Monday, August 13, 2007
Iberdrola Renovables has selected BBVA, Credit Suisse, JP Morgan, Merrill Lynch & Morgan Stanley
Energy East - RG&E and NYSEG - will be taken over by Spanish wind utility Iberdrola. U.S. Wall Street firms help provide the money.
NYS Association of Towns to all Town Supervisors
Dear Supervisor:
If you are concerned about the siting of power plants in your town then you should consider the information contained in this letter and contact your state senator and member of the assembly.
The New York State Legislature is currently negotiating a renewal of Article X of the Public Service Law which will put in place a new State Permit for the siting of power plants. Towns have had the authority to site power plants off and on over the years. Most recently with the expiration of the State power siting legislation on December 31, 2002 towns have spent considerable time and expense developing and implementing local laws to site large-scale wind turbine power generation facilities (wind-farms). The legislation currently under consideration by the Legislature will preempt local authority over the siting of wind-farms in favor of the "stream-lined" state siting policy.
The Article X siting process as proposed affords local governments a limited role in the process. The siting of large-scale power plants (wind, coal, natural gas, oil, solar, nuclear) will be processed by a State siting board made up of the heads of various state agencies and two local resident ad hoc members. Although the State siting board must consider local laws (including zoning) in the review of an Article X application, the board may supersede (ignore) local laws. Local Governments may participate as an intervenor which entitles them to access a pool of money funded by the applicant to assist in funding technical advisors to help the local government review and comment on the power plant application. We have informed the Governor and the Legislature that the siting of large-scale wind turbine projects should remain under local control. While we oppose any such action, if local siting control is preempted, we have alternatively suggested that the State Siting Board must site power plants in accordance with local zoning laws. In addition, we have suggested that local governments should have an official seat on the State siting board as one of the two ad hoc members. We have further suggested that fifty percent of the intervenor fund should be set aside for municipal purposes and that intervenor funds should be used for legal fees as well as technical review. Finally, we have suggested that applicants should be required to negotiate community host agreements with affected local governments.
Although the purpose of Article X is to provide power generation producers with a streamlined one stop application process we believe that local governments should be formally included in the process. I encourage you to contact the Governor, your State Senator and State Assembly Member and members of the joint legislative conference on energy to express your concerns regarding the Article X power plant siting policy.
Kindest regards,
G. Jeffrey Haber
Executive Director
If you are concerned about the siting of power plants in your town then you should consider the information contained in this letter and contact your state senator and member of the assembly.
The New York State Legislature is currently negotiating a renewal of Article X of the Public Service Law which will put in place a new State Permit for the siting of power plants. Towns have had the authority to site power plants off and on over the years. Most recently with the expiration of the State power siting legislation on December 31, 2002 towns have spent considerable time and expense developing and implementing local laws to site large-scale wind turbine power generation facilities (wind-farms). The legislation currently under consideration by the Legislature will preempt local authority over the siting of wind-farms in favor of the "stream-lined" state siting policy.
The Article X siting process as proposed affords local governments a limited role in the process. The siting of large-scale power plants (wind, coal, natural gas, oil, solar, nuclear) will be processed by a State siting board made up of the heads of various state agencies and two local resident ad hoc members. Although the State siting board must consider local laws (including zoning) in the review of an Article X application, the board may supersede (ignore) local laws. Local Governments may participate as an intervenor which entitles them to access a pool of money funded by the applicant to assist in funding technical advisors to help the local government review and comment on the power plant application. We have informed the Governor and the Legislature that the siting of large-scale wind turbine projects should remain under local control. While we oppose any such action, if local siting control is preempted, we have alternatively suggested that the State Siting Board must site power plants in accordance with local zoning laws. In addition, we have suggested that local governments should have an official seat on the State siting board as one of the two ad hoc members. We have further suggested that fifty percent of the intervenor fund should be set aside for municipal purposes and that intervenor funds should be used for legal fees as well as technical review. Finally, we have suggested that applicants should be required to negotiate community host agreements with affected local governments.
Although the purpose of Article X is to provide power generation producers with a streamlined one stop application process we believe that local governments should be formally included in the process. I encourage you to contact the Governor, your State Senator and State Assembly Member and members of the joint legislative conference on energy to express your concerns regarding the Article X power plant siting policy.
Kindest regards,
G. Jeffrey Haber
Executive Director
Press Release Regarding Article X - Meeting with Senator Winner
PRESS RELEASE
August 13, 2007
For immediate release
New York Energy Siting Law Needs Protection Measures
The New York Legislature is debating re-enactment of Article 10 of the Public Service Law. This Article governs siting of most electrical power plants in New York, all except nuclear and garbage-fired steam plants. Versions have been passed by the Assembly and Senate and Gov. Spitzer has submitted his version. The new versions include language specific to wind turbines and the law contains many positive, as well as alarming provisions. The bills are now in the NYS Energy and Telecommunications Committee to undergo finalization.
Article 10 includes many favorable features not included in other industrial, commercial or sub-division site reviews. It includes mandatory inclusion of comprehensive evaluation of not only health and safety but cultural, aesthetic, noise, historic, wildlife, habitat and other impacts by state agencies. It also creates an Intervener account providing funds for interveners to hire legal and technical expertise. Intervener status is liberally granted and there is and exhaustive review procedure through the permitting process and judicial system. A 7 person siting Board makes a permit decision. Two members are appointed local citizens at the municipality and county level. The other 5 members are from the NY PSC, DEC, DOH, NYSERDA and Economic Dev.
A group of citizens representing Cohocton Wind Watch and the Environmental Compliance Alliance met yesterday with NYS Senator George Winner, a member of the 12 person Energy and Telecommunications Committee currently debating the final content of the legislation. The group wanted to dialog with the Senator about our experiences and knowledge about the proposed widespread placement of large wind turbines throughout upstate, particularly the Finger Lakes, which he represents.
Concerns were raised to him about inappropriately close setbacks, locations in scenic corridors, long term real estate decline, inappropriate town environmental reviews, and the poor energy production, which will not materially aid demand nor reduce emissions.
Relating to Article 10, the group wanted feedback about its two objections, grandfathering of existing applications, and the Board’s power to over-ride local laws controlling turbine placement. The group felt that with so many turbine facilities now in progress that they should come under the Article 10 regulations, providing construction has not begun. Unless construction has begun a developer generally has no vested rights to prevent retroactive adherence to newly enacted laws. This is of great concern because of the widespread poor environmental reviews performed for virtually all wind facilities. With the comprehensive review provisions of Article 10 the review process would vastly improve and give much better public assurances.
Sen. Winner stated that grandfathering was always part of Article 10, it was not and will not be debated.
The law grants the Board power to avoid adherence to local laws, which Sen. Winner acknowledged. The section is below, common to all versions of the bill and was contained in the original Article 10 as well:
Assembly A08697, Senate S5908, Governor S6178:
§ 168. Board decisions.
2(e) That the facility is designed to operate in compliance with applicable state and local laws and regulations issued thereunder concerning, among other matters, the environment, public health and safety, all of which shall be binding upon the applicant, except that the board may refuse to apply any local ordinance, law, resolution or other action or any regulation issued thereunder or any local standard or requirement which would be otherwise applicable if it finds that, as applied to the proposed facility, such is unreasonably restrictive in view of the existing technology or the needs of or costs to ratepayers whether located inside or outside of such municipality. The board shall provide the municipality an opportunity to present evidence in support of such ordinance, law, resolution, regulation or other local action issued thereunder;
(emphasis added)
It was pointed out that this conflicts with NY’s strong “home rule” legacy. And specifically it conflicts with NYS Town Law that says “Among the most important powers and duties granted by the legislature to a town government is the authority and responsibility to undertake town comprehensive planning and to regulate land use for the purpose of protecting the public health, safety and general welfare of its citizens.” When creating wind turbine ordinances many NY towns have sought to preserve their character. Is there any language that could be inserted in the new Article 10 that could protect town rights? In reply Sen. Winner stated that this is an important provision, “Without this no power plant could be sited in New York.”
The Senator realizes that wind facilities will not alleviate the need for backup generating capacity. He stated our concerns “did not fall on deaf ears”, and that his committee is embroiled with debate, centered on conventional power plants. Wind power hasn’t entered yet.
Although the law has many positive aspects it removes the ability of local government to protect its citizens. Large wind facilities dominate a landscape and cause significant environmental alteration to rural areas, where they are most often sited. It does nothing to protect real estate values nor remove the onus of improperly assessed wind facilities already permitted by local governments. We believe these deficiencies should be remedied prior to enactment.
###
Contact Information:
Cohocton Wind Watch, James Hall (585) 534-5581
Environmental Compliance Alliance, Richard Bolton (585) 554-3809
August 13, 2007
For immediate release
New York Energy Siting Law Needs Protection Measures
The New York Legislature is debating re-enactment of Article 10 of the Public Service Law. This Article governs siting of most electrical power plants in New York, all except nuclear and garbage-fired steam plants. Versions have been passed by the Assembly and Senate and Gov. Spitzer has submitted his version. The new versions include language specific to wind turbines and the law contains many positive, as well as alarming provisions. The bills are now in the NYS Energy and Telecommunications Committee to undergo finalization.
Article 10 includes many favorable features not included in other industrial, commercial or sub-division site reviews. It includes mandatory inclusion of comprehensive evaluation of not only health and safety but cultural, aesthetic, noise, historic, wildlife, habitat and other impacts by state agencies. It also creates an Intervener account providing funds for interveners to hire legal and technical expertise. Intervener status is liberally granted and there is and exhaustive review procedure through the permitting process and judicial system. A 7 person siting Board makes a permit decision. Two members are appointed local citizens at the municipality and county level. The other 5 members are from the NY PSC, DEC, DOH, NYSERDA and Economic Dev.
A group of citizens representing Cohocton Wind Watch and the Environmental Compliance Alliance met yesterday with NYS Senator George Winner, a member of the 12 person Energy and Telecommunications Committee currently debating the final content of the legislation. The group wanted to dialog with the Senator about our experiences and knowledge about the proposed widespread placement of large wind turbines throughout upstate, particularly the Finger Lakes, which he represents.
Concerns were raised to him about inappropriately close setbacks, locations in scenic corridors, long term real estate decline, inappropriate town environmental reviews, and the poor energy production, which will not materially aid demand nor reduce emissions.
Relating to Article 10, the group wanted feedback about its two objections, grandfathering of existing applications, and the Board’s power to over-ride local laws controlling turbine placement. The group felt that with so many turbine facilities now in progress that they should come under the Article 10 regulations, providing construction has not begun. Unless construction has begun a developer generally has no vested rights to prevent retroactive adherence to newly enacted laws. This is of great concern because of the widespread poor environmental reviews performed for virtually all wind facilities. With the comprehensive review provisions of Article 10 the review process would vastly improve and give much better public assurances.
Sen. Winner stated that grandfathering was always part of Article 10, it was not and will not be debated.
The law grants the Board power to avoid adherence to local laws, which Sen. Winner acknowledged. The section is below, common to all versions of the bill and was contained in the original Article 10 as well:
Assembly A08697, Senate S5908, Governor S6178:
§ 168. Board decisions.
2(e) That the facility is designed to operate in compliance with applicable state and local laws and regulations issued thereunder concerning, among other matters, the environment, public health and safety, all of which shall be binding upon the applicant, except that the board may refuse to apply any local ordinance, law, resolution or other action or any regulation issued thereunder or any local standard or requirement which would be otherwise applicable if it finds that, as applied to the proposed facility, such is unreasonably restrictive in view of the existing technology or the needs of or costs to ratepayers whether located inside or outside of such municipality. The board shall provide the municipality an opportunity to present evidence in support of such ordinance, law, resolution, regulation or other local action issued thereunder;
(emphasis added)
It was pointed out that this conflicts with NY’s strong “home rule” legacy. And specifically it conflicts with NYS Town Law that says “Among the most important powers and duties granted by the legislature to a town government is the authority and responsibility to undertake town comprehensive planning and to regulate land use for the purpose of protecting the public health, safety and general welfare of its citizens.” When creating wind turbine ordinances many NY towns have sought to preserve their character. Is there any language that could be inserted in the new Article 10 that could protect town rights? In reply Sen. Winner stated that this is an important provision, “Without this no power plant could be sited in New York.”
The Senator realizes that wind facilities will not alleviate the need for backup generating capacity. He stated our concerns “did not fall on deaf ears”, and that his committee is embroiled with debate, centered on conventional power plants. Wind power hasn’t entered yet.
Although the law has many positive aspects it removes the ability of local government to protect its citizens. Large wind facilities dominate a landscape and cause significant environmental alteration to rural areas, where they are most often sited. It does nothing to protect real estate values nor remove the onus of improperly assessed wind facilities already permitted by local governments. We believe these deficiencies should be remedied prior to enactment.
###
Contact Information:
Cohocton Wind Watch, James Hall (585) 534-5581
Environmental Compliance Alliance, Richard Bolton (585) 554-3809
Saturday, August 11, 2007
In-Home Wind Turbine Noise Is Conducive to Vibroacoustic Disease
Professor Mariana Alves-Pereira
ERISA-Lusofona University, Lisbon, Portugal
Nuno A. A. Castelo Branco, M.D.
Center for Human Performance, Alverca, Portugal
(vibroacoustic.disease@gmail.com)
ABSTRACT
"Introduction. This team has been systematically studying the effects of infrasound and low frequency noise (ILFN, <500 Hz) in both human and animal models since 1980. Recently, yet another source of ILFN has appeared: wind turbines (WT). Like many other ILFN-generating devices, WT can greatly benefit humankind if, and only if, responsible and intelligent measures are taken for their implementation. Vibroacoustic disease (VAD) is the pathology that is acquired with repeated exposures to ILFN environments (occupational, residential or recreational). This can be considered a scientific fact because there are 27 years of valid and robust scientific data supporting this assertion.
"Goal. To evaluate if ILFN levels obtained in a home near WT are conducive to VAD.
"Methodology. Case 1: documented in 2004, in-home ILFN levels generated by a port grain terminal, 2 adults and a 10-year-old child diagnosed with VAD. Case 2: isolated farm in agricultural area, four 2MW WT that began operation in Nov 2006, located between 300 m [984 feet] and 700 m [2297 feet] from the residential building, 3 adults and 2 children (8 and 12-years-old). ILFN levels of Case 2 were compared to those in Case 1. In both, ILFN was assessed in 1/3 octave bands, without A-weighting, (i.e. in dB Linear). In Case 1, the lower limiting frequency was 6.3 Hz, while in Case 2, it was 1 Hz.
"Results. ILFN levels in the home of Case 2 were higher than those obtained in the home of Case 1.
"Discussion. ILFN levels contaminating the home of Case 2 are amply sufficient to cause VAD. This family has already received standard diagnostic tests to monitor clinical evolution of VAD. Safe distances from residences have not yet been scientifically established, despite statements by other authors claiming to possess this knowledge. Acceptance, as fact, of statements or assertions not supported by any type of valid scientific data, defeats all principles on which true scientific endeavor is founded. Thus, widespread statements claiming no harm is caused by in-home ILFN produced by WT are fallacies that cannot, in good conscience, continue to be perpetuated. In-home ILFN generated by WT can lead to severe health problems, specifically, VAD. Therefore, real and efficient zoning for WT must be scientifically determined, and quickly adopted, in order to competently and responsibly protect Public Health."
ERISA-Lusofona University, Lisbon, Portugal
Nuno A. A. Castelo Branco, M.D.
Center for Human Performance, Alverca, Portugal
(vibroacoustic.disease@gmail.com)
ABSTRACT
"Introduction. This team has been systematically studying the effects of infrasound and low frequency noise (ILFN, <500 Hz) in both human and animal models since 1980. Recently, yet another source of ILFN has appeared: wind turbines (WT). Like many other ILFN-generating devices, WT can greatly benefit humankind if, and only if, responsible and intelligent measures are taken for their implementation. Vibroacoustic disease (VAD) is the pathology that is acquired with repeated exposures to ILFN environments (occupational, residential or recreational). This can be considered a scientific fact because there are 27 years of valid and robust scientific data supporting this assertion.
"Goal. To evaluate if ILFN levels obtained in a home near WT are conducive to VAD.
"Methodology. Case 1: documented in 2004, in-home ILFN levels generated by a port grain terminal, 2 adults and a 10-year-old child diagnosed with VAD. Case 2: isolated farm in agricultural area, four 2MW WT that began operation in Nov 2006, located between 300 m [984 feet] and 700 m [2297 feet] from the residential building, 3 adults and 2 children (8 and 12-years-old). ILFN levels of Case 2 were compared to those in Case 1. In both, ILFN was assessed in 1/3 octave bands, without A-weighting, (i.e. in dB Linear). In Case 1, the lower limiting frequency was 6.3 Hz, while in Case 2, it was 1 Hz.
"Results. ILFN levels in the home of Case 2 were higher than those obtained in the home of Case 1.
"Discussion. ILFN levels contaminating the home of Case 2 are amply sufficient to cause VAD. This family has already received standard diagnostic tests to monitor clinical evolution of VAD. Safe distances from residences have not yet been scientifically established, despite statements by other authors claiming to possess this knowledge. Acceptance, as fact, of statements or assertions not supported by any type of valid scientific data, defeats all principles on which true scientific endeavor is founded. Thus, widespread statements claiming no harm is caused by in-home ILFN produced by WT are fallacies that cannot, in good conscience, continue to be perpetuated. In-home ILFN generated by WT can lead to severe health problems, specifically, VAD. Therefore, real and efficient zoning for WT must be scientifically determined, and quickly adopted, in order to competently and responsibly protect Public Health."
Monday, August 06, 2007
THE TRUTH ABOUT PROPOSED SCHOHARIE COUNTY WIND TURBINES
Towns, such as Richmondville are rushing to enact a wind turbine law not to "protect" the town residents as often claimed (Richmondville residents are already protected by zoning laws that prohibit wind turbines in all of the Town's rural residential areas) but rather to remove protections in order to accommodate Reunion Power and other wind power companies.
County and Town officials have conducted private unannounced meetings with Reunion Power in a "we know best" attempt to exclude the residents from decision making. Schoharie County failed to respond to a Freedom of Information Law request for records of those meetings and the Town of Richmondville responded to a similar request by stating that they took no minutes and maintained no records of those meetings.
Town of Richmondville officials "educated" themselves about the complex issues and impacts associated with the building of industrial wind turbine facilities in rural areas, not by consulting independent experts but by watching a DVD produced by Reunion Power. While this process requires months of bipartisan research, the Town Board became experts after a few days of biased information.
If the new wind law under consideration by Richmondville and other Towns is nearly identical to that proposed by the wind power companies themselves and, if adopted, would allow industrial wind turbines in any residential area, with only minimal restrictions on setbacks from neighboring property. This will have a negative affect on nearby property values, but will not reduce those properties' tax assessment.
The power company profits again, while we pay.
Towns are being blackmailed ("make us pay taxes and we will go somewhere
else") by the wind power companies to exempt their multi-million dollar facilities from paying taxes while the residents face revaluation after revaluation to ensure they are paying "full market value" taxes on their homes.
Payments in Lieu of Taxes (PILOT) programs, that the wind power companies favor, save the wind power companies millions of dollars a year and deprive Towns of millions of dollars in tax revenue.
In addition, these same wind power companies are subsidized (78%) at the federal level, with millions of your federal tax dollars. They just aren't interested in paying their fair share, while local businesses and residents do just that. Yet, the wind power companies speak of being a "partner" with the residents of the region.
Wind turbine energy will not reduce local electric bills in any way. In fact, some traditional power companies are considering a surcharge on power bills to accommodate wind generation facilities' integration into the grid. The electricity generated is simply sold on the grid and shipped to the highest bidder.
It's important to understand that wind turbines will not impact America's dependence on foreign oil, since only 3% of domestic electricity is generated by oil-fired power plants.
The turbines proposed are not picturesque "windmills." They are massive, industrial power facilities, with fences, access roads and high voltage feeder lines. Each turbine is over 400 feet high topped by a blinking FAA required aviation beacon, which will alter the views and sight lines for hundreds, if not thousands of County residents, FOREVER. It's also important to consider that if you say "yes" to wind turbines, you also say "yes" to the eventual above ground high tension transmission towers and lines, clear-cutting, soil mitigation issues, road damage, site-fencing and associated security lighting. Not to mention the hundreds of gallons of toxic fluids EACH turbine contains including lubricating oils, dialectric oils, hydraulic fluids, anti-freeze, etc.
Industrial wind turbines create noise. The amount of noise varies from location to location, depending on geographic, topographic and other factors. The Richmondville Town Board is even considering removing the noise statute from the already lax, model wind turbine law to further accommodate Reunion Power, further exposing their constituents and full-rate taxpayers to another hazard.
Wind power companies are proposing large and invasive projects in towns throughout the County. How many are enough? How many are too many? Just in neighboring Delaware County, over 100 turbines are being proposed in the Town of Meredith. Test towers are in place in Jefferson, Richmondville and other area towns. Consider joining towns such as Andes, Bovina, Cherry Valley, Castile and others by saying "No".
We urge you contact your County and Town officials and demand an open process and fair evaluation of wind turbine proposals. Attend public hearings and demand that the interests of the community are considered before the interests of the wind power companies.
Finally, ask yourself if it is fair and acceptable to force your neighbors to live next to an Industrial Electrical Generating Facility that did not exist when they purchased or built their homes. Also please consider it is the wind power companies attempting to change the status quo, not homeowners that would have to see, hear and live with turbine and the inconvenience of the large construction project. If this is allowed to happen, what's next?
Sponsored by Schoharie Valley Watch, a non-partisan, citizens action group dedicated to open government, public awareness and maintaining the rural quality of valley life.
Email: SchoharieValleyWatch@gmail.com
County and Town officials have conducted private unannounced meetings with Reunion Power in a "we know best" attempt to exclude the residents from decision making. Schoharie County failed to respond to a Freedom of Information Law request for records of those meetings and the Town of Richmondville responded to a similar request by stating that they took no minutes and maintained no records of those meetings.
Town of Richmondville officials "educated" themselves about the complex issues and impacts associated with the building of industrial wind turbine facilities in rural areas, not by consulting independent experts but by watching a DVD produced by Reunion Power. While this process requires months of bipartisan research, the Town Board became experts after a few days of biased information.
If the new wind law under consideration by Richmondville and other Towns is nearly identical to that proposed by the wind power companies themselves and, if adopted, would allow industrial wind turbines in any residential area, with only minimal restrictions on setbacks from neighboring property. This will have a negative affect on nearby property values, but will not reduce those properties' tax assessment.
The power company profits again, while we pay.
Towns are being blackmailed ("make us pay taxes and we will go somewhere
else") by the wind power companies to exempt their multi-million dollar facilities from paying taxes while the residents face revaluation after revaluation to ensure they are paying "full market value" taxes on their homes.
Payments in Lieu of Taxes (PILOT) programs, that the wind power companies favor, save the wind power companies millions of dollars a year and deprive Towns of millions of dollars in tax revenue.
In addition, these same wind power companies are subsidized (78%) at the federal level, with millions of your federal tax dollars. They just aren't interested in paying their fair share, while local businesses and residents do just that. Yet, the wind power companies speak of being a "partner" with the residents of the region.
Wind turbine energy will not reduce local electric bills in any way. In fact, some traditional power companies are considering a surcharge on power bills to accommodate wind generation facilities' integration into the grid. The electricity generated is simply sold on the grid and shipped to the highest bidder.
It's important to understand that wind turbines will not impact America's dependence on foreign oil, since only 3% of domestic electricity is generated by oil-fired power plants.
The turbines proposed are not picturesque "windmills." They are massive, industrial power facilities, with fences, access roads and high voltage feeder lines. Each turbine is over 400 feet high topped by a blinking FAA required aviation beacon, which will alter the views and sight lines for hundreds, if not thousands of County residents, FOREVER. It's also important to consider that if you say "yes" to wind turbines, you also say "yes" to the eventual above ground high tension transmission towers and lines, clear-cutting, soil mitigation issues, road damage, site-fencing and associated security lighting. Not to mention the hundreds of gallons of toxic fluids EACH turbine contains including lubricating oils, dialectric oils, hydraulic fluids, anti-freeze, etc.
Industrial wind turbines create noise. The amount of noise varies from location to location, depending on geographic, topographic and other factors. The Richmondville Town Board is even considering removing the noise statute from the already lax, model wind turbine law to further accommodate Reunion Power, further exposing their constituents and full-rate taxpayers to another hazard.
Wind power companies are proposing large and invasive projects in towns throughout the County. How many are enough? How many are too many? Just in neighboring Delaware County, over 100 turbines are being proposed in the Town of Meredith. Test towers are in place in Jefferson, Richmondville and other area towns. Consider joining towns such as Andes, Bovina, Cherry Valley, Castile and others by saying "No".
We urge you contact your County and Town officials and demand an open process and fair evaluation of wind turbine proposals. Attend public hearings and demand that the interests of the community are considered before the interests of the wind power companies.
Finally, ask yourself if it is fair and acceptable to force your neighbors to live next to an Industrial Electrical Generating Facility that did not exist when they purchased or built their homes. Also please consider it is the wind power companies attempting to change the status quo, not homeowners that would have to see, hear and live with turbine and the inconvenience of the large construction project. If this is allowed to happen, what's next?
Sponsored by Schoharie Valley Watch, a non-partisan, citizens action group dedicated to open government, public awareness and maintaining the rural quality of valley life.
Email: SchoharieValleyWatch@gmail.com
If suppliers compete, it's the ratepayers who'll win savings
Rochester Gas and Electric Corp. has won praise in some quarters for its proposal to redevelop Russell Station and build a new 300-megawatt electricity generating plant. While redeveloping this brownfield site clearly makes sense, retreating to the days when monopoly utilities built, owned and operated power plants is not in ratepayers' best interest. Ratepayers should not be forced to pay the escalating costs of new utility-owned plants plus a guaranteed profit. It is the old way and skews our emerging markets.
Competitive suppliers have built most of the new power generation in the last decade — including more than 5,000 megawatts (enough power to supply 5 million homes) of cleaner, state-of-the-art generation in New York since the year 2000. These projects have been undertaken by private companies at their own risk and expense. In today's competitive wholesale power market, entrepreneurial risk-taking, disciplined capital investment and operational efficiency are the keys to success for power providers and the best hope for consumers. Unfortunately, these terms and business philosophies were never synonymous with regulated utilities.
(Click to read entire article)
Competitive suppliers have built most of the new power generation in the last decade — including more than 5,000 megawatts (enough power to supply 5 million homes) of cleaner, state-of-the-art generation in New York since the year 2000. These projects have been undertaken by private companies at their own risk and expense. In today's competitive wholesale power market, entrepreneurial risk-taking, disciplined capital investment and operational efficiency are the keys to success for power providers and the best hope for consumers. Unfortunately, these terms and business philosophies were never synonymous with regulated utilities.
(Click to read entire article)
Robert C. Strasburg Message to Cohocton
COHOCTON VOTERS
On Thursday night August 2, 2007 the Cohocton Planning Board approved the site plans for the proposed Wind Project in our Town. We were told (recorded on video) that this was done before the Town Board finalized the agreements governing the income stream and liability protection between the Developer of the Wind Project (UPC) and the Town. Now the Developer has permission from the Town to build their project without having agreed to finalized terms of financial remunerations. We taxpayers are now at huge risk for lawsuits if the Town Board tries to negotiate financial or liability protection terms that the Developer does not like. It is now too late to negotiate with any leverage. We are now hostages at the mercy of this Developer.
Do you remember the picture of Saddam Hussein standing in the hole in Iraq looking up and foolishly demanding to negotiate with our soldiers because he was the leader of Iraq? What a pathetic picture of a delusional mind. This is a fine example of the inept leadership of the current governing administration of our Town.
Robert C. Strasburg II 585-384-9318 www.reformcohocton.org
On Thursday night August 2, 2007 the Cohocton Planning Board approved the site plans for the proposed Wind Project in our Town. We were told (recorded on video) that this was done before the Town Board finalized the agreements governing the income stream and liability protection between the Developer of the Wind Project (UPC) and the Town. Now the Developer has permission from the Town to build their project without having agreed to finalized terms of financial remunerations. We taxpayers are now at huge risk for lawsuits if the Town Board tries to negotiate financial or liability protection terms that the Developer does not like. It is now too late to negotiate with any leverage. We are now hostages at the mercy of this Developer.
Do you remember the picture of Saddam Hussein standing in the hole in Iraq looking up and foolishly demanding to negotiate with our soldiers because he was the leader of Iraq? What a pathetic picture of a delusional mind. This is a fine example of the inept leadership of the current governing administration of our Town.
Robert C. Strasburg II 585-384-9318 www.reformcohocton.org
Sunday, August 05, 2007
Just Who Do You Trust? by James Hall
Once again the falsehoods and frauds are revealed at the Cohocton Town Board "Special Meeting" 7/31/07. Zigenfus states he has been negotiating a host payment with UPC. You will hear that large sums will be coming to Cohocton soon. What a wonderful virtual paradise, "a land of milk and honey" we will all get, provided by the "Town Fathers". That's strange; those most concerned and affected don't see it that way! All residents are supposed to receive, from the Town Board, a detailed summary about the UPC project very soon in the mail.
Before you go out and spend this great windfall, examine the facts behind the scam. Demand that any actual contracts be made public and the Town Board provide evidence of the comprehensive financial consequences. Pie in the sky claims from LLC corporate structures will not guarantee monies promised. But you are supposed to trust what Jack says because he says so and trust him to spend all this pledged money properly!
Anyone who has attended Town and Planning Board meetings knows full well that deception, deceit and disinformation are the only sure outcomes you can depend on. When Albany attorney Todd Mathes says it is appropriate for the Planning Board to issue special use permits for the entire project before the PILOT agreement is known, illustrates the insane lengths the current administration will go to advance UPC interests.
Other towns and many residents armed with documented facts stand ready to file immediate court actions against the Town and Planning Boards, UPC and their shell companies, developer paid consultants and law firms, UPC leaseholders. Zigenfus says that the Town is protected by insurance from liability, then goes on to note the exception of negligence and malfeasance. Well what do you think town officials have been doing for the last several years? The legal risks to every property owner, far exceeds the unfunded promises to pay host agreements.
WHO SHOULD YOU TRUST and WHO HAS A RECORD OF FACTUAL CONDUCT? This UPC project STILL needs mandatory State and Federal approval for necessary permits before any legally authorized construction can begin. CWW has been a voice of common sense and prudent caution that demands the Town Boards comply with all lawful regulations. Whatever host agreements become reality do you really think it is directly because of the great negotiating skills of Zigenfus, Hunt and LeVesque or settled completely on UPC terms? That question will be answered under oath at a deposition in some future legal actions.
Think long and hard. Reform Cohocton NOW or be condemned to continued closed door politics.
James Hall
Before you go out and spend this great windfall, examine the facts behind the scam. Demand that any actual contracts be made public and the Town Board provide evidence of the comprehensive financial consequences. Pie in the sky claims from LLC corporate structures will not guarantee monies promised. But you are supposed to trust what Jack says because he says so and trust him to spend all this pledged money properly!
Anyone who has attended Town and Planning Board meetings knows full well that deception, deceit and disinformation are the only sure outcomes you can depend on. When Albany attorney Todd Mathes says it is appropriate for the Planning Board to issue special use permits for the entire project before the PILOT agreement is known, illustrates the insane lengths the current administration will go to advance UPC interests.
Other towns and many residents armed with documented facts stand ready to file immediate court actions against the Town and Planning Boards, UPC and their shell companies, developer paid consultants and law firms, UPC leaseholders. Zigenfus says that the Town is protected by insurance from liability, then goes on to note the exception of negligence and malfeasance. Well what do you think town officials have been doing for the last several years? The legal risks to every property owner, far exceeds the unfunded promises to pay host agreements.
WHO SHOULD YOU TRUST and WHO HAS A RECORD OF FACTUAL CONDUCT? This UPC project STILL needs mandatory State and Federal approval for necessary permits before any legally authorized construction can begin. CWW has been a voice of common sense and prudent caution that demands the Town Boards comply with all lawful regulations. Whatever host agreements become reality do you really think it is directly because of the great negotiating skills of Zigenfus, Hunt and LeVesque or settled completely on UPC terms? That question will be answered under oath at a deposition in some future legal actions.
Think long and hard. Reform Cohocton NOW or be condemned to continued closed door politics.
James Hall
Friday, August 03, 2007
Clipper Wind Manufacturer a bad investment, poor performance
Clipper Windpower, the wind turbine manufacturer that is backed by Sir Anthony Hopkins, the Oscar-winning actor, and Colin Moynihan, the former Olympian and Conservative minister, tumbled after it braced investors for a large half-year loss.
The California-based group, one of the biggest stocks on AIM, said that supply constraints meant that turbine production this year would fall nearly 30 per cent below analysts’ expectations. It added that it faced a non-recurring charge of $25 million (£12.1 million) in forthcoming first-half figures after losses on two projects. Clipper’s shares plunged nearly 11 per cent, or 87p, to 701½p.
The California-based group, one of the biggest stocks on AIM, said that supply constraints meant that turbine production this year would fall nearly 30 per cent below analysts’ expectations. It added that it faced a non-recurring charge of $25 million (£12.1 million) in forthcoming first-half figures after losses on two projects. Clipper’s shares plunged nearly 11 per cent, or 87p, to 701½p.
Thursday, August 02, 2007
Press/Media Release - Cohocton Planning Board to vote on Special Use Permits for UPC Project
PRESS RELEASE
8/2/2007 3:09:57 PM
THE LARGEST NEW INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT PROJECT IN STEUBEN
COUNTY IN THE LAST FIFTY YEARS,
COSTING APPROXIMATELY 250 MILLION DOLLARS
IS A QUESTIONABLE AND CONTROVERSIAL GIGANTIC WIND TURBINE COMPLEX TO BE SITED IN COHOCTON, NEW YORK
At 7:30 PM tonight in the town of Cohocton, New York, the Joint Town and Village Planning Board will likely approve the issuance of Special Use Permits authorizing the construction of a questionable and controversial gigantic industrial wind turbine complex to be sited on the pristine hill tops of this rural farming community. A significant number of the proposed fifty 423 foot tall massive turbines, each with a blade wing span wide enough to easily fit a giant 747 aircraft between the tips, will be placed near permanent and seasonal residences.
A petition signed by almost 30 percent of the taxpayers of the town requesting a six moratorium was filed under a sworn affidavit last November with the Town Board and the Planning Board. The Town Board, Planning Board and Town Supervisor Jack Zigenfus stonewalled and consistently refuse to consider and hear the concerns of over 240 concerned property owners who were signatories. The Boards only response was to adopt a resolution prohibiting citizens from speaking to their elected officials at Town Board meetings. That action arbitrarily and capriciously took away a privilege extended to all citizens of the town for over 200 years.
There is so much suspicious smoke surrounding this proposed project, many concerned groups and individuals strongly suspect the fires of greed and corruption burn strongly beneath the surface at the expense of the health, safety and welfare of not only Cohocton’s residents, but all US citizen taxpayers.
If given the chance, strong opposition to the proposed project can be expected to be heard at tonight’s meeting to be held at 7:30 PM at the Hatch Hose Fire Company in Atlanta, New York.
The critical question for all of us is: are we fighting a dependence on foreign oil by turning over control of the national power grid to foreign owned companies?
F. Jeffrey Goldthwait, JD
8/2/2007 3:09:57 PM
THE LARGEST NEW INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT PROJECT IN STEUBEN
COUNTY IN THE LAST FIFTY YEARS,
COSTING APPROXIMATELY 250 MILLION DOLLARS
IS A QUESTIONABLE AND CONTROVERSIAL GIGANTIC WIND TURBINE COMPLEX TO BE SITED IN COHOCTON, NEW YORK
At 7:30 PM tonight in the town of Cohocton, New York, the Joint Town and Village Planning Board will likely approve the issuance of Special Use Permits authorizing the construction of a questionable and controversial gigantic industrial wind turbine complex to be sited on the pristine hill tops of this rural farming community. A significant number of the proposed fifty 423 foot tall massive turbines, each with a blade wing span wide enough to easily fit a giant 747 aircraft between the tips, will be placed near permanent and seasonal residences.
A petition signed by almost 30 percent of the taxpayers of the town requesting a six moratorium was filed under a sworn affidavit last November with the Town Board and the Planning Board. The Town Board, Planning Board and Town Supervisor Jack Zigenfus stonewalled and consistently refuse to consider and hear the concerns of over 240 concerned property owners who were signatories. The Boards only response was to adopt a resolution prohibiting citizens from speaking to their elected officials at Town Board meetings. That action arbitrarily and capriciously took away a privilege extended to all citizens of the town for over 200 years.
There is so much suspicious smoke surrounding this proposed project, many concerned groups and individuals strongly suspect the fires of greed and corruption burn strongly beneath the surface at the expense of the health, safety and welfare of not only Cohocton’s residents, but all US citizen taxpayers.
If given the chance, strong opposition to the proposed project can be expected to be heard at tonight’s meeting to be held at 7:30 PM at the Hatch Hose Fire Company in Atlanta, New York.
The critical question for all of us is: are we fighting a dependence on foreign oil by turning over control of the national power grid to foreign owned companies?
F. Jeffrey Goldthwait, JD
Wednesday, August 01, 2007
Hamlin Wind Tower Report Delayed by Walter Gabalski
HAMLIN, NY (2007-07-31) A frustrated HamlinWind Tower Committee told the town board and town supervisor Monday night that more work must be done before anyone can decide whether to proceed with wind tower development in Hamlin.
The Committee was originally given until December to recommend whether wind turbine development is in the town's best interest and to and propose regulations. Earlier this month committee members were told by town supervisor Dennis Roach that their deadline was being moved-up to July 30th.
As the Wind Tower Committee report was presented last night Chairperson Linda DeRue made it clear that the group ran-out of time to complete its charge. DeRue said that more time should be spent looking at health concerns, legal concerns, economic impact, environmental impact and other issues. She indicated that town residents should be surveyed, and town leaders should visit a community where wind towers are already part of the landscape.
The committee did present proposed regulations for wind tower development, in the event that the Town Board and the Supervisor decide that Wind Towers are in the town's best interest.
The committee was applauded by citizens who have expressed concerns over property values, public health and other issues.
Supervisor Dennis Roach said that the committee's timeline was shortened due to indications that the state may act soon to regulate wind tower development. Roach says the Town of Hamlin should maintain local control of such projects by enacting its own regulations before the state acts.
Roach thanked the Wind Tower Committee for its work and he said that the committee report will be used by the town going forward. He said public hearings will be scheduled before the town board decides whether to regulate wind tower development, or ban it from Hamlin.
The Committee was originally given until December to recommend whether wind turbine development is in the town's best interest and to and propose regulations. Earlier this month committee members were told by town supervisor Dennis Roach that their deadline was being moved-up to July 30th.
As the Wind Tower Committee report was presented last night Chairperson Linda DeRue made it clear that the group ran-out of time to complete its charge. DeRue said that more time should be spent looking at health concerns, legal concerns, economic impact, environmental impact and other issues. She indicated that town residents should be surveyed, and town leaders should visit a community where wind towers are already part of the landscape.
The committee did present proposed regulations for wind tower development, in the event that the Town Board and the Supervisor decide that Wind Towers are in the town's best interest.
The committee was applauded by citizens who have expressed concerns over property values, public health and other issues.
Supervisor Dennis Roach said that the committee's timeline was shortened due to indications that the state may act soon to regulate wind tower development. Roach says the Town of Hamlin should maintain local control of such projects by enacting its own regulations before the state acts.
Roach thanked the Wind Tower Committee for its work and he said that the committee report will be used by the town going forward. He said public hearings will be scheduled before the town board decides whether to regulate wind tower development, or ban it from Hamlin.
Mark Duchamp post on Truth About Wind Yahoo Group
... during the low of July 27 ( see attached graphs from the national grid operator www.ree.es : national demand for electricity, and windpower production, in real time )
Spain's installed capacity : 10,000 MW+
Note : REE removed the installed capacity line from its graphs : too embarrasing, I suppose, as the public was comparing installed capacity and actual production.
With the late arrival this year of Spain's typical summer weather ( 42ยบ in Seville) , air conditioning is pushing demand upwards. But there is no wind, and near zero electricity produced by windfarms...
This indicates that, in Spain, 98% backup is needed ( and maybe more, as I haven't been monitoring the REE website - 186 MW may or may not be the record low ).
This is why Spain is currently building dozens of gas-fired CCGT plants, and Germany 26 coal-fired ones.
http://www.upi. com/Energy/ Analysis/ 2007/04/13/ analysis_ germany_plans_ 26_coal_plants/
Double investment for nothing. What a waste !
And when I say double... it's actually closer to quadruple, as windfarms cost a lot more than conventional energy ( hence the generous subventions ).
Mark
Spain's installed capacity : 10,000 MW+
Note : REE removed the installed capacity line from its graphs : too embarrasing, I suppose, as the public was comparing installed capacity and actual production.
With the late arrival this year of Spain's typical summer weather ( 42ยบ in Seville) , air conditioning is pushing demand upwards. But there is no wind, and near zero electricity produced by windfarms...
This indicates that, in Spain, 98% backup is needed ( and maybe more, as I haven't been monitoring the REE website - 186 MW may or may not be the record low ).
This is why Spain is currently building dozens of gas-fired CCGT plants, and Germany 26 coal-fired ones.
http://www.upi. com/Energy/ Analysis/ 2007/04/13/ analysis_ germany_plans_ 26_coal_plants/
Double investment for nothing. What a waste !
And when I say double... it's actually closer to quadruple, as windfarms cost a lot more than conventional energy ( hence the generous subventions ).
Mark
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)