Updates

Governor David A. Paterson
State Capitol
Albany, NY 12224

RE: State Energy Policy and Iberdrola Takeover of Energy East

Dear Governor Patterson:

You have inherited policies from two previous administrations, and your agencies are still tenaciously clinging to these policies and promoting them. Times have changed, however, and it is imperative that you reformulate at least one of those policies – the state energy policy.

As a Democrat in a heavily Republican district, I can tell you that trouble is brewing here around the most contentious issue to appear in upstate New York since the Abolition Movement. Wind turbine construction is seen as a huge threat to our economy and our way of life in upstate New York. Citizens are becoming aware of the scam that Iberdrola and other wind developers are perpetrating on us, and in this post-Enron era, the public has little patience for corporations that lie, cheat, and steal. This undoubtedly will become an election issue next fall, and political hopefuls are recognizing the importance of being on the right side of this issue. Politicians who encourage Iberdrola’s takeover of Energy East, who support Article X, who champion wind development as the solution to our energy crisis, will find themselves criticized, ridiculed, and heavily challenged come fall.

Please provide leadership to our party, and give these incumbents and challengers the support of a thoroughly enlightened, objective, and science-based energy policy. Clean house at NYSERDA, where too many officials have close ties to the industries they are supposed to be overseeing. Redirect DEC, OPRHP, and Ag & Markets to return to their mission of protecting the resources under their charge, rather than exploiting them for corporate profit. It is becoming painfully clear that the Pataki administration led us way off track in this regard. We are looking to Democrats to set things right. If they don’t, they stand little chance of beating back Republicans in the next gubernatorial race.

The party that shows the public that it is not in the pocket of foreign corporations, but instead is courageously standing up to their posturing and threats, will ultimately be the one that triumphs here. Please support the Public Service Commission in its efforts to save us from being exploited by a foreign corporation. Please give clear instructions to your agencies that they must safeguard the welfare of all the people of New York State, and not just a tiny fraction of wealthy businesses. Your leadership is key.

Thank you for your consideration of this matter.

Sincerely,

Andrea Rebeck, AIA Columbia University ‘78
4652 Oak Orchard Road, Albion, NY 14411-9509
Telephone: 585-590-1199

Labels: Legal Issues, New York, Process

EMINENT DOMAIN:
Do they have what it takes to take what you have? Ask the people in Prattsburgh, NY


On May 21, 2008 nearly 150 people attended a public hearing in Prattsburgh on a proposal for the town to seize the roadway owned by seven residents. The properties are needed for a 100-mile underground electrical cable system for the 36-turbine wind farm being developed by UPC (now “First”) Wind.

Don't believe it? Click here to read more. Or click here to watch a video of residents faced with having their land taken in order to accommodate an industrial wind farm. Or click on each name of those giving testimony to link to video of that testimony.

FROM THE TESTIMONY OF RESIDENT RON IOCONO
When you had the eminent domain hearing April 21st, [I received] a certified letter that was postmarked on the 17th, a Thursday. By the time I received this letter on Monday the 21st I would have had to have driven 350 miles in six hours to attend the hearing. Right now what's taking place in this town affects people all across the United States. Eminent domain is a very serious issue - nobody's property is safe.

FROM THE TESTIMONY OF EDWARD CERRA
If you think a project of this magnitude is accepted by the residents of Prattsburgh, then why wasn't this put up for a general vote by the residents? The reason is because you all know it never would have passed. A man's land and his home are second only to his family. I hope you realize the Pandora's box you are opening over this eminent domain. The magnitude of the power you are authorizing is beyond expression. Whether you are for the turbines or not, authorizing eminent domain will affect every member of this community.

What's next for eminent domain issues? Gas companies are pounding on our doors as we speak for easement rights. If I say no, they're going to come running to this board and request eminent domain. You do it for one, then the precedent is set for all other corporate giants to hand this board a bauble and get their way.

FROM THE TESTIMONY OF CARL RAYMOND
Was it proper to threaten property owners with eminent domain before the April 22 meeting? Because two of my neighbors were threatened, and eventually did sign easements. One of my neighbors did not cave in, but she was also threatened with eminent domain before it was even discussed in a public hearing. It's a question of ethics, and what's right and what's wrong. And for foreign owned companies to come into this community and tell people they're going to take their land, U.S. property, because of eminent domain, is not right.

FROM THE TESTIMONY OF STEPHANIE LIPP
Prattsburgh is indeed economically and socially depressed. It has been for many years. It's clear that's one of the main reasons members of the board have signed host agreements with industrial wind turbine corporations that promise to bring such growth and positive changes.

If the wind farms are allowed to come here based on eminent domain, it will truly be a miscarriage of justice. The streets of this village will be paved with gold if what [developer] First Wind is promising is true. You have only to look at other communities where they have built, and then left, to know that will not be the case.

I urge everyone who believes this power is clean or green to do your own research. You really don't have to dig very far to see the truth. It's important for all of you to know that many who oppose industrial wind turbines are very committed to the earth and trying to reduce our personal carbon footprints, reducing our consumption, using solar, or photo voltaics, which doesn't hurt your neighbors.

Continued below:

Labels: Legal Issues, New York, Process

FROM THE TESTIMONY OF JUDITH HALL

This is not about turbines or no turbines this is about fundamental rights of all property owners. .....The night you passed the resolution [for eminent domain] the entire presentation by UPC was about eight properties along Fisher Road. When the resolution was read, it encompassed the whole project area.

FROM THE TESTIMONY OF CARL WAHLSTROM
There are just three Prattsburgh residents [who will benefit from the wind farm] - Mr. Taylor, the Jensons, and the Smiths. Ms. Jenson made a statement at a public hearing and she mentioned she had lived around wind turbines and it wasn't bad, that you get used to them. After the hearing my wife and I approached her and asked how close she had lived to the turbines. She replied, “Around twenty miles away.”

FROM THE TESTIMONY OF NANCY WAHLSTROM
Taking land from individuals to push through this project is disgraceful.... we know that only three people with wind turbines actually live in Prattsburgh. We know all 170 adjacent landowners whose property will be devalued will result in harm to the entire tax base of this town...

We need confirmation that any insurance that is provided through UPC project is aware of the setbacks of this project and that they are within what has been determined to be a hardhat area for Vestas turbines, 1300 feet, and does not meet GE manufacturers specifications for safety.

FROM THE TESTIMONY OF BROOKE PREVEAR
Last month I was informed of the town boards intent to use eminent domain in order to complete UPC's wind farm project. I attended the April 21st town board meeting. The main focus of this meeting was on eight parcels of land in which eminent domain would be used in order complete UPC's project. It was stated that the owners of these properties had been sent certified letters informing them of the vote to be held that evening. The eight properties discussed are positioned on Rosie Hill, Block School, Fisher and Cook School Roads. Those are four roads.

Just prior to voting, the resolution was read. Rather than listing the eight properties discussed during the meeting, the resolution gave approval for eminent domain to be used on any property positioned along those four roads as well as four additional roads that were not mentioned once during the meeting. I find this exclusion of information very deceiving. My property happens to be located on one of those roads. I am directly affected by the town boards vote to use eminent domain but I've received no notification regarding this matter. No certified letter inviting me to attend a meeting in which a vote was held to condemn my land. It concerns me that the town board would or could pass a resolution of such magnitude without contacting all the landowners who would be directly affected by it. It also concerns me that a resolution of this magnitude is being passed in favor of UPC, a private corporation, not a public utility. In fact at the April 21st meeting, UPC was asked, and refused to reveal their wind data. How can we consider this project a benefit to the community when UPC won't disclose their supporting data?

FROM THE TESTIMONY OF STEVE TRUDE
What's really surprising about eminent domain is what it's doing to your community - it's ripping you apart. What it's also doing, which is not listed in any of the studies is people's health or welfare, or any health effects from emotional stress due to an eminent domain situation.... What we're doing here is setting a precedent for the rest of the state. All these wind farms, which you know are coming in all over the state now, are going to use anything possible to get the job done.... Is any amount of money worth it?

FROM THE TESTIMONY OF ALAN ISSELHARD
The beneficiaries of Prattsburgh's eminent domain actions are not the general public, as required by eminent domain laws, the fundamental justification for exercising property condemnation and acquisition has not been met. ...This eminent domain action will benefit only the wind developer and not the community at large.

Labels: Legal Issues, New York, Process

Town Board Prattsburgh, NY
19 N. Main St
Prattsburgh, NY 14873

RE: Eminent Domain Resolution

Board Members:

I challenge the propriety of using eminent domain for the benefit of a private company, UPC now First Wind, in Prattsburgh. The Constitution of the United States allows eminent domain in cases of "public use" only, and is intended to be used for providing essential services.

Industrial wind development does not meet the qualifications of an essential service, since it only duplicates the generation of electricity and does not replace our current generating facilities. The existing facilities must be kept on standby as backup for wind power; therefore the wind facility is redundant and not essential.

The perceived "public good" of the wind development helping solve our environmental problems and global warming has not been proven with any actual scientific data, for the reason that real world operation of industrial wind projects does not support this premise. Indeed, there are many negative effects associated with wind turbines, including serious safety issues, that would most definitely NOT be in the interest of Prattsburgh citizens.

An examination of the proposed economic benefit to the community reveals numbers based on estimates, without guarantees and without consideration of the overall costs to the community in lost property values, higher electricity rates and taxpayer subsidies and tax credits to the developer. Again, the public benefit is extremely questionable.

The increase in the abuse of eminent domain for the benefit of private entities has created a groundswell of opposition from New York and Detroit to California. Many individuals are fighting the practice, and the courts, which used to routinely rubber stamp local condemnations, are responding. Six state legislatures have passed bills increasing protections for people threatened with eminent domain. Eleven others are considering such bills, including New York.

Your actions affect not only Prattsburgh, but your neighboring communities as well. A decision to use eminent domain in this matter shows that the Town Board has no interest in protecting the fundamental rights of its citizens or in following the spirit of the United States Constitution. I strongly urge you to reconsider your stance on this resolution and do the right thing for your community and future generations in the Town of Prattsburgh.

Sincerely,
Joan Simmons
Town of Italy

Labels: Legal Issues, New York, Process

Prattsburgh residents weigh in on eminent domain

5/25/08, Prattsburgh, N.Y. - Both sides of a dispute over eminent domain proceedings in the town of Prattsburgh weighed in with vigor Thursday night in the volunteer fire station.

Nearly 150 people attended the public hearing on a proposal for the town to seize roadway owned by seven residents. The properties are needed for a 100-mile underground electrical cable system for the 36-turbine wind farm being developed by First Wind.

Eminent domain allows a municipality to take private property if it serves a common good. The municipality must pay the owner for the land, determined by fair market value.

Click here to read Mary Perham's entire article in The Corning Leader. For those who are new to the controversy, background articles by Mary are linked in a preceding post.

Labels: Legal Issues, New York, Process

The following is from Jim Sawicki's public presentation to the Prattsburgh Town Board this past Thursday:

Good evening. I would like to thank the Town Board of Prattsburgh and everyone here tonight for giving me the opportunity to speak with you. I am a neighbor of Prattsburgh. My name is Jim Sawicki, and I own property in the town of Italy. So, it has come to this. Here we all are this evening faced with difficult issues... Neighbor pitted against neighbor. Communities split apart. For what? For whom?

Click here to read Jim's entire presentation. It's well worth your time.

Labels: Disadvantages, Legal Issues, New York, Process

SCIDA refuses to alter windfarm agreement

5/16/08, Bath, N.Y. - A disagreement over the terms of a tax deal for a windfarm development in Prattsburgh will apparently have to be settled in court.

The Steuben County Industrial Development Agency refused to change the terms of a payment-in-lieu-of-taxes agreement Thursday for a 36-turbine project by First Wind, formerly known as UPC.

Attorneys for the Prattsburgh and Naples school districts requested a renegotiation claiming the company should be paying hundreds of thousands of dollars more in taxes.

The tax agreement involves First Wind paying a fixed amount of taxes to the school districts, the town of Prattsburgh and the county over a 20-year period.

SCIDA approved the tax agreement Thursday and attorneys for the school districts said they will follow through with a court challenge. The two sides argued their cases in court in late April, prior to the final agreement being approved. Supreme Court Judge Peter Bradstreet presided over the hearing and a decision is pending.

Click here to read Mary Perham's entire article in The Corning Leader. For those who are new to the controversy, background articles by Mary are linked below:
4/4/08 - Schools sue over wind farm payments
5/3/08 - Schools await windfarm decision
5/9/08 - Opponents demand investigation into wind farms

Labels: Legal Issues, Money, New York, Process

RG&E's new owner-to-be



Ad running in the Democrat & Chronicle online

Labels: Process

Group critical of wind farms
Coalition would keep watch on state energy policy issues

Jim Hall has a philosophy. The 60-year-old Steuben County resident is part of Cohocton Wind Watch - one of numerous small-town groups opposing wind farms proposed in their communities. Each group is up against the same cookie cutter” approach when a wind energy developer enters their town with a potential project, Hall says. And they’re often re-inventing the wheel in their efforts.

Hall is among those organizing the Citizen Power Alliance. The coalition of groups and activists aims to address the bigger, state issues involved in energy projects and policy. The CPA will conduct an organizational meeting the morning of May 18 at Letchworth State Park. We’re not limited to strictly wind issues,” Hall said. Wednesday. “We’re an environmental and energy alternative group that encompasses energy and environmental policy - primarily in New York State but we have members outside the state ax well.”

The CPA includes 14 member groups so far, including Citizens for a Healthy Rural Neighborhood of Perry. They’re primarily based in Western New York, though the CPA is a statewide group, with other members in New Hampshire and Ohio. “The alliance coalition has been organizing over the past several months,” Hall said. The Letchworth gathering is more a get-together because we don’t have a tremendous amount of opportunity where people can see each other face-to-face.”

Members will discuss which directions they’d like to pursue, along with organizing leadership and committees. Eminent domain and the state’s proposed Article X legislation are among the CPA’s biggest concerns. Hall said.

Click here to read Matt Surtel's entire article in the Batavia Daily News.

Labels: New York, Process

Prattsburgh supervisor accused of profiting off vote to seize land for turbines

Under fire over accusations he and other town and county officials have endorsed generous tax breaks and cut sweetheart deals with the Massachusetts-based UPC Corp. wind farm developer, Prattsburgh Supervisor Harold McConnell faces further criticism following a vote last week to condemn and seize private land for the project.

After admitting he accepted real estate commissions in at least one land deal last fall involving UPC, McConnell on April 21 cast the deciding vote on an “eminent domain” resolution.” The action will allow construction of 36 controversial, 386-foot tall wind turbines towers in the town.

Scores of the imposing, densely-clustered turbine towers have spiraled taller than upended football fields above the Naples Valley on hilltops in neighboring Cohocton in recent months. Many other communities have frantically enacted moratoriums and taken other actions to control placement of the massive towers pending further study of environmental impact and questions about whether the turbines can do what they are intended - generate “clean, safe power” in a rural region touched more by occasional gentle breezes than by strong and steady winds.

by Jack Jones in The Naples Record, April 30, 2008

Click here to read the entire article.

Labels: Legal Issues, Morality, Process

1) Intermittent and unpredictable wind to produce reliability electric generation, according to Iberdrola's brief in the PSC - Energy East acquisition hearings. "As a result, energy from these wind projects cannot reasonably be sold in NYISO's day-ahead market, in which the substantial majority of New York electricity is bought and sold."

2) Clipper Wind C26, 2.5 MW turbines used at Steelwinds have gear box and blade failures, requiring replacement. Cohocton turbines blades need re-engineering.

3) SEQR disclosures claim transmission lines less than 10 miles. Reality is over that limit which requires more rigorous PSC regulations for projects.

4) Industrial turbine siting from residents vastly inadequate. Smaller Vestas turbine safety regulations warn of a danger zone.

5 Low frequency noise UPC claims vastly underestimate the reality at Tug Hill.

6) Significant farm land area taken out of production, contrary to UPC claims.

7) Road damage from construction severe and restoration not funded by UPC.

8) Decommissioning letter of credit on a foreign bank for $1,084,000. Cost to take down a single turbine is well in excess of $1,000,000 each.

9) PILOT tax exemption wholly inadequate as fair compensation from an industrial project that alters the fundamental character of the community.

10) UPC HOST Agreement is not enforceable and developer can void terms with no penalties. Contract can be terminated by 9/1/08 with no additional payments.

11) Planning Board members and family now employed by contractor and suppliers.

12) Transmission leases lacking to complete the project, as construction proceeds.

13) Proper permitting, insurances and guarantees lacking, as construction proceeds.

14) Active legal actions pending in court that may require abandonment of project.

15) Family turmoil and neighbor discontent among Cohocton citizens.

16) Significant reduction in property values as a consequence of industrial spot zoning has already occurred with specific documentation from sales.

Labels: Cohocton, Process

I read your recent article about the clean energy myth surrounding ethanol fuels. There is another major clean energy myth and it concerns the use of wind power. Large "wind farms," are being built all over the U.S. in the mistaken belief that they will reduce our dependence on fossil fuels and also reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Wind farms only produce usable power in a fairly narrow range of wind speeds and this does not reliably occur at times when the power is needed. Base power plants burning fossil or nuclear fuels must be cut back to balance the grid, but must be kept idling to take up the demand when the wind dies. In such spinning, idling conditions, power plants are relatively inefficient and their fuel usage and emissions are not effectively reduced. Here in northern New York, the grid manager is often tempted to use hydro-power as the balancing power for wind as it is more easily controlled than coal fired or nuclear power. In this situation, there are obviously no savings in fuel use or emissions from the use of wind generated power.

Wind power produces only very small and intermittent amounts of power at a very high cost, considering the large investment required. What wind power does accomplish is the transfer of large tax liabilities from wealthy investors to the rest of us because of large tax write-offs and subsidies granted by federal, state and local governments. These subsidies, coupled with an increase in our utility bills, constitute the economic drive supporting construction of these mammoth wind towers. In addition, investors are allowed the accumulation of false "energy credits," permitting industry to continue polluting practices elsewhere. The wind developers proceed with construction based on the myth that they are creating "green energy," - a myth that is not questioned or examined critically by the public or our elected representatives. Wind energy is a false solution to our problems of energy consumption and global warming. It gives people comfort that we are on the way to solving our problems while diverting attention and financial resources from the task of finding real solutions.

Until we can find reasonable solutions to our energy problems, simple programs for energy conservation can go a long way to mitigate our situation.

Sincerely,
Albert H. Bowers III
Naval Architect & Maritime Consultant

Labels: Process

Lots of interesting things in wind contracts

By EDNA McGINNETT

Having read several different industrial wind energy landowner contracts, I really have to hand it to wind developers. In exchange for a few thousand dollars, the wind company can preempt landowners’ rights to: extract sand and gravel from their property, develop mineral rights on their property, allow hunting, build additional outbuildings or plant trees, etc.

If, in the sole discretion of the wind developer, such activities would interfere with or alter the flow of wind currents over the property, or interfere in any way with the building or operation of the wind project.

The wind company has the sole discretion as to what electrical generation equipment will be placed where and when on leased property. In addition, these leases contain language which allows the wind developer to use other land owned by the landowner even if such acreage is not included in the lease agreement.

These landowner contracts subordinate the landowners’ rights in favor of the wind developers. Once landowners sign an option they are under obligation to sign the lease agreement if the developer decides to exercise the option.

One of the reasons these contracts are so restrictive is explained in comments made by NYSERDA about wind energy lease agreements: “Before allowing wind turbines to be purchased and installed, project investors, financing organizations, and power purchasers will want to be sure the lease provides clear, unimpeded rights to use of the land over the expected life of the project.”

“Termination clauses need to be ‘reasonable’ so that the risk of installing the wind turbine equipment and having the lease terminated is low and manageable. If the risk of termination is deemed too high, it will be difficult for the project developer to obtain financing for the project.”

These leases typically prevent a landowner from complaining or taking action against the wind company because of noise, flicker, visual, audio, vibrations, air turbulence, electromagnetic, electric and radio frequency disturbances and other side effects caused by the operation of the project.

Yes, I really have to hand it to these wind developers, and if you have signed one of these leases, you probably already have.

Published on 3/14/08 in the Dunkirk, NY Observer

Labels: Legal Issues, Process

For our exhortation does not come from error or impurity or by way of deceit; but just as we have been approved by UPC to be entrusted with the gospel of wind power, so we speak, not as pleasing the NIMBYs, but UPC who examines our hearts.

For we never came with flattering speech, as you know, nor with a pretext for greed (UPC is our witness!) nor did we seek glory from men, either from you or from others, even though as apostles of wind power we might have asserted our authority. But we proved to be gentle among you, as a nursing mother tenderly cares for her own children. Having so fond an affection for you, we were well-pleased to impart to you not only the gospel of wind power but also our own lives, because you had become very dear to us.

For you recall, brethren, our labor and hardship, how working night and day so as not to be a burden to any of you, we proclaimed to you the gospel of wind power. You are witnesses, and so is UPC, how devoutly and uprightly and blamelessly we behaved toward you believers; just as you know how we were exhorting and encouraging and imploring each one of you as a father would his own children, so that you would walk in a manner worthy of UPC who calls you to share in the glorious green of its kingdom.

For this reason we also constantly give thanks that when you received the word of UPC which you heard from us, you accepted it not as the word of men, but for what it really is, the Word of Green itself, which also performs its work in you who believe. For you, brethren, became imitators of the YES groups of UPC that are in Maine and Hawaii, for you also endured the same sufferings at the hands of your own countrymen.

Excerpted from Chris Swartley's Letter to the Cohoctonians (as adapted from 1 Thessalonians 2)

Labels: Money, Process, Smile

It has come to our attention that UPC has obtained 35 building permits for wind turbines in Prattsburgh. This is about 15 fewer than they originally planned because they have had to decrease their project.

We don't understand what they are planning to do because according to their own transmission maps, they still are lacking the easements they require in order to get a good percentage (perhaps 2/3) of their turbines hooked up to their substation.

In other words, although they are trying to make it look like they are ready to begin, they can't begin unless they want to have a bunch of turbines that can't hook up to the grid. Maybe they want to make pretty sculptures?

So, at the risks of sounding repetitious, if you are asked to sign an easement for transmission cables and you are told that they are ready to begin or that your neighbors have all signed, please be aware that this is not the truth. And once a person has signed for an easement, that will be forever - and if at sometime in the future they want to put huge overhead lines in front of your house, they will be able to do it.

And if Harold McConnell or anyone else from Town Hall tries to talk you into it, please be aware that the Town cannot force you to sign and that without your permission: they cannot run cables in front of your land.

For your added information, the Town has given the company permission to construct (meaning the use of big equipment, blasting, etc.) from 6 AM to 10 PM seven days a week with the assurance that they can work longer hours if they request to.

Ruth Matilsky

Labels: New York, Process

An Inconvenient Segment: NBC Sees Green

One global warming angle that we cover in chapter one of "An Inconvenient Book" is how so many of the climate change cheerleaders that you see in the media are anything but independent. They love to talk about how the oil companies fund studies to distort the truth - but the reality is that conflict of interest works both ways - and it's always most dangerous when it's hidden from you.

For example, if you watched NBC last week, you probably saw their "Green is Universal" promotion. They changed their logo, their website, and even the plots of their sitcoms, by corporate mandate - all to bring awareness to issues like climate change. Wow, what stewards of the Earth they are.

Unfortunately, it's what NBC didn't tell you that's far more important: They are a subsidiary of General Electric; General ELECTRIC. That's important for two reasons: First, GE has a bigger lobbying budget than the three largest U.S. oil companies. COMBINED. But more importantly, GE owns major environmental businesses, like GE Energy, which has made big bets on things like wind power and clean energy technologies - and they stand to make boatloads of cash if Congress passes all sorts of environmental legislation, and you "go green."

Imagine the uproar if ABC did a week-long series called "War With Iran," complete with Islamic Extremists competing on Dancing With the Stars. But only later did you find out that ABC is actually owned by Raytheon, one of the Pentagon's largest weapons suppliers. You think the New York Times might cover that story?

This is one of the worst manipulations of the public trust that I have ever seen. In fact, I believe it's damn near criminal and someone should look into their license. NBC and GE have used the public airwaves against us, and they've done it all for the one type of green they really care about: money.

Glenn Beck (talk-radio host of The Real America)

Labels: Money, Process

Week by week, UPC Wind’s involvement in Cohocton becomes more blatantly evident in The Valley News. Last week they took out nearly 2 full pages of ads under several guises in their continuing effort to promote their project before next month’s election. One was a half-page color ad by UPC pledging to “Save our town!” and extolling the “beauty” of its promised “new jobs!” “prosperity!” and “opportunity!” Another was a 3/4-page ad by Wayne Hunt with quotes from Judge Furfure’s recent court decision. Apparently the Judge felt that “Local Law #2… was not the first step of a larger project” nor were “changes made by Local Law #2… made at the request of project applicants as a preliminary step to this project.”

Where was Judge Furfure when Local Law #2 was made?
- Obviously nowhere near Cohocton where the picture was quite different. Without UPC there would have been no Local Law #1 or #2. Our Comprehensive Plan has no place for wind turbines at all.
- Throughout the entire process it’s been clear that our elected and appointed officials have had one goal in mind – working with UPC to craft a legal framework that would permit their project.
- UPC’s enormous Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) came on the heels of Local Law #1, and its even bigger SDEIS came almost instantly after Local Law #2 was passed and, oddly enough, fit its provisions precisely the way a hand fits into a carefully tailored glove. “Hearings?” Who were our leaders listening to?
- One reading of Local Law #2 should convince any sceptic that it was written by attorneys, not local politicians. And who paid the attorneys who wrote it? Hello? Is anyone home?

When a glove moves, it’s the hand behind it that makes it move. Unfortunately, Judge Furfure just looked at the glove and ignored the hand. We still have a chance in this fall’s elections, however, to turn the tide of deception that’s been overtaking our town. Browse through our “Updates,” review the Reform Cohocton platform and slate of candidates, and then help us get out the vote for people who can see through this whole ruse.

Labels: Cohocton, Legal Issues, Process

Union workers picket outside SCIDA office

UPC has hired an out of state general contractor M. A. Mortenson that does not pay area standard wages and has brought workers from Louisiana, Utah and Texas. Why bring in out of State contractors and workers when the local contractors and workers need the jobs? Local Contractors and Workers spend their money locally.

Shame on UPC!

If you are a Local Worker/Taxpayer and are concerned about the local economy, please let UPC know how you feel.

Contact: Paul Gaynor, CEO and President
UPC Wind, 85 Wells Ave., Suite 305 Newton, MA 02459
Tel: 617-964-3340 Fax : 617-964-3342
Email: contact@upcwind.com

Brought to you by the Empire State Regional Council of Carpenters.

Labels: New York, Process

The Ironworkers’ Business Agent in Rochester, Mike Altonberg, is one of the latest people locally to have his eyes opened up to the deceptive business practices of UPC Wind. Many of us have been seeing their lies quite clearly over the past 18 months, while others continue to swallow lie after lie without even blinking their eyes. They continue to believe that UPC Wind is a company who will hold to their word, even when they have violated it over and over; that Chris Swartley is a man of ethics, even a prophet, not an industrial salesman of con-man proportions; and that UPC’s promised PILOT payments are fair and just, not thinly disguised political bribery.

What lies are we talking about?
- That their turbine projects are agricultural enterprises (“farms” not industrial installations), built by a private firm that would never claim to be a public utility (unless it was to their advantage).
- That they are entitled to bribe our town with depreciated PILOT payments because their projects are supposedly “green” instead of paying taxes proportionate to the projects’ earnings.
- That their projects will be quiet (based on patently fraudulent noise studies by Hessler, et al), not disruptive to the environment, and visually unobtrusive.
- That they will seek and obtain individual building permits for each tower before starting any construction, giving landowners the right to work out siting problems unit by unit.
- That their projects will be constructed by local workers, etc…

How can local people be so blind? Unfortunately, at least one Finger Lakes town will probably have to fall prey to this kind of corporate deception so that everyone in the region can see the results and keep the wind developers out of their area. It’s sad that Cohocton may prove to be the “forerunner” in this way. Can’t we wait and let someone else take the fall? Our hills, sky, and wind won’t go away. Let’s take back our Town this November. Browse through our "Updates," check out our main website, visit Reform Cohocton to review your options, and then help us recall Cohocton from the brink.

Labels: Cohocton, Process

As a matter of introduction I am Mike Altonberg, Business Agent for The Ironworkers in Rochester. Four or five months ago I was told by UPC Wind management that their general contractor for the wind turbine projects in Cohocton and Prattsburgh would be hiring all local people for the building of the towers. At a meeting last Tuesday in Cohocton, we were informed that things have changed and now all the workers will be brought in from out of state. The company, Mortenson Construction from Minnesota, will bring workers from out west, and local construction workers are locked out of all that work. All those wages paid will not be invested in our local economy but instead sent out west. Is that a slap in the face to all the hard working unemployed construction workers in our area? I've been told that UPC promised local governments (as they promote on their website) that it's important to hire locally, but obviously not in our case! Now that the project is a go and they've been caught in a lie, how many more lies have they told? UPC should be escorted to the state line and told not to come back.

Just for the record you most certainly can post my comments and phone number on your website. We were promised three years ago by Jim Sherron, Steuben County IDA, that this would be a project that would use local labor. Lawrence Mott from UPC actually told me a couple of weeks ago that Jim told him to contact me about the labor. Of course that went down the drain. We are extremely upset and plan some job actions against UPC and Mortenson. In the past Mortenson has used local people all across the country, but in Cohocton and Prattsburgh they feel like they can run rampant and do as they please!

Mike Altonberg
(585) 330-3109

Labels: Money, Process

On August 22 UPC Wind sent out a letter from John Pelczar, Construction Manager, to all the citizens of Cohocton which started out by saying, "UPC Wind has been working with the Cohocton community for almost five years to develop the Cohocton and Dutch Hill Wind Farms. We are happy to announce that the design and approval process has come to an end." (emphasis added)

Mr. Pelczar went on to claim that "Over the past few weeks the Town Board approved its agreements with UPC Wind, the Planning Board approved the Cohocton and Dutch Hill Wind site plans, and the Code Enforcement officer issued our building permits. These agreements guarantee the Town of Cohocton $11.5 million dollars over the next 20 years, $3.85 million of which will come to the town in the first four years. Our agreements also guarantee $150,000 for the renovation of the Larrowe house." He concluded by introducing Jane Towner as UPC's Project Community Relations Representative.

What's the problem here? Well, 1) the agreements aren't complete; 2) promises should never be confused with guarantees; 3) nobody in Town seems to be able to come up copies of the building permits; and so 4) the process really hasn't "come to an end" yet. All of this is just UPC filling the pre-election air with more self-serving wishful talk, talk that resembles lying.

A parting question: if the incumbents regain political office and Jane Towner is UPC's "Project Community Relations Representative," who will look out for the interests of citizens who run into problems with UPC? Talk about putting a group of foxes in charge of the hen house!

Labels: Cohocton, Process

We have obtained a copy of this week's decision by the Public Service Commission approving UPC Wind's requests for 1) a certificate of public convenience and necessity pursuant to Section 68 of the Public Service Law, 2) approval of financing pursuant to Section 69 of the Public Service Law, and 3) approval a lightened regulatory regime as an electric corporation. Several fairly substantial contingencies were attached, which are worth reviewing. It is also interesting to note that UPC has been allowed to masquerade as a private corporation when it is expedient (e.g., withholding information based on the claim that it is private and proprietary) while being granted special treatment as a public utility. Can claims of eminent domain be far behind?

Click here to read the entire decision.

Labels: New York, Process

Hello Everyone,

So it seems that UPC definitely does not have enough easements for the transmission lines. They are going around trying to get people to sign for easements and, as they've done in the past, they are lying about who else has signed up. Maybe they don't exactly lie -- they just make "implications." Perhaps they think that none of us ever speak to one another. So if you are approached, please be aware that others have not necessarily "caved in."

They say they are starting in the spring, however they have to work out their transmission problem first as well as do a long list of things enumerated in the findings statement.

For our part, we have contacted FERC (Federal Energy Regulatory Commission) about irregularities, we are waiting for the PSC to respond to our request to get involved in the Ecogen project, the UPC project and the Cohocton project.

The anti-trust document submitted to the Justice Department keeps getting longer as people from all over the country send in information and we hear more things about the way the wind developers are operating. The appeal of the Ecogen Article 78 is proceeding and I believe an Article 78 against SCIDA for approving Windfarm Prattsburgh is also proceeding.

We will keep on watching them.

Ruth

Labels: Process

Received in yesterday's mail:

Dear Natural Gas Royalty Owner,

This notice informs you of a class action against Columbia Natural Resources, Inc., Columbia Gas Transmission Corporation, Columbia Energy Group, Columbia Energy Resources, and all their predecessors, successors, subsidiaries and parents, including but not limited to Columbia Natural Resources, LLC, Chesapeake Appalachia LLC and NiSource, Inc., and a proposed settlement of the class action claims. For the sake of brevity and clarity, these companies will be referred to for the remainder of this notice simply as “Columbia” or “Defendants,” except where it is necessary to distinguish among them. This notice describes the class action and proposed settlement, and informs you of your rights as a class member. You are being sent this notice because you were identified as a Natural Gas Royalty Owner for whom royalty payments due to you by Columbia under a natural gas lease may have been underpaid.

The Basis Of The Claims Against Columbia

In this lawsuit, Plaintiffs contend that royalties due to the members of the Plaintiff Class have been underpaid. Plaintiffs allege that the royalty underpayment is the result of Columbia: (1) taking improper deductions in calculating the royalties; and (2) failing to obtain the highest price reasonably available for the gas. In this regard, Plaintiffs have asserted claims against defendant Columbia Natural Resources, Inc., for breach of contract, breach of the implied covenant to market in good faith, breach of fiduciary duty, an accounting and declaratory and injunctive relief. Plaintiffs have also asserted claims against Defendants Columbia Gas tortious interference with contractual relations and declaratory and injunctive relief. Plaintiffs seek money damages against Defendants, as well as declaratory and injunctive relief.

The Proposed Settlement

a) One or more Defendants shall make an aggregate payment of One Million Eight Hundred Fifty Thousand Dollars ($1,850,000.00) to royalty owners in the Plaintiff Class. This payment will represent payment in full of all damages from January 1, 1994 through the date of settlement, plus interest thereon, attorneys’ fees, consultant and expert fees, costs and disbursements, and any other costs or expenses of any kind relating to the allegations raised, or which could have been raised, in the Second Amended Complaint. None of the settlement proceeds represents payment for punitive or exemplary damages.

b) In the future, Defendants may make limited deductions from the amount used to calculate royalty payments and may take no deductions for compression, or dehydration and other costs incurred by them, as specified by the Settlement Agreement. Estimated future savings to class members as a result of this agreement approximates at least One Million Two Hundred Thousand Dollars ($1,200,000.00).

c) through i) Etc., etc.

Cohocton residents should be prepared to mount similar legal actions in the future against UPC Wind, Canandaigua Power Partners I, Canandaigua Power Partners II, LLC, etc., etc. They won't be able to use the excellent legal services of the Harris Beach firm, however, since Harris Beach would be representing the Defendents in this case.

Labels: Process

"Families for Sevenmile Hill is an organization that opposes the irresponsible placement of an industrial wind farm in a residential and scenic area of the Columbia River Gorge. In April 2007, UPC Wind Management announced plans to build the 60-megawatt complex on a prominent hill above Mosier and The Dalles. The massive project, which includes 40 turbines that each soar almost 400 feet, marks the first time developers in Oregon have attempted to site a wind farm so close to residences and with elements of the complex within the boundaries of the Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area. It's up to the Oregon Department of Energy's siting council to approve or reject UPC's proposal. We urge the public to become informed and to support Sevenmile families as they fight for the future of their homes, their community and the unique landscape of the Gorge."

Sound familiar? Click here to visit our compatriots in Oregon online and find our just how familiar...

Labels: Process

Town approves resolution opposing move by state to take over regulation

ARKPORT - State or no state, the Town of Hornellsville is moving forward on adopting its local wind law.

Despite the prospect of the state Assembly and Senate approving Article X legislation, which would regulate power in New York - including wind farms with more than a set limit of megawatts - the Hornellsville town board discussed a draft of its wind law at the board meeting Tuesday night.

Few changes have been made to the law, drawn up by lawyer Dan Spitzer, but Councilman Roger Schulitz said it's still an ongoing process.

“We're still looking at it further,” he said.

No vote was taken on the law, expected to be put up for vote later this summer or in early fall, and it will be discussed by the planning board again at its next meeting. Supervisor Ken Isaman said the town and planning boards will likely meet to hammer out any changes board members determine need to be made, and a public hearing would be required prior to adoption of the law.

Isaman did discuss Article X with the board.

“Anytime local control is taken away, particularly when local government doesn't know legislation is in the works, is kind of a disheartening situation,” he said when he learned of the possibility of state stepping into the wind legislation fray. “We in Steuben County that have projects have worked very hard to put together a package that reimburses the towns quite well for the transformation of our towns into windmill territory.”

State Sen. George Winner, R-Elmira, is part of the conference committee comprised of Senate and Assembly members to come up with a joint bill. He said the two bodies are “very far apart” in terms of coming to terms on a joint offering. The bulk of the bills deal with natural gas and clean air standards, he said last month, but wind energy could be impacted as well.

“To the extent that a wind project would exceed - in the Senate bill - a 50-megawatt level,” Winner said then, adding the Assembly bill calls for regulations to kick in at the 30-megawatt level. “It would obviously be subject to Article X.”

Winner said the conference committee is trying to figure that out and how municipalities' rights to impact fees could be preserved. He said the new legislation would have no negative impact on Payment in Lieu of Taxes agreements being worked on in local municipalities for wind farms. He touted a provision in the legislation that would allow local residents to have a voice through “intervenor funds,” that would be available to groups opposing development, and municipalities would be eligible to receive up to 50 percent of the intervenor funds - if they apply for it - under the proposal.

Developers would be required to pay $100,000 to the intervenor fund on its pre-application stage, with ability for another $25,000 to be requested at the pre-application or application stage, Winner said. He said projects that exceed the 80-megawatt level would be required to cough up another $500,000.

The board approved a resolution in opposition of the potential Article X legislation, and copies will be forwarded to all the state legislators covering the town.

“We've definitely got to keep our eye on how that flows,” said Councilman William Giese. “We'll watch it, but I think we still have to go ahead and pass our local legislation.”

In other business, the board thanked John Buchko, who has resigned, for his many years of service on the town's planning board.

By ROB MONTANA - STAFF WRITER

Labels: New York, Process

An article in yesterday's Wall Street Journal highlights a significant problem in the domestic proliferation of wind turbine installations, the relative unavailability of turbine and parts. While giving a broad and generally sympathetic overview of the international scene, the author repeats a number of grossly inaccurate wind industry claims, like the following:

In the U.S., more wind power was installed last year than in any country in the world - 2,454 megawatts, or more than the equivalent of two nuclear reactors.

Statements like these obscure the inconvenient fact that the nameplate capacity of wind turbines is not equivalent to the nameplate capacity of nuclear reactors. Due to the intermittent nature of wind, coupled with production that is often out of phase with demand, so-called wind farms only produce between 8-15% of nameplate capacity in usable energy, while nuclear reactors generate about 97% of capacity. This makes our wind-struck WSJ author's estimate off by a factor of 10, meaning that last year's large wind installation actually represents the equivalent of only about 1/5 of one nuclear reactor, hardly a large gain for the investment and landscape despoilation.

Click here to read the article, and then contact the author, Keith Johnson, to express your concerns.

Labels: Money, Process

An article in Cooperstown's weekly newspaper, The Freeman's Journal, last week discusses ongoing local opposition to the Community Energy wind project proposed for Jordanville. Note the similarities between the their situation and ours, especially the timing:

As the Holy Trinity monks hold prayer services and mount a letter-writing campaign, Otsego 2000 is seeking out the most appropriate “petitioners” to file an Article 78 complaint against the 68-turbine Jordanville Wind Farm, a preliminary step to going to court to block the 400-foot-tall towers in view of James Fenimore Cooper’s Glimmerglass.

After a year working through the State Environmental Quality Review Act process, the towns of Warren and Stark, on June 20 and 21 respectively, accepted the Final Environmental Impact Statement on the project and approved special-use permits. That step started a 30-day clock running on the Article 78 proceeding.

The next step for Community Energy is to apply for a certificate of necessity from the state Public Service Commission, which would require a further public hearing before action could be taken. The towns must then issue building permits for each turbine and related building in their jurisdictions.

Meanwhile, the monks at Holy Trinity Monastery, the Russian Orthodox Church’s spiritual headquarters overseas, have begun a cycle of “molebin,” prayers of supplication somewhat like the Roman Catholic novena, and as many as a dozen people from the community have been attending. Father Luke Murianka, the deputy abb