above all, doing nothing in alleviating any fossil fuel electricity usage is the reason these expensive and dangerous eyesores must go.
In today's economy, we cannot afford to spend billions of dollars on a Nigerian like fraud, such as the wind farm swindle.
Wind power's effects gauged
PROPERTY VALUES: Company says Cape will suffer 40 percent decrease with 2 miles
A Chicago-based appraiser has decided that wind turbines in the town will depress property values of homes within two miles of turbines by up to 40 percent.
McCann Appraisal LLC reviewed the town's wind economics committee's report, outside sources, company research and the noise impact assessment from Hessler Associates Inc., Haymarket, Va., from April 2010 for Acciona Wind Energy USA's St. Lawrence Wind Farm's final environmental impact statement.
"After completing my review of the subject location, it is clear that numerous homes in the Cape Vincent area will be adversely impacted, and the best available evidence indicates that value loss of 25 to 40 percent or more will occur to homes within approximately two miles of the turbines," principal Michael S. McCann wrote. "This impact is not expected to be uniform, and some losses may well be lower and others higher."
The committee asked Mr. McCann to review the report and other evidence. Town taxpayer money did not support the analysis; private citizens donated for the cause.
Read the entire article
A Chicago-based appraiser has decided that wind turbines in the town will depress property values of homes within two miles of turbines by up to 40 percent.
McCann Appraisal LLC reviewed the town's wind economics committee's report, outside sources, company research and the noise impact assessment from Hessler Associates Inc., Haymarket, Va., from April 2010 for Acciona Wind Energy USA's St. Lawrence Wind Farm's final environmental impact statement.
"After completing my review of the subject location, it is clear that numerous homes in the Cape Vincent area will be adversely impacted, and the best available evidence indicates that value loss of 25 to 40 percent or more will occur to homes within approximately two miles of the turbines," principal Michael S. McCann wrote. "This impact is not expected to be uniform, and some losses may well be lower and others higher."
The committee asked Mr. McCann to review the report and other evidence. Town taxpayer money did not support the analysis; private citizens donated for the cause.
Read the entire article
Saturday, June 25, 2011
POWER PROJECT BILL OK'D
New rules giving committees in Albany decision-making power on siting power projects at or above 25 megawatts passed overnight Tuesday night in the state Senate and Assembly.
Assemblywoman Addie J. Russell, D-Theresa, and Assemblyman Kenneth D. Blankenbush, R-Black River, voted against the measure in a 117-13 vote. State Sens. Patricia A. Ritchie, R-Heuvelton, and Joseph A. Griffo, R-Rome, voted against the bill in a 59-3 Senate tally.
"While there are many provisions in this law I support, I could not vote for a law that would take control away from local communities," Mrs. Ritchie said in a news release. "The provisions that would allow projects as small as 25 megawatts to avoid local control left me no choice but to vote against this measure."
Mrs. Russell explained her opposition Tuesday night, saying that it usurped local control on siting projects in communities.
Read the entire article
Assemblywoman Addie J. Russell, D-Theresa, and Assemblyman Kenneth D. Blankenbush, R-Black River, voted against the measure in a 117-13 vote. State Sens. Patricia A. Ritchie, R-Heuvelton, and Joseph A. Griffo, R-Rome, voted against the bill in a 59-3 Senate tally.
"While there are many provisions in this law I support, I could not vote for a law that would take control away from local communities," Mrs. Ritchie said in a news release. "The provisions that would allow projects as small as 25 megawatts to avoid local control left me no choice but to vote against this measure."
Mrs. Russell explained her opposition Tuesday night, saying that it usurped local control on siting projects in communities.
Read the entire article
Friday, June 24, 2011
New York State Senator George Maziarz blows off visiting citizens
State Senator George D. Maziarz (R), Chairman of the New York State Energy and Telecommunications Committee was visited in Albany today by several Cape Vincent citizens. Their mision was to ask the Senator to consider increasing the Article X language concerning megawatt qualifications for Article X siting rules from 25 megawatts to 80 megawatts.
As one of the visitors described their Maziarz experience over the phone to JLL, the Senator treated them with less than dignity and "blew them off". "He did not even listen to us," claimed one person who traveled all the way to Albany to talk to the Senator.
Maziarz is Republican and represents New York District 62 in Western New York.
The Senator's Phone number is (518) 455-2024.
As one of the visitors described their Maziarz experience over the phone to JLL, the Senator treated them with less than dignity and "blew them off". "He did not even listen to us," claimed one person who traveled all the way to Albany to talk to the Senator.
Maziarz is Republican and represents New York District 62 in Western New York.
The Senator's Phone number is (518) 455-2024.
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.
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.
Wednesday, June 22, 2011
Howard officials dig right in
Howard, NY — Shovels dug into the ground Friday in Howard, kicking off construction for a renewable energy project seven years in the making.
Everpower Wind Holdings and Howard officials broke ground on the $100 million Howard Wind Project where 25 wind turbines will be built and possibly two more in the future.
“This is a great project for the town and a great project for landowners. I think when we’re done, everyone will be happy,” said Kevin Sheen, of Everpower.
Along with creating renewable energy, the project is a revenue windfall for the community. Howard, Steuben County, and the Canisteo-Greenwood and Hornell City School Districts will split $8.5 million over 20 years paid by Everpower.
Howard will receive the lion’s share – 51.5 percent.
“This is a rural community. We don’t have coming in and helping us with taxes,” Howard Supervisor Don Evia said Friday. “We’ve never seen something like this that can help offset land taxes. This will bring us some relief for 20 years, and hopefully into the future after that.”
The project wasn’t without a mix of controversy and misfortune.
Residents opposing the wind farm brought a lawsuit against the town, which was dismissed several years ago. And while work started on the project in December 2004, the economic recession slowed completion.
Now construction begins on building electricity-generating turbines that stand 375 feet high.
Components will be received on-site by the end of June, with construction scheduled for completion by the end of August or early September, said Everpower Construction Manager Joe Pariano.
The turbines are expected to tie into the grid in mid-October, with an anticipated starting date of mid-December.
Two additional wind turbines might be constructed on 39 acres of private land south of Spencer Hill and South Woods roads, bringing the total number to 27.
The turbines will be constructed on 5,000 acres of farm land leased from private landowners.
Everpower Wind Holdings and Howard officials broke ground on the $100 million Howard Wind Project where 25 wind turbines will be built and possibly two more in the future.
“This is a great project for the town and a great project for landowners. I think when we’re done, everyone will be happy,” said Kevin Sheen, of Everpower.
Along with creating renewable energy, the project is a revenue windfall for the community. Howard, Steuben County, and the Canisteo-Greenwood and Hornell City School Districts will split $8.5 million over 20 years paid by Everpower.
Howard will receive the lion’s share – 51.5 percent.
“This is a rural community. We don’t have coming in and helping us with taxes,” Howard Supervisor Don Evia said Friday. “We’ve never seen something like this that can help offset land taxes. This will bring us some relief for 20 years, and hopefully into the future after that.”
The project wasn’t without a mix of controversy and misfortune.
Residents opposing the wind farm brought a lawsuit against the town, which was dismissed several years ago. And while work started on the project in December 2004, the economic recession slowed completion.
Now construction begins on building electricity-generating turbines that stand 375 feet high.
Components will be received on-site by the end of June, with construction scheduled for completion by the end of August or early September, said Everpower Construction Manager Joe Pariano.
The turbines are expected to tie into the grid in mid-October, with an anticipated starting date of mid-December.
Two additional wind turbines might be constructed on 39 acres of private land south of Spencer Hill and South Woods roads, bringing the total number to 27.
The turbines will be constructed on 5,000 acres of farm land leased from private landowners.
Article X, Green Jobs To Be Part Of End-Of-Session Deal
Almost a decade after it expired, Article X – the state’s power plant siting law – is set to be renewed as part of the Legislature’s omnibus, end-of-session deal.
Renewing Article X would be a huge win for the Cuomo administration. The state has been without a power plant siting law since 2003. Legislators and advocates argue the Indian Point nuclear power plant, which provides up to 30 percent of the power used in New York City and Westchester County, cannot be closed unless the siting law is enacted. Renewing Article X would clear a huge hurdle for Gov. Andrew Cuomo in his quest to shut down Indian Point.
Late Tuesday, Cuomo was optimistic that a deal could be reached.
“We are also trying to get Article X done, which is of tremendous importance of the state. It’s been years and years that we haven’t had Article X,” Cuomo said. “I’m cautiously optimistic that we’ll actually get that done.”
Key legislators were less cautious, more optimistic.
“We are literally one, relatively minor detail apart right now. We’re working those details out,” said Assemblyman Kevin Cahill, an Ulster County Democrat who chairs the Energy Committee. “We pretty much came to an agreement.”
His Senate counterpart, George Maziarz, agreed, adding one sticking point remains: whether to include a sunset provision in the bill.
“It sunset, and the sun’s never come up since,” Maziarz said. “That was a big thing that we wanted on the Senate side. Now again, I’m not so sure the Assembly’s going to agree to that. We do not want the sunset. They probably will.”
Cahill said that on the contrary, the Assembly has agreed to make Article X permanent.
“Always on everyone’s shortlist is Article X,” he said. “This year it looks like we’re going to be able to get it through. And not only get it through, but get through a fantastic bill that is going to be made permanent.”
Cahill said the deal, which may be voted on as early as today, will provide siting oversight for power plants in excess of 25 megawatts of energy. Plants would be required to comply with federal homeland security regulations, air quality rules, environmental justice and public health provisions, as well as the state’s statutory energy plan.
The deal may also require the state to set up a “utility intervenor fund” of somewhere between $200,000 and $800,000, depending on the size of the plant, which would be provided by the power plant applicant to pay for legal fees.
The deal should also satisfy any lingering environmental justice concerns, Cahill said. For years, the Assembly blocked the law’s renewal based mainly on concerns that new power plants would be sited disproportionately in low-income, minority communities.
“We’ve stood for a long time in not agreeing until we were happy with the environmental justice provision,” Cahill said.
The deal will also include a companion piece to authorize “on bill” financing for the Green Jobs/Green New York program, which allows homeowners to pay for energy retrofits through loan payments. That program was first enacted in summer 2009.
There were almost no serious discussions on renewing Article X – which has become something of a perennial issue for Albany – until this month, when advocates say everything suddenly started to coalesce.
“After a lot of lobbying around energy issues this session, the governor’s office brought together both houses and parties a couple of weeks back,” said Dan Hendrick, a spokesman for the New York League of Conservation Voters, in an email. “Green jobs was a priority for the Assembly, Article X for the Senate. Everyone had something they could work with and negotiate for.”
Hendricks said the deal presents a significant improvement over the previous law. If a community is “environmentally overburdened,” he said, power plant applicants will have to commit to local offset programs before applications can be improved.
“We are very excited about both, Article X in particular, which has been one of our goals for years,” he said.
Kathy Wylde, president and CEO of the Partnership for New York City, said that renewing Article X is essential to rebuilding the state’s economy.
“New York continues to need energy,” she said. “We’re trying to conserve, but the fact is that economic growth, particularly in technology-intensive industries, requires additional energy generation. Otherwise we’re stuck with a 20th Century electrical system.”
Maziarz credited Cuomo for making the deal happen.
“For years we’ve been talking Article X, passing different bills on Article X,” he said. “And you know, the governor really kind of drove it home.”
ARTICLE X: Legislation could be approved today - Wind farm siting may fall to Albany
If proposed state legislation is approved today, the siting of wind power projects in the north country will be decided by a committee in Albany, not local planning boards.
State and local wind power proponents have supported Article X in the past, saying that it limits to one year how long the siting approval and permitting process can take. Under local review, projects have lagged for three, four or more years.
Wind power opponents tend to oppose Article X out of suspicion of Albany's renewable energy policies and its push to build wind-power projects.
The Article X provisions will be part of a larger energy policy bill after a three-way agreement among the governor and legislature leaders, making passage likely.
Read the entire article
State and local wind power proponents have supported Article X in the past, saying that it limits to one year how long the siting approval and permitting process can take. Under local review, projects have lagged for three, four or more years.
Wind power opponents tend to oppose Article X out of suspicion of Albany's renewable energy policies and its push to build wind-power projects.
The Article X provisions will be part of a larger energy policy bill after a three-way agreement among the governor and legislature leaders, making passage likely.
Read the entire article
Tuesday, June 21, 2011
Great Lakes May Beat Atlantic To Offshore Wind
States along the Atlantic Coast are racing to be first in the country to put wind turbines offshore. But a group in Ohio says the first offshore wind farm in America isn't likely to be in the Atlantic, but in the fresh waters of Lake Erie about seven miles off the Cleveland coast.
A dull gray salvage boat chugs out of the Port of Cleveland on a calm spring morning; it's part of the early stages of what some hope will become a major industry in Ohio. But today, the prospect of dozens of massive wind turbines sprouting from the lake floor seems remote.
Right now, there's only one structure on the water — a century-old, iron-clad water intake "crib" that juts 30 feet out of the water. A helmeted diver tethered to a nearby boat sinks into the murky water. His job is to recover an ice sensor sitting 50 feet down on the lake bottom.
Meanwhile three engineers climb the metal steps to the crib's roof where storm-battered instruments are gathering wind data. One of them, Aaron Godwin, says the numbers demonstrate the lake's energy potential.
"Actually this would be a good example of a day where we would be generating some pretty decent power," Godwin says. "You'll see that the instruments are spinning faster as you go up in elevation; again, one of the reasons you come out here is because it's unobstructed; it's clean wind."
Lakes May Beat Atlantic to Offshore Wind
Promoters of clean wind say, in the next decade, hundreds of turbines in Lake Erie could produce 1,000 megawatts of power — enough for 200,000 homes.
The plan is to start next year with a five-turbine pilot project within sight of downtown Cleveland. Its $100 million cost would be raised from investors and loans.
Chris Wissemann, the project's developer, says that with turbine supplier General Electric, engineering giant Bechtel, and Texas-based Cavallo Energy on board, his company, Freshwater Wind, will likely win the nation's offshore wind race.
"The Great Lakes will really be home to offshore wind long before we see it in the Atlantic," Wissemann says.
Expensive Start-Up
But first engineers need to solve a problem that most ocean wind farms don't have — massive floes of shifting ice each winter.
Data from the ice sensor recovered from the lake bottom will help engineers like Dave Mattheisen design foundations that can withstand those icy pressures, without "over-engineering" them. Each turbine will cost more than $20 million — so much money that it could take decades to recoup the investment.
But Wissemann insists the high costs of the pilot project will be outweighed by the long-term benefits.
"What we're talking about here now is a project that maybe produces high-priced power, but the trade-off is to get jobs," he says.
'The Math Doesn't Work'
But not everyone believes it's worth it.
Cleveland industrialist Dan Moore has stakes in a dozen businesses, including one that builds turbine blades. But he says the numbers Wissemann is throwing around just don't add up.
"The concept of building windmills in Lake Erie is nonsense. $100 million for 3.4 megawatts it doesn't even come close to making sense," Moore says. "It's Alice in Wonderland." (Moore is referring to his projections of production for a pilot project to test the proposed wind farm.)
Moore thinks high-priced wind energy won't work in a region that needs electricity to power heavy industry.
"The math doesn't work, you're off by a decimal point," he says.
Some other Great Lakes players are backing away from offshore wind turbine development because of environmental concerns. In Michigan, lawmakers and residents are concerned about disturbing the lake's natural beauty. Meanwhile in Canada, all of Ontario's offshore power projects have been put on hold.
Political, Economic Challenges
But backers in Ohio say they've looked at the realities, and they're still optimistic. Lorry Wagner, head of the non-profit Lake Erie Energy Development Corp., says he understands the challenges.
"We know we have to get [the cost] down to approximately half of what it is today and that's an immense challenge, we don't have any illusions about how difficult this is going to be," Wagner says.
The world's first freshwater wind farm went online last year in Lake Vanern, Sweden. Engineers in Cleveland are hoping to benefit from lessons learned there. And they say the project's engineering problems are actually the easiest to solve — it's the political and economic challenges that are likely to remain the thorniest.
A dull gray salvage boat chugs out of the Port of Cleveland on a calm spring morning; it's part of the early stages of what some hope will become a major industry in Ohio. But today, the prospect of dozens of massive wind turbines sprouting from the lake floor seems remote.
Right now, there's only one structure on the water — a century-old, iron-clad water intake "crib" that juts 30 feet out of the water. A helmeted diver tethered to a nearby boat sinks into the murky water. His job is to recover an ice sensor sitting 50 feet down on the lake bottom.
Meanwhile three engineers climb the metal steps to the crib's roof where storm-battered instruments are gathering wind data. One of them, Aaron Godwin, says the numbers demonstrate the lake's energy potential.
"Actually this would be a good example of a day where we would be generating some pretty decent power," Godwin says. "You'll see that the instruments are spinning faster as you go up in elevation; again, one of the reasons you come out here is because it's unobstructed; it's clean wind."
Lakes May Beat Atlantic to Offshore Wind
Promoters of clean wind say, in the next decade, hundreds of turbines in Lake Erie could produce 1,000 megawatts of power — enough for 200,000 homes.
The plan is to start next year with a five-turbine pilot project within sight of downtown Cleveland. Its $100 million cost would be raised from investors and loans.
Chris Wissemann, the project's developer, says that with turbine supplier General Electric, engineering giant Bechtel, and Texas-based Cavallo Energy on board, his company, Freshwater Wind, will likely win the nation's offshore wind race.
"The Great Lakes will really be home to offshore wind long before we see it in the Atlantic," Wissemann says.
Expensive Start-Up
But first engineers need to solve a problem that most ocean wind farms don't have — massive floes of shifting ice each winter.
Data from the ice sensor recovered from the lake bottom will help engineers like Dave Mattheisen design foundations that can withstand those icy pressures, without "over-engineering" them. Each turbine will cost more than $20 million — so much money that it could take decades to recoup the investment.
But Wissemann insists the high costs of the pilot project will be outweighed by the long-term benefits.
"What we're talking about here now is a project that maybe produces high-priced power, but the trade-off is to get jobs," he says.
'The Math Doesn't Work'
But not everyone believes it's worth it.
Cleveland industrialist Dan Moore has stakes in a dozen businesses, including one that builds turbine blades. But he says the numbers Wissemann is throwing around just don't add up.
"The concept of building windmills in Lake Erie is nonsense. $100 million for 3.4 megawatts it doesn't even come close to making sense," Moore says. "It's Alice in Wonderland." (Moore is referring to his projections of production for a pilot project to test the proposed wind farm.)
Moore thinks high-priced wind energy won't work in a region that needs electricity to power heavy industry.
"The math doesn't work, you're off by a decimal point," he says.
Some other Great Lakes players are backing away from offshore wind turbine development because of environmental concerns. In Michigan, lawmakers and residents are concerned about disturbing the lake's natural beauty. Meanwhile in Canada, all of Ontario's offshore power projects have been put on hold.
Political, Economic Challenges
But backers in Ohio say they've looked at the realities, and they're still optimistic. Lorry Wagner, head of the non-profit Lake Erie Energy Development Corp., says he understands the challenges.
"We know we have to get [the cost] down to approximately half of what it is today and that's an immense challenge, we don't have any illusions about how difficult this is going to be," Wagner says.
The world's first freshwater wind farm went online last year in Lake Vanern, Sweden. Engineers in Cleveland are hoping to benefit from lessons learned there. And they say the project's engineering problems are actually the easiest to solve — it's the political and economic challenges that are likely to remain the thorniest.
Monday, June 20, 2011
Big Wind must be transparent
Wind energy is cited among the green alternatives to fossil fuel, but environmental and community groups are irritated about the handling of a massive project to transmit energy to Oahu from windmills on Lanai and Molokai. They should be provided more access to preliminary work on the plan by state agencies and Hawaiian Electric Co., and hold project members to promises of full access and participation at future venues.
HECO is seeking a "power purchase agreement" from the Public Utilities Commission to recover $4 million from ratepayers in costs for studies associated with the Big Wind, or Interisland Wind, project. The PUC has endorsed the Hawaii Clean Energy Initiative, which mandates that 40 percent of the state's energy come from renewable sources by 2030, so the studies are consistent with the state's goals. The path to getting there, though, has the potential to keep lay people in the dark until it emerges as a fait accompli.
Even Maui Mayor Alan Arakawa is complaining that "no one can tell us where the cable will run, its overall cost or how it would interconnect with the grids on the islands of Maui, Molokai and Lanai.... We need a clear, complete, accurate, detailed analysis for the cable system before we agree to finance it on the backs of the ratepayers."
For several years, the state, U.S. Department of Energy and HECO have analyzed the Big Wind project and "concluded that an undersea cable system is technically feasible, cost-effective and financially viable to serve the public interest and benefit," according to an introduction to state legislation prepared by project participants. HECO now is studying the actual particulars, such as the route for the cable, said Robbie Alm, executive vice president.
To Mayor Arakawa's concerns, Alm said a connection with Maui island has not been decided yet.
The U.S. Department of Energy has begun preparing its environmental impact statement on the project and the state will begin work on its EIS after the federal document is completed, Alm said. At that point, possibly this fall, the public will be allowed full access and participation in the process, he said, In addition, he said, the project will need 70 state permits, each of which will be subject to public hearings before being granted.
A big part of the concern at this stage stems from the fact that the PUC is a quasi-judicial state agency whose primary focus is regulations and rates, with dockets full of technical verbiage; its required level of public hearings is not structured like, say the City Council or the state Legislature, both of which hold multiple readings and hearings on issues.
Indeed, the present process consists of "technical studies to determine the possibility of adding large amounts of wind and solar energy to the Oahu grid," HECO spokesman Peter Rosegg told the Star-Advertiser's Alan Yonan Jr. The results of those studies "do not mean the Interisland Wind project will be done, only that it is possible," he added.
Well, the studies surely seem to go beyond that uncertainty.
The attempt by Honolulu-based Life of the Land to intervene so it could gain access to all the information about the project has been rejected by the PUC. The environmental organization's executive director, Henry Curtis, said his attempt to obtain public documents from the state has been resisted. Curtis said the Department of Business, Economic Development and Tourism said it would cost Life of the Land $15,000 for photocopies of all its Big Wind material, and the PUC would charge $8,000 for copies of its documents.
PUC Chairwoman Hermina Morita says it complied with the law on Curtis's request, which asked for an overabundance of information (see today's Letters to the Editor), and that anyone can view the commission's website.
But while the PUC is not bound by the information disclosure standards of other state agencies, it needs to be acutely aware that public accessibility and understanding is crucial to what would be the priciest, most controversial public utility project in the state's history, even at this pre-EIS stage. The movers and shakers need to ensure comprehensive openness as the state environmental impact statement process unfolds with an abundance of hearings and thorough public scrutiny.
HECO is seeking a "power purchase agreement" from the Public Utilities Commission to recover $4 million from ratepayers in costs for studies associated with the Big Wind, or Interisland Wind, project. The PUC has endorsed the Hawaii Clean Energy Initiative, which mandates that 40 percent of the state's energy come from renewable sources by 2030, so the studies are consistent with the state's goals. The path to getting there, though, has the potential to keep lay people in the dark until it emerges as a fait accompli.
Even Maui Mayor Alan Arakawa is complaining that "no one can tell us where the cable will run, its overall cost or how it would interconnect with the grids on the islands of Maui, Molokai and Lanai.... We need a clear, complete, accurate, detailed analysis for the cable system before we agree to finance it on the backs of the ratepayers."
For several years, the state, U.S. Department of Energy and HECO have analyzed the Big Wind project and "concluded that an undersea cable system is technically feasible, cost-effective and financially viable to serve the public interest and benefit," according to an introduction to state legislation prepared by project participants. HECO now is studying the actual particulars, such as the route for the cable, said Robbie Alm, executive vice president.
To Mayor Arakawa's concerns, Alm said a connection with Maui island has not been decided yet.
The U.S. Department of Energy has begun preparing its environmental impact statement on the project and the state will begin work on its EIS after the federal document is completed, Alm said. At that point, possibly this fall, the public will be allowed full access and participation in the process, he said, In addition, he said, the project will need 70 state permits, each of which will be subject to public hearings before being granted.
A big part of the concern at this stage stems from the fact that the PUC is a quasi-judicial state agency whose primary focus is regulations and rates, with dockets full of technical verbiage; its required level of public hearings is not structured like, say the City Council or the state Legislature, both of which hold multiple readings and hearings on issues.
Indeed, the present process consists of "technical studies to determine the possibility of adding large amounts of wind and solar energy to the Oahu grid," HECO spokesman Peter Rosegg told the Star-Advertiser's Alan Yonan Jr. The results of those studies "do not mean the Interisland Wind project will be done, only that it is possible," he added.
Well, the studies surely seem to go beyond that uncertainty.
The attempt by Honolulu-based Life of the Land to intervene so it could gain access to all the information about the project has been rejected by the PUC. The environmental organization's executive director, Henry Curtis, said his attempt to obtain public documents from the state has been resisted. Curtis said the Department of Business, Economic Development and Tourism said it would cost Life of the Land $15,000 for photocopies of all its Big Wind material, and the PUC would charge $8,000 for copies of its documents.
PUC Chairwoman Hermina Morita says it complied with the law on Curtis's request, which asked for an overabundance of information (see today's Letters to the Editor), and that anyone can view the commission's website.
But while the PUC is not bound by the information disclosure standards of other state agencies, it needs to be acutely aware that public accessibility and understanding is crucial to what would be the priciest, most controversial public utility project in the state's history, even at this pre-EIS stage. The movers and shakers need to ensure comprehensive openness as the state environmental impact statement process unfolds with an abundance of hearings and thorough public scrutiny.
Saturday, June 18, 2011
Breaking News: Pork Lawsuit Argument Announced
October 12, 2011, 2pm Albany. A Tea Party Rally against corporate welfare will be held at 12 noon on the Capitol steps. Stay tuned for details and save the date.
Note: we won in the Appellate Division five to zero.
The name of the case is Bordeleau v. State of New York.
Oral argument will be held at the Court of Appeals, NY’s highest court.
For more information google “pork lawsuit.”
Cohocton Wind Watch is a petitioner in this legal action.
Note: we won in the Appellate Division five to zero.
The name of the case is Bordeleau v. State of New York.
Oral argument will be held at the Court of Appeals, NY’s highest court.
For more information google “pork lawsuit.”
Cohocton Wind Watch is a petitioner in this legal action.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)