ELLICOTTVILLE — The board of directors of the Cattaraugus County Industrial Development Agency is expected to review a proposed agency policy Tuesday that will establish how much industrial-scale wind farms must pay to local taxing authorities during their incentive periods.
The IDA provides tax exemptions for 10 to 15 years, along with other incentives, to developers seeking assistance and conduit loans. The new Uniform Tax Exemption Policy would affect only wind energy projects and would establish how wind power developers’ payments-in-lieu-of- taxes (PILOTs) are shared among the towns, county and school districts where they are located.
If the board decides Tuesday to move ahead with a PILOT policy for wind projects, a public hearing will be scheduled to take comments on the policy proposal.
According to the meeting agenda, a brief presentation on wind energy will be provided by East Aurora engineer John Schenne before the resolution and public hearing are discussed.
The idea that the IDA will divide up the PILOT shares has been controversial. Some officials and residents believe towns should be able to establish PILOT payments and withhold the tax revenues from schools or the county because the towns take the brunt of the impacts.
IDA director Corey R. Wiktor has maintained the towns are free to adopt zoning or permit laws governing such projects, will be free to negotiate terms for host fees and set up guidelines for the development.
Wind energy experts say these power plants are not economically viable if taxes must be paid and so developers must seek IDA assistance when automatic state real property tax exemptions on alternative energy projects are lifted. Wiktor also stated that wind developers, even with tax incentives, can only afford to pay about $10,000 per megawatt to the local taxing authorities but must know in advance so they can attract bank loans to finance the construction and operations.
Representing the IDA on the committee are Executive Director Corey Wiktor, IDA attorney George Cregg and IDA Board Chairman Thomas E. Buffamante. Several town boards were asked to send three representatives to serve on the committee also. They chose Ashford Town Supervisor Chris Gerwitz, Allegany Town Supervisor Patrick Eaton and Lyndon Town Supervisor Dale Carlson. Cattaraugus County Legislature Chairman Crystal Abers appointed Jerry E. Burrell, R-Franklinville, Donna Vickman, R-Farmersville, and Jim Boser, D-Allegany, as delegates. Several school districts chose Allegany-Limestone Central School business administrator Mike Watson, Franklinville Central School Superintendent Dennis Johnson and Pioneer Central School Superintendent Jeffrey Bowen.
The IDA board will meet at 11:15 a. m. Tuesday in the agency’s office at 3 E. Washington St.
Monday, June 08, 2009
Wind Turbine Syndrome: Are wind farms hazardous to human health?
Over the last few years, the wind energy sector has been experiencing tremendous growth as governments and utilities around the world seek sources of energy that generate reduced greenhouse gas emissions. In Ontario, the province has plans to increase the wind component of its electricity generation from the current 1 percent to 15 percent by 2025.
For the most part the wind energy industry has coasted along with favorable press and public opinion. The industry has had to weather some resistance, particularly pertaining to wildlife impacts (primarily birds and bats) and the consistency and reliability of wind power. Yet these criticisms have not gained enough traction to have a noticeable effect on the growth of the industry, which is being hailed as a source of tens of thousands of potential new jobs in the evolving green economy.
Wind turbines emit inaudible sound waves in the low end of the sound spectrum and rhythmic vibrations caused by the spinning blades. These are suspected to cause a host of adverse health effects in some people that live in close proximity to the turbines, including:
◦insomnia,
◦headaches,
◦acute hypertensive episodes,
◦cardiac arrhythmia,
◦heart palpitations,
◦high blood pressure,
◦the sensation of bugs crawling on the skin,
◦humming in the head,
◦continuous ringing in the ears,
◦dizziness
The condition has been given a name: “Wind Turbine Syndrome”, coined by Dr. Nina Pierpont, the subject of her recently published 150-page book. Wind Concerns Ontario is a coalition of 32 individual anti-wind citizens’ groups that have joined together from across the province of Ontario; they have named Wind Turbine Syndrome as one of their key focus areas. Both Dr. Pierpont and Wind Concerns Ontario recommend a minimum 2 kilometer setback for wind turbines from residential homes, along the lines with what is recommended by the World Health Organization (1.5 kilometers).
The assignment of setback distances in Ontario is currently governed by municpalities (the province will be taking control under its new Green Energy Act) with most setbacks being under 500 meters. Given the mounting evidence indicating adverse effects that wind turbines can have on human health, it is critical that more research be conducted into adequate setback distances. With the empahsis that the world is placing on wind energy as a critical piece of our future energy puzzle, setback distance research would be time and money well spent to ensure that wind power grows in harmony with the environment and its citizens.
For the most part the wind energy industry has coasted along with favorable press and public opinion. The industry has had to weather some resistance, particularly pertaining to wildlife impacts (primarily birds and bats) and the consistency and reliability of wind power. Yet these criticisms have not gained enough traction to have a noticeable effect on the growth of the industry, which is being hailed as a source of tens of thousands of potential new jobs in the evolving green economy.
Wind turbines emit inaudible sound waves in the low end of the sound spectrum and rhythmic vibrations caused by the spinning blades. These are suspected to cause a host of adverse health effects in some people that live in close proximity to the turbines, including:
◦insomnia,
◦headaches,
◦acute hypertensive episodes,
◦cardiac arrhythmia,
◦heart palpitations,
◦high blood pressure,
◦the sensation of bugs crawling on the skin,
◦humming in the head,
◦continuous ringing in the ears,
◦dizziness
The condition has been given a name: “Wind Turbine Syndrome”, coined by Dr. Nina Pierpont, the subject of her recently published 150-page book. Wind Concerns Ontario is a coalition of 32 individual anti-wind citizens’ groups that have joined together from across the province of Ontario; they have named Wind Turbine Syndrome as one of their key focus areas. Both Dr. Pierpont and Wind Concerns Ontario recommend a minimum 2 kilometer setback for wind turbines from residential homes, along the lines with what is recommended by the World Health Organization (1.5 kilometers).
The assignment of setback distances in Ontario is currently governed by municpalities (the province will be taking control under its new Green Energy Act) with most setbacks being under 500 meters. Given the mounting evidence indicating adverse effects that wind turbines can have on human health, it is critical that more research be conducted into adequate setback distances. With the empahsis that the world is placing on wind energy as a critical piece of our future energy puzzle, setback distance research would be time and money well spent to ensure that wind power grows in harmony with the environment and its citizens.
Scientists, Economists Challenge Global Warming Alarmism
Third international conference attracts SRO crowd to Washington, DC
Washington, DC- Global warming skeptics, who for a decade have emphasized hard-science evidence to refute doomsday predictions from alarmists, added new ammunition to their arsenal Tuesday at the third International Conference on Climate Change.
More than 250 people crowded into Washington Court hotel meeting rooms to hear a dozen elite scientists refute the claim that global warming is either man-made or would have harmful effects on Earth.
But The Heartland Institute, a 25-year-old think tank that produced the three international climate conferences, also recruited seven elite economists to focus on the devastating personal and broad economic impact of legislation, sponsored by Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) and Ed Markey (D-Mass.) and headed for approval in the U.S. House, to put a cap on greenhouse gas emissions. Businesses, commercial structures, farms, and other emitters could purchase and trade the permits to emit carbon dioxide and other gases that exceed the cap.
While the scientists reported on a vast array of peer-reviewed literature that cast doubt on the causes and severity of global warming, the economists produced data that showed the cap-and-trade scheme not only wouldn`t halt the release of greenhouse gases, but would add huge costs to business activity that inevitably would be passed along to consumers in the form of higher prices.
Dr. Jeff Kueter, an economist and president of the George C. Marshall Institute, referred to Waxman-Markey as "a dismal down-payment on injuries more intrusive into our lives and economy" than ever seen before.
Kueter cited independent economic studies that showed the diversion of capital to emission permits from the investment in new plant and equipment in the U.S. economy would:
reduce employment by 1.1 million jobs a year from 2012 to 2030, and more than double that job-loss in 2035.
slash gross domestic product by an average of $491 billion a year from 2012 to 2035, and hit $662 billion in 2035 -- a total evaporation of productive output of goods and services worth more than $9.4 trillion.
reduce average global temperatures by an insignificant 0.36º Fahrenheit by 2100 and by 0.09º F by 2050.
Similar costs with negligible benefits in Waxman-Markey were cited by other economists and public officials, including Dr. David Tuerck, president of the Beacon Hill Institute and chairman of the economics department at Suffolk University in Boston, and U.S. Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla).
U.S. Rep. James Sensenbrenner (R-Wis.), a veteran global warming skeptic, urged attendees to call Waxman-Markey a "cap-and-tax plan" that amounts to "unilateral disarmament in the economic sphere" for American businesses and workers.
Another long-time skeptic, Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (D-Calif.), provoked sustained applause when he declared that the partisans of Waxman-Markey are "stampeding the public and elected officials in the biggest power grab in the history of human kind."
Economist Dr. Gabriel Calzada of King Juan Carlos University in Madrid reviewed the dismal performance of cap-and-trade mandates in Spain, where unemployment has reached a daunting 18 percent, carbon emissions are higher today than before cap-and-trade was installed, and fraud and misrepresentation of emission abatement programs are rampant.
(Click to read entire article)
Washington, DC- Global warming skeptics, who for a decade have emphasized hard-science evidence to refute doomsday predictions from alarmists, added new ammunition to their arsenal Tuesday at the third International Conference on Climate Change.
More than 250 people crowded into Washington Court hotel meeting rooms to hear a dozen elite scientists refute the claim that global warming is either man-made or would have harmful effects on Earth.
But The Heartland Institute, a 25-year-old think tank that produced the three international climate conferences, also recruited seven elite economists to focus on the devastating personal and broad economic impact of legislation, sponsored by Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) and Ed Markey (D-Mass.) and headed for approval in the U.S. House, to put a cap on greenhouse gas emissions. Businesses, commercial structures, farms, and other emitters could purchase and trade the permits to emit carbon dioxide and other gases that exceed the cap.
While the scientists reported on a vast array of peer-reviewed literature that cast doubt on the causes and severity of global warming, the economists produced data that showed the cap-and-trade scheme not only wouldn`t halt the release of greenhouse gases, but would add huge costs to business activity that inevitably would be passed along to consumers in the form of higher prices.
Dr. Jeff Kueter, an economist and president of the George C. Marshall Institute, referred to Waxman-Markey as "a dismal down-payment on injuries more intrusive into our lives and economy" than ever seen before.
Kueter cited independent economic studies that showed the diversion of capital to emission permits from the investment in new plant and equipment in the U.S. economy would:
reduce employment by 1.1 million jobs a year from 2012 to 2030, and more than double that job-loss in 2035.
slash gross domestic product by an average of $491 billion a year from 2012 to 2035, and hit $662 billion in 2035 -- a total evaporation of productive output of goods and services worth more than $9.4 trillion.
reduce average global temperatures by an insignificant 0.36º Fahrenheit by 2100 and by 0.09º F by 2050.
Similar costs with negligible benefits in Waxman-Markey were cited by other economists and public officials, including Dr. David Tuerck, president of the Beacon Hill Institute and chairman of the economics department at Suffolk University in Boston, and U.S. Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla).
U.S. Rep. James Sensenbrenner (R-Wis.), a veteran global warming skeptic, urged attendees to call Waxman-Markey a "cap-and-tax plan" that amounts to "unilateral disarmament in the economic sphere" for American businesses and workers.
Another long-time skeptic, Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (D-Calif.), provoked sustained applause when he declared that the partisans of Waxman-Markey are "stampeding the public and elected officials in the biggest power grab in the history of human kind."
Economist Dr. Gabriel Calzada of King Juan Carlos University in Madrid reviewed the dismal performance of cap-and-trade mandates in Spain, where unemployment has reached a daunting 18 percent, carbon emissions are higher today than before cap-and-trade was installed, and fraud and misrepresentation of emission abatement programs are rampant.
(Click to read entire article)
Saturday, June 06, 2009
Councilman Kula's June 6, 2009 Response Letter to Prattsburgh Supervisor McConnell
Steven R. Kula
11470 Davis Road
Prattsburgh, NY 14873
(607)522-3377
steve.kula@yahoo.com
June 6, 2009
J. Harold McConnell
Supervisor
Town of Prattsburgh
19 North Main Street
Prattsburgh, NY 14873
Dear Supervisor,
At our regular Town of Prattsburgh board meeting, held on April 21st, our board voted unanimously to hold a special town board meeting on May 21st at The Prattsburgh Central School. The purpose of this meeting was for Ecogen to make a presentation to the board and the public, and to afford both the opportunity to ask questions of Ecogen regarding their proposed project in our town.
At our regular Town of Prattsburgh board meeting, held on May 19th, citizens and board members were asked to hold their questions and comments until the special meeting, when both Ecogen and the board would be prepared to facilitate.
I arrived at our meeting and was told by an Ecogen attorney that they were having a meeting, but I was welcome to stay and listen. The audience was then informed that we would not have the opportunity to make comments or have any discussion with the developer.
I am disgusted with your conduct as a public official. We are elected to represent the citizens of this town, and are obligated to make the best, most informed decisions possible on their behalf. I have found that anyone that has a defensible position does not fear an honest, open debate. The issues pertaining to the proposed development are not black and white, and it is unfortunate that you desire to hide the truth from the public.
I understand that I am in a minority position on our town board. Your majority was elected by the citizens of this town, and you have the right to feel, and vote, as you do. However, as an elected official, I too have rights. By law, you must schedule a special board meeting within 10 days of written request of two board members. I am requesting that you call a special meeting, to be held in a venue large enough to accommodate the expected crowd, for the express purpose of discussing the many issues surrounding this project, as well as the misconduct of our public officials. I am of the hope that councilman Shick will make the second request.
I also request that you invite Ecogen representatives to this meeting, in the hope that they will change course and answer some of the concerns of our citizens.
I am unavailable on June 2nd, 4th, and 5th. I am available on any other days at any time. As I understand that the other board members also have other obligations, I will not hold you to the 10 day limit imposed by the law. I believe that a meeting scheduled prior to June 20th would be reasonable.
Sincerely,
Steven R. Kula
Town Councilman
Town of Prattsburgh
Cc: Prattsburgh Town Clerk, Chuck Shick, John Leyden, Eric Massa, NYS Office of the Attorney General, local media
11470 Davis Road
Prattsburgh, NY 14873
(607)522-3377
steve.kula@yahoo.com
June 6, 2009
J. Harold McConnell
Supervisor
Town of Prattsburgh
19 North Main Street
Prattsburgh, NY 14873
Dear Supervisor,
At our regular Town of Prattsburgh board meeting, held on April 21st, our board voted unanimously to hold a special town board meeting on May 21st at The Prattsburgh Central School. The purpose of this meeting was for Ecogen to make a presentation to the board and the public, and to afford both the opportunity to ask questions of Ecogen regarding their proposed project in our town.
At our regular Town of Prattsburgh board meeting, held on May 19th, citizens and board members were asked to hold their questions and comments until the special meeting, when both Ecogen and the board would be prepared to facilitate.
I arrived at our meeting and was told by an Ecogen attorney that they were having a meeting, but I was welcome to stay and listen. The audience was then informed that we would not have the opportunity to make comments or have any discussion with the developer.
I am disgusted with your conduct as a public official. We are elected to represent the citizens of this town, and are obligated to make the best, most informed decisions possible on their behalf. I have found that anyone that has a defensible position does not fear an honest, open debate. The issues pertaining to the proposed development are not black and white, and it is unfortunate that you desire to hide the truth from the public.
I understand that I am in a minority position on our town board. Your majority was elected by the citizens of this town, and you have the right to feel, and vote, as you do. However, as an elected official, I too have rights. By law, you must schedule a special board meeting within 10 days of written request of two board members. I am requesting that you call a special meeting, to be held in a venue large enough to accommodate the expected crowd, for the express purpose of discussing the many issues surrounding this project, as well as the misconduct of our public officials. I am of the hope that councilman Shick will make the second request.
I also request that you invite Ecogen representatives to this meeting, in the hope that they will change course and answer some of the concerns of our citizens.
I am unavailable on June 2nd, 4th, and 5th. I am available on any other days at any time. As I understand that the other board members also have other obligations, I will not hold you to the 10 day limit imposed by the law. I believe that a meeting scheduled prior to June 20th would be reasonable.
Sincerely,
Steven R. Kula
Town Councilman
Town of Prattsburgh
Cc: Prattsburgh Town Clerk, Chuck Shick, John Leyden, Eric Massa, NYS Office of the Attorney General, local media
Invenergy says it works to address complaints
SHELDON -- Invenergy officials say they encourage people to contact them with turbine problems.
The company has a detailed complaint resolution process which it made available Thursday to The Daily News. It also has a 24-hour telephone hotline for reporting turbine issues.
"We encourage people if they have a concern that they should call that number, and we check it daily," said Project Manager Eric Miller. "We keep a log of who calls."
The company's home office project manager in Chicago will call the person who filed the complaint, the process form reads. The goal is to do so within 24 hours, but the process form maintains it's most often within one or two hours.
Officials will discuss the complaint, followed by gathering information and conducting a site visit. Multiple visits are sometimes required and often coordinated by local representatives.
"It's important to visit," Miller said. "Someone has a shadow complaint, we're committed to fixing these things, but you have to be at the house to understand what the issue is, so you can fix it. Sometimes it takes several visits to identify the problem."
Mitigation steps outlined in the complaint process include:
-- Shadow issues: Invenergy representatives will work with homeowners to identify the affected windows, and will install blinds if the people are interested.
Planting trees is the preferred solution for blocking the shadows, if the company and homeowner conclude it's feasible. There's no practical solution if shadows are occurring on the property grounds, but not affecting windows.
"It all depends on what the situation is, but sometimes you can plant trees to block the shadows," Miller said. "We would work with the owners to find out what their preference is, and get something done."
-- Television reception: An Invenergy representative will visit the house to observe the stations affected, and any effects on the signal.
Multiple visits may be required to assess picture quality when the turbines are operating, and when they aren't, the process reads. A contractor with expertise in the issue will be hired to find a solution, once the reception problems are confirmed.
Broadcast television impacts are expected to be negligible once digital transmissions begin Friday, according to the document. Most owners with reception issues will recognize a second check will be needed after then, along with planning for any further steps, based on what's observed, the process form reads.
-- Noise: An Invenergy official will visit the site when levels are typical of the reported problem.
The goal is to determine noise type and volume, and the differences between turbine sounds heard elsewhere. Resolving the issues requires maintenance work.
If there are no obvious differences, a crew will check nearby turbines' control systems, to make sure they're running as efficiently and quietly as possible.
If a noise complaint is reported, the checks are given a priority. Such checks had been made on all turbines at the High Sheldon Wind Farm as of this month, the process document reads.
All such solutions require Invenergy officials and property owners working cooperatively, Miller said. In some cases, he said, property owners didn't want Invenergy staff on their premises or weren't otherwise available.
"We really haven't received a whole lot of complaints, but if we do, and somebody won't let us visit their property, it makes it difficult for us," he said. "We take these seriously. Usually we'll ask more than once if we can come out and visit."
Miller said the company has received complaints from 10 households, and it's not unusual to have a small number of people who don't like a project before or after completion.
The company has visited the Nuhn household twice and talked to Jessica Nuhn on those occasions, he said. Those were times when the shadows weren't occurring, he said, but he confirmed three windows where shadow flicker could happen.
He said the company has projected the effect would be infrequent and for "hours per year."
"We're not talking about something that should be happening for long periods at any stretch, but we acknowledge there are windows facing the turbines where that could happen," Miller said.
He said the Nuhns declined the option to install blinds or plant trees when offered.
"We do think that's unfortunate, because we think that's a good solution worth trying," he said.
The company also responded to the Nuhns' noise complaint when they called the hotline, Miller said. He said Invenergy staff didn't notice any noise -- though still not denying it had occurred -- and the company put a priority on checking the turbines near their house.
They made sure the control parameters were correct, and the turbines were operating smoothly and quietly as expected, he said.
"We are ready to respond if they have concerns," he said. "We're always interested in getting up there and working things out with them."
Miller said it would be a fair assessment that some people may be more sensitive to such issues than others, such as those who have been negatively affected in Sheldon have said.
"We're offering to do the things we've committed to do," he said of the company's efforts toward solutions. "We want to be doing this for a long time, so we take all of these seriously. If there are viable solutions we'll work on them."
Invenergy's complaint hotline can be reached at 1 (866) 378-4580.
The company has a detailed complaint resolution process which it made available Thursday to The Daily News. It also has a 24-hour telephone hotline for reporting turbine issues.
"We encourage people if they have a concern that they should call that number, and we check it daily," said Project Manager Eric Miller. "We keep a log of who calls."
The company's home office project manager in Chicago will call the person who filed the complaint, the process form reads. The goal is to do so within 24 hours, but the process form maintains it's most often within one or two hours.
Officials will discuss the complaint, followed by gathering information and conducting a site visit. Multiple visits are sometimes required and often coordinated by local representatives.
"It's important to visit," Miller said. "Someone has a shadow complaint, we're committed to fixing these things, but you have to be at the house to understand what the issue is, so you can fix it. Sometimes it takes several visits to identify the problem."
Mitigation steps outlined in the complaint process include:
-- Shadow issues: Invenergy representatives will work with homeowners to identify the affected windows, and will install blinds if the people are interested.
Planting trees is the preferred solution for blocking the shadows, if the company and homeowner conclude it's feasible. There's no practical solution if shadows are occurring on the property grounds, but not affecting windows.
"It all depends on what the situation is, but sometimes you can plant trees to block the shadows," Miller said. "We would work with the owners to find out what their preference is, and get something done."
-- Television reception: An Invenergy representative will visit the house to observe the stations affected, and any effects on the signal.
Multiple visits may be required to assess picture quality when the turbines are operating, and when they aren't, the process reads. A contractor with expertise in the issue will be hired to find a solution, once the reception problems are confirmed.
Broadcast television impacts are expected to be negligible once digital transmissions begin Friday, according to the document. Most owners with reception issues will recognize a second check will be needed after then, along with planning for any further steps, based on what's observed, the process form reads.
-- Noise: An Invenergy official will visit the site when levels are typical of the reported problem.
The goal is to determine noise type and volume, and the differences between turbine sounds heard elsewhere. Resolving the issues requires maintenance work.
If there are no obvious differences, a crew will check nearby turbines' control systems, to make sure they're running as efficiently and quietly as possible.
If a noise complaint is reported, the checks are given a priority. Such checks had been made on all turbines at the High Sheldon Wind Farm as of this month, the process document reads.
All such solutions require Invenergy officials and property owners working cooperatively, Miller said. In some cases, he said, property owners didn't want Invenergy staff on their premises or weren't otherwise available.
"We really haven't received a whole lot of complaints, but if we do, and somebody won't let us visit their property, it makes it difficult for us," he said. "We take these seriously. Usually we'll ask more than once if we can come out and visit."
Miller said the company has received complaints from 10 households, and it's not unusual to have a small number of people who don't like a project before or after completion.
The company has visited the Nuhn household twice and talked to Jessica Nuhn on those occasions, he said. Those were times when the shadows weren't occurring, he said, but he confirmed three windows where shadow flicker could happen.
He said the company has projected the effect would be infrequent and for "hours per year."
"We're not talking about something that should be happening for long periods at any stretch, but we acknowledge there are windows facing the turbines where that could happen," Miller said.
He said the Nuhns declined the option to install blinds or plant trees when offered.
"We do think that's unfortunate, because we think that's a good solution worth trying," he said.
The company also responded to the Nuhns' noise complaint when they called the hotline, Miller said. He said Invenergy staff didn't notice any noise -- though still not denying it had occurred -- and the company put a priority on checking the turbines near their house.
They made sure the control parameters were correct, and the turbines were operating smoothly and quietly as expected, he said.
"We are ready to respond if they have concerns," he said. "We're always interested in getting up there and working things out with them."
Miller said it would be a fair assessment that some people may be more sensitive to such issues than others, such as those who have been negatively affected in Sheldon have said.
"We're offering to do the things we've committed to do," he said of the company's efforts toward solutions. "We want to be doing this for a long time, so we take all of these seriously. If there are viable solutions we'll work on them."
Invenergy's complaint hotline can be reached at 1 (866) 378-4580.
Wind casts a shadow -- and yes, it flickers
SHELDON -- Call it the flip side of paradise.
Jessica and David Nuhn's living room starts pulsing about 7:35 p.m. on a Friday evening. The entire room darkens and brightens rhythmically, cycling a little faster than once per second.
The effect is like something from a 1950s black-and-white monster movie.
Paul Zawadzki of Eagle knows the phenomena well himself. He calls it psychedelic, and old-fashioned strobe lights indeed come to mind.
The pulsing blobs are shadow flicker from one of the windmills at the edge of the High Sheldon Wind Farm. It's not what the Nuhns expected when they bought their dream house in 2006.
"Since we've owned this home, I had no health problems previously," says a somewhat sleepless Jessica Nuhn. "I'm a registered nurse -- a critical care nurse. I've got my bachelor's degree and I know about health.
"Since the turbines have been spinning, I've had headaches ... The noise has kept me up at night, the noise gives me headaches, the noise crushes my sinuses."
Nuhn says she's never had sinus problems before, and now she sees floating spots, for which she's seeing a doctor.
"I've never had headaches and now I do," she said. "I'm high-stress now, and I'm very used to dealing with high-stress situations, and I can't even handle coming home anymore."
Raising an issue
The Nuhns were among six individuals or couples from Sheldon and Eagle who met at their house that evening.
They were joined by Councilman Glenn Cramer of Sheldon -- who has long raised wind turbine concerns with the town -- and Hal Graham of Cohocton.
Graham signed a lease for a turbine on his property, but has since made his regrets public.
With the exception of Cramer, who said he isn't directly affected, the individuals described or documented problems similar to what the Nuhns have experienced.
High Sheldon came on-line in March, and is now producing energy for the state's general power grid. The facility includes 75 turbines, each about 400 feet tall.
For these particular residents, the giant windmills have proven a nightmare. Although some opposed them from the beginning, the Nuhns said they'd taken no major interest when they bought their house.
Jessica started noticing the effects after the farm was built. Even her husband David didn't really believe her, until he said he spent a full day at home, shortly after she started voicing her concerns.
"I didn't notice it, but I wasn't home as much as Jessica," he said. "All of a sudden, being down the hill, you just realize how loud they are.
"I don't care what anybody says," he continued. "They say it's as loud as a refrigerator, but you cannot hear your refrigerator from half a mile away. It's definitely louder than that."
What the residents described on two Fridays ago was a low rumbling, similar to a jet engine's "whoosh" which never leaves the area. They said it's occasionally punctuated by a sudden, loud bang.
The loud noises are one thing, they said, but the low rumbling is the worst. They said it's overwhelming, and maintain it's louder than the 50 decibels allowed by Sheldon's zoning laws.
The noise is much worse at night, once the area's ambient noise is gone, said Nadja Laska, another resident affected.
Several of the impacted residents said they're having the noise levels tested professionally.
The noises may come and go, they said, and are in addition to the shadow flicker, which lasted about 40 minutes that Friday evening. It filled the room despite the Nuhns' drawn curtain.
Beyond that, the couple said their cellphone reception has become spotty, and many residents described problems with their television reception. Laska showed a video in which her screen was occasionally scrambled, and seemed to pulse in time with the shadow flicker dominating her living room.
Helpless feeling
Complaints have gone nowhere, the homeowners allege.
Zawadzki said he approached Department of Conservation officials at the local level. He said he was told to call Albany, where officials told him they didn't handle such issues.
The Sheldon homeowners said they've made numerous calls to Invenergy's hotline -- talking to people in the Chicago office, before dealing with local representatives.
They said there are no results, even when Administrative Assistant Mary Kehl visits their locations to register their problems. They describe any such interactions with the company as ineffectual.
The entire process, involving formalized complaints, leaves them with little hope their problems will ever be relieved. They say they need to first prove they're being harmed.
And even if they do, they believe there would be some way for the information to be overturned, again blocking any hope of relief.
They compared the process to jumping through hoops.
They likewise don't want be seen as crazy or unreasonable, but conveyed a sense of being overwhelmed by the issue. They expect to get no real or effective help from the company, and Laska said she first complained in February.
Nuhn, who's studying for her master's degree, said they don't want people think they're a group of ignorant hicks -- they know what they're talking about, and their complaints are very real.
She said she grew up near railroad tracks in Alden, so she knows what a noisy environment's like. But she's never experienced these kinds of issues before.
In the meantime, the impacted residents are dealing with the nightly noise, shadow flicker and other effects.
Invenergy's offered to supply shades or plant trees, some of the residents said. They believe, however, any such steps are beside the point.
Jessica Nuhn said she doesn't want to live with her shades drawn, or sleep with the windows closed and an air conditioner running, to try to drown out the noise. She said it's the opposite of why she and David bought their house in the country, in the first place.
Such complaints are not uncommon, and the state's wind energy task force has received several such reports, said Wyoming County District Attorney Gerald Stout, who's himself a task force member.
Those residents face a Catch-22 situation if they can't complain to the DEC, and believe the wind energy companies or local officials aren't responding sufficiently.
"I don't know where to refer them at this point," Stout said. "We still haven't figured that out ... Since Invenergy hasn't agreed to sign the Attorney General's code of conduct, the only thing I can recommend is they contact the state Attorney General's office directly."
He said he hasn't received any such complaints from Sheldon or Eagle in his role as district attorney, although the task force has.
"(The affected residents) realize now the wind task force and the attorney general's are going to be doing anything, if anybody's doing anything," he said.
A state DEC representative confirmed on Thursday that the agency doesn't handle wind turbine issues. They'd instead be recommended to local jurisdictions such as code enforcement.
Individual effects
The residents believe everybody's affected differently, and not everybody will show negative effects from the wind turbines.
Some residents will be fine and others are more sensitive, Laska said.
But at the same time, the residents said the wind farms are wrecking their lives, and they're left with few options.
Cynthia Blair said she and her husband Ken had lived in town for three decades, and are facing the hard choice of selling their house at a loss, if they wish to leave the area.
That dilemma has indeed been a concern for Cramer, who pushed unsuccessfully for a townwide property protection act, before the Town Board and town Planning Board each approved the permits for High Sheldon two years ago.
"Anybody that's hurt like this should be given their money and given the option to go someplace else," he said.
Not that they'd have necessarily wanted to leave. But the residents feel trapped, if they can even sell their houses.
They believe they have few real options in the overall situation. They say selling at a loss, or abandoning their properties, would be a desperation measure.
Zawadzki said the state has a disclosure law, so prospective buyers would need to be informed exactly why a homeowner's leaving, making the house much less attractive.
The disclosure form requires property owners to list and describe any ownership, environmental, structural or mechanical problems to a perspective buyer or realtor, before a sale goes through.
"We are looking at other properties," Jessica Nuhn said. "The best we can do is wait for the market to get better ... But to even consider moving out, that's got to be quite an impact."
It's not about the money, the residents said. Nor do they begrudge the people who signed lease agreements or easements.
None of the residents gathered Friday said they're receiving compensation for the turbines, and they say the elimination of their town taxes -- about $600 annually -- definitely wasn't worth the overall cost.
Not with the noise, the sleeplessness, the bizarre, pulsing shadows and overall impact on their lives.
"I want you to hear, loud and clear, and make no mistake," Laska said. "I begrudge my neighbors nothing. Not one penny. Nothing at all.
"But I don't know how long I can take it, OK?" she continued. "I don't owe anybody the comfort and the quality of life inside my house.
"It's not about money for me. It's about living my quiet, peaceful, humble life. That's what I want. My quality of life."
Jessica and David Nuhn's living room starts pulsing about 7:35 p.m. on a Friday evening. The entire room darkens and brightens rhythmically, cycling a little faster than once per second.
The effect is like something from a 1950s black-and-white monster movie.
Paul Zawadzki of Eagle knows the phenomena well himself. He calls it psychedelic, and old-fashioned strobe lights indeed come to mind.
The pulsing blobs are shadow flicker from one of the windmills at the edge of the High Sheldon Wind Farm. It's not what the Nuhns expected when they bought their dream house in 2006.
"Since we've owned this home, I had no health problems previously," says a somewhat sleepless Jessica Nuhn. "I'm a registered nurse -- a critical care nurse. I've got my bachelor's degree and I know about health.
"Since the turbines have been spinning, I've had headaches ... The noise has kept me up at night, the noise gives me headaches, the noise crushes my sinuses."
Nuhn says she's never had sinus problems before, and now she sees floating spots, for which she's seeing a doctor.
"I've never had headaches and now I do," she said. "I'm high-stress now, and I'm very used to dealing with high-stress situations, and I can't even handle coming home anymore."
Raising an issue
The Nuhns were among six individuals or couples from Sheldon and Eagle who met at their house that evening.
They were joined by Councilman Glenn Cramer of Sheldon -- who has long raised wind turbine concerns with the town -- and Hal Graham of Cohocton.
Graham signed a lease for a turbine on his property, but has since made his regrets public.
With the exception of Cramer, who said he isn't directly affected, the individuals described or documented problems similar to what the Nuhns have experienced.
High Sheldon came on-line in March, and is now producing energy for the state's general power grid. The facility includes 75 turbines, each about 400 feet tall.
For these particular residents, the giant windmills have proven a nightmare. Although some opposed them from the beginning, the Nuhns said they'd taken no major interest when they bought their house.
Jessica started noticing the effects after the farm was built. Even her husband David didn't really believe her, until he said he spent a full day at home, shortly after she started voicing her concerns.
"I didn't notice it, but I wasn't home as much as Jessica," he said. "All of a sudden, being down the hill, you just realize how loud they are.
"I don't care what anybody says," he continued. "They say it's as loud as a refrigerator, but you cannot hear your refrigerator from half a mile away. It's definitely louder than that."
What the residents described on two Fridays ago was a low rumbling, similar to a jet engine's "whoosh" which never leaves the area. They said it's occasionally punctuated by a sudden, loud bang.
The loud noises are one thing, they said, but the low rumbling is the worst. They said it's overwhelming, and maintain it's louder than the 50 decibels allowed by Sheldon's zoning laws.
The noise is much worse at night, once the area's ambient noise is gone, said Nadja Laska, another resident affected.
Several of the impacted residents said they're having the noise levels tested professionally.
The noises may come and go, they said, and are in addition to the shadow flicker, which lasted about 40 minutes that Friday evening. It filled the room despite the Nuhns' drawn curtain.
Beyond that, the couple said their cellphone reception has become spotty, and many residents described problems with their television reception. Laska showed a video in which her screen was occasionally scrambled, and seemed to pulse in time with the shadow flicker dominating her living room.
Helpless feeling
Complaints have gone nowhere, the homeowners allege.
Zawadzki said he approached Department of Conservation officials at the local level. He said he was told to call Albany, where officials told him they didn't handle such issues.
The Sheldon homeowners said they've made numerous calls to Invenergy's hotline -- talking to people in the Chicago office, before dealing with local representatives.
They said there are no results, even when Administrative Assistant Mary Kehl visits their locations to register their problems. They describe any such interactions with the company as ineffectual.
The entire process, involving formalized complaints, leaves them with little hope their problems will ever be relieved. They say they need to first prove they're being harmed.
And even if they do, they believe there would be some way for the information to be overturned, again blocking any hope of relief.
They compared the process to jumping through hoops.
They likewise don't want be seen as crazy or unreasonable, but conveyed a sense of being overwhelmed by the issue. They expect to get no real or effective help from the company, and Laska said she first complained in February.
Nuhn, who's studying for her master's degree, said they don't want people think they're a group of ignorant hicks -- they know what they're talking about, and their complaints are very real.
She said she grew up near railroad tracks in Alden, so she knows what a noisy environment's like. But she's never experienced these kinds of issues before.
In the meantime, the impacted residents are dealing with the nightly noise, shadow flicker and other effects.
Invenergy's offered to supply shades or plant trees, some of the residents said. They believe, however, any such steps are beside the point.
Jessica Nuhn said she doesn't want to live with her shades drawn, or sleep with the windows closed and an air conditioner running, to try to drown out the noise. She said it's the opposite of why she and David bought their house in the country, in the first place.
Such complaints are not uncommon, and the state's wind energy task force has received several such reports, said Wyoming County District Attorney Gerald Stout, who's himself a task force member.
Those residents face a Catch-22 situation if they can't complain to the DEC, and believe the wind energy companies or local officials aren't responding sufficiently.
"I don't know where to refer them at this point," Stout said. "We still haven't figured that out ... Since Invenergy hasn't agreed to sign the Attorney General's code of conduct, the only thing I can recommend is they contact the state Attorney General's office directly."
He said he hasn't received any such complaints from Sheldon or Eagle in his role as district attorney, although the task force has.
"(The affected residents) realize now the wind task force and the attorney general's are going to be doing anything, if anybody's doing anything," he said.
A state DEC representative confirmed on Thursday that the agency doesn't handle wind turbine issues. They'd instead be recommended to local jurisdictions such as code enforcement.
Individual effects
The residents believe everybody's affected differently, and not everybody will show negative effects from the wind turbines.
Some residents will be fine and others are more sensitive, Laska said.
But at the same time, the residents said the wind farms are wrecking their lives, and they're left with few options.
Cynthia Blair said she and her husband Ken had lived in town for three decades, and are facing the hard choice of selling their house at a loss, if they wish to leave the area.
That dilemma has indeed been a concern for Cramer, who pushed unsuccessfully for a townwide property protection act, before the Town Board and town Planning Board each approved the permits for High Sheldon two years ago.
"Anybody that's hurt like this should be given their money and given the option to go someplace else," he said.
Not that they'd have necessarily wanted to leave. But the residents feel trapped, if they can even sell their houses.
They believe they have few real options in the overall situation. They say selling at a loss, or abandoning their properties, would be a desperation measure.
Zawadzki said the state has a disclosure law, so prospective buyers would need to be informed exactly why a homeowner's leaving, making the house much less attractive.
The disclosure form requires property owners to list and describe any ownership, environmental, structural or mechanical problems to a perspective buyer or realtor, before a sale goes through.
"We are looking at other properties," Jessica Nuhn said. "The best we can do is wait for the market to get better ... But to even consider moving out, that's got to be quite an impact."
It's not about the money, the residents said. Nor do they begrudge the people who signed lease agreements or easements.
None of the residents gathered Friday said they're receiving compensation for the turbines, and they say the elimination of their town taxes -- about $600 annually -- definitely wasn't worth the overall cost.
Not with the noise, the sleeplessness, the bizarre, pulsing shadows and overall impact on their lives.
"I want you to hear, loud and clear, and make no mistake," Laska said. "I begrudge my neighbors nothing. Not one penny. Nothing at all.
"But I don't know how long I can take it, OK?" she continued. "I don't owe anybody the comfort and the quality of life inside my house.
"It's not about money for me. It's about living my quiet, peaceful, humble life. That's what I want. My quality of life."
Friday, June 05, 2009
Wind developer Noble cancels IPO
Essex, Conn.-based Noble Environmental Power has withdrawn registration for a proposed $375 million initial public offering.
The company, which develops wind-powered renewable electric generating projects, gave no explanation for the cancellation of the IPO.
The company had planned to trade on the Nasdaq under ticker symbol NEPI in a share sale underwritten by Lehman Brothers, JPMorgan and Credit Suisse. The money was expected to go to general corporate purposes, including future turbine supply agreements (see Noble Environmental files for $375M share sale).
But in July, Noble and Newton, Mass.-based First Wind Holdings were served with subpoenas by the New York State Attorney General's office (see Noble Environmental sets shares for IPO amid investigation). Both companies are developing and operating wind farms across New York state. The subpoenas are part of an investigation into whether the companies sought or obtained land-use agreements with citizens and public officials, whether improper benefits were given to public officials to influence their actions, and whether they entered into anti-competitive agreements.
Noble now says it has 3,850 megawatts of wind parks under development in eight U.S. states: New York, New Hampshire, Vermont, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, Texas, and Wyoming. The company has more than 280 MW of installed electrical generating capacity.
In April, Noble announced $440 million in long-term capital for its 330 MW of wind power projects in western and northern New York state. General Electric's GE Energy Financial Services invested more than $200 million in the portfolio, with a syndicate of banks and financial institutions providing long-term debt, including letters of credit, totaling approximately $440 million.
The company’s principal shareholder is JPMorgan Partners. The Canada Pension Plan is a minority backer.
The company, which develops wind-powered renewable electric generating projects, gave no explanation for the cancellation of the IPO.
The company had planned to trade on the Nasdaq under ticker symbol NEPI in a share sale underwritten by Lehman Brothers, JPMorgan and Credit Suisse. The money was expected to go to general corporate purposes, including future turbine supply agreements (see Noble Environmental files for $375M share sale).
But in July, Noble and Newton, Mass.-based First Wind Holdings were served with subpoenas by the New York State Attorney General's office (see Noble Environmental sets shares for IPO amid investigation). Both companies are developing and operating wind farms across New York state. The subpoenas are part of an investigation into whether the companies sought or obtained land-use agreements with citizens and public officials, whether improper benefits were given to public officials to influence their actions, and whether they entered into anti-competitive agreements.
Noble now says it has 3,850 megawatts of wind parks under development in eight U.S. states: New York, New Hampshire, Vermont, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, Texas, and Wyoming. The company has more than 280 MW of installed electrical generating capacity.
In April, Noble announced $440 million in long-term capital for its 330 MW of wind power projects in western and northern New York state. General Electric's GE Energy Financial Services invested more than $200 million in the portfolio, with a syndicate of banks and financial institutions providing long-term debt, including letters of credit, totaling approximately $440 million.
The company’s principal shareholder is JPMorgan Partners. The Canada Pension Plan is a minority backer.
Thursday, June 04, 2009
Citizens respond to wind company's statements
CLAYTON — Environmentally Concerned Citizens Organization took issue with some of the statements a wind development company made last week about the town wind committee's recommendations.
The committee talked about its recommendations at a workshop with Town Council and Planning Board members May 27. Iberdrola representatives responded to the recommendations in a letter dated May 20 and at the meeting, saying the committee's recommendations would virtually eliminate the proposed Horse Creek Wind Farm.
In a letter to Town Council members dated May 29, ECCO's attorney, Gary A. Abraham, argued against a letter from Iberdrola to the town dated May 20.
"Specifically, ECCO seeks by these comments to avoid town board action that might rubber stamp the most vacuous statements paraded before you by Iberdrola as findings of fact," Mr. Abraham wrote.
The committee talked about its recommendations at a workshop with Town Council and Planning Board members May 27. Iberdrola representatives responded to the recommendations in a letter dated May 20 and at the meeting, saying the committee's recommendations would virtually eliminate the proposed Horse Creek Wind Farm.
In a letter to Town Council members dated May 29, ECCO's attorney, Gary A. Abraham, argued against a letter from Iberdrola to the town dated May 20.
"Specifically, ECCO seeks by these comments to avoid town board action that might rubber stamp the most vacuous statements paraded before you by Iberdrola as findings of fact," Mr. Abraham wrote.
Wind energy company Noble Environmental Power withdraws IPO
Noble Environmental Power, a wind energy company operating 282 megawatts of electrical generating capacity, withdrew its plans for an initial public offering in a filing with the SEC on Wednesday. The developmental stage company was founded in 2004 and is based in Essex, CT. J.P. Morgan, Credit Suisse and Citi were set to be the lead underwriters on the deal.
Tuesday, June 02, 2009
A shameless attempt to distort the truth
Posted with the permission of The Naples Record, originally published Wednesday June 3, 2009
I attended the public "informational" meeting held by Ecogen LLC in Prattsburgh on May 21, and was appalled, though not surprised, by their shameless attempts to distort the truth and hide embarrassing facts about their proposed Prattsburgh/Italy wind turbine project. Two examples relating to noise illustrate their tactics.
Because of the widespread complaints from neighbors of the Cohocton project, noise was a major concern voiced by members of the audience at the meeting. The company's acoustical consultant, Peter Guldberg, assured us that noise would not be a problem with the Ecogen project because the Siemens turbines they intend to install are "60 percent quieter" than the Clipper turbines used in Cohocton. He made a point of repeating that "fact" numerous times in his presentation. Unfortunately (for us), he was talking about apples when the real issue is oranges.
While "60 percent quieter" seems like a great improvement, because of the way human hearing responds to sound, it is essentially meaningless. When pressed further, Mr. Guldberg was forced to admit that the Clipper turbines have a guaranteed maximum noise level of 109 decibels while the Siemens turbines are guaranteed at 107 decibels. "Sixty per¬cent quieter" translates into 2 decibels! He also failed to mention the fact that, outside of a laboratory, a 3-decibel change in sound level is considered barely discernable. In other words, in spite of being "60 percent quieter", the Siemens turbines will seem just as loud as the Clipper turbines.
Another question was raised concerning a woman who lives 600 meters (2,000 feet) from a Siemens wind turbine who claimed that her house shakes so much that objects rat¬tle on her tables. Mr. Guldberg assured us that her problem could not possibly be due to the low-frequency noise coming from the turbine. At that distance, he claimed, the vibration from the wind turbine at a frequency of 31.5 hertz would be 100 times too small to shake a house. What he conveniently failed to mention was the effect of resonance at lower frequencies.
Resonance is the build-up of small vibrations into a very large response in the resonating object. It is a major principle behind the operation of musical instruments, including the human voice. The vibrating strings of a guitar, violin, or cello could not be heard more that a few feet away if it were not for the amplifying effect of the resonating body of the instrument. In the same way, a resonating house or windowpane can amplify the relatively small (even inaudible) low-frequency sounds coming from a wind turbine. The sound power spectrum of wind turbines increases dramatically with decreasing frequency, and at about 10 hertz, is strong enough to rattle windows and cause other annoying consequences, even at distances exceeding 700 meters. By limiting his answer to 31.5 hertz, Mr. Guldberg conveniently ignored these lower-frequency effects.
That woman's vibration problem is real, as are similar problems mentioned by numerous other neighbors of these projects, including residents of Cohocton. To add insult to injury, these people probably have no recourse because the sound levels measured at their properties are very likely within the limits set by local law. The standards used to measure those sound levels make no mention of low-frequency resonance effects. The low-frequency vibrations that cause these problems are also the ones that carry the farthest (elephants use low-frequency sound to communicate over distances as great as 10 miles). So even if you live in the valley a mile or more from the proposed project, don't be surprised if you are awakened at night by rattling windows even when you can't hear the turbines directly.
These are just two examples of the practices used by Ecogen representatives at that meeting. Even if not lying out¬right, they selectively presented some data and ignored others in an attempt to deceive the audience into accepting their pro¬posed project without understanding the true implications of its impact on our lives.
Michael Herzog, Shay Road, Naples
I attended the public "informational" meeting held by Ecogen LLC in Prattsburgh on May 21, and was appalled, though not surprised, by their shameless attempts to distort the truth and hide embarrassing facts about their proposed Prattsburgh/Italy wind turbine project. Two examples relating to noise illustrate their tactics.
Because of the widespread complaints from neighbors of the Cohocton project, noise was a major concern voiced by members of the audience at the meeting. The company's acoustical consultant, Peter Guldberg, assured us that noise would not be a problem with the Ecogen project because the Siemens turbines they intend to install are "60 percent quieter" than the Clipper turbines used in Cohocton. He made a point of repeating that "fact" numerous times in his presentation. Unfortunately (for us), he was talking about apples when the real issue is oranges.
While "60 percent quieter" seems like a great improvement, because of the way human hearing responds to sound, it is essentially meaningless. When pressed further, Mr. Guldberg was forced to admit that the Clipper turbines have a guaranteed maximum noise level of 109 decibels while the Siemens turbines are guaranteed at 107 decibels. "Sixty per¬cent quieter" translates into 2 decibels! He also failed to mention the fact that, outside of a laboratory, a 3-decibel change in sound level is considered barely discernable. In other words, in spite of being "60 percent quieter", the Siemens turbines will seem just as loud as the Clipper turbines.
Another question was raised concerning a woman who lives 600 meters (2,000 feet) from a Siemens wind turbine who claimed that her house shakes so much that objects rat¬tle on her tables. Mr. Guldberg assured us that her problem could not possibly be due to the low-frequency noise coming from the turbine. At that distance, he claimed, the vibration from the wind turbine at a frequency of 31.5 hertz would be 100 times too small to shake a house. What he conveniently failed to mention was the effect of resonance at lower frequencies.
Resonance is the build-up of small vibrations into a very large response in the resonating object. It is a major principle behind the operation of musical instruments, including the human voice. The vibrating strings of a guitar, violin, or cello could not be heard more that a few feet away if it were not for the amplifying effect of the resonating body of the instrument. In the same way, a resonating house or windowpane can amplify the relatively small (even inaudible) low-frequency sounds coming from a wind turbine. The sound power spectrum of wind turbines increases dramatically with decreasing frequency, and at about 10 hertz, is strong enough to rattle windows and cause other annoying consequences, even at distances exceeding 700 meters. By limiting his answer to 31.5 hertz, Mr. Guldberg conveniently ignored these lower-frequency effects.
That woman's vibration problem is real, as are similar problems mentioned by numerous other neighbors of these projects, including residents of Cohocton. To add insult to injury, these people probably have no recourse because the sound levels measured at their properties are very likely within the limits set by local law. The standards used to measure those sound levels make no mention of low-frequency resonance effects. The low-frequency vibrations that cause these problems are also the ones that carry the farthest (elephants use low-frequency sound to communicate over distances as great as 10 miles). So even if you live in the valley a mile or more from the proposed project, don't be surprised if you are awakened at night by rattling windows even when you can't hear the turbines directly.
These are just two examples of the practices used by Ecogen representatives at that meeting. Even if not lying out¬right, they selectively presented some data and ignored others in an attempt to deceive the audience into accepting their pro¬posed project without understanding the true implications of its impact on our lives.
Michael Herzog, Shay Road, Naples
Terminology used as a smoke screen
Posted with the permission of The Naples Record, originally published Wednesday June 3, 2009
I attended the informational session that EcoGen conducted on May 21st at the Prattsburgh School. Peter Guldberg, EcoGen's acoustical engineer, told us about the difference in sound levels of their proposed turbines from those in Cohocton.
I believe, since I have also studied each company's sound data, that the number (60 percent quieter) used is accurate. However, the terminology that the he used was nothing more than a smoke screen to make us believe that the turbines EcoGen will use are quieter than those in Cohocton.
After I questioned his methodology, Mr. Guldberg did admit (very quietly, I might add) th'at the real difference would be only 2db (EcoGen's at 106db versus Cochocton's at 108db). To you and I listening from our decks or our homes the small 2db difference in sound level would be indistinguishable. The long-term effects of certain sound pressure levels can be debilitating as evidenced in Cohocton.
Don't be fooled by their high tech terminology - the sound from the proposed turbines will be (as they are in Cohocton) dis-turbing 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.
Contact your town officials and let them know you want an independent sound study done. Don't wait until it's too late and you are living with the constant noise like people in Cohocton!
Al Wordingham, Cook School Rd., Prattsburgh
I attended the informational session that EcoGen conducted on May 21st at the Prattsburgh School. Peter Guldberg, EcoGen's acoustical engineer, told us about the difference in sound levels of their proposed turbines from those in Cohocton.
I believe, since I have also studied each company's sound data, that the number (60 percent quieter) used is accurate. However, the terminology that the he used was nothing more than a smoke screen to make us believe that the turbines EcoGen will use are quieter than those in Cohocton.
After I questioned his methodology, Mr. Guldberg did admit (very quietly, I might add) th'at the real difference would be only 2db (EcoGen's at 106db versus Cochocton's at 108db). To you and I listening from our decks or our homes the small 2db difference in sound level would be indistinguishable. The long-term effects of certain sound pressure levels can be debilitating as evidenced in Cohocton.
Don't be fooled by their high tech terminology - the sound from the proposed turbines will be (as they are in Cohocton) dis-turbing 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.
Contact your town officials and let them know you want an independent sound study done. Don't wait until it's too late and you are living with the constant noise like people in Cohocton!
Al Wordingham, Cook School Rd., Prattsburgh
Wind farm has impact on Orangeville residents
Orangeville is my home. We love Orangeville and bought property here because of the quiet rural countryside and abundance of wildlife and recreational opportunities. I am concerned about the negative environmental impacts on the beautiful scenic vistas, wildlife, and the clear-cutting of trees to put high-voltage transmission lines through to connect the turbines.
However, as important as that is to me, I am even more concerned about the potential negative health impacts on myself and my family and my animals. Also on our property values and loss of marketability of property because an industrial wind turbine facility is now being given precedence over the health, safety and welfare of the people. These high-voltage underground and overhead electric lines have no place being put in close proximity to our children, our farms and homes.
We, the people who love Orangeville do not choose to have our homes and recreational areas turned into an industrial zone for any amount of money! We do not choose to suffer from effects of high unbearable amounts of noise and turn our quiet countryside into an unsuitable place to raise our families as a result of now, introducing an industrial park that will intrude into our midst.
Reports from sound analysts place the ambient level of the countryside in places like Orangeville at approximately 25 to 35 decibels. According to the state Department of Environmental Conservation noise policy, human beings find an increase in sound pressure between 5 to 10 decibels to be " intrusive," between 10 to 15 to be "very noticeable," and over 20 decibels to be "very objectionable to intolerable." The DEC noise policy also indicates that sound pressure levels approaching 10 decibels result in a perceived doubling of loudness. Because of people's reactions to an increase in noise, the DEC recommends that in "non-industrial settings" (such as Orangeville's Residential-Agricultural zoning districts) new sources of noise should not be allowed to increase sound pressure by more than 6 decibels above the ambient or existing sound level. The wind company seems to think a noise level of 50 decibels is OK; increasing testimonials from residents of Cohocton, Sheldon, Eagle-Bliss and Tug Hill would seem to show otherwise.
In a critique of a wind energy regulations recently adopted by the Town of Holland, Erie County, New York, attorney Arthur J. Giacalone wrote a document March 28, in which he states in regards to human health impacts, that minimum setbacks of 1,000 feet from residences and 1.5 times the height of the towers from property lines such as in Holland wind laws are minimum setbacks that reflect a willingness to facilitate wind energy projects, not a desire to protect the well being of the residents. The town board in Holland either chose to ignore or did not know about the substantial and growing body of literature from the U.S. and international scientists concerning the potential health hazards associated with the operation of wind turbines near homes, schools and other sensitive receptors, For example:
1.) Dr. Nina Pierpont, a physician from Franklin County, has written extensively about "wind turbine syndrome" explaining the potential health effects associated with the audible and low- frequency noise created by wind turbines, include: chronic sleep problems, increased frequency and severity of headaches; dizziness, unsteadiness and nausea; exhaustion, anxiety, anger, irritability and depression problems with concentration and learning, and tinnitus.
In testimony before The NYS Assembly Energy Committee in 2006, Dr. Pierpont has chronicled a variety of symptoms that appear when wind farm operations start up, and continue until the patient is no longer living near a large-scale industrial wind turbine facility. Dr. Pierpont recommends a minimum of (6,600 feet) 1 mile between industrial-scale turbines and residences, schools etc.
2.) A group of scientists from Portugal, at a 2007 Wind Turbine Noise Conference in Lyon, France, ... expressed the conclusion that in-home infrasound and low-frequency noise generated by wind turbines can lead to severe health problems, specifically vibroacoustic disease involving a thickening and other damaging changes to specific tissues in the heart, lungs, and brain.
3.) A 2007 paper on "Noise Pollution from Wind Turbines" by Davis and Davis, British scientists and health experts, concludes that rural environments are characterized by low or virtually non- existent background noise, particularly at night, making the potential for annoyance and irritation from wind turbine noise particularly significant. ... They confirm findings in other scientific studies, that significant adverse health impacts result from chronic exposure to industrial wind facilities.
It is the duty of the Town Board of Orangeville to fully and objectively exercise due diligence in protecting the health, safety and welfare of the residents of Orangeville. A long, hard look should be taken at the impact of putting a full industrial-scale wind turbine project, complete with all its potential health hazards and negative environmental impacts in the midst, and surrounding our homes and recreational areas.
It would seem that no stone should be left unturned in comprehensively examining the likely adverse impacts of large-scale wind facilities.
Industrial-scale projects must be safely sited.
If the Town of Orangeville is serious about being concerned about the health, safety and welfare of the people, independent contractors (not hired by Invenergy) who are experienced in studying effects of noise on people living in large-scale industrial wind facilities need to be hired. A comprehensive study needs to be done before any consideration to this project is undertaken. What dollar amount do you place on the people of Orangeville's health, safety, welfare and quality of life?
Cathi Orr is a founder of Clear Skies Over Orangeville Rural Preservation Coalition.
However, as important as that is to me, I am even more concerned about the potential negative health impacts on myself and my family and my animals. Also on our property values and loss of marketability of property because an industrial wind turbine facility is now being given precedence over the health, safety and welfare of the people. These high-voltage underground and overhead electric lines have no place being put in close proximity to our children, our farms and homes.
We, the people who love Orangeville do not choose to have our homes and recreational areas turned into an industrial zone for any amount of money! We do not choose to suffer from effects of high unbearable amounts of noise and turn our quiet countryside into an unsuitable place to raise our families as a result of now, introducing an industrial park that will intrude into our midst.
Reports from sound analysts place the ambient level of the countryside in places like Orangeville at approximately 25 to 35 decibels. According to the state Department of Environmental Conservation noise policy, human beings find an increase in sound pressure between 5 to 10 decibels to be " intrusive," between 10 to 15 to be "very noticeable," and over 20 decibels to be "very objectionable to intolerable." The DEC noise policy also indicates that sound pressure levels approaching 10 decibels result in a perceived doubling of loudness. Because of people's reactions to an increase in noise, the DEC recommends that in "non-industrial settings" (such as Orangeville's Residential-Agricultural zoning districts) new sources of noise should not be allowed to increase sound pressure by more than 6 decibels above the ambient or existing sound level. The wind company seems to think a noise level of 50 decibels is OK; increasing testimonials from residents of Cohocton, Sheldon, Eagle-Bliss and Tug Hill would seem to show otherwise.
In a critique of a wind energy regulations recently adopted by the Town of Holland, Erie County, New York, attorney Arthur J. Giacalone wrote a document March 28, in which he states in regards to human health impacts, that minimum setbacks of 1,000 feet from residences and 1.5 times the height of the towers from property lines such as in Holland wind laws are minimum setbacks that reflect a willingness to facilitate wind energy projects, not a desire to protect the well being of the residents. The town board in Holland either chose to ignore or did not know about the substantial and growing body of literature from the U.S. and international scientists concerning the potential health hazards associated with the operation of wind turbines near homes, schools and other sensitive receptors, For example:
1.) Dr. Nina Pierpont, a physician from Franklin County, has written extensively about "wind turbine syndrome" explaining the potential health effects associated with the audible and low- frequency noise created by wind turbines, include: chronic sleep problems, increased frequency and severity of headaches; dizziness, unsteadiness and nausea; exhaustion, anxiety, anger, irritability and depression problems with concentration and learning, and tinnitus.
In testimony before The NYS Assembly Energy Committee in 2006, Dr. Pierpont has chronicled a variety of symptoms that appear when wind farm operations start up, and continue until the patient is no longer living near a large-scale industrial wind turbine facility. Dr. Pierpont recommends a minimum of (6,600 feet) 1 mile between industrial-scale turbines and residences, schools etc.
2.) A group of scientists from Portugal, at a 2007 Wind Turbine Noise Conference in Lyon, France, ... expressed the conclusion that in-home infrasound and low-frequency noise generated by wind turbines can lead to severe health problems, specifically vibroacoustic disease involving a thickening and other damaging changes to specific tissues in the heart, lungs, and brain.
3.) A 2007 paper on "Noise Pollution from Wind Turbines" by Davis and Davis, British scientists and health experts, concludes that rural environments are characterized by low or virtually non- existent background noise, particularly at night, making the potential for annoyance and irritation from wind turbine noise particularly significant. ... They confirm findings in other scientific studies, that significant adverse health impacts result from chronic exposure to industrial wind facilities.
It is the duty of the Town Board of Orangeville to fully and objectively exercise due diligence in protecting the health, safety and welfare of the residents of Orangeville. A long, hard look should be taken at the impact of putting a full industrial-scale wind turbine project, complete with all its potential health hazards and negative environmental impacts in the midst, and surrounding our homes and recreational areas.
It would seem that no stone should be left unturned in comprehensively examining the likely adverse impacts of large-scale wind facilities.
Industrial-scale projects must be safely sited.
If the Town of Orangeville is serious about being concerned about the health, safety and welfare of the people, independent contractors (not hired by Invenergy) who are experienced in studying effects of noise on people living in large-scale industrial wind facilities need to be hired. A comprehensive study needs to be done before any consideration to this project is undertaken. What dollar amount do you place on the people of Orangeville's health, safety, welfare and quality of life?
Cathi Orr is a founder of Clear Skies Over Orangeville Rural Preservation Coalition.
Monday, June 01, 2009
Cape Vincent officials ignoring certain laws
Warning: the following letter contains a link to a video that may be disturbing to many who have laid their faith and trust in the local officials of Cape Vincent.
I could not believe my eyes when I went to a Cape Vincent Town Board meeting last month. The members seem to think state Attorney General Andrew Cuomo's guidelines, and New York state town laws are "a waste of time." They feel they are good for other communities but not Cape Vincent. I began to wonder what other laws don't apply to them. It should concern all residents that their elected officials only comply with the laws they feel are not a waste of their time, even if they come from the highest legal authority in New York, Attorney General Cuomo.
View the video at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BZfJ-bCmP3s.
John Byrne
Cape Vincent
I could not believe my eyes when I went to a Cape Vincent Town Board meeting last month. The members seem to think state Attorney General Andrew Cuomo's guidelines, and New York state town laws are "a waste of time." They feel they are good for other communities but not Cape Vincent. I began to wonder what other laws don't apply to them. It should concern all residents that their elected officials only comply with the laws they feel are not a waste of their time, even if they come from the highest legal authority in New York, Attorney General Cuomo.
View the video at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BZfJ-bCmP3s.
John Byrne
Cape Vincent
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)