After rocky sales timing put Clipper Windpower in a cash crunch, its largest investor is in position to take control of the Carpinteria company just as its long-term prospects brighten.
In December, multinational conglomerate United Technologies Corp. acquired a 49.5 percent stake in Clipper in a transaction that pumped $206??million in new capital into the turbine maker, whose shares trade on the Alternative Investment Market of the London Stock Exchange.
The investment included a “standstill provision” that said UTC couldn’t boost its holdings — and take control of Clipper — for at least two years. But it also included a provision that gave UTC the right to boost its stake to 55 percent if Clipper burned through 75 percent or more of UTC’s investment before 2012.
“There was a calculation they performed that indicated we had reached that milestone,” Michael Keane, Clipper’s chief financial officer, told the Business Times. “Whether they exercise that right or not is up to them.”
A UTC spokesman did not return requests for comment by press time.
Clipper said its unrestricted cash position was $139.9 million at June 30, but that total dropped to about $85 million by the end of September.
In some ways, the cash crunch is a positive sign for Clipper — it spent $55 million in less than three months buying up turbine parts to fill orders, according to company officials. The company is the fastest-growing in the Tri-Counties, according to the Business Times’ annual survey, which ranks companies by three-year revenue growth. Clipper’s revenues grew by more than 3,000 percent between 2007 and 2009.
But the timing of Clipper’s revenue in 2010, combined with its flurry of spending, could allow UTC to take control of the company far ahead of its original schedule.
Meanwhile, Clipper needs new cash to stay in business. Without access to capital, the company said in filings, “the current business circumstances create a material uncertainty that casts significant doubt on the [Clipper’s] ability to continue as a going concern.”
Clipper said it’s in talks with UTC for new financing, either in the form of credit support or selling stock. During the talks, Clipper said, UTC said it was interested in buying all of the Clipper shares it doesn’t already own.
The possible change in control at Clipper comes at a time when the company’s leaders are optimistic about its future. After it began making turbines at its plant in Iowa, the 770-employee firm suffered a blow when cracks in its blades led to a remediation program that cost it hundreds of millions of dollars.
Big machines like Clipper’s 2.5-megwatt Liberty turbine cost millions and are designed to last for decades, and the blade problems shook the market’s confidence in the young company. The big benefit in the investment from UTC was the perception that Clipper’s machines had the backing of one of a global industrial powerhouse. That backing was made explicit earlier this year when UTC agreed to provide warranty support for Clipper’s turbines.
Combined with some technology-sharing agreements and backing from UTC’s sales force, “this is a significant game changer for us,” Mauricio Quintana, the UTC veteran who took over as Clipper’s CEO in March, told investors during a conference call.
Clipper says it has about 4.5 gigawatts — about 1,800 of its Liberty turbines — in its sales proposal pipeline, including about 1.8 gigawatts in later-stage talks.
“Fifty-four percent of that pipeline represents opportunities outside of the U.S. That’s a sea change for Clipper,” Keane said. “We have the ability now to compete on a level with tier-one turbine suppliers,” such as General Electric, one of UTC’s rivals in many markets.
For the first half of the year, Clipper’s net loss was $26.7 million, compared with $120.2 million in the first half of last year. One big difference was revenue. It was $154 million on 43 turbines in the first half of 2010, compared to $357.3 million from 127 turbines in the first six months of 2009.
Clipper said it expects two-thirds of its sales to come in the second half of this year. But while Clipper gets payments from customers as it’s building turbines for them, the company generally doesn’t book revenue until a machine is delivered. It has had to dig deep into its cash in recent months to buy parts.
“We were starting to ramp up production. We were also ramping up our procurement of components. So it’s not a straight line,” Keane said of Clipper’s recent costs.
One deal Clipper is hoping to replicate as it moves into new markets is the $81 million financing granted last year by the Export-Import Bank of the United States to a Mexican wind project using Clipper’s turbines.
“We have sufficient U.S. content to be able to qualify for that Ex-Im financing, and Ex-Im Bank has expressed a desire for more opportunities to finance Clipper Liberty turbines outside the U.S.,” Keane said. “That’s a very important sales tool for us. It helps differentiate us from our competition.”
Monday, October 11, 2010
Editorial: “Wind Parks? Really?”
—Eric Bibler, WTS.com guest editor
I just discovered that Cape Wind’s 25-square mile industrial plant in Nantucket Sound is in fact not a “wind factory,” a “sprawling open air industrial wind plant” or even a “wind farm,” as I had supposed.
According to Cape Wind, it is officially a “Wind Park.”
This is an inspired choice of words!
I am already drafting letters to my local town selectmen asking if we can change a few names around here, such as: “Trash Park,” “Sewage Treatment Park,” “Coal Fired Electric Park” and “Maximum Security Correctional Park.” (Well, we don’t actually have one of those, but perhaps we can call the local jail a “Liberty Deprivation Park” –- or something like that.)
I’d also like to see if we can’t change the name of I-95, to call it an “Interstate Highway Park,” and I think we should have a few “Cell Tower Parks” and “Water Tower Parks,” don’t you? Perhaps that strip of the highway that runs past downtown Bridgeport, MA, can be rechristened a “Billboard Park” — to avoid any confusion about its true purpose.
Perhaps wind turbine noise should be renamed “Wind Turbine Mood Music.”
We could refer to the individual wind turbines as “Gleaming Energy Independence Mobiles.”
We could refer to the flicker effect as the “Wind Turbine Prankster Effect,” to recall the antics of an out-of-control eight-year-old who won’t lay off the light switch.
Perhaps the bird and bat kill aspects could be accepted as a “New Age Darwinian Wind Turbine Effect” that gives modern expression to the phenomenon of natural selection by encouraging the genetic selection of new super-species that are impervious to blows from the blades (moving at 180 mph), or to burst lungs from the abrupt changes in pressure.
We could paint numbers on the offshore ones and claim they are an invaluable aid to navigation –- if you can avoid hitting them.
And we could all try to exert some self-control and refer to wind turbines on mountain ridges as “Wind Turbine Landscape Accents.”
I just discovered that Cape Wind’s 25-square mile industrial plant in Nantucket Sound is in fact not a “wind factory,” a “sprawling open air industrial wind plant” or even a “wind farm,” as I had supposed.
According to Cape Wind, it is officially a “Wind Park.”
This is an inspired choice of words!
I am already drafting letters to my local town selectmen asking if we can change a few names around here, such as: “Trash Park,” “Sewage Treatment Park,” “Coal Fired Electric Park” and “Maximum Security Correctional Park.” (Well, we don’t actually have one of those, but perhaps we can call the local jail a “Liberty Deprivation Park” –- or something like that.)
I’d also like to see if we can’t change the name of I-95, to call it an “Interstate Highway Park,” and I think we should have a few “Cell Tower Parks” and “Water Tower Parks,” don’t you? Perhaps that strip of the highway that runs past downtown Bridgeport, MA, can be rechristened a “Billboard Park” — to avoid any confusion about its true purpose.
Perhaps wind turbine noise should be renamed “Wind Turbine Mood Music.”
We could refer to the individual wind turbines as “Gleaming Energy Independence Mobiles.”
We could refer to the flicker effect as the “Wind Turbine Prankster Effect,” to recall the antics of an out-of-control eight-year-old who won’t lay off the light switch.
Perhaps the bird and bat kill aspects could be accepted as a “New Age Darwinian Wind Turbine Effect” that gives modern expression to the phenomenon of natural selection by encouraging the genetic selection of new super-species that are impervious to blows from the blades (moving at 180 mph), or to burst lungs from the abrupt changes in pressure.
We could paint numbers on the offshore ones and claim they are an invaluable aid to navigation –- if you can avoid hitting them.
And we could all try to exert some self-control and refer to wind turbines on mountain ridges as “Wind Turbine Landscape Accents.”
The Shore Is Alive With the Sound of Turbines
To the Editor:
Re “For Those Living Nearby, That Miserable Hum of Clean Energy” (front page, Oct. 6):
My husband and I spent a week on the island of Vinalhaven in Maine in August, within sight and sound of the three giant wind turbines. Not only are they visually disturbing in the otherwise pristine landscape, but the ebb and flow of sound is also more reminiscent of a jet plane than the woods of Maine.
After we spent two days driving, and an hour and a half on the ferry, to get away from the hustle and bustle of New York, it was quite ironic to find our rental house located across from the intermittently noisy power plant.
I can only imagine the effect of the proposed Long Island-New York City offshore wind project. Although the giant turbines are to be 13 to 15 miles off the shore of Long Island, I would guess that any endangered fish swimming above the proposed location on the Atlantic’s outer continental shelf might just call it quits altogether when they hear the roar of the turbines.
Ennid Berger
Glen Cove, N.Y., Oct. 6, 2010
•
To the Editor:
The number of people complaining about noise from wind turbines is “small but growing” because the number of people who live near industrial-scale wind turbines is small but growing. In addition, leases and neighbor easements often include “gag orders” against publicizing complaints.
The Acoustic Ecology Institute notes as well that local news coverage of the issue may be wanting and that social and economic constraints can keep people from going public.
And a growing number of doctors and other scientists are taking the health effects seriously, even for what you call the “most extreme claims.”
The solution is simple: adequate distance from homes. The affected Vinalhaven residents live within one mile of the turbines. Most independent researchers suggest two kilometers, or 1.24 miles, as a minimum.
Eric Rosenbloom
President, National Wind Watch
Hartland, Vt., Oct. 6, 2010
Re “For Those Living Nearby, That Miserable Hum of Clean Energy” (front page, Oct. 6):
My husband and I spent a week on the island of Vinalhaven in Maine in August, within sight and sound of the three giant wind turbines. Not only are they visually disturbing in the otherwise pristine landscape, but the ebb and flow of sound is also more reminiscent of a jet plane than the woods of Maine.
After we spent two days driving, and an hour and a half on the ferry, to get away from the hustle and bustle of New York, it was quite ironic to find our rental house located across from the intermittently noisy power plant.
I can only imagine the effect of the proposed Long Island-New York City offshore wind project. Although the giant turbines are to be 13 to 15 miles off the shore of Long Island, I would guess that any endangered fish swimming above the proposed location on the Atlantic’s outer continental shelf might just call it quits altogether when they hear the roar of the turbines.
Ennid Berger
Glen Cove, N.Y., Oct. 6, 2010
•
To the Editor:
The number of people complaining about noise from wind turbines is “small but growing” because the number of people who live near industrial-scale wind turbines is small but growing. In addition, leases and neighbor easements often include “gag orders” against publicizing complaints.
The Acoustic Ecology Institute notes as well that local news coverage of the issue may be wanting and that social and economic constraints can keep people from going public.
And a growing number of doctors and other scientists are taking the health effects seriously, even for what you call the “most extreme claims.”
The solution is simple: adequate distance from homes. The affected Vinalhaven residents live within one mile of the turbines. Most independent researchers suggest two kilometers, or 1.24 miles, as a minimum.
Eric Rosenbloom
President, National Wind Watch
Hartland, Vt., Oct. 6, 2010
Sunday, October 10, 2010
Which investment would be more cost effective: energy efficient light bulbs to reduce electricity demand or wind turbines to produce electricity?
Both approaches are widely touted as good for the environment but their relative cost effectiveness is seldom compared. It can be done with simple arithmetic. Assume $2 million is available to invest.
1. Energy efficient light bulbs. Home Depot is offering four (4) 14-watt compact fluorescent light (CFL) bulbs for $7.97 that are claimed to provide the same light as a 60-watt incandescent light bulb, with a projected lifetime of 8000 hours.
· Assume the price is $2 per bulb to make the arithmetic easier.
· If the bulbs were used an average of 4 hrs per day over 5 years, that would add up to 7,300 hours (365 days x 5 years x 4 hours), or less than the claimed lifetime.
· Each 14-watt CFL would save 46 watts per hour of use in lieu of a 60-watt incandescent bulb.
· Over a 5-year period (4 hours per day) electricity savings from a single bulb would be 335,800 watt-hours (46 watts x 7300 hours). 335,800 watt-hours = 335.8 kilowatt-hours (kWh).
· $2 million could pay for 1,000,000 of the CFLs advertised by Home Depot.
Using these assumptions, 1,000,000 CFLs could save 335,800,000 kWh of electricity over 5 years.
2. Wind Turbine. The current “rule of thumb” price for a 1 Megawatt (MW) wind turbine seems to be roughly $2 million (if installed in quantity).
· A 1 MW wind turbine operating at a generous 35% capacity factor[1] over 1 year would produce 3,066,000 kWh of electricity (1,000 kW x 8760 hours in year x 35% = 3,066,000.
· Thus, a 1 MW wind turbine operating over 20 years[2] at a 35% capacity factor could produce 61,320,000 kWh of electricity (i.e., 20 x 3,066,000 = 61,320,000).
3. Comparison: Based on these calculations:
· A $2 million investment in a wind turbine would produce 61,320,000 kWh of electricity over a 20-year period.
· A $2 million investment in CFLs could save 335,800,000 kWh of electricity over a 5-year period.
· Therefore, the investment in CFLs would save more than 5 times as much electricity in 5 years than the wind turbine would produce in 20 years. ( 335,800,000 divided by 61,320,000 = 5.48.)
4. Other important considerations: Electricity not used means less need for adding electric generation, transmission and distribution capacity and the economic cost and environmental impact of building and maintaining that capacity. Less cost means lower monthly electric bills.
[1] Capacity factor is determined by dividing the amount of electricity produced (in megawatt-hour – MWh or kilowatt-hours – kWh) divided by the rated capacity of a generating unit (e.g., wind turbine) x the hours in the period being measured. Thus, a 1 megawatt (1,000 kW) wind turbine that produced 3,066,000 kWh of electricity during a one year period would have a capacity factor of 35%.
[2] Wind energy advocates often assume that industrial scale wind turbines will have a useful life of 20 years though none of the type now being installed in the US has been in service anywhere near 20 years.
1. Energy efficient light bulbs. Home Depot is offering four (4) 14-watt compact fluorescent light (CFL) bulbs for $7.97 that are claimed to provide the same light as a 60-watt incandescent light bulb, with a projected lifetime of 8000 hours.
· Assume the price is $2 per bulb to make the arithmetic easier.
· If the bulbs were used an average of 4 hrs per day over 5 years, that would add up to 7,300 hours (365 days x 5 years x 4 hours), or less than the claimed lifetime.
· Each 14-watt CFL would save 46 watts per hour of use in lieu of a 60-watt incandescent bulb.
· Over a 5-year period (4 hours per day) electricity savings from a single bulb would be 335,800 watt-hours (46 watts x 7300 hours). 335,800 watt-hours = 335.8 kilowatt-hours (kWh).
· $2 million could pay for 1,000,000 of the CFLs advertised by Home Depot.
Using these assumptions, 1,000,000 CFLs could save 335,800,000 kWh of electricity over 5 years.
2. Wind Turbine. The current “rule of thumb” price for a 1 Megawatt (MW) wind turbine seems to be roughly $2 million (if installed in quantity).
· A 1 MW wind turbine operating at a generous 35% capacity factor[1] over 1 year would produce 3,066,000 kWh of electricity (1,000 kW x 8760 hours in year x 35% = 3,066,000.
· Thus, a 1 MW wind turbine operating over 20 years[2] at a 35% capacity factor could produce 61,320,000 kWh of electricity (i.e., 20 x 3,066,000 = 61,320,000).
3. Comparison: Based on these calculations:
· A $2 million investment in a wind turbine would produce 61,320,000 kWh of electricity over a 20-year period.
· A $2 million investment in CFLs could save 335,800,000 kWh of electricity over a 5-year period.
· Therefore, the investment in CFLs would save more than 5 times as much electricity in 5 years than the wind turbine would produce in 20 years. ( 335,800,000 divided by 61,320,000 = 5.48.)
4. Other important considerations: Electricity not used means less need for adding electric generation, transmission and distribution capacity and the economic cost and environmental impact of building and maintaining that capacity. Less cost means lower monthly electric bills.
[1] Capacity factor is determined by dividing the amount of electricity produced (in megawatt-hour – MWh or kilowatt-hours – kWh) divided by the rated capacity of a generating unit (e.g., wind turbine) x the hours in the period being measured. Thus, a 1 megawatt (1,000 kW) wind turbine that produced 3,066,000 kWh of electricity during a one year period would have a capacity factor of 35%.
[2] Wind energy advocates often assume that industrial scale wind turbines will have a useful life of 20 years though none of the type now being installed in the US has been in service anywhere near 20 years.
First Wind opens office in Rumford
RUMFORD — With a pending $60 million wind farm project on the line, Boston-based wind developer First Wind has rented an office at 180 Congress St., spokesman John Lamontagne stated via e-mail late Tuesday afternoon.
“We are not planning to staff it full time, but (will) instead use it as a base of operations as we launch our efforts to inform the citizens of Rumford about the benefits of wind energy and the serious flaws with the anti-wind ordinance that was placed on the Nov. 2 ballot,” Lamontagne said.
Earlier this year, First Wind proposed a $60 million project to build 12 turbines on sections of Black Mountain and a nearby mountain.
Their Longfellow project instantly created a rift between pro- and anti-wind residents in Rumford.
Voters, however, enacted and then extended a moratorium on such projects to develop a law regulating such development.
Few residents attended the first of two public hearings on Monday night on the proposed ordinance that was described as a protective measure for townspeople.
It was drafted by the Board of Selectmen's appointed Wind Power Advisory Committee and promptly labeled anti-wind by First Wind's Director of Development, Neil Kiely, and as anti-business by Selectman Mark Belanger.
When presented to selectmen on Sept. 15, the board approved it 4-1 with Belanger the lone dissenter.
Since then, board Chairman Brad Adley attempted to put a second less-restrictive ordinance on the ballot but withdrew it last month after learning it's only a state template and not a working ordinance.
Adley and Belanger have also been threatened and publicly accused of taking bribes from First Wind, because of their stance on the proposed ordinance. Town Manager Carlo Puiia said he, too, was also targeted.
Adley and Puiia declined to reveal who they said threatened to start a recall against them for “unethical behavior” if they put a second wind ordinance on the ballot.
“It's like a car accident, it's gotten personal,” Adley said recently.
“It got nasty. I got a call from a lady in New York and a couple of threatening e-mails from her after."
"I've gotten nasty e-mails," he said. "It's almost like there is an outside influence working this and there very well could be. It's like they're using a playbook.”
All Puiia would say is that it “was local residents that were discussing the removal of two selectpersons for unethical conduct and myself included.”
He said no town official has taken any bribes.
“It's very ironic that those that point the finger at the developers for having a lack of ethics would resort to tactics of bullying or insinuations that would be damaging to the credibility of the individual that's serving,” Puiia said.
Messages to Belanger have not been returned, but he spoke about being threatened by committee members via a letter to the editor published on Sept. 29 in the Rumford Falls Times.
“It troubles me to think that members of this committee and others who support them would resort to political blackmail to coerce the majority of the board,” Belanger wrote.
“I can assure you that I have not taken anything from First Wind, not even as much as a coffee,” he said. “They were nothing but professional throughout this whole process.”
Late last month, First Wind polled 175 Rumford residents by phone to learn whether they favored the Longfellow project and to create an awareness of the proposed wind ordinance. Lamontagne declined to reveal what they learned.
Residents can view and discuss the ordinance at the special business meeting at 7 p.m. Tuesday, Oct. 12, in Muskie Auditorium at Mountain Valley High School, and at the second public hearing at 7 p.m. Thursday, Oct. 14, in Rumford Falls Auditorium.
Kiely, from First Wind, is scheduled to talk about the ordinance at both meetings.
Lamontagne said the First Wind office at 180 Congress St. is considered temporary pending the outcome of the Nov. 2 vote. Balloting is from 9 a.m. to 8 p.m. on Nov. 2 at the American Legion near First Wind's new office.
“We will be making a permanent commitment to an office in Rumford if the proposed Longfellow project is allowed to proceed,” Lamontagne said.
“We are not planning to staff it full time, but (will) instead use it as a base of operations as we launch our efforts to inform the citizens of Rumford about the benefits of wind energy and the serious flaws with the anti-wind ordinance that was placed on the Nov. 2 ballot,” Lamontagne said.
Earlier this year, First Wind proposed a $60 million project to build 12 turbines on sections of Black Mountain and a nearby mountain.
Their Longfellow project instantly created a rift between pro- and anti-wind residents in Rumford.
Voters, however, enacted and then extended a moratorium on such projects to develop a law regulating such development.
Few residents attended the first of two public hearings on Monday night on the proposed ordinance that was described as a protective measure for townspeople.
It was drafted by the Board of Selectmen's appointed Wind Power Advisory Committee and promptly labeled anti-wind by First Wind's Director of Development, Neil Kiely, and as anti-business by Selectman Mark Belanger.
When presented to selectmen on Sept. 15, the board approved it 4-1 with Belanger the lone dissenter.
Since then, board Chairman Brad Adley attempted to put a second less-restrictive ordinance on the ballot but withdrew it last month after learning it's only a state template and not a working ordinance.
Adley and Belanger have also been threatened and publicly accused of taking bribes from First Wind, because of their stance on the proposed ordinance. Town Manager Carlo Puiia said he, too, was also targeted.
Adley and Puiia declined to reveal who they said threatened to start a recall against them for “unethical behavior” if they put a second wind ordinance on the ballot.
“It's like a car accident, it's gotten personal,” Adley said recently.
“It got nasty. I got a call from a lady in New York and a couple of threatening e-mails from her after."
"I've gotten nasty e-mails," he said. "It's almost like there is an outside influence working this and there very well could be. It's like they're using a playbook.”
All Puiia would say is that it “was local residents that were discussing the removal of two selectpersons for unethical conduct and myself included.”
He said no town official has taken any bribes.
“It's very ironic that those that point the finger at the developers for having a lack of ethics would resort to tactics of bullying or insinuations that would be damaging to the credibility of the individual that's serving,” Puiia said.
Messages to Belanger have not been returned, but he spoke about being threatened by committee members via a letter to the editor published on Sept. 29 in the Rumford Falls Times.
“It troubles me to think that members of this committee and others who support them would resort to political blackmail to coerce the majority of the board,” Belanger wrote.
“I can assure you that I have not taken anything from First Wind, not even as much as a coffee,” he said. “They were nothing but professional throughout this whole process.”
Late last month, First Wind polled 175 Rumford residents by phone to learn whether they favored the Longfellow project and to create an awareness of the proposed wind ordinance. Lamontagne declined to reveal what they learned.
Residents can view and discuss the ordinance at the special business meeting at 7 p.m. Tuesday, Oct. 12, in Muskie Auditorium at Mountain Valley High School, and at the second public hearing at 7 p.m. Thursday, Oct. 14, in Rumford Falls Auditorium.
Kiely, from First Wind, is scheduled to talk about the ordinance at both meetings.
Lamontagne said the First Wind office at 180 Congress St. is considered temporary pending the outcome of the Nov. 2 vote. Balloting is from 9 a.m. to 8 p.m. on Nov. 2 at the American Legion near First Wind's new office.
“We will be making a permanent commitment to an office in Rumford if the proposed Longfellow project is allowed to proceed,” Lamontagne said.
Thursday, October 07, 2010
Letter: Misquoted? Tell the DEC, USFWS ...
In reply to Invenergy’s current promoter of Stony Creek energy project, Michael Mulcahey, and his unfounded attack (“Facts about Stony Creek Wind Farm misrepresented,” letter, Sept. 15) on “Selling out Orangeville?” (letter, Aug. 21) by Cathi Orr. Given that the state Department of Environmental Conservation and the Department of the Interior (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service) were quoted verbatim ...
There is a harvest moon this warm September evening just breaking the eastern horizon, Mr. Mulcahey, dusk has arrived and as I walk out into the seemingly never ending fields, hills and endless unencumbered evening skies ... all I hear is the soft rustling of a pleasant breeze in the willows and the harmony of crickets, Canadian geese and the Orangeville nightlife ... and no industrial wind turbines with their constant noise at decibel levels that the DEC guidelines on “noise” classify as “intolerable,” noise that drives people away from their homes, and farms.
In the minutes from the Aug. 12, 2010, Orangeville town meeting ... it is recorded that I asked Supervisor (Susan) May how the Town Board as lead agency was going to deal with the inadequacies, missing data, and errors of Invenergy’s Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) that had been mentioned by NYDEC, USFWS, and several other agencies. Supervisor May received these letters in April and May 2010, addressed to her at the Town Hall, but she replied: “Right now it is in the experts’ hands. The Town Board has not even seen any of this information yet. That is why we hired an engineer (Stantec ).” (Remember, Invenergy is paying Stantec and used this same engineer for the High Sheldon wind energy project).
You can find several federal and state agencies’ critiques and comments on the Orangeville DEIS at the Attica and Warsaw libraries, or check the CSOO website (www.csoo.info). These are also on file at the Orangeville Town Hall.
The Town Board of Orangeville as the lead agency in this industrial wind project should be interested to know what is in the DEIS prepared by Invenergy, and federal and state agency comments on the inadequacies of it. Wouldn’t Town Board officials find it very difficult to remain objective when their land leases with Invenergy might be in jeopardy if they didn’t help facilitate the industrial wind turbine project?
Orangeville is unique with its 14,500 acres of agriculture and forest which dominate the study area (USFWS). It contains some of the largest remaining blocks of forest habitat — 7,438 acres in total. Approximately 41 percent of the turbines would be built in forest habitat. Roads, buried electric cable, and turbine pad installation within forests can result in reduced habitat quality, smaller forest patch size, and changes in vegetation structure, etc.
So how could one figure that an industrial wind turbine project complete with all the negative impacts including Invenergy’s statement in the DEIS that 163 Orangeville residents would be subject to noise, shadow flicker, etc., be beneficial to the environment?
Industrial wind salesmen offer to give communities just pennies back of their own money, over 50 percent of the citizens’ own tax money goes to finance these wind projects. This money Invenergy talks about in the form of economic benefits is a trade-off for permission to destroy the very environment, they claim, they wish to save.
Mulcahey states, “Since operations ( Invenergy’s High Sheldon industrial wind turbine project) began more than a year ago, a vast majority of Sheldon residents have been extremely pleased with the results.”
I would then ask Mr, Mulcahey: “Would these be the same Sheldon residents that have signed approximately 70 industrial wind turbine land-lease contracts? And are these also the residents that have signed ‘good neighbor’ contracts (also known as gag, ‘shut-up,’ or confidentiality contracts)?”
Consider the actual wording of an Orangeville landowner contract with Invenergy: Owner shall not disclose the terms of this agreement to any parties other than its attorney or immediate family members (pg. 6, 9.1). Is this Invenergy and the Orangeville Town Board’s idea of transparency and ethical behavior? How much do you think your property will be worth if you try to sell it tied to these stipulations?
The contracted landowner also waives the right the right to sue.(“Owner also waives the right to institute summary proceedings in connection with this agreement including any action pursuant to New York Property Action and Proceedings. Law Article 7.”)
And lastly, we the Orangeville residents will not rest assured that Invenergy is concerned about the environment based on past example. One such example is the 45,000 tons of slag that was ordered by Invenergy from the 100-year-old federal brownfield cleanup operation on the grounds of the former Bethlehem Steel plant site (“Sheldon News,” Nov. 18, 2008, vol.1, by Councilman Glenn Cramer). This slag is what remains from over 100 years of industrial steel production and pollution. Pockets of contamination can and do exist there. This “iron slag” was hauled into Sheldon and subsequently dumped on Invenergy leased land, on agricultural fields of Sheldon, at depths of 4 feet deep and 32 feet wide. This done despite the fact that the Sheldon DEIS called for stone fill.
In a letter dated Sept. 13, 2008, the state Department of Agriculture and Markets responded to an inquiry by the High Sheldon Wind Farm in regards to the use of “iron slag” on nearly 20 miles of new (access) roads needed for the new wind project. “It appears that the use of this industrial by-product may be acceptable as “structural fill’ in an urban or industrial setting, however, the NYS Department of Agriculture and Markets does not support the use of any adulterated industrial by-product material (such as steel slag) as road base on, or adjacent to, agricultural lands used for the production of food and/or forage crops.” This letter goes on to explain the reasons behind their position. (A copy can be found at the Sheldon Town Hall.)
The Sheldon residents will now be stuck with the future consequences of that nasty decision. Can Invenergy be trusted not to use this “slag” on Orangeville agricultural fields in light of their questionable tactics?
Therefore, Invenergy, when Orangeville municipal officers put their personal financial agenda and business dealings with a multinational million-dollar corporation, before the health, safety and welfare of the people of Orangeville, forming zoning laws that facilitate this very same business project that is located in Orangeville, that is what I, in my opinion, call the “selling out of Orangeville.”
Cathi Orr is founder of the Clear Skies Over Orangeville Rural Preservation Coalition.
There is a harvest moon this warm September evening just breaking the eastern horizon, Mr. Mulcahey, dusk has arrived and as I walk out into the seemingly never ending fields, hills and endless unencumbered evening skies ... all I hear is the soft rustling of a pleasant breeze in the willows and the harmony of crickets, Canadian geese and the Orangeville nightlife ... and no industrial wind turbines with their constant noise at decibel levels that the DEC guidelines on “noise” classify as “intolerable,” noise that drives people away from their homes, and farms.
In the minutes from the Aug. 12, 2010, Orangeville town meeting ... it is recorded that I asked Supervisor (Susan) May how the Town Board as lead agency was going to deal with the inadequacies, missing data, and errors of Invenergy’s Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) that had been mentioned by NYDEC, USFWS, and several other agencies. Supervisor May received these letters in April and May 2010, addressed to her at the Town Hall, but she replied: “Right now it is in the experts’ hands. The Town Board has not even seen any of this information yet. That is why we hired an engineer (Stantec ).” (Remember, Invenergy is paying Stantec and used this same engineer for the High Sheldon wind energy project).
You can find several federal and state agencies’ critiques and comments on the Orangeville DEIS at the Attica and Warsaw libraries, or check the CSOO website (www.csoo.info). These are also on file at the Orangeville Town Hall.
The Town Board of Orangeville as the lead agency in this industrial wind project should be interested to know what is in the DEIS prepared by Invenergy, and federal and state agency comments on the inadequacies of it. Wouldn’t Town Board officials find it very difficult to remain objective when their land leases with Invenergy might be in jeopardy if they didn’t help facilitate the industrial wind turbine project?
Orangeville is unique with its 14,500 acres of agriculture and forest which dominate the study area (USFWS). It contains some of the largest remaining blocks of forest habitat — 7,438 acres in total. Approximately 41 percent of the turbines would be built in forest habitat. Roads, buried electric cable, and turbine pad installation within forests can result in reduced habitat quality, smaller forest patch size, and changes in vegetation structure, etc.
So how could one figure that an industrial wind turbine project complete with all the negative impacts including Invenergy’s statement in the DEIS that 163 Orangeville residents would be subject to noise, shadow flicker, etc., be beneficial to the environment?
Industrial wind salesmen offer to give communities just pennies back of their own money, over 50 percent of the citizens’ own tax money goes to finance these wind projects. This money Invenergy talks about in the form of economic benefits is a trade-off for permission to destroy the very environment, they claim, they wish to save.
Mulcahey states, “Since operations ( Invenergy’s High Sheldon industrial wind turbine project) began more than a year ago, a vast majority of Sheldon residents have been extremely pleased with the results.”
I would then ask Mr, Mulcahey: “Would these be the same Sheldon residents that have signed approximately 70 industrial wind turbine land-lease contracts? And are these also the residents that have signed ‘good neighbor’ contracts (also known as gag, ‘shut-up,’ or confidentiality contracts)?”
Consider the actual wording of an Orangeville landowner contract with Invenergy: Owner shall not disclose the terms of this agreement to any parties other than its attorney or immediate family members (pg. 6, 9.1). Is this Invenergy and the Orangeville Town Board’s idea of transparency and ethical behavior? How much do you think your property will be worth if you try to sell it tied to these stipulations?
The contracted landowner also waives the right the right to sue.(“Owner also waives the right to institute summary proceedings in connection with this agreement including any action pursuant to New York Property Action and Proceedings. Law Article 7.”)
And lastly, we the Orangeville residents will not rest assured that Invenergy is concerned about the environment based on past example. One such example is the 45,000 tons of slag that was ordered by Invenergy from the 100-year-old federal brownfield cleanup operation on the grounds of the former Bethlehem Steel plant site (“Sheldon News,” Nov. 18, 2008, vol.1, by Councilman Glenn Cramer). This slag is what remains from over 100 years of industrial steel production and pollution. Pockets of contamination can and do exist there. This “iron slag” was hauled into Sheldon and subsequently dumped on Invenergy leased land, on agricultural fields of Sheldon, at depths of 4 feet deep and 32 feet wide. This done despite the fact that the Sheldon DEIS called for stone fill.
In a letter dated Sept. 13, 2008, the state Department of Agriculture and Markets responded to an inquiry by the High Sheldon Wind Farm in regards to the use of “iron slag” on nearly 20 miles of new (access) roads needed for the new wind project. “It appears that the use of this industrial by-product may be acceptable as “structural fill’ in an urban or industrial setting, however, the NYS Department of Agriculture and Markets does not support the use of any adulterated industrial by-product material (such as steel slag) as road base on, or adjacent to, agricultural lands used for the production of food and/or forage crops.” This letter goes on to explain the reasons behind their position. (A copy can be found at the Sheldon Town Hall.)
The Sheldon residents will now be stuck with the future consequences of that nasty decision. Can Invenergy be trusted not to use this “slag” on Orangeville agricultural fields in light of their questionable tactics?
Therefore, Invenergy, when Orangeville municipal officers put their personal financial agenda and business dealings with a multinational million-dollar corporation, before the health, safety and welfare of the people of Orangeville, forming zoning laws that facilitate this very same business project that is located in Orangeville, that is what I, in my opinion, call the “selling out of Orangeville.”
Cathi Orr is founder of the Clear Skies Over Orangeville Rural Preservation Coalition.
Wednesday, October 06, 2010
Planners OK final impact statement
ST. LAWRENCE WIND FARM: Town of Cape Vincent panel says noise levels unlikely to exceed state limits
CAPE VINCENT — The town Planning Board approved St. Lawrence Wind Farm's final environmental impact statement, finding that noise levels in the proposed wind farm are unlikely to exceed state thresholds and accepting the developer's proposal for a noise complaint resolution plan.
The Planning Board approved the impact statement and its own findings Sept. 15. Those actions complete the environmental review process under the State Environmental Quality Review Act.
The findings were obtained through a Freedom of Information request. Attorney Todd M. Mathes, Whiteman Osterman & Hanna, Albany, said in an e-mail that the requirement for a Freedom of Information request was to ensure a timely response "given the absence of a clerk." Former Town Clerk Jeri Ann Mason resigned Sept. 15.
The board's action recognizes the studies that developer Acciona Wind Energy USA completed, permits that state and federal agencies have required and mitigation measures that the developer proposed.
"The benefits to the Town outweigh the identified environmental impacts associated with the project, all of which have been minimized to the maximum extent practicable," the findings said.
The two noise firms — the developer's primary consultant, Hessler Associates Inc., Haymarket, Va., and the town's independent noise consultant, Cavanaugh Tocci Associates Inc., Sudbury, Mass. — sent dueling opinions on noise levels in the months leading up to the final statement's acceptance.
David M. Hessler used sound levels that were an average of 44 decibels during the summer and 37 decibels during the winter when the wind is blowing.
According to a state Department of Environmental Conservation guideline, noise exceeding 6 decibels above ambient is considered intrusive or objectionable. If ambient noise levels have been overstated in the impact statement, it will allow higher levels of noise from turbines without violating DEC limits.
Hessler Associates' analysis showed the array of turbines would not create noise above 6 decibels above ambient.
"As acknowledged by each of Hessler's analyses and reports, wind and weather conditions will develop from time to time causing Project sound levels to increase over the nominally predicted level," the findings said.
William J. Elliot of Cavanaugh Tocci said Hessler's data did not statistically support the correlation between wind speed and noise. To get a stronger correlation, the wind speed and noise levels would have to be taken at the same location, but they were not, he said.
Cavanaugh Tocci experts had measurements that averaged 5 decibels below the levels Mr. Hessler predicted in his regression analysis. They recorded the sound levels at specific wind speeds.
"While CTA's more conservative approach is instructive, in either case, total noise from Project operation, even during the wintertime condition ... should generally remain below levels which would be considered unacceptable for a rural nighttime environment (45dBA)," the findings said.
The developer proposed a noise complaint resolution plan to rectify cases in which generated noise exceeds background conditions above the DEC guideline of 6 decibels.
"The implementation of such a plan will fully and adequately address the risk, in the event that the background noise is, in fact, closer to the more conservative levels determined by CTA than to the levels determined by Hessler," the findings said.
To follow that plan, the developer will have a community relations employee explain ambient noise before construction, have safety and environmental compliance briefings, create channels for registering a complaint and formalize a resolution process.
Acciona may now submit a complete site plan application for the 51-turbine wind power project. Planning Board Chairman Richard J. Edsall said the board, at a regular monthly meeting, would set a date to accept the application. The board then would accept it on that date, at a special meeting. A public hearing would occur within two months and the board must act two months later.
The findings repeat the benefits: no emissions from the project, four to six permanent jobs, about 200 construction jobs and money for the taxing jurisdictions based on a payment-in-lieu-of-taxes agreement.
The findings outline some unavoidable adverse impacts, including soil and water disturbance from site preparation. Long-term effects include visual intrusion, noise production, wildlife habitat changes and some bird and bat deaths.
"With the incorporation of these mitigation measures, the Project is expected to result in positive, long-term overall impacts that will offset the adverse effects that cannot otherwise be avoided," the findings said.
CAPE VINCENT — The town Planning Board approved St. Lawrence Wind Farm's final environmental impact statement, finding that noise levels in the proposed wind farm are unlikely to exceed state thresholds and accepting the developer's proposal for a noise complaint resolution plan.
The Planning Board approved the impact statement and its own findings Sept. 15. Those actions complete the environmental review process under the State Environmental Quality Review Act.
The findings were obtained through a Freedom of Information request. Attorney Todd M. Mathes, Whiteman Osterman & Hanna, Albany, said in an e-mail that the requirement for a Freedom of Information request was to ensure a timely response "given the absence of a clerk." Former Town Clerk Jeri Ann Mason resigned Sept. 15.
The board's action recognizes the studies that developer Acciona Wind Energy USA completed, permits that state and federal agencies have required and mitigation measures that the developer proposed.
"The benefits to the Town outweigh the identified environmental impacts associated with the project, all of which have been minimized to the maximum extent practicable," the findings said.
The two noise firms — the developer's primary consultant, Hessler Associates Inc., Haymarket, Va., and the town's independent noise consultant, Cavanaugh Tocci Associates Inc., Sudbury, Mass. — sent dueling opinions on noise levels in the months leading up to the final statement's acceptance.
David M. Hessler used sound levels that were an average of 44 decibels during the summer and 37 decibels during the winter when the wind is blowing.
According to a state Department of Environmental Conservation guideline, noise exceeding 6 decibels above ambient is considered intrusive or objectionable. If ambient noise levels have been overstated in the impact statement, it will allow higher levels of noise from turbines without violating DEC limits.
Hessler Associates' analysis showed the array of turbines would not create noise above 6 decibels above ambient.
"As acknowledged by each of Hessler's analyses and reports, wind and weather conditions will develop from time to time causing Project sound levels to increase over the nominally predicted level," the findings said.
William J. Elliot of Cavanaugh Tocci said Hessler's data did not statistically support the correlation between wind speed and noise. To get a stronger correlation, the wind speed and noise levels would have to be taken at the same location, but they were not, he said.
Cavanaugh Tocci experts had measurements that averaged 5 decibels below the levels Mr. Hessler predicted in his regression analysis. They recorded the sound levels at specific wind speeds.
"While CTA's more conservative approach is instructive, in either case, total noise from Project operation, even during the wintertime condition ... should generally remain below levels which would be considered unacceptable for a rural nighttime environment (45dBA)," the findings said.
The developer proposed a noise complaint resolution plan to rectify cases in which generated noise exceeds background conditions above the DEC guideline of 6 decibels.
"The implementation of such a plan will fully and adequately address the risk, in the event that the background noise is, in fact, closer to the more conservative levels determined by CTA than to the levels determined by Hessler," the findings said.
To follow that plan, the developer will have a community relations employee explain ambient noise before construction, have safety and environmental compliance briefings, create channels for registering a complaint and formalize a resolution process.
Acciona may now submit a complete site plan application for the 51-turbine wind power project. Planning Board Chairman Richard J. Edsall said the board, at a regular monthly meeting, would set a date to accept the application. The board then would accept it on that date, at a special meeting. A public hearing would occur within two months and the board must act two months later.
The findings repeat the benefits: no emissions from the project, four to six permanent jobs, about 200 construction jobs and money for the taxing jurisdictions based on a payment-in-lieu-of-taxes agreement.
The findings outline some unavoidable adverse impacts, including soil and water disturbance from site preparation. Long-term effects include visual intrusion, noise production, wildlife habitat changes and some bird and bat deaths.
"With the incorporation of these mitigation measures, the Project is expected to result in positive, long-term overall impacts that will offset the adverse effects that cannot otherwise be avoided," the findings said.
Wind Panel Visiting Iberdrola's Maple Ridge Wind Farm
HAMMOND - The Hammond Wind Committee will visit Iberdrola's Maple Ridge Wind Farm on Saturday to get a first-hand look at an industrial wind project.
A group will leave the village hall at 9 a.m., destined for a two to three hour tour of the Lowville facility.
A report on the tour will be made at the next wind committee meeting, to be held Oct. 18 at 7 p.m. in the village hall.
During Monday evening's meeting, the committee revisited its policy on making comments in public, specifically addressing how contact with the media is to be handled.
Dr. Stephen D. Sarfaty said his understanding of the communication policy consists of "no interval contact with the media."
"Our voice is in these meetings," he said. "The public voice is at the meetings. There should be no individual, ex-parte contact."
The committee agreed, establishing a question and answer session for the media at the end of each committee meeting.
Donald A. Ceresoli Jr. made a preliminary report on the noise sub-committee's findings, suggesting that the study is a work in progress and that sub-group findings are certainly not factual.
Mr. Ceresoli said he had taken 14 readings, including some on Oak Point, Wooster, and Ireland roads, as well as others on state Highway 37 and county Route 3. His average reading was 41.3 decibels.
Ann Root, a community volunteer, reported that she and her daughter, Allison, had taken readings on two separate occassions. One evening, she said, 14 readings were taken, one every mile, on the Calaboga Road (which turns into county Route 6), for an average of 37.2 decibels. The other group of 10 readings, taken in the morning in the Triangle, Pleasant Valley, Newell and Conger road areas, resulted in a 34.5 decibel average.
Thomas Chapman, another community volunteer, also reported readings of 30 to 40 decibels.
Iberdrola Business Developer Jenny L. Burke, during a discussion on environmental issues, said that Iberdrola has been conducting environmental studies in Hammond, beginning with a preliminary avian risk assessment in 2005 (this study, she said, was updated in 2010).
Other studies, Ms. Burke said, have included a habitat assessment, raptor migration surveys (fall, spring, and winter), which included studies on both the native short-eared owl and bald eagle, a waterfowl survey, nocturnal radar study, bird migration survey, including grassland breeding birds, a preliminary bat risk assessment, as well as acoustical monitoring.
She said Iberdrola had been working diligently to meet Department of Environmental Conservation standards and that results of all the studies would be made available to the public as soon as Iberdrola is able to issue an Enviromental Impact Statement to the town board (when the current moratorium is lifted).
Upcoming meeting topics are to include:
Oct. 18 - Maple Ridge report; groundwater effects; television and cellular phone reception; well impacts; property owner complaints; and blasting during construction. A real estate broker from the Cape Vincent/Orleans area is also expected to report on property value impacts.
Nov. 1 - Sound and Health; also, the director of Save the River will present on the group's request for a three-year moratorium for wind power development on the St. Lawrence River.
Nov. 15 - Report on the Chateaugay Wind Farm tour (Nov. 13); ice throw; blade throw; and tower collapse.
Nov. 29 - Visual impacts.
Dec. 6 - Assurances in law; go through law and determine changes.
Dec. 20 - Summarize and finalize report to town board.
A group will leave the village hall at 9 a.m., destined for a two to three hour tour of the Lowville facility.
A report on the tour will be made at the next wind committee meeting, to be held Oct. 18 at 7 p.m. in the village hall.
During Monday evening's meeting, the committee revisited its policy on making comments in public, specifically addressing how contact with the media is to be handled.
Dr. Stephen D. Sarfaty said his understanding of the communication policy consists of "no interval contact with the media."
"Our voice is in these meetings," he said. "The public voice is at the meetings. There should be no individual, ex-parte contact."
The committee agreed, establishing a question and answer session for the media at the end of each committee meeting.
Donald A. Ceresoli Jr. made a preliminary report on the noise sub-committee's findings, suggesting that the study is a work in progress and that sub-group findings are certainly not factual.
Mr. Ceresoli said he had taken 14 readings, including some on Oak Point, Wooster, and Ireland roads, as well as others on state Highway 37 and county Route 3. His average reading was 41.3 decibels.
Ann Root, a community volunteer, reported that she and her daughter, Allison, had taken readings on two separate occassions. One evening, she said, 14 readings were taken, one every mile, on the Calaboga Road (which turns into county Route 6), for an average of 37.2 decibels. The other group of 10 readings, taken in the morning in the Triangle, Pleasant Valley, Newell and Conger road areas, resulted in a 34.5 decibel average.
Thomas Chapman, another community volunteer, also reported readings of 30 to 40 decibels.
Iberdrola Business Developer Jenny L. Burke, during a discussion on environmental issues, said that Iberdrola has been conducting environmental studies in Hammond, beginning with a preliminary avian risk assessment in 2005 (this study, she said, was updated in 2010).
Other studies, Ms. Burke said, have included a habitat assessment, raptor migration surveys (fall, spring, and winter), which included studies on both the native short-eared owl and bald eagle, a waterfowl survey, nocturnal radar study, bird migration survey, including grassland breeding birds, a preliminary bat risk assessment, as well as acoustical monitoring.
She said Iberdrola had been working diligently to meet Department of Environmental Conservation standards and that results of all the studies would be made available to the public as soon as Iberdrola is able to issue an Enviromental Impact Statement to the town board (when the current moratorium is lifted).
Upcoming meeting topics are to include:
Oct. 18 - Maple Ridge report; groundwater effects; television and cellular phone reception; well impacts; property owner complaints; and blasting during construction. A real estate broker from the Cape Vincent/Orleans area is also expected to report on property value impacts.
Nov. 1 - Sound and Health; also, the director of Save the River will present on the group's request for a three-year moratorium for wind power development on the St. Lawrence River.
Nov. 15 - Report on the Chateaugay Wind Farm tour (Nov. 13); ice throw; blade throw; and tower collapse.
Nov. 29 - Visual impacts.
Dec. 6 - Assurances in law; go through law and determine changes.
Dec. 20 - Summarize and finalize report to town board.
Tuesday, October 05, 2010
Italy supervisor sees progress in lawsuit
Italy, N.Y. — Town Supervisor Brad Jones says he’s satisfied with the way things went during a Sept. 27 courtroom session in Rochester before Judge John J. Ark.
Ark is presiding over the case filed by Ecogen LLC against the Town of Italy.
Ecogen is trying to force the town to permit the construction of up to 17 wind turbines in Italy as part of a utility scale wind development that would span both Italy and Prattsburgh.
There is a similar case between Ecogen and the Town of Prattsburgh that is also being heard by Ark.
The Sept. 27 session was to go over responses to a series of questions Ark posed to all the parties involved in the cases.
Ark has yet to hand down his decision in a motion for dismissal filed by the Town of Italy, but Jones says his optimism lies in some of the questions and suggestions that were discussed.
The bottom line is, the judge has asked Ecogen to take two weeks to consider some of the alternatives that were discussed in the courtroom and in his chambers.
Jones says those alternatives include:
• Ark suggested that the parties take another look at engineering studies done in the spring that, if used as the basis for regulation, could require that wind turbines be built 4,000 feet from a neighboring property.
• Ecogen considering a project with much smaller turbines.
• Ecogen considering a project located in southern Prattsburgh, where more agricultural land users may welcome the development and leases. If Ecogen moves the project to southern Prattsburgh, Jones said the Town of Italy would offer assistance to the company in marketing the parcels of land the company purchased in Italy. Jones says he would like to see the parcels targeted for sustainable agriculture use, which would benefit the town’s tax base and allow Ecogen to go to an area where the turbines would have the support of the locals.
Jones said Italy officials are working on a letter to send to Ecogen laying out the alternatives, but he’s not sure when the next court session will be scheduled.
The town of Italy is without legal representation at this point. The town’s former legal firm, Harter, Secrest & Emery was released by Ark in September at the firm’s request because the town of Italy is not able to pay the firm’s bills, which total around $200,000.
During the Sept. 8 hearing about that motion, Jones told Ark the town’s property tax levy might have to increase by 20 to 30 percent in order to pay the entire bill from one annual budget.
Jones says the town is still in discussions about a payment plan with the firm.
Ark is presiding over the case filed by Ecogen LLC against the Town of Italy.
Ecogen is trying to force the town to permit the construction of up to 17 wind turbines in Italy as part of a utility scale wind development that would span both Italy and Prattsburgh.
There is a similar case between Ecogen and the Town of Prattsburgh that is also being heard by Ark.
The Sept. 27 session was to go over responses to a series of questions Ark posed to all the parties involved in the cases.
Ark has yet to hand down his decision in a motion for dismissal filed by the Town of Italy, but Jones says his optimism lies in some of the questions and suggestions that were discussed.
The bottom line is, the judge has asked Ecogen to take two weeks to consider some of the alternatives that were discussed in the courtroom and in his chambers.
Jones says those alternatives include:
• Ark suggested that the parties take another look at engineering studies done in the spring that, if used as the basis for regulation, could require that wind turbines be built 4,000 feet from a neighboring property.
• Ecogen considering a project with much smaller turbines.
• Ecogen considering a project located in southern Prattsburgh, where more agricultural land users may welcome the development and leases. If Ecogen moves the project to southern Prattsburgh, Jones said the Town of Italy would offer assistance to the company in marketing the parcels of land the company purchased in Italy. Jones says he would like to see the parcels targeted for sustainable agriculture use, which would benefit the town’s tax base and allow Ecogen to go to an area where the turbines would have the support of the locals.
Jones said Italy officials are working on a letter to send to Ecogen laying out the alternatives, but he’s not sure when the next court session will be scheduled.
The town of Italy is without legal representation at this point. The town’s former legal firm, Harter, Secrest & Emery was released by Ark in September at the firm’s request because the town of Italy is not able to pay the firm’s bills, which total around $200,000.
During the Sept. 8 hearing about that motion, Jones told Ark the town’s property tax levy might have to increase by 20 to 30 percent in order to pay the entire bill from one annual budget.
Jones says the town is still in discussions about a payment plan with the firm.
Group forms to oppose wind turbines
Their hands may be tied but their mouths aren’t gagged.
This was the message delivered to town council last Monday night by a group of concerned citizens joined together into the West Lincoln Wind Action Group (WLWAG) — a grassroots community organization representing concerns with a proposed wind turbine development by IPC.
“We are here tonight to convey the concerns of residents,” said Cam Pritchard, a representative for the group.
“The installation of these turbines will divide and ruin our township,” he added.
The WLWAG presented numerous articles and studies linking wind turbines with a host of negative effects including health issues, decreased property values and health effects on both wild and domesticated animals.
Representatives from the group requested council’s help in producing an information package to be on hand at the three libraries in the township. Specifically the group requested some help in photocopying the package which will contain information from both IPC and the WLWAG’s own research.
“Many people don’t know this is coming down the pipe,” said Neil Switzer, a representative for the WLWAG, adding, “it’s all being done behind the scenes.”
The group also called council to press the region to have the regional health officer compile a report on wind energy with specific focus on a May 2010 report from the chief medical officer of health for Ontario that found negligible health affects associated with wind turbines at appropriate setbacks. The WLWAG asked council for the review since they claim new information on the subject has come to light.
“There’s some major impacts people are recording,” said Switzer, who added, “we want an updated report.”
The group also proposed to council that they join a growing list of 67 Ontario municipalities requesting a moratorium on industrial wind turbine development in the province until further research is done.
“Every week there are more municipalities signing on,” said Switzer, adding, “you’re not muzzled.”
He pointed out that although the Green Energy Act has removed any power in regards to green energy development from municipal government, the town council can still voice its concerns along with a growing number of like minded municipalities.
Switzer also explained that West Lincoln is unique in that unlike many municipalities who discovered problems after the establishment of wind turbines it still isn’t to late to “get ahead of this thing.”
Members of council applauded what they said was a considerable amount of work done by the WLWAG since its inception two weeks ago.
“I was very impressed with the amount of work you gentlemen have done,” said mayor Katie Trombetta.
Council also voiced support for the group’s resolutions pending an examination by staff and agreed to assist in the dissemination of the information package.
Alderman Mike Rehner pointed out that while he supports green energy the solution should not also adversely affect people as well.
“We don’t want to burn coal but we don’t want to affect people with something else,” he said, pointing out that the turbines should be placed somewhere in the township where they will not affect homes and families.
This was the message delivered to town council last Monday night by a group of concerned citizens joined together into the West Lincoln Wind Action Group (WLWAG) — a grassroots community organization representing concerns with a proposed wind turbine development by IPC.
“We are here tonight to convey the concerns of residents,” said Cam Pritchard, a representative for the group.
“The installation of these turbines will divide and ruin our township,” he added.
The WLWAG presented numerous articles and studies linking wind turbines with a host of negative effects including health issues, decreased property values and health effects on both wild and domesticated animals.
Representatives from the group requested council’s help in producing an information package to be on hand at the three libraries in the township. Specifically the group requested some help in photocopying the package which will contain information from both IPC and the WLWAG’s own research.
“Many people don’t know this is coming down the pipe,” said Neil Switzer, a representative for the WLWAG, adding, “it’s all being done behind the scenes.”
The group also called council to press the region to have the regional health officer compile a report on wind energy with specific focus on a May 2010 report from the chief medical officer of health for Ontario that found negligible health affects associated with wind turbines at appropriate setbacks. The WLWAG asked council for the review since they claim new information on the subject has come to light.
“There’s some major impacts people are recording,” said Switzer, who added, “we want an updated report.”
The group also proposed to council that they join a growing list of 67 Ontario municipalities requesting a moratorium on industrial wind turbine development in the province until further research is done.
“Every week there are more municipalities signing on,” said Switzer, adding, “you’re not muzzled.”
He pointed out that although the Green Energy Act has removed any power in regards to green energy development from municipal government, the town council can still voice its concerns along with a growing number of like minded municipalities.
Switzer also explained that West Lincoln is unique in that unlike many municipalities who discovered problems after the establishment of wind turbines it still isn’t to late to “get ahead of this thing.”
Members of council applauded what they said was a considerable amount of work done by the WLWAG since its inception two weeks ago.
“I was very impressed with the amount of work you gentlemen have done,” said mayor Katie Trombetta.
Council also voiced support for the group’s resolutions pending an examination by staff and agreed to assist in the dissemination of the information package.
Alderman Mike Rehner pointed out that while he supports green energy the solution should not also adversely affect people as well.
“We don’t want to burn coal but we don’t want to affect people with something else,” he said, pointing out that the turbines should be placed somewhere in the township where they will not affect homes and families.
Saturday, October 02, 2010
Our Energy Future: Determined by Science or Lobbyists?" Presented by John Droz, Jr.
Friday, October 15 at 7:00 P.M.
Rapids Theater, 1711 Main Street, Niagara Falls New York
"Our nation's energy policy involves serious technical, economic and environmental challenges and it's important that citizens get educated on such technical matters - and then insist that their representatives make decisions based on science rather than politics" Droz said. "There is well over a trillion dollars at stake regarding electrical energy - in addition to potentially enormous impacts on our environment. This is worth getting up-to-speed on."
John Droz has undergraduate degrees in physics and mathematics from Boston College, and a graduate degree in Physics from Syracuse University.
The New York Power Authority has put together a plan to industrialize Lake Erie and or Ontario with 166 wind turbines. They are only weeks away from naming the developer, this presentation could not have come at a more important time for our Lakes.
Rapids Theater, 1711 Main Street, Niagara Falls New York
"Our nation's energy policy involves serious technical, economic and environmental challenges and it's important that citizens get educated on such technical matters - and then insist that their representatives make decisions based on science rather than politics" Droz said. "There is well over a trillion dollars at stake regarding electrical energy - in addition to potentially enormous impacts on our environment. This is worth getting up-to-speed on."
John Droz has undergraduate degrees in physics and mathematics from Boston College, and a graduate degree in Physics from Syracuse University.
The New York Power Authority has put together a plan to industrialize Lake Erie and or Ontario with 166 wind turbines. They are only weeks away from naming the developer, this presentation could not have come at a more important time for our Lakes.
Wind turbines unlikely to save planet
The Ontario government, as a result of the Green Energy Act 2009, is planning to erect industrial wind turbines in several sites across the province.
"Good", we said. "It's about time." After all, we are in favour of reducing our dependency on fossil fuels, and wanting to cut down on greenhouse gas emissions. And wind is a free, renewable resource, so this is good for all of us, right?
Boy, were we naive.
The plan is for mega turbines - nearly 50 storeys high - that dwarf the turbines we currently see along the Great Lakes. Lots of them: on farmland, and possibly out in the lakes.
If they're going to save the planet, you'd probably give them the thumbs up, wouldn't you? Well, it doesn't take much digging to see that they're not likely to save the planet.
Wind energy isn't very efficient, according to William Palmer, an engineer who has presented internationally on the subject. He says that, because the winds come and go, wind turbines work at an average of 27% capacity. What's more, Ontario has no ability to store wind energy, so what we don't use immediately is wasted. Storage facilities could be created - at great cost - in addition to the huge cost of the turbines themselves.
In a perfect world, we shouldn't demur at the cost, but countries like Britain, well ahead of us in wind energy, are now having to face the stark reality of "fuel poverty" - the cost of fuel exceeding one's ability to pay. So, if wind energy is going to be expensive and inefficient, we'd like to know before we open our hydro bill.
Adding insult to injury, according to Palmer, is the fact the net effect of wind turbines on global warming is insignificant. Why? Because most of Canada's harmful emissions are not caused by electricity production, and because the fossil fuel systems needed to back up wind power lose their efficiency when they have to be started, stopped and restarted as winds come and go. Further, we are shocked to learn that, despite its tens of thousands of wind turbines, Germany, the poster child for wind energy, has yet to close a single coal-fired plant.
But wait - it gets worse. Globally, in 2008-09, there were 35 cases of blade failure (blades breaking off and hurtling to the ground). People have been killed by these things. Canada's blade failure rate is already four times greater than in Europe - not surprising when you consider extreme weather is a contributing factor.
Blade failure and ice thrown from blades would not be as concerning if turbines were installed away from populated areas, as they tend to be in Europe. But the Green Energy Act of Ontario has allowed industrial wind turbines to be built as close as 550 meters from homes. The World Health Organization recommends 1.5 to 2 kilometres, but in Ontario, we will soon have the largest wind turbines in the world, combined with the shortest setback distances in the world.
This presents another set of problems. Dr. Robert McMurtry, former dean of medicine at the University of Western Ontario, says we really don't know the long-term effects of wind turbines on human health. He says people all over the globe have reported ill effects, and the Ontario government is pushing its wind power plan through in the absence of conclusive research.
We think this is poor decision-making. Remember depo prevara, thalidomide, and UFFI?
Dr. Nina Pierpont, author of Wind Turbine Syndrome, says, "many people living within 2 km of these giants get . . . so sick that they . . . abandon (as in, lock the door and leave) their homes. Nobody wants to buy their acoustically toxic homes." This process has become known as expropriation without compensation.
While we are sympathetic to Premier Dalton McGuinty's plight, we'd like to see him do his homework. The wind energy campaign caters to that part of us that wants to believe it's the right thing to do. Our son suffers from asthma - we'd love to see coal plants become a thing of the past. But the Ontario wind turbine plan is fraught with problems, We'd appreciate it if the government would at least be honest about what it's getting us into. We don't like being forced to buy a pig in a poke.
McGuinty says he'd like to be remembered as the education premier of Ontario. Let's hope he's not remembered as the premier who made us wiser but sadder.
Laurie Kay and Sandy Oswick are London residents.
"Good", we said. "It's about time." After all, we are in favour of reducing our dependency on fossil fuels, and wanting to cut down on greenhouse gas emissions. And wind is a free, renewable resource, so this is good for all of us, right?
Boy, were we naive.
The plan is for mega turbines - nearly 50 storeys high - that dwarf the turbines we currently see along the Great Lakes. Lots of them: on farmland, and possibly out in the lakes.
If they're going to save the planet, you'd probably give them the thumbs up, wouldn't you? Well, it doesn't take much digging to see that they're not likely to save the planet.
Wind energy isn't very efficient, according to William Palmer, an engineer who has presented internationally on the subject. He says that, because the winds come and go, wind turbines work at an average of 27% capacity. What's more, Ontario has no ability to store wind energy, so what we don't use immediately is wasted. Storage facilities could be created - at great cost - in addition to the huge cost of the turbines themselves.
In a perfect world, we shouldn't demur at the cost, but countries like Britain, well ahead of us in wind energy, are now having to face the stark reality of "fuel poverty" - the cost of fuel exceeding one's ability to pay. So, if wind energy is going to be expensive and inefficient, we'd like to know before we open our hydro bill.
Adding insult to injury, according to Palmer, is the fact the net effect of wind turbines on global warming is insignificant. Why? Because most of Canada's harmful emissions are not caused by electricity production, and because the fossil fuel systems needed to back up wind power lose their efficiency when they have to be started, stopped and restarted as winds come and go. Further, we are shocked to learn that, despite its tens of thousands of wind turbines, Germany, the poster child for wind energy, has yet to close a single coal-fired plant.
But wait - it gets worse. Globally, in 2008-09, there were 35 cases of blade failure (blades breaking off and hurtling to the ground). People have been killed by these things. Canada's blade failure rate is already four times greater than in Europe - not surprising when you consider extreme weather is a contributing factor.
Blade failure and ice thrown from blades would not be as concerning if turbines were installed away from populated areas, as they tend to be in Europe. But the Green Energy Act of Ontario has allowed industrial wind turbines to be built as close as 550 meters from homes. The World Health Organization recommends 1.5 to 2 kilometres, but in Ontario, we will soon have the largest wind turbines in the world, combined with the shortest setback distances in the world.
This presents another set of problems. Dr. Robert McMurtry, former dean of medicine at the University of Western Ontario, says we really don't know the long-term effects of wind turbines on human health. He says people all over the globe have reported ill effects, and the Ontario government is pushing its wind power plan through in the absence of conclusive research.
We think this is poor decision-making. Remember depo prevara, thalidomide, and UFFI?
Dr. Nina Pierpont, author of Wind Turbine Syndrome, says, "many people living within 2 km of these giants get . . . so sick that they . . . abandon (as in, lock the door and leave) their homes. Nobody wants to buy their acoustically toxic homes." This process has become known as expropriation without compensation.
While we are sympathetic to Premier Dalton McGuinty's plight, we'd like to see him do his homework. The wind energy campaign caters to that part of us that wants to believe it's the right thing to do. Our son suffers from asthma - we'd love to see coal plants become a thing of the past. But the Ontario wind turbine plan is fraught with problems, We'd appreciate it if the government would at least be honest about what it's getting us into. We don't like being forced to buy a pig in a poke.
McGuinty says he'd like to be remembered as the education premier of Ontario. Let's hope he's not remembered as the premier who made us wiser but sadder.
Laurie Kay and Sandy Oswick are London residents.
Friday, October 01, 2010
Properties ‘virtually unmarketable’
A survey by a local realtor may have confirmed the worst suspicions of Stan Mundy, whose home is closest to Chevron’s wind farm northeast of Casper.
Glen Taylor, of Equity Brokers in Casper, did a real estate survey Sept. 10, 2010, and concluded properties directly adjacent to the Chevron Wind Towers are now “virtually unmarketable” at “any realistic price.”
In his report, Taylor said no residential properties have sold in his three-road survey area since October 2009, and 10 are presently on the market (five that were listed in the past two years didn’t sell).
Taylor wrote, “No reasonable buyer would choose a property close to the wind towers over a property that isn’t close to wind towers unless the price is so low that the investment would be a no brainer.”
Taylor said in his report that rural property close to town is usually in good demand, and noted he’s the agent for one parcel in the area. He has had over 50 inquiries on his listing in about two months, but 40 dropped interest after learning about the location.
“In follow-up with the inquiries, the number one reason for not having genuine interest in this property is because of the proximity of the wind towers,” Taylor wrote in his report.
Taylor did the survey at the request of Natrona County State Representative Mike Gilmore. Gilmore is a long-time friend of Mundy’s, and had asked Taylor for assistance after hearing about Mundy’s property situation.
“Some people are saying Stan’s just a nut, and he needs to get over it,” Gilmore said about Mundy’s dispute with the county. “But his issue had some merit, and I felt he might need a little ammunition … he’s not asking for money or anything from the company, he just didn’t want those towers, like 800 feet from his house. He has a legitimate complaint.”
Noting that the towers are on Chevron’s property, Gilmore said, “ … I’m a real private property rights advocate, so much so I fought against the Highway
Department’s wanting to condemn land for snow fences. But the wind is different. It’s unique, it’s big, it’s this massive structure you’ve got to look through to see the mountain.”
Gilmore said wind energy needed to be developed in Wyoming, and that energy companies have jumped into it now because of generous tax breaks. He then added, “ … but the jobs really didn’t materialize, and the taxes aren’t coming along either … we’ve devalued our own property.
“It’s something in this next session that maybe we need to look into,” he said.
Mundy, meanwhile, said he’s looking into several options in his ongoing battle with the county.
He missed his property tax protest hearing before the County Board of Equalization (composed of three county commissioners) when they denied his request to change the date. Mundy told them he would be away attending his daughter’s graduation from Army boot camp in South Carolina.
The discussion by the commissioners on changing the hearing date included in Commissioner Barb Peryam calling Mundy a “son of a bitch” and threatening to “sic planning and zoning and code enforcement” on him. The commissioners turned down Mundy’s request to reschedule, noting the cost of paying for another official hearing reporter.
“She’s apologized to the other commissioners,” Mundy said of Peryam’s comments, “but she hasn’t apologized to me.
“I had called, before this all transpired, to the State Board of Equalization to see if they would hear my tax appeal because I didn’t think I could get a fair shake with our commission … because Rob Hendry is going to profit from wind industry, just like my property value is going to go down because of the wind industry,” Mundy said. “I was told the county would have to certify it, and I would have to go through the county to get to state level. I said to heck with it.”
After his hearing date change was denied, he wrote a letter to Gov. Dave Freudenthal protesting the situation. A few days ago he received a reply from an aide to the governor, who said they were aware of the events that had transpired, and again told him that legally his property tax protest must begin at the county level.
The letter also stated, however, that, “Your issue with siting was one of the primary drivers for establishing the minimum state setbacks that were passed during the 2010 Wyoming legislative session. The governor’s office is well aware that the legislation doesn’t help you. However, your advocacy has helped others in similar circumstances.”
Mundy says he’s not certain now whether he can, or will, request another hearing before the County Board of Equalization.
“I still don’t think I can get a fair hearing,” he said.
Glen Taylor, of Equity Brokers in Casper, did a real estate survey Sept. 10, 2010, and concluded properties directly adjacent to the Chevron Wind Towers are now “virtually unmarketable” at “any realistic price.”
In his report, Taylor said no residential properties have sold in his three-road survey area since October 2009, and 10 are presently on the market (five that were listed in the past two years didn’t sell).
Taylor wrote, “No reasonable buyer would choose a property close to the wind towers over a property that isn’t close to wind towers unless the price is so low that the investment would be a no brainer.”
Taylor said in his report that rural property close to town is usually in good demand, and noted he’s the agent for one parcel in the area. He has had over 50 inquiries on his listing in about two months, but 40 dropped interest after learning about the location.
“In follow-up with the inquiries, the number one reason for not having genuine interest in this property is because of the proximity of the wind towers,” Taylor wrote in his report.
Taylor did the survey at the request of Natrona County State Representative Mike Gilmore. Gilmore is a long-time friend of Mundy’s, and had asked Taylor for assistance after hearing about Mundy’s property situation.
“Some people are saying Stan’s just a nut, and he needs to get over it,” Gilmore said about Mundy’s dispute with the county. “But his issue had some merit, and I felt he might need a little ammunition … he’s not asking for money or anything from the company, he just didn’t want those towers, like 800 feet from his house. He has a legitimate complaint.”
Noting that the towers are on Chevron’s property, Gilmore said, “ … I’m a real private property rights advocate, so much so I fought against the Highway
Department’s wanting to condemn land for snow fences. But the wind is different. It’s unique, it’s big, it’s this massive structure you’ve got to look through to see the mountain.”
Gilmore said wind energy needed to be developed in Wyoming, and that energy companies have jumped into it now because of generous tax breaks. He then added, “ … but the jobs really didn’t materialize, and the taxes aren’t coming along either … we’ve devalued our own property.
“It’s something in this next session that maybe we need to look into,” he said.
Mundy, meanwhile, said he’s looking into several options in his ongoing battle with the county.
He missed his property tax protest hearing before the County Board of Equalization (composed of three county commissioners) when they denied his request to change the date. Mundy told them he would be away attending his daughter’s graduation from Army boot camp in South Carolina.
The discussion by the commissioners on changing the hearing date included in Commissioner Barb Peryam calling Mundy a “son of a bitch” and threatening to “sic planning and zoning and code enforcement” on him. The commissioners turned down Mundy’s request to reschedule, noting the cost of paying for another official hearing reporter.
“She’s apologized to the other commissioners,” Mundy said of Peryam’s comments, “but she hasn’t apologized to me.
“I had called, before this all transpired, to the State Board of Equalization to see if they would hear my tax appeal because I didn’t think I could get a fair shake with our commission … because Rob Hendry is going to profit from wind industry, just like my property value is going to go down because of the wind industry,” Mundy said. “I was told the county would have to certify it, and I would have to go through the county to get to state level. I said to heck with it.”
After his hearing date change was denied, he wrote a letter to Gov. Dave Freudenthal protesting the situation. A few days ago he received a reply from an aide to the governor, who said they were aware of the events that had transpired, and again told him that legally his property tax protest must begin at the county level.
The letter also stated, however, that, “Your issue with siting was one of the primary drivers for establishing the minimum state setbacks that were passed during the 2010 Wyoming legislative session. The governor’s office is well aware that the legislation doesn’t help you. However, your advocacy has helped others in similar circumstances.”
Mundy says he’s not certain now whether he can, or will, request another hearing before the County Board of Equalization.
“I still don’t think I can get a fair hearing,” he said.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)