Sunday, September 25, 2011
Saturday, September 24, 2011
A Government shutdown looms and that means OPPORTUNITY for us!
The House passed CR 2012 (Continuing Resolution 2012) before going home to their districts for a week.
This latest CR is needed to fund the government until November 18.
On Friday (Sep 23) the Senate voted NO complaining the bill took DOE loan guarantee money to fund FEMA disaster relief. DOE loans guarantee Solyndra and your local wind projects.
WHAT DOES THIS MEAN
The Senate's 'NO VOTE' WAS NOT ABOUT DISASTER RELIEF
The Senate's 'NO VOTE' WAS ABOUT KEEPING DOE's LOAN GUARANTEE PROGRAM FUNDED
-- even after the SOLYNDRA debacle --
WHAT WE NEED TO DO
Call -- Email -- Fax your SENATORS' Washington offices. Demand they support the House version of CR 2012. If they don't listen, tell them to COME HOME so you can explain it to them in person.
Call -- Email -- Fax your REPRESENTATIVES' home district offices. Ask them to hold firm on CR 2012 and Cut the Administration's pet loan program.
Please share this e-mail with others.
This is an opportunity we can't afford to pass up!
This latest CR is needed to fund the government until November 18.
On Friday (Sep 23) the Senate voted NO complaining the bill took DOE loan guarantee money to fund FEMA disaster relief. DOE loans guarantee Solyndra and your local wind projects.
WHAT DOES THIS MEAN
The Senate's 'NO VOTE' WAS NOT ABOUT DISASTER RELIEF
The Senate's 'NO VOTE' WAS ABOUT KEEPING DOE's LOAN GUARANTEE PROGRAM FUNDED
-- even after the SOLYNDRA debacle --
WHAT WE NEED TO DO
Call -- Email -- Fax your SENATORS' Washington offices. Demand they support the House version of CR 2012. If they don't listen, tell them to COME HOME so you can explain it to them in person.
Call -- Email -- Fax your REPRESENTATIVES' home district offices. Ask them to hold firm on CR 2012 and Cut the Administration's pet loan program.
Please share this e-mail with others.
This is an opportunity we can't afford to pass up!
Friday, September 23, 2011
Galloo Island Wind Farm in limbo as state senator calls for end to Great Lakes Offshore Wind
Developers of Galloo Island Wind Farm have waited months for word on their application for a power purchase agreement, and now a state senator has said the entire program for offshore wind power in the Great Lakes should be scrapped.
State Sen. George Maziarz, R-Newfane, chairman of the Senate Energy Committee, told the Buffalo News on Thursday that the New York Power Authority is backing away from the Lake Ontario and Lake Erie project in favor of a wind farm off Long Island with the Long Island Power Authority and Consolidated Edison.
“I think at this time it is very expensive and I think at this time they are moving away from it and I think it’s a wise decision,” he said Friday. “I have every indication that it is not moving forward.”
But Sen. Patricia A. Ritchie, R-Heuvelton, said Friday that NYPA officials told her last week that no decisions had been made.
Read the entire article
State Sen. George Maziarz, R-Newfane, chairman of the Senate Energy Committee, told the Buffalo News on Thursday that the New York Power Authority is backing away from the Lake Ontario and Lake Erie project in favor of a wind farm off Long Island with the Long Island Power Authority and Consolidated Edison.
“I think at this time it is very expensive and I think at this time they are moving away from it and I think it’s a wise decision,” he said Friday. “I have every indication that it is not moving forward.”
But Sen. Patricia A. Ritchie, R-Heuvelton, said Friday that NYPA officials told her last week that no decisions had been made.
Read the entire article
Tell the deficit reduction committee to end wind subsidies
Go to http://deficitreduction.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/contact to tell the Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction to end federal subsidies to industrial wind, which totaled $5 billion in 2010.
Large-scale wind has been shown to cause significant harm to wildlife, people, and the environment. And because of its intermittency and high variability, it does little or nothing to reduce carbon or other emissions.
Here is a list of federal programs that subsidize large-scale wind energy:
Modified accelerated cost-recovery system and bonus depreciation (5-year depreciation of renewable energy technologies; 100% bonus depreciation expiring 31 Dec 2011, 50% bonus depreciation expiring 31 Dec 2012)
http://www.dsireusa.org/incentives/incentive.cfm?Incentive_Code=US06F
Dept of Treasury renewable energy grants (1603 Program, “Payments for Specified Energy Property in Lieu of Tax Credits”, expiring 31 Dec 2011)
http://www.dsireusa.org/incentives/incentive.cfm?Incentive_Code=US53F
http://www.treasury.gov/initiatives/recovery/Pages/1603.aspx
Dept of Energy loan guarantee program (for projects that “avoid, reduce or sequester air pollutants or anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases; and employ new or significantly improved technologies as compared to commercial technologies in service in the United States at the time the guarantee is issued”)
http://www.dsireusa.org/incentives/incentive.cfm?Incentive_Code=US48F
http://www.lgprogram.energy.gov/
Renewable electricity production tax credit (PTC, expiring for wind 31 Dec 2012) and renewable energy production incentive (REPI, for entities that don’t pay federal corporate taxes, expiring 1 Oct 2016)
http://www.dsireusa.org/incentives/incentive.cfm?Incentive_Code=US13F
http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/f8835.pdf
http://www.dsireusa.org/incentives/incentive.cfm?Incentive_Code=US33F
http://apps1.eere.energy.gov/repi/
Large-scale wind has been shown to cause significant harm to wildlife, people, and the environment. And because of its intermittency and high variability, it does little or nothing to reduce carbon or other emissions.
Here is a list of federal programs that subsidize large-scale wind energy:
Modified accelerated cost-recovery system and bonus depreciation (5-year depreciation of renewable energy technologies; 100% bonus depreciation expiring 31 Dec 2011, 50% bonus depreciation expiring 31 Dec 2012)
http://www.dsireusa.org/incentives/incentive.cfm?Incentive_Code=US06F
Dept of Treasury renewable energy grants (1603 Program, “Payments for Specified Energy Property in Lieu of Tax Credits”, expiring 31 Dec 2011)
http://www.dsireusa.org/incentives/incentive.cfm?Incentive_Code=US53F
http://www.treasury.gov/initiatives/recovery/Pages/1603.aspx
Dept of Energy loan guarantee program (for projects that “avoid, reduce or sequester air pollutants or anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases; and employ new or significantly improved technologies as compared to commercial technologies in service in the United States at the time the guarantee is issued”)
http://www.dsireusa.org/incentives/incentive.cfm?Incentive_Code=US48F
http://www.lgprogram.energy.gov/
Renewable electricity production tax credit (PTC, expiring for wind 31 Dec 2012) and renewable energy production incentive (REPI, for entities that don’t pay federal corporate taxes, expiring 1 Oct 2016)
http://www.dsireusa.org/incentives/incentive.cfm?Incentive_Code=US13F
http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/f8835.pdf
http://www.dsireusa.org/incentives/incentive.cfm?Incentive_Code=US33F
http://apps1.eere.energy.gov/repi/
CLIPPER WINDPOWER "GONE WITH THE WIND"
The dream of 60 Clipper Windpower turbines producing green energy in southwestern Guthrie County is no more.
However, the project is not dead; it has just taken on a new owner. According to a deed transfer dated August 19, signed by Clipper Windpower in Ventura County, California, Mid-American Energy Company has bought the rights to the project.
The Clipper Windpower Guthrie County project, titled "Eclipse," began in 2006 with the hopes of bringing 60 new 2.5 megawatt wind turbines to an approximately 20 square mile area just north of Adair in southwest Guthrie County.
The wind towers selected were to be 262 feet high with a maximum blade tip height of 420 feet.
According to data provided in August 2010 by then county assessor Barry Stetzel, the total project cost was estimated at $206.5 million.
Over ninety area landowners were affected by Eclipse's footprint, some for actual turbine installation and others for transmission line access.
Clipper Windpower had repeatedly moved initial construction dates back, stating in early 2010 they hoped to begin work by February 2011, subsequently sliding that date back to "late 2011."
However, financial difficulties and failure to secure affordable transmission line access were likely factors in Clipper Windpower selling Eclipse to MidAmerican Energy according to a recent interview with current county assessor Rusty Pearson.
Pearson noted Mid-American has the infrastructure needed to make the project work, including ownership of vital transmission lines in northern Adair County.
Pearson stated in initial discussions with MidAmer-ican representatives, the company indicated plans to move forward rapidly with the project, seeking to have construction bids awarded by late fall. The company stands to lose large government grant money if the project is not completed by December 31, 2012.
However, the project is not dead; it has just taken on a new owner. According to a deed transfer dated August 19, signed by Clipper Windpower in Ventura County, California, Mid-American Energy Company has bought the rights to the project.
The Clipper Windpower Guthrie County project, titled "Eclipse," began in 2006 with the hopes of bringing 60 new 2.5 megawatt wind turbines to an approximately 20 square mile area just north of Adair in southwest Guthrie County.
The wind towers selected were to be 262 feet high with a maximum blade tip height of 420 feet.
According to data provided in August 2010 by then county assessor Barry Stetzel, the total project cost was estimated at $206.5 million.
Over ninety area landowners were affected by Eclipse's footprint, some for actual turbine installation and others for transmission line access.
Clipper Windpower had repeatedly moved initial construction dates back, stating in early 2010 they hoped to begin work by February 2011, subsequently sliding that date back to "late 2011."
However, financial difficulties and failure to secure affordable transmission line access were likely factors in Clipper Windpower selling Eclipse to MidAmerican Energy according to a recent interview with current county assessor Rusty Pearson.
Pearson noted Mid-American has the infrastructure needed to make the project work, including ownership of vital transmission lines in northern Adair County.
Pearson stated in initial discussions with MidAmer-ican representatives, the company indicated plans to move forward rapidly with the project, seeking to have construction bids awarded by late fall. The company stands to lose large government grant money if the project is not completed by December 31, 2012.
Thursday, September 22, 2011
Cape Vincent voters break overwhelmingly for anti-wind power candidates; Greig primary flips
Absentee ballots made the difference in the race for the Republican nomination for Greig town supervisor.
Donald D. Schneider beat Supervisor Marilyn E. Patterson for the Republican nomination, 91-90, according to Lewis County Board of Elections figures. Mr. Schneider was losing by two votes on primary night, Sept. 13, but made up the difference after absentee ballots were counted and the primary results were certified Wednesday.
Ms. Patterson has an independent line in the election, so she’ll have a rematch against Mr. Schneider on Nov. 8.
All of the other leads that candidates had in Lewis County on Sept. 13 held.
A quarter of Lewis County Republicans turned out for Michael P. Carpinelli’s upset victory over Devere D. Rumble for sheriff. Mr. Carpinelli won, 1,479 to 779, in certified results. Mr. Rumble said he will continue to campaign on the Independence Party line for the Nov. 8 election.
In Cape Vincent on primary night, the unofficial results in the race for the Republican nod in the town supervisor race had been tabulated: Anti-wind power incumbent Urban C. Hirschey had 277 votes and pro-wind power candidate Harvey J. White had 99 votes.
But that didn’t include absentee ballots — about a third of all votes cast. On Wednesday, those ballots were counted. Mr. Hirschey ended up with 507 votes and Mr. White ended up with 107.
That Mr. Hirschey’s already lopsided victory got even more lopsided when absentee ballots were counted is hardly a surprise. It is likely a result of a months-long voter registration drive by anti-wind power activists that targeted seasonal residents. Seasonal residents who may live during the winter in faraway locales are more likely to oppose wind power development and more likely to vote as absentees — which can allow people to vote via mail in the days leading up to the election, rather than in person on election day.
The absentee ballot counts were similarly grim for pro-wind power Town Council candidates in the Republican primary. Marty T. Mason ended up in third place for two spots, with 125 votes, after absentee ballots were counted. Before the absentees were counted and the results were official, Mr. Mason had 113 votes.
Victorious Republican candidate Clifford P. Schneider, meanwhile, had 506 votes and John L. Byrne III had 488 votes, gaining more than 200 votes each since Sept. 13.
A rematch for supervisor and Town Council will take place at the Nov. 8 general election, because the candidates who lost the Republican primary will have third-party lines in the general election.
Donald D. Schneider beat Supervisor Marilyn E. Patterson for the Republican nomination, 91-90, according to Lewis County Board of Elections figures. Mr. Schneider was losing by two votes on primary night, Sept. 13, but made up the difference after absentee ballots were counted and the primary results were certified Wednesday.
Ms. Patterson has an independent line in the election, so she’ll have a rematch against Mr. Schneider on Nov. 8.
All of the other leads that candidates had in Lewis County on Sept. 13 held.
A quarter of Lewis County Republicans turned out for Michael P. Carpinelli’s upset victory over Devere D. Rumble for sheriff. Mr. Carpinelli won, 1,479 to 779, in certified results. Mr. Rumble said he will continue to campaign on the Independence Party line for the Nov. 8 election.
In Cape Vincent on primary night, the unofficial results in the race for the Republican nod in the town supervisor race had been tabulated: Anti-wind power incumbent Urban C. Hirschey had 277 votes and pro-wind power candidate Harvey J. White had 99 votes.
But that didn’t include absentee ballots — about a third of all votes cast. On Wednesday, those ballots were counted. Mr. Hirschey ended up with 507 votes and Mr. White ended up with 107.
That Mr. Hirschey’s already lopsided victory got even more lopsided when absentee ballots were counted is hardly a surprise. It is likely a result of a months-long voter registration drive by anti-wind power activists that targeted seasonal residents. Seasonal residents who may live during the winter in faraway locales are more likely to oppose wind power development and more likely to vote as absentees — which can allow people to vote via mail in the days leading up to the election, rather than in person on election day.
The absentee ballot counts were similarly grim for pro-wind power Town Council candidates in the Republican primary. Marty T. Mason ended up in third place for two spots, with 125 votes, after absentee ballots were counted. Before the absentees were counted and the results were official, Mr. Mason had 113 votes.
Victorious Republican candidate Clifford P. Schneider, meanwhile, had 506 votes and John L. Byrne III had 488 votes, gaining more than 200 votes each since Sept. 13.
A rematch for supervisor and Town Council will take place at the Nov. 8 general election, because the candidates who lost the Republican primary will have third-party lines in the general election.
Wednesday, September 21, 2011
25 Everpower wind turbines finished on hills of Howard
Howard, NY — Twenty-five down, two to go.
Construction of the last of the twenty-five wind turbines in the Town of Howard was finished over the weekend, but the behemoths probably won’t become fully operational until the end of the year, according to Everpower and The Delaney Group officials.
Turbine construction began in July after site roads were finished in May, according to Delaney Project Manager Kyle Settle. The turbines will be plugged into the grid in October for testing.
In the meantime, electrical work and work on the underground collection system will continue.
The project was completed on schedule despite a damp spring, said Settle.
Read the entire article
Construction of the last of the twenty-five wind turbines in the Town of Howard was finished over the weekend, but the behemoths probably won’t become fully operational until the end of the year, according to Everpower and The Delaney Group officials.
Turbine construction began in July after site roads were finished in May, according to Delaney Project Manager Kyle Settle. The turbines will be plugged into the grid in October for testing.
In the meantime, electrical work and work on the underground collection system will continue.
The project was completed on schedule despite a damp spring, said Settle.
Read the entire article
Future of GLOW project appears uncertain
A plan for the development of the nation’s first freshwater wind farm in Lake Ontario or Lake Erie, which drew opposition from Oswego County officials last year, might have been scrapped for good, according to Sen. George Maziarz, R-Newfane.
Maziarz, the chairman of the New York State Senate Energy Committee, has claimed that through sources at the New York Power Authority (NYPA), he has heard the agency will not move forward with the Great Lakes Offshore Wind project (GLOW), though the NYPA has not made any official comment confirming that statement.
Members of the NYPA pitched the wind farm concept to municipalities up and down the shores of the Great Lakes in late 2009. The project plan included the construction of anywhere from 40-200 wind turbines in portions of either Lake Ontario or Lake Erie. After the project had been discussed for placement in the waters of Lake Ontario off the shores of Oswego County, the county Legislature passed a resolution, 20-4, expressing opposition to the project.
Seven of the nine county legislatures that had the GLOW project pitched for development in the waters off their shorelines, passed similar resolutions, citing that the project would not offer an increase in job opportunities and would present an eyesore to the affected communities.
Maziarz claims that he believes the project did not move forward due to the cost associated with the development of the wind farm.
In response to the senator’s claims, the NYPA sent an email to The Palladium-Times stating that, “Our trustees have not taken additional action regarding the proposed Great Lakes Offshore Wind project. This is a matter that is still under review by NYPA.”
Requests by The Palladium-Times to elaborate on that statement were denied by a spokesperson for the NYPA.
Last year, members of the NYPA stated that there were five bidders being evaluated for the development of the project, and the NYPA said they expected proposals would be submitted late in 2010 or early 2011. This would have led to a two-year environmental review, which would include input from communities surrounding the potential sites.
However, those dates came to pass.
In August 2011, the NYPA stated that the requests for proposals were still under examination.
Shortly after that announcement, Maziarz requested that the NYPA release the key information regarding the project, including identifying those five project bidders, potential prospective site locations and other basic details pertaining to the bids.
“The power authority is sitting on this information,” he said. “It’s contemptuous. The public has a right to know how this project may impact the Great Lakes and upstate New York.”
Reports suggest that the GLOW project is expected to be discussed when the authority board of trustees meets Sept. 27.
Maziarz, the chairman of the New York State Senate Energy Committee, has claimed that through sources at the New York Power Authority (NYPA), he has heard the agency will not move forward with the Great Lakes Offshore Wind project (GLOW), though the NYPA has not made any official comment confirming that statement.
Members of the NYPA pitched the wind farm concept to municipalities up and down the shores of the Great Lakes in late 2009. The project plan included the construction of anywhere from 40-200 wind turbines in portions of either Lake Ontario or Lake Erie. After the project had been discussed for placement in the waters of Lake Ontario off the shores of Oswego County, the county Legislature passed a resolution, 20-4, expressing opposition to the project.
Seven of the nine county legislatures that had the GLOW project pitched for development in the waters off their shorelines, passed similar resolutions, citing that the project would not offer an increase in job opportunities and would present an eyesore to the affected communities.
Maziarz claims that he believes the project did not move forward due to the cost associated with the development of the wind farm.
In response to the senator’s claims, the NYPA sent an email to The Palladium-Times stating that, “Our trustees have not taken additional action regarding the proposed Great Lakes Offshore Wind project. This is a matter that is still under review by NYPA.”
Requests by The Palladium-Times to elaborate on that statement were denied by a spokesperson for the NYPA.
Last year, members of the NYPA stated that there were five bidders being evaluated for the development of the project, and the NYPA said they expected proposals would be submitted late in 2010 or early 2011. This would have led to a two-year environmental review, which would include input from communities surrounding the potential sites.
However, those dates came to pass.
In August 2011, the NYPA stated that the requests for proposals were still under examination.
Shortly after that announcement, Maziarz requested that the NYPA release the key information regarding the project, including identifying those five project bidders, potential prospective site locations and other basic details pertaining to the bids.
“The power authority is sitting on this information,” he said. “It’s contemptuous. The public has a right to know how this project may impact the Great Lakes and upstate New York.”
Reports suggest that the GLOW project is expected to be discussed when the authority board of trustees meets Sept. 27.
Tuesday, September 20, 2011
Wind Turbines in Charlotte? Debate Powers Up
Dozens of people gathered in Charlotte Monday night to voice their concerns about a proposed project the could bring up to 144 wind turbines to the waters of Lake Ontario.
"The decisions are being made out of the public eye," says Dave Knak, whose house sits right on the edge of the lake in Greece.
The New York State Power Authority first started spinning the idea of an offshore wind farm in 2009, but since then, lakeshore residents have stood up almost unanimously against the idea.
"I understand the need for energy. But to import these turbines from China doesn't make sense," Knak adds.
On Monday evening at the Robach Community Center in Charlotte, the recently formed Great Lakes Concerned Citizens group met to discuss the plan. Among their biggest concerns: what the turbines would do to the view, where the electricity generated would go to and the environmental impact of the structures.
"They wanna put this project two miles out in the lake, that's nothing, that's like the Xerox building rising up from the lake in front of my house," said Mary Isselhard who heads the group.
No one from NYSPA was at Monday's meeting and so far no final vote has been made on the plan already shot down by a handful of other communities.
"The decisions are being made out of the public eye," says Dave Knak, whose house sits right on the edge of the lake in Greece.
The New York State Power Authority first started spinning the idea of an offshore wind farm in 2009, but since then, lakeshore residents have stood up almost unanimously against the idea.
"I understand the need for energy. But to import these turbines from China doesn't make sense," Knak adds.
On Monday evening at the Robach Community Center in Charlotte, the recently formed Great Lakes Concerned Citizens group met to discuss the plan. Among their biggest concerns: what the turbines would do to the view, where the electricity generated would go to and the environmental impact of the structures.
"They wanna put this project two miles out in the lake, that's nothing, that's like the Xerox building rising up from the lake in front of my house," said Mary Isselhard who heads the group.
No one from NYSPA was at Monday's meeting and so far no final vote has been made on the plan already shot down by a handful of other communities.
Monday, September 19, 2011
Troupsburg hears more on wind power
Troupsburg, N.Y. — Five months after it heard an initial presentation on wind power, the Troupsburg town board heard that a meteorological tower was scheduled to be installed by Friday.
In April the board heard from Tim Ahrens from Seattle-based Ridgeline Energy about the idea of conducting a study in the town to determine whether a farm of wind turbines would be feasible.
At Wednesday’s meeting, the board that the meteorological tower will be installed on a hill between Troupsburg and Greenwood off County Route 126. Supervisor Fred Potter said the tower will collect data on whether installing turbines in the town is feasible.
“Once (the tower) is done, it will be at least a year before they know whether the wind energy is strong enough to sustain a project,” said Potter.
Read the entire article
In April the board heard from Tim Ahrens from Seattle-based Ridgeline Energy about the idea of conducting a study in the town to determine whether a farm of wind turbines would be feasible.
At Wednesday’s meeting, the board that the meteorological tower will be installed on a hill between Troupsburg and Greenwood off County Route 126. Supervisor Fred Potter said the tower will collect data on whether installing turbines in the town is feasible.
“Once (the tower) is done, it will be at least a year before they know whether the wind energy is strong enough to sustain a project,” said Potter.
Read the entire article
Friday, September 16, 2011
Proposal for wind farm on lake is shelved
An ambitious plan for what was to be the nation's first freshwater wind farm with as many as 150 large turbines in Lake Erie off Buffalo's shoreline is being halted, a state lawmaker with firsthand knowledge said Thursday.
Less than two years after the New York Power Authority unveiled its wind turbine plan as a major generator of green energy and jobs in Western New York, the authority is quietly shelving the project.
"I have every expectation and am assuming at this time that the Power Authority is not moving forward with this very expensive project," said State Sen. George Maziarz, R-Newfane, chairman of the Senate Energy Committee.
Word of the impending retreat for the Lake Erie Project occurred on the same day that the Power Authority, the Long Island Power Authority and Consolidated Edison announced they have applied for a permit from the federal government to construct a large wind farm off Long Island.
It also came a day after the State Thruway Authority told The Buffalo News it will build five midsized wind turbines on land it owns along the Thruway south of Buffalo.
The lake project, which the Power Authority said would cost upwards of $1 billion to build, was let out to bidders in December 2009 with a mandate to locate the turbines in Lake Erie and/or Lake Ontario.
Lake Erie -- somewhere off Erie and Chautauqua county shorelines -- was favored because of its shallower depth and advantages for staging construction equipment at Buffalo's port.
High price tag The plan then was backed by some Western New York environmental groups but opposed by some local politicians and lakefront communities concerned about the shoreline views being disrupted and other possible problems.
The project called for generation of 120 megawatts to 500 megawatts of electricity from as many as 150 giant turbines atop towers within six miles of the shoreline. The program would have resulted in far fewer turbines being built as part of a process to allay concerns over, some sources said.
Maziarz said he has heard from authority officials that the local project's high price tag was not cost-effective and that some localities expressed worries about the visual aspects of wind farms on the horizon.
The lawmaker was not critical of the authority and said shelving the project will not be a blow to the region's economy.
"I think the Power Authority is looking at other investments in Western New York that are going to pay off; I think, bigger dividends than this," Maziarz said. He declined to elaborate.
"I've had no indication from the authority that they are moving ahead with this project whatsoever," said Maziarz, who is in regular contact with authority Chairman John Dyson.
Asked about the claims by Maziarz, as well as from other sources speaking on condition of anonymity, an authority spokeswoman, Connie Cullen, said, "This is a matter that is still under review by NYPA." She declined to elaborate.
The authority received five bids for the project back in May 2010. But interest in the plan appears to have ceased at about the same time Richard Kessell, the former president of the Power Authority and one of the project's biggest cheerleaders, in July announced he was leaving the authority.
Sources involved in the Lake Erie wind project, speaking on condition of anonymity, said the downstate ocean plan will take longer for construction to begin because of additional federal permits required.
The authority has said its Great Lakes project would have built between 40 and 166 turbines spread out over an area up to 42 square miles.
The authority's documents envisioned picking a bidder to develop the sites by this summer, with construction to begin in 2014. In return for development rights, the authority proposed that it would guarantee purchase of all future energy produced by the turbines, which would then interconnect with transmitting facilities owned by the authority and other utilities, including National Grid.
An executive of a firm bidding for the Great Lakes project voiced concern that the state is focusing on the ocean wind project off Long Island.
"We hope Gov. [Andrew M.] Cuomo and NYPA are not contemplating trading its Great Lakes initiative in favor of this new project," said Chris Wissemann, managing director of Freshwater Wind.
Not surprised Wissemann said the Great Lakes project is better poised to create jobs and clean energy sooner than the ocean plan, which he said could take 10 years for various approval processes to complete.
Carol E. Murphy, executive director of the Alliance for Clean Energy New York, whose members include energy firms, said the Power Authority has been putting more effort into developing its ocean project.
Murphy said wind conditions are good in both the Great Lakes and ocean areas being considered for development. But, given high electricity prices in the New York City area, growing demand for energy and Cuomo's call to shut down the Indian Point nuclear plant in Westchester County, Murphy said she is not surprised the authority is focused on boosting downstate energy production.
"For NYPA, most of it came down to cost," Maziarz said in characterizing what he called the authority's lost interest in the project.
"I know they're working on other projects in the area. [Authority Chairman John] Dyson and I are meeting regularly, and these projects will create a lot more jobs than this one," the Republican, who has close ties to the Democratic governor, said Thursday.
The Great Lakes project is expected to be discussed when the authority board meets Sept. 27.
Less than two years after the New York Power Authority unveiled its wind turbine plan as a major generator of green energy and jobs in Western New York, the authority is quietly shelving the project.
"I have every expectation and am assuming at this time that the Power Authority is not moving forward with this very expensive project," said State Sen. George Maziarz, R-Newfane, chairman of the Senate Energy Committee.
Word of the impending retreat for the Lake Erie Project occurred on the same day that the Power Authority, the Long Island Power Authority and Consolidated Edison announced they have applied for a permit from the federal government to construct a large wind farm off Long Island.
It also came a day after the State Thruway Authority told The Buffalo News it will build five midsized wind turbines on land it owns along the Thruway south of Buffalo.
The lake project, which the Power Authority said would cost upwards of $1 billion to build, was let out to bidders in December 2009 with a mandate to locate the turbines in Lake Erie and/or Lake Ontario.
Lake Erie -- somewhere off Erie and Chautauqua county shorelines -- was favored because of its shallower depth and advantages for staging construction equipment at Buffalo's port.
High price tag The plan then was backed by some Western New York environmental groups but opposed by some local politicians and lakefront communities concerned about the shoreline views being disrupted and other possible problems.
The project called for generation of 120 megawatts to 500 megawatts of electricity from as many as 150 giant turbines atop towers within six miles of the shoreline. The program would have resulted in far fewer turbines being built as part of a process to allay concerns over, some sources said.
Maziarz said he has heard from authority officials that the local project's high price tag was not cost-effective and that some localities expressed worries about the visual aspects of wind farms on the horizon.
The lawmaker was not critical of the authority and said shelving the project will not be a blow to the region's economy.
"I think the Power Authority is looking at other investments in Western New York that are going to pay off; I think, bigger dividends than this," Maziarz said. He declined to elaborate.
"I've had no indication from the authority that they are moving ahead with this project whatsoever," said Maziarz, who is in regular contact with authority Chairman John Dyson.
Asked about the claims by Maziarz, as well as from other sources speaking on condition of anonymity, an authority spokeswoman, Connie Cullen, said, "This is a matter that is still under review by NYPA." She declined to elaborate.
The authority received five bids for the project back in May 2010. But interest in the plan appears to have ceased at about the same time Richard Kessell, the former president of the Power Authority and one of the project's biggest cheerleaders, in July announced he was leaving the authority.
Sources involved in the Lake Erie wind project, speaking on condition of anonymity, said the downstate ocean plan will take longer for construction to begin because of additional federal permits required.
The authority has said its Great Lakes project would have built between 40 and 166 turbines spread out over an area up to 42 square miles.
The authority's documents envisioned picking a bidder to develop the sites by this summer, with construction to begin in 2014. In return for development rights, the authority proposed that it would guarantee purchase of all future energy produced by the turbines, which would then interconnect with transmitting facilities owned by the authority and other utilities, including National Grid.
An executive of a firm bidding for the Great Lakes project voiced concern that the state is focusing on the ocean wind project off Long Island.
"We hope Gov. [Andrew M.] Cuomo and NYPA are not contemplating trading its Great Lakes initiative in favor of this new project," said Chris Wissemann, managing director of Freshwater Wind.
Not surprised Wissemann said the Great Lakes project is better poised to create jobs and clean energy sooner than the ocean plan, which he said could take 10 years for various approval processes to complete.
Carol E. Murphy, executive director of the Alliance for Clean Energy New York, whose members include energy firms, said the Power Authority has been putting more effort into developing its ocean project.
Murphy said wind conditions are good in both the Great Lakes and ocean areas being considered for development. But, given high electricity prices in the New York City area, growing demand for energy and Cuomo's call to shut down the Indian Point nuclear plant in Westchester County, Murphy said she is not surprised the authority is focused on boosting downstate energy production.
"For NYPA, most of it came down to cost," Maziarz said in characterizing what he called the authority's lost interest in the project.
"I know they're working on other projects in the area. [Authority Chairman John] Dyson and I are meeting regularly, and these projects will create a lot more jobs than this one," the Republican, who has close ties to the Democratic governor, said Thursday.
The Great Lakes project is expected to be discussed when the authority board meets Sept. 27.
Clayton wants wind turbine noise limited at 45 dBA
The Town Council proposed a zoning amendment Wednesday that would force commercial wind turbines to be five decibels quieter than allowed under its existing wind law.
“We want to amend it from 50 dBA to 45 dBA based on the World Health Organization guidelines for community noise. That would be the noise limit at participating residences and nonparticipating property lines,” Town Supervisor Justin A. Taylor said.
The new standard was developed by the five-member Clayton Town Council after a “noise test” Sunday, where Charles E. Ebbing, a retired acoustic engineer, demonstrated how turbines would sound in a number of settings from different distances.
While the council’s newly proposed noise standard is more restrictive than its original law adopted in 2007, it is not as limiting to wind farm developers as the turbine noise cap of five decibels above ambient sound levels recommended by the town’s Wind Committee.
Read the entire article
“We want to amend it from 50 dBA to 45 dBA based on the World Health Organization guidelines for community noise. That would be the noise limit at participating residences and nonparticipating property lines,” Town Supervisor Justin A. Taylor said.
The new standard was developed by the five-member Clayton Town Council after a “noise test” Sunday, where Charles E. Ebbing, a retired acoustic engineer, demonstrated how turbines would sound in a number of settings from different distances.
While the council’s newly proposed noise standard is more restrictive than its original law adopted in 2007, it is not as limiting to wind farm developers as the turbine noise cap of five decibels above ambient sound levels recommended by the town’s Wind Committee.
Read the entire article
Thursday, September 15, 2011
Howard approves extra cost for two wind turbines
The Town of Howard met Wednesday and discussed the extra cost of adding two turbines.
The board approved an adjustment to the Environmental Monitoring Services Budget for extra time spent by Labella Associates PC engineers to assess the work to be done adding the last two turbines.
The budget was revised from $126,940 to $180,700 for the entire contract with Everpower. The budget increase comes after the town decided to add two additional turbines, which meant Labella engineers put in more hours assessing the environmental impact study required by Everpower.
Everpower agreed to cover the cost of the engineers and will absorb the budget difference approved by the board in last night’s meeting.
The two turbines were approved by the planning board to be installed on Spencer Hill Road, but a timetable for their installation is not yet determined.
LaBella Associates engineers were hired by the town to assess the construction and impact of the turbines, including all 25 that are currently installed.
Source
The board approved an adjustment to the Environmental Monitoring Services Budget for extra time spent by Labella Associates PC engineers to assess the work to be done adding the last two turbines.
The budget was revised from $126,940 to $180,700 for the entire contract with Everpower. The budget increase comes after the town decided to add two additional turbines, which meant Labella engineers put in more hours assessing the environmental impact study required by Everpower.
Everpower agreed to cover the cost of the engineers and will absorb the budget difference approved by the board in last night’s meeting.
The two turbines were approved by the planning board to be installed on Spencer Hill Road, but a timetable for their installation is not yet determined.
LaBella Associates engineers were hired by the town to assess the construction and impact of the turbines, including all 25 that are currently installed.
Source
Public meeting to review effects of wind turbines on Lake Ontario
Irondequoit, N.Y. — A public meeting, hosted by the Great Lakes Concerned Citizens, will address the economic, environmental and social issues of industrial offshore wind plants.
The New York Power Authority has initiated the Great Lakes Offshore Wind (GLOW) project, but some say that offshore wind plants can have a serious effect on quality of life issues. one location that may be a candidate for a plant is near Charlotte.
The meeting will be held at 7 p.m. on Monday, Sept. 19 at the Roger Robach Community Center at Ontario Beach Park.The meeting will present information on the GLOW initiative and details on wind energy effects, with time for a question and answer session.
The New York Power Authority has initiated the Great Lakes Offshore Wind (GLOW) project, but some say that offshore wind plants can have a serious effect on quality of life issues. one location that may be a candidate for a plant is near Charlotte.
The meeting will be held at 7 p.m. on Monday, Sept. 19 at the Roger Robach Community Center at Ontario Beach Park.The meeting will present information on the GLOW initiative and details on wind energy effects, with time for a question and answer session.
'Stony Creek' PSC Hearing
Re: Case 11-E-0351 - Petition of Stony Creek Energy LLC for Certificate of Public Convenience & Necessity to establish lightened regulation and approval of debt financing
Dear Secretary Brilling & fellow PSC members,
It is my understanding that the NYS "Public Service Commission" (PSC) is employed by and for NYS taxpayers and ratepayers, as per stated in the PSC website's posted Mission Statement, "to ensure safe, secure, and reliable access to electric... services for New York State’s residential and business consumers, at just and reasonable rates." Is this correct?
I'm wondering if you can please define Capacity Value? I'm also wondering if you aware that industrial wind provides virtually NO Capacity Value???
Are you aware that because wind provides NO Capacity Value, it can NOT provide reliable, dispatchable baseload power, and will always need constant equivalent back-up power???
Are you aware that despite wind industry claims of reduced CO2 emissions, and with over 140,000 industrial wind turbines installed worldwide today, CO2 emissions have NOT been significantly reduced - anywhere???
Are you aware that the National Academies of Science National Research Council Report stated, "Building thousands of turbines won't reduce the pollutants that cause smog and acid rain"?
Are you aware that NYS already gets nearly 50% of its electricity from the emissions-free sources of hydro (19%) & nuclear (29%)???
Are you aware that Denmark (held up by the AWEA and the current administration as the poster child for industrial wind) has electricity rates that are nearly four (4) times what we currently pay in NYS?
Have you seen the report: “New York Wind: Much ado for so little” (http://www,windaction.org/faqs/31912)?
Are you aware that the current Delivered Efficiency of U.S. power plants has a grim national average of only 30%, with 70% lost as "waste heat" - energy that escapes our energy system unproductively? (The 70% lost as "waste heat" is greater than what it takes to run the entire continent of South America and Central America combined.)
Shouldn't the PSC be working to increase efficiency, and thereby protect consumers from this type of redundancy and price inflation that will surely cause further job loss, business closings, and overall price increases throughout our economy - hurting the poorest sector of our population the most???
How does the PSC justify making NYS consumers pay twice for this wasteful, inefficient redundancy, let alone expecting any of us to approve "lightened regulations" for the multi-national corporations who seek to exploit our rural/residential country-sides, and the lives and pocketbooks of the very citizens who are paying for these projects through their ratepayer & taxpayer dollars???
It is my understanding that it is the responsibility of the applicant (Invenergy) to provide a complete and extensive listing of Alternatives to the Town they propose to transform into an industrial wind installation. If Invenergy's (and NYS's) true concern is for renewable energy and the environment - as they claim, why is only the production side (Invenergy's profits), presented in Invenergy's DEIS? Why has Invenergy not been required to supply an extensive listing of Alternatives to the Town of Orangeville and its citizens, as is required?
I was at the June, 2009 NYSERDA Environmental Group's Meeting specific to Wind Power, at which, NYS Department of Health official, Dr. Jan Storm, acknowledged worldwide health problems associated with noise & infrasound emanating from industrial wind turbines, and yet -- NYS still has not conducted any studies, or made any efforts to protect NYS citizens. At the same meeting, former PSC Sound Engineer, Dan Driscoll, suggested setbacks of approximately 3450 feet could alleviate many problems. Yet, here we are in 2011, still going forward with ludicrously-irresponsible setbacks of only 700' from peoples' property lines, and 1300 feet from the foundations of peoples' homes. The lack of any follow-through at all by NYS elected & appointed officials who are supposed to be working to protect NYS citizens -- not Big Wind corporations -- is disgraceful. NYS's actions speak louder than words -- "It's all about the money!" Apparently, they could not care less about the health and well-being of the very people they were elected to serve.
Let's be clear -- this mad rush for all things "green" is about the transfer of our wealth overseas! Of the $2.2 BILLION dollars of Stimulus money that went to renewables, over 80% went overseas -- and that is NOT going to change. These things are made overseas -- in India, China, Denmark, etc. And the argument for jobs is a joke. What jobs are left once they're up? A lawn-mower, or dead bird & bat picker-upper?!?
If the current administration supports government subsidies for renewables like wind, and justifies such support because it diversifies our electricity supply portfolio while completely ignoring the health and welfare of NYS citizens, then why not do the same for the transportation sector by subsidizing gliders to round out our commercial air transport array? How competitive do they think such a business would be, given today's expectations of reliability and performance?
Industrial Wind does NOT provide modern power - period. We may as well try and get 20% of our electricity from sailboats, or gliders.
Industrial wind provides virtually NO Capacity Value (specified amounts of power on demand), and therefore, can never replace our reliable, dispatchable, baseload power sources -- that is, if you want the lights to come on when you flip the switch.
Americans currently enjoy cheap affordable electricity, and that's been the basis of the growth and overall wellbeing of our great nation. To continue to throw our good money after bad at something that will only continue to escalate our electricity rates, and further drive industry out of NYS and the country, is complete lunacy and overall economic suicide!
Furthermore, focusing on building new generating capacity without first addressing Energy Efficiency is nearly criminal -- especially when those energy sources are the lobbyist-driven, inefficient, ridiculously expensive, unreliable "green" sources of wind & solar. http://www.chpcenterpr.org/wasteheat2power07/PDF/TCasten%20presentation.pdf
Why aren't we looking at, and considering, what has been proven to be an unproductive experience in other countries long-invested in industrial wind before making the same expensive mistake here in the U.S.???
A recent Spanish study by researcher Gabriel Alvarez at King Carlos University in Madrid (http://www.wind-watch.org/documents/uploads/Calzada-Spain-jobs-renewables.pdf and http://www.wind-watch.org/documents/uploads/Calzada-Spain-renewables-boom-bust.ppt ) concluded that Spain's mad rush to meet overly-aggressive renewable standards has destroyed jobs. For every job created in the wind industry, 2.2 jobs were lost in the rest of the economy. Even worse is the fact that only one in 10 of those wind energy jobs was permanent.
The end result in Spain: Investing in wind has driven up Spain's real cost of electricity, while carbon emissions have increased 50% since 2000 according to data from the European Environment Agency.
The irony is that Spain's entire renewable industry was built on the promise of creating millions of new, high-paying "green jobs" while simultaneously meeting requirements for cutting carbon emissions - the same political agendas Albany & Washington are now unquestioningly pursuing. Where is the common sense in ignoring the expensive lessons already learned by others???
If industrial wind power has no significant impact on the problem of CO2 emissions; if wind causes electricity prices to "skyrocket" - costing us two to three times as much as conventional sources of energy; if wind kills at least twice as many jobs as it creates; and, if wind also has extraordinary additional costs due to significant adverse environmental, ecological, scenic, and personal health and property value impacts --
Then why would any person in their right mind agree to this madness?
Unfortunately, our energy policies are currently being driven by corporate lobbyists - not science. To waste billions on industrial wind when it can never do what industry salesmen claim, is a travesty -- to both to taxpayers & ratepayers, and to the miles & miles of fragmented habitats, devastated historic vistas, and divided communities it leaves in its wake.
To sum it up: industrial wind has exorbitant costs for insignificant benefits.
Invenergy should NOT be granted permission to go ahead with this project at all, let alone be granted "lightened regulations" -- that is, if the PSC and other NYS elected and appointed officials actually wish to protect NYS taxpayers and ratepayers from the fraud of the corporate welfare scam that is industrial wind.
Sincerely,
Mary Kay Barton
Dear Secretary Brilling & fellow PSC members,
It is my understanding that the NYS "Public Service Commission" (PSC) is employed by and for NYS taxpayers and ratepayers, as per stated in the PSC website's posted Mission Statement, "to ensure safe, secure, and reliable access to electric... services for New York State’s residential and business consumers, at just and reasonable rates." Is this correct?
I'm wondering if you can please define Capacity Value? I'm also wondering if you aware that industrial wind provides virtually NO Capacity Value???
Are you aware that because wind provides NO Capacity Value, it can NOT provide reliable, dispatchable baseload power, and will always need constant equivalent back-up power???
Are you aware that despite wind industry claims of reduced CO2 emissions, and with over 140,000 industrial wind turbines installed worldwide today, CO2 emissions have NOT been significantly reduced - anywhere???
Are you aware that the National Academies of Science National Research Council Report stated, "Building thousands of turbines won't reduce the pollutants that cause smog and acid rain"?
Are you aware that NYS already gets nearly 50% of its electricity from the emissions-free sources of hydro (19%) & nuclear (29%)???
Are you aware that Denmark (held up by the AWEA and the current administration as the poster child for industrial wind) has electricity rates that are nearly four (4) times what we currently pay in NYS?
Have you seen the report: “New York Wind: Much ado for so little” (http://www,windaction.org/faqs/31912)?
Are you aware that the current Delivered Efficiency of U.S. power plants has a grim national average of only 30%, with 70% lost as "waste heat" - energy that escapes our energy system unproductively? (The 70% lost as "waste heat" is greater than what it takes to run the entire continent of South America and Central America combined.)
Shouldn't the PSC be working to increase efficiency, and thereby protect consumers from this type of redundancy and price inflation that will surely cause further job loss, business closings, and overall price increases throughout our economy - hurting the poorest sector of our population the most???
How does the PSC justify making NYS consumers pay twice for this wasteful, inefficient redundancy, let alone expecting any of us to approve "lightened regulations" for the multi-national corporations who seek to exploit our rural/residential country-sides, and the lives and pocketbooks of the very citizens who are paying for these projects through their ratepayer & taxpayer dollars???
It is my understanding that it is the responsibility of the applicant (Invenergy) to provide a complete and extensive listing of Alternatives to the Town they propose to transform into an industrial wind installation. If Invenergy's (and NYS's) true concern is for renewable energy and the environment - as they claim, why is only the production side (Invenergy's profits), presented in Invenergy's DEIS? Why has Invenergy not been required to supply an extensive listing of Alternatives to the Town of Orangeville and its citizens, as is required?
I was at the June, 2009 NYSERDA Environmental Group's Meeting specific to Wind Power, at which, NYS Department of Health official, Dr. Jan Storm, acknowledged worldwide health problems associated with noise & infrasound emanating from industrial wind turbines, and yet -- NYS still has not conducted any studies, or made any efforts to protect NYS citizens. At the same meeting, former PSC Sound Engineer, Dan Driscoll, suggested setbacks of approximately 3450 feet could alleviate many problems. Yet, here we are in 2011, still going forward with ludicrously-irresponsible setbacks of only 700' from peoples' property lines, and 1300 feet from the foundations of peoples' homes. The lack of any follow-through at all by NYS elected & appointed officials who are supposed to be working to protect NYS citizens -- not Big Wind corporations -- is disgraceful. NYS's actions speak louder than words -- "It's all about the money!" Apparently, they could not care less about the health and well-being of the very people they were elected to serve.
Let's be clear -- this mad rush for all things "green" is about the transfer of our wealth overseas! Of the $2.2 BILLION dollars of Stimulus money that went to renewables, over 80% went overseas -- and that is NOT going to change. These things are made overseas -- in India, China, Denmark, etc. And the argument for jobs is a joke. What jobs are left once they're up? A lawn-mower, or dead bird & bat picker-upper?!?
If the current administration supports government subsidies for renewables like wind, and justifies such support because it diversifies our electricity supply portfolio while completely ignoring the health and welfare of NYS citizens, then why not do the same for the transportation sector by subsidizing gliders to round out our commercial air transport array? How competitive do they think such a business would be, given today's expectations of reliability and performance?
Industrial Wind does NOT provide modern power - period. We may as well try and get 20% of our electricity from sailboats, or gliders.
Industrial wind provides virtually NO Capacity Value (specified amounts of power on demand), and therefore, can never replace our reliable, dispatchable, baseload power sources -- that is, if you want the lights to come on when you flip the switch.
Americans currently enjoy cheap affordable electricity, and that's been the basis of the growth and overall wellbeing of our great nation. To continue to throw our good money after bad at something that will only continue to escalate our electricity rates, and further drive industry out of NYS and the country, is complete lunacy and overall economic suicide!
Furthermore, focusing on building new generating capacity without first addressing Energy Efficiency is nearly criminal -- especially when those energy sources are the lobbyist-driven, inefficient, ridiculously expensive, unreliable "green" sources of wind & solar. http://www.chpcenterpr.org/wasteheat2power07/PDF/TCasten%20presentation.pdf
Why aren't we looking at, and considering, what has been proven to be an unproductive experience in other countries long-invested in industrial wind before making the same expensive mistake here in the U.S.???
A recent Spanish study by researcher Gabriel Alvarez at King Carlos University in Madrid (http://www.wind-watch.org/documents/uploads/Calzada-Spain-jobs-renewables.pdf and http://www.wind-watch.org/documents/uploads/Calzada-Spain-renewables-boom-bust.ppt ) concluded that Spain's mad rush to meet overly-aggressive renewable standards has destroyed jobs. For every job created in the wind industry, 2.2 jobs were lost in the rest of the economy. Even worse is the fact that only one in 10 of those wind energy jobs was permanent.
The end result in Spain: Investing in wind has driven up Spain's real cost of electricity, while carbon emissions have increased 50% since 2000 according to data from the European Environment Agency.
The irony is that Spain's entire renewable industry was built on the promise of creating millions of new, high-paying "green jobs" while simultaneously meeting requirements for cutting carbon emissions - the same political agendas Albany & Washington are now unquestioningly pursuing. Where is the common sense in ignoring the expensive lessons already learned by others???
If industrial wind power has no significant impact on the problem of CO2 emissions; if wind causes electricity prices to "skyrocket" - costing us two to three times as much as conventional sources of energy; if wind kills at least twice as many jobs as it creates; and, if wind also has extraordinary additional costs due to significant adverse environmental, ecological, scenic, and personal health and property value impacts --
Then why would any person in their right mind agree to this madness?
Unfortunately, our energy policies are currently being driven by corporate lobbyists - not science. To waste billions on industrial wind when it can never do what industry salesmen claim, is a travesty -- to both to taxpayers & ratepayers, and to the miles & miles of fragmented habitats, devastated historic vistas, and divided communities it leaves in its wake.
To sum it up: industrial wind has exorbitant costs for insignificant benefits.
Invenergy should NOT be granted permission to go ahead with this project at all, let alone be granted "lightened regulations" -- that is, if the PSC and other NYS elected and appointed officials actually wish to protect NYS taxpayers and ratepayers from the fraud of the corporate welfare scam that is industrial wind.
Sincerely,
Mary Kay Barton
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)