ROME (Reuters) – Italy Tuesday seized Mafia-linked assets worth $1.9 billion -- the biggest mob haul ever -- in an operation revealing that the crime group was trying to "go green" by laundering money through alternative energy companies.
Investigators said the assets included more than 40 companies, hundreds of parcels of land, buildings, factories, bank accounts, stocks, fast cars and luxury yachts.
Most of the seized assets were located in Sicily, home of the Cosa Nostra, and in southern Calabria, home of its sister crime organization, the 'Ndrangheta.
At the center of the investigation was Sicilian businessman Vito Nicastri, 54, a man known as the "Lord of the Wind" because of his vast holdings in alternative energy concerns, mostly wind farms.
Interior Minister Roberto Maroni called the operation "the largest seizure ever made" against the Mafia.
General Antonio Girone, head of the national anti-Mafia agency DIA, said Nicastri was linked to Matteo Messina Denaro, believed to be Mafia's current "boss of bosses."
Investigators said Nicastri's companies ran numerous wind farms as well as factories that produced solar energy panels.
"It's no surprise that the Sicilian Mafia was infiltrating profitable areas like wind and solar energy," Palermo magistrate Francesco Messineo told a news conference.
Officials said the operation was based on a 2,400-page investigative report and followed the arrest of Nicastri last year.
Senator Costantino Garraffa, a member of the parliamentary anti-Mafia committee, said the Mafia was trying to break into the "new economy," of alternative energy as it sought out virgin ventures to launder money from drugs and other rackets.
In the past few years, Italian authorities have cracked down hard on the crime group that once terrified the country.
The cupola, or hierarchy, of the Sicilian Mafia has been in freefall since the mid-1990s, when police began arresting its most enigmatic and charismatic bosses.
Salvatore "The Beast" Riina, who had declared war on the state and ordered a string of killings, bombings and kidnappings, was arrested in 1993 after nearly a quarter of a century on the run.
His successor, Bernardo Provenzano, was captured in 2006 after 43 years on the run. Both Riina and Provenzano hailed from Corleone, the hill town near Palermo made famous by the Godfather movies.
Provenzano was succeeded by Salvatore "The Baron" Lo Piccolo, who was in turn arrested a year later in 2007.
Police say the circle is now closing in on Messina Denaro, who hails from the grim western Sicilian town of Castelvetrano and is known as the "Playboy Boss" because he likes fast cars, women and gold watches. He has been on the run since 1993.
Tuesday, September 14, 2010
BIGGEST-EVER MAFIA SEIZURE FROM MAN 'CLOSE TO NO.1'
(ANSA) - Trapani, September 14 - Italian anti-Mafia police on Tuesday seized assets worth some 1.5 billion euros ($1.92 billion) from a Sicilian businessman believed to have ties witht Cosa Nostra boss of bosses Matteo Messina Denaro.
Interior Minister Roberto Maroni hailed what he called "the biggest ever" seizure of Mafia assets.
"Today the largest-ever Mafia seizure operation was made from an entrepreneur in the Trapani area believed close to Messina Denaro," Maroni told a morning TV talk show.
Vito Nicastri, 54, an alternative-energy entrepreneur with several wind farms in Sicily, is said to be one of the last remaining fundraisers for Messina Denaro, around whom police are waging a "scorched-earth" policy.
Investigators said that, as well as having links with Messina Denaro's Cosa Nostra, businessman Vito Nicastri also worked with 'Ndrangheta, Italy's richest mafia, across the Messina Straits in Calabria.
More than 40 companies were sequestered, some of them with stakes abroad, predominantly in the windfarm and solar-panel sector, as well as hundreds of acres of land around Trapani, Palermo and Reggio Calabria; plus about one hundred pieces of real estate, luxury villas and warehouses; deluxe cars and a 14-meter catamaran; and 60 bank accounts, insurance policies and bonds.
Messina Danaro, 48, became supreme boss when Bernardo Provenzano, 77, was arrested in 2006 after 43 years on the run.
Several top bosses were caught in the wake of his arrest, leaving Messina Danaro increasingly isolated, police say.
Anti-Mafia prosecutors believe they are closing in on the young boss of bosses.
In July police said they had been able to reconstruct his DNA in a further step towards arresting him.
The genetic profile of the so-called 'Godfather of Trapani' was identified through tests on biological evidence, including hair, obtained from Messina Denaro's brothers without their knowing.
Identifying the DNA of the Cosa Nostra No.1 is considered a major breakthrough because he has never been arrested.
Copies of his fingerprints taken when he was drafted for military service have long since been destroyed.
Messina Denaro, who has been on the run since 1993, built up his power base in his native Trapani, in western Sicily, before beating Palermo chieftains to become Mob kingpin after Provenzano was caught in April 2006.
His position at the top of Cosa Nostra was assured with the November 2007 arrest of Palermo boss Salvatore Lo Piccolo, a veteran mafia chieftain who had appeared to be vying with the younger mobster for control of the crime syndicate and had the apparent support of the 'old guard'.
Messina Denaro is currently believed to be expanding his criminal empire abroad and police have found evidence of trips to Austria, Greece, Spain and Tunisia.
Nicknamed 'Diabolik' after a cult Italian comic strip criminal, Messina Denaro sealed a reputation for brutality by murdering a rival Trapani boss and strangling his three-months pregnant girlfriend.
He is reportedly idolised by Cosa Nostra younger troops because of his ruthlessness and playboy-like charisma.
For almost two years year police have been following a new strategy to try and flush Messina Denaro out, arresting scores of his underlings and seizing million of euros in assets.
"The circle is closing around the No.1 fugitive," Interior Minister Roberto Maroni said earlier this year.
Palermo Chief Prosecutor Francesco Messineo added at the time that their aim of their strategy against Messina Denaro was to "dry up the water he swims in". photo: new identikit of Messina Danaro
Interior Minister Roberto Maroni hailed what he called "the biggest ever" seizure of Mafia assets.
"Today the largest-ever Mafia seizure operation was made from an entrepreneur in the Trapani area believed close to Messina Denaro," Maroni told a morning TV talk show.
Vito Nicastri, 54, an alternative-energy entrepreneur with several wind farms in Sicily, is said to be one of the last remaining fundraisers for Messina Denaro, around whom police are waging a "scorched-earth" policy.
Investigators said that, as well as having links with Messina Denaro's Cosa Nostra, businessman Vito Nicastri also worked with 'Ndrangheta, Italy's richest mafia, across the Messina Straits in Calabria.
More than 40 companies were sequestered, some of them with stakes abroad, predominantly in the windfarm and solar-panel sector, as well as hundreds of acres of land around Trapani, Palermo and Reggio Calabria; plus about one hundred pieces of real estate, luxury villas and warehouses; deluxe cars and a 14-meter catamaran; and 60 bank accounts, insurance policies and bonds.
Messina Danaro, 48, became supreme boss when Bernardo Provenzano, 77, was arrested in 2006 after 43 years on the run.
Several top bosses were caught in the wake of his arrest, leaving Messina Danaro increasingly isolated, police say.
Anti-Mafia prosecutors believe they are closing in on the young boss of bosses.
In July police said they had been able to reconstruct his DNA in a further step towards arresting him.
The genetic profile of the so-called 'Godfather of Trapani' was identified through tests on biological evidence, including hair, obtained from Messina Denaro's brothers without their knowing.
Identifying the DNA of the Cosa Nostra No.1 is considered a major breakthrough because he has never been arrested.
Copies of his fingerprints taken when he was drafted for military service have long since been destroyed.
Messina Denaro, who has been on the run since 1993, built up his power base in his native Trapani, in western Sicily, before beating Palermo chieftains to become Mob kingpin after Provenzano was caught in April 2006.
His position at the top of Cosa Nostra was assured with the November 2007 arrest of Palermo boss Salvatore Lo Piccolo, a veteran mafia chieftain who had appeared to be vying with the younger mobster for control of the crime syndicate and had the apparent support of the 'old guard'.
Messina Denaro is currently believed to be expanding his criminal empire abroad and police have found evidence of trips to Austria, Greece, Spain and Tunisia.
Nicknamed 'Diabolik' after a cult Italian comic strip criminal, Messina Denaro sealed a reputation for brutality by murdering a rival Trapani boss and strangling his three-months pregnant girlfriend.
He is reportedly idolised by Cosa Nostra younger troops because of his ruthlessness and playboy-like charisma.
For almost two years year police have been following a new strategy to try and flush Messina Denaro out, arresting scores of his underlings and seizing million of euros in assets.
"The circle is closing around the No.1 fugitive," Interior Minister Roberto Maroni said earlier this year.
Palermo Chief Prosecutor Francesco Messineo added at the time that their aim of their strategy against Messina Denaro was to "dry up the water he swims in". photo: new identikit of Messina Danaro
Offshore wind-farm developer Deepwater Wind moves headquarters to Providence
PROVIDENCE — Deepwater Wind, the developer planning two wind farms off the Rhode Island coast, has moved its corporate headquarters here from New Jersey.
The company announced Monday that it is now based out of what was a satellite office at 56 Exchange Terrace in downtown Providence. The office, which opened in April 2009 with only one full-time employee, has been expanded to accommodate staff from Hoboken, N.J., and several new hires, including, most recently, a lawyer who once served as chief of staff to Governor Carcieri.
Jeffrey Grybowski, who was chief of staff to Carcieri from 2003 to 2007, has been named Deepwater’s chief administrative officer and senior vice president for strategy and external affairs, according to the announcement. After leaving state government, Grybowski became a partner at the law firm Hinckley, Allen & Snyder, where, starting in May 2008, Deepwater was one of his clients.
Grybowski was a frequent presence at the State House over the past two years, advocating on Deepwater’s behalf. In his new job, he will coordinate Deepwater’s development efforts in the Northeast and will lead the company’s public-policy strategies.
Grybowski will work in the Providence office as part of the current nine-member team that includes CEO William M. Moore, who helped develop land-based wind farms in upstate New York; chief development officer Paul Rich, who has been based in Providence since the office opened; Chris van Beek, managing director and chief of technology, projects and operations; and Aileen Kenney, director of permitting. The company also has a one-person office on Block Island.
“The talent we have added to our development team enhances our ability to build the nation’s first offshore wind farms serving our core markets, including Rhode Island, Massachusetts, New York and New Jersey,” Moore said in a statement. “The establishment of our corporate headquarters in Providence also furthers our commitment to establishing an East Coast wind-energy hub.”
Governor Carcieri applauded the move, referring to Deepwater’s plan to create an assembly facility, which would eventually employ up to 800 people, at Quonset Point in North Kingstown.
“This is much more than an energy project,” Carcieri said in a statement. “This is about creating a new industry in Rhode Island, an industry that puts Rhode Island at the epicenter of the emerging alternative-energy market. Deepwater Wind will help bring new economic activity, jobs and opportunity to Rhode Island. From construction through operation, Deepwater Wind projects will provide high-quality green-collar jobs.”
The move comes as Deepwater steps up efforts to build an eight-turbine wind farm in state waters off Block Island that would serve as a test project before the company’s 100-turbine proposal in federal waters farther off the Rhode Island coast.
The Block Island project, which aims to be the first offshore wind farm in the U.S., cleared a major hurdle last month when the state Public Utilities Commission approved a long-term agreement for the sale of the power it would generate to National Grid, Rhode Island’s main utility.
The approval, however, came in controversial fashion. The General Assembly approved a law designed for Deepwater’s benefit after the PUC rejected its first power-purchase agreement with National Grid.
Attorney General Patrick C. Lynch, the Conservation Law Foundation and two manufacturing companies have appealed the PUC approval to the state Supreme Court. The PUC submitted the written record of its case to the court on Monday, a move that will allow a docket to be opened and a schedule of proceedings to be set. But a ruling from the court is not expected for months.
Despite the appeals, Deepwater is moving ahead with the Block Island wind farm. It must order components this calendar year to qualify for federal investment tax credits that are equal to 30 percent of the $200-million project cost. To qualify, the company must pay 5 percent of the total cost by Dec. 31.
Founded in 2005, Deepwater is backed by D.E. Shaw & Co., which had provided $21 billion in investments and committed capital as of July 1. D.E. Shaw is also a major investor in First Wind, a Boston company developing land-based wind farms in Hawaii, Maine, New York and elsewhere.
Deepwater will maintain its office in New Jersey, where the company is planning an offshore wind farm in federal waters through Garden State Offshore Energy, a partnership with energy company PSEG. The company has permission to install a weather-monitoring tower in the ocean in preparation for that project. Deepwater is also working on plans for a development in New York.
“We remain committed to our presence in New York and New Jersey, and are excited about the progress our projects there are showing,” Moore said.
The company announced Monday that it is now based out of what was a satellite office at 56 Exchange Terrace in downtown Providence. The office, which opened in April 2009 with only one full-time employee, has been expanded to accommodate staff from Hoboken, N.J., and several new hires, including, most recently, a lawyer who once served as chief of staff to Governor Carcieri.
Jeffrey Grybowski, who was chief of staff to Carcieri from 2003 to 2007, has been named Deepwater’s chief administrative officer and senior vice president for strategy and external affairs, according to the announcement. After leaving state government, Grybowski became a partner at the law firm Hinckley, Allen & Snyder, where, starting in May 2008, Deepwater was one of his clients.
Grybowski was a frequent presence at the State House over the past two years, advocating on Deepwater’s behalf. In his new job, he will coordinate Deepwater’s development efforts in the Northeast and will lead the company’s public-policy strategies.
Grybowski will work in the Providence office as part of the current nine-member team that includes CEO William M. Moore, who helped develop land-based wind farms in upstate New York; chief development officer Paul Rich, who has been based in Providence since the office opened; Chris van Beek, managing director and chief of technology, projects and operations; and Aileen Kenney, director of permitting. The company also has a one-person office on Block Island.
“The talent we have added to our development team enhances our ability to build the nation’s first offshore wind farms serving our core markets, including Rhode Island, Massachusetts, New York and New Jersey,” Moore said in a statement. “The establishment of our corporate headquarters in Providence also furthers our commitment to establishing an East Coast wind-energy hub.”
Governor Carcieri applauded the move, referring to Deepwater’s plan to create an assembly facility, which would eventually employ up to 800 people, at Quonset Point in North Kingstown.
“This is much more than an energy project,” Carcieri said in a statement. “This is about creating a new industry in Rhode Island, an industry that puts Rhode Island at the epicenter of the emerging alternative-energy market. Deepwater Wind will help bring new economic activity, jobs and opportunity to Rhode Island. From construction through operation, Deepwater Wind projects will provide high-quality green-collar jobs.”
The move comes as Deepwater steps up efforts to build an eight-turbine wind farm in state waters off Block Island that would serve as a test project before the company’s 100-turbine proposal in federal waters farther off the Rhode Island coast.
The Block Island project, which aims to be the first offshore wind farm in the U.S., cleared a major hurdle last month when the state Public Utilities Commission approved a long-term agreement for the sale of the power it would generate to National Grid, Rhode Island’s main utility.
The approval, however, came in controversial fashion. The General Assembly approved a law designed for Deepwater’s benefit after the PUC rejected its first power-purchase agreement with National Grid.
Attorney General Patrick C. Lynch, the Conservation Law Foundation and two manufacturing companies have appealed the PUC approval to the state Supreme Court. The PUC submitted the written record of its case to the court on Monday, a move that will allow a docket to be opened and a schedule of proceedings to be set. But a ruling from the court is not expected for months.
Despite the appeals, Deepwater is moving ahead with the Block Island wind farm. It must order components this calendar year to qualify for federal investment tax credits that are equal to 30 percent of the $200-million project cost. To qualify, the company must pay 5 percent of the total cost by Dec. 31.
Founded in 2005, Deepwater is backed by D.E. Shaw & Co., which had provided $21 billion in investments and committed capital as of July 1. D.E. Shaw is also a major investor in First Wind, a Boston company developing land-based wind farms in Hawaii, Maine, New York and elsewhere.
Deepwater will maintain its office in New Jersey, where the company is planning an offshore wind farm in federal waters through Garden State Offshore Energy, a partnership with energy company PSEG. The company has permission to install a weather-monitoring tower in the ocean in preparation for that project. Deepwater is also working on plans for a development in New York.
“We remain committed to our presence in New York and New Jersey, and are excited about the progress our projects there are showing,” Moore said.
Monday, September 13, 2010
Vinalhaven wind turbine noise exceeds limit
VINALHAVEN, Maine — The three wind turbines that were designed to lower and stabilize the unpredictable electric bills of Vinalhaven and North Haven islands also have brought some sleepless nights to those who live closest to their giant blades and the noises they make.
The controversy over the noise levels between Fox Islands Wind officials and some islanders began soon after the turbines went on line last fall, but last week, the Maine Department of Environmental Protection received a letter from its wind turbine noise consultant that seems to back up the project’s unhappy neighbors.
“There exists a significant body of consistent meteorological and sound data indicating sound levels greater than applicable limits,” Warren L. Brown, who also serves as the University of Maine’s radiation safety officer, wrote Wednesday in a detailed letter. “Substantial changes are recommended for FIW nighttime operations.”
Brown reached his conclusions after reviewing a noise complaint submitted by Fox Islands Wind Neighbors, a loose association of those who are negatively affected by the turbines, and also after reviewing sound and other data from the Fox Islands Wind project.
For Cheryl Lindgren, who lives less than half a mile from the turbines, Brown’s words came as welcome news, though the department has yet to make a decision based on them.
“It’s gratifying, it’s hopeful. It’s also been a lot of work having to do all this to get people to acknowledge that we have a problem,” she said Sunday in a telephone interview. “We’re hoping we can work together now to get some kind of compromise — that we can get some dialogue going, and that they will respond to the needs of the people who are suffering with this.”
But George Baker, the CEO of the Fox Island Wind electric company and vice president for wind at the Island Institute, said Brown’s findings might not be conclusive.
“He’s looked at a bunch of data that our sound consultant has put together. Our sound consultant analyzed exactly the same data and found us to be in compliance,” Baker said Sunday in a telephone interview. “There’s something going on here, and we don’t know exactly what it is, between the experts, and how they are analyzing and interpreting exactly the same data.”
According to Baker, the differences might stem from the way the experts treat ambient sound from various sources, especially the wind in the trees. State sound regulations “have a hard time” dealing with wind turbines, he said.
“If we were an industrial facility, you would turn on the facility on a still, calm day [and measure its noises],” he said. “Unfortunately, our little community wind farm doesn’t operate on still, calm days. It operates on windy days. ... When the wind is blowing in the woods, it makes a lot of sound.”
Lindgren, however, says this argument is full of hot air.
“[Baker] keeps talking about the ambient sound. It’s a little disheartening,” she said. “Anybody with a set of ears can come sit on my porch. You can clearly tell the difference between wind in the trees and the sound of the turbines. They don’t cancel each other out.”
Baker said the turbines are turned down by 2 decibels at night in order to meet the state sound requirements.
“If, when experts get through sorting out this question of compliance, and it’s determined that we are out of compliance, we’ll just turn them down a little more at night,” he said. “We’re absolutely committed to compliance.”
But that solution might not sit well with some islanders, he suggested, who have benefited from a 15 to 20 percent reduction in their electricity costs since the turbines starting moving.
A survey completed a month ago by Fox Islands Electric Coop members showed that the majority of respondents were in favor of slowing down the turbines in order to reduce sound no more than state regulations require.
“The project remains very, very widely supported on the islands,” he said.
Lindgren, however, pointed out that electricity costs dipped nationwide last fall, not just on Vinalhaven and North Haven islands. And, after nearly a year of being woken up by the noisy turbines, she’s both frustrated and disappointed.
“We believed in ‘green energy’ as being all good. That’s not always true,” she said. “When corporations get involved, it’s not always from the heart. ... I think the whole population could turn off a couple of light bulbs and we’d be in the same place.”
The controversy over the noise levels between Fox Islands Wind officials and some islanders began soon after the turbines went on line last fall, but last week, the Maine Department of Environmental Protection received a letter from its wind turbine noise consultant that seems to back up the project’s unhappy neighbors.
“There exists a significant body of consistent meteorological and sound data indicating sound levels greater than applicable limits,” Warren L. Brown, who also serves as the University of Maine’s radiation safety officer, wrote Wednesday in a detailed letter. “Substantial changes are recommended for FIW nighttime operations.”
Brown reached his conclusions after reviewing a noise complaint submitted by Fox Islands Wind Neighbors, a loose association of those who are negatively affected by the turbines, and also after reviewing sound and other data from the Fox Islands Wind project.
For Cheryl Lindgren, who lives less than half a mile from the turbines, Brown’s words came as welcome news, though the department has yet to make a decision based on them.
“It’s gratifying, it’s hopeful. It’s also been a lot of work having to do all this to get people to acknowledge that we have a problem,” she said Sunday in a telephone interview. “We’re hoping we can work together now to get some kind of compromise — that we can get some dialogue going, and that they will respond to the needs of the people who are suffering with this.”
But George Baker, the CEO of the Fox Island Wind electric company and vice president for wind at the Island Institute, said Brown’s findings might not be conclusive.
“He’s looked at a bunch of data that our sound consultant has put together. Our sound consultant analyzed exactly the same data and found us to be in compliance,” Baker said Sunday in a telephone interview. “There’s something going on here, and we don’t know exactly what it is, between the experts, and how they are analyzing and interpreting exactly the same data.”
According to Baker, the differences might stem from the way the experts treat ambient sound from various sources, especially the wind in the trees. State sound regulations “have a hard time” dealing with wind turbines, he said.
“If we were an industrial facility, you would turn on the facility on a still, calm day [and measure its noises],” he said. “Unfortunately, our little community wind farm doesn’t operate on still, calm days. It operates on windy days. ... When the wind is blowing in the woods, it makes a lot of sound.”
Lindgren, however, says this argument is full of hot air.
“[Baker] keeps talking about the ambient sound. It’s a little disheartening,” she said. “Anybody with a set of ears can come sit on my porch. You can clearly tell the difference between wind in the trees and the sound of the turbines. They don’t cancel each other out.”
Baker said the turbines are turned down by 2 decibels at night in order to meet the state sound requirements.
“If, when experts get through sorting out this question of compliance, and it’s determined that we are out of compliance, we’ll just turn them down a little more at night,” he said. “We’re absolutely committed to compliance.”
But that solution might not sit well with some islanders, he suggested, who have benefited from a 15 to 20 percent reduction in their electricity costs since the turbines starting moving.
A survey completed a month ago by Fox Islands Electric Coop members showed that the majority of respondents were in favor of slowing down the turbines in order to reduce sound no more than state regulations require.
“The project remains very, very widely supported on the islands,” he said.
Lindgren, however, pointed out that electricity costs dipped nationwide last fall, not just on Vinalhaven and North Haven islands. And, after nearly a year of being woken up by the noisy turbines, she’s both frustrated and disappointed.
“We believed in ‘green energy’ as being all good. That’s not always true,” she said. “When corporations get involved, it’s not always from the heart. ... I think the whole population could turn off a couple of light bulbs and we’d be in the same place.”
Sunday, September 12, 2010
Ruling nears in windfarm disputes
Prattsburgh, NY — A decision on two separate wind farm lawsuits in the area could be made within weeks.
Prattsburgh and Italy town officials said Thursday they will meet with their attorneys to answer a series of questions posed by state Supreme Court Justice John Ark.
Some of Ark’s questions also appear directed at wind developer Ecogen, LLC which filed separate lawsuits against the two towns, town officials said.
The questions are supposed to be answered before Ark meets Sept. 27 with attorneys from all sides.
“We’ve been waiting all these months, and now we get this crunch date,” Prattsburgh Town Supervisor Al Wordingham said. “To tell you the truth I’m not sure what to think.”
At issue is Ecogen’s claim it has a right to proceed immediately with its plans to build 16 turbines in Prattsburgh and 17 turbines in Italy, in neighboring Yates County.
Although Ecogen has claimed in the past the two projects are not the same project, it has conceded Italy is the lynchpin for both.
Until recently, Italy also has been the bigger problem for Ecogen, with many townspeople questioning the project since it was first proposed in 2002.
After a number of moratoriums and a successfully defended lawsuit, last October the Italy board denied Ecogen the applications it needed to set up the 415-foot tall turbines. The developer promptly filed a lawsuit against the town, charging there was no basis for the denials.
Ecogen fared better in Prattsburgh with a friendly town board, at first, despite strong opposition. But in February 2009, reports of intolerable noise at an operating wind farm in nearby Cohocton concerned the entire board and energized the project’s opponents.
When two pro-wind council members were defeated in their re-election bids, Ecogen threatened to sue the town if agreements were not reached. The lame-duck board quickly passed the agreements with Ecogen by 3-2 votes in December.
However, the new board rescinded the December agreements, 4-1, and Ecogen filed a lawsuit against Prattsburgh.
Wordingham said many of the questions Ark now has seem to be repeats of points the parties have made in the past.
The list makes sense to Italy Town Supervisor Brad Jones.
“I think he’s trying to get the parties to simplify the issues,” Jones said. “All the legal language and hundreds of pages, it’s been so convoluted for so long. I think he wants us to define the issues we’re arguing.”
After years of contention, and surprises, neither supervisor wants to guess what Ark’s decision will finally be.
“We’ll just have to answer the man’s questions and see what happens,” Wordingham said.
Prattsburgh and Italy town officials said Thursday they will meet with their attorneys to answer a series of questions posed by state Supreme Court Justice John Ark.
Some of Ark’s questions also appear directed at wind developer Ecogen, LLC which filed separate lawsuits against the two towns, town officials said.
The questions are supposed to be answered before Ark meets Sept. 27 with attorneys from all sides.
“We’ve been waiting all these months, and now we get this crunch date,” Prattsburgh Town Supervisor Al Wordingham said. “To tell you the truth I’m not sure what to think.”
At issue is Ecogen’s claim it has a right to proceed immediately with its plans to build 16 turbines in Prattsburgh and 17 turbines in Italy, in neighboring Yates County.
Although Ecogen has claimed in the past the two projects are not the same project, it has conceded Italy is the lynchpin for both.
Until recently, Italy also has been the bigger problem for Ecogen, with many townspeople questioning the project since it was first proposed in 2002.
After a number of moratoriums and a successfully defended lawsuit, last October the Italy board denied Ecogen the applications it needed to set up the 415-foot tall turbines. The developer promptly filed a lawsuit against the town, charging there was no basis for the denials.
Ecogen fared better in Prattsburgh with a friendly town board, at first, despite strong opposition. But in February 2009, reports of intolerable noise at an operating wind farm in nearby Cohocton concerned the entire board and energized the project’s opponents.
When two pro-wind council members were defeated in their re-election bids, Ecogen threatened to sue the town if agreements were not reached. The lame-duck board quickly passed the agreements with Ecogen by 3-2 votes in December.
However, the new board rescinded the December agreements, 4-1, and Ecogen filed a lawsuit against Prattsburgh.
Wordingham said many of the questions Ark now has seem to be repeats of points the parties have made in the past.
The list makes sense to Italy Town Supervisor Brad Jones.
“I think he’s trying to get the parties to simplify the issues,” Jones said. “All the legal language and hundreds of pages, it’s been so convoluted for so long. I think he wants us to define the issues we’re arguing.”
After years of contention, and surprises, neither supervisor wants to guess what Ark’s decision will finally be.
“We’ll just have to answer the man’s questions and see what happens,” Wordingham said.
Saturday, September 11, 2010
Wind turbine noise, an independent assessment
Stephen Ambrose and Robert Rand are members of the Institute of Noise Control Engineering. In 2009, they became concerned about the negative comments from residents living near wind turbine sites and, the apparent lack of regulatory action to address the potential for adverse health impacts from wind turbine generator noise in Mars Hill. They launched their own evaluation, and came to the following conclusions in a series of guest columns.
Wind turbines larger than one megawatt of rated power have become an unexpected surprise for many nearby residents by being much louder than expected. The sounds produced by blades, gearing, and generator are significantly louder and more noticeable as wind turbine size increases. Long blades create a distinctive aerodynamic sound as air shears off the trailing edge and tip. The sound character varies from a “whoosh” at low wind speeds to "a jet plane that never lands" at moderate and higher wind speeds. Blade-induced air vortices spinning off the tip may produce an audible “thump” as each blade sweeps past the mast. Thumping can become more pronounced at distance, described as "sneakers in a dryer," when sounds from multiple turbines arrive at a listener's position simultaneously.
Wind turbines are not synchronized and so thumps may arrive together or separately, creating an unpredictable or chaotic acoustic pattern. The sounds of large industrial wind turbines have been documented as clearly audible for miles. They are intrusive sounds that are uncharacteristic of a natural soundscape.
Studies have shown that people respond to changes in sound level and sound character in a predictable manner. A noticeable change in sound level of 5 decibels (dB) may result in “no response” to “sporadic complaints." An increase of 10 dB may yield “widespread complaints,”; a 15 dB increase “threats of legal action."
The strongest negative community response occurs with an increase of 20 dB or more, resulting in “vigorous objections." Audible tones, variability in sound level, and an unnatural sound character can amplify the public response. For a distinctive or unpleasant sound, a small change in sound level, or the sound simply being audible, may provoke a strong community response. Community response can intensify further if sleep is disturbed and quality of life or property is degraded.
Weather conditions influence the sound level generated and how it travels to nearby homes. Sound waves expand outward from the wind turbine with the higher frequencies attenuating at a faster rate than low frequencies. Locations beyond a few thousand feet may be dominated by low frequency sounds generated by the wind turbines. Wind turbulence and icing, both common in New England due to topography and latitude, increase aerodynamic noise from intensified or chaotic dynamic stall conditions along the blade surfaces. Atmospheric conditions at night and downwind enhance sound propagation toward the ground by increasing levels over longer distances. Wind turbines are elevated hundreds of feet to receive stronger winds yet winds down on the ground or in nearby valleys may be non-existent with correspondingly low background sound levels, accentuating the impact of the intrusive sounds.
Other professionals have developed thresholds, or criteria, for sound level to protect public health that may be applied to planning for wind turbine permitting. Recommendations from Hayes McKenzie Partnership in 2006 limited maximum wind turbine sound levels at residences to 38 dBA and no more than 33 dBA when “beating noises" are audible when the turbines spin.
Dan Driscoll presented his analysis in 2009 (Environmental Stakeholder Roundtable on Wind Power, June 16, 2009) with a Composite Noise Rating analysis of 33 dBA to reduce rural community response to the level of "sporadic complaints."
Michael Nissenbaum issued his findings in 2010 from his medical study at Mars Hill, recommending a 7000-foot setback for public health. The World Health Organization published sound level thresholds of sleep disturbance and adverse health effects from peer-reviewed medical studies (Night Noise Guidelines for Europe, October 2009).
Our next column will compare our sound level versus distance data with these medical, health, and community response criteria and show what distances are necessary to protect public health.
Currently there is no effective, reliable noise mitigation for wind turbines of this size other than shutdown. Therefore, at this time it appears appropriate that proposed wind turbine sites should position wind turbines at least one mile away from residential properties and further for sites with more than one wind turbine. Smaller wind turbines (under one megawatt power rating) produce less noise than those currently being marketed and installed for grid power in Maine; these may be an option when distance is an issue.
Wind turbines larger than one megawatt of rated power have become an unexpected surprise for many nearby residents by being much louder than expected. The sounds produced by blades, gearing, and generator are significantly louder and more noticeable as wind turbine size increases. Long blades create a distinctive aerodynamic sound as air shears off the trailing edge and tip. The sound character varies from a “whoosh” at low wind speeds to "a jet plane that never lands" at moderate and higher wind speeds. Blade-induced air vortices spinning off the tip may produce an audible “thump” as each blade sweeps past the mast. Thumping can become more pronounced at distance, described as "sneakers in a dryer," when sounds from multiple turbines arrive at a listener's position simultaneously.
Wind turbines are not synchronized and so thumps may arrive together or separately, creating an unpredictable or chaotic acoustic pattern. The sounds of large industrial wind turbines have been documented as clearly audible for miles. They are intrusive sounds that are uncharacteristic of a natural soundscape.
Studies have shown that people respond to changes in sound level and sound character in a predictable manner. A noticeable change in sound level of 5 decibels (dB) may result in “no response” to “sporadic complaints." An increase of 10 dB may yield “widespread complaints,”; a 15 dB increase “threats of legal action."
The strongest negative community response occurs with an increase of 20 dB or more, resulting in “vigorous objections." Audible tones, variability in sound level, and an unnatural sound character can amplify the public response. For a distinctive or unpleasant sound, a small change in sound level, or the sound simply being audible, may provoke a strong community response. Community response can intensify further if sleep is disturbed and quality of life or property is degraded.
Weather conditions influence the sound level generated and how it travels to nearby homes. Sound waves expand outward from the wind turbine with the higher frequencies attenuating at a faster rate than low frequencies. Locations beyond a few thousand feet may be dominated by low frequency sounds generated by the wind turbines. Wind turbulence and icing, both common in New England due to topography and latitude, increase aerodynamic noise from intensified or chaotic dynamic stall conditions along the blade surfaces. Atmospheric conditions at night and downwind enhance sound propagation toward the ground by increasing levels over longer distances. Wind turbines are elevated hundreds of feet to receive stronger winds yet winds down on the ground or in nearby valleys may be non-existent with correspondingly low background sound levels, accentuating the impact of the intrusive sounds.
Other professionals have developed thresholds, or criteria, for sound level to protect public health that may be applied to planning for wind turbine permitting. Recommendations from Hayes McKenzie Partnership in 2006 limited maximum wind turbine sound levels at residences to 38 dBA and no more than 33 dBA when “beating noises" are audible when the turbines spin.
Dan Driscoll presented his analysis in 2009 (Environmental Stakeholder Roundtable on Wind Power, June 16, 2009) with a Composite Noise Rating analysis of 33 dBA to reduce rural community response to the level of "sporadic complaints."
Michael Nissenbaum issued his findings in 2010 from his medical study at Mars Hill, recommending a 7000-foot setback for public health. The World Health Organization published sound level thresholds of sleep disturbance and adverse health effects from peer-reviewed medical studies (Night Noise Guidelines for Europe, October 2009).
Our next column will compare our sound level versus distance data with these medical, health, and community response criteria and show what distances are necessary to protect public health.
Currently there is no effective, reliable noise mitigation for wind turbines of this size other than shutdown. Therefore, at this time it appears appropriate that proposed wind turbine sites should position wind turbines at least one mile away from residential properties and further for sites with more than one wind turbine. Smaller wind turbines (under one megawatt power rating) produce less noise than those currently being marketed and installed for grid power in Maine; these may be an option when distance is an issue.
Friday, September 10, 2010
‘Windfall’ Documentary Explores Perils of Wind Power
“Windfall,” a new documentary that premieres Friday at the Toronto International Film Festival, could take the sails out of wind power. The film observes the deeply divided residents of Meredith, New York — an Upstate farm community in decline — as they debate the pros and cons of allowing wind turbines on their land. Local proponents champion the promise of green energy and monetary compensation, while detractors question the efficiency of wind-generated energy and the drawbacks of living among 400-foot tall towers with gigantic rotating blades.
First-time director Laura Israel, who has a log cabin in Meredith, first became aware of the town’s wind energy debate when she read stories in the local newspaper about the potential dangers of turbines to the bird population (bats are also at risk). “I went through the same process myself as they did in the film,” says Israel. “First, I thought, maybe I’d like to get a wind turbine, but then I started going on the Internet and realized there was more to the story.”
Israel videotaped in Meredith for about a year, documenting contentious board meetings and interviewing residents, and also visiting other areas in New York, such as Lewis County, where wind turbines have already taken hold. The film offers few experts on either side of the debate; rather, it allows local townspeople to discuss their own research, experiences and fears, such as the wind turbine’s “flicker effect,” as the machines pass across the sun and cast immense shadows, as well as the dangers of their low frequency hum.
Robert Bryce, author of “Power Hungry: The Myths of ‘Green’ Energy and the Real Fuels of the Future,” and a frequent critic of the wind industry (in the op-ed pages of the Wall Street Journal), says the “infrasound” issue is the most problematic for the wind industry. “They want to dismiss it out of hand, but the low frequency noise is very disturbing,” he explains. “I interviewed people all over, and they all complained with identical words and descriptions about the problems they were feeling from the noise.”
Because of wind energy’s massive expansion — the five-year average growth rate is up 39%, according to the American Wind Energy Association — Bryce suggests that the kinds of conflicts depicted in the film “are going to be much more common if it’s allowed to grow as fast as it could,” he says. “There’s a lot of pissed off people out there.”
Israel doesn’t want her film to be used as an advocacy prop for anti-wind advocates, however. She just wants people to be informed. “What I would want people to do is research it and look at it critically.” Invoking the words of Gordon Yancey, an outspoken wind critic from Tug Hill, NY who appears in the film, Israel advises, “Do your homework.”
Or as Bryce adds, “There’s no such thing as a free lunch and it’s the same with wind energy.”
First-time director Laura Israel, who has a log cabin in Meredith, first became aware of the town’s wind energy debate when she read stories in the local newspaper about the potential dangers of turbines to the bird population (bats are also at risk). “I went through the same process myself as they did in the film,” says Israel. “First, I thought, maybe I’d like to get a wind turbine, but then I started going on the Internet and realized there was more to the story.”
Israel videotaped in Meredith for about a year, documenting contentious board meetings and interviewing residents, and also visiting other areas in New York, such as Lewis County, where wind turbines have already taken hold. The film offers few experts on either side of the debate; rather, it allows local townspeople to discuss their own research, experiences and fears, such as the wind turbine’s “flicker effect,” as the machines pass across the sun and cast immense shadows, as well as the dangers of their low frequency hum.
Robert Bryce, author of “Power Hungry: The Myths of ‘Green’ Energy and the Real Fuels of the Future,” and a frequent critic of the wind industry (in the op-ed pages of the Wall Street Journal), says the “infrasound” issue is the most problematic for the wind industry. “They want to dismiss it out of hand, but the low frequency noise is very disturbing,” he explains. “I interviewed people all over, and they all complained with identical words and descriptions about the problems they were feeling from the noise.”
Because of wind energy’s massive expansion — the five-year average growth rate is up 39%, according to the American Wind Energy Association — Bryce suggests that the kinds of conflicts depicted in the film “are going to be much more common if it’s allowed to grow as fast as it could,” he says. “There’s a lot of pissed off people out there.”
Israel doesn’t want her film to be used as an advocacy prop for anti-wind advocates, however. She just wants people to be informed. “What I would want people to do is research it and look at it critically.” Invoking the words of Gordon Yancey, an outspoken wind critic from Tug Hill, NY who appears in the film, Israel advises, “Do your homework.”
Or as Bryce adds, “There’s no such thing as a free lunch and it’s the same with wind energy.”
Thursday, September 09, 2010
Henderson eyes total wind farm ban
HENDERSON — The Town Council made Henderson the first municipality in the north country that could enact a ban on commercial wind farms.
At its meeting Wednesday, the council voted 4-1 to allow the law firm Hancock & Estabrook LLP, Syracuse, to write a law that would ban all commercial wind development in the town.
Members of the council and the citizens wind committee met with lawyers who said the town already is effectively restricting wind turbine development on more than 90 percent of the land in the town, Supervisor Raymond A. Walker said.
"Based on what the citizens wind committee has already come up with, it's a good idea to not allow wind energy in the town," he said.
Councilman Frank W. Ross voted against the motion. He said he did not have enough time to read the two-page letter from the law firm that was distributed before the meeting.
Councilwoman Torre J. Parker-Lane pushed the issue with help from more than 30 community members, some of whom requested a board member read the letter out loud. She said the board needs to act on allowing the firm to draw up a law before summer residents leave and do not have an opportunity to attend the public hearing.
"If we're going to put off this discussion, then I would like us to set up a date for a special meeting," she said. "I really don't want to put this off any longer. If we did the law according to what we have, it could leave us open. They suggested we do a complete ban on wind towers."
Ms. Parker-Lane made the motion and she, Mr. Walker, Councilwoman Carol A. Hall and Councilman Steven C. Cote voted in favor.
During the meeting with the law firm, Mr. Walker said, the town also was asked whether it wanted to reserve the right to appeal the state Supreme Court's dismissal of the town's Article 78 proceeding.
In February, the town brought legal action against the town of Hounsfield, asking a judge to annul the Hounsfield Planning Board's site plan approval for the proposed Galloo Island Wind Farm. Henderson filed a state Supreme Court Article 78 proceeding against Hounsfield, the state Department of Environmental Conservation and Upstate NY Power.
On Aug. 18, Judge Joseph D. McGuire denied Henderson's request, ruling in part that the town did not have standing to file an action.
The council voted 4-1, with Mr. Walker, Ms. Parker-Lane, Ms. Hall and Mr. Cote voting yes and Mr. Ross opposed, to reserve that right.
"We're not doing anything yet, just keeping the option open," Ms. Parker-Lane said.
The board is not moving forward with the formal appeal, but will have the option to do so several months down the road if it needs to, Mr. Walker said.
At its meeting Wednesday, the council voted 4-1 to allow the law firm Hancock & Estabrook LLP, Syracuse, to write a law that would ban all commercial wind development in the town.
Members of the council and the citizens wind committee met with lawyers who said the town already is effectively restricting wind turbine development on more than 90 percent of the land in the town, Supervisor Raymond A. Walker said.
"Based on what the citizens wind committee has already come up with, it's a good idea to not allow wind energy in the town," he said.
Councilman Frank W. Ross voted against the motion. He said he did not have enough time to read the two-page letter from the law firm that was distributed before the meeting.
Councilwoman Torre J. Parker-Lane pushed the issue with help from more than 30 community members, some of whom requested a board member read the letter out loud. She said the board needs to act on allowing the firm to draw up a law before summer residents leave and do not have an opportunity to attend the public hearing.
"If we're going to put off this discussion, then I would like us to set up a date for a special meeting," she said. "I really don't want to put this off any longer. If we did the law according to what we have, it could leave us open. They suggested we do a complete ban on wind towers."
Ms. Parker-Lane made the motion and she, Mr. Walker, Councilwoman Carol A. Hall and Councilman Steven C. Cote voted in favor.
During the meeting with the law firm, Mr. Walker said, the town also was asked whether it wanted to reserve the right to appeal the state Supreme Court's dismissal of the town's Article 78 proceeding.
In February, the town brought legal action against the town of Hounsfield, asking a judge to annul the Hounsfield Planning Board's site plan approval for the proposed Galloo Island Wind Farm. Henderson filed a state Supreme Court Article 78 proceeding against Hounsfield, the state Department of Environmental Conservation and Upstate NY Power.
On Aug. 18, Judge Joseph D. McGuire denied Henderson's request, ruling in part that the town did not have standing to file an action.
The council voted 4-1, with Mr. Walker, Ms. Parker-Lane, Ms. Hall and Mr. Cote voting yes and Mr. Ross opposed, to reserve that right.
"We're not doing anything yet, just keeping the option open," Ms. Parker-Lane said.
The board is not moving forward with the formal appeal, but will have the option to do so several months down the road if it needs to, Mr. Walker said.
Lyme agrees to establish two wind committees
CHAUMONT — The Lyme Town Council is looking for a few good men — and women — to serve on two committees that will investigate wind issues.
The council agreed at its meeting Wednesday night to establish the committees. One will collect information on the economics related to wind power development and the other will gather information on health, safety and environmental issues.
"My idea is that we put an even number of people on those committees," Supervisor Scott G. Aubertine said. "We put an equal number of pro and anti and have them work together. One side will offer information and the other side can offer counter-side information."
The committee's information then would be available on the town website and possibly in the town office. Lyme residents could consult it before answering an upcoming wind survey, which will direct the council on how strictly to write a new wind zoning law.
"I don't think it's the committee's place to come up with opinions, but to come up with information and send it to the people. Let the people make up their own decisions," Councilman Donald R. Bourquin said.
The council agreed to advertise for the positions and accept applications through Oct. 12, the day before its next regular meeting.
The council also agreed to allow Mr. Bourquin to solicit proposals from acoustic engineering firms on writing a sound section to the law. He had asked the firm Cavanaugh Tocci Associates, Sudbury, Mass., about Lyme's law.
"I was told the sound portion of our law is unworkable," he said. "I don't know how much it would be. But they'd want to know what we're thinking before we get too far along."
Councilwoman Ann M. "Boo" Harris asked whether the committees could collect information on noise first.
"I don't feel comfortable writing anything with sound," she said.
Councilman Warren A. Johnson voted against the idea.
"We had a good law and it took us three and a half years coming to that point," he said. "They're in the business to make money."
Mr. Aubertine also asked whether zoning for personal turbines should be taken out of the commercial wind law and expedited.
"That's fine, except we've still got the noise levels in there," Mr. Bourquin said.
And the once-proposed law allowed personal turbine height to vary from a maximum of 100 feet based on manufacturer's recommendations.
"We need to start with a number," Mr. Johnson said. "They can get a variance if they need it."
In the end, he and Mrs. Harris agreed one of the wind committees should look at it.
"I think that's going to cause problems once we get down that road," Mr. Aubertine said.
To give the committee and council time to work on information collection and a survey for town taxpayers, the council set a time for a public hearing to extend a moratorium once again on wind power development. The hearing will be at 6:15 p.m. Oct. 13 at the town offices, before the regular meeting.
The council agreed at its meeting Wednesday night to establish the committees. One will collect information on the economics related to wind power development and the other will gather information on health, safety and environmental issues.
"My idea is that we put an even number of people on those committees," Supervisor Scott G. Aubertine said. "We put an equal number of pro and anti and have them work together. One side will offer information and the other side can offer counter-side information."
The committee's information then would be available on the town website and possibly in the town office. Lyme residents could consult it before answering an upcoming wind survey, which will direct the council on how strictly to write a new wind zoning law.
"I don't think it's the committee's place to come up with opinions, but to come up with information and send it to the people. Let the people make up their own decisions," Councilman Donald R. Bourquin said.
The council agreed to advertise for the positions and accept applications through Oct. 12, the day before its next regular meeting.
The council also agreed to allow Mr. Bourquin to solicit proposals from acoustic engineering firms on writing a sound section to the law. He had asked the firm Cavanaugh Tocci Associates, Sudbury, Mass., about Lyme's law.
"I was told the sound portion of our law is unworkable," he said. "I don't know how much it would be. But they'd want to know what we're thinking before we get too far along."
Councilwoman Ann M. "Boo" Harris asked whether the committees could collect information on noise first.
"I don't feel comfortable writing anything with sound," she said.
Councilman Warren A. Johnson voted against the idea.
"We had a good law and it took us three and a half years coming to that point," he said. "They're in the business to make money."
Mr. Aubertine also asked whether zoning for personal turbines should be taken out of the commercial wind law and expedited.
"That's fine, except we've still got the noise levels in there," Mr. Bourquin said.
And the once-proposed law allowed personal turbine height to vary from a maximum of 100 feet based on manufacturer's recommendations.
"We need to start with a number," Mr. Johnson said. "They can get a variance if they need it."
In the end, he and Mrs. Harris agreed one of the wind committees should look at it.
"I think that's going to cause problems once we get down that road," Mr. Aubertine said.
To give the committee and council time to work on information collection and a survey for town taxpayers, the council set a time for a public hearing to extend a moratorium once again on wind power development. The hearing will be at 6:15 p.m. Oct. 13 at the town offices, before the regular meeting.
Sunday, September 05, 2010
Mafia cash in on lucrative EU wind farm handouts - especially in Sicily
An ill wind is blowing over Italy's green revolution, as the Mafia seek to capitalise on generous grants for renewable energy.
They rise up high above the sun-scorched countryside, looking out over hilltop villages, palm trees, neatly-tended vineyards and olive groves.
But for all their promises of a clean, green future, Italy's windfarms have now acquired a somewhat dirtier whiff - as the latest industry to be infiltrated by the country's mobsters.
Attracted by the prospect of generous grants designed to boost the use of alternative energies, the so-called "eco Mafia" has begun fraudulently creaming off millions of euros from both the Italian government and the European Union.
And nowhere has the industry's reputation become more tarnished than Sicily, where windmills now dot the horizon in Mafia strongholds like Corleone, the town better known as the setting for the Godfather films.
"Nothing earns more than a wind farm," said Edoardo Zanchini, an environmental campaigner who has investigated Mafia infiltration of the industry. "Anything that creates wealth interests the Mafia."
It is not just Italian criminals, however, who have spotted the potential for corruption. Recent research by Kroll, the international corporate security firm, has discovered examples all over Europe of so-called "clean energy" schemes being used to to line criminals' pockets rather than save the planet. Some involve windmills that stand derelict or are simply never built, while others are used to launder profits from other crime enterprises.
"Renewable energy seems like a good thing, run by saintly people saving the world," said Jason Wright, a senior director with Kroll, which performs background checks on renewable energy schemes on behalf of legitimate investors, and which has documented a sharp rise in the number of wind farms with suspect ownership.
"But a lot of people want to jump on board a sure-fire revenue spinner. I wouldn't say the entire sector is corrupt, but there is a small percentage of corrupt projects."
The level of fraud has prompted calls for tighter restrictions on the use of public money in funding renewable energy, for which EU bureaucrats have grand ambitions. Brussels has ordered all 27 EU nations to ensure that one-fifth of their energy is renewable by 2020, and in recent years has given out an average of €5 billion (£4.1 billion) annually in loans and grants. The levels of subsidy allow some wind farm owners to claim generous premiums for every watt of electricity they generate.
In Italy, for example, power from wind farms is sold at a guaranteed rate of €180 per kwh – the highest rate in the world. In a country where the Mafia has years of expertise at buying corrupt politicians and intimidating rivals, the result is perhaps inevitable, creating a new breed of entrepreneur known as the "lords of the wind".
Around 30 wind farms have been built in Sicily, with another 60 planned, often to the anger of local people, who say they blight an otherwise picturesque landscape. Dino Leggio, 33, a barman in Corleone, claimed that many of the turbines that now dotted the island made money only for politicians and the Mafia.
"Nobody consulted ordinary people about putting up these huge great things," he told The Sunday Telegraph. "They are very tall, and very ugly. Before they start pumping millions of euros into wind farms, they should fix the roads, which are in a terrible state."
While many of the wind farms in Sicily are in legitimate hands, some have already attracted the attention of the police. Last year, detectives launched a major investigation into suspicions that Mafia clans had colluded with corrupt businessmen and local politicians to secure control of a project to construct wind turbines in the Trapani area of western Sicily.
Eight people were arrested in Operation "Eolo", named after Aeolus, the ancient Greek god of winds, on charges of bribing officials in the coastal town of Mazara del Vallo with gifts of luxury cars and individual bribes of €30,000-70,000.
Police wiretaps showed the extent of the Mafia's infiltration of the wind energy sector when they intercepted an alleged Mafioso telling his wife: "Not one turbine blade will be built in Mazara unless I agree to it."
In another operation last November, codenamed "Gone With the Wind", 15 people were arrested on suspicion of trying to embezzle up to €30 million in EU funds. Among those arrested on fraud charges was the president of Italy's National Wind Energy Association, Oreste Vigorito. He has not been convictued of an offence and denies any wrongdoing.
Further afield, scandals have emerged in Spain, Romania, Bulgaria and Corsica, among others. In one alleged scam on the Canary Islands, a mayor, five officials and two developers are fighting criminal charges that include abuse of office, bribery and misappropriation of land in an attempt to secure EU subsidies.
One case in Spain, meanwhile, involved a solar energy plant which claimed, miraculously, to be generating electricity at night. Investigators found that that the power was in fact being produced by diesel generators - the "green" subsidies paid for the plant were so generous that the owners still made a handsome profit.
As well as the prospect of fraudulent grant money, wind farms are also attractive to criminals seeking to invest money from illegal activities such as drug dealing, prostitution and illegal waste dumping. Some Mafia clans have illicitly secured licenses to build a wind farm and then sold them on to legitimate firms who have invested in good faith.
"Foreign investors are often not aware who they are dealing with," said Mr Wright. "You start to be alarmed if the shareholders have a background in something like pizzerias."
John Etherington, a former professor of ecology at the University of Wales and author of The Wind Farm Scam, said the industry was vulnerable to corruption because of poor regulation. The EU, which has an anti-fraud unit, currently has no criminal proceedings on any wind farm cases, insisting it is the responsibility of member states to monitor funding.
"It has been a matter of policy in the wind farm industry to make the financing of it both opaque and complicated," said Mr Etherington. "In all countries across Europe the customer is not told how much they are paying for it, and the whole financing of the industry is coming out of subsidy on electricity generation."
Despite the scandals over Mafia infiltration, there have been very few protests against wind farms in Italy. Instead, farmers have leapt at the chance to rent out their land for wind farm construction at a time when the price of agricultural produce such as grapes and tomatoes has plummeted.
"Why get up early every morning to work the land, and run the risk of not being able to sell your crops for a good price, when you can sit at home and take 10,000 euros a year in rent?" said Nicola Angelo, a Sicilian businessman. "People here have swallowed the idea of wind farms, even though they have ruined the landscape."
But David Moss, a British building contractor based in the Sicilian hilltop town of Salemi, which is surrounded by whirring turbines, suggested that was not the only reason for the absence of wind-farm "Nimbyism".
"In the UK, if a company proposed putting up 100 turbines across the countryside, there would be an uproar," he said. "In Italy, everyone keeps quiet because they are afraid to stand up to the Mafia."
They rise up high above the sun-scorched countryside, looking out over hilltop villages, palm trees, neatly-tended vineyards and olive groves.
But for all their promises of a clean, green future, Italy's windfarms have now acquired a somewhat dirtier whiff - as the latest industry to be infiltrated by the country's mobsters.
Attracted by the prospect of generous grants designed to boost the use of alternative energies, the so-called "eco Mafia" has begun fraudulently creaming off millions of euros from both the Italian government and the European Union.
And nowhere has the industry's reputation become more tarnished than Sicily, where windmills now dot the horizon in Mafia strongholds like Corleone, the town better known as the setting for the Godfather films.
"Nothing earns more than a wind farm," said Edoardo Zanchini, an environmental campaigner who has investigated Mafia infiltration of the industry. "Anything that creates wealth interests the Mafia."
It is not just Italian criminals, however, who have spotted the potential for corruption. Recent research by Kroll, the international corporate security firm, has discovered examples all over Europe of so-called "clean energy" schemes being used to to line criminals' pockets rather than save the planet. Some involve windmills that stand derelict or are simply never built, while others are used to launder profits from other crime enterprises.
"Renewable energy seems like a good thing, run by saintly people saving the world," said Jason Wright, a senior director with Kroll, which performs background checks on renewable energy schemes on behalf of legitimate investors, and which has documented a sharp rise in the number of wind farms with suspect ownership.
"But a lot of people want to jump on board a sure-fire revenue spinner. I wouldn't say the entire sector is corrupt, but there is a small percentage of corrupt projects."
The level of fraud has prompted calls for tighter restrictions on the use of public money in funding renewable energy, for which EU bureaucrats have grand ambitions. Brussels has ordered all 27 EU nations to ensure that one-fifth of their energy is renewable by 2020, and in recent years has given out an average of €5 billion (£4.1 billion) annually in loans and grants. The levels of subsidy allow some wind farm owners to claim generous premiums for every watt of electricity they generate.
In Italy, for example, power from wind farms is sold at a guaranteed rate of €180 per kwh – the highest rate in the world. In a country where the Mafia has years of expertise at buying corrupt politicians and intimidating rivals, the result is perhaps inevitable, creating a new breed of entrepreneur known as the "lords of the wind".
Around 30 wind farms have been built in Sicily, with another 60 planned, often to the anger of local people, who say they blight an otherwise picturesque landscape. Dino Leggio, 33, a barman in Corleone, claimed that many of the turbines that now dotted the island made money only for politicians and the Mafia.
"Nobody consulted ordinary people about putting up these huge great things," he told The Sunday Telegraph. "They are very tall, and very ugly. Before they start pumping millions of euros into wind farms, they should fix the roads, which are in a terrible state."
While many of the wind farms in Sicily are in legitimate hands, some have already attracted the attention of the police. Last year, detectives launched a major investigation into suspicions that Mafia clans had colluded with corrupt businessmen and local politicians to secure control of a project to construct wind turbines in the Trapani area of western Sicily.
Eight people were arrested in Operation "Eolo", named after Aeolus, the ancient Greek god of winds, on charges of bribing officials in the coastal town of Mazara del Vallo with gifts of luxury cars and individual bribes of €30,000-70,000.
Police wiretaps showed the extent of the Mafia's infiltration of the wind energy sector when they intercepted an alleged Mafioso telling his wife: "Not one turbine blade will be built in Mazara unless I agree to it."
In another operation last November, codenamed "Gone With the Wind", 15 people were arrested on suspicion of trying to embezzle up to €30 million in EU funds. Among those arrested on fraud charges was the president of Italy's National Wind Energy Association, Oreste Vigorito. He has not been convictued of an offence and denies any wrongdoing.
Further afield, scandals have emerged in Spain, Romania, Bulgaria and Corsica, among others. In one alleged scam on the Canary Islands, a mayor, five officials and two developers are fighting criminal charges that include abuse of office, bribery and misappropriation of land in an attempt to secure EU subsidies.
One case in Spain, meanwhile, involved a solar energy plant which claimed, miraculously, to be generating electricity at night. Investigators found that that the power was in fact being produced by diesel generators - the "green" subsidies paid for the plant were so generous that the owners still made a handsome profit.
As well as the prospect of fraudulent grant money, wind farms are also attractive to criminals seeking to invest money from illegal activities such as drug dealing, prostitution and illegal waste dumping. Some Mafia clans have illicitly secured licenses to build a wind farm and then sold them on to legitimate firms who have invested in good faith.
"Foreign investors are often not aware who they are dealing with," said Mr Wright. "You start to be alarmed if the shareholders have a background in something like pizzerias."
John Etherington, a former professor of ecology at the University of Wales and author of The Wind Farm Scam, said the industry was vulnerable to corruption because of poor regulation. The EU, which has an anti-fraud unit, currently has no criminal proceedings on any wind farm cases, insisting it is the responsibility of member states to monitor funding.
"It has been a matter of policy in the wind farm industry to make the financing of it both opaque and complicated," said Mr Etherington. "In all countries across Europe the customer is not told how much they are paying for it, and the whole financing of the industry is coming out of subsidy on electricity generation."
Despite the scandals over Mafia infiltration, there have been very few protests against wind farms in Italy. Instead, farmers have leapt at the chance to rent out their land for wind farm construction at a time when the price of agricultural produce such as grapes and tomatoes has plummeted.
"Why get up early every morning to work the land, and run the risk of not being able to sell your crops for a good price, when you can sit at home and take 10,000 euros a year in rent?" said Nicola Angelo, a Sicilian businessman. "People here have swallowed the idea of wind farms, even though they have ruined the landscape."
But David Moss, a British building contractor based in the Sicilian hilltop town of Salemi, which is surrounded by whirring turbines, suggested that was not the only reason for the absence of wind-farm "Nimbyism".
"In the UK, if a company proposed putting up 100 turbines across the countryside, there would be an uproar," he said. "In Italy, everyone keeps quiet because they are afraid to stand up to the Mafia."
Saturday, September 04, 2010
Niagara County committee looks at Lake Ontario wind project
Like many towns in Jefferson County, Niagara County legislators have formed a committee to consider the positives and drawbacks of wind power in their area. In this case, they're looking at a possible offshore wind power project backed by the New York Power Authority.
The committee has two weeks to finish its work.
NYPA has not yet said where its five bidders want an offshore project. But the authority has said it will not put a project in Eastern Lake Ontario.
The committee has two weeks to finish its work.
NYPA has not yet said where its five bidders want an offshore project. But the authority has said it will not put a project in Eastern Lake Ontario.
Friday, September 03, 2010
Political group spins wind energy as waste of public funds, failure in the making
A political group protested the state's plans to spend public money on New Jersey's new offshore wind industry.
About 20 members or supporters of Americans for Prosperity rallied Thursday in front of the five windmills at the Atlantic County Utilities Authority to denounce offshore wind as a public waste of money.
They also called on lawmakers to kill a program that sells carbon credits. The Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative is a 10-state cooperative with a goal of cutting carbon dioxide emissions by 10 percent by 2018.
Under the program, states sell carbon "credits" through auctions and invest the money in clean-energy technologies such as wind power. The 10 states will hold the next auction Wednesday.
Americans for Prosperity spokesman Steven Lonegan said this program is secretive and will lead to higher electric bills in New Jersey.
"This will destroy this economy and no less than that," he said. "But it gets worse. The money raised in revenues to the state will be poured into this hare-brained scheme to build (offshore) windmills that are destined to fail."
Somers Point attorney Seth Grossman, who represents the local political group Liberty and Prosperity, said he was late for Thursday's protest because he was held up in bankruptcy court, where he is representing someone and where there is a big backlog of cases.
Grossman said increasing electricity rates will only lead to more bankruptcies in New Jersey.
Three companies, including Fishermen's Energy of Cape May, have won early approvals from the state Board of Public Utilities to build offshore wind farms between Atlantic City and Avalon.
Fishermen's Energy plans to build six turbines in a demonstration project 2.8 miles off the resort next year and a larger project 11 miles from shore. The company declined to comment on Thursday's protest.
Meanwhile, Gov. Chris Christie, who defeated Lonegan in last year's Republican primary, signed a bill that provides as much as $100 million in tax credits to new wind-energy companies that open in Paulsboro, Gloucester County. The law also creates an artificial market for this source of energy, which at least initially is expected to be more expensive than other sources of power.
Lonegan compared New Jersey's move to build offshore wind to its calamitous decision to build incinerators in the 1980s during a landfill shortage. Five county trash authorities built incinerators only to have trouble paying for them when rules were relaxed over interstate trash hauling.
"This is not about the environment. This is a money-making scheme between big business and big government," he said.
Local supporters of the group said they oppose the program for fear it will lead to higher utility rates.
"The little guy is broke," Northfield retiree Nate Nathanson said. "He's being utilitied and taxed to death."
Dennis Mahon, also of Northfield, said he would consider moving out of state if utility bills get steeper.
"It's another reason for me to ask, ‘Why should I stay here?'" he said. "What are we going to sacrifice to build these ridiculous windmills 20 miles at sea?"
The protest took place in front of the ACUA's five windmills at its complex off Route 30.
The authority leased land to Community Energy, which built the five windmills in 2003. The windmills' new owner, Blue Arc of Houston, maintains them and sells electricity generated by the blades to the authority at a steeply discounted rate.
That saves the authority about $600,000 per year in electricity bills, President Rick Dovey said.
About 20 members or supporters of Americans for Prosperity rallied Thursday in front of the five windmills at the Atlantic County Utilities Authority to denounce offshore wind as a public waste of money.
They also called on lawmakers to kill a program that sells carbon credits. The Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative is a 10-state cooperative with a goal of cutting carbon dioxide emissions by 10 percent by 2018.
Under the program, states sell carbon "credits" through auctions and invest the money in clean-energy technologies such as wind power. The 10 states will hold the next auction Wednesday.
Americans for Prosperity spokesman Steven Lonegan said this program is secretive and will lead to higher electric bills in New Jersey.
"This will destroy this economy and no less than that," he said. "But it gets worse. The money raised in revenues to the state will be poured into this hare-brained scheme to build (offshore) windmills that are destined to fail."
Somers Point attorney Seth Grossman, who represents the local political group Liberty and Prosperity, said he was late for Thursday's protest because he was held up in bankruptcy court, where he is representing someone and where there is a big backlog of cases.
Grossman said increasing electricity rates will only lead to more bankruptcies in New Jersey.
Three companies, including Fishermen's Energy of Cape May, have won early approvals from the state Board of Public Utilities to build offshore wind farms between Atlantic City and Avalon.
Fishermen's Energy plans to build six turbines in a demonstration project 2.8 miles off the resort next year and a larger project 11 miles from shore. The company declined to comment on Thursday's protest.
Meanwhile, Gov. Chris Christie, who defeated Lonegan in last year's Republican primary, signed a bill that provides as much as $100 million in tax credits to new wind-energy companies that open in Paulsboro, Gloucester County. The law also creates an artificial market for this source of energy, which at least initially is expected to be more expensive than other sources of power.
Lonegan compared New Jersey's move to build offshore wind to its calamitous decision to build incinerators in the 1980s during a landfill shortage. Five county trash authorities built incinerators only to have trouble paying for them when rules were relaxed over interstate trash hauling.
"This is not about the environment. This is a money-making scheme between big business and big government," he said.
Local supporters of the group said they oppose the program for fear it will lead to higher utility rates.
"The little guy is broke," Northfield retiree Nate Nathanson said. "He's being utilitied and taxed to death."
Dennis Mahon, also of Northfield, said he would consider moving out of state if utility bills get steeper.
"It's another reason for me to ask, ‘Why should I stay here?'" he said. "What are we going to sacrifice to build these ridiculous windmills 20 miles at sea?"
The protest took place in front of the ACUA's five windmills at its complex off Route 30.
The authority leased land to Community Energy, which built the five windmills in 2003. The windmills' new owner, Blue Arc of Houston, maintains them and sells electricity generated by the blades to the authority at a steeply discounted rate.
That saves the authority about $600,000 per year in electricity bills, President Rick Dovey said.
Thursday, September 02, 2010
Mountain slayers and profiteers
Developers of mountaintop industrial wind are touting many promised benefits — from reduced greenhouse gas emissions and decreased dependence on fossil fuels to a huge economic renaissance.
These are all false promises spun to enhance public acceptance.
In recent months, as I have studied the economic and ecological impacts of mountaintop industrial wind, I have been amazed at the distortions and misrepresentations of the wind developers who, unfortunately, have been accepted without question by many in the media.
As an environmentalist, I have for decades supported a move away from our addiction to oil to more eco-friendly renewable energy, including wind.
However, when I hear the developers spin the tragic Gulf oil spill to justify their desire to use our tax dollars to destroy Maine mountaintops with as many as 1,800 400-foot turbines spread over 360 miles, I am appalled by how this “justification“ is so disingenuous.
The truth is that only about 1 percent of our electricity is generated by oil. In Maine, almost all of our oil consumption is used for heat and transportation. Generating 2700 MW of mountaintop wind will not reduce our oil consumption or prevent ecological disasters like the spill in the Gulf.
Another favorite tactic of the developers is to promote mountaintop industrial wind as a panacea for climate change. While it may seem counter-intuitive, this also is a false promise.
There has never been a coal- or oil-fired power plant closed down due to wind generation. Indeed, in Europe and China, where wind power has become a significant source of electric energy, greenhouse gases have actually increased significantly.
It is simply not true that mountaintop wind will reduce greenhouse gases. Since wind is intermittent and not reliable, it is necessary to maintain backup power, or what is called “spinning reserve” to replace the wind power when the wind is not blowing. This has resulted in the need to build additional carbon-emitting power plants.
In China, this has meant a new coal-fired plant coming online each week. When the wind is blowing, it is necessary to reduce power from conventional sources. It is simply not possible to just turn oil and coal power plants on and off in response to constantly changing winds. They can be ramped down, but their efficiency is compromised and the amount of carbon emitted actually increases.
If the technology were available to store wind energy, the problem of intermittency could be overcome. Unfortunately, this is decades away.
In the case of mountaintop industrial wind, it is necessary to add to the carbon calculation the loss of carbon-sequestering forests due to massive clear-cutting on ridge lines and the construction of roads and power lines.
If the 1,800 turbines were constructed, as much as 50,000 acres of carbon-sequestering forest would have to be clear-cut. In addition, turbines require electricity to run, which does not come from the turbines, but must be generated on site by diesel generators or brought in on separate power lines.
Each turbine also requires as much as 200 gallons of oil lubricant, which must be changed on a regular basis.
One study done in Colorado determined that wind power increased carbon emissions by 10 percent.
Finally, it is particularly disturbing to hear developers tout the economic benefits of mountaintop industrial wind. There is simply no way in a cost-benefit analysis that mountaintop industrial wind comes out as a good economic option. The cost of wind generation is two to three times more than conventional power — and this does not include the added cost of CMP’s $1.4 billion “bogus upgrade,” which is necessary to hook up the industrial wind.
Our tax dollars in the form of huge subsidies are the only reason mountaintop wind, with its incredibly low efficiency, is being pursued. It is ironic that our tax dollars are paying for mountaintop wind, which will ultimately raise our electricity rates.
Developers like to tout the benefits of jobs and local/state tax revenues. Yes, it is true that during the mountaintop leveling and construction phase several hundred temporary jobs are created, but after construction is complete about one permanent job for each 12 turbines is created — so 360 miles of destroyed mountaintop would ultimately generate about 150 jobs.
While local property taxes may decline, this has not been documented in any place in Maine where wind has been installed.
What has been documented is that home values drop from 20 to 40 percent within a two-mile radius of a wind turbine. People do not want to live near industrial wind plants because of noise and visual pollution. State and county government may collect some tax dollars, but this will be more than offset by reduced tourism and declining recreational dollars.
This is why North Carolina put a moratorium on mountaintop industrial wind. It realized mountaintop industrial wind would destroy the economic engine fueled by its pristine mountains.
In the end, the only folks who will benefit are the developers, who will walk away with millions of our tax dollars. Mountaintop wind can be called nothing less than an economic scam concocted by a few mountain slayers and profiteers.
Anybody who takes the time to seriously study mountaintop wind will come to understand its exorbitant cost and its negative environmental impact. A thorough and objective review of current literature could only lead one to the conclusion that mountaintop industrial wind is a disaster and should be abandoned.
It would be far better to target the investment of our $5 billion in tax dollars earmarked for mountaintop wind to conservation through efficiency and weatherization. This approach would actually decrease our oil consumption, reduce greenhouse gases and create thousands of permanent jobs and business opportunities — things that mountaintop wind simply does not come even close to accomplishing.
These are all false promises spun to enhance public acceptance.
In recent months, as I have studied the economic and ecological impacts of mountaintop industrial wind, I have been amazed at the distortions and misrepresentations of the wind developers who, unfortunately, have been accepted without question by many in the media.
As an environmentalist, I have for decades supported a move away from our addiction to oil to more eco-friendly renewable energy, including wind.
However, when I hear the developers spin the tragic Gulf oil spill to justify their desire to use our tax dollars to destroy Maine mountaintops with as many as 1,800 400-foot turbines spread over 360 miles, I am appalled by how this “justification“ is so disingenuous.
The truth is that only about 1 percent of our electricity is generated by oil. In Maine, almost all of our oil consumption is used for heat and transportation. Generating 2700 MW of mountaintop wind will not reduce our oil consumption or prevent ecological disasters like the spill in the Gulf.
Another favorite tactic of the developers is to promote mountaintop industrial wind as a panacea for climate change. While it may seem counter-intuitive, this also is a false promise.
There has never been a coal- or oil-fired power plant closed down due to wind generation. Indeed, in Europe and China, where wind power has become a significant source of electric energy, greenhouse gases have actually increased significantly.
It is simply not true that mountaintop wind will reduce greenhouse gases. Since wind is intermittent and not reliable, it is necessary to maintain backup power, or what is called “spinning reserve” to replace the wind power when the wind is not blowing. This has resulted in the need to build additional carbon-emitting power plants.
In China, this has meant a new coal-fired plant coming online each week. When the wind is blowing, it is necessary to reduce power from conventional sources. It is simply not possible to just turn oil and coal power plants on and off in response to constantly changing winds. They can be ramped down, but their efficiency is compromised and the amount of carbon emitted actually increases.
If the technology were available to store wind energy, the problem of intermittency could be overcome. Unfortunately, this is decades away.
In the case of mountaintop industrial wind, it is necessary to add to the carbon calculation the loss of carbon-sequestering forests due to massive clear-cutting on ridge lines and the construction of roads and power lines.
If the 1,800 turbines were constructed, as much as 50,000 acres of carbon-sequestering forest would have to be clear-cut. In addition, turbines require electricity to run, which does not come from the turbines, but must be generated on site by diesel generators or brought in on separate power lines.
Each turbine also requires as much as 200 gallons of oil lubricant, which must be changed on a regular basis.
One study done in Colorado determined that wind power increased carbon emissions by 10 percent.
Finally, it is particularly disturbing to hear developers tout the economic benefits of mountaintop industrial wind. There is simply no way in a cost-benefit analysis that mountaintop industrial wind comes out as a good economic option. The cost of wind generation is two to three times more than conventional power — and this does not include the added cost of CMP’s $1.4 billion “bogus upgrade,” which is necessary to hook up the industrial wind.
Our tax dollars in the form of huge subsidies are the only reason mountaintop wind, with its incredibly low efficiency, is being pursued. It is ironic that our tax dollars are paying for mountaintop wind, which will ultimately raise our electricity rates.
Developers like to tout the benefits of jobs and local/state tax revenues. Yes, it is true that during the mountaintop leveling and construction phase several hundred temporary jobs are created, but after construction is complete about one permanent job for each 12 turbines is created — so 360 miles of destroyed mountaintop would ultimately generate about 150 jobs.
While local property taxes may decline, this has not been documented in any place in Maine where wind has been installed.
What has been documented is that home values drop from 20 to 40 percent within a two-mile radius of a wind turbine. People do not want to live near industrial wind plants because of noise and visual pollution. State and county government may collect some tax dollars, but this will be more than offset by reduced tourism and declining recreational dollars.
This is why North Carolina put a moratorium on mountaintop industrial wind. It realized mountaintop industrial wind would destroy the economic engine fueled by its pristine mountains.
In the end, the only folks who will benefit are the developers, who will walk away with millions of our tax dollars. Mountaintop wind can be called nothing less than an economic scam concocted by a few mountain slayers and profiteers.
Anybody who takes the time to seriously study mountaintop wind will come to understand its exorbitant cost and its negative environmental impact. A thorough and objective review of current literature could only lead one to the conclusion that mountaintop industrial wind is a disaster and should be abandoned.
It would be far better to target the investment of our $5 billion in tax dollars earmarked for mountaintop wind to conservation through efficiency and weatherization. This approach would actually decrease our oil consumption, reduce greenhouse gases and create thousands of permanent jobs and business opportunities — things that mountaintop wind simply does not come even close to accomplishing.
Wednesday, September 01, 2010
AG launches investigation into Cape Vincent wind dealings
The state Attorney General’s office has launched an investigation into possible misconduct by Cape Vincent officials for wind turbine farms proposed by Acciona Energia and British Petroleum.
In an Aug, 13 letter, the state ordered all documents from the town council and planning board related to wind development be turned over.
Two out of five town board members and three out of five planning board members either personally have agreements to lease their land to wind developers or have relatives with wind leases.
One current state senator is also reported to have a contract with a wind developer.
The Watertown Times recently reported that, “State Sen. Darrel Aubertine receives more than a $1,000 annually from a Cape Vincent wind developer even though his spokesman said there are no plans to build a turbine on his property.”
As reported in the Feb. 23, 2008 issue of The Valley News, Aubertine’s disclosure statement, filed May 15, 2007 with the state Legislative Ethics Commission, does not list any interests or contracts with any wind-power companies.
His disclosure statements show he and his wife Margaret own a total of just more than 600 acres of land.
His most recent filing does show income from a St. Lawrence County wind farm.
Oswego County officials have been closely observing all that is happening with wind farms in the north country, as one proposed project would site the high-powered transmission lines somewhere within the county boundaries.
One proposed route for the Galloo Island project would bring the lines through the Village of Pulaski, a plan that county lawmakers oppose because the county coffer relies on the fishing industry that could be substantially impacted.
The original path of the line was to run from Henderson to Ellisburg, Sandy Creek and Pulaski to a National Grid line in Mexico.
A change in the route had the lines running into Hounsfield and along Route 12F to an electric substation on Outer Coffeen Street in Watertown.
The most recent proposal is actually four proposals and public meetings are scheduled for each potentially impacted municipality.
The prospect of wind farms has sharply divided communities and opponents of the two proposed wind farms at Cape Vincent reportedly brought the investigation to fruition. The opponents complained that the process was tainted by conflicts of interest on the town board and planning board.
“There is civil unrest in Cape Vincent,” Legislator Shawn Doyle said. “When you have over 200 people going to a meeting within a town divided, something’s going to break.”
Doyle and former U.S. Ambassador and State Senator H. Douglas Barclay represent the county in wind matters. Doyle has attended dozens of meetings in the past two years in Oswego, Jefferson and St. Lawrence counties.
Aubertine spokesperson Drew Mangione said last week that the senator cannot comment on the current investigation.
It is not known when the investigation will conclude.
In an Aug, 13 letter, the state ordered all documents from the town council and planning board related to wind development be turned over.
Two out of five town board members and three out of five planning board members either personally have agreements to lease their land to wind developers or have relatives with wind leases.
One current state senator is also reported to have a contract with a wind developer.
The Watertown Times recently reported that, “State Sen. Darrel Aubertine receives more than a $1,000 annually from a Cape Vincent wind developer even though his spokesman said there are no plans to build a turbine on his property.”
As reported in the Feb. 23, 2008 issue of The Valley News, Aubertine’s disclosure statement, filed May 15, 2007 with the state Legislative Ethics Commission, does not list any interests or contracts with any wind-power companies.
His disclosure statements show he and his wife Margaret own a total of just more than 600 acres of land.
His most recent filing does show income from a St. Lawrence County wind farm.
Oswego County officials have been closely observing all that is happening with wind farms in the north country, as one proposed project would site the high-powered transmission lines somewhere within the county boundaries.
One proposed route for the Galloo Island project would bring the lines through the Village of Pulaski, a plan that county lawmakers oppose because the county coffer relies on the fishing industry that could be substantially impacted.
The original path of the line was to run from Henderson to Ellisburg, Sandy Creek and Pulaski to a National Grid line in Mexico.
A change in the route had the lines running into Hounsfield and along Route 12F to an electric substation on Outer Coffeen Street in Watertown.
The most recent proposal is actually four proposals and public meetings are scheduled for each potentially impacted municipality.
The prospect of wind farms has sharply divided communities and opponents of the two proposed wind farms at Cape Vincent reportedly brought the investigation to fruition. The opponents complained that the process was tainted by conflicts of interest on the town board and planning board.
“There is civil unrest in Cape Vincent,” Legislator Shawn Doyle said. “When you have over 200 people going to a meeting within a town divided, something’s going to break.”
Doyle and former U.S. Ambassador and State Senator H. Douglas Barclay represent the county in wind matters. Doyle has attended dozens of meetings in the past two years in Oswego, Jefferson and St. Lawrence counties.
Aubertine spokesperson Drew Mangione said last week that the senator cannot comment on the current investigation.
It is not known when the investigation will conclude.
Research wind power, look at Wolfe Island
I have watched the problems that Cape Vincent and Clayton are experiencing due to the foreign-owned energy giants wanting to put in 400-foot-tall industrial wind turbines near people's homes. I know of a family who could end up with 32 industrial wind turbines within a mile and a half of their home.
My husband and I have been looking to buy a home in the country, but we have decided to wait because we would never want to live near any industrial turbines. We feel sorry for the property owners who have now found out that the developers can take away their property rights and peaceful nights. These property owners bought homes in the country for the tranquil settings, and they never dreamed that something this large and disruptive could be placed 500 feet from their property line.
At first I thought that industrial wind turbines might solve energy problems. It sounded like it would be clean, free energy. But when I started looking into it, I found out this is not true. Please do your own research by going to www.WindPowerFacts.Info which explains the many sides to industrial wind, including how it will never help reduce the CO2 emissions and how it could hurt our country. Also check out www.WindAction.org and www.CROH.Info.
Everyone should also go to Cape Vincent at night and witness the red lights flashing from the industrial wind turbines on Wolfe Island and consider what it would be like to live with 32 of them so close by your home.
Vivian Czerwinski
Clayton
My husband and I have been looking to buy a home in the country, but we have decided to wait because we would never want to live near any industrial turbines. We feel sorry for the property owners who have now found out that the developers can take away their property rights and peaceful nights. These property owners bought homes in the country for the tranquil settings, and they never dreamed that something this large and disruptive could be placed 500 feet from their property line.
At first I thought that industrial wind turbines might solve energy problems. It sounded like it would be clean, free energy. But when I started looking into it, I found out this is not true. Please do your own research by going to www.WindPowerFacts.Info which explains the many sides to industrial wind, including how it will never help reduce the CO2 emissions and how it could hurt our country. Also check out www.WindAction.org and www.CROH.Info.
Everyone should also go to Cape Vincent at night and witness the red lights flashing from the industrial wind turbines on Wolfe Island and consider what it would be like to live with 32 of them so close by your home.
Vivian Czerwinski
Clayton
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)