Workers Tuesday were to complete cleaning up 55 to 60 gallons of gear oil that spilled Saturday from a wind turbine generator high on a ridgeline in Sheffield.
The turbine is one of 16 recently installed by First Wind, a Boston company, which is constructing northern Vermont's first commercial wind farm. The turbines are being tested and have not begun generating power.
"Most of the oil spilled on the turbine itself and the gravel pad around it, but a small amount traveled 200 yards away," Chuck Schwer, head of the state's spill management program, said Tuesday.
He said none of the oil reached a water source.
John Lamontagne, a spokesman for First Wind, said no natural resource was affected by the leak.
"In areas where oil reached the soil, the soil has been removed and is being cleaned," he said and new grass planted.
The turbine generators sit atop 262-foot-tall towers. Each holds about 110 gallons of hydraulic and lubricating oils, according to a draft spill prevention plan the company filed in 2006, when it was seeking a permit from the Public Service Board.
Opponents of commercial wind projects on Vermont's ridgelines have warned in the past that wind development raises new pollution dangers on fragile mountaintops.
The leak was caused by a "mechanical issue involving an oil line in the generator," Lamontagne said.
He said the company was inspecting the remaining 15 turbines to be certain there are no other leaks. The Sheffield project is expected to begin generating power within the next six weeks.
Thursday, September 29, 2011
EverPower To Provide Grant Funding For Internet Infrastructure In Allegany
ALLEGANY — The newly-formed Town of Allegany Economic Development Corp. met Tuesday to discuss the possibility of setting up a broadband system in the community with grant money that will be provided by EverPower Wind Holdings Inc.
Town Supervisor Pat Eaton, who is a member of the development corporation, said the town hopes to establish broadband and other community development projects through a grant provided by EverPower which expects to build a 29-wind turbine farm in the Chipmonk and Knapp Creek areas. After the controversial project was approved by the Allegany Town Board last month, Concerned Citizens filed an appeal with the Allegany Zoning Board of Appeals. The organization is arguing that the Allegany Planning Board failed to analyze noise impact as required by the law.
Other members of the development corporation are town board member John Hare, Dr. Todd Palmer of St. Bonaventure University, David Potter and Wendy Brand.
Town Supervisor Pat Eaton, who is a member of the development corporation, said the town hopes to establish broadband and other community development projects through a grant provided by EverPower which expects to build a 29-wind turbine farm in the Chipmonk and Knapp Creek areas. After the controversial project was approved by the Allegany Town Board last month, Concerned Citizens filed an appeal with the Allegany Zoning Board of Appeals. The organization is arguing that the Allegany Planning Board failed to analyze noise impact as required by the law.
Other members of the development corporation are town board member John Hare, Dr. Todd Palmer of St. Bonaventure University, David Potter and Wendy Brand.
Wednesday, September 28, 2011
Wind gets knocked out of energy farm plan
The proposal for a wind energy farm off the shores of Lakes Erie and Ontario is officially dead.
The New York Power Authority on Tuesday pulled the plug on the project, citing the high costs of the subsidies that would be needed to make the wind farm economically feasible.
"It's not fiscally prudent at this time to select a proposal and pursue a project in the Great Lakes," said Jill Anderson, a Power Authority staff member who delivered a report to the agency's board of directors.
The Power Authority's staff estimated that a 150-megawatt wind farm off the Great Lakes shoreline would require a subsidy of $60 million to $100 million a year. A larger project -- authority officials had said a project could generate as much as 500 megawatts of electricity -- would require much larger subsidies.
The Power Authority last year received five proposals from developers seeking to build the offshore wind farm, which would have placed as many as 150 to 170 wind turbines along a stretch of Lake Erie from Chautauqua County to Buffalo. A 500-megawatt project would have generated enough electricity to supply about 130,000 homes and would have reduced pollution by reducing the state's reliance on power plants that run on fossil fuels, like coal and natural gas.
The project's supporters also hoped the wind farm would spin off an entire side industry for the region, making it a center for manufacturing many of the 8,000-odd components that go into each wind turbine.
"This is a painful missed opportunity for Western New York," said Brian P. Smith, the communications and program director for Citizens Campaign for the Environment in Buffalo. "We had the opportunity to be at the forefront of an emerging industry."
However, Anderson said the high costs of building a wind farm several miles offshore in deep water made the project too expensive. She estimated that the subsidies required by an offshore wind farm in the Great Lakes would be two to four times the subsidy needed by a similar wind farm built on land.
"The value of that estimated economic activity has to be weighed against the cost borne by customers," said Anderson, the Power Authority's director of supply acquisition and renewable energy.
The Power Authority would have provided the subsidy for the offshore wind farm by agreeing to a 20-year deal to purchase the project's electricity at a negotiated rate that would have been many times higher than the current market price of power in Western New York.
"This was not an easy decision for us to make," said John Dyson, a Power Authority trustee.
Chris Wissemann, the managing director of Ohio-based Great Lakes Wind Energy LLC, said the Power Authority's "closed door" process did not advance to the point where bidders could develop their "best and final pricing" or discuss the potential advantages of the project.
"[The Power Authority] focused on the cost, but not the benefits," said Wissemann, whose company had proposed a project of less than 100 megawatts.
While the Great Lakes project was backed by many environmental groups, and a petition drive in support of the project garnered more than 12,000 signatures, it also faced stiff political opposition. County legislatures in seven of the nine counties lining the Lakes Erie and Ontario shoreline, including those in Erie, Chautauqua and Niagara counties, passed resolutions opposing the wind farm project.
In addition, the offshore wind project lost its highest-profile supporter earlier this month when authority President Richard Kessel left his job.
Despite the decision to drop the Great Lakes wind project, Dyson said the authority remains committed to developing renewable energy, noting that earlier this month it, the Long Island Power Authority and Consolidated Edison applied for permits to build a massive wind farm off Long Island with a capacity of 350 to 700 megawatts.
"It proves our commitment to wind, in general," Dyson said.
Anderson noted that the gap between the current market price for power and the potential cost of the electricity that would have been generated by the offshore wind farm likely would be smaller with a project off Long Island because today's power prices are higher there. In addition, the need for new sources of electricity is greater downstate than it is upstate.
"It's not, by any means, an indication that we're closing the door to offshore wind in New York," Anderson said.
Smith, however, criticized Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo for not backing the Great Lakes wind project. And he called the Long Island proposal a "baby step" toward the development of offshore wind in New York because a downstate project is years away from fruition, leaving states like Ohio, New Jersey and Massachusetts on the leading edge of the push for water-based wind farms.
The New York Power Authority on Tuesday pulled the plug on the project, citing the high costs of the subsidies that would be needed to make the wind farm economically feasible.
"It's not fiscally prudent at this time to select a proposal and pursue a project in the Great Lakes," said Jill Anderson, a Power Authority staff member who delivered a report to the agency's board of directors.
The Power Authority's staff estimated that a 150-megawatt wind farm off the Great Lakes shoreline would require a subsidy of $60 million to $100 million a year. A larger project -- authority officials had said a project could generate as much as 500 megawatts of electricity -- would require much larger subsidies.
The Power Authority last year received five proposals from developers seeking to build the offshore wind farm, which would have placed as many as 150 to 170 wind turbines along a stretch of Lake Erie from Chautauqua County to Buffalo. A 500-megawatt project would have generated enough electricity to supply about 130,000 homes and would have reduced pollution by reducing the state's reliance on power plants that run on fossil fuels, like coal and natural gas.
The project's supporters also hoped the wind farm would spin off an entire side industry for the region, making it a center for manufacturing many of the 8,000-odd components that go into each wind turbine.
"This is a painful missed opportunity for Western New York," said Brian P. Smith, the communications and program director for Citizens Campaign for the Environment in Buffalo. "We had the opportunity to be at the forefront of an emerging industry."
However, Anderson said the high costs of building a wind farm several miles offshore in deep water made the project too expensive. She estimated that the subsidies required by an offshore wind farm in the Great Lakes would be two to four times the subsidy needed by a similar wind farm built on land.
"The value of that estimated economic activity has to be weighed against the cost borne by customers," said Anderson, the Power Authority's director of supply acquisition and renewable energy.
The Power Authority would have provided the subsidy for the offshore wind farm by agreeing to a 20-year deal to purchase the project's electricity at a negotiated rate that would have been many times higher than the current market price of power in Western New York.
"This was not an easy decision for us to make," said John Dyson, a Power Authority trustee.
Chris Wissemann, the managing director of Ohio-based Great Lakes Wind Energy LLC, said the Power Authority's "closed door" process did not advance to the point where bidders could develop their "best and final pricing" or discuss the potential advantages of the project.
"[The Power Authority] focused on the cost, but not the benefits," said Wissemann, whose company had proposed a project of less than 100 megawatts.
While the Great Lakes project was backed by many environmental groups, and a petition drive in support of the project garnered more than 12,000 signatures, it also faced stiff political opposition. County legislatures in seven of the nine counties lining the Lakes Erie and Ontario shoreline, including those in Erie, Chautauqua and Niagara counties, passed resolutions opposing the wind farm project.
In addition, the offshore wind project lost its highest-profile supporter earlier this month when authority President Richard Kessel left his job.
Despite the decision to drop the Great Lakes wind project, Dyson said the authority remains committed to developing renewable energy, noting that earlier this month it, the Long Island Power Authority and Consolidated Edison applied for permits to build a massive wind farm off Long Island with a capacity of 350 to 700 megawatts.
"It proves our commitment to wind, in general," Dyson said.
Anderson noted that the gap between the current market price for power and the potential cost of the electricity that would have been generated by the offshore wind farm likely would be smaller with a project off Long Island because today's power prices are higher there. In addition, the need for new sources of electricity is greater downstate than it is upstate.
"It's not, by any means, an indication that we're closing the door to offshore wind in New York," Anderson said.
Smith, however, criticized Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo for not backing the Great Lakes wind project. And he called the Long Island proposal a "baby step" toward the development of offshore wind in New York because a downstate project is years away from fruition, leaving states like Ohio, New Jersey and Massachusetts on the leading edge of the push for water-based wind farms.
NYPA cancels 150MW Great Lakes offshore project
The Great Lakes Offshore Wind Project (Glow) was envisaged as a 150MW offshore wind farm on either Lake Erie or Lake Ontario.
The NYPA said it had voted to end the tender after viewing submissions for the project and discovered GLOW would need a subsidy of around $60-100 million.
In a statement, NYPA said: "Evaluation of the proposed project’s economics determined that it would not be fiscally prudent for the Power Authority to commit to the initiative."
The submissions were from Apex Offshore Wind, Great Winds, NRG Bluewater Wind Great Lakes, Pattern Renewables and RES Americas. The tender went out at the end of 2009.
The decision to cancel the project will be welcomed by a number of campaigners who were against the project. State senator George Maziarz told Windpower Monthly the deep waters in Lake Ontario ruled it out as a suitable location.
At the time the tender went out, there were questions over whether the NYPA understood the costs of offshore wind and whether it would award a contract at the high rates that would support private financing of project construction.
GLOW is not the first offshore wind project to be cancelled by the NYPA. In 2006, costs projections forced it to abandon plans to develop a 140MW wind farm off Long Island.
However, the Long Island project was revived last year and is unaffected by the NYPA decision on GLOW.
The NYPA’s decision follows a similar move by Ontario, which put a moratorium on offshore development in Lake Ontario. The provincial government said more scientific study is needed before it can develop rules for offshore development
The NYPA said it had voted to end the tender after viewing submissions for the project and discovered GLOW would need a subsidy of around $60-100 million.
In a statement, NYPA said: "Evaluation of the proposed project’s economics determined that it would not be fiscally prudent for the Power Authority to commit to the initiative."
The submissions were from Apex Offshore Wind, Great Winds, NRG Bluewater Wind Great Lakes, Pattern Renewables and RES Americas. The tender went out at the end of 2009.
The decision to cancel the project will be welcomed by a number of campaigners who were against the project. State senator George Maziarz told Windpower Monthly the deep waters in Lake Ontario ruled it out as a suitable location.
At the time the tender went out, there were questions over whether the NYPA understood the costs of offshore wind and whether it would award a contract at the high rates that would support private financing of project construction.
GLOW is not the first offshore wind project to be cancelled by the NYPA. In 2006, costs projections forced it to abandon plans to develop a 140MW wind farm off Long Island.
However, the Long Island project was revived last year and is unaffected by the NYPA decision on GLOW.
The NYPA’s decision follows a similar move by Ontario, which put a moratorium on offshore development in Lake Ontario. The provincial government said more scientific study is needed before it can develop rules for offshore development
Quashed plan for wind turbines a little victory for some
When the New York Power Authority first introduced its plans for offshore wind turbines on Lake Ontario, Greece reisdent David Bell took it upon himself to get education on the issue.
A self-described environmentalist, and "two-Prius driver," Bell says he's in favor of new green technologies replacing fossil fuel bases. But what he learned about wind energy put him storngly against any 450-foot wind turbines off the coast of Lake Ontario.
"Two years ago i probably thought, as most Americans do, that wind is great thing to get us off of the oil," Bell said. "I found out as I studied it in many months of research that not only is it ineffective in offshore, they also don't work that well onshore or produce any reasonable amount of energy that can be stored and the inconsistency they provide in energy is almost useless."
But for now, NYPA won't be installing any wind turbines on Lake Ontario, which were proposed as a part of the Great Lakes Offshore Wind (GLOW) project in 2009. Though NYPA received five bids for the project, each would've been too costly to merit the investment, and all bids were denied.
Though wind energy doesn't have the same effects on the environment as oil-produced energy does, Bell says the environmental affects in the Lake Ontario region could've been disasterous, especially to drinking water. Settled contaminents in the bottom of the lake would be brought up by the burying of transmission lines, possibly adding toxic material to the drinking water of thousands.
The local fight may be over, Bell says, but he's worried about investments in other regions.
"I can see our country wasting valuable resources on science that hasn't been proven yet," Bell said.
Ryne Raffaelle, the vice president for research and associate provost at Rochester Institute of Technology, who formerly worked at the National Renewable Energy Lab in Colorado, says the best wind energy resource is offshore, Raffaelle says, and the Greak Lakes region is deemed one of the prime locations. As such, wind research at the Department of Energy is focused on offshore developments.
“It makes a lot of sense from the population standpoint,” he said. “Ninety percent of the worlds population lives within 10 miles of water. Especially in the northeast, we have large traditional cities all out on the Great Lakes and along the seaboard, so it makes sense.”
Charlotte resident Larry Kilmer says while the end of GLOW is a victory, federal and state governments continue to pour in subsidies to wind energy, and he doesn't see that as a wise use of taxpayer dollars. Not when wind energy doesn't mean the same standards as the technology that's widely used today, he says.
"Perhaps some day the technology will mature and be able to compete in the capitalistic power marketplace without government welfare payments," Kilmer said. "That day is not today."
Rafaelle says its no secret that lobbyists are hard at work to fund the special interest of renewable energy. But investing subsidies in renewable energy is key to staying competitive in the international marketplace, he says. The solar industry alone, he says, is about a $300 billion worldwide market.
“The green energy economy is going to be the largest single market in the world, and we want to be able to compete in that market,” he said. “Other countries are willing to invest heavily to try to corner that market. Unless we step it up we’re going to be left behind.”
A self-described environmentalist, and "two-Prius driver," Bell says he's in favor of new green technologies replacing fossil fuel bases. But what he learned about wind energy put him storngly against any 450-foot wind turbines off the coast of Lake Ontario.
"Two years ago i probably thought, as most Americans do, that wind is great thing to get us off of the oil," Bell said. "I found out as I studied it in many months of research that not only is it ineffective in offshore, they also don't work that well onshore or produce any reasonable amount of energy that can be stored and the inconsistency they provide in energy is almost useless."
But for now, NYPA won't be installing any wind turbines on Lake Ontario, which were proposed as a part of the Great Lakes Offshore Wind (GLOW) project in 2009. Though NYPA received five bids for the project, each would've been too costly to merit the investment, and all bids were denied.
Though wind energy doesn't have the same effects on the environment as oil-produced energy does, Bell says the environmental affects in the Lake Ontario region could've been disasterous, especially to drinking water. Settled contaminents in the bottom of the lake would be brought up by the burying of transmission lines, possibly adding toxic material to the drinking water of thousands.
The local fight may be over, Bell says, but he's worried about investments in other regions.
"I can see our country wasting valuable resources on science that hasn't been proven yet," Bell said.
Ryne Raffaelle, the vice president for research and associate provost at Rochester Institute of Technology, who formerly worked at the National Renewable Energy Lab in Colorado, says the best wind energy resource is offshore, Raffaelle says, and the Greak Lakes region is deemed one of the prime locations. As such, wind research at the Department of Energy is focused on offshore developments.
“It makes a lot of sense from the population standpoint,” he said. “Ninety percent of the worlds population lives within 10 miles of water. Especially in the northeast, we have large traditional cities all out on the Great Lakes and along the seaboard, so it makes sense.”
Charlotte resident Larry Kilmer says while the end of GLOW is a victory, federal and state governments continue to pour in subsidies to wind energy, and he doesn't see that as a wise use of taxpayer dollars. Not when wind energy doesn't mean the same standards as the technology that's widely used today, he says.
"Perhaps some day the technology will mature and be able to compete in the capitalistic power marketplace without government welfare payments," Kilmer said. "That day is not today."
Rafaelle says its no secret that lobbyists are hard at work to fund the special interest of renewable energy. But investing subsidies in renewable energy is key to staying competitive in the international marketplace, he says. The solar industry alone, he says, is about a $300 billion worldwide market.
“The green energy economy is going to be the largest single market in the world, and we want to be able to compete in that market,” he said. “Other countries are willing to invest heavily to try to corner that market. Unless we step it up we’re going to be left behind.”
NYPA will not pay for offshore wind, Galloo Island Wind Farm
The New York Power Authority will not support offshore wind power projects in Lake Erie and Lake Ontario, including Galloo Island Wind Farm.
NYPA’s board of trustees decided Tuesday morning not to award any power purchase agreements through its Great Lakes Offshore Wind project because of exorbitant cost.
“While deciding not to proceed with GLOW, the Power Authority will continue its commitment to developing and implementing wind and other clean alternative energy sources to produce emissions-free power for the benefit of New Yorkers today and for future generations,” said Gil C. Quiniones, acting president and chief executive officer, in a statement.
The authority will focus on an offshore wind project near Long Island with a direct connection to Long Island, New York City and New Jersey. But the upstate project would be too costly, the authority said, requiring an annual subsidy of $60 million to $100 million for a 150-megawatt project, not even the full capacity proposed.
Read the entire article
NYPA’s board of trustees decided Tuesday morning not to award any power purchase agreements through its Great Lakes Offshore Wind project because of exorbitant cost.
“While deciding not to proceed with GLOW, the Power Authority will continue its commitment to developing and implementing wind and other clean alternative energy sources to produce emissions-free power for the benefit of New Yorkers today and for future generations,” said Gil C. Quiniones, acting president and chief executive officer, in a statement.
The authority will focus on an offshore wind project near Long Island with a direct connection to Long Island, New York City and New Jersey. But the upstate project would be too costly, the authority said, requiring an annual subsidy of $60 million to $100 million for a 150-megawatt project, not even the full capacity proposed.
Read the entire article
Tuesday, September 27, 2011
Power Authority decides against off-shore wind turbines
The New York Power Authority formally voted today to end its push for off-shore wind turbines in Lake Ontario or Lake Erie.
At a meeting at the authority's Westchester County office, NYPA's trustees voted unanimously to shelve the idea. "This was not an easy decision to make," trustee John Dyson said.
Cancellation of the so-called Great Lakes Offshore Wind project was widely expected. Decision-making on the project was months behind schedule, and critics were insisting it would not make financial sense.
NYPA staff agreed. "We’ve decided we are recommending it’s not fiscally prudent at this time to proceed," Jill Anderson, a renewable-energy executive for the authority, told trustees.
Read the entire article
At a meeting at the authority's Westchester County office, NYPA's trustees voted unanimously to shelve the idea. "This was not an easy decision to make," trustee John Dyson said.
Cancellation of the so-called Great Lakes Offshore Wind project was widely expected. Decision-making on the project was months behind schedule, and critics were insisting it would not make financial sense.
NYPA staff agreed. "We’ve decided we are recommending it’s not fiscally prudent at this time to proceed," Jill Anderson, a renewable-energy executive for the authority, told trustees.
Read the entire article
Jerusalem needs bond rule for wind farm regulations
Penn Yan, N.Y. — During a public hearing in the Sept. 21 Jerusalem Town Board meeting, resident John Grabski praised the work done by the town on wind farm regulations, calling it “a wonderful job,” but asked the board why there was no clause requiring a bond for property value protection. With three of the four major wind energy companies being owned by foreign corporations, Grabski asserts that without the bond requirement, it would be difficult if not impossible to recover any damages even if proved. Board member Michael Folts agreed, saying, “If it’s not in there, it should be. I won’t entertain passing if it isn’t.”
Resident James Fitzgibbons handed the board a recommendation for a resolution to insert the clause into the regulation. Town Attorney Phil Bailey suggests this could be interpreted as a major change which requires another public hearing. Town Engineer Wayne Ackart concurred, but said no time would be lost because the State Environmental Quality Review won’t be passed until November.
Resident James Fitzgibbons handed the board a recommendation for a resolution to insert the clause into the regulation. Town Attorney Phil Bailey suggests this could be interpreted as a major change which requires another public hearing. Town Engineer Wayne Ackart concurred, but said no time would be lost because the State Environmental Quality Review won’t be passed until November.
Litchfield official signs easement with wind project company
Litchfield, N.Y. — As town officials move toward possibly instituting a law banning large-scale wind projects, the town codes officer has signed an easement on his personal property with the potential wind developer.
Town codes officer Scott Davies at one time stood to earn as much as $20,000 for leasing his land for a wind project proposed there, but he said in 2010 his land no longer was being considered for a turbine.
Davies, however, is one of several Litchfield residents to recently sign easements with the developer, according to Herkimer County Clerk’s Office records.
The land owned by Davies would not be used for a turbine, and the easement is for a right of way, Davies and the developer said.
Davies said it is his understanding that the town would have engineers in place to handle zoning and codes issues for any wind project that might be established, so the easement wouldn’t be a conflict for him.
“I know how to separate my codes position from being a lifelong resident, landowner, taxpayer and voter,” Davies said.
Albany-based NorthWind and Power has been looking to build a 20-megawatt wind farm with eight to 12 turbines on Dry Hill in Litchfield.
The town is considering a local law that would ban large-scale wind projects, and a public hearing is scheduled for 7:30 p.m. on Tuesday, Oct. 18, at 804 Cedarville Road in Ilion.
NorthWind and Power, meanwhile, has merged into Seattle-based Ridgeline Energy and is in the process of changing its name to Ridgeline Energy, said Patrick Doyle, vice president of development for Ridgeline.
Ridgeline is part of Veolia Environnement, which is headquartered in France. The company also has establishing Dry Lots Wind LLC to run the potential Litchfield project. The easements signed by town residents are with Dry Lots Wind LLC.
There is potential for a wind project larger than 25 megawatts to be installed through state — instead of local — approval because of Article X of the Power NY Act of 2011.
Susan Lerner, executive director of the watchdog group Common Cause New York, said Davies signing the easement with the developer certainly raises “interesting questions.”
“On its face, there’s an appearance of some sort of conflict of interest that should be explored further,” Lerner said.
Davies, who noted he makes about $90 per week from his codes officer position and pays about $400 per week in taxes, said too many variables remain with the project to know how much money he would make from the easement.
Davies, whose wife, Christine Davies, also signed the easement, said he has several other right-of-way agreements in place on his property with telephone, gas and electric companies.
Doyle said the easements with Davies and others potentially could be used for something such as transmission lines crossing the property.
“We are not planning to put turbines on his property,” Doyle said.
Doyle had no comment on whether the easement created a conflict of interest for Davies.
“It’s up to the town how it conducts its business,” Doyle said.
Litchfield Deputy Supervisor Kate Entwistle said the role of the codes officer primarily is to enforce town building codes.
If the town wind law is passed and/or a project is built, town officials still would have to decide who oversees the zoning issues, and that likely wouldn’t include Davies, Entwistle said.
“I don’t see any conflict,” Entwistle said. “I encourage Mr. Davies to pursue all opportunities that are presented to him.”
Litchfield Town Council member James Entwistle said the board was notified of the easement by the town attorney, who was notified by the wind developer.
If Davies is ever put in a position where his codes officer role requires him to act related to the wind project, then the issue would have to be further looked at, James Entwistle said.
“He’s done a fine job,” James Entwistle said. “As long as he continues to do his job, I don’t see a problem.”
Meanwhile, there also is some concern among town officials and residents about a recent letter sent to the town by the developer’s attorney explaining the developer’s position opposing the proposed wind law.
The Aug. 9 letter states that the developer believes the wind law would be illegal, and it also mentions the possibility of Article X coming into play with larger projects.
Some residents view the letter as a threat — basically saying do what we want or we’ll sue or use Article X.
James Entwistle said he worries that the letter is the first step of a possible lawsuit if the wind law passes.
“I think they’re setting the tone for a lawsuit down the road, but I could be wrong on that,” he said. “Time will tell.”
Kate Entwistle had no comment on the letter other than to say it was forwarded to attorneys.
Doyle said the letter was just submitted to the town as a way to express the company’s opinion on the draft law as part of the public comment period for the law.
“We’re participating in the process,” Doyle said.
Town codes officer Scott Davies at one time stood to earn as much as $20,000 for leasing his land for a wind project proposed there, but he said in 2010 his land no longer was being considered for a turbine.
Davies, however, is one of several Litchfield residents to recently sign easements with the developer, according to Herkimer County Clerk’s Office records.
The land owned by Davies would not be used for a turbine, and the easement is for a right of way, Davies and the developer said.
Davies said it is his understanding that the town would have engineers in place to handle zoning and codes issues for any wind project that might be established, so the easement wouldn’t be a conflict for him.
“I know how to separate my codes position from being a lifelong resident, landowner, taxpayer and voter,” Davies said.
Albany-based NorthWind and Power has been looking to build a 20-megawatt wind farm with eight to 12 turbines on Dry Hill in Litchfield.
The town is considering a local law that would ban large-scale wind projects, and a public hearing is scheduled for 7:30 p.m. on Tuesday, Oct. 18, at 804 Cedarville Road in Ilion.
NorthWind and Power, meanwhile, has merged into Seattle-based Ridgeline Energy and is in the process of changing its name to Ridgeline Energy, said Patrick Doyle, vice president of development for Ridgeline.
Ridgeline is part of Veolia Environnement, which is headquartered in France. The company also has establishing Dry Lots Wind LLC to run the potential Litchfield project. The easements signed by town residents are with Dry Lots Wind LLC.
There is potential for a wind project larger than 25 megawatts to be installed through state — instead of local — approval because of Article X of the Power NY Act of 2011.
Susan Lerner, executive director of the watchdog group Common Cause New York, said Davies signing the easement with the developer certainly raises “interesting questions.”
“On its face, there’s an appearance of some sort of conflict of interest that should be explored further,” Lerner said.
Davies, who noted he makes about $90 per week from his codes officer position and pays about $400 per week in taxes, said too many variables remain with the project to know how much money he would make from the easement.
Davies, whose wife, Christine Davies, also signed the easement, said he has several other right-of-way agreements in place on his property with telephone, gas and electric companies.
Doyle said the easements with Davies and others potentially could be used for something such as transmission lines crossing the property.
“We are not planning to put turbines on his property,” Doyle said.
Doyle had no comment on whether the easement created a conflict of interest for Davies.
“It’s up to the town how it conducts its business,” Doyle said.
Litchfield Deputy Supervisor Kate Entwistle said the role of the codes officer primarily is to enforce town building codes.
If the town wind law is passed and/or a project is built, town officials still would have to decide who oversees the zoning issues, and that likely wouldn’t include Davies, Entwistle said.
“I don’t see any conflict,” Entwistle said. “I encourage Mr. Davies to pursue all opportunities that are presented to him.”
Litchfield Town Council member James Entwistle said the board was notified of the easement by the town attorney, who was notified by the wind developer.
If Davies is ever put in a position where his codes officer role requires him to act related to the wind project, then the issue would have to be further looked at, James Entwistle said.
“He’s done a fine job,” James Entwistle said. “As long as he continues to do his job, I don’t see a problem.”
Meanwhile, there also is some concern among town officials and residents about a recent letter sent to the town by the developer’s attorney explaining the developer’s position opposing the proposed wind law.
The Aug. 9 letter states that the developer believes the wind law would be illegal, and it also mentions the possibility of Article X coming into play with larger projects.
Some residents view the letter as a threat — basically saying do what we want or we’ll sue or use Article X.
James Entwistle said he worries that the letter is the first step of a possible lawsuit if the wind law passes.
“I think they’re setting the tone for a lawsuit down the road, but I could be wrong on that,” he said. “Time will tell.”
Kate Entwistle had no comment on the letter other than to say it was forwarded to attorneys.
Doyle said the letter was just submitted to the town as a way to express the company’s opinion on the draft law as part of the public comment period for the law.
“We’re participating in the process,” Doyle said.
A Wind TurbineSprings Oil Leak
SHEFFIELD -- A turbine at the First Wind renewable energy wind farm on Saturday had an oil leak in a gear in the top of the windmill.
Clean-up efforts to reclaim about 40 gallons of oil were continuing Monday, Sheffield-Wheelock Fire Chief Marc Brown said. The incident was reported Saturday afternoon and volunteers were at the site for about four hours, he said.
"Something happened in one of the gear boxes in one turbine and approximately 70 gallons was spilled, and most of it, actually, was contained within the turbine itself," Brown said. About 40 gallons leaked.
He said there was almost no wind to cause the oil to spread farther, and that it was contained on the ground in rocks around the base of the turbine in the immediate area surrounding the turbine. He said Dana Calkins was called over the weekend to help with clean-up and was continuing to remove any possible traces of contaminant from the incident.
The Vermont Agency of Natural Resources was contacted and has been in touch with Brown as has First Wind representatives, Brown said.
First Wind spokesman John Lamontagne on Monday said, "We learned on Saturday that oil leaked from a gear box at one of our turbines at our Sheffield Wind project," said Lamontagne. "Our contractor, RMT, reported the incident immediately to state and local authorities, as required. RMT has been in frequent communication with the Vermont Agency of Natural Resources to inform them of the status. Turbines are currently being commissioned. The turbine that experienced the leak has not been commissioned yet. We expect the project to be fully commissioned in the coming months.
Chuck Schwer, a member of the Vermont Hazardous Materials Response Team, said, "It first came in and they thought it was 180 gallons that spilled. However, people have been able to get up into the turbine and assess it, and it's looking like a 55 to 60 gallon spill. Once the guys got up there the guys said there was still a lot of oil left in the reservoir, and then talking to the people from the company itself, they satisfied me that it was less."
Schwer said because it happened up high, it did spray about 200 yards, but that was minimal. The worst of it was in the gravel drive around the turbine, he said. "They have really made sure they have tracked it down and gotten all of it."
"I haven't been there, so I'm going on what I've heard, that it ran down the side of the turbine," Schwer said. "So really what got into the environment is even less. It's a heavier oil, so it doesn't soak into the ground as quickly or travel as far, and it makes clean-up a bit easier to do. So that's a good thing. It had something to do with the amount of wind."
He said First Wind will follow up with a report, including photos as part of the reporting requirements.
"I'm more than pleased with the effort they are putting in. They realize they had this release and they want to go the extra mile to get it cleaned up," said Schwer.
"They dug it all up and took it away," Brown said. He also said no vegetation came in contact with the oil nor did any water sources.
"Nothing got to the water," said Brown. "There were no waterways that were affected.
The guys did a really good job."
Brown said the emergency action plan tried and tested many times at the wind farm by the members of the Sheffield-Wheelock Fire Department worked very well.
"It was a very small area, 100 x 100 foot area, the gravel space around the turbine," said Brown. "There was very little wind and absolutely no precipitation.
It's all been cleaned up. We still have Dana Calkins up there and he's putting material back in just in case people see him or hear of anything.
"They're going over and beyond what the state wants. I just got off the phone with the emergency management people and they are happy right now," said Brown. "What they [First Wind] are doing, is above and beyond what the state requirement is. It's like dropping something on the floor and getting down and scrubbing it."
Rob Pforzheimer, a Sutton resident and longtime First Wind critic, said, "This is the second haz mat spill [TNT truck in December] on this project and it hasn't even started producing anything yet. There will undoubtedly be more spills in the future because the Clipper turbines are junk. Some of the turbines in Sheffield are rebuilt failed turbines from Cohocton, New York. I guess in the rush for subsidies, First Wind is being careless."
First Wind's Lamontagne said, "The Clipper turbines are not 'rebuilt turbines from Cohocton, New York.' They have never been used before. They are similar to the Cohocton turbines in that they are 2.5 MW each."
Clean-up efforts to reclaim about 40 gallons of oil were continuing Monday, Sheffield-Wheelock Fire Chief Marc Brown said. The incident was reported Saturday afternoon and volunteers were at the site for about four hours, he said.
"Something happened in one of the gear boxes in one turbine and approximately 70 gallons was spilled, and most of it, actually, was contained within the turbine itself," Brown said. About 40 gallons leaked.
He said there was almost no wind to cause the oil to spread farther, and that it was contained on the ground in rocks around the base of the turbine in the immediate area surrounding the turbine. He said Dana Calkins was called over the weekend to help with clean-up and was continuing to remove any possible traces of contaminant from the incident.
The Vermont Agency of Natural Resources was contacted and has been in touch with Brown as has First Wind representatives, Brown said.
First Wind spokesman John Lamontagne on Monday said, "We learned on Saturday that oil leaked from a gear box at one of our turbines at our Sheffield Wind project," said Lamontagne. "Our contractor, RMT, reported the incident immediately to state and local authorities, as required. RMT has been in frequent communication with the Vermont Agency of Natural Resources to inform them of the status. Turbines are currently being commissioned. The turbine that experienced the leak has not been commissioned yet. We expect the project to be fully commissioned in the coming months.
Chuck Schwer, a member of the Vermont Hazardous Materials Response Team, said, "It first came in and they thought it was 180 gallons that spilled. However, people have been able to get up into the turbine and assess it, and it's looking like a 55 to 60 gallon spill. Once the guys got up there the guys said there was still a lot of oil left in the reservoir, and then talking to the people from the company itself, they satisfied me that it was less."
Schwer said because it happened up high, it did spray about 200 yards, but that was minimal. The worst of it was in the gravel drive around the turbine, he said. "They have really made sure they have tracked it down and gotten all of it."
"I haven't been there, so I'm going on what I've heard, that it ran down the side of the turbine," Schwer said. "So really what got into the environment is even less. It's a heavier oil, so it doesn't soak into the ground as quickly or travel as far, and it makes clean-up a bit easier to do. So that's a good thing. It had something to do with the amount of wind."
He said First Wind will follow up with a report, including photos as part of the reporting requirements.
"I'm more than pleased with the effort they are putting in. They realize they had this release and they want to go the extra mile to get it cleaned up," said Schwer.
"They dug it all up and took it away," Brown said. He also said no vegetation came in contact with the oil nor did any water sources.
"Nothing got to the water," said Brown. "There were no waterways that were affected.
The guys did a really good job."
Brown said the emergency action plan tried and tested many times at the wind farm by the members of the Sheffield-Wheelock Fire Department worked very well.
"It was a very small area, 100 x 100 foot area, the gravel space around the turbine," said Brown. "There was very little wind and absolutely no precipitation.
It's all been cleaned up. We still have Dana Calkins up there and he's putting material back in just in case people see him or hear of anything.
"They're going over and beyond what the state wants. I just got off the phone with the emergency management people and they are happy right now," said Brown. "What they [First Wind] are doing, is above and beyond what the state requirement is. It's like dropping something on the floor and getting down and scrubbing it."
Rob Pforzheimer, a Sutton resident and longtime First Wind critic, said, "This is the second haz mat spill [TNT truck in December] on this project and it hasn't even started producing anything yet. There will undoubtedly be more spills in the future because the Clipper turbines are junk. Some of the turbines in Sheffield are rebuilt failed turbines from Cohocton, New York. I guess in the rush for subsidies, First Wind is being careless."
First Wind's Lamontagne said, "The Clipper turbines are not 'rebuilt turbines from Cohocton, New York.' They have never been used before. They are similar to the Cohocton turbines in that they are 2.5 MW each."
Seeing is believing!
And seeing up close can be a needed shock
The intermittent nature of the power generated by the Wolfe Island wind project is obvious for anyone who spends any time observing it. There are frequent periods of time when the wind turbines there are not turning at all or turning only listlessly. The wind project there has never come close to generating power anywhere close to its rated capacity for any significant length of time.
We have seen the wind developer's own bird kill data. That data is very troublesome and points to a real and serious problem with raptor and migratory bird fatalities from the Wolfe Island turbines.
The adverse visual impact of the Wolfe Island wind project has hit many Cape Vincent residents in the heart and in the wallet. More than a few are very saddened over how the revolving turbines, and particularly the blinking red lights at night atop the turbines, have significantly interfered with the breathtaking beauty of their views of the St. Lawrence and Lake Ontario.
Many acknowledge, however, that there may be one small upside to the arrival of the wind farm on Wolfe Island. When that project was completed in 2009 many Cape Vincent and other Thousand Islands Region residents came to understand for the first time what all the fuss was about with regard to wind power development.
Pictures of wind farms in the media, almost all of which are hand-picked by the wind industry's public relations people, tend to show photos of wind turbines in remote pastoral and isolated settings with little or no trace of any people around. But with the arrival of the 86 turbines on Wolfe Island, many of us saw what real turbines – spinning and blinking – really looked like. We saw how numerously and close together they could be packed, and we saw with our own eyes how intrusively they could dominate a viewscape, both day and night.
Some people conjecture that it was the erection of the Wolfe Island wind project that first stirred many previously complacent Cape Vincent residents to begin questioning wind development on our side of the River.
But I fear that looking across at Wolfe Island from a couple of miles away may not be enough for some people to fully comprehend what we are in for if big wind development proceeds on the US side of the St. Lawrence River. Some of you need to get a little closer. Some of you need to put yourself right in the middle of a wind farm for at least a few minutes. To be blunt, some of you can be a bit lazy and need to give yourself a bop on the head. Fortunately, you have two easy and convenient ways to do that.
The Wolfe Island ferry from Cape Vincent will be running for another two weeks before it shuts down for the season. On one of these beautiful autumn afternoons take the short ride across the river on the ferry to Wolfe Island (assuming you have a US passport or an "enhanced" New York driver’s license. After you get off the ferry and go through customs you will drive north on Highway 95 toward the Hamlet of Marysville, 11 km away. After just a couple of minutes on Highway 95 you will find yourself in the middle of the Wolfe Island wind project. Somewhere about halfway to Marysville pull your car over onto the shoulder of the road – perhaps near the intersection of Highway 95 and Reads Bay Road, or near the intersection of Highway 95 and Baseline Road.
Stand by the side of the road and look around you in all directions. Every vantage will be dominated by the sight (and sound) of wind turbines -- many of them very close to you. Try to count the turbines. You will be able to see almost all 86 of them. But if you do try to count them you will probably get too dizzy and give up. But then try just to imagine the combined wind project proposals for Cape Vincent with half again as many turbines as those you see around you on Wolfe Island! Would you really be willing to stand for that? Would you really be willing to put up with that?
It should readily occur to you that there will be many Cape Vincent residents who will have views of wind turbines through every window of their house – on all four sides! Many of those turbines will be close enough to the homes of many Cape Vincent residents so as to have serious sound and shadow flicker consequences. Will you be such a homeowner? What about the people you know and care about and with whom you share the town of Cape Vincent?
If you can't get over to Wolfe Island sometime in the next two weeks you can have an up close visual experience of an even larger wind farm just a short drive away. Just drive down Interstate 81 to Adams Center. and take Route 177 east to the famous Maple Ridge (Tug Hill) wind farm. You'll know when you're there. There are well over 200 turbines in the sprawling wind generation complex. Many are very close to the highway and many are varying distances away. Pull off the road and just gaze around for a while. The wind farm owner has even conveniently prepared a parking area just off the north side of Route 177 going east.
When you're standing there, close your eyes for a few seconds and try to imagine many dozens of those same such turbines (except maybe taller ones) being put in the ground across the length and breadth of Cape Vincent.
If you consider yourself a responsible Cape Vincent citizen, taxpayer and voter, I suggest you should also feel obligated to complete this simple and easy homework assignment. If you are one of those who has not gone to the trouble to see a wind farm up close you cannot possibly appreciate what you're missing until you do. Bring a friend.
Seeing is believing, and seeing up close is even better.
Thank you to a JLL contributor.
The intermittent nature of the power generated by the Wolfe Island wind project is obvious for anyone who spends any time observing it. There are frequent periods of time when the wind turbines there are not turning at all or turning only listlessly. The wind project there has never come close to generating power anywhere close to its rated capacity for any significant length of time.
We have seen the wind developer's own bird kill data. That data is very troublesome and points to a real and serious problem with raptor and migratory bird fatalities from the Wolfe Island turbines.
The adverse visual impact of the Wolfe Island wind project has hit many Cape Vincent residents in the heart and in the wallet. More than a few are very saddened over how the revolving turbines, and particularly the blinking red lights at night atop the turbines, have significantly interfered with the breathtaking beauty of their views of the St. Lawrence and Lake Ontario.
Many acknowledge, however, that there may be one small upside to the arrival of the wind farm on Wolfe Island. When that project was completed in 2009 many Cape Vincent and other Thousand Islands Region residents came to understand for the first time what all the fuss was about with regard to wind power development.
Pictures of wind farms in the media, almost all of which are hand-picked by the wind industry's public relations people, tend to show photos of wind turbines in remote pastoral and isolated settings with little or no trace of any people around. But with the arrival of the 86 turbines on Wolfe Island, many of us saw what real turbines – spinning and blinking – really looked like. We saw how numerously and close together they could be packed, and we saw with our own eyes how intrusively they could dominate a viewscape, both day and night.
Some people conjecture that it was the erection of the Wolfe Island wind project that first stirred many previously complacent Cape Vincent residents to begin questioning wind development on our side of the River.
But I fear that looking across at Wolfe Island from a couple of miles away may not be enough for some people to fully comprehend what we are in for if big wind development proceeds on the US side of the St. Lawrence River. Some of you need to get a little closer. Some of you need to put yourself right in the middle of a wind farm for at least a few minutes. To be blunt, some of you can be a bit lazy and need to give yourself a bop on the head. Fortunately, you have two easy and convenient ways to do that.
The Wolfe Island ferry from Cape Vincent will be running for another two weeks before it shuts down for the season. On one of these beautiful autumn afternoons take the short ride across the river on the ferry to Wolfe Island (assuming you have a US passport or an "enhanced" New York driver’s license. After you get off the ferry and go through customs you will drive north on Highway 95 toward the Hamlet of Marysville, 11 km away. After just a couple of minutes on Highway 95 you will find yourself in the middle of the Wolfe Island wind project. Somewhere about halfway to Marysville pull your car over onto the shoulder of the road – perhaps near the intersection of Highway 95 and Reads Bay Road, or near the intersection of Highway 95 and Baseline Road.
Stand by the side of the road and look around you in all directions. Every vantage will be dominated by the sight (and sound) of wind turbines -- many of them very close to you. Try to count the turbines. You will be able to see almost all 86 of them. But if you do try to count them you will probably get too dizzy and give up. But then try just to imagine the combined wind project proposals for Cape Vincent with half again as many turbines as those you see around you on Wolfe Island! Would you really be willing to stand for that? Would you really be willing to put up with that?
It should readily occur to you that there will be many Cape Vincent residents who will have views of wind turbines through every window of their house – on all four sides! Many of those turbines will be close enough to the homes of many Cape Vincent residents so as to have serious sound and shadow flicker consequences. Will you be such a homeowner? What about the people you know and care about and with whom you share the town of Cape Vincent?
If you can't get over to Wolfe Island sometime in the next two weeks you can have an up close visual experience of an even larger wind farm just a short drive away. Just drive down Interstate 81 to Adams Center. and take Route 177 east to the famous Maple Ridge (Tug Hill) wind farm. You'll know when you're there. There are well over 200 turbines in the sprawling wind generation complex. Many are very close to the highway and many are varying distances away. Pull off the road and just gaze around for a while. The wind farm owner has even conveniently prepared a parking area just off the north side of Route 177 going east.
When you're standing there, close your eyes for a few seconds and try to imagine many dozens of those same such turbines (except maybe taller ones) being put in the ground across the length and breadth of Cape Vincent.
If you consider yourself a responsible Cape Vincent citizen, taxpayer and voter, I suggest you should also feel obligated to complete this simple and easy homework assignment. If you are one of those who has not gone to the trouble to see a wind farm up close you cannot possibly appreciate what you're missing until you do. Bring a friend.
Seeing is believing, and seeing up close is even better.
Thank you to a JLL contributor.
Proposed wind energy law to be reviewed by Morristown Town Board at special meeting Wednesday
Supervisor Frank L. Putman said he believes the town’s proposed wind energy law “is as close to fair and equitable to the masses” as possible.
“After receiving assistance from our local wind committee, the St. Lawrence County planning office and our consultant, as well as from the town attorney, I think we have a pretty solid law,” Mr. Putman said Monday. “At least that’s what I’m hearing as feedback from these entities.”
The final draft of the proposal is to be reviewed Wednesday during a special meeting at 6:30 p.m. in the town offices, 604 Main St.
“What I expect to accomplish is a review of the lawyer’s suggestions, with the board to edit those into the law to our satisfaction. I suspect a public hearing will be scheduled after that,” he said.
Read the entire article
“After receiving assistance from our local wind committee, the St. Lawrence County planning office and our consultant, as well as from the town attorney, I think we have a pretty solid law,” Mr. Putman said Monday. “At least that’s what I’m hearing as feedback from these entities.”
The final draft of the proposal is to be reviewed Wednesday during a special meeting at 6:30 p.m. in the town offices, 604 Main St.
“What I expect to accomplish is a review of the lawyer’s suggestions, with the board to edit those into the law to our satisfaction. I suspect a public hearing will be scheduled after that,” he said.
Read the entire article
Wind Energy and Radar: A National Security Issue
Military leaders are under pressure to not disrupt White House green energy policies even while green energy technology is disrupting our navigation aids and impairing U.S. national security.
Washington has a track record of muzzling military testimony to protect its pet policies and political friends. Last week, Air Force Gen. William Shelton admitted he was pressured by the administration to change his testimony regarding LightSquared’s network and its adverse impact on military space-based navigation systems. We applaud Shelton for not bowing to the pressure.
But the military has not been honest about the effect wind turbine technology has on our national radar systems.
The fact is that our air space has been made less safe by turbines and our national security compromised because of a reckless policy of siting wind towers within 50-miles of radar installations. Military radar experts in the field know the damage that’s been done. But with the debate surrounding energy policy dominated by politics and money, the military has bowed to the pressure.
Radar Interference and Mitigation
The military services and federal agencies have conducted numerous studies on the radar question, as have multiple international military and private interests. Not all studies agree on levels of severity and potential mitigations, but all agree that large scale industrial wind turbines have the potential to negatively affect military installations, radar, and navigation aids.
The problem is easy to explain, but difficult to resolve.
Since radar technology is designed to detect moving objects, spinning turbine blades create interference which degrades the signal. Wind towers carry a signal strength greater than a Boeing 747, so when the radar repeatedly sees the large return it cannot detect actual aircraft in the same area.
Large expenditures of time and funds have been allocated in pursuit of technical mitigations but so far the results are controversial. According to Raytheon lead radar engineer, Peter Drake, radar mitigation technology does not yet exist. “…These things [turbines] inside of 20 miles, look like a 747 on final approach,” Drake said. The trick, he adds, “…is to somehow make them disappear, while still being able to see a real 747…we have not figured that out yet.”
By 2008, nearly 40% of our long-range radar systems were compromised by wind turbines. Today, more than twice the wind capacity is installed and the problem of radar interference persists.
Proper siting of turbines, while politically cumbersome, is the only tried and true form of mitigation. But this means denying wind developers access to land areas covered by radar.
Radar Interference at Travis Air Force Base
The problem of radar interference first cropped up in the United States in early 2007 near Travis Air Force base in California. Two wind proposals were before the Solano County Planning Commission that would erect over one-hundred new turbines in the area. The spinning blades resulted in smaller planes appearing to drop off the radar while others appeared when they weren’t actually there.
Both Travis and the Solano County Airport Land Use Commission urged the planning commissioners to delay approving the projects, citing air safety and the need for more time to study the effects the towers had on navigation.
In his letter to the County, Colonel Steven Arquiette, commander of the 60th Air Mobility Wing at Travis, warned: “…we have evidence indicating the wind turbines will create significant interference with the base’s radar and could lead to potentially serious flight safety hazards in terms of planes dropping off radar, flight tracks on radar different from actual tracks and ‘false targets’ — planes the radar sees but aren’t actually there.”
The county heeded their concerns and agreed to the delay. Commissioner John Moore was particularly firm when he said “…If they can’t fix it, it might never get done. Nothing happens unless the Air Force’s problem gets fixed.”
Travis held firm on its objections until a year later when enXco, one of the project proponents gifted $1 million to the base for technical mitigations.
Col. Arquiette was told by his superiors to accept the money and withdraw his complaints despite the fact that the mitigation offered little more than a ”detuning” of the radar signal to lessen the impact of the towers.
enXco’s project was approved and built. But the radar problem was never resolved.
The Travis AFB Midair Collision Avoidance (MACA) pamphlet was updated this year with a warning that states:
“The wind farms southeast of Travis AFB interfere with the Travis ATC radar. In the area shown above (click here to read the MACA) you cannot be seen on radar if you are not squawking! Please squawk. BE SEEN.”
Squawking refers to turning the aircraft’s transponder on to allow communication between the aircraft and the secondary radar system installed at air traffic control facilities.
The strategy of requiring areas to be transponder-only airspace could work but relies on pilots complying with the warning. Recreational pilots may not remember to comply or their aircraft might not be adequately equipped. But worse, drug runners and — in this post-9/11 world — terrorists, might prefer not to be seen and intentionally keep their transponders off to stay invisible. The first thing the 9/11 hijackers did after seizing control of our passenger planes was to turn off the transponders.
Remarkably, participants at the radar forum at AWEA’s Annual Conference last May touted the Travis solution as the gold standard for addressing turbine interference. You be the judge.
Shepherds Flat Wind Farm and Long-range Radar
The radar problem at Travis involves airport surveillance radar. This type of radar is used by air traffic control and has a range of about 60 miles. Long-range radar monitors in-route air traffic control used for homeland defense and NORAD. The mile distance for long range radar is 250 miles.
The Air Force maintains a long-range radar facility in Fossil, Oregon, that’s responsible for monitoring the U.S. border along the Pacific Northwest. It covers the territory north, over the Canadian border, and south into areas in California. If you google “fossil oregon radar” the search returns titles that include:
1. Pentagon objections hold up Oregon wind farm
2. Fears of radar interference threaten Oregon wind farm, but solutions exist
3. Pentagon drops objections to Oregon wind farm
A year ago this radar facility was the source of significant controversy when the Pentagon objected to the proposed $2 billion Shepherds Flat1 wind energy facility. The project’s 338 General Electric turbines totaling 845 megawatts were to be built in the line of sight of Fossil’s radar sweep .
The situation at Fossil was nearly identical to that of Travis.
Oregon Senators Ron Wyden and Jeff Merkley expressed outrage over the Pentagon’s objections and set out to pressure the military into silence. They joined nine other senators in writing to Defense Secretary Robert Gates requesting a resolution of the conflict and insisting the DOD failed to search hard enough for practical solutions.
In order to get his way, Sen. Wyden (D-OR), lobbied for an $8 million earmark in the 2011 appropriations to cover the cost for technical mitigations akin to what was implemented at Travis.
Bottom line: The public was on the hook to fund the project and responsible for degrading our radar.
Outcome TBD
Windaction.org interviewed long-range radar specialists familiar with the mitigation proposed for the Fossil radar site. The technology under study (“Scan Step”) involves installing a digital processor that, with software, will work to lessen the effect of turbine clutter. The process results in targets becoming invisible. In fact, aircraft the size of the space shuttle could fly through the radar sweep area undetected. Further, the fix is not universal and may be site specific.
The processor underwent its first suite of tests at the Fossil, Oregon, radar installation last spring. Word back was that it failed all tests. None of the FAA or DOD engineers we’ve spoken to believe Scan Step technology will work in the way people have been led to believe. No one doubts there will be a loss in radar resolution. Critical questions still pending are:
1) What level of radar reduction will be deemed acceptable?
2) Who will decide the level of reduction that will be permitted?
3) Will the public be informed as to the extent Shepherds Flat has compromised our national security?
When Windaction.org asked a staff member of the Senate Armed Services committee what happens if Step Scan doesn’t work, his response was an abrupt: “It has to”
Indeed! Shepherds Flat is slated to go into service next year.
The cases at Travis AFB and Fossil should raise red flags. But unlike the LightSquared objections cited by General Shelton, the military is comfortable whitewashing the turbine issue and hiding behind technical mitigations that don’t work. Our national security and air safety have been compromised by wind turbines and U.S. taxpayers are unknowingly funding the degradation of our radar through federal renewable programs. It’s time the military had the courage to step up and speak the truth to the American people.
Washington has a track record of muzzling military testimony to protect its pet policies and political friends. Last week, Air Force Gen. William Shelton admitted he was pressured by the administration to change his testimony regarding LightSquared’s network and its adverse impact on military space-based navigation systems. We applaud Shelton for not bowing to the pressure.
But the military has not been honest about the effect wind turbine technology has on our national radar systems.
The fact is that our air space has been made less safe by turbines and our national security compromised because of a reckless policy of siting wind towers within 50-miles of radar installations. Military radar experts in the field know the damage that’s been done. But with the debate surrounding energy policy dominated by politics and money, the military has bowed to the pressure.
Radar Interference and Mitigation
The military services and federal agencies have conducted numerous studies on the radar question, as have multiple international military and private interests. Not all studies agree on levels of severity and potential mitigations, but all agree that large scale industrial wind turbines have the potential to negatively affect military installations, radar, and navigation aids.
The problem is easy to explain, but difficult to resolve.
Since radar technology is designed to detect moving objects, spinning turbine blades create interference which degrades the signal. Wind towers carry a signal strength greater than a Boeing 747, so when the radar repeatedly sees the large return it cannot detect actual aircraft in the same area.
Large expenditures of time and funds have been allocated in pursuit of technical mitigations but so far the results are controversial. According to Raytheon lead radar engineer, Peter Drake, radar mitigation technology does not yet exist. “…These things [turbines] inside of 20 miles, look like a 747 on final approach,” Drake said. The trick, he adds, “…is to somehow make them disappear, while still being able to see a real 747…we have not figured that out yet.”
By 2008, nearly 40% of our long-range radar systems were compromised by wind turbines. Today, more than twice the wind capacity is installed and the problem of radar interference persists.
Proper siting of turbines, while politically cumbersome, is the only tried and true form of mitigation. But this means denying wind developers access to land areas covered by radar.
Radar Interference at Travis Air Force Base
The problem of radar interference first cropped up in the United States in early 2007 near Travis Air Force base in California. Two wind proposals were before the Solano County Planning Commission that would erect over one-hundred new turbines in the area. The spinning blades resulted in smaller planes appearing to drop off the radar while others appeared when they weren’t actually there.
Both Travis and the Solano County Airport Land Use Commission urged the planning commissioners to delay approving the projects, citing air safety and the need for more time to study the effects the towers had on navigation.
In his letter to the County, Colonel Steven Arquiette, commander of the 60th Air Mobility Wing at Travis, warned: “…we have evidence indicating the wind turbines will create significant interference with the base’s radar and could lead to potentially serious flight safety hazards in terms of planes dropping off radar, flight tracks on radar different from actual tracks and ‘false targets’ — planes the radar sees but aren’t actually there.”
The county heeded their concerns and agreed to the delay. Commissioner John Moore was particularly firm when he said “…If they can’t fix it, it might never get done. Nothing happens unless the Air Force’s problem gets fixed.”
Travis held firm on its objections until a year later when enXco, one of the project proponents gifted $1 million to the base for technical mitigations.
Col. Arquiette was told by his superiors to accept the money and withdraw his complaints despite the fact that the mitigation offered little more than a ”detuning” of the radar signal to lessen the impact of the towers.
enXco’s project was approved and built. But the radar problem was never resolved.
The Travis AFB Midair Collision Avoidance (MACA) pamphlet was updated this year with a warning that states:
“The wind farms southeast of Travis AFB interfere with the Travis ATC radar. In the area shown above (click here to read the MACA) you cannot be seen on radar if you are not squawking! Please squawk. BE SEEN.”
Squawking refers to turning the aircraft’s transponder on to allow communication between the aircraft and the secondary radar system installed at air traffic control facilities.
The strategy of requiring areas to be transponder-only airspace could work but relies on pilots complying with the warning. Recreational pilots may not remember to comply or their aircraft might not be adequately equipped. But worse, drug runners and — in this post-9/11 world — terrorists, might prefer not to be seen and intentionally keep their transponders off to stay invisible. The first thing the 9/11 hijackers did after seizing control of our passenger planes was to turn off the transponders.
Remarkably, participants at the radar forum at AWEA’s Annual Conference last May touted the Travis solution as the gold standard for addressing turbine interference. You be the judge.
Shepherds Flat Wind Farm and Long-range Radar
The radar problem at Travis involves airport surveillance radar. This type of radar is used by air traffic control and has a range of about 60 miles. Long-range radar monitors in-route air traffic control used for homeland defense and NORAD. The mile distance for long range radar is 250 miles.
The Air Force maintains a long-range radar facility in Fossil, Oregon, that’s responsible for monitoring the U.S. border along the Pacific Northwest. It covers the territory north, over the Canadian border, and south into areas in California. If you google “fossil oregon radar” the search returns titles that include:
1. Pentagon objections hold up Oregon wind farm
2. Fears of radar interference threaten Oregon wind farm, but solutions exist
3. Pentagon drops objections to Oregon wind farm
A year ago this radar facility was the source of significant controversy when the Pentagon objected to the proposed $2 billion Shepherds Flat1 wind energy facility. The project’s 338 General Electric turbines totaling 845 megawatts were to be built in the line of sight of Fossil’s radar sweep .
The situation at Fossil was nearly identical to that of Travis.
Oregon Senators Ron Wyden and Jeff Merkley expressed outrage over the Pentagon’s objections and set out to pressure the military into silence. They joined nine other senators in writing to Defense Secretary Robert Gates requesting a resolution of the conflict and insisting the DOD failed to search hard enough for practical solutions.
In order to get his way, Sen. Wyden (D-OR), lobbied for an $8 million earmark in the 2011 appropriations to cover the cost for technical mitigations akin to what was implemented at Travis.
Bottom line: The public was on the hook to fund the project and responsible for degrading our radar.
Outcome TBD
Windaction.org interviewed long-range radar specialists familiar with the mitigation proposed for the Fossil radar site. The technology under study (“Scan Step”) involves installing a digital processor that, with software, will work to lessen the effect of turbine clutter. The process results in targets becoming invisible. In fact, aircraft the size of the space shuttle could fly through the radar sweep area undetected. Further, the fix is not universal and may be site specific.
The processor underwent its first suite of tests at the Fossil, Oregon, radar installation last spring. Word back was that it failed all tests. None of the FAA or DOD engineers we’ve spoken to believe Scan Step technology will work in the way people have been led to believe. No one doubts there will be a loss in radar resolution. Critical questions still pending are:
1) What level of radar reduction will be deemed acceptable?
2) Who will decide the level of reduction that will be permitted?
3) Will the public be informed as to the extent Shepherds Flat has compromised our national security?
When Windaction.org asked a staff member of the Senate Armed Services committee what happens if Step Scan doesn’t work, his response was an abrupt: “It has to”
Indeed! Shepherds Flat is slated to go into service next year.
The cases at Travis AFB and Fossil should raise red flags. But unlike the LightSquared objections cited by General Shelton, the military is comfortable whitewashing the turbine issue and hiding behind technical mitigations that don’t work. Our national security and air safety have been compromised by wind turbines and U.S. taxpayers are unknowingly funding the degradation of our radar through federal renewable programs. It’s time the military had the courage to step up and speak the truth to the American people.
Monday, September 26, 2011
Thousands of Jobs Scammed or Created
President Obama has repeatedly stated that his stimulus package has "saved or created" hundreds of thousands of jobs. And hundreds of thousands of jobs have been created. In Unicornland.
According to the Recovery.gov website — a website that the Obama administration has spent $18 million "stimulating" — millions have been spent and hundreds of jobs have been created in heretofore unknown areas of America: 30 jobs using $761,420 of federal cash in the fictional 15th congressional district in Arizona (there are only eight congressional districts in Arizona); $19 million in spending and 15 jobs created in mythical districts in Oklahoma; $10.6 million on 39 jobs in invisible Iowan areas; $68.3 million spent in the magical 1st congressional district of the U.S. Virgin Islands; $35 million spent and 142 jobs created in the glittering fairy-tale kingdom of the 99th district of the Northern Mariana Islands; and the list goes on.
Apparently, somebody messed with Joe.
The biggest problem, amazingly enough, isn't the Obama administration's incredible creation of districts from scratch. It's the Obama administration's use of stimulus funds to pay off its political allies.
On Sept. 11, 2009, Democrat congressman Eric Massa of the 29th Congressional District of New York — yes, this district actually exists — wrote President Obama a letter regarding the Obama administration's $74.6 million grant to Canadaigua Power Partners, LLC, and Canandaigua Power Partners II, LLC, in Cohocton, N.Y. These companies, according to Massa, "act as shell companies that deceptively operate on behalf of First Wind, which is currently under investigation by New York State Attorney General Cuomo for corruption charges in Cohocton and across the Northeast."
In fact, wrote Massa, "Constituents in our region see these projects as criminal actions … the award of $74.6 million to corrupt companies that have changed names time and again forming new LLCs and new Inc.s but maintaining their business model of lie, cheat and corrupt at the expense of taxpayers has stirred great unrest." Remember, this is a Democratic congressman.
First Wind is a green power company that produces windmills, the giant pieces of idiocy littering our landscapes.
Its project in Cohocton, N.Y. — the project Massa rips — was so poorly done originally that residents reported that the turbines sounded like jet engines.
From March 31, 2007 to March 31, 2008, First Wind had revenue of $12 million and net losses of $73 million. Those losses forced First Wind to take out loans in the amount of $191 million. And up until October, the New York attorney general's office was investigating First Wind for its possible participation in bribery of public officials for land use purposes.
Broke and under investigation. Not exactly a great candidate for stimulus. But that didn't stop the Obama administration. Why? Because First Wind is supported principally by Madison Dearborn Partners and the D.E. Shaw Group.
Madison Dearborn Partners, not coincidentally, is Obama Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel's "best source of funds," according to the Washington Examiner. During his congressional career, employees of Madison Dearborn gave Emanuel $93,600. And Emanuel is instrumental in oversight of the stimulus.
As for D.E. Shaw, White House economic adviser Lawrence Summers was paid $5.2 million in 2008 and 2007 by the company — to work for one day a week, according to the New York Times. Also according to the Times, "Summers said in an interview that his experience at Shaw, however brief, gave him valuable insight into the practical realities of Wall Street, insight he is now putting to use in shaping economic policy in the White House."
The Obama administration is so dominated by obfuscatory aureate and magniloquent verbosity that it believes it can get away with literally anything. This administration creates dollars out of thin air to pay fictitious employees in figmental places. It's no wonder that so far, the Obama administration has stimulated precisely nothing in the real world.
According to the Recovery.gov website — a website that the Obama administration has spent $18 million "stimulating" — millions have been spent and hundreds of jobs have been created in heretofore unknown areas of America: 30 jobs using $761,420 of federal cash in the fictional 15th congressional district in Arizona (there are only eight congressional districts in Arizona); $19 million in spending and 15 jobs created in mythical districts in Oklahoma; $10.6 million on 39 jobs in invisible Iowan areas; $68.3 million spent in the magical 1st congressional district of the U.S. Virgin Islands; $35 million spent and 142 jobs created in the glittering fairy-tale kingdom of the 99th district of the Northern Mariana Islands; and the list goes on.
Apparently, somebody messed with Joe.
The biggest problem, amazingly enough, isn't the Obama administration's incredible creation of districts from scratch. It's the Obama administration's use of stimulus funds to pay off its political allies.
On Sept. 11, 2009, Democrat congressman Eric Massa of the 29th Congressional District of New York — yes, this district actually exists — wrote President Obama a letter regarding the Obama administration's $74.6 million grant to Canadaigua Power Partners, LLC, and Canandaigua Power Partners II, LLC, in Cohocton, N.Y. These companies, according to Massa, "act as shell companies that deceptively operate on behalf of First Wind, which is currently under investigation by New York State Attorney General Cuomo for corruption charges in Cohocton and across the Northeast."
In fact, wrote Massa, "Constituents in our region see these projects as criminal actions … the award of $74.6 million to corrupt companies that have changed names time and again forming new LLCs and new Inc.s but maintaining their business model of lie, cheat and corrupt at the expense of taxpayers has stirred great unrest." Remember, this is a Democratic congressman.
First Wind is a green power company that produces windmills, the giant pieces of idiocy littering our landscapes.
Its project in Cohocton, N.Y. — the project Massa rips — was so poorly done originally that residents reported that the turbines sounded like jet engines.
From March 31, 2007 to March 31, 2008, First Wind had revenue of $12 million and net losses of $73 million. Those losses forced First Wind to take out loans in the amount of $191 million. And up until October, the New York attorney general's office was investigating First Wind for its possible participation in bribery of public officials for land use purposes.
Broke and under investigation. Not exactly a great candidate for stimulus. But that didn't stop the Obama administration. Why? Because First Wind is supported principally by Madison Dearborn Partners and the D.E. Shaw Group.
Madison Dearborn Partners, not coincidentally, is Obama Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel's "best source of funds," according to the Washington Examiner. During his congressional career, employees of Madison Dearborn gave Emanuel $93,600. And Emanuel is instrumental in oversight of the stimulus.
As for D.E. Shaw, White House economic adviser Lawrence Summers was paid $5.2 million in 2008 and 2007 by the company — to work for one day a week, according to the New York Times. Also according to the Times, "Summers said in an interview that his experience at Shaw, however brief, gave him valuable insight into the practical realities of Wall Street, insight he is now putting to use in shaping economic policy in the White House."
The Obama administration is so dominated by obfuscatory aureate and magniloquent verbosity that it believes it can get away with literally anything. This administration creates dollars out of thin air to pay fictitious employees in figmental places. It's no wonder that so far, the Obama administration has stimulated precisely nothing in the real world.
I don’t even know where to start!
If you haven’t seen the recent legislative offering from Congressman Paul Tonko, D-NY, I’d strongly suggest you read it closely. The requirements placed on the Department of Energy in his H. R. 2782 – “To provide for a program of wind energy research, development, and demonstration, and for other purposes” – are stunning!
Pulled seemingly from this year’s American Wind Energy Association letter to Santa, Representative Tonko is requesting that the DOE take on product research and development activities for the heavily taxpayer subsidized, profit making, private sector wind business.
Take a look at the activities Congressman Tonko is requiring the DOE to perform:
SEC. 2. WIND ENERGY RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM.
In General.–The Secretary of Energy shall carry out a program of research and development to–
(1) improve the energy efficiency, reliability, and capacity of wind turbines;
(2) optimize the design and adaptability of wind energy systems to the broadest practical range of atmospheric conditions; and
(3) reduce the cost of construction, generation, and maintenance of wind energy systems.
Further, the program under this section shall focus on research and development of–
(1) new materials and designs to make larger, lighter, less expensive, and more reliable and longer lifecycle rotor blades;
(2) technologies to improve gearbox performance, reliability, and lifecycle;
(3) automation, materials, and assembly of large-scale components to reduce manufacturing costs;
(4) low-cost transportable towers greater than 100 meters in height to capitalize on improved wind conditions at higher elevations;
(5) wind technology for offshore applications, including improvement of analysis, testing, verification, and certification to reduce up front time and cost;
(6) advanced computational modeling tools to improve—
(A) the reliability of aeroelastic simulations of wind energy systems;
(B) understanding of the interaction between each wind turbine component;
(C) understanding the loads and lifecycle of each wind turbine component;
(D) siting of wind energy systems to maximize efficiency and minimize variable generation;
(E) integration of wind energy systems into the existing electric grid to ensure reliability; and
(F) understanding of the wake effect between upwind and downwind turbine operations;
(7) advanced control systems and blade sensors to improve performance and reliability under a wide variety of wind conditions;
(8) advanced generators, including–
(A) automated system and drive train sensors to predict and manage maintenance process;
(B) medium-speed and low-speed generators;
(C) direct-drive technology; and
(D) the use of advanced magnets in generator rotors;
(9) methods to assess and mitigate the effects of wind energy systems on radar and electromagnetic fields;
(10) technical processes to enable–
(A) scalability of transmission from remotely located renewable resource rich areas; and
(B) optimization of advanced infrastructure design, including high voltage transmission; and
(11) other research areas as determined by the Secretary.
SEC. 3. WIND ENERGY DEMONSTRATION PROGRAM.
In General.–The Secretary of Energy shall conduct a wind energy demonstration program. In carrying out this section, the Secretary shall ensure that–
(1) the program is of sufficient size and geographic diversity to measure wind energy system performance under the full productive range of wind conditions in the United States;
(2) demonstration projects carried out under this program are–
(A) conducted in collaboration with industry and, as appropriate, with academic institutions; and
(B) located in various geographic areas representing various wind class regimes; and
(3) data collected from demonstration projects carried out under this program is useful for carrying out section 2(b).
Cost-Sharing.–The Secretary shall carry out the program under this section in compliance with section 988(a) through (d) and section 989 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (42 U.S.C. 16352(a) through (d) and 16353).
If you’re not familiar with Representative Tonko, he is a self-proclaimed advocate for a “green economy” and “green-collar jobs”, Congressman Tonko has promoted wind development in Upstate New York and successfully lobbied GE to locate their growing GE Wind operations in Schenectady, NY.
If you’re not familiar with GE Wind … it looks a lot like Enron’s wind business.
I’m not sure if this bill will move forward in the house. I really hope you’ll contact your Representative and let them know that, while it is nice to have a cooperative relationship between government and the private sector, the government should not be doing the private sector’s work. The activities I see listed in H. R. 2782, at least in my experience, are the responsibility of private enterprise.
Your congressional representative’s contact info is here – US House of Representatives
Please make the call! And even if, by the time you reach your congressional representative this bill has been tossed, take the opportunity to stress that the organizational structure outlined in this bill is unacceptable.
Pulled seemingly from this year’s American Wind Energy Association letter to Santa, Representative Tonko is requesting that the DOE take on product research and development activities for the heavily taxpayer subsidized, profit making, private sector wind business.
Take a look at the activities Congressman Tonko is requiring the DOE to perform:
SEC. 2. WIND ENERGY RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM.
In General.–The Secretary of Energy shall carry out a program of research and development to–
(1) improve the energy efficiency, reliability, and capacity of wind turbines;
(2) optimize the design and adaptability of wind energy systems to the broadest practical range of atmospheric conditions; and
(3) reduce the cost of construction, generation, and maintenance of wind energy systems.
Further, the program under this section shall focus on research and development of–
(1) new materials and designs to make larger, lighter, less expensive, and more reliable and longer lifecycle rotor blades;
(2) technologies to improve gearbox performance, reliability, and lifecycle;
(3) automation, materials, and assembly of large-scale components to reduce manufacturing costs;
(4) low-cost transportable towers greater than 100 meters in height to capitalize on improved wind conditions at higher elevations;
(5) wind technology for offshore applications, including improvement of analysis, testing, verification, and certification to reduce up front time and cost;
(6) advanced computational modeling tools to improve—
(A) the reliability of aeroelastic simulations of wind energy systems;
(B) understanding of the interaction between each wind turbine component;
(C) understanding the loads and lifecycle of each wind turbine component;
(D) siting of wind energy systems to maximize efficiency and minimize variable generation;
(E) integration of wind energy systems into the existing electric grid to ensure reliability; and
(F) understanding of the wake effect between upwind and downwind turbine operations;
(7) advanced control systems and blade sensors to improve performance and reliability under a wide variety of wind conditions;
(8) advanced generators, including–
(A) automated system and drive train sensors to predict and manage maintenance process;
(B) medium-speed and low-speed generators;
(C) direct-drive technology; and
(D) the use of advanced magnets in generator rotors;
(9) methods to assess and mitigate the effects of wind energy systems on radar and electromagnetic fields;
(10) technical processes to enable–
(A) scalability of transmission from remotely located renewable resource rich areas; and
(B) optimization of advanced infrastructure design, including high voltage transmission; and
(11) other research areas as determined by the Secretary.
SEC. 3. WIND ENERGY DEMONSTRATION PROGRAM.
In General.–The Secretary of Energy shall conduct a wind energy demonstration program. In carrying out this section, the Secretary shall ensure that–
(1) the program is of sufficient size and geographic diversity to measure wind energy system performance under the full productive range of wind conditions in the United States;
(2) demonstration projects carried out under this program are–
(A) conducted in collaboration with industry and, as appropriate, with academic institutions; and
(B) located in various geographic areas representing various wind class regimes; and
(3) data collected from demonstration projects carried out under this program is useful for carrying out section 2(b).
Cost-Sharing.–The Secretary shall carry out the program under this section in compliance with section 988(a) through (d) and section 989 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (42 U.S.C. 16352(a) through (d) and 16353).
If you’re not familiar with Representative Tonko, he is a self-proclaimed advocate for a “green economy” and “green-collar jobs”, Congressman Tonko has promoted wind development in Upstate New York and successfully lobbied GE to locate their growing GE Wind operations in Schenectady, NY.
If you’re not familiar with GE Wind … it looks a lot like Enron’s wind business.
I’m not sure if this bill will move forward in the house. I really hope you’ll contact your Representative and let them know that, while it is nice to have a cooperative relationship between government and the private sector, the government should not be doing the private sector’s work. The activities I see listed in H. R. 2782, at least in my experience, are the responsibility of private enterprise.
Your congressional representative’s contact info is here – US House of Representatives
Please make the call! And even if, by the time you reach your congressional representative this bill has been tossed, take the opportunity to stress that the organizational structure outlined in this bill is unacceptable.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)