Prattsburgh, NY — The moratorium on wind farm construction in the Town of Prattsburgh will continue for another six months.
The town board approved the extension at this week’s meeting by a 3-1 vote.
Prattsburgh Town Supervisor Al Wordingham said the extension will allow the town’s comprehensive plan to be completed.
There was little public opposition during the public hearing on the moratorium extension, first enacted in March 2010.
Resident Leonard McConnell asked if continuing the moratorium would lead to a lawsuit by wind developer Ecogen.
“I don’t know,” Wordingham said. “It hasn’t so far.”
Wordingham, along with fellow board members Anneke Radin-Snaith and Chuck Shick, voted for the extension. Stacey Bottoni voted against it, while Steve Kula was absent.
The future of wind development in the town remains up in the air.
Earlier this year, after a long legal battle with Ecogen, Prattsburgh town board members approved a road use agreement.
The agreement effectively allowed the developer to go ahead with its plans to put up 16 turbines in the town, with a state Supreme Court justice giving Ecogen a limited amount of time to prove it had vested interest.
However, since then the state Legislature has reenacted Article X, which sets up a seven-member panel to decide where small 25-megawatt wind farms may be built.
Article X does not affect existing projects, such as Ecogen’s, but does allow developers to resubmit applications and go through the permit process.
The wind industry in Steuben County, once thought to be booming, has hit a number of roadblocks.
Of the six wind farms proposed in the county 10 years ago, one is operating in the Town of Cohocton and another in the Town of Howard is under construction.
Supporters say the turbines are a source of renewable energy and bring needed revenues to the town.
But opponents said the turbines threaten the health and welfare of people and the environment. That tension between both sides has been a factor in delaying projects, with legal wrangles in several communities.
In the towns of Caton and Hartsville, wind developers bowed out as local opposition mounted and competition for state subsidies escalated. In Prattsburgh, a second developer, First Wind, pulled out two years ago, citing the poor national economy.
There are questions about wind-generated energy on the national front, too.
The Huffington Post recently reported additional output from existing and new turbines has increased by very little during the past three years.
On Aug. 12, the news agency reported the wind industry’s lackluster performance is due to local opposition, serious questions about turbine noise, declining support for governmental subsidies, and the drop in natural gas prices.
Monday, August 22, 2011
Friday, August 19, 2011
AFP, New York Lawmakers Call For State's Withdrawal From RGGI Cap & Trade Scheme
Americans for Prosperity, Upstate New York Lawmakers: Stop New York’s Participation in RGGI Cap & Trade Scheme Before It’s Too Late
RGGI, Burdensome Regulations Jeopardize Thousands of Jobs at AES Somerset, Other Area Coal Plants
LINK: Click here for the UStream of today’s press conference.
DATELINE: SOMERSET, NY – Americans for Prosperity joined forces today with several upstate New York elected leaders to sound the alarm bell over the job-killing Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI) Cap & Trade scheme and other destructive “green” regulations that are threatening the viability of the area’s electricity-producing coal plants and risking thousands of jobs in the region.
A group including Somerset Councilman Daniel Engert, Niagara County Legislator John Syracuse, Assemblyman Steve Hawley (R-139), State Senator George Maziarz (R-62), AFP-New Jersey state director Steve Lonegan and AFP-New York grassroots chair Lisa Thrun assembled today at a press conference at Somerset Town Hall along with a number of AFP activists and Cap & Trade opponents. The group called on Governor Cuomo and state lawmakers to put an end to the RGGI Cap & Trade tax and roll back regulatory mandates which are pushing the area’s seventeen power plants to the brink. Upstate New York’s seventeen power plants represent a workforce of several thousand area residents.
In Somerset, NY, the site of today’s press conference, the AES Somerset plant was forced to suspend operations in November of 2010 as a direct consequence of economic pressures brought about by the RGGI Cap & Trade program and other regulatory mandates. AES Somerset employs 150 upstate New York residents and represents the county’s largest taxpayer.
Recently, the town of Somerset, led by Councilman Daniel Engert passed a resolution calling on Governor Cuomo to reevaluate the environmental policies which are hurting the region.
“The effects of [the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative] and other policies are hurting businesses, jobs and communities throughout New York State and arguably none greater than right here in the western end in Niagara County,” said Engert.
“It is our hope that a movement will begin right here that will result in a concerted focus to be placed upon new and innovative strategies which balance the noble goal of preserving and protecting the environment while supporting our existing businesses and jobs so that our local economy can endure.”
Echoing Councilman Engert’s comments, Assemblyman Steve Hawley (R-139) pointed out that RGGI will heap ten million dollars worth of fees on AES, adding, “...AES and 16 other coal plants are fighting for survival because of the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative Cap & Trade regulations which are eroding the ability of companies to provide affordable energy and to preserve the job opportunities our communities rely on.”
State Senator George Maziarz (R-62) added that “RGGI was just one of many [mandates] that make New York State unfriendly for businesses here, to open here, to operate here, to employ people.”
The senator also expressed disapproval regarding New York’s participation in RGGI, saying, “It was disappointing that RGGI was implemented in the State of New York without legislative approval. It was done by executive fiat of the former governor.”
AFP-New Jersey state director Steve Lonegan blasted the RGGI Cap & Trade program, calling it “the worst, most devious and most deceptive of all the government policies I have ever seen.”
Lonegan also called attention to the fact that New York State’s participation in the RGGI Cap & Trade program came about without the authorization of the Legislature, in effecting imposing “taxation without representation” and an “unconstitutional tax” on the state’s residents.
New York’s unlawful participation in RGGI is now the subject of a legal challenge brought forth by Smith Valliere PLLC on behalf of a number of New York citizens. (Click here to read more regarding this pending litigation.)
Lonegan also warned that “one of [RGGI’s] singular intents is to eliminate coal power as a source of electricity” which would have “devastating consequences” for Niagara County. He called upon members of the New York State Legislature to work to overturn the state’s participation in the program; a move he said would deliver RGGI “knockout punch.”
For more information on the RGGI Cap & Trade program, please visit www.NoNJCapAndTrade.com. Also, visit Americans for Prosperity’s website here.
Americans for Prosperity (AFP) is a nationwide organization of citizen-leaders committed to advancing every individual’s right to economic freedom and opportunity. AFP believes reducing the size and intrusiveness of government is the best way to promote individual productivity and prosperity for all Americans. AFP educates and engages citizens to support restraining state and federal government growth and returning government to its constitutional limits. AFP is more than 1.7 million activists strong, with activists in all 50 states. AFP has 32 state chapters and affiliates. More than 85,000 Americans in all 50 states have made a financial contribution to AFP or AFP Foundation. For more information, visit www.americansforprosperity.org
Americans for Prosperity does not support or oppose candidates for public office.
RGGI, Burdensome Regulations Jeopardize Thousands of Jobs at AES Somerset, Other Area Coal Plants
LINK: Click here for the UStream of today’s press conference.
DATELINE: SOMERSET, NY – Americans for Prosperity joined forces today with several upstate New York elected leaders to sound the alarm bell over the job-killing Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI) Cap & Trade scheme and other destructive “green” regulations that are threatening the viability of the area’s electricity-producing coal plants and risking thousands of jobs in the region.
A group including Somerset Councilman Daniel Engert, Niagara County Legislator John Syracuse, Assemblyman Steve Hawley (R-139), State Senator George Maziarz (R-62), AFP-New Jersey state director Steve Lonegan and AFP-New York grassroots chair Lisa Thrun assembled today at a press conference at Somerset Town Hall along with a number of AFP activists and Cap & Trade opponents. The group called on Governor Cuomo and state lawmakers to put an end to the RGGI Cap & Trade tax and roll back regulatory mandates which are pushing the area’s seventeen power plants to the brink. Upstate New York’s seventeen power plants represent a workforce of several thousand area residents.
In Somerset, NY, the site of today’s press conference, the AES Somerset plant was forced to suspend operations in November of 2010 as a direct consequence of economic pressures brought about by the RGGI Cap & Trade program and other regulatory mandates. AES Somerset employs 150 upstate New York residents and represents the county’s largest taxpayer.
Recently, the town of Somerset, led by Councilman Daniel Engert passed a resolution calling on Governor Cuomo to reevaluate the environmental policies which are hurting the region.
“The effects of [the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative] and other policies are hurting businesses, jobs and communities throughout New York State and arguably none greater than right here in the western end in Niagara County,” said Engert.
“It is our hope that a movement will begin right here that will result in a concerted focus to be placed upon new and innovative strategies which balance the noble goal of preserving and protecting the environment while supporting our existing businesses and jobs so that our local economy can endure.”
Echoing Councilman Engert’s comments, Assemblyman Steve Hawley (R-139) pointed out that RGGI will heap ten million dollars worth of fees on AES, adding, “...AES and 16 other coal plants are fighting for survival because of the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative Cap & Trade regulations which are eroding the ability of companies to provide affordable energy and to preserve the job opportunities our communities rely on.”
State Senator George Maziarz (R-62) added that “RGGI was just one of many [mandates] that make New York State unfriendly for businesses here, to open here, to operate here, to employ people.”
The senator also expressed disapproval regarding New York’s participation in RGGI, saying, “It was disappointing that RGGI was implemented in the State of New York without legislative approval. It was done by executive fiat of the former governor.”
AFP-New Jersey state director Steve Lonegan blasted the RGGI Cap & Trade program, calling it “the worst, most devious and most deceptive of all the government policies I have ever seen.”
Lonegan also called attention to the fact that New York State’s participation in the RGGI Cap & Trade program came about without the authorization of the Legislature, in effecting imposing “taxation without representation” and an “unconstitutional tax” on the state’s residents.
New York’s unlawful participation in RGGI is now the subject of a legal challenge brought forth by Smith Valliere PLLC on behalf of a number of New York citizens. (Click here to read more regarding this pending litigation.)
Lonegan also warned that “one of [RGGI’s] singular intents is to eliminate coal power as a source of electricity” which would have “devastating consequences” for Niagara County. He called upon members of the New York State Legislature to work to overturn the state’s participation in the program; a move he said would deliver RGGI “knockout punch.”
For more information on the RGGI Cap & Trade program, please visit www.NoNJCapAndTrade.com. Also, visit Americans for Prosperity’s website here.
Americans for Prosperity (AFP) is a nationwide organization of citizen-leaders committed to advancing every individual’s right to economic freedom and opportunity. AFP believes reducing the size and intrusiveness of government is the best way to promote individual productivity and prosperity for all Americans. AFP educates and engages citizens to support restraining state and federal government growth and returning government to its constitutional limits. AFP is more than 1.7 million activists strong, with activists in all 50 states. AFP has 32 state chapters and affiliates. More than 85,000 Americans in all 50 states have made a financial contribution to AFP or AFP Foundation. For more information, visit www.americansforprosperity.org
Americans for Prosperity does not support or oppose candidates for public office.
Wednesday, August 17, 2011
AG calls Cape Vincent resolution unconstitutional
At an editorial board meeting with the Watertown Daily Times, the state's lawyer said that he's glad he hasn't had to deal with Cape Vincent's law requiring that voters have driver's licenses with CV addresses.
"Because it's unconstitutional," Mr. Schneiderman said.
So that should put this puppy to rest.
For background: Cape Vincent is in the middle of a fight over wind turbine projects. To outsiders, wind turbines seem like the most inoffensive source of energy ever — wind can't be depleted, and it's not like wind turbines are going to throw the Earth of its axis (for the culturally unhip: The Onion is satire).
"Anti-windies," as they're called not to their faces, recently launched a voter registration drive to get seasonal residents to vote in Cape Vincent's upcoming primary and general elections.
Keep in mind — seasonal residents have every right to vote where they choose, as long as they live in the district for 30 days before the election. (Logic would tell you that seasonal residents — people who really enjoy the scenic vistas of Lake Ontario — would be more anti-wind power than their permanent neighbors, who could rake in economic benefits, and who in turn would care more about the money more than people who have two homes do.)
So the "pro-windies" decided to pass a local resolution that said only people with CV addresses on a driver's license could vote. (In a hilarious twist, the resolution also said that if the poll worker recognizes the voter, they can vote. What an idea!)
To say it bureaucratically, Mr. Schneiderman was saying that this law will have no effect on Cape Vincent's election because the town can't do something that would override the state's election law.
To say it metaphorically, just because I put on a wig and insist that you call me Your Royal Highness doesn't make me Queen Elizabeth II.
"Because it's unconstitutional," Mr. Schneiderman said.
So that should put this puppy to rest.
For background: Cape Vincent is in the middle of a fight over wind turbine projects. To outsiders, wind turbines seem like the most inoffensive source of energy ever — wind can't be depleted, and it's not like wind turbines are going to throw the Earth of its axis (for the culturally unhip: The Onion is satire).
"Anti-windies," as they're called not to their faces, recently launched a voter registration drive to get seasonal residents to vote in Cape Vincent's upcoming primary and general elections.
Keep in mind — seasonal residents have every right to vote where they choose, as long as they live in the district for 30 days before the election. (Logic would tell you that seasonal residents — people who really enjoy the scenic vistas of Lake Ontario — would be more anti-wind power than their permanent neighbors, who could rake in economic benefits, and who in turn would care more about the money more than people who have two homes do.)
So the "pro-windies" decided to pass a local resolution that said only people with CV addresses on a driver's license could vote. (In a hilarious twist, the resolution also said that if the poll worker recognizes the voter, they can vote. What an idea!)
To say it bureaucratically, Mr. Schneiderman was saying that this law will have no effect on Cape Vincent's election because the town can't do something that would override the state's election law.
To say it metaphorically, just because I put on a wig and insist that you call me Your Royal Highness doesn't make me Queen Elizabeth II.
Monday, August 15, 2011
'Michigan Wind Is Less Costly Than Coal' Claim Blown Away by Federal Stats
The federal government’s Energy Information Administration (EIA) found that conventional coal is less expensive than wind in its latest study of the cost of energy. Yet, a Michigan Public Service Commission (MPSC) study in February found that coal in Michigan was 22 percent more expensive than what the federal government states as the average U.S. coal cost.
Some experts say that the reason for the discrepancy lies with an environmental agenda that seeks to artificially increase the cost of burning coal for electricity generation by requiring greater restrictions on its production of carbon dioxide — a greenhouse gas.
For example, the Michigan Public Service Commission found the cost of coal to be $133 per megawatt hour, considerably more expensive than the average national cost of $109 per megawatt hour for a similar type plant. Paul Proudfoot, director of the MPSC’s Electric Reliability Division, said a big reason for the higher cost was that the MPSC study tacked a “carbon tax” onto the price of coal. Yet no such tax exists — either at the state or national level. According to Proudfoot, the MPSC added it because of an assumption that such a tax will pass.
The MPSC’s estimated price for coal — inflated with the non-existent tax — has been seized upon by a Michigan environmental group as an argument for a switchover to renewable energy sources.
In a letter to the editor to the Detroit Free Press, Hugh McDiarmid Jr., spokesman for the Michigan Environmental Council, cited the Michigan Public Service Commission’s report, noting that “electricity from renewable sources is already cheaper in Michigan than electricity from a new coal plant would be.”
But McDiarmid’s statement deserves a closer look.
The EIA states that “conventional coal” costs $94.80 per megawatt hour. Conventional coal plants burn coal in its pure form. “Advanced coal” plants first turn coal into gas to reduce emissions, but are more costly at the $109 per megawatt hour. By comparison, wind comes in at $97 per megawatt hour.
But there’s more.
Coal is also a significantly more reliable energy source. The EIA states that coal operates at 85 percent of capacity while wind operates at 34 percent of capacity. Wind energy requires a backup plan and this is not factored onto its cost.
Energy experts also note that environmentalists themselves can be a factor in driving up the price of coal, and thus the cost that Americans pay for electricity. Even the EIA’s current $94.8 per megawatt hour calculation for coal includes a 3 percent increase in the capital costs for building coal plants because of the difficulty of building coal plants in the United States. Mary Hutzler, a former acting administrator of the EIA under former President George W. Bush and a distinguished senior fellow at the Institute for Energy Research, said that 3 percent is in part due because “environmentalists fight it.”
For example, a recent Capitol Confidential story noted that the Sierra Club files a lawsuit against every new permit issued for a coal plant in the United States.
Hutzler also said coal plants are moving from “conventional” plants to the more costly “advanced” plants. She said that’s being done because “advanced” plants are easier to adapt for carbon-reducing than “conventional” plants.
The Michigan Public Service Commission’s study used the more costly “advanced” coal plants cost for its study. Proudfoot said he didn’t think a “conventional” coal plant could even be built in Michigan anymore.
Hutzler said bureaucracy and environmental regulations are “really what is driving the costs (of coal) up.”
The cost of wind also skyrockets when moved offshore, jumping from the $97 per megawatt hour to $243 per megawatt hour, according to the EIA.
Michigan is moving forward with plans for offshore wind farms.
The Great Lakes Wind Council, an advisory body to the Michigan Department of Energy, Labor & Economic Growth, gave a report to former Gov. Jennifer Granholm in October 2010 that said 13,300 square miles of state-owned Great Lakes bottomlands were favorable for development of offshore wind energy.
But the reason this is feasible is because wind is becoming the favored child of government subsidies.
The Institute for Energy Research cited an Energy Information Administration report from July that showed that wind shot past coal in the last three years in terms of federal subsidies.
Wind subsidies increased from $476 million in 2007 to $4.9 billion in 2010, while coal’s federal subsidies grew from $943 million in 2004 to $1.3 billion in 2010.
But considering coal’s place as the overwhelming number one source of electricity generation in the United States with nearly 45 percent of the total, these subsidies are tiny compared to wind. EIA says that coal produced more than 1.8 billion megawatt hours of electricity in the United States during 2010, versus just under 95 million megawatt hours for wind.
In other words, despite the fact that wind is eating up nearly four times the subsidy that coal does, coal is producing 19 times the electricity that wind does.
The EIA reports that the United States sits atop the world’s largest pile of known coal reserves, with 28.8 percent of the world total in 2010. By comparison, Saudi Arabia has the world’s largest oil reserves, with 19.2 percent of the world total in 2010.
The EIA also predicts that the known reserves will allow a large number of Americans to heat, light and cool their homes with coal for the foreseeable future, before they need to go looking for more:
“Based on U.S. coal consumption for 2010, the U.S. recoverable coal reserves represent enough coal to last 249 years. However, EIA projects in the most recent Annual Energy Outlook (April 2011) that U.S. coal consumption will increase at about 1.1% per year for the period 2009-2035. If that growth rate continues into the future, U.S. recoverable coal reserves would be exhausted in about 119 years if no new reserves are added.”
Some experts say that the reason for the discrepancy lies with an environmental agenda that seeks to artificially increase the cost of burning coal for electricity generation by requiring greater restrictions on its production of carbon dioxide — a greenhouse gas.
For example, the Michigan Public Service Commission found the cost of coal to be $133 per megawatt hour, considerably more expensive than the average national cost of $109 per megawatt hour for a similar type plant. Paul Proudfoot, director of the MPSC’s Electric Reliability Division, said a big reason for the higher cost was that the MPSC study tacked a “carbon tax” onto the price of coal. Yet no such tax exists — either at the state or national level. According to Proudfoot, the MPSC added it because of an assumption that such a tax will pass.
The MPSC’s estimated price for coal — inflated with the non-existent tax — has been seized upon by a Michigan environmental group as an argument for a switchover to renewable energy sources.
In a letter to the editor to the Detroit Free Press, Hugh McDiarmid Jr., spokesman for the Michigan Environmental Council, cited the Michigan Public Service Commission’s report, noting that “electricity from renewable sources is already cheaper in Michigan than electricity from a new coal plant would be.”
But McDiarmid’s statement deserves a closer look.
The EIA states that “conventional coal” costs $94.80 per megawatt hour. Conventional coal plants burn coal in its pure form. “Advanced coal” plants first turn coal into gas to reduce emissions, but are more costly at the $109 per megawatt hour. By comparison, wind comes in at $97 per megawatt hour.
But there’s more.
Coal is also a significantly more reliable energy source. The EIA states that coal operates at 85 percent of capacity while wind operates at 34 percent of capacity. Wind energy requires a backup plan and this is not factored onto its cost.
Energy experts also note that environmentalists themselves can be a factor in driving up the price of coal, and thus the cost that Americans pay for electricity. Even the EIA’s current $94.8 per megawatt hour calculation for coal includes a 3 percent increase in the capital costs for building coal plants because of the difficulty of building coal plants in the United States. Mary Hutzler, a former acting administrator of the EIA under former President George W. Bush and a distinguished senior fellow at the Institute for Energy Research, said that 3 percent is in part due because “environmentalists fight it.”
For example, a recent Capitol Confidential story noted that the Sierra Club files a lawsuit against every new permit issued for a coal plant in the United States.
Hutzler also said coal plants are moving from “conventional” plants to the more costly “advanced” plants. She said that’s being done because “advanced” plants are easier to adapt for carbon-reducing than “conventional” plants.
The Michigan Public Service Commission’s study used the more costly “advanced” coal plants cost for its study. Proudfoot said he didn’t think a “conventional” coal plant could even be built in Michigan anymore.
Hutzler said bureaucracy and environmental regulations are “really what is driving the costs (of coal) up.”
The cost of wind also skyrockets when moved offshore, jumping from the $97 per megawatt hour to $243 per megawatt hour, according to the EIA.
Michigan is moving forward with plans for offshore wind farms.
The Great Lakes Wind Council, an advisory body to the Michigan Department of Energy, Labor & Economic Growth, gave a report to former Gov. Jennifer Granholm in October 2010 that said 13,300 square miles of state-owned Great Lakes bottomlands were favorable for development of offshore wind energy.
But the reason this is feasible is because wind is becoming the favored child of government subsidies.
The Institute for Energy Research cited an Energy Information Administration report from July that showed that wind shot past coal in the last three years in terms of federal subsidies.
Wind subsidies increased from $476 million in 2007 to $4.9 billion in 2010, while coal’s federal subsidies grew from $943 million in 2004 to $1.3 billion in 2010.
But considering coal’s place as the overwhelming number one source of electricity generation in the United States with nearly 45 percent of the total, these subsidies are tiny compared to wind. EIA says that coal produced more than 1.8 billion megawatt hours of electricity in the United States during 2010, versus just under 95 million megawatt hours for wind.
In other words, despite the fact that wind is eating up nearly four times the subsidy that coal does, coal is producing 19 times the electricity that wind does.
The EIA reports that the United States sits atop the world’s largest pile of known coal reserves, with 28.8 percent of the world total in 2010. By comparison, Saudi Arabia has the world’s largest oil reserves, with 19.2 percent of the world total in 2010.
The EIA also predicts that the known reserves will allow a large number of Americans to heat, light and cool their homes with coal for the foreseeable future, before they need to go looking for more:
“Based on U.S. coal consumption for 2010, the U.S. recoverable coal reserves represent enough coal to last 249 years. However, EIA projects in the most recent Annual Energy Outlook (April 2011) that U.S. coal consumption will increase at about 1.1% per year for the period 2009-2035. If that growth rate continues into the future, U.S. recoverable coal reserves would be exhausted in about 119 years if no new reserves are added.”
Sunday, August 14, 2011
County Planning Board Approves Hammond Wind Law
Despite staff recommendations that would have doubled the potential development area for Wind Energy Convergence Systems in the town of Hammond's proposed wind facilities law, the county planning board approved recommendations with even more restrictions. St. Lawrence County Planning Board approved with modifications Hammond's proposed wind facilities law with a 11-2 vote Monday night. Board members Kim Bisonette and Tom Jenison voted against the law citing that it was too restrictive for potential developers. While several minor modifications were recommended by the County Planners the only issue that seemed to draw problems from the 20 or so Hammond residents surrounded setbacks near federal wetlands.
In Hammond's proposed law, setbacks of two times the total height of the proposed WECS was required from federal and state designated wetlands.
County Planner Jason Photenhauer said state regulations require a setback of only 100 feet and there is no setback regulation for federal wetlands. "Many federal wetlands are less than one acre," he said. "The problem in St. Lawrence County is, to be frank, you can't throw a stick without hitting a wetland." Mr. Photenhauer said the planning staff felt the setback was excessive and recommended it be changed to 100, feet. He suggested keeping the setback on state wetlands because the properties are minimum of 12 acres. Mr. Photenhauer said reducing the federal wetland setback would increase the area for wind development of large WECS from 1.3 square miles to 2.7 square miles of the total 30.4 square mile area of of Hammond's wind overlay district.
The recommendation raised concerns from a few Hammond residents who complained it may have an impact on wildlife.
County Planning board member William Palmer also questioned the recommendation. "I just don't see why you would want to put a smaller set back near wetlands," he said, Another recommendation by the county planning board included a setback of 1.5 times the height of the WECS near adjacent town lines, further reducing the 1.3 acres of land which could potential house a large WECS.
A motion was made to pass the law with all staff recommendations, but was modified to exclude the additional setback on the federal wetlands. The law will now be returned to the Hammond Town Board for final approval. The board may pass the county approved law as is with a simple majority, but would need a super majority vote to further modify it.
In Hammond's proposed law, setbacks of two times the total height of the proposed WECS was required from federal and state designated wetlands.
County Planner Jason Photenhauer said state regulations require a setback of only 100 feet and there is no setback regulation for federal wetlands. "Many federal wetlands are less than one acre," he said. "The problem in St. Lawrence County is, to be frank, you can't throw a stick without hitting a wetland." Mr. Photenhauer said the planning staff felt the setback was excessive and recommended it be changed to 100, feet. He suggested keeping the setback on state wetlands because the properties are minimum of 12 acres. Mr. Photenhauer said reducing the federal wetland setback would increase the area for wind development of large WECS from 1.3 square miles to 2.7 square miles of the total 30.4 square mile area of of Hammond's wind overlay district.
The recommendation raised concerns from a few Hammond residents who complained it may have an impact on wildlife.
County Planning board member William Palmer also questioned the recommendation. "I just don't see why you would want to put a smaller set back near wetlands," he said, Another recommendation by the county planning board included a setback of 1.5 times the height of the WECS near adjacent town lines, further reducing the 1.3 acres of land which could potential house a large WECS.
A motion was made to pass the law with all staff recommendations, but was modified to exclude the additional setback on the federal wetlands. The law will now be returned to the Hammond Town Board for final approval. The board may pass the county approved law as is with a simple majority, but would need a super majority vote to further modify it.
Friday, August 12, 2011
Pro-wind Cape Vincent councilmen attempt to stop seasonals from voting
Three pro-wind town councilmen passed a resolution Wednesday night in an illegal attempt to prevent seasonal residents from voting in upcoming local elections.
The resolution, which passed 3-2 at the regular council meeting, requires voters to show their state driver’s licenses, with a Cape Vincent address, at the polls to vote in a town election.
The motion was made by Councilman Donald J. Mason, who said the resolution was in response to a petition submitted the same night and signed by more than 200 residents that argued that “unethical, if not illegal, voting methods were implemented to manipulate” the outcome of local elections in Cape Vincent.
Mr. Mason’s motion was seconded by Councilman Marty T. Mason, and Councilman Mickey W. Orvis cast the deciding vote, despite several attempts from fellow board members to persuade the three not to pass an illegal measure.
Read the entire article
The resolution, which passed 3-2 at the regular council meeting, requires voters to show their state driver’s licenses, with a Cape Vincent address, at the polls to vote in a town election.
The motion was made by Councilman Donald J. Mason, who said the resolution was in response to a petition submitted the same night and signed by more than 200 residents that argued that “unethical, if not illegal, voting methods were implemented to manipulate” the outcome of local elections in Cape Vincent.
Mr. Mason’s motion was seconded by Councilman Marty T. Mason, and Councilman Mickey W. Orvis cast the deciding vote, despite several attempts from fellow board members to persuade the three not to pass an illegal measure.
Read the entire article
Thursday, August 11, 2011
Town of Litchfield, NY limits industrial wind development by denial of road use
A Utica Observer-Dispatch report explains how recent New York State Article X legislation might affect the town of Litchfield, NY. Litchfield is presently considering an addendum to their zoning which defines setbacks, and road use restriction which will make it difficult, if not impossible, for industrial wind developers to take over their town.
In Litchfield, Albany-based NorthWind and Power’s plan is to build a 20-megawatt wind farm with eight to 12 turbines on Dry Hill.
That project is smaller than the 25-megawatt limit, so in its current form it would fall under local control even after Article X goes into effect.
But if that project expands or another larger project is proposed, the town addressed Article X in its proposed wind law by declaring town roads can’t be crossed or licensed for use to permit for such a project.
“It’s to make it clear that to the extent the town has power as it relates to their own roads, the town is not by default releasing that,” said Daniel Spitzer, a Buffalo-based attorney who drafted the law for Litchfield.
If Article X had been in effect, the 37-turbine, 74-megawatt Hardscrabble Wind Farm that began operating this year in the Herkimer County towns of Fairfield and Norway would have been determined by the state board.
Fairfield town Supervisor Richard Souza said he wants to further review the law to see whether he thinks it would be helpful or hurtful for other communities where a project is proposed.
In Litchfield, Albany-based NorthWind and Power’s plan is to build a 20-megawatt wind farm with eight to 12 turbines on Dry Hill.
That project is smaller than the 25-megawatt limit, so in its current form it would fall under local control even after Article X goes into effect.
But if that project expands or another larger project is proposed, the town addressed Article X in its proposed wind law by declaring town roads can’t be crossed or licensed for use to permit for such a project.
“It’s to make it clear that to the extent the town has power as it relates to their own roads, the town is not by default releasing that,” said Daniel Spitzer, a Buffalo-based attorney who drafted the law for Litchfield.
If Article X had been in effect, the 37-turbine, 74-megawatt Hardscrabble Wind Farm that began operating this year in the Herkimer County towns of Fairfield and Norway would have been determined by the state board.
Fairfield town Supervisor Richard Souza said he wants to further review the law to see whether he thinks it would be helpful or hurtful for other communities where a project is proposed.
Tuesday, August 09, 2011
Blowing money in the wind
Wind power is green, right?
It helps keep the air clean, doesn’t it?
Not according to the people suing the state of Colorado over wind power. The American Tradition Institute’s (ATI) Environmental Law Center sued the State of Colorado in federal court last week.
“We’re putting wind on trial because people don’t understand the facts behind wind,” says Director Dr. David Schnare. “We believe that if people knew how variable wind was, and how dirty it was, if they knew the wind was neither free nor clean, then they may not have government demand its use.”
“The mandate for the use of renewables has essentially caused the air to become worse and the cost to go up,” says Schnare, a former employee of the Environmental Protection Agency.
The problem, Schnare says, is wind is variable and therefore not reliable. A backup source is needed and that is invariably coal or gas-fired plants. Since the supply of power has to equal the consumption of power, the coal plant is going down and up to keep pace with the wind power going up and down.
That causes the coal plant to act like a car in busy urban traffic, which emits more pollutants than a car sailing along on a smooth highway at a constant speed. It is this reality which Schnare says causes the hoped-for positive effect of wind to be negated, at a huge financial cost to consumers.
Some people think the financial cost is worth it, but do they get the result they want?
John Laforet, president of Wind Concerns Ontario, says his group broadly supports legal action against the wind industry and governments “that provide billions of dollars to perpetuate the wind industry’s fraud.
“We’ve seen in Ontario that industrial wind energy isn’t affordable, reliable, green or safe for local host communities,” Laforet says.
“It is shocking that big wind and its supporters continue to campaign in favour of billions of dollars worth of green pork for this failed industry, that Ontarians can’t afford, without any commitment to the truth.”
John Yakabuski, Ontario PC Energy critic pounced, too, as the energy file will be key heading toward October’s election.
“Dalton McGuinty has made such a mess of the energy file in Ontario that his expensive energy experiments will cost Ontario families $732 a year more by 2015. He continues to thumb his nose at Ontario families and continues his blatant electioneering to cement his legacy of skyrocketing hydro bills by including poison pills in the FIT contracts.”
ATI, along with the Beacon Hill Institute at Suffolk University estimated the cost to the economy of forcing renewable energy mandates. They estimate in addition to the extra cost of energy to consumers, the cost to business would be passed along in reduced income or layoffs.
“In 2021 a 15% mandate would reduce annual wages by $227 per worker. The job losses and price increases would reduce real incomes as firms, households and governments spend more of their budgets on electricity and less on other items, such as home goods and services.”
So a higher energy bill to pay out of a lower income? Great news!
“McGuinty’s target is 13% of generation, but an installed capacity much greater than that because wind is so unreliable,” Laforet says. “It’s also going to be fossil fuel backed up, which is why it isn’t green at all.”
McGuinty’s green plan should make you see red.
It helps keep the air clean, doesn’t it?
Not according to the people suing the state of Colorado over wind power. The American Tradition Institute’s (ATI) Environmental Law Center sued the State of Colorado in federal court last week.
“We’re putting wind on trial because people don’t understand the facts behind wind,” says Director Dr. David Schnare. “We believe that if people knew how variable wind was, and how dirty it was, if they knew the wind was neither free nor clean, then they may not have government demand its use.”
“The mandate for the use of renewables has essentially caused the air to become worse and the cost to go up,” says Schnare, a former employee of the Environmental Protection Agency.
The problem, Schnare says, is wind is variable and therefore not reliable. A backup source is needed and that is invariably coal or gas-fired plants. Since the supply of power has to equal the consumption of power, the coal plant is going down and up to keep pace with the wind power going up and down.
That causes the coal plant to act like a car in busy urban traffic, which emits more pollutants than a car sailing along on a smooth highway at a constant speed. It is this reality which Schnare says causes the hoped-for positive effect of wind to be negated, at a huge financial cost to consumers.
Some people think the financial cost is worth it, but do they get the result they want?
John Laforet, president of Wind Concerns Ontario, says his group broadly supports legal action against the wind industry and governments “that provide billions of dollars to perpetuate the wind industry’s fraud.
“We’ve seen in Ontario that industrial wind energy isn’t affordable, reliable, green or safe for local host communities,” Laforet says.
“It is shocking that big wind and its supporters continue to campaign in favour of billions of dollars worth of green pork for this failed industry, that Ontarians can’t afford, without any commitment to the truth.”
John Yakabuski, Ontario PC Energy critic pounced, too, as the energy file will be key heading toward October’s election.
“Dalton McGuinty has made such a mess of the energy file in Ontario that his expensive energy experiments will cost Ontario families $732 a year more by 2015. He continues to thumb his nose at Ontario families and continues his blatant electioneering to cement his legacy of skyrocketing hydro bills by including poison pills in the FIT contracts.”
ATI, along with the Beacon Hill Institute at Suffolk University estimated the cost to the economy of forcing renewable energy mandates. They estimate in addition to the extra cost of energy to consumers, the cost to business would be passed along in reduced income or layoffs.
“In 2021 a 15% mandate would reduce annual wages by $227 per worker. The job losses and price increases would reduce real incomes as firms, households and governments spend more of their budgets on electricity and less on other items, such as home goods and services.”
So a higher energy bill to pay out of a lower income? Great news!
“McGuinty’s target is 13% of generation, but an installed capacity much greater than that because wind is so unreliable,” Laforet says. “It’s also going to be fossil fuel backed up, which is why it isn’t green at all.”
McGuinty’s green plan should make you see red.
State will have a say in local wind projects
The Litchfield Town Board is considering a law that would ban large-scale wind farms, and several other area communities - such as New Hartford - are reviewing wind-power ordinances.
But a change to state law signed Thursday by Gov. Andrew Cuomo takes decisions about wind projects of 25 megawatts or more out of the hands of local boards and places them with a state-established committee, which would include two members from the community in which a project is proposed.
Reaction to the change has been mixed, but Litchfield Deputy Supervisor Kate Entwistle said she would welcome the state's involvement because it has the experts and resources to properly address the issue.
"The state's interpretation could be helpful," she said.
New Hartford town Supervisor Patrick Tyksinski was less welcoming.
"This is a local zoning issue, and now, the state is trying to butt its nose into an area that has always been a local issue," Tyksinski said. "You can't do that. It's wrong."
In June, the state Legislature approved the Power NY Act of 2011. The act includes Article X, which regulates the review of power plants of 25 megawatts or more - including wind projects.
It's expected that it will take another year before the law takes effect because the state Department of Environmental Conservation needs to put its regulations in place.
"We must rebuild and expand New York's energy infrastructure to meet the demands of the 21st century and grow our economy," Cuomo said in a statement. "This law will lead to new investment and create tens of thousands of jobs across the state."
Article X
Tyksinski believes Article X is an attempt by state officials to control power allocation - primarily to help the New York City area, he said.
"This is all geared toward downstate," he said. "People in Albany don't care about upstate, and it's too bad."
But Conor Bambrick, spokesman for state Assemblyman Kevin Cahill, D-Kingston, who sponsored the legislation, said the law is designed to open the door to more community involvement, including public hearings where the project is proposed.
Each project will have to go through environmental, health and community impact reviews. Wind projects would have to look at visual impacts and effects on bats and birds.
The law also would require "intervener funds" be provided to the municipalities and groups that want to do their own research, Bambrick said.
The state also would be responsible for the legwork that communities normally would have to handle, he said. Large wind projects often become overwhelming for small communities that lack experts in the field.
"This process will provide those experts on the state level," Bambrick said.
Effect on Litchfield
In Litchfield, Albany-based NorthWind and Power's plan is to build a 20-megawatt wind farm with eight to 12 turbines on Dry Hill.
That project is smaller than the 25-megawatt limit, so in its current form it would fall under local control even after Article X goes into effect.
But if that project expands or another larger project is proposed, the town addressed Article X in its proposed wind law by declaring town roads can't be crossed or licensed for use to permit for such a project.
"It's to make it clear that to the extent the town has power as it relates to their own roads, the town is not by default releasing that," said Daniel Spitzer, a Buffalo-based attorney who drafted the law for Litchfield.
If Article X had been in effect, the 37-turbine, 74-megawatt Hardscrabble Wind Farm that began operating this year in the Herkimer County towns of Fairfield and Norway would have been determined by the state board.
Fairfield town Supervisor Richard Souza said he wants to further review the law to see whether he thinks it would be helpful or hurtful for other communities where a project is proposed.
"My main focus is - as long as the community as a whole has a say on it," Souza said.
Officials from Iberdrola Renewables, the developer for the Hardscrabble Wind Farm, are waiting for the legislation to be signed so they can review how it might affect their future efforts to pursue wind projects in the state, spokesman Paul Copleman said.
Regardless of whether a project falls under Article X, Iberdrola would ask for thorough involvement and input from the local community, Copleman said.
"It would be silly not to develop that way," he said.
But a change to state law signed Thursday by Gov. Andrew Cuomo takes decisions about wind projects of 25 megawatts or more out of the hands of local boards and places them with a state-established committee, which would include two members from the community in which a project is proposed.
Reaction to the change has been mixed, but Litchfield Deputy Supervisor Kate Entwistle said she would welcome the state's involvement because it has the experts and resources to properly address the issue.
"The state's interpretation could be helpful," she said.
New Hartford town Supervisor Patrick Tyksinski was less welcoming.
"This is a local zoning issue, and now, the state is trying to butt its nose into an area that has always been a local issue," Tyksinski said. "You can't do that. It's wrong."
In June, the state Legislature approved the Power NY Act of 2011. The act includes Article X, which regulates the review of power plants of 25 megawatts or more - including wind projects.
It's expected that it will take another year before the law takes effect because the state Department of Environmental Conservation needs to put its regulations in place.
"We must rebuild and expand New York's energy infrastructure to meet the demands of the 21st century and grow our economy," Cuomo said in a statement. "This law will lead to new investment and create tens of thousands of jobs across the state."
Article X
Tyksinski believes Article X is an attempt by state officials to control power allocation - primarily to help the New York City area, he said.
"This is all geared toward downstate," he said. "People in Albany don't care about upstate, and it's too bad."
But Conor Bambrick, spokesman for state Assemblyman Kevin Cahill, D-Kingston, who sponsored the legislation, said the law is designed to open the door to more community involvement, including public hearings where the project is proposed.
Each project will have to go through environmental, health and community impact reviews. Wind projects would have to look at visual impacts and effects on bats and birds.
The law also would require "intervener funds" be provided to the municipalities and groups that want to do their own research, Bambrick said.
The state also would be responsible for the legwork that communities normally would have to handle, he said. Large wind projects often become overwhelming for small communities that lack experts in the field.
"This process will provide those experts on the state level," Bambrick said.
Effect on Litchfield
In Litchfield, Albany-based NorthWind and Power's plan is to build a 20-megawatt wind farm with eight to 12 turbines on Dry Hill.
That project is smaller than the 25-megawatt limit, so in its current form it would fall under local control even after Article X goes into effect.
But if that project expands or another larger project is proposed, the town addressed Article X in its proposed wind law by declaring town roads can't be crossed or licensed for use to permit for such a project.
"It's to make it clear that to the extent the town has power as it relates to their own roads, the town is not by default releasing that," said Daniel Spitzer, a Buffalo-based attorney who drafted the law for Litchfield.
If Article X had been in effect, the 37-turbine, 74-megawatt Hardscrabble Wind Farm that began operating this year in the Herkimer County towns of Fairfield and Norway would have been determined by the state board.
Fairfield town Supervisor Richard Souza said he wants to further review the law to see whether he thinks it would be helpful or hurtful for other communities where a project is proposed.
"My main focus is - as long as the community as a whole has a say on it," Souza said.
Officials from Iberdrola Renewables, the developer for the Hardscrabble Wind Farm, are waiting for the legislation to be signed so they can review how it might affect their future efforts to pursue wind projects in the state, spokesman Paul Copleman said.
Regardless of whether a project falls under Article X, Iberdrola would ask for thorough involvement and input from the local community, Copleman said.
"It would be silly not to develop that way," he said.
Monday, August 08, 2011
COAX MEDIA RELEASE - August 8, 2011
COAX MEDIA RELEASE - August 8, 2011
(518) 618-2045
www.coaxny.org
coaxny@gmail.com
Governor Cuomo Signs Article X
Strips Home Rule from State’s Municipalities
On August 4, 2011 Governor Andrew Cuomo stripped away the municipal "Home Rule" rights of the very public that elected him, by signing into law the “Power NY Act.” Also known as Article X, this swiftly passed law was prompted by separate bills initially sponsored by Senator George Maziarz (R – 62nd District) and Assemblyman Kevin Cahill (D – 101st District). The combined bill passed both houses with very little public input, late at night behind closed doors. The public’s rights were taken – literally – while they slept. COAX would like to say thank you to our elected officials who did the right thing and voted against Article X trying to preserve Municipal “Home Rule”, unfortunately, too many voted yes.
Coalition On Article X (COAX) was formed to preserve and regain our municipal "Home Rule" rights, taken away by New York’s Governor, Senators, and Assemblypersons who voted to strip the public of their ability to govern their own towns.
COAX members are appalled that Article X/Power NY Act was signed into law without any discussion from our elected officials to the citizens they were elected to represent. We find these actions to be totally unacceptable. New York State has always prided itself on the fact that it is a "Home Rule" State.
Municipal “Home Rule”, although never perfect, was implemented by local officials who actually live, work and raises their families within our home communities. “Home Rule” has been a viable municipal management tool for decades due to the very fact that community decisions were being made by duly-elected, caring and involved residents of the area. In direct contradiction, the "Power NY" Act allows unengaged, and mostly unelected, Albany bureaucrats to enact monumental zoning and planning decisions in New York State’s municipalities, to site electrical power plant in any municipality without local approval.
New York State legislators involved in this over-reaching under the auspices of streamlining the siting of energy facilities, are simply interested in - as Chris Horner of the Competitive Enterprise Institute puts so well - a Power Grab!
COAX promises to tirelessly and continually oppose the power-grab of the elected officials who voted 'yes' for Article X and to engage like-minded citizens to take back our municipal “Home Rule”.
State will have a say in local wind projects
The Litchfield Town Board is considering a law that would ban large-scale wind farms, and several other area communities - such as New Hartford - are reviewing wind-power ordinances.
But a change to state law signed Thursday by Gov. Andrew Cuomo takes decisions about wind projects of 25 megawatts or more out of the hands of local boards and places them with a state-established committee, which would include two members from the community in which a project is proposed.
Reaction to the change has been mixed, but Litchfield Deputy Supervisor Kate Entwistle said she would welcome the state's involvement because it has the experts and resources to properly address the issue.
"The state's interpretation could be helpful," she said.
New Hartford town Supervisor Patrick Tyksinski was less welcoming.
"This is a local zoning issue, and now, the state is trying to butt its nose into an area that has always been a local issue," Tyksinski said. "You can't do that. It's wrong."
In June, the state Legislature approved the Power NY Act of 2011. The act includes Article X, which regulates the review of power plants of 25 megawatts or more - including wind projects.
It's expected that it will take another year before the law takes effect because the state Department of Environmental Conservation needs to put its regulations in place.
"We must rebuild and expand New York's energy infrastructure to meet the demands of the 21st century and grow our economy," Cuomo said in a statement. "This law will lead to new investment and create tens of thousands of jobs across the state."
Article X
Tyksinski believes Article X is an attempt by state officials to control power allocation - primarily to help the New York City area, he said.
"This is all geared toward downstate," he said. "People in Albany don't care about upstate, and it's too bad."
But Conor Bambrick, spokesman for state Assemblyman Kevin Cahill, D-Kingston, who sponsored the legislation, said the law is designed to open the door to more community involvement, including public hearings where the project is proposed.
Each project will have to go through environmental, health and community impact reviews. Wind projects would have to look at visual impacts and effects on bats and birds.
The law also would require "intervener funds" be provided to the municipalities and groups that want to do their own research, Bambrick said.
The state also would be responsible for the legwork that communities normally would have to handle, he said. Large wind projects often become overwhelming for small communities that lack experts in the field.
"This process will provide those experts on the state level," Bambrick said.
Effect on Litchfield
In Litchfield, Albany-based NorthWind and Power's plan is to build a 20-megawatt wind farm with eight to 12 turbines on Dry Hill.
That project is smaller than the 25-megawatt limit, so in its current form it would fall under local control even after Article X goes into effect.
But if that project expands or another larger project is proposed, the town addressed Article X in its proposed wind law by declaring town roads can't be crossed or licensed for use to permit for such a project.
"It's to make it clear that to the extent the town has power as it relates to their own roads, the town is not by default releasing that," said Daniel Spitzer, a Buffalo-based attorney who drafted the law for Litchfield.
If Article X had been in effect, the 37-turbine, 74-megawatt Hardscrabble Wind Farm that began operating this year in the Herkimer County towns of Fairfield and Norway would have been determined by the state board.
Fairfield town Supervisor Richard Souza said he wants to further review the law to see whether he thinks it would be helpful or hurtful for other communities where a project is proposed.
"My main focus is - as long as the community as a whole has a say on it," Souza said.
Officials from Iberdrola Renewables, the developer for the Hardscrabble Wind Farm, are waiting for the legislation to be signed so they can review how it might affect their future efforts to pursue wind projects in the state, spokesman Paul Copleman said.
Regardless of whether a project falls under Article X, Iberdrola would ask for thorough involvement and input from the local community, Copleman said.
"It would be silly not to develop that way," he said.
But a change to state law signed Thursday by Gov. Andrew Cuomo takes decisions about wind projects of 25 megawatts or more out of the hands of local boards and places them with a state-established committee, which would include two members from the community in which a project is proposed.
Reaction to the change has been mixed, but Litchfield Deputy Supervisor Kate Entwistle said she would welcome the state's involvement because it has the experts and resources to properly address the issue.
"The state's interpretation could be helpful," she said.
New Hartford town Supervisor Patrick Tyksinski was less welcoming.
"This is a local zoning issue, and now, the state is trying to butt its nose into an area that has always been a local issue," Tyksinski said. "You can't do that. It's wrong."
In June, the state Legislature approved the Power NY Act of 2011. The act includes Article X, which regulates the review of power plants of 25 megawatts or more - including wind projects.
It's expected that it will take another year before the law takes effect because the state Department of Environmental Conservation needs to put its regulations in place.
"We must rebuild and expand New York's energy infrastructure to meet the demands of the 21st century and grow our economy," Cuomo said in a statement. "This law will lead to new investment and create tens of thousands of jobs across the state."
Article X
Tyksinski believes Article X is an attempt by state officials to control power allocation - primarily to help the New York City area, he said.
"This is all geared toward downstate," he said. "People in Albany don't care about upstate, and it's too bad."
But Conor Bambrick, spokesman for state Assemblyman Kevin Cahill, D-Kingston, who sponsored the legislation, said the law is designed to open the door to more community involvement, including public hearings where the project is proposed.
Each project will have to go through environmental, health and community impact reviews. Wind projects would have to look at visual impacts and effects on bats and birds.
The law also would require "intervener funds" be provided to the municipalities and groups that want to do their own research, Bambrick said.
The state also would be responsible for the legwork that communities normally would have to handle, he said. Large wind projects often become overwhelming for small communities that lack experts in the field.
"This process will provide those experts on the state level," Bambrick said.
Effect on Litchfield
In Litchfield, Albany-based NorthWind and Power's plan is to build a 20-megawatt wind farm with eight to 12 turbines on Dry Hill.
That project is smaller than the 25-megawatt limit, so in its current form it would fall under local control even after Article X goes into effect.
But if that project expands or another larger project is proposed, the town addressed Article X in its proposed wind law by declaring town roads can't be crossed or licensed for use to permit for such a project.
"It's to make it clear that to the extent the town has power as it relates to their own roads, the town is not by default releasing that," said Daniel Spitzer, a Buffalo-based attorney who drafted the law for Litchfield.
If Article X had been in effect, the 37-turbine, 74-megawatt Hardscrabble Wind Farm that began operating this year in the Herkimer County towns of Fairfield and Norway would have been determined by the state board.
Fairfield town Supervisor Richard Souza said he wants to further review the law to see whether he thinks it would be helpful or hurtful for other communities where a project is proposed.
"My main focus is - as long as the community as a whole has a say on it," Souza said.
Officials from Iberdrola Renewables, the developer for the Hardscrabble Wind Farm, are waiting for the legislation to be signed so they can review how it might affect their future efforts to pursue wind projects in the state, spokesman Paul Copleman said.
Regardless of whether a project falls under Article X, Iberdrola would ask for thorough involvement and input from the local community, Copleman said.
"It would be silly not to develop that way," he said.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)