North Texas Wind Resistance Alliance
Promoting the Truth about Wind Energy
Home • Does it work? • Who's behind it? • What does it harm? • What can we do? • Research • News
Who's behind it?
Powerful corporate and financial interests
When you understand that wind energy does not work on a “utility-scale”, the next questions are “Why are they doing it?” and ultimately “Who is behind it?”
Simply put, it’s a corporate tax-avoidance scam, put in place by investment banking lobbyists, energy industry lobbyists, and the late Ken Lay and his Enron Wind subsidiary. Through manipulation in Congress and state legislatures, they have created a guaranteed high-return investment program, heavily subsidized by taxpayers and utility ratepayers, to benefit themselves at the expense of the public. They then market this scheme to the victimized public and gullible politicians as an environmentally-friendly "renewable energy" program, and have the "big" environmental groups that they support and sustain join in a chorus of approval.
This shameful tale is not unique. The corporate and financial interests promoting Wind Energy were helped in Congress by a "renewable energy" alliance with corn-state Senators, and their equally fraudulent, heavily-subsidized "ethanol" replacement for gasoline, but that's another story. See Taxpayers for Common Sense and Cornell Scientist Opposes Ethanol.
A little history
The first round of wind energy mal-investment occurred in 1981, with the enactment of financial incentives in Congress and in California. A mad scramble was on to get them built and installed - the Great California Wind Rush. In 1985 the incentives were withdrawn and the industry collapsed. Without the subsidies and incentives, wind energy was then, and is now, totally unworkable. In the interim more than 14,000 wind turbines, small by current standards, had been built, in Altamont Pass north of Livermore, San Gorgonio Pass near Palm Springs, and Tehachapi Pass north of LA. With the withdrawal of incentives, many turbines were quickly abandoned. They still stand today, rusted and broken, their developers long since gone or bankrupted, with no one to take them down. They are an unsightly industrial junk-yard, a horrible blight on the landscape, a monument to failed public policy.
Along comes ENRON
The second round began in the late 1990’s, when the politically connected Ken Lay and the financial engineers figured they could do it again, only on a national scale. They disguised it as an environmentally-friendly “renewable energy” project, and packaged it in with their “electricity deregulation” lobbying and political maneuvering efforts. They got laws passed at both the state and federal levels to (1) permit them to tie onto the grid; (2) require utilities to buy the unreliable and unpredictable electricity under “Renewable Portfolio Standards”; (3) allow them to sell “Renewable Energy Certificates” separate and apart from the electricity; (4) provide them with an inflation-adjusted 10-year “Production Tax Credit” that now equals $.019/kWh; and (5) allow tax write-off of the 20-year project cost using an accelerated 5-year double-declining-balance method (40% per year). The subsidies are costing taxpayers and utility ratepayers more than $1 billion per year.
Enron was touted prior to exposure of its fraud and bankruptcy as “the world’s only fully-integrated wind power company”. But wind energy didn’t die with Enron. It lives on, feeding off the subsidies. General Electric (GE) purchased Enron’s wind turbine manufacturing business, while Florida Power and Light (FPL) and others purchased Enron’s wind farm projects and adopted their business model. All now push for expanded tax credits. They succeeded last year in extending the federal production tax credit to projects starting-up through 2007, and in raising the “renewable energy" purchase requirement in Texas to over 5,000 mega-watts by 2015.
The Shift from Electrical Engineers to Investment Bankers
Electricity Deregulation and the manipulated embrace of Wind Energy have shifted the focus of our power system from "reliability" to "profitability", and shifted the management of our power system from electrical engineers to investment bankers and their lobbyists and politicians.
See "The Revolt of the Engineers", Today's Engineer, and other publications from the experienced, courageous John A. "Jack" Casazza and his Power Engineers Supporting Truth (http://www.pest-03.org).
Billions have been invested in useless wind turbines, while our national electricity infrastructure has been allowed to deteriorate. How much damage can our economy sustain, as we waste our capital on the wind energy hoax, while destroying the electrical grid that powers our nation?
For a “who’s who” of the wind energy business go to the website of their association, AWEA, and see their Board of Directors, at http://www.awea.org/about/board_of_directors.html .
Sunday, February 17, 2008
Saturday, February 16, 2008
Malone Telegram February 16, 2008 Letter to the Editor by Steve & Kathryn Zaker
Malone%20Tel%20%202-16-08.pdf
… attached is a devastating letter published in today’s (2/16/08) Malone Telegram by Steve & Kathryn Zaker, Brandon, NY. Devastating to the credibility of Noble Environmental Power. Notice the Zakers reference to Burke, NY: it, too, has a non-viable wind resource, according to standard third-party authorities (authorities relied upon both by government agencies and the wind industry itself).
What does this say about Noble Environmental Power? Yesterday’s headline story in the Telegram about Noble projects ruining our county roads and reneging on agreements with the Franklin County Legislature likewise does little to inspire confidence in this strange company about which North Country residents know … nothing.
We know nothing because, best I can tell, there is simply nothing there. All I can find is a couple of cheap trailers in Churubusco (where Noble set up its “headquarters”), another in Brandon, a mailing address, a website, some stationery – and a circus tent of ballooning rhetoric on what an amazing and prominent company Noble is. (I’ve been scrutinizing Noble in its various identities and staff rollovers for the past 3½ years.)
Circus tent indeed. Except it’s not funny. The wind developers have mangled our once cohesive communities.
Yesterday’s Telegram had an equally hard-hitting, fact-filled letter written by Janet Potter (Brandon), likewise showing Noble for what it is (or, more truthfully, what it isn’t). This has been a one-two punch.
In the past week the Telegram has published a series of letters written by pro-turbine people (aka turbine lease-holders) in Burke and Brandon, NY. It has likewise posted a series of letters against the turbines. It’s interesting that the anti-turbine letters use verifiable data and other evidence gathered from bona fide third party sources to argue their case. Whereas pro-turbine letters consist of slogans, wishful thinking, and wind developer hype (most of which appears to be, putting it charitably, less than the unvarnished truth).
Calvin Luther Martin
… attached is a devastating letter published in today’s (2/16/08) Malone Telegram by Steve & Kathryn Zaker, Brandon, NY. Devastating to the credibility of Noble Environmental Power. Notice the Zakers reference to Burke, NY: it, too, has a non-viable wind resource, according to standard third-party authorities (authorities relied upon both by government agencies and the wind industry itself).
What does this say about Noble Environmental Power? Yesterday’s headline story in the Telegram about Noble projects ruining our county roads and reneging on agreements with the Franklin County Legislature likewise does little to inspire confidence in this strange company about which North Country residents know … nothing.
We know nothing because, best I can tell, there is simply nothing there. All I can find is a couple of cheap trailers in Churubusco (where Noble set up its “headquarters”), another in Brandon, a mailing address, a website, some stationery – and a circus tent of ballooning rhetoric on what an amazing and prominent company Noble is. (I’ve been scrutinizing Noble in its various identities and staff rollovers for the past 3½ years.)
Circus tent indeed. Except it’s not funny. The wind developers have mangled our once cohesive communities.
Yesterday’s Telegram had an equally hard-hitting, fact-filled letter written by Janet Potter (Brandon), likewise showing Noble for what it is (or, more truthfully, what it isn’t). This has been a one-two punch.
In the past week the Telegram has published a series of letters written by pro-turbine people (aka turbine lease-holders) in Burke and Brandon, NY. It has likewise posted a series of letters against the turbines. It’s interesting that the anti-turbine letters use verifiable data and other evidence gathered from bona fide third party sources to argue their case. Whereas pro-turbine letters consist of slogans, wishful thinking, and wind developer hype (most of which appears to be, putting it charitably, less than the unvarnished truth).
Calvin Luther Martin
Friday, February 15, 2008
Senate and Assemby Februrary 15, 2008 Letter by Dr. Alice Sokolow
Dear Senators and Assemblymembers,
On Jan 16, 2008, the PSC, commenting on wind turbine projects, stated the protocol for proper siting of the turbines to be the following:
"Staff has developed a practice that requires that the developer have no closer than 1.5 height of a turbine near a transmission facility. This is, of course, fairly obvious so that if the wind is blowing too hard or there's a storm or some damage that may happen from any other event that we might not foresee and the tower and the turbine come down, it does not disrupt the transmission facility which is, of course, critical to the infrastructure for the electrical and gas Systems."
Protection of transmission facilities are critical.
Is the protection of the public health and safety less critical? Should the public roads and property receive any less protection?
Is this not arbitrary and capricious? Is this not the essence of SEQRA's "worse case scenario"??
Yes, we have asked for a Declaratory Ruling of EVERY NYS Agency since 2004!! Who is responsible and who will provide the answer?
The public wants equal protection from the fairly obvious dangers of wind turbines............NOW! No grandfathering!!
On Jan 16, 2008, the PSC, commenting on wind turbine projects, stated the protocol for proper siting of the turbines to be the following:
"Staff has developed a practice that requires that the developer have no closer than 1.5 height of a turbine near a transmission facility. This is, of course, fairly obvious so that if the wind is blowing too hard or there's a storm or some damage that may happen from any other event that we might not foresee and the tower and the turbine come down, it does not disrupt the transmission facility which is, of course, critical to the infrastructure for the electrical and gas Systems."
Protection of transmission facilities are critical.
Is the protection of the public health and safety less critical? Should the public roads and property receive any less protection?
Is this not arbitrary and capricious? Is this not the essence of SEQRA's "worse case scenario"??
Yes, we have asked for a Declaratory Ruling of EVERY NYS Agency since 2004!! Who is responsible and who will provide the answer?
The public wants equal protection from the fairly obvious dangers of wind turbines............NOW! No grandfathering!!
PSC February 15, 2008 Letter by Dr. Alice Sokolow and Judith Hall
Dear NY PSC,
Cohocton Wind Watch (CWW) as an interested active party for Canandaigua Power Partners I and II, was not properly informed of the change in Case number to 07-E-1003 nor has CWW received any information on the request for Lightened Regulation as per:
01/17/2008 07-E-1003 Orders and Opinions Electric
File Size: 34641
View Document Canandaigua Power Partners II, LLC, Order Providing for Lightened Regulation and Approving Financing
View All Documents with this Case Number
View All Documents issued on 01/17/2008
In fact, the last determination CPP and CPP II was filed jointly. At that time, CWW raised additional health and safety concerns and corporate structure concerns that were viewed by the PSC as tardy; arriving the day before the 8/15/07 hearing. The submissions were definitively not tardy by a still active party for the 1/17/08 determination; BUT the Case Number was changed! Why?
8/15/07 of Case # 07-E-0138, CPP and CPP II jointly:
08/16/2007 07-E-0138 Orders and Opinions Electric
File Size: 125879
View Document Canandaigua Power Partners, LLC, Order Granting Certificates of Public Convenience and Necessity, Providing for Lightened Regulation and Approving Financing
View All Documents with this Case Number
View All Documents issued on 08/16/2007
08/15/2007 07-E-0138 Pr07070 Press Releases Electric
File Size: 15310
View Document PSC Issues Certificates for Cohocton Projects - Construction and Operation of Wind Energy Generating Projects in Steuben County
View All Documents with this Case Number
View All Documents issued on 08/15/2007
06/20/2007 07-E-0138 Orders and Opinions Electric
File Size: 12528
View Document Canandaigua Power Partners, LLC, Confirming Order Made in This Proceeding on May 14, 2007
View All Documents with this Case Number
View All Documents issued on 06/20/2007
05/16/2007 07-E-0138 Active Party Lists Electric
File Size: 11072
View Document Petition of Canandaigua Power Partners, LLC for an Original Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity, Approving Financing and a Lightened Regulatory Regime (Active Parties)
View All Documents with this Case Number
View All Documents issued on 05/16/2007
05/14/2007 07-E-0138 Notices Electric
File Size: 18362
View Document Canandaigua Power Partners, LLC, Notice of Evidentiary Hearing
View All Documents with this Case Number
View All Documents issued on 05/14/2007
05/14/2007 07-E-0138 Orders and Opinions Electric
File Size: 29647
View Document Canandaigua Power Partners, LLC, One Commissioner Order by Patricia L. Acampora, Chairwoman, Denying Motion for Expedited Proceeding
View All Documents with this Case Number
View All Documents issued on 05/14/2007
CWW, as an active party, is asking that the Case # 07-E-1003 and Case #07-E-0138 be reopened. CWW would like the documents it supplied in August to be added to both records and cases and any other case numbers applicable that are yet unknown to the public.
Additionally, CWW has new information as to noncompliance of the PSC's requirements by CPP and CPP II.
Ethically, the desire for windfarms in NYS may be interfering with public input and open government:
On Jan 16, 2008 the PSC (page 88), referring to Andy Davis and Steve Blow stated:
"the two of them have basically double-handed, I guess, I can't say single-handed, have worked to do what I just described in terms of working with a process, developing new practices, protocols and ways in which to work with the developers to have these systems come into the department with proper applications, the proper documentation and hence, to get those wind resources on-line as soon as possible."
From page 90:
“The newly approved wind projects are primarily centered in three locations, including the far northern slopes of Clinton and Franklin Counties, the high-rolling terrain of Wyoming County and broad rim shots of Steuben County in the southern tier. The project sites are predominantly rural farmlands and forests with rural centers at the periphery of the project areas.”
The PSC needs to take a much better look at NYS maps. The projects in Steuben and Wyoming Counties are in well-populated agriculture/residential areas. Turbines now tower directly over the hamlet of Atlanta in the Dutch Hill project. It is a fervent hope that the noise analysis done by the developers which have been continually proven inadequate prove to not be a problem as with the UPC Mars Hill, Maine project.
It is amazing to us that abut a 426 foot turbine, that the PSC does not have the same concern for the safety of our children and grandchildren. The PSC have not responded to our request for help regarding the public’s health and safety during the SEQRA process for the proper siting of the turbines. In most areas the distance from a non participating property line or road is much less then the 1.5 times the distance you recommend on page 93.
Page 93
“siting of those turbines. Staff has developed a practice that requires that the developer have no closer than 1.5 height of a turbine near a transmission facility. This is, of course, fairly obvious so that if the wind is blowing too hard or here's a storm or some damage that may happen from any other event that we might not foresee and the tower and the turbine come down, it does not disrupt the transmission facility which is, of course, critical to the infrastructure for the electrical and gas Systems.”
Is public Health and Safety not the PSC fiduciary responsibility? If not, then is it not the PSC who should ask for a Declaratory Ruling which we have asked for from every NYS Agency? The protection of transmission line supercede the public Health and Safety???
Whereas The NY Constitution states:
http://www.state.ny.us/nyscon/nyscon.html
[Public health]
§3. The protection and promotion of the health of the inhabitants of the state are matters of public concern and provision therefor shall be made by the state and by such of its subdivisions and in such manner, and by such means as the legislature shall from time to time determine. (New. Adopted by Constitutional Convention of 1938 and approved by vote of the people November 8, 1938.) [Care and treatment of persons suffering from mental disorder or defect; visitation of institutions for]
Whereas the State Energy Office, in consultation with the public service commission, shall promulgate rules and regulations to implement this section.
Click here: Consolidated Laws http://assembly.state.ny.us/leg/?cl=36&a=13
4. Any owner or operator of a co-generation, small hydro or alternate energy production facility constructed and placed in operation on or after June twenty-sixth, nineteen hundred eighty shall comply with the rules and regulations of the state energy office with respect to matters affecting public health and safety provided, however, that such rules or regulations shall not apply to any such facilities which produce electricity, gas or useful thermal energy for on-site residential use in residential dwellings of four or fewer units. The state energy office, in consultation with the public service commission, shall promulgate rules and regulations to implement this section by January first, nineteen hundred eighty-one.
You have a moral and legal responsibility,
Cohocton Wind Watch (CWW) as an interested active party for Canandaigua Power Partners I and II, was not properly informed of the change in Case number to 07-E-1003 nor has CWW received any information on the request for Lightened Regulation as per:
01/17/2008 07-E-1003 Orders and Opinions Electric
File Size: 34641
View Document Canandaigua Power Partners II, LLC, Order Providing for Lightened Regulation and Approving Financing
View All Documents with this Case Number
View All Documents issued on 01/17/2008
In fact, the last determination CPP and CPP II was filed jointly. At that time, CWW raised additional health and safety concerns and corporate structure concerns that were viewed by the PSC as tardy; arriving the day before the 8/15/07 hearing. The submissions were definitively not tardy by a still active party for the 1/17/08 determination; BUT the Case Number was changed! Why?
8/15/07 of Case # 07-E-0138, CPP and CPP II jointly:
08/16/2007 07-E-0138 Orders and Opinions Electric
File Size: 125879
View Document Canandaigua Power Partners, LLC, Order Granting Certificates of Public Convenience and Necessity, Providing for Lightened Regulation and Approving Financing
View All Documents with this Case Number
View All Documents issued on 08/16/2007
08/15/2007 07-E-0138 Pr07070 Press Releases Electric
File Size: 15310
View Document PSC Issues Certificates for Cohocton Projects - Construction and Operation of Wind Energy Generating Projects in Steuben County
View All Documents with this Case Number
View All Documents issued on 08/15/2007
06/20/2007 07-E-0138 Orders and Opinions Electric
File Size: 12528
View Document Canandaigua Power Partners, LLC, Confirming Order Made in This Proceeding on May 14, 2007
View All Documents with this Case Number
View All Documents issued on 06/20/2007
05/16/2007 07-E-0138 Active Party Lists Electric
File Size: 11072
View Document Petition of Canandaigua Power Partners, LLC for an Original Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity, Approving Financing and a Lightened Regulatory Regime (Active Parties)
View All Documents with this Case Number
View All Documents issued on 05/16/2007
05/14/2007 07-E-0138 Notices Electric
File Size: 18362
View Document Canandaigua Power Partners, LLC, Notice of Evidentiary Hearing
View All Documents with this Case Number
View All Documents issued on 05/14/2007
05/14/2007 07-E-0138 Orders and Opinions Electric
File Size: 29647
View Document Canandaigua Power Partners, LLC, One Commissioner Order by Patricia L. Acampora, Chairwoman, Denying Motion for Expedited Proceeding
View All Documents with this Case Number
View All Documents issued on 05/14/2007
CWW, as an active party, is asking that the Case # 07-E-1003 and Case #07-E-0138 be reopened. CWW would like the documents it supplied in August to be added to both records and cases and any other case numbers applicable that are yet unknown to the public.
Additionally, CWW has new information as to noncompliance of the PSC's requirements by CPP and CPP II.
Ethically, the desire for windfarms in NYS may be interfering with public input and open government:
On Jan 16, 2008 the PSC (page 88), referring to Andy Davis and Steve Blow stated:
"the two of them have basically double-handed, I guess, I can't say single-handed, have worked to do what I just described in terms of working with a process, developing new practices, protocols and ways in which to work with the developers to have these systems come into the department with proper applications, the proper documentation and hence, to get those wind resources on-line as soon as possible."
From page 90:
“The newly approved wind projects are primarily centered in three locations, including the far northern slopes of Clinton and Franklin Counties, the high-rolling terrain of Wyoming County and broad rim shots of Steuben County in the southern tier. The project sites are predominantly rural farmlands and forests with rural centers at the periphery of the project areas.”
The PSC needs to take a much better look at NYS maps. The projects in Steuben and Wyoming Counties are in well-populated agriculture/residential areas. Turbines now tower directly over the hamlet of Atlanta in the Dutch Hill project. It is a fervent hope that the noise analysis done by the developers which have been continually proven inadequate prove to not be a problem as with the UPC Mars Hill, Maine project.
It is amazing to us that abut a 426 foot turbine, that the PSC does not have the same concern for the safety of our children and grandchildren. The PSC have not responded to our request for help regarding the public’s health and safety during the SEQRA process for the proper siting of the turbines. In most areas the distance from a non participating property line or road is much less then the 1.5 times the distance you recommend on page 93.
Page 93
“siting of those turbines. Staff has developed a practice that requires that the developer have no closer than 1.5 height of a turbine near a transmission facility. This is, of course, fairly obvious so that if the wind is blowing too hard or here's a storm or some damage that may happen from any other event that we might not foresee and the tower and the turbine come down, it does not disrupt the transmission facility which is, of course, critical to the infrastructure for the electrical and gas Systems.”
Is public Health and Safety not the PSC fiduciary responsibility? If not, then is it not the PSC who should ask for a Declaratory Ruling which we have asked for from every NYS Agency? The protection of transmission line supercede the public Health and Safety???
Whereas The NY Constitution states:
http://www.state.ny.us/nyscon/nyscon.html
[Public health]
§3. The protection and promotion of the health of the inhabitants of the state are matters of public concern and provision therefor shall be made by the state and by such of its subdivisions and in such manner, and by such means as the legislature shall from time to time determine. (New. Adopted by Constitutional Convention of 1938 and approved by vote of the people November 8, 1938.) [Care and treatment of persons suffering from mental disorder or defect; visitation of institutions for]
Whereas the State Energy Office, in consultation with the public service commission, shall promulgate rules and regulations to implement this section.
Click here: Consolidated Laws http://assembly.state.ny.us/leg/?cl=36&a=13
4. Any owner or operator of a co-generation, small hydro or alternate energy production facility constructed and placed in operation on or after June twenty-sixth, nineteen hundred eighty shall comply with the rules and regulations of the state energy office with respect to matters affecting public health and safety provided, however, that such rules or regulations shall not apply to any such facilities which produce electricity, gas or useful thermal energy for on-site residential use in residential dwellings of four or fewer units. The state energy office, in consultation with the public service commission, shall promulgate rules and regulations to implement this section by January first, nineteen hundred eighty-one.
You have a moral and legal responsibility,
Thursday, February 14, 2008
TOWN OF MEREDITH Local Law of 2008
PRIOR LAW REPEALED AND RESCINDED
Be it hereby enacted by the Town Board of the Town of Meredith as follows:
Local Law No. of 2008, entitled “Wind Energy Facilities Law of 2008,” is hereby adopted to read in its entirety as follows:
Local Law No. 4 of 2007, entitled “Wind Energy Facilities,” is hereby repealed and rescinded, and replaced in its entirety by this new Local Law No. of 2008, entitled “Wind Energy Facilities Law of 2008,” which reads in its entirety as follows:
meredith%20wind%20law-2008-final%20draft-2-12-08.pdf
Be it hereby enacted by the Town Board of the Town of Meredith as follows:
Local Law No. of 2008, entitled “Wind Energy Facilities Law of 2008,” is hereby adopted to read in its entirety as follows:
Local Law No. 4 of 2007, entitled “Wind Energy Facilities,” is hereby repealed and rescinded, and replaced in its entirety by this new Local Law No. of 2008, entitled “Wind Energy Facilities Law of 2008,” which reads in its entirety as follows:
meredith%20wind%20law-2008-final%20draft-2-12-08.pdf
PRESS RELEASE Issued by the Western Catskill Preservation Alliance, Stamford, NY
“PRESS RELEASE”
“For immediate release”
Issued by the Western Catskill Preservation Alliance, Stamford, NY
(www.westerncatskillpreservationalliance.org)
February 13, 2008
Contact: Ron Karam, President, WCPA, rkaram@gmail.com, 201-414-7506
WPCA Withdraws Article 78 Lawsuit
“Best chance for defeating Invenergy”
The Western Catskill Preservation Alliance (WCPA) today announced that they are withdrawing the Article 78 lawsuit filed against the Town of Stamford and Invenergy. “The Article 78 is being withdrawn because it is in the very best interest of the people of Stamford, most of who oppose the Industrial Wind Turbine project.” According to Ron Karam, WCPA President, “The original intent of the lawsuit was to challenge the process in which the town developed Local Law No. 1 of 2007, “Wind Energy Facilities” and to overturn the ordinance. If we were successful in overturning the law, our goal was to work with the town to put in place a stricter ordinance with scientifically based setback requirements that would better protect the landowners.”
The Article 78 lawsuit was filed in the County of Chenango on June 16, 2007, and with arguments heard by Judge Dowd in July, the WCPA was expecting a decision by September 2007. “We were expecting a ruling in favor of the WCPA well before Invenergy submitted its application. This would have allowed the town to revise its ordinance, hopefully with stricter setbacks, before Invenergy would submit its application” according to Karam, “As it turned out, with the elapsed time, Invenergy submitted its application before the court’s ruling and made the mistake of filing an application in which it ignored the setbacks requirements clearly defined in the ordinance. If Invenergy had submitted a compliant application, our decision to withdraw the application might have been different.”
While the WCPA and its supporters would rather have had a “formal” ruling on the lawsuit, the decision to withdraw the Article 78 was an easy one. “With the recent favorable Article 78 rulings against wind development throughout New York State it was highly likely the WCPA would have won the lawsuit. According to the WCPA all indications pointed in that direction. “If we had won the lawsuit and the ordinance was overturned, the Town of Stamford would have been left without an ordinance and without the ability to put a moratorium in place since Invenergy had already submitted its application.” says Karam, “As it stands today, with the current setbacks and the fact that none of the turbines proposed by Invenergy are compliant with Stamford’s law, had we won the Article 78, there would be no governing law. Therefore, the town and the impacted landowners would have no basis to challenge the location of all ten turbines proposed in Stamford. This would have been an untenable situation for Stamford.”
By withdrawing the Article 78, the Stamford wind ordinance will remain unchallenged and therefore, according to the WCPA, none of the proposed turbines can be constructed due to the setback violations. “One of the good things about the Stamford ordinance, which we can thank Supervisor Triolo for, is that section 1.06 prohibits any variance to the setbacks requirements unless both the town and the affected landowners agree to the variance” Karam says, “Since Invenergy completely ignored the town’s requirements by siting the turbines near non-participating residential homes and property boundaries, the decision was easy and gives the WCPA and the landowners the best chance of defeating Invenergy.”
About the WCPA
The Western Catskill Preservation Alliance was formed in 2006 to fight the construction of industrial wind turbines which will have a devastating impact on our rural lands and wilderness. Our members and supporters include working families and retirees, full-time residents and second homeowners, professionals and farmers. Our charter is to preserve and protect the natural beauty of the Catskill Mountains and surrounding areas in the Towns of Stamford, Roxbury and Gilboa from over development, including industrial wind turbine development. To join or donate to the WCPA write to wcpa06@aol.com.
“For immediate release”
Issued by the Western Catskill Preservation Alliance, Stamford, NY
(www.westerncatskillpreservationalliance.org)
February 13, 2008
Contact: Ron Karam, President, WCPA, rkaram@gmail.com, 201-414-7506
WPCA Withdraws Article 78 Lawsuit
“Best chance for defeating Invenergy”
The Western Catskill Preservation Alliance (WCPA) today announced that they are withdrawing the Article 78 lawsuit filed against the Town of Stamford and Invenergy. “The Article 78 is being withdrawn because it is in the very best interest of the people of Stamford, most of who oppose the Industrial Wind Turbine project.” According to Ron Karam, WCPA President, “The original intent of the lawsuit was to challenge the process in which the town developed Local Law No. 1 of 2007, “Wind Energy Facilities” and to overturn the ordinance. If we were successful in overturning the law, our goal was to work with the town to put in place a stricter ordinance with scientifically based setback requirements that would better protect the landowners.”
The Article 78 lawsuit was filed in the County of Chenango on June 16, 2007, and with arguments heard by Judge Dowd in July, the WCPA was expecting a decision by September 2007. “We were expecting a ruling in favor of the WCPA well before Invenergy submitted its application. This would have allowed the town to revise its ordinance, hopefully with stricter setbacks, before Invenergy would submit its application” according to Karam, “As it turned out, with the elapsed time, Invenergy submitted its application before the court’s ruling and made the mistake of filing an application in which it ignored the setbacks requirements clearly defined in the ordinance. If Invenergy had submitted a compliant application, our decision to withdraw the application might have been different.”
While the WCPA and its supporters would rather have had a “formal” ruling on the lawsuit, the decision to withdraw the Article 78 was an easy one. “With the recent favorable Article 78 rulings against wind development throughout New York State it was highly likely the WCPA would have won the lawsuit. According to the WCPA all indications pointed in that direction. “If we had won the lawsuit and the ordinance was overturned, the Town of Stamford would have been left without an ordinance and without the ability to put a moratorium in place since Invenergy had already submitted its application.” says Karam, “As it stands today, with the current setbacks and the fact that none of the turbines proposed by Invenergy are compliant with Stamford’s law, had we won the Article 78, there would be no governing law. Therefore, the town and the impacted landowners would have no basis to challenge the location of all ten turbines proposed in Stamford. This would have been an untenable situation for Stamford.”
By withdrawing the Article 78, the Stamford wind ordinance will remain unchallenged and therefore, according to the WCPA, none of the proposed turbines can be constructed due to the setback violations. “One of the good things about the Stamford ordinance, which we can thank Supervisor Triolo for, is that section 1.06 prohibits any variance to the setbacks requirements unless both the town and the affected landowners agree to the variance” Karam says, “Since Invenergy completely ignored the town’s requirements by siting the turbines near non-participating residential homes and property boundaries, the decision was easy and gives the WCPA and the landowners the best chance of defeating Invenergy.”
About the WCPA
The Western Catskill Preservation Alliance was formed in 2006 to fight the construction of industrial wind turbines which will have a devastating impact on our rural lands and wilderness. Our members and supporters include working families and retirees, full-time residents and second homeowners, professionals and farmers. Our charter is to preserve and protect the natural beauty of the Catskill Mountains and surrounding areas in the Towns of Stamford, Roxbury and Gilboa from over development, including industrial wind turbine development. To join or donate to the WCPA write to wcpa06@aol.com.
SCIDA PILOT Amounts for Steuben County Wind Projects
Wind%20farm%20PILOT%20schedule.pdf
PILOT SCHEDULE
YEAR PILOT PER MW
1 $500
2 $1,300
3 $2,600
4 $4,000
5 $5,300
6 $5,459
7 $5,623
8 $5,792
9 $5,966
10 $6,145
11 $6,329
12 $6,519
13 $6,715
14 $6,916
15 $7,123
16 $7,337
17 $7,557
18 $7,784
19 $8,018
20 $8,259
I kid you not. This was the response to a SCIDA FOIL. No contract, no written text of terms, just a table of amounts.
Will be sending out as an email to selective addresses.
James Hall
PILOT SCHEDULE
YEAR PILOT PER MW
1 $500
2 $1,300
3 $2,600
4 $4,000
5 $5,300
6 $5,459
7 $5,623
8 $5,792
9 $5,966
10 $6,145
11 $6,329
12 $6,519
13 $6,715
14 $6,916
15 $7,123
16 $7,337
17 $7,557
18 $7,784
19 $8,018
20 $8,259
I kid you not. This was the response to a SCIDA FOIL. No contract, no written text of terms, just a table of amounts.
Will be sending out as an email to selective addresses.
James Hall
Wednesday, February 13, 2008
Hearings set on Energy East deal
(February 13, 2008) — Eight months after the deal was unveiled, members of the public will have a chance next week to voice their opinions about Iberdrola SA's proposed $4.5 billion purchase of the parent of Rochester Gas and Electric.
A series of six hearings has been scheduled around the state by the Public Service Commission, whose approval is needed before Iberdrola's purchase of Energy East Corp. can proceed.
The Rochester hearing was set for 1 p.m. Feb. 21 at the Central Library. Other hearings will be in Binghamton, Ithaca, Plattsburgh and Erie and Putnam counties.
New York is the only state where Energy East does business that hasn't cleared the deal. Although groups such as Greater Rochester Enterprise have supported the acquisition, the staff of the Public Service Commission last month took the position that customers of RG&E and New York State Electric and Gas, also owned by Energy East, wouldn't benefit.
"The commission should require additional measures to protect NYSEG and RG&E customers from the financial risks of Iberdrola's other businesses, to maintain access to the companies' financial records, and to ensure adequate system reliability and customer service," the PSC staff said.
Iberdrola, which has its headquarters in Bilbao, Spain, is known for its focus on wind energy. In earlier testimony before the PSC, the state Department of Environmental Conservation said that emphasis was important.
"The development of more wind energy is a goal that should be considered when the merger is reviewed," the DEC said.
In addition to the PSC staff's questions about the benefit to consumers, the staff pointed out in recent days that Iberdrola may itself be a takeover target.
A series of six hearings has been scheduled around the state by the Public Service Commission, whose approval is needed before Iberdrola's purchase of Energy East Corp. can proceed.
The Rochester hearing was set for 1 p.m. Feb. 21 at the Central Library. Other hearings will be in Binghamton, Ithaca, Plattsburgh and Erie and Putnam counties.
New York is the only state where Energy East does business that hasn't cleared the deal. Although groups such as Greater Rochester Enterprise have supported the acquisition, the staff of the Public Service Commission last month took the position that customers of RG&E and New York State Electric and Gas, also owned by Energy East, wouldn't benefit.
"The commission should require additional measures to protect NYSEG and RG&E customers from the financial risks of Iberdrola's other businesses, to maintain access to the companies' financial records, and to ensure adequate system reliability and customer service," the PSC staff said.
Iberdrola, which has its headquarters in Bilbao, Spain, is known for its focus on wind energy. In earlier testimony before the PSC, the state Department of Environmental Conservation said that emphasis was important.
"The development of more wind energy is a goal that should be considered when the merger is reviewed," the DEC said.
In addition to the PSC staff's questions about the benefit to consumers, the staff pointed out in recent days that Iberdrola may itself be a takeover target.
Acciona IBERDROLA worldwide wind power monopolization
windmareportmaster_2007-05-15_%282%29_executive_summary.pdf
"The process of consolidation has already begun at the country level, in particular in the more mature wind markets, where major players are emerging as owners of the majority of the assets. In the Spanish market four companies, Iberdrola, Acciona, Endesa and EDP, already control over 70% of operating wind assets, with Iberdrola leading the way with 32% market share at the end of 2006. In 2006, Acciona bought Corporation Eolica Cesa SA, a wind power generator with over 600MW of capacity installed, increasing its market share to just over 18%.
A number of factors are driving the accelerating trend towards first national, then international consolidation of wind asset ownership. The Electricity Supply Industry is being encouraged to build ever larger portfolios of wind assets by environmental and regulatory compliance and rising fuel prices; financial investors are attracted by the potential for IRRs into the 20%s, stable long term cash flows and an abundance of cheap debt finance. Project developers, meanwhile, have in general been happy sellers as they either realize profits or recycle funds into new projects, though some plan to maintain ownership of their projects and graduate to Independent Power Purchase (IPP) status. A powerful driver of consolidation at present is the extreme tightness of supply in the turbine supply industry, which has favored the projects of developers large enough to get a place in suppliers’ order pipelines."
"The process of consolidation has already begun at the country level, in particular in the more mature wind markets, where major players are emerging as owners of the majority of the assets. In the Spanish market four companies, Iberdrola, Acciona, Endesa and EDP, already control over 70% of operating wind assets, with Iberdrola leading the way with 32% market share at the end of 2006. In 2006, Acciona bought Corporation Eolica Cesa SA, a wind power generator with over 600MW of capacity installed, increasing its market share to just over 18%.
A number of factors are driving the accelerating trend towards first national, then international consolidation of wind asset ownership. The Electricity Supply Industry is being encouraged to build ever larger portfolios of wind assets by environmental and regulatory compliance and rising fuel prices; financial investors are attracted by the potential for IRRs into the 20%s, stable long term cash flows and an abundance of cheap debt finance. Project developers, meanwhile, have in general been happy sellers as they either realize profits or recycle funds into new projects, though some plan to maintain ownership of their projects and graduate to Independent Power Purchase (IPP) status. A powerful driver of consolidation at present is the extreme tightness of supply in the turbine supply industry, which has favored the projects of developers large enough to get a place in suppliers’ order pipelines."
NEW YORK STATE PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION ALBANY SESSION 1/16/08
Transcript_011608%20PSC%20Shledon%20pgs%2085_95.pdf
Projects expected to come before the Commission in the future will present some challenges to the proposed locations, potential impacts and recent developments in turbine technology. Turbines sizes are growing. With current use of turbines ranging from 1.5 megawatts to newer designs of about 2.5 megawatts are already proposed to stay in operation.
Proposals in the early stages of development include turbines rated from 3 to 3.6 megawatts ranging in height up to approximately 500 feet more.
Another group of projects being proposed by developers to catch the strong winds along Lake Ontario shoreline in western Jefferson County have raised significant concerns regarding migratory and endangered wildlife species.
Projects expected to come before the Commission in the future will present some challenges to the proposed locations, potential impacts and recent developments in turbine technology. Turbines sizes are growing. With current use of turbines ranging from 1.5 megawatts to newer designs of about 2.5 megawatts are already proposed to stay in operation.
Proposals in the early stages of development include turbines rated from 3 to 3.6 megawatts ranging in height up to approximately 500 feet more.
Another group of projects being proposed by developers to catch the strong winds along Lake Ontario shoreline in western Jefferson County have raised significant concerns regarding migratory and endangered wildlife species.
TOWN OF COHOCTON GOVERNMENT MIGHT SUE UPC WIND
Cohocton Town Board member Wayne Hunt announced this week that he is sending a letter to wind company UPC.
Hunt says that the Town of Cohocton will be suing wind company UPC, if the town of Cohocton does not get a proper response from the wind company.
Hunt did not specify why the Cohocton Town Board was interested in suing UPC.
Hunt says that the Town of Cohocton will be suing wind company UPC, if the town of Cohocton does not get a proper response from the wind company.
Hunt did not specify why the Cohocton Town Board was interested in suing UPC.
House of Representatives Energy Committee February 13, 2007 CWW Letter by James Hall
February 13, 2008
Honorable Congressman
House Office Building
United States House of Representatives
Washington, DC 20515
RE: Reintroduction of industrial wind credits
Dear Representative:
Cohocton Wind Watch has a national membership of concerned citizens that seek realistic solutions for effective and efficient alternative energy. The original House Stimulus Bill excluded tax credits for industrial wind. This was the correct and appropriate decision. Since the signing of the Stimulus Bill by President Bush, the dreadful news that the Democratic leadership in the House will be seeking to pass a wide-ranging, $17.5 billion renewable energy bill has been reported.
Under the bill, Congress would extend for three years, until Dec. 31, 2011, tax credits for investments in wind-power developments. CWW ardently opposes the inclusion of tax credits to industrial wind projects in any future legislation.
Industrial wind projects provide intermittent power, at best; which requires conventional power stations to operate and remain in service. Most of the electricity from wind turbines is produced at night in cold months, not on hot weekday late afternoons in July and August when electricity demand reaches peak levels.
The inconsistent wind patterns in many of the regions slated for destructive industrial development means that wind projects can only provide negligible useful electricity. Yet, large scale use of wind turbines requires upgrading of the electricity grid, more complex grid management, and operation of additional thermal power stations to protect against power cuts in time of supply failure. These effects increase the cost of electricity supplied by the grid in addition to the capital, maintenance and operating costs of this inefficient technology.
Renewable Energy Certificates (RECs) cannot be justified for an uneconomical wind industry. REC prices should be adjusted based on a project's actual supply of electricity not energy capacity (i.e. time of day, time of year, and location adjustments).
The presence of ex-Enron executives, foreign ownership and questionable business practices has lead to the filing of an Anti-trust complaint, DA criminal probe and an AG investigation into the wind industry in New York State. The pattern of a culture of corruption is at the core of the numerous bribe allegations and political payoffs. This has lead to scores of legal actions in every state where the wind industry has encroached upon residential areas. Inadequate turbine siting places public health and safety at serious risk.
CWW urges you to exclude the industrial wind projects from any future tax credit legislation. We also request that House members hold hearings on the consistent pattern of Anti-trust violations that is systemic within the industry. Cohocton Wind Watch has hundreds of member supporters and a prominent web presence.
Regards,
James Hall for CWW
Honorable Congressman
House Office Building
United States House of Representatives
Washington, DC 20515
RE: Reintroduction of industrial wind credits
Dear Representative:
Cohocton Wind Watch has a national membership of concerned citizens that seek realistic solutions for effective and efficient alternative energy. The original House Stimulus Bill excluded tax credits for industrial wind. This was the correct and appropriate decision. Since the signing of the Stimulus Bill by President Bush, the dreadful news that the Democratic leadership in the House will be seeking to pass a wide-ranging, $17.5 billion renewable energy bill has been reported.
Under the bill, Congress would extend for three years, until Dec. 31, 2011, tax credits for investments in wind-power developments. CWW ardently opposes the inclusion of tax credits to industrial wind projects in any future legislation.
Industrial wind projects provide intermittent power, at best; which requires conventional power stations to operate and remain in service. Most of the electricity from wind turbines is produced at night in cold months, not on hot weekday late afternoons in July and August when electricity demand reaches peak levels.
The inconsistent wind patterns in many of the regions slated for destructive industrial development means that wind projects can only provide negligible useful electricity. Yet, large scale use of wind turbines requires upgrading of the electricity grid, more complex grid management, and operation of additional thermal power stations to protect against power cuts in time of supply failure. These effects increase the cost of electricity supplied by the grid in addition to the capital, maintenance and operating costs of this inefficient technology.
Renewable Energy Certificates (RECs) cannot be justified for an uneconomical wind industry. REC prices should be adjusted based on a project's actual supply of electricity not energy capacity (i.e. time of day, time of year, and location adjustments).
The presence of ex-Enron executives, foreign ownership and questionable business practices has lead to the filing of an Anti-trust complaint, DA criminal probe and an AG investigation into the wind industry in New York State. The pattern of a culture of corruption is at the core of the numerous bribe allegations and political payoffs. This has lead to scores of legal actions in every state where the wind industry has encroached upon residential areas. Inadequate turbine siting places public health and safety at serious risk.
CWW urges you to exclude the industrial wind projects from any future tax credit legislation. We also request that House members hold hearings on the consistent pattern of Anti-trust violations that is systemic within the industry. Cohocton Wind Watch has hundreds of member supporters and a prominent web presence.
Regards,
James Hall for CWW
IRS Announces Energy Bond Allocations
IR-2008-16, Feb. 8, 2008
WASHINGTON — The Internal Revenue Service today announced 312 projects eligible to be financed with tax-credit bonds under the Clean Renewable Energy Bonds (CREB) program.
The U.S. Treasury Secretary is authorized to distribute volume cap allocations of tax-credit bonds through the CREB program, which was created by the Energy Tax Incentives Act of 2005 and the Tax Relief and Health Care Act of 2006.
In November 2006, the IRS announced the first round of volume cap allocations, which allocated $800 million of volume cap (some of which was subsequently relinquished) to 610 projects. (The announcement was in IR-2006-181 available on the IRS website.) State and local governments as well as electrical cooperatives are able to issue tax-credit bonds under the program.
Internal Revenue Code Section 54 authorizes the allocation of $1.2 billion of tax-credit bond volume cap to fund projects that can generate clean renewable energy. State and local government borrowers are limited to no more than $750 million of the volume cap with the rest going to qualified mutual or cooperative electric companies.
CREB volume cap allocations are awarded on a “smallest-to-largest” project basis. IRS Notices 2007-26 and 2005-98 further explain the program and can also be found on the IRS website.
The IRS has completed the review of applications for $897 million of CREB financing submitted pursuant to Notice 2007-26 and has notified applicants of the results. The second round included 342 applications from 33 states, pertaining to 395 projects. Approximately $477 million of CREB volume cap was available for allocation to qualified issuers.
The deadline for making an application was July 13, 2007. There were 156 proposed projects in California, 57 in Minnesota, 23 in New Jersey, 17 in Washington, 13 in Nebraska, 12 in Montana, 11 in Illinois and 10 in Wisconsin. Applications ranged in size from $15,000 to $38.5 million.
Governmental borrowers submitted applications totaling $728 million to finance 367 projects with an average project size of about $2 million. Governmental borrowers in 28 states will receive $263 million of volume cap allocations ranging from $15,000 to $2.95 million. Approved projects of governmental borrowers include: 138 solar facilities, 88 wind facilities, 41 landfill gas facilities, 12 hydropower facilities, three closed-loop biomass facilities, three trash combustion facilities and one open-loop biomass facility.
Cooperative borrowers submitted applications totaling about $170 million to finance 28 projects with an average project size of about $6.1 million. Cooperative borrowers will receive about $143 million of volume cap allocations for projects in 13 states ranging from $300,000 to $30 million. Approved cooperative projects include: 14 wind facilities, four landfill gas facilities, six hydropower facilities, one solar facility and one open-loop biomass facility.
Disclosure restrictions prohibit releasing taxpayer-specific information without written consent. Notice 2007-26 included a Consent to Public Disclosure Statement. The 310 projects whose applicants signed the consent form can be viewed online.
WASHINGTON — The Internal Revenue Service today announced 312 projects eligible to be financed with tax-credit bonds under the Clean Renewable Energy Bonds (CREB) program.
The U.S. Treasury Secretary is authorized to distribute volume cap allocations of tax-credit bonds through the CREB program, which was created by the Energy Tax Incentives Act of 2005 and the Tax Relief and Health Care Act of 2006.
In November 2006, the IRS announced the first round of volume cap allocations, which allocated $800 million of volume cap (some of which was subsequently relinquished) to 610 projects. (The announcement was in IR-2006-181 available on the IRS website.) State and local governments as well as electrical cooperatives are able to issue tax-credit bonds under the program.
Internal Revenue Code Section 54 authorizes the allocation of $1.2 billion of tax-credit bond volume cap to fund projects that can generate clean renewable energy. State and local government borrowers are limited to no more than $750 million of the volume cap with the rest going to qualified mutual or cooperative electric companies.
CREB volume cap allocations are awarded on a “smallest-to-largest” project basis. IRS Notices 2007-26 and 2005-98 further explain the program and can also be found on the IRS website.
The IRS has completed the review of applications for $897 million of CREB financing submitted pursuant to Notice 2007-26 and has notified applicants of the results. The second round included 342 applications from 33 states, pertaining to 395 projects. Approximately $477 million of CREB volume cap was available for allocation to qualified issuers.
The deadline for making an application was July 13, 2007. There were 156 proposed projects in California, 57 in Minnesota, 23 in New Jersey, 17 in Washington, 13 in Nebraska, 12 in Montana, 11 in Illinois and 10 in Wisconsin. Applications ranged in size from $15,000 to $38.5 million.
Governmental borrowers submitted applications totaling $728 million to finance 367 projects with an average project size of about $2 million. Governmental borrowers in 28 states will receive $263 million of volume cap allocations ranging from $15,000 to $2.95 million. Approved projects of governmental borrowers include: 138 solar facilities, 88 wind facilities, 41 landfill gas facilities, 12 hydropower facilities, three closed-loop biomass facilities, three trash combustion facilities and one open-loop biomass facility.
Cooperative borrowers submitted applications totaling about $170 million to finance 28 projects with an average project size of about $6.1 million. Cooperative borrowers will receive about $143 million of volume cap allocations for projects in 13 states ranging from $300,000 to $30 million. Approved cooperative projects include: 14 wind facilities, four landfill gas facilities, six hydropower facilities, one solar facility and one open-loop biomass facility.
Disclosure restrictions prohibit releasing taxpayer-specific information without written consent. Notice 2007-26 included a Consent to Public Disclosure Statement. The 310 projects whose applicants signed the consent form can be viewed online.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)