Updates

Opinions shift on Rochester-area wind farmsWind-energy developers, who have flocked to the breezy hills south of Rochester, now are finding parts of the region a less-than-hospitable one.

A cross-border project has been blocked by local officials in Steuben and Yates counties, prompting aggressive lawsuits by the developer involved. Another wind-energy company just walked away from a planned project in Steuben County. And most recently, a Wyoming County citizens group has challenged a town board action that paved the way for a new wind project there.

Some say the shine has worn off an industry that in many communities had been welcomed both for its green image and its ability to pump money into the local economy. “I’m detecting a shift in the climate of opinion,” said Gary Abraham, a Cattaraugus County lawyer who has represented citizen groups in litigation related to wind projects.

The head of a statewide green-energy advocacy group said the public overwhelmingly supports wind energy, but despite that, discord and litigation in host communities has become an unfortunate fact of life. “Certainly it sends the message that it’s not going to be easy to get something done in New York. That being said, there are still a number of projects going forward,” said Carol Murphy, executive director of the Alliance for Clean Energy New York.

Indeed, the region remains a center of wind-energy development. Wyoming County has four wind farms with 236 turbines, more than any other county in the state. There is a working wind farm in Cohocton, Steuben County, as well. Those five projects have the capacity to generate up to 470 megawatts, which represents the electricity demand of about 200,000 households. Those 470 megawatts are a little more than a third of all the wind-generation capacity in the state. Nearly two dozen other wind-farm proposals in the Finger Lakes and western New York regions remain on the books of the agency that oversees New York’s electric grid, though developers have yet to make formal applications to town boards for many of them.

Of late, though, there has been a spate of controversy over the farms.

A citizens group in Orangeville, Wyoming County, filed suit last month against the Town Board there, asserting it had adopted an inadequate local wind-turbine siting law to make way for a 59-turbine wind project. That case has been assigned to a Supreme Court justice in Buffalo.

After supporting Ecogen Wind LLC’s 17-turbine proposal for years, the Town Board in Italy, Yates County, acknowledged growing citizen opposition by voting in October to kill the development. Observers said Italy’s board may have been the first in New York state to vote down a wind project. A suit by Ecogen asking a judge to override the Town Board and allow the project to proceed is pending before a state Supreme Court justice in Rochester.

Ecogen similarly sued the board in neighboring Prattsburgh, Steuben County, where the company has hoped to erect 16 more turbines. Pro-wind board members briefly settled the case in Ecogen’s favor before leaving office in December, but after a series of courtroom skirmishes, the newly seated Town Board canceled the settlement and declared a moratorium on wind-energy development in the town. Ecogen’s suit still is pending.

Another wind project proposed for Prattsburgh that had been in planning stages for years was formally canceled at the end of 2009. John Lamontagne, spokesman for developer First Wind, said the project was deemed expendable in light of the shaky economy. The Massachusetts company, which was given $75 million in federal stimulus aid in partial compensation for the 50-turbine farm it built in Cohocton, will pursue other projects in Erie County, New England, Utah and Hawaii, Lamontagne said.

Abraham, who represents the citizens group suing the Orangeville board, said he believes public opposition to wind developments is growing. Residents most often cite concerns about noise and the setback provisions that dictate how close turbines can be to homes and adjoining properties. He said, though, that he thinks elected officials often pay less attention to those concerns than they do to a project’s financial benefit to friends and family members. “They’re decided based on the importance the town (board) assigns to the money issue. That’s really the deciding factor. It’s not the environment,” Abraham said.

Murphy disputed the idea that people in host communities are turning against wind farms. “It’s the old adage about the silent majority. It doesn’t take more than a few people to stand up at a town board meeting and make a lot of noise and give people the impression there’s no support for it,” she said. Murphy cited a 2008 public opinion poll in Lewis County — home to Maple Ridge, which at a 322-megawatt capacity is the largest wind farm east of the Mississippi River — that found 71 percent of residents thought the wind farm had had a positive impact. Nearly 80 percent of respondents said they would support more turbines. “There’s always a lot of apprehension when there’s something new and something people aren’t used to seeing, but once they (turbines) are there we’ve found the level of support continues to grow over the years,” she said.

By Steve Orr, Staff Writer, Rochester Democrat & Chronicle

Labels: New York, Process

Meeting on wind turbines in the works

South Bristol, NY — A coalition of groups concerned with industrial wind turbine development in the Finger Lakes region will bring together state and federal elected officials at a conference next month at Bristol Harbour Resort. Hosting the event will be Naples Town Supervisor Frank Duserick, with U.S. Rep. Eric Massa, D-Corning, as keynote speaker.

“We want a sane, rational energy policy,” said James Hall, a Cohocton resident with the event’s sponsor, Citizen Power Alliance. The alliance works to hold public officials and regulators accountable, while seeking to protect the public interest.

The goal of the invitation-only event is to get all the elected officials representing the region in the same room, he said, to discuss the effects of wind turbines, share insights regarding current regulations and offer recommendations for federal and state policies.

“These alternative-energy projects would not exist without federal and state government,” said Hall, referring to government subsidies. For example, he said, the company that put up wind turbines in Cohocton, south of Naples, received a cash grant of nearly $75 million in federal stimulus funds. Fifty turbines in Cohocton became operational last year.

Two other neighboring towns, Prattsburgh and Italy, are in disputes with wind turbine companies. In Prattsburgh, wind farm issues are back to square one. The Town Board earlier this month rescinded a legal settlement with wind farm developer Ecogen Wind LLC and took the first step toward enacting a moratorium on any wind farm-related development for six months.

In Italy, the Town Board late last year rejected an application by Ecogen to erect 17 turbines. Ecogen responded by filing an Article 78 action in state Supreme Court, seeking to overturn the board’s decision to stop the project by denying approvals and placing a moratorium on its development.

Hall said an attorney will also speak at the Feb. 16 conference, addressing legal issues with turbines. “There is an attempt to iron out realistic, protective laws that make sense,” said Hall.

By Julie Sherwood, staff writer, Messenger Post

Labels: Process

Judge won't OK Steuben wind-energy project, but it goes ahead anyway

A mid-December vote by a Steuben County Town Board that allows a controversial wind-energy project to go forward will stand, for now, without a judicial stamp of approval.

In a ruling released this morning, state Supreme Court Justice Stephen Lindley declined to give his legal imprimatur to a 3-to-2 vote by the Prattsburgh Town Board in favor of a legal settlement with Ecogen Wind LLC.

Buffalo-area Ecogen had sued the board in November to force approval of a 16-turbine wind farm in the hilly Steuben County town. The company has said it spent $13 million on studies, legal fees and other expenses related to the project, which also would feature 17 more 415-foot-high turbines in the neighboring town of Italy, Yates County.

Ecogen brought suit against Prattsburgh shortly after the Nov. 3 townwide election, in which voters chose a new supervisor and a new board member, both of whom are openly skeptical about the Ecogen project.

The company apparently feared that the new board, once seated this month, would kill the project, and it sued preemptively so that pro-wind town lawmakers would have an opportunity to approve a settlement before two of them left office. The terms of the settlement allowed the project to go forward unfettered.

Two wind skeptics already on the board unsuccessfully sought to persuade Lindley not block the lame-duck board from settling the lawsuit. At the same time, Ecogen’s lawyers asked Lindley to give his approval to the settlement, presumably so that it would be more difficult for the new board to overturn.

Lindley said in his ruling, however, that it was “unnecessary and superfluous” for him to approve the settlement. He also said in his ruling that he was not disapproving it, either, and said the question of whether the mid-December vote was proper had not been put before him.

The Prattsburgh board, which now splits 4-to-1 against the Ecogen project, is scheduled to meet this evening.

“I guess that’s a good thing,” said Steve Kula, a wind-skeptic board member, referring to Lindley’s refusal to approve the settlement. “But it sounds like there’s a lot that’s open-ended at this point.”

Kula said he expected the board would begin working on a wind-turbine moratorium in the town and “trying to unwind the position of the previous board.”

Labels: Legal Issues, New York, Process

Clinical study of health effects of large wind turbines published

Rowe, Mass., Nov. 28, 2009 -- Dr. Nina Pierpont, a pediatrician and population biologist in Malone, New York, has announced the publication of her book-length study: Wind Turbine Syndrome: A Report on a Natural Experiment.

In interviews with 10 families living 1,000-4,900 feet away from recently built industrial-size wind turbines, a "cluster" of symptoms was revealed: from sleep disturbance, which affected almost everyone, to headache to tinnitus, vertigo, nausea, irritability, memory and concentration problems, and panic episodes. Industrial wind turbines have a total height of 300-400 feet or more, with blades of 125-150 feet that sweep 1.5-2 acres of vertical airspace.

The book includes supportive reviews and notices by several noted physicians in related disciplines. Although primarily directed towards medical professionals, it includes an informative and often poetic version for the lay audience.

The individuals affected by Wind Turbine Syndrome noticed that they developed symptoms after the turbines near their homes started turning. Symptoms were relieved when they left the area and resumed on their return. Eight of the ten families eventually moved away from their homes because of the severity of the symptoms.

Although not everyone living near turbines is subject to these symptoms, the data Pierpont presents are a concern, considering the current political drive to construct more and ever larger industrial wind turbines close to people's homes, as well as in the habitats of other equally or more sensitive animals.

Pierpont's sample size was large enough to show that individuals with pre-existing migraines, motion sensitivity, or inner ear damage are particularly vulnerable. People with anxiety or other mental health problems are not particularly susceptible, she says, contradicting the common claim of industry developers that "it's all in their head".

"This report is a public health wake-up call that our elected officials and administrators need to take very seriously", said Eric Rosenbloom, president of National Wind Watch, a clearinghouse for information about the adverse effects of industrial wind energy development.

Pierpont and other health and noise experts agree that at a minimum, large wind turbines should be 2 kilometers (1-1/4 miles) from any residence.

According to Pierpont, low-frequency noise or vibration from the wind turbines acts on the balance organs of the inner ear to make the body think it is moving. And this misperception of motion affects other brain functions, including physical reflexes, spatial processing and memory, and physiological fear responses (such as pounding heart and nausea).

Labels: Disadvantages, Process

Ecogen Wind LLC's lawsuit claims the town of Italy, Yates County, delayed a decision on its industrial wind development proposal since 2002 and now can't deny its application (Nov. 5 story). In reality, Ecogen caused this long, drawn-out, expensive process by refusing to accept the town's original decision to remain non-industrial. A 2006 zoning law prohibiting industrial turbines, two town-wide surveys and several public hearings on this issue demonstrated that Italy wants to preserve its major strengths — natural beauty and a peaceful rural character. It was Ecogen's lawsuit threats and unrelenting pressure on the Town Board that led to a reluctantly made zoning law revision, application review and final denial.

Evidence submitted by citizens overwhelmingly showed that the short setbacks and high noise levels required to fit Ecogen's massive facility among our homes could damage Italy residents' welfare, property values, health and safety. Cohocton's experience with industrial wind turbines has been a nightmare and a learning experience. Recent elections in Italy and Prattsburgh clearly showed the people's choice to remain turbine-free.

We should have the right to say "no."

—Joan Simmons, Italy, Yates County

Labels: Freedom, Legal Issues, New York, Process

The results of the Hartsville race are in, and Zena Andrus has been elected Hartsville's new town supervisor. An independent candidate, Mrs. Andrus won with 112 votes over Republican Alice Bosch's 104. "I would like to thank all of the residents that took time out of their busy lives to come to the town hall and vote for me," said Mrs. Andrus. "It was a long wait from the time we voted until the results were finally tabulated but the new machines will make voting more accurate in the future. Alice Bosch was a worthy opponent and ran a clean campaign."

One factor that added to the Andrus victory was the fact that just before the election, the three way supervisor race became a two way race, between Zena Andrus and Alice Bosch. That was due to Mike Muhleisan dropping out of the supervisor's contest, and lent his support to the Zena Andrus campaign. "He was a great adversary and I appreciate his stepping down to support me in my quest for the role of Supervisor," Mrs. Andrus said after the election was finally finished.

Other Hartsville Town Board winners include Jim Perry (120 votes), Tom Dobell (115 votes). Perry and Dobell defeated Nick Petito and Ron Amidon, both Petito and Amidon recieved 103 votes.

The biggest issue in the Hartsville race is wind energy. Because of the defeat of the pro-wind candidates, it is now uncertain whether or not there will in fact be a wind project for the Town of Hartsville. If there is no wind project in Hartsville, there will be no wind project in Hornellsville.

Labels: New York, Process

Which way did windmill voting tilt?

Steve Orr, Staff writer, Rochester Democrat and Chronicle

As we’ve been reporting, a wind-power development company called Ecogen Wind has filed suit against the town of Prattsburgh, Steuben County seeking a judicial order allowing it to proceed with construction of a wind farm there without town board approval. This comes in the heels of a similar court action by Ecogen in early November against the neighboring town of Italy, Yates County, asking a judge to set aside a town board vote killing the project.

Ecogen, based in suburban Buffalo and backed by a firm with offices in San Francisco and Houston, wants to build a 33-turbine wind farm in the hills of the two towns, which lie not far from the southern end of Canandaigua Lake.

At least part of the motivation behind these bare-knuckles lawsuits is the fact that voters in Italy and Prattsburgh elected anti-wind farm slates in voting earlier this month. Ecogen clearly fears the new boards will try to deep-six their project, on which they say they have spent $13 million so far.

The question I have is whether the voting in the two neighboring towns is part of a groundswell of opposition to industrial-scale wind farms in New York’s rural towns. There are several dozen wind farm proposals resting with town boards across the state, including some in the Rochester region - and most of the host towns had local elections on November 3. Someone I spoke with recently suggested a number of those elections did tilt against windmills.

This is where I’d like to enlist you visitors to help. If you know who won and who lost in town elections where wind farms were a major issue, post a comment here or shoot me an e-mail. Between your information and what I’m able to gather, I’ll post a running tally as we move along.

By the way, here are the legal petitions filed by Ecogen against the towns of Italy and Prattsburgh. They’re slow going if you don’t like legalese, but they might be worth reading – for the rural town-versus-wind farm conflict could prove significant in New York’s renewable energy future.

Response:
In Italy the town voted to replace 3 of the town board members including the supervisor. Italy has been more reasonable than Prattsburgh as far as the current town board and their work on turbines. Prattsburgh who suffered through ridiculous 3-2 votes in favor of wind for the past several years has turned the tide and has now 4-1 in favor of Town Board Members that are not going to be greenwashed by Ecogen/Pattern Energy. The basis to both of these lawsuits is that the towns of Italy and Prattsburgh have used our democratic process and shown that they are "Mad as hell. and not going to take it anymore." Now the greedy corporation will turn to a bevy of lawyers to twist the facts into some sort of feeble attempt to go against the will of the people.... Maybe it is time for another Tea Party!

Labels: Legal Issues, New York, Process

Town to fight wind company lawsuit

By Julie Sherwood, Staff Writer, Daily Messenger

A fight over whether a proposed wind turbine project bordering Naples will go forward heated up last week when the developer filed a lawsuit against the town, where 17 turbines were to go up.

The Article 78 action, filed in state Supreme Court in Monroe County by developer Ecogen Wind LLC, seeks to overturn the Town Board’s decision to stop the project by denying approvals and placing a moratorium on its development.

Last month, the board unanimously rejected the proposed wind turbine project, determining the gigantic, power-generating machines would have a negative effect on the environment. The board also imposed a six-month moratorium on wind turbines following a public hearing.

The decision followed a meeting the previous month attended by 116 residents. Most of those who spoke opposed the project over concerns about noise, light flicker, positioning on steep slopes and other concerns.

Supervisor-elect Brad Jones said he and other elected officials are ready to challenge the lawsuit that claims the town acted improperly and illegally in rejecting the project’s application.

“You don’t try to build a big industrial project when 70 to 80 percent said ‘we don’t want
industrialization in the town,’” said Jones. His family, like most others in Italy, choose to live there because of family history and the town’s rural character, he said.

“We need to represent the will of the people,” added Jones. “We will continue to fight.”

Messages left with Nixon Peabody LLP, Ecogen’s legal representative on the case, were not returned. Beth O’Brien, a spokeswoman with Ecogen’s partner on the project, Pattern Energy Group, said she could not comment because of the pending litigation.

Ed Premo, with Harter Secrest & Emery LLP, which represents the town, said the Town Board did due diligence.

“It went through the process of carefully reviewing the application, went through two public hearings and carefully considered all documents and evidence,” he said, before the board determined the benefits Ecogen offered did not outweigh “the substantial adverse impacts of the project.”

Jones said Ecogen had bought several properties in the town, with plans to build turbines there, claiming in the lawsuit it had spent between $10 million and $12 million on those land deals, while pegging its entire cost for the project at more than $150 million.

Town resident Vince Johnson said he plans to ask the town to set up a legal-defense fund to pay for the ongoing costs in fighting Ecogen in court.

“Sadly, Ecogen is coming back to town again with a legal gun and trying to bleed the town dry,” he said.

Italy and Ecogen have been involved in several legal battles involving the turbine project, which is tied to one in neighboring Prattsburgh. Ecogen and Pattern Energy Group want to put up 33 wind turbines across the two towns, with the companies saying the Prattsburgh project depends on getting the permit from Italy.

Naples also has a lot at stake. This summer the Naples Town Board asked the state’s Public Service Commission to stop development of turbines that would be built close to the town line. The town has focused on five turbines that Ecogen’s original plans sited on Knapp Hill in Prattsburgh. One would be within 250 feet of the Naples town line and less than 500 feet from a Naples landowner's property line.

Wind turbines are already towering over the landscape to the south of Naples. Fifty turbines — with most clustered on Pine and Lent hills in Cohocton — installed by another wind energy company, First Wind, became operational early this year. The company’s plans to erect more than 40 additional turbines for a project in Prattsburgh are currently on hold due to financing issues.
Lynn Barbuto, who owns Ceasar’s Pet Palace in Geneva, said she was dismayed when she drove to Naples recently with a friend who had been interested in buying a home there. When they saw the industrial wind turbines covering the hillsides south of town, they were “mortified,” she said.

Her friend, who grew up in Rochester and had been living in Florida, wanted to return to the Finger Lakes region — particularly the Naples area — and settle down, said Barbuto. “But she rejected that area due to those wind turbines.”

“We couldn’t believe these monstrous things were in this most beautiful site in New York,” said Barbuto. “What next?”

Labels: Legal Issues, New York, Process

November 3, 2009 Italy Town Election Results

Supervisor
Bradley E. Jones 204
Margaret M. Dunn 170 (incumbent)
Write-in 1

Town Council (2 seats)
Frederick T. Johnstone 201
Donna L. Baran 200
Charles E Kreuzer 138 (incumbent)
Write-in 81

An articulate slate of candidates critical of industrial wind development in Italy, led by Brad Jones, have won the Town elections in a clean sweep! Our congratulations and prayers are with the new team as they begin the work of rebuilding trust and hope in the Town's future.

Labels: New York, Process

Italy Town Board candidates say they'll reflect residents' wishes

Three candidates are running for Italy Town Board on the Republican and Independent party lines. Donna Baran and Fred Johnstone are running for the two Town Board openings, and Brad Jones is running for town supervisor.

"We have chosen to run for office because the current Town Board has steadfastly refused to listen to the people of the town and accept the fact that the overwhelming majority do not want the proposed Ecogen industrial wind project," said Jones.

"At every single public hearing over the last five years and in two separate surveys, the people of Italy have said no to the Ecogen project," Jones said. "Yet the Town Board continues to do everything possible to accommodate every whim and desire of the developer and to push the project through before the end of this year. So, our reason for running is pretty simple: we want the future Town Board to reflect and defend the wishes of the townspeople, not the wishes of the hired guns from Riverstone Holdings LLC, the latest owner of the Ecogen project. We believe that the Town Board has a serious responsibility to protect the health and general welfare of its people, and that is exactly what we intend to do."

The incumbents are Supervisor Margaret Dunn and Town Board members Amanda Gorton and Charley Kreuzer. Gorton is not seeking re-election.

Jones and his wife, Linda, reside on the family property on Donley Road. Following a career that included management positions at Eastman Kodak, Alstom S.A and Al Sigl Center, Jones now leads his own consulting business that specializes in human resources and business development. He has extensive experience serving on both corporate and not-for-profit boards.

Johnstone and his wife, Kathy, have lived on Emerson Road for 12 years. He has many years of not-for-profit board experience and currently serves as a captain in the Rochester Fire Department.

Baran and her husband, Leonard, recently moved to their new home on Italy Valley Road from the Virgin Islands where they managed their own business. She has 15 years of experience in community and human services as well as several years of experience on not-for-profit boards.

"We believe that the current board has been so preoccupied with the Ecogen proposal for so many years that other important priorities have been ignored," Johnstone said. "This is not intended to be a criticism of any member of the current board. To the contrary, we appreciate and thank them for the hundreds of hours they have spent dealing with this developer and their army of lawyers."

Jones said that a new board in January would begin its term with a renewed focus on the following issues:

• A three-year plan for town road improvements with clear and objective criteria for all spending.
• Controlling real estate taxes and exhibiting fiscal restraint.
• Improved communications to all interested citizens through newsletters, web site, surveys and e-mail.
• Sustainable economic development working with nearby towns and the Finger Lakes Economic Development Center to develop and implement specific initiatives for long-term economic growth that are sustainable and consistent with residents' wishes and values.

"Following the expressed will of the people, we will move quickly to restore the original Comprehensive Plan prohibiting large scale industrialization in the town," Jones said.

The Naples Record, Wednesday October 7, 2009

Labels: New York, Process

Dear Ms. Trischler:

Please share this with the members of the Town Board, and please confirm receipt of this email.

My husband and I are in escrow for the purchase of 5100 Sunnyside Road in Italy. We also have owned, for 15 years, 110 acres of wild land on Lent Hill in Cohocton. We dearly love the Finger Lakes region, and hope some day to retire there. At present, due to jobs, we must live elsewhere, and so cannot attend the September 19 meeting in person to express our concerns about the wind projects proposed for Italy township.

My husband works for an environmental consulting company that is world-renowned (see www.esri.com). We are both very eager to support sustainable, renewable resource management and energy production. We were initially supportive of the wind project planned for Cohocton, but as we researched it and got more informed about it, we became very concerned that it would turn out to be a disaster--both for the town and also for us personally.

It is turning out to be exactly that. The turbines are badly engineered and break down constantly. The crews ruined the roads putting them in, and the town has had a terrible job and has generated a lot of pollution rebuilding them. The town inhabitants have divided along pro and con lines and many don't speak to each other any more. The people who live within earshot of the turbines hate them with a passion, and that includes many people who were very supportive at first. The wind isn't consistent, and the turbines are usually not producing at "capacity" although they are still very noisy. I could go on and on.

We have a small cabin and we spend many weeks there each year, contributing to wildlife management and also to the local economy with our groceries and other purchases. We also pay taxes! So even though we don't live there year-round, we are not just absentee vacationers who don't care about the community.

The turbines often keep us awake at night. The blades make the sound of a jet engine, and the gears and machinery (that turns the turbine into the wind) are very loud, making loud crashing booms and creaking and grinding noises. You can't just learn to tune the noise out, because it changes all the time. The red night lights and the flicker caused by the sun through the blades are annoying, but the noise is just torture.

Ecogen does not care about the citizens or the quality of life in Italy. They are just using you, counting on your naïveté and ignorance. PLEASE don't make the same mistake that Cohocton made!

Sincerely,
Carolyn Morehouse

Labels: Cohocton, Disadvantages, Noise, Process

• Important Message from John Servo
• The Ecogen meeting is at the Prattsburgh School Cafetorium at 6:30 pm Thursday May 21. Come early if possible, as it will be well attended.
• Ecogen has a PILOT agreement with Prattsburgh for $9M less that their deal with Italy for a comparable number of wind turbines – 75% less than Italy's deal. We anticipate that Ecogen will present the Town about $1,000,000 in "sweeteners" – several trucks, maybe a new pole barn, some sidewalks, and Scholarship Fund. And where is the other $8,000,000? How stupid does Ecogen and the Town Board majority think we are? What was done to "grease the wheels of progress" to have this rip-off rammed down our throats?
• Those people who will be potentially damaged by noise, and health and safety problems are supposed to just "shut up and take it". This is not acceptable, and citizens need to make ourselves heard.
• This past week, Ecogen tried to get Prattsburgh Town board member Steve Kula to accept an artfully worded bribe – Steve's father would not get a (potentially several million dollar) gravel contract with Ecogen unless Steve Jr. recused himself from voting on any wind farm issues. And town attorney John Leyden – who also represents SCIDA, the lead agent for the Ecogen project – suggested that Steve accept and recuse himself! This, after Leyden has previously told Harold McConnell (who received money from a wind farm developer) – and before him David Hall and Andy Moesch, whose families leased to the developers – that they did not need to recuse themselves for conflict-of-interest! Evidently, attorney Leyden believes that only town board members concerned about noise, health and safety issues, and corruption should recuse themselves. If you want to protect the citizens and the Town, you better shut up! What do you think? Come to the Ecogen meeting and tell us what you think!
• Last month, a 25 acre property in Naples located 537 feet an Ecogen turbine site in Prattsburgh had its tax assessment lowered by 60%. What does this mean? If the Ecogen project is built as planned, the assessments on dozens of damaged properties in Prattsburgh will also be lowered – and if the Town budget doesn't go down, everyone else's taxes will go up. Welcome to the "financial benefits" of a badly planned wind project in Prattsburgh! Tell Ecogen – and their fans on the Prattsburgh Town Board – that you want Ecogen to guarantee protection from these higher taxes!
• Advocates for Prattsburgh will have a highly respected noise expert speak at the Ecogen meeting. He will address the health and safety impact on adjacent landowners which will result from these damagingly short setbacks. Please listen to what he says, and then tell Ecogen what you think, and what you want!
• If you have concerns about what is happening and Ecogen's plans for Prattsburgh, please sign up to speak at the meeting.

Labels: Legal Issues, New York, Noise, Process

Two Important Meetings will be held this coming week, the town board meeting in Ingleside on Tuesday and an Ecogen Presentation on Thursday. There has been great attendance at the last several meetings and we hope that next week many of you will be able to come to one or both meetings.

Tuesday, May 19 at 7:00 pm is the Monthly Town Board Meeting. Please note that it will be held in INGLESIDE. Call the Town Hall at 607-522-3761 if you need directions. It is very important that the Board Majority knows that their decisions are being watched and that people voice their concerns during the Public Comment period. If you want to speak during the first part of the meeting call the Clerk and ask to be put on the Agenda.

Thursday, May 21st at 6:30 pm will be a public meeting at which Ecogen will make a presentation and answer questions about their project. It will either be at the Fire Hall or the School. Call the Town Hall at 607-522-3761 for info. We cannot stress enough how important it is to show up at this meeting. Every one of us has an obligation to the town and to ourselves to hold the Board and the wind developers accountable for their projects.

Labels: New York, Process

Project online despite report from grid operator

Cohocton, NY - Despite reports from the operator of the state’s power grid, the 50-turbine project in Cohocton is online.

The New York Independent System Operator, the not-for-profit organization that runs the state’s power grid, stated Friday the 125 megawatt project in Cohocton was not operational, a claim refuted by town officials and later by NYISO itself.

Kenneth M. Klapp, the senior communications and media relations specialist with NYISO, Monday said the information provided by his own agency Friday was incorrect.

“Unfortunately, you were given information on the status of another wind project in Steuben County, which has been proposed for interconnection to the grid,” he said. “In answer to your original question, both phases of the 125 MW wind project in Steuben County (known as Cohocton Wind and operated by First Wind) are currently in service.”

That comes in contrast to what officials at the organization had said previously.

Richard Barlette, manager of government affairs for NYISO, said Friday no power generated at the site has been sold for consumption. “They’re currently under the connection process,” he said at the time. “As far as ‘flipping the switch,’ a ball park figure is December 2010.”

Others contacting NYISO had received similar information, including U.S. Rep. Eric Massa, D-29, who responded to the mistake during a press conference call this morning. “What you’re saying is it’s hard to get a straight answer out of anybody,” Massa said. “There is a lot of misinformation out there.” Massa added much work is left to do on the project, including sound studies that were the topic of discussion at a Cohocton town board meeting Monday night.

Jack Zigenfus, town supervisor in Cohocton, provided The Evening Tribune with a spreadsheet from NYISO showing the project was in service as of the most-recent update of the document, recorded as Feb. 5.

Cohocton officials applauded First Wind for “throwing the switch” on the 50-turbine wind energy development in December, while according to John Lamontagne, director of corporate communications for First Wind, the project was believed to be up and running in 2008. “The time frame was to be by the end of the year,” he said in a Dec. 16, 2008 phone interview.

According to company officials in 2007 — when the company was known as UPC Wind — the project was expected to be up and running about a year after construction began.

Dirt first started moving on the project Sept. 18, 2007, with tower construction commencing in November. Work on the first two towers, complete with turbine blades, was finished Jan. 3. Of the 50 towers, 47 are spread across Lent, Pine and Dutch hills, dominating much of the view around Cohocton, North Cohocton and Atlanta. The three remaining turbines are on Brown Hill to the south of the village, where the project connects to the regional energy grid.

First Wind officials did not immediately return a call requesting a comment.

By Bob Clark, The Hornell Evening Tribune

Labels: Cohocton, Process

Power grid operator: no power so far to state grid from Cohocton

Cohocton, NY - After years of development, construction, anxiety and lawsuits, the hills surrounding Cohocton have sprouted 50 commercial wind turbines.

Now that First Wind has wrapped up its construction in Cohocton and the turbines are now spinning in the breeze, is that energy being sold?

According to the grid operator, no. And that’s not expected to change anytime soon.

Richard Barlette, manager of government affairs for the New York Independent System Operator — the not-for-profit company that moderates the state’s power grid and gives all power projects the green light — said no power generated at the site has been sold for consumption.

“They’re currently under the connection process,” he said. “As far as ‘flipping the switch,’ a ball park figure is December 2010.”

That connection process contains several steps, Barlette said, which are long and complicated.

“It’s not just sticking a turbine in the ground one day and producing electricity,” he said. “Every plant you build goes through the process.”

The biggest test, he said, is seeing if the grid can handle the extra power — 125 megawatts, in Cohocton’s case.

“We need to know the impact and reliability on the grid. We need to make sure it doesn’t negatively affect the grid.”

NYISO’s word comes in contrast to what town officials have heard from First Wind in the past.

Jack Zigenfus, Cohocton town supervisor, was last told by First Wind that the project was ready to transmit power and he thought it was.

“I received a letter that it had met all the criteria from all the regulatory agencies,” Zigenfus said. “They have to be operating to be obligated to pay the town.”

Zigenfus said the town has received at least $1.81 million from the project so far. The first payment — of $725,000 — came to the town in 2007 from the project as part of the community host agreement, with an additional $937,500 entering the town’s coffers by the end of 2008. First Wind also transfered to the town $150,000 for historical remediation, which the town and village boards hope to put towards renovating the Larrowe House, which currently houses the town and village clerk offices.

He also said he heard from officials at the Wayland-Cohocton Central School District it received the first Payment in Lieu of Taxes check from First Wind.

Cohocton officials applauded First Wind for “throwing the switch” on the 50-turbine wind energy development in December, while according to John Lamontagne, director of corporate communications for First Wind, the project was believed to be up and running in 2008.

"The time frame was to be by the end of the year,” he said in a Dec. 16, 2008 phone interview.

According to company officials in 2007 — when the company was known as UPC Wind — the project was expected to be up and running about a year after construction began.

Dirt first started moving on the project Sept. 18, 2007, with tower construction commencing in November. Work on the first two towers, complete with turbine blades, was finished Jan. 3. Of the 50 towers, 47 are spread across Lent, Pine and Dutch hills, dominating much of the view around Cohocton, North Cohocton and Atlanta. The three remaining turbines are on Brown Hill to the south of the village, where the project connects to the regional energy grid.

First Wind officials did not immediately return messages for comment.

By Bob Clark, The Hornell Evening Tribune

Labels: Cohocton, Process

Dear Folks,

It seems that some of us missed an interesting meeting in Prattsburgh last night. I have spoken to several people who attended and am passing along comments from Arnold Palmer, a landowner in Prattsburgh, who sent me this email.

Just to give you some basics - Prior to the regularly scheduled town board meeting there was a public hearing on the "wind law." Once there is a wind law the town is legally allowed to receive money for building permits from wind companies. They did not vote on the wind law last night - rather they agreed to have a workshop in a couple of weeks to discuss setbacks.

The following is from Arnold:

The meeting was standing room only.

A fellow from Cohocton - Lent Hill Road, [Judge Hal Graham] spoke eloquently about the noise resulting from a 2.3 turbine on his property, how strongly he supported the wind farm concept before they became operational, how completely frustrated he was with the noise level which is so different from what he was promised when he signed a lease, his complete lack of results in trying, now after the fact, to do something about it, how badly he felt about what he'd wrought on his neighbors, and urging the Board to act prudently.

He made the excellent point that, rather than relying on Ecogen or whomever to provide theoretical DB prognostications, the Prattsburgh Board had the option to simply come to Cohocton and listen. He urged them to visit his home and to do so on windy days without giving the wind company a heads up in that, whenever visitors were anticipated, the turbine speeds are slowed down so that visitors are treated to noise levels at 25% or less of what the residents are subjected to on a daily basis. Good discussion about what sorts of setbacks were necessary and what point from which the setbacks should be measured.

The overall tenor of the Hearing and Board Meeting was substantially different that any I've attended in recent memory.

However some things don't change:

The Town Attorney was his usual self, yelling at Al to keep quiet and bristling whenever his posture was questioned by attendees or the Board. Stacy got in a few "you people" epithets in a lengthy self-serving statement describing what a privilege it had been to direct the Comprehensive Plan initiative and remind everyone she was pleased with the Plan and couldn't care less whether anyone else liked the plan, or the people who worked on it or the process under which it was prepared.

When Judge Graham was speaking, the room was silent and he was given the courtesy of speaking when his allotted three minutes were up.

The star of the evening was Steve Kula. He was extremely even-handed on wind related issues, got Harold and the Town Attorney squirming on whether bills (attorney fees and engineering company bills, among others) were being paid properly and transparently or whether they were being sent directly to Harold rather than to the Town who had approved the bills and had them paid. He brought up a number of other equally lightning rod issues about propriety, including asking for an executive session at the end to present a 'legal solution' to end the issues of condemnation and Harold's vote.

So folks, the good news is that the wind law in its present form was not voted upon, and the Board appears to be taking the issue of setbacks seriously. Thanks to everyone who attended last night - the support from this group continues to stay solid, and it is appreciated.

Regards,
Ruth

Labels: Cohocton, Legal Issues, Noise, Process

Wind Energy will be an early test of Obama's White House Staff

President-elect Obama has said that he would promote "wind farms" as one way to create more jobs. This idea is consistent with popular wisdom about wind energy and, therefore, sounded good while Mr. Obama was in the Senate and during his presidential campaign.

The problem for Mr. Obama now is that this popular wisdom is wrong. Contrary to reports issued by various wind energy advocates, "wind farms" provide few energy, environmental, or economic benefits and create very few jobs - far fewer than could be achieved if the money were used for other investments. Also, wind energy has adverse impacts that advocates like to ignore.

Difference between campaigning and governing

"Good ideas," even if costly, can be useful during a presidential campaign. Once elected, however, presidents typically find that they have many more "good ideas" thrust upon them by staffers, campaign contributors, special interest groups, and heads of departments and agencies than their Presidential budget can accommodate, or that have benefits outweighing true costs.

Therefore, all presidents need effective procedures and trusted staff with discernment skills near at hand who can tell them whether the claims made by proponents of various "good ideas" are really true and whether a proposal will be cost-effective in meeting his goals.

The question now is whether Mr. Obama's White House and Executive Office staff will have the capability and "clout" to protect him from being pressured to adopt unworthy proposals. This will be a test for NEC Director Larry Summers, Domestic Policy Director Melody Barnes, ERAB Staff Director Austan Goolsbee, and OMB Director Peter Orszag and their staffs.

Click here to read Glenn Schleede's entire article in American Thinker magazine.

Labels: Process

Hold on wind project proposed

by Bob Clark, Hornell Evening Tribune

Hartsville, NY - With little news from developers and fears of low returns on revenue, the Town of Hartsville might hold off on allowing anyone to build a wind farm until the details get ironed out.

The Hartsville town board voted 3-2 at Wednesday night’s meeting to consider a law placing a moratorium on wind turbine development. Town Supervisor Steve Dombert proposed the idea following a discussion on revenue benefits for the town and how they would compare to other municipalities.

Under the current Payment in Lieu of Taxes formulas, the town would receive between $52,000 and $180,000, Dombert said. “I’m really underwhelmed,” he said.

While the Town of Cohocton has received more than a million dollars in two years from a community host agreement, Dombert said recent court action by parties involved in the PILOT programs at other wind turbine locations may rule the community host agreement concept void.

He said he recently talked to representatives with E.ON, the company planning to build between 33 and 46 turbines in the town, “but I’m not feeling I’m getting a lot of encouragement on their end.”

The length of the moratorium would be between six months to a year, he said, adding it would give the town time to figure out its options and negotiate any necessary deals with the Canisteo-Greenwood Central School District.

Dombert added he feels the Steuben County Industrial Development Agency, which has the task of negotiating PILOT agreements, is not looking out for the town’s best interest. “They’re not negotiating anything at all,” he said.

Labels: Money, New York, Process

Hamlin to consider new wind tower laws

by Meaghan M. McDermott, Staff writer

In the wake of a state Supreme Court decision striking down Hamlin's law regulating wind turbines, town officials plan to begin crafting a new law as soon as possible.

"We're looking at various options," said Town Supervisor Denny Roach, adding that he was "surprised and disappointed" by the Jan. 5 ruling from Justice David M. Barry nullifying wind turbine laws crafted through more than two years of public hearings, committee meetings and research. "Not only did we model our wind tower laws on other wind tower laws enacted throughout the state, but ours were more stringent than the other regulations, including some of the toughest noise restrictions in the state."

The Hamlin Preservation Group sued the town in August over the law, which would allow 400-foot-tall wind turbines to be constructed within 600 feet of property lines and public roads and within 1,200 feet of residences in areas zoned residential/very-low density. About 70 percent of Hamlin is zoned residential/very-low density.

The group claimed the Town Board ignored recommendations of its Wind Tower Committee — which included four of the 39 residents who filed the suit — to establish 1,500-foot setbacks from roads and property lines and 2,640-foot setbacks from homes.

Justice Barry ruled that town leaders violated state environmental quality laws in approving the new ordinance by not taking a "hard look" at environmental concerns related to wind towers or setting forth a "reasoned elaboration" on why the wind tower rules would not have a significant impact on the environment.

"We are very pleased with the decision," said Paul Lapinski of Redman Road, a member of the preservation group. "There are places wind turbines fit in, but they don't fit in right next to somebody's house."

Hamlin leaders began grappling with wind energy issues in late 2006, when Competitive Power Ventures Inc. erected two devices in northwest Hamlin to study whether it would be a good place for a wind farm. Since then, the company — now owned by Rochester Gas and Electric parent Iberdrola — has obtained options to lease about 15 properties for a possible wind farm in the northwest Monroe County town.

So far, Iberdrola has not put forth an official proposal for a wind farm in Hamlin.

But without a wind tower law on the books, Roach worries the town is vulnerable to developers. He plans to ask the Town Board to enact a temporary moratorium on wind farm development at the upcoming Jan. 26 meeting.

Lapinski said he'd like to see the town go even further than the wind committee's recommendations and prohibit turbines within 2,640 feet of property lines and 1,500 feet of roadways. He is concerned about noise, flicker, the possibility of ice thrown from spinning blades, destruction of airborne wildlife and what could happen if a tower were to collapse.

Roach said town leaders would take a harder look at potential environmental concerns.

But, Roach said, he's frustrated by more state and federal government calls for green energy and alternative fuels that don't come with any guidance for local governments for regulation.

"These are all grand goals, but there's no guidance and in the meantime the towns are left with the expense of getting regulations together and in place." he said.

Arthur J. Giacalone, attorney for the preservation group and a proponent of tight controls on wind energy companies, said he's aware of three towns that have banned industrial turbines altogether: Brandon and Malone in Franklin County and Meredith in Delaware County.

"Town boards need to understand they do have a right to keep these things out," he said.

Hamlin is the first Monroe County town to attract attention from a wind power firm. Other projects are ongoing in the region, however. Two farms are planned in Ontario County, there are three in the works in Genesee, one in Orleans and one in Livingston County.

Labels: Legal Issues, New York, Process

NYS Supreme Court Judge Nullifies Hamlin Wind Energy Law

The Wind Energy Law adopted in April 2008 by the Monroe County Town of Hamlin has been “set aside and annulled” by the Hon. David Michael Barry, Justice of New York State’s Supreme Court, in an “Order and Judgment” granted on January 5, 2009. The court’s decision concludes that the Hamlin Town Board violated the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) when it neither took a “hard look” at the relevant areas of environmental concern, nor set forth a “reasoned elaboration” for its determination that the wind energy law would not have a significant impact on the environment.

The wind law nullified by the court would have allowed construction of 400-foot-tall wind turbines within 600 feet of property lines and public roads and 1,200 feet of residences. In adopting the local law, the Hamlin Town Board chose to ignore the recommendations of the town's Wind Tower Committee for 1,500-foot setbacks from roads and property lines, and 2,640-foot [half-mile] setbacks from residents. The Town Board also disregarded the WTC's recommended noise standards intended to protect the health and wellbeing of nearby residents.

The judicial proceeding was brought in State Supreme Court, Monroe County by the "Hamlin Preservation Group" [HPG], an association of town residents and landowners determined to protect Hamlin's rural character and natural environment, and thirty-nine (39) Town of Hamlin residents. Of special concern to the Hamlin residents was the town board’s failure to take the required “hard look” at potential adverse impacts on human health associated with industrial wind farms prior to establishing minimum setback requirements and noise standards in the challenged wind law.

Attorney Arthur J. Giacalone expressed HPG’s response to the decision:

The members of the Hamlin Preservation Group are thrilled with the court’s ruling, and grateful to Justice Barry for holding the Hamlin Town Board to the tough standards mandated by the State’s environmental review law. If a town chooses to allow, rather than prohibit, industrial-scale wind development, it must, at a minimum, protect its residents' health, maintain the town's rural character, and preserve property values by establishing meaningful setback requirements and noise standards. The court’s ruling will help to ensure those protections.

For further information, please contact Arthur J. Giacalone, at 716-687-1902.

Labels: Legal Issues, New York, Process

Naples: Don’t get too close with those windmills

By Emily McFaul, correspondent

Naples, NY — The Town Board says wind turbines planned for neighboring Prattsburgh come too close to the Naples town line. Board members agreed this month to send a letter asking the state Public Service Commission to intervene and order a developer to move the towers further from town line.

“I think the board has made clear, we’re not against wind turbines, but we are against the improper siting of towers,” Supervisor Frank Duserick said.

This is not the first letter of protest the town has issued regarding the location of towers in neighboring townships. In July, the town appealed to the state Attorney General’s Office, arguing that Naples landowners’ property rights and safety are threatened by the placement of the towers. While a date has yet to be set, the Attorney General’s Office has expressed interest in meeting with the town.

At issue are turbines planned for Knapp Hill in Prattsburgh, part of the Ecogen project. Five turbines are scheduled to go up in the area, with the closest only 489 feet from Naples landowner John Servo’s property line. Servo is president of the group Advocates for Prattsburgh, which has opposed this project.

Technically, the setbacks meet project guidelines established for Ecogen through an environmental study headed up by the Steuben County Industrial Development Agency. But both Servo and the Naples Town Board say the setbacks are not enough.

The neighboring town of Cohocton passed a zoning law prohibiting the placement of turbines closer than 1,500 feet from a residence, a step that Duserick points out to the PSC as precedent that another town has acknowledged the undesirability of building within that range.

By placing turbines less than 500 feet from the Naples property line, Duserick and Servo argue that the project is creating “reverse zoning” that effectively limits Naples landowners from full use of their property for safety reasons. “The safety zone is 1,500 feet,” Duserick later said. “There should be a 1,500 feet setback, and actually it’s not enough. That’s for the smaller turbines.”

At a hearing last month, the Steuben County IDA outlined Ecogen’s new plans to install larger 2.3-megawatt turbines instead of the originally planned 1.5-megawatt model, but Naples received no advance notice of the hearing.

The increase in the turbine size means that only 36 towers will be placed instead of the 53 originally planned, but the towers will be 26 feet taller to generate the increased output. Ecogen project manager Thomas Hagner said contrary to what some project critics have suggested, no new environmental study is required.

And despite the number of towers being scaled back, with the site earmarked a prime wind resource, the Knapp Hill towers are still planned. Technically, Ecogen is within its rights to do so, said Hagner. “The turbines meet the permitting requirements of the government agency with jurisdiction on this issue,” he said.

For Duserick, frustration goes back to initial planning phases for the wind project, when the IDA notified the village but not the town of the impending development, leaving the town out of the loop in the environmental review process.

“It’s inappropriate and unethical to place towers so close to the town line without even talking to (us),” said Duserick. “I clearly question the ethics of what’s happening in Steuben County.”
In the letter to the PSC, the town also asks for setbacks of five miles from designated historic sites in Naples like the Memorial Town Hall, in order to protect the town’s scenic views and tourism trade.

The environmental review process for wind developments evaluates the visual impacts of turbines for a radius of 5 miles; for the Ecogen project, the determination recorded in the environmental impact statement is that there would not be “significant adverse impact for distant views (greater than approximately 2 miles).”

But there is some precedent in the PSC limiting turbines from being built in sites where they could be visually and economically detrimental. Last year, the PSC required Jordanville Wind to eliminate 19 of the 68 turbines planned for its Herkimer County project, since they would be visible from the Glimmerglass Historic District. Though the district fell outside of the 5-mile radius, the PSC acknowledged the district as a “nationally significant” historic resource, and a key factor in a regional economic plan developed around heritage-based tourism.

Labels: Cohocton, Legal Issues, Process

Construction of energy-producing wind turbines in the town of Prattsburgh is on hold for at least a year.

Prattsburgh officials were notified late last week of the delay by the wind farm developer – First Wind.

“While we remain committed to wind development in the Northeast, we’ve made a strategic decision to postpone construction on the Prattsburgh wind project,” said Chris Swartley, the company’s vice president of development.

Swartley said the company appreciates “the strong community partnership” and will continue to maintain its Prattsburgh office, existing towers and the existing leases now in place with landowners.

The announcement caps a year of trouble for the energy company, which announced last spring construction of 36 turbines in Prattsburgh would begin in the fall.

Since then, a flurry of lawsuits have been filed regarding the project, with the first legal action this year brought in January by the Naples and Prattsbugh central school districts. The districts charged they didn’t receive a fair share of money from a tax relief agreement between First Wind and the Steuben County Industrial Development Agency.

Another lawsuit included challenges to eminent domain proceedings brought by the Prattsburgh Town Board to help First Wind lay underground transmission cables. Also, there have been charges of improper and unethical action by town Supervisor Harold McConnell.

First Wind also is one of two wind farm developers under investigation by the state Attorney General’s office.

Click here to read Mary Perham's entire article in this week's Corning Leader.

Labels: Process

Dear Folks,

We just learned this weekend that First Wind is indefinitely postponing the Prattsburgh project. We have also heard from a reliable source that they are also refusing to pay the legal bills for the Town of Prattsburgh that they said they would pay. In addition, we believe the company owes the town money for other things (roads or something) that they have not paid.

We think it will be very hard for a court to allow the town of Prattsburgh to condemn property for a company that is indefinitely postponing the project and which OWES THE TOWN MONEY. And if the condemnations are disallowed, that will be disturbing for Ecogen, since we believe that the Ecogen project was counting on a precedent being set so that they could also ask the town to condemn land.

And speaking of Ecogen, there is reason to believe that their partner (and major financer) Babcock and Brown, is almost bankrupt. A recent look at the financial pages showed that their stock fell from $35 over a year ago to TWENTY FIVE CENTS. We are presently looking into this.

It's not over yet, but this news is VERY exciting.

We are very grateful to those of you who have not allowed yourself to be bullied by the companies -- those of you who have stood firm when pressed to sign leases and have chased off the wind company surveyors when they trespassed on your property. Because of all the letters written, meetings attended and attention to detail that has been paid, the wind companies have not been able to railroad through their projects.

If the condemnees had not chosen to appeal, First Wind could have possessed that land four months ago, and we might have had a very different scenario than the one we have now. Thank you to everyone who has supported the condemnees; thank you to those who have answered our most recent appeal for funds; and for those of you who want to help the condemnees with the final bill [see below], please send your checks to Advocates for Prattsburgh, Box 221, Prattsburgh, NY 14873.

Regards,
Ruth

Labels: Legal Issues, Money, Process

Members of Advocates for Prattsburgh are continuing to monitor wind happenings, even as the condemnees prepare for the December 12 appeal. We know that nearly everyone on this list continues to be concerned about the future of Prattsburgh, because wherever we go we are asked for the latest update.

Because of generous financial donations the condemnees will have their day in court for a case that affects every community besieged by wind companies. At this point, just $2000 is needed to ensure that the final legal bills can be paid.

Due to our vigilance, most Prattsburgh residents are not yet suffering from turbines with inadequate setbacks, although the Cohocton project has begun to affect some Prattsburgh properties. A drive to Cohocton will demonstrate the reality of the size of the turbines. There have already been noise complaints.

If you read the Naples Record a couple weeks ago, you know that Francis Hall, the father of former Prattsburgh Council Person, David Hall, received $439,250 from Ecogen Wind LLC for a deed transfer. This happened when David Hall was on the Town Board. Since Francis Hall began doing business with Ecogen in about 2003, David Hall voted on several resolutions having to do with wind companies – never once did he recuse himself.

It is impossible for people like David Hall and Harold McConnell to honestly assess the pros and cons of wind projects in Prattsburgh when they or their families are benefiting financially. And without constant monitoring by Prattsburgh residents and landowners, no one would know about these deals that are going on.

On December 12, the lawyer for the condemnees will appear in court to present their case that the benefit of the First Wind project will not be worth the cost. He will argue that the town has overstepped its bounds by condemning property for use by a private company and that, due to conflict of interest, the Supervisor’s tie breaking vote for condemnation should not be allowed to stand.

Because of your support, the condemnees have raised nearly $20,000. Just $2000 more will ensure that the lawyer is paid for the court appearance and for last minute responses to First Wind’s lawyers. If we all chip in, that goal can be reached. Please send whatever you can to Advocates for Prattsburgh, Box 221, Prattsburgh, NY 14873.

Labels: Legal Issues, New York, Process

Things are about to get interesting out in Hamlin.

During his community forum in Irondequoit last night, Attorney General Andrew Cuomo told a group of Hamlin residents that he'd send an environmental attorney to look into the town's wind tower regulations and the circumstances under which they were passed. He was responding to repeated requests from a group of town residents, all members of the Hamlin Preservation Group.

To be clear - Cuomo did not say that his office would take any action, just that he's sending a lawyer to take a look at the situation.

The Hamlin Preservation Group, which is suing the town over the regulations, has a couple of concerns. The first is with the regulations themselves: they allow the towers to be built too close to homes and roads, they say. The second is a perceived conflict of interest: one of the Town Board members has a lease agreement with Iberdrola - the company interested in building turbines in Hamlin - though he abstained from voting on the regulations.

Neither concern is unique to Hamlin.

"It's a big issue all across the state," Cuomo said.

Earlier this year, the AG's office issued a code of conduct for wind developers to help prevent improper relationships with town officials. Noble and First Wind have signed on, but Iberdrola has not. Among those that helped develop the code is Monroe County District Attorney Mike Green.

The Hamlin situation brings a larger problem into sharp relief: there are no uniform regulations for wind farm placement in New York. As Hamlin residents pointed out, that leaves the decision in the town's hands.

Cuomo says that his office has put together a task force to address issues like standardizing setbacks.

Labels: Legal Issues, New York, Process

US Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis said, “We can have democracy in this country or we can have great wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can’t have both.”

Slim Pickens was a cowboy and actor, but a slim picking is not the adjectival phrase for T. Boone Pickens and his wealth. One of his books is titled. “The First Billion is the Hardest: Reflections on the Life of Comebacks and America’s Energy Future.” He is busily making the second and likely the third billion much easier. His plan uses the combination of wind power with energy sufficiency and independence for the US.

Initially, his advertisements put wind power front and center. In doing so, he put on the cloak of green, a phrase I co-opted from Elaine Dewar’s wonderful book of the same name. I’ve used the phrase to describe what many politicians feel forced to do. They understand the real science of climate change, but dare not appear opposed to protecting the environment.

Pickens uses wind power as his cloak of green to buy credibility and time to make natural gas the primary power for vehicles and develop nuclear and coal sources. He throws in other alternative energies as a lining to the cloak. I’ve advocated natural gas for vehicles and nuclear and coal for electricity for many years. Oil will serve the petrochemical industry and produce aviation fuels. Reduced demand for oil means that even current reserves will last for a very long time.

So what concerns me about Pickens' proposals? Initially it was the wind power proposal, which clearly demonstrates his lack of understanding of the severe limitations of that energy. More recently, it is the advertisement of a natural gas company spokesperson talking about his “good friend” Mr. Pickens. I am not opposed to capitalism or profit; however, I am opposed to achieving the latter with deception. Mr. Pickens folksy manner and financial success are used to convince people wind power can provide 20% of US energy. He appears on television programs selling his proposal to a public and political leaders desperate for solutions.

Pickens’ facade of being knowledgeable with a clear solution is quickly dispelled with a few facts about wind power. Like all alternate energies it is not a panacea. He needs to spend his money on accurate cost benefit analyses of all alternate energies. He should urge government to do the same thing before he takes a penny of the massive government subsidies that are seriously distorting analysis of alternative energies.

Click here to read the complete article by Dr. Tim Ball in this week's Canada Free Press.

Labels: Disadvantages, Money, Process

Italy zoning changes pave way for wind energy

PENN YAN — The Yates County Planning Board approved proposed incentive zoning amendments to the Town of Italy’s comprehensive plan that would make way for wind energy development.

Incentive zoning refers to designated areas in the town where wind turbines would be allowed and developers eligible for financial incentives.

At Thursday’s meeting, board member Dave Christiansen asked Italy Town Supervisor Margaret Dunn why the town didn’t address the zoning issue during its moratorium on wind farm development.

At that time, Dunn said a majority of people opposed wind farm development and the town eventually banned wind farms. However, a lawsuit filed by wind farm developer EcoGen LLC prompted discussions with the town attorney on incentive zoning, she said, with feedback from the town board and residents supportive of such an option.

She said the proposed zones encompass two locations, which were chosen because the areas have already attracted interest from developers and town residents there are interested in leasing their properties.

Board Member Carroll Graves asked if a developer could still sue the town over potential development areas that are excluded from the incentive zoning plan. Dunn replied that she hopes the zoning proposal will show courts that the town is allowing such development, even if it’s in a designated area.

Click here to read the complete Finger Lakes Times article by by Amanda Folts.

Labels: Legal Issues, New York, Process

Steuben judge dismisses CWW efforts to halt $230 million First Wind project

Bath, N.Y. - Cohocton town officials are breathing a sigh of relief today after three legal challenges to the $230 million wind turbine development in the town have been dismissed.

Steuben County Supreme Court Judge Marianne Furfure sided with Cohocton town officials, developer First Wind and leaseholders Tuesday morning, dismissing three lawsuits filed by local advocacy group Cohocton Wind Watch to halt work on the 50-turbine wind development in the town.

According to Cohocton town Supervisor Jack Zigenfus, Furfure made her ruling from the bench. No written copy of the decision was available Tuesday afternoon, according to employees at the Steuben County Supreme Court Clerk’s office. “She just dismissed it without comment,” he said.

Click here to read Bob Clark' entire Hornell Evening Tribune article.

Labels: Cohocton, Legal Issues, Process

Not in my valley, say Italy residents

Members of the Italy Town Board listen to people speak during
a public hearing to rezone land to allow windmills in the town on Saturday.

Nearly 70 concerned residents and neighbors spoke out about potential rezoning for wind turbines in the Italy Valley at a public hearing Saturday. The discussion continued a forum that began at a meeting last week in which emotional residents protested the proposed changes, which would allow developer Ecogen LLC to move forward with plans for wind turbines in two areas in the southern portion of the town.

About two-thirds of the speakers on Saturday opposed wind development, said Town Board member Malcolm MacKenzie. Of those, many surmised that developers are not concerned about the best interest of the residents.

Click here to read the entire Messenger Post article.

Labels: Legal Issues, Money, New York, Process

John Yancey stands on his property with wind turbines
from the Maple Ridge Wind Farm in background

Windmills divide towns and families throughout upstate

Profits not enough to offset intrusion for some

"Listen," John Yancey says, leaning against his truck in a field outside his home.

The rhythmic whoosh, whoosh, whoosh of wind turbines echoes through the air. Sleek and white, their long propeller blades rotate in formation, like some otherworldly dance of spindly-armed aliens swaying across the land.

Yancey stares at them, his face contorted in anger and pain.

He knows the futuristic towers are pumping clean electricity into the grid, knows they have been largely embraced by his community.

But Yancey hates them.

He hates the sight and he hates the sound. He says they disrupt his sleep, invade his house, his consciousness. He can't stand the gigantic flickering shadows the blades cast at certain points in the day.

But what this brawny 48-year-old farmer's son hates most about the windmills is that his father, who owns much of the property, signed a deal with the wind company to allow seven turbines on Yancey land.

"I was sold out by my own father," he sputters.

Click here to read the entire Associated Press report by Helen O'Neill.

Labels: Disadvantages, New York, Process

In Rural New York, Windmills Can Bring Whiff of Corruption

Click on image to view a slide show

BURKE, N.Y. — Everywhere that Janet and Ken Tacy looked, the wind companies had been there first.

Dozens of people in their small town had already signed lease options that would allow wind towers on their properties. Two Burke Town Board members had signed private leases even as they negotiated with the companies to establish a zoning law to permit the towers. A third board member, the Tacys said, bragged about the commissions he would earn by selling concrete to build tower bases. And, the Tacys said, when they showed up at a Town Board meeting to complain, they were told to get lost.

“There were a couple of times when they told us to just shut up,” recalled Mr. Tacy, sitting in his kitchen on a recent evening.

Lured by state subsidies and buoyed by high oil prices, the wind industry has arrived in force in upstate New York, promising to bring jobs, tax revenue and cutting-edge energy to the long-struggling region. But in town after town, some residents say, the companies have delivered something else: an epidemic of corruption and intimidation, as they rush to acquire enough land to make the wind farms a reality.

“It really is renewable energy gone wrong,” said the Franklin County district attorney, Derek P. Champagne, who began a criminal inquiry into the Burke Town Board last spring and was quickly inundated with complaints from all over the state about the wind companies. Attorney General Andrew M. Cuomo agreed this year to take over the investigation.

Click here to read the entire New York Times article by Nicholas Confessore.

Labels: Disadvantages, Legal Issues, New York, Process

Attorney General Andrew M. Cuomo announced last week "the launching of an investigation into two companies developing and operating wind farms across New York State amid allegations of improper dealings with public officials and anti-competitive practices."

Under investigation is our very own "First Wind", formerly known variously as "UPC" and "Global Winds Harvest". First Wind, as the developer of Windfarm Prattsburgh, has pressed the Prattsburgh Town Board to initiate condemnation proceedings and exercise eminent domain for their benefit. While we are hopeful that that the Attorney General's investigation will lead to proper regulation of windfarms across the state, it is still necessary for us to continue the legal strategies that are underway.

For this reason, Advocates for Prattsburgh is proceeding with its Article 78 to annul the decisions of the Town Board to proceed with eminent domain. As we mentioned earlier in Latest News, the tie-breaking vote was cast by Town Supervisor Harold McConnell, who refused to recues himself, even after admitting he receiving money from First Wind. We are doing as much as is humanly possible to get these projects properly regulated, and we need your financial support for legal fund. Please send your donations to Advocates for Prattsburgh, Box 221, Prattsburgh, NY 14873.

Another pressing concern is that, at the same time that First Wind - owner of Windfarm Prattsburgh - is under investigation, the other windfarm developer operating in Prattsburgh - Ecogen - seems to have stepped up its attempts to acquire easements for transmission lines as well as new sites for towers. People have reported finding four-wheeler tracks as well as surveyor's marks on their property when no permission was granted. In addition, we have been told that the leases that have been offered put significant restrictions on a landowners' use of his own property.

Ron and Lynn Iocono have filed an appeal of the condemnation of their property by the Town to provide an easement for Windfarm Prattsburgh. Three other landowners have joined them in the appeal. Ron and Lynn live in Delaware and were planning to retire here in a few years. He is working overtime as an EMT to help pay for the appeal.

On September 5, our Article 78 will be heard in Bath. We are asking the judge to set aside the vote of the town supervisor on eminent domain because of conflict of interest. This is the second time our case will go to court and it has cost us additional funds. Many of you have been very generous in responding to our most recent appeals and we really wish that taxpayers didn't have to use their own money to see justice done, but that is the system we live with, and we continue to need donations. So please send what you can.

Labels: Legal Issues, New York, Process

Corruption allegations swirl around push for wind power

At first there were sporadic complaints last year to the office of Franklin County District Attorney Derek Champagne. Then the outcry grew. North Country residents alleged that undue influence was being put on local leaders to approve multimillion-dollar wind farms, with turbines 200 feet or taller, in their rural communities near the Canadian border.

To Champagne's dismay, he thought some of the public officials approving the contracts were also leasing their own land to the wind developers. Champagne found as many as seven town board members in Franklin County who had apparent conflicts of interest.

"These elected officials (who had lease agreements with wind developers) were the same ones who would have to pass the appropriate local legislation to allow them to be constructed," Champagne said last week at his office in Malone. "And they would do it."

As New York seeks to produce 25 percent of its energy from renewable sources by 2013, the push by developers and the state to expand wind farms is creating unintended results: bitterly divided communities, accusations of corruption and complaints of poor state oversight for a new type of energy.

Champagne calls it New York's version of a "gold rush" and said it could be the next Enron scandal in the making. He sent out a memo to every town board in his county, urging them to adopt stronger ethical codes.

Some critics question whether the wind farms will produce adequate electricity or instead are being built to tap into public subsidies and sell wind-energy credits on the open market to offset pollution from other industries.

Michael Lawrence, supervisor of Brandon in Franklin County, said the battle over whether to have a wind farm "has created devastation in the community."

Champagne has turned over his cardboard box of documents on cases across the state to Attorney General Andrew Cuomo. Last week, Cuomo issued subpoenas to two of New York's major wind-farm developers, saying that "if dirty tricks are used to facilitate even clean-energy projects, my office will put a stop to it."

Click here to read the whole front page story by Joseph Spector, Albany bureau, published in today's Democrat & Chronicle.

Labels: Legal Issues, New York, Process

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 abbott, said all are welcome.

“Certainly, we feel that prayer is one of the best methods,” Father Luke said, but influential Russian Orthodox clerics are also weighing in, and their letters will be sent to Gov. Eliot Spitzer and others in state government.

Archbishop Hilarian Kapral of Australia, former abbot at Jordanville and metropolitan in Manhattan, had visited a wind farm in Tasmania and concluded “it would be terrible tragedy to have it here.”

The archbishop in Manhattan, Gabriel Chemodakov, has also written a letter decrying “the desecration of the landscape.”

The Cohocton Planning Board rubberstamped UPC Wind's FEIS last month and is set to review [approve without question?] the developer's application for special use permits at its meeting this coming Wednesday evening, July 11th. If and when this step is passed, assuming the same process applies here, UPC will then have 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." UPC and its local supporters will also be running a gauntlet of local prayer and, most likely, facing a similar Article 78 legal proceeding.

And remember, this year is an election year. As Yogi Berra once said, "It ain't over 'til it's over!"

Click here to read the entire article.

Labels: Legal Issues, New York, Process

According to an article in today's Rochester Democrat & Chronicle and confirmed by many other business news sources, RG&E is lined up to be purchased by Iberdrola, a Spanish energy conglomerate:

The parent company of Rochester Gas and Electric Corp. has agreed to be acquired by a Spanish company that is a worldwide leader in wind energy.

Under terms of the deal announced Monday, Iberdrola SA, which is based in Bilbao, Spain, will pay $4.5 billion in cash to acquire Energy East Corp., which is headquartered in Portland, Maine, and owns RG&E and NYSEG, another major New York supplier of electricity and gas.

The acquisition, subject to approval by Energy East stockholders and state and federal regulators, is expected to become final in 2008.

The following links help fill out the story.

• PDF version of complete Democrat & Chronicle article.
• PDF followup to D&C article above, published on 6/27.
  
• News story in the Binghamton Press & Sun-Bulletin.
• Followup story about PSC reaction in the Press & Sun-Bulletin.
  
• Complete account of acquisition plans posted on Bloomberg.com.
• Revealing report about financing in the International Business Times.

Labels: Money, New York, Process

Last week's Valley News ran an ad from the YES! group extolling their vision for "Cohocton's Bright Future" and proclaiming that wind project construction would be starting "a few weeks from now." The ad went on to claim that everything has been "done right" by local government and that the result will be "beautiful wind farms that all the people of Cohocton will be proud of." And, as if this wasn't enough provocative content for one short article, the ad went even deeper.

What else did the YES people try to get us to believe?
- That our local government has been doing a "great job."
- That opposition is limited to "a few people that continue to spread rumors and lies about public officials and wind farms."
- That the Valley News has been publishing letters recently that "repeated stories that have long been proven false" or that their authors "were blatantly lying about."
- That "the handful of people that oppose wind farms have been making up stories and spreading rumors" without "living up to the fact that they were proven wrong."
- And that opponents have "tried so hard to cause dissention in our community through threats, rumors, and lies."

What?? It might come as a surprise to the YES chorus when they discover that their opposition turns out to be more numerous and in touch with the truth than they thought. For what could well prove to be a majority of Cohocton's citizens, plans to turn our town into an industrial power plant represent an ugly nightmare, not a "beautiful bright future." Only time and honest elections will tell.

In the meantime, make sure you come out to this week's Planning Board meeting at the Hatch Hose Fire Hall in Atlanta on Wednesday night, June 27, at 7 pm to voice your opinion about UPC's Final EIS submission and building permit plans. It sounds like they may be trying to railroad their project through.

Labels: Cohocton, Process

According to an article published by WETM:

A public hearing is set to happen on June 27th where town leaders in Cohocton are expected to grant developer UPC Wind the permits it needs to begin construction on close to 50 wind turbines across the farmland there... The June 27th public hearing is scheduled to happen at the Hatch Hose Fire Hall in Atlanta at 7 pm.

Labels: Cohocton, Process

Amidst numerous reports of turbine component sightings on Route 390 comes this eyewitness report from Dansville:

Last night I received phone call from my stepson who works over at the old Foster Wheeler plant. At 9 am they had a crane tip over unloading the turbine bases. As of 3:30 quitting time they still didn't have it back up. Don't know if they worked on getting it up or if it is still tipped over. As the guys were leaving they had to sign a paper stating they would not talk to the press, etc.

They aren't supposed to go anywhere near this part of the plant that is housing the turbines, aren't supposed to talk to any of those guys either. They were told that they don't need anymore problems over there about the turbines so the guys are to stay away from there and forget about it. They didn't need special interest groups coming there and causing problems. A very large number was thrown out there that they are making to house these units and that it will be used for that for some time. These turbines they are working on right now are for Prattsburgh. Everything is there but the blades.

He had pictures on his camera and got caught, they took the memory card out of it and put it on the computer and erased all the pictures.

Yesterday my wife and I were in Dansville and saw a large semi loaded with a huge turbine nacelle coming down the north exit toward Foster Wheeler. Pictures posted recently on the CWW website (click image above) confirm what's happening. How many of these belong to UPC Wind and are being shipped in prematurely for the proposed Cohocton project remains to be completely revealed, but this recent article in Dansville's Genesee Country Express begins to tell the story.

We believe that good, wholesome, and properly approved projects that have been accepted widely by their surrounding communities should not be accompanied by this kind of secrecy.

Labels: Process

We're all waiting for a verdict in Bath Supreme Court about Local Law #2, and the Public Service Commission has yet to issue a ruling after UPC Wind testified that its project was still in the design stage. But in spite of accumulating evidence of impropriety, ineffectiveness, and significant potential public harm, local supporters of the Cohocton wind project seem to be pressing ahead with their plans.

What effect is this having on some of us personally?
- The map depicted above shows only 4 of the 52 proposed turbines. 3 are still sited within 1500 feet of the Wheaton Cemetery, a public place (marked X) and 2 near a dwelling (marked Z), contrary to Local Law #2.
- This is just one example. In keeping with Local Law #2, towers throughout the project like these 4, are sited within 600 feet of our local roads.

If dwellings and public places need a 1500-foot setback, why not roads? And if their Law requires 1500 feet, why do UPC's plans still have turbines sited closer than that? Read our recent Proposal for breaking the deadlock, browse around our "Updates" section, and then make your opinion known.

Labels: Process

Turbines too close?

I'm writing this letter to all Cohocton residents and anyone that is related to the Wheatons.

The Wheaton Cemetery on Lent Hill may be invaded by turbines that UPC wants to put around it. These turbines will not be at the 1500-foot setback for a public use area. #18 will be about 1200 feet, #19 will be about 800 feet, and #20 will be about 1300-1400 feet. These distances are according to Rick Towner. UPC is not following Local Law #2 that was passed. People should be able to go to a cemetery without having to worry about there safety. These distances are unacceptable.

This cemetery is a part of my family’s history and anyone else that is related to the Wheatons. This is a sacred place and should not be disrupted or invaded by these turbines. Even the access road will be unsafe. What is wrong with you UPC people? Have you no sense of responsibility? Why would you even think of putting people in danger?

Please understand that UPC and its employees at the office in Cohocton are not telling anyone the truth, that is the whole truth, about these turbines.

My name is Charlene (Klug) Fairbrother. If anyone wants more information on this you may contact me at home (384-5063) or by email.

Labels: Process

Last week an Evidentiary Hearing was conducted by a Public Service Commission (PSC) Law Judge in Bath. The hearing was held because two groups advocating for the proper siting of industrial wind turbines had objected to the request by UPC Wind for a certificate of necessity from the PSC. The Town of Naples and NYSEG were also involved as intervenors. The two central issues addressed were 1) the proposed Clipper Liberty 2.5 MW turbines and their certification and reliability to provide safe energy, and 2) the design and layout of the substations and 115kv transmission lines for the Cohocton Wind project.

What evidence was presented at the Evidentiary Hearing?
- Under oath UPC stated repeatedly that the project is still in the design stage with many unresolved issues with different components.
- Permission from landowners for the overhead transmission lines is causing problems with the layout. There may also be a problem with turbine leases not being obtained and filed in a legal manner.
- UPC was lacking many of the documents that PSC staff had asked for. At one point the issue of a report possibly being too costly to provide was discussed by Mr. Swartley.
- Wind data as well as turbine reliability information is confidential according to UPC, who also claimed that the results of geological tests conducted at the turbine sites were not available as requested.

The hearing apparently raised more questions than answers. Since the project is not yet finalized it would seem many more site plan reviews and public hearings may yet to be conducted. Wisely, our Planning Board has postponed further decision-making for the time being.

At Cohocton Free we believe in the old adage that "the wheels of God grind extremely fine." In other words, man plans but ultimately divine justice will prevail. Browse our main website; check out some of the other items in our "Updates" section; read our recent Proposal for breaking the deadlock; and then contact us for a yard sign if you agree!

Labels: Cohocton, Process

Lately UPC Wind and its YES! group have been spending about $100 a week, week after week, advertising their local office and exhorting us to “SHOW YOUR SUPPORT for your TOWN & PLANNING BOARDS.” As noble and worthy as these sentiments may be, misplaced trust and group loyalty could end up paying very poor rewards. Citizens of good will who favor community order and stability need to ask:

What does it mean to support your leaders?
- First it means honoring those who have been invested with trust and supporting them personally with encouragement and prayer.
- Next it means sharing your honest insights, information, and personal feelings about Town business with them, with hope and confidence that they are actually interested in hearing from you.
- It means expecting them to exercise their mandate on behalf of all of the Town’s residents and holding them to that mandate.
- And it means continuing to support them when they come under undue political pressure from well financed outside interests by offering them ethical and sensible alternatives to caving in.

But what do the UPC Wind ads mean when they ask for support? Clearly they want you to become a YES! Man like them, one who continues to pressure our local leaders to turn a deaf ear to the legitimate concerns of fellow Townsmen and tow UPC’s line to the bitter end. Thankfully, it looks like our Planning Board is beginning to grasp some of the full meaning of what is going on in Cohocton, and for that they have our full support. Good projects don’t need to be railroaded through.

At Cohocton Free we believe in a democratic process that encourages the active input of every member of the community. Support means participation to us, not continuing to demand a YES when so many in the community are saying NO. Browse our main website; read our recent Proposal for breaking the deadlock; check out some of our latest “Updates”; and then contact us for a yard sign!

Labels: Cohocton, Process

Shortages of turbines and polysilicon are holding back the clean-tech boom

According to an article in an issue of "The Economist" last month:

These should be heady times for Vestas, a Danish firm that makes more than a quarter of the world's wind turbines. The wind business is booming, and the company said last week that it had swung into profit in 2006, thanks to an 8% rise in revenue. But there is “significant unexploited production capacity”, Vestas says, due to shortages of high-quality turbine components. Other companies grumble about a lack of gearboxes and bearings.

Wind firms' worries echo those in the solar-power business, which is also booming but where a shortage of polysilicon has hampered growth. Silicon is made from sand, which is abundant, but there are not enough refineries to turn it into solar-grade polysilicon. As a result, prices for silicon contracts have more than doubled, to $70 or $80 per kilogram, in the past three years, says Jesse Pichel, an analyst at Piper Jaffray.

In both industries demand has rocketed and supply cannot keep up. The wind business is growing by more than 30% a year worldwide, with America leading the way. (This week Energias de Portugal became the latest European utility to invest in American wind farms, with the $2.2 billion purchase of Horizon Wind Energy.) And when a solar incentive scheme took hold in Germany in 2004-05, demand in Europe roughly doubled, says Ron Kenedi of Sharp, the biggest solar-cell maker.

Supply shortages will not ease quickly in either case. Wind turbines are giant machines that require lots of parts. Several firms are building new factories: Vestas has just announced its first American plant, which will make blades in Colorado. But new factories will take several years to get up to speed. In the meantime, buyers are putting down deposits to reserve their turbines. GE Energy, the largest turbine installer in America, is already booked up until the end of next year.

Similarly, the big polysilicon producers, including Hemlock and MEMC, are expanding their capacity, says Rhone Resch of the Solar Energy Industries Association. But some of their additional output will go to chipmakers, which are still the biggest buyers of polysilicon (though the solar industry is about to take the lead). So polysilicon shortages and the associated high prices will not ease until at least 2009, Mr Pichel predicts. Sharp opened a silicon refinery—its first—in Japan in January. Technological advances may help. As solar panels become thinner and more efficient, less silicon is needed to make each one. And new “thin film” solar cells, being promoted by Sharp and a host of start-ups, require little or no polysilicon and are thus not vulnerable to supply shortages.

The wind industry, meanwhile, is hoping that America's government will come to its aid. A federal tax credit for wind has been allowed to expire three times in recent years. Indeed, the recent spike in wind activity may be due, in part, to efforts by companies to take advantage of the current tax credit, which expires at the end of 2008, notes Vic Abate, head of renewables at GE Energy. Credits that expire every year or two cause sudden booms and busts, making it hard for turbine-makers to make longer-term plans and thus holding back the industry, say proponents of wind power. If the Democratic Congress would kindly extend the credit for ten years—and also pass a federal “renewable portfolio standard” mandating that, say, 15% of America's energy should come from solar, wind and other alternative sources—the lobbyists would be delighted.

Editor's Note: Of course "the lobbyists would be delighted," as would any industry that relies on governmental subsidies to overcome natural market restraints and political pressure to overcome opposition from local communities. Fortunately, several bills calling for reasoned restraint are pending in the State Legislature and Congress that may take the wind out of the wind industry's puffed up sails long enough to allow a more careful look at its inflated claims.

Labels: Process

Last week our Town was called into Supreme Court before Justice Marianne Furfure to give an account of its behavior in passing Local Law #2. Why did our leaders bypass review under the SEQRA, and how did they reconcile legally paving the way for an industrial wind project with Cohocton’s Comprehensive Zoning Plan? What did Judge Furure want to know? According to the Bath Leader, she questioned whether there should be expert proof of potential harm, what standards are reasonable and practical, and whether the town “short-circuited” the process. “It's hard for me to say this isn't any big deal,” she said. “You're setting the protocol, the standards, you're setting the stage.”

The response of our Town attorneys was illustrative:
- Local Law #2 wasn’t passed with the UPC Wind project in mind, they testified with straight faces. It was done to protect the Town.
- They indicated that their Albany attorney, Mr. John Henry, had been chosen to represent the whole town, not UPC’s interests.
- They alleged that Local Law #2 couldn’t have any environmental impact because it didn’t actually set up any turbines by itself.
- They tried to claim that the Cohocton residents who brought the lawsuit really didn’t have any legal “standing” to complain.
- Were they contrite or conciliatory? Not a bit.

The author of the Sermon on the Mount advises us to, “Make friends quickly with your opponent at law while you are with him on the way, so that your opponent may not hand you over to the judge, and the judge to the officer, and you be thrown into prison.” We’ve heard these words before, and many others like them, and say we believe. But when push comes to shove, how do we behave?

Is this a winner-take-all fight? At Cohocton Free we believe there’s still a path of compromise leaseholders and our Town leaders can pursue that will respect the wishes and preserve not only the rights of both sides but the integrity of our community. Curious? Click here to read our 5/8/07 proposal online or here to download a PDF version.

Labels: Cohocton, Legal Issues, Process

Understanding the size of the transmission lines

UPC says their poles will be 65 feet high in Prattsburgh, with 20 foot arms on either side of the center pole, which means that a 40-foot right of way is required to run overhead lines.

Typically, NYSEG owns a 30-foot right of way along the road in front of people's homes (and sometimes across property). This means that in order to put up the transmission lines, NYSEG and/or UPC will have to get additional easements from property owners. This is a lot of easements, and if people don't sign the papers, then UPC is stuck.

Now here's what people should know: if you sign an easement for a 40-foot right of way, the guy wires may be attached and go on your land outside of the 40-foot right of way. But that is not all.

This next part is hard to explain, but here's a simplified explanation. Look at your abstract and you'll probably find an easement for NYSEG. It says in the easement that NYSEG has the right to get rid of trees that are in the way of their lines. Sure enough, if one looks at the plans for transmission lines in the EIS one sees that NYSEG and/or UPC reserves the right to cut tall trees located within 50 feet of either side of the pole so that tall trees don't interfere with the transmission lines.

This amounts in reality to a 100 foot right of way for NYSEG and UPC.

For example: a landowner has a house set back 60 feet from the road with tall trees on the front of his land providing privacy. UPC puts up poles for transmission. The poles are typically 29 feet from the center of the road, which puts them 10 or 15 feet onto the land. The arms extend another 20 feet onto the land. Then UPC cuts down tall trees that are located 50 feet on either side of the pole. Gone are beautiful trees. Gone is privacy. Gone is life as you know it.

People need to know this. Please let as many as possible know and encourage them NOT to sign additional easements.

Labels: Legal Issues, Process

People live in Cohocton for a lot of reasons. Some were born here and have land that was passed down to them over generations. Others are relative newcomers who’ve lived here less than 25 years, a few moving into the area very recently. Many are farmers; others work elsewhere and have chosen to live or retire here; and an increasing number have purchased and developed vacation property on and around our scenic hills. Tourism is growing in the region, while agricultural economics are becoming more difficult.

These choices represent two distinct visions of what Cohocton is:
- For those who farm it’s primarily a place of industry where you can support a family with hard work and careful use of the land.
- For most of the remainder, the 3-R (residential, retirement, and recreational) owners, it’s a place of rest where you can enjoy peace and quiet in a rural atmosphere away from the city.
- Residential owners appreciate being in a small town where you can make friends and raise a family in safety.
- Many of those who have chosen to retire here were drawn by the breathless natural beauty and tranquility of the land.
- And most recreational owners searched the region for years before they found the place of their dreams in Cohocton.

Residents on both sides of the “industry” vs. “rest” division have been able to live alongside one another happily for years. There have been some rubs, of course, with farm equipment noise, hunters, ATVs, and snowmobiles, but overall the town has been at peace. Enter UPC Wind with its proposal to add a massive industrial wind turbine project into the mix, and we have a formula for social disaster that promises to benefit farmers at the expense of the 3-R owners that surround them.

Is this a winner-take-all fight? At Cohocton Free we believe there’s still a path of compromise leaseholders and our Town leaders can pursue that will respect the wishes and preserve the rights of both sides. Curious? Click here to read our proposal.

Labels: Cohocton, Morality, Process

Judge Marianne Furfure will hear the Cohocton Wind Watch Article 78 against the Town of Cohocton, NY on Windmill Local Law #2 on Tuesday, May 8, 2007 at 10:00 AM in Supreme Court, 3 East Pulteney Square, Bath, New York.

This action contests the compliance with SEQRA on the passage of the second town law that modifies the zoning statute that allows the UPC industrial wind turbine project.

It was stipulated in court that the Town of Cohocton, in the first Article 78 action against Windmill Law Local #1, did not follow SEQRA.

CWW contends that the Town Board has passed a windmill law to specifically accommodate the developer, UPC Wind (aka Canandaigua Power Partners I & II, LLCs), which has proposed two projects when both are contingent and part of one large development. UPC Prattsburgh is also a project of this same two township development.

Counsel for CWW is Richard Lippes and David Miller.

Labels: Cohocton, Legal Issues, Process

Already the fallout is appearing to the east of us in Prattsburgh, as long-time residents take stock of their situation and prepare for a future threatened by wind turbine industrialization. Here's an excerpt from an email, addressed to UPC Wind, that we received today:

Thanks for the idea of wind energy - no thanks for shoving it down our throats in an area that should be preserved from such flawed science and huge negative impact. Sure, there are buyers for our properties that will come forward that are not offended by your plans, but we think that those of us who have had the blessing of living here without your turbines will have the best memories of all - beautiful hillsides, flocks of migrating birds and dark nights with the only twinkles coming from stars.

We are moving as soon as we successfully sell our home of 25 years, and our tourist lodging will be gone. All due to the windfarms? No, there are other factors, including lousy politics, high energy costs, and taxes. We would tough it out but there are better opportunities for us elsewhere - maybe Ontario County or even out to a well-managed state - out of NY. There is a long list, and NYS is at the bottom. Why? If you aren't part of the solution, you are part of the problem. We really hope people vote out their poorly performing incumbents next election. They blew it last year. As residents since 1973, we will finally, definitely and sadly, put Steuben County, and Prattsburgh - "In the Rear View Mirror".

Click here to read the entire letter.

Labels: New York, Process

Last Thursday night the people of Cohocton spoke again. The Town Planning Board held another Public Hearing in the Elementary School, and citizens came from all over town to give their input. Probably 3/4 of those who rose to speak shared articulate concerns about specific site placements, setback distances, noise levels, unrecognized legal and insurance issues, and unresolved procedural problems. But what did wind power supporters have to say? For the whole story, click here to read our article in this week's Valley News.

Labels: Cohocton, Process

Hans Daatselaar has written a moving open letter in this week's Valley News that merits the full read of a wider audience. As he starts out

The Statue of Liberty represents the triumph of democratic society over tyranny and corruption. As a New York Harbor tugboat pilot I am almost always in the presence of this great American symbol of freedom and democracy. But lately it's the site of this beautiful statue that reminds me of the failed democratic system of government in my hometown and the distressing divisions among residents of this community 300 miles away.

Labels: Cohocton, Process

Senate Bill S4608

On April 19, 2007, Senator Jim Alesi introduced legislation in the New York Senate, cosponsored by 7 other senators, that "establishes the New York state task force on wind generating facilities siting and permitting policies to study the need to implement a uniform statewide policy regarding the siting and permitting of wind energy production facilities; further establishes an 18-month moratorium upon the siting and permitting of wind energy production facilities; repeals such provisions effective December 31, 2008."

Sponsors' Justification

Recently there has been renewed interest in wind energy development in New York. Although the recent growth of the wind industry is welcomed by many in New York, local authorities and residents in wind-rich counties are concerned about their ability to address existing or anticipated proposals from wind energy developers interested in installing projects within their jurisdiction. With modem wind turbines standing between 200-400 feet tall, wind energy projects can have a major impact on the surrounding area. These wind energy production facilities have the potential of causing a significant negative impact on the scenic and historic character of our highways and byways. Furthermore, wind energy facilities could have a negative impact upon residential areas and adjacent communities.

Wind energy is an important renewable energy source, however, it is very important to have a comprehensive plan for siting these high-tech wind facilities across New York in order to avoid any negative impacts upon the surrounding areas. This legislation seeks to study the need for a statewide comprehensive plan for siting wind facilities and places an 18 month moratorium on any new construction or issuing of new permits for the construction of wind energy facilities so the task force can complete its study and make recommendations.

Labels: Legal Issues, New York, Process

Coalition of Citizens File Antitrust Complaint with the Department of Justice Against the Wind Energy Industry

Naples NY, April 25, 2007

A grass roots coalition of nearly 100 citizens from New York, Vermont, and other states have filed a federal Antitrust Complaint alleging that an international cartel comprised of foreign and domestic business entities have conspired to eliminate competition in the newly emerging U.S. wind energy sector.

This Complaint, filed today with the Department of Justice Antitrust Division, maintains that windfarm developers, suppliers, consultants, investors, and in some cases public officials have engaged in illegal geographic Market Allocation, Price Fixing and Bid Rigging in direct violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act.

As a result of this illegal conspiracy thousands of landowners and hundreds of municipalities have been denied substantial monetary gains that otherwise would be available in a free and competitive market.

The 94 citizen Complainants expect that the Department of Justice will act quickly to assign appropriate resources necessary to investigate and prosecute these allegations and to punish any and all criminal wrongdoing to the full extent of the law. The Complainants also expect that the Department will take appropriate measures to ensure that the members of this international cartel are prevented from retaliating against any of the listed Complainants.

According to the Department of Justice, price fixing, bid rigging, and market allocation by individuals or companies are felonies currently punishable by maximum individual fines of $1 million, maximum corporate fines of $100 million, and maximum jail terms of 10 years.

Citizens from the following locales in New York are participating: Naples, Cohocton, Wayland, Cape Vincent, Lowville, Stamford, Malone, Wyoming, Cherry Valley, Addison, Canisteo, Allegany, Rochester, North Bangor, Little Falls, Hornell, Fairport, Webster, and Prattsburgh. Citizens from the following locales in Vermont are participating: Sheffield, East Burke, Sutton, and Peacham.

Questions regarding this Complaint (available in PDF form here) may be directed to:

Bradley E. Jones
3996 Donley Road
Naples NY 14512
585-374-2627 (H), 585-233-8539 (M)
perplus1@aol.com

Labels: Legal Issues, Money, New York, Process

UPC Wind’s industrial bandwagon seems to be rolling along in Cohocton with its faithful crew of paid supporters, hired studies, legal counselors and compliant local officials. Reams of factual material about the project’s negligible effect on greenhouse gases, negative impact on adjacent properties, and fraudulently underestimated noise has fallen on deaf ears. After a brief series of pro-forma “hearings” our Planning Board seems poised to rubber stamp Special Use Permits for 52 giant turbines in our Town submitted by UPC in two segmented applications, as if they really have two projects in town, not one.

Who are they fooling, and what can you do about it? First, be sure you attend the Planning Board meeting this Thursday evening, 4/26, at 7 pm in the Cohocton Elementary School. In the meantime, please read our article in this week's Valley News for some other ideas and references. Thanks!

Labels: Cohocton, Process

Dear Bill,

Hello! How are you? I grew up in Cohocton and graduated from Cohocton Central School in 1992 with 17 other kids, 9 of whom started kindergarten with me. Cohocton is a very special Lake Wobegon community. I have been in the U. S. Navy which has shown me the world, and I have traveled the United States and Canada on various hiking expeditions. There are very few places that have the charm that Cohocton does. I may or may not return to Cohocton, but most likely one day I will return to the Western New York area. I would like to pick your brain about the wind power issue that has taken a grip on Cohocton and the surrounding townships. May I?

First, let me introduce myself. My name is Gregory Hodges, and I am a senior at Old Dominion University studying electrical engineering, and I am a veteran of the U.S. Nuclear Power Naval Program where I was a nuclear reactor operator. Thus, I am familiar with electrical power generation concepts and theory. What I am not familiar with is the impact that the different forms of power generation impose on the communities that host its production. And this is where I hope we can have some dialogue.

I am sure you have heard that slogan, "Not in my backyard." No one (for the most part) wants a nuclear reactor, fossil fuel plant, and now a wind turbine in their backyard. But, if you had to have a choice between a nuclear reactor, a coal plant, a dam, or a wind turbine, which would you prefer? There are pros and cons for each one. But, what form of power generation would you be willing to accept in Cohocton?

My answer would be a hydro dam, but we both know that the Cohocton River is not quite large enough to facilitate something like what Nikola Tesla built with George Westinghouse at Niagara Falls. However, that would be my answer if it was possible. And, I am sure that would conjure up some debate over the breeding grounds of the trout, the impact on the agricultural quality of the valley floor, etc. I have an affinity for nuclear power too, but maybe because I am comfortable with it since I served on a submarine where I operated a reactor, and I live near Norfolk Naval Base which has about 20 to 30 nuclear reactors (on submarines and carriers) at any given time concentrated in about 5 square miles and in the vicinity of 2 million people that live within 45 miles radius. But, nuclear power is way more controversial than wind power (in my opinion).

I will conclude my letter with hopes you will get a chance to reply.

Sincerely,
Gregory Hodges

Click here to read my reply.

Labels: Process

Click on picture for details.

Labels: New York, Process

There may be a few letters published by the YES! group in this week’s issue of The Valley News that complain about how badly wind project critics have been behaving at the recent site review meetings being hosted by our Planning Board. They probably won’t tell you about their own misbehavior or why neighboring landowners might be upset. In fact, they may claim the whole thing is about rudeness, completely ignoring their own initiation of the confrontation. We think the problem, however, has more to do with disenfranchisement. Read our article and then let us know what you think.

Labels: Cohocton, Process

When the Apostle Paul wrote to the Corinthian Church millenia ago he compared and contrasted two approaches to life - trying to live according the letter of the law or seeking to follow after its spirit or intent. In Paul's estimation, the first way led to death while the second led to life. Of course he was referring to the Biblical law, which is righteous in both its letter and intent, not to many of our human laws which are corrupt in both.

What law do we say we are following in Cohocton? When it comes to windmills, the law cited is Local Law #2 (LL#2), enacted by our Town Board in late 2006. Serious questions have been raised about its "letter", which UPC Wind and its supporters are using as their guide. But what about the spirit or intent of this Law? According to a recent NY Department of State publication about the functions of a Zoning Board of Appeals,

A zoning law is a community's guide to its future development. That is its purpose. It is not meant to be just another governmental intrusion, another bit of red tape to be untangled before the property owner can go ahead with his plans. The protections afforded residents and property owners within the community from undesirable development come from the restrictiveness of zoning. Traditionally, zoning is characterized by pre-set regulations contained in the ordinance or local law, and applicable uniformly within each district. A landowner can look at the zoning map and regulations and know that if he follows them, he has a right to use his land in a certain way, and that neighboring property is subject to the same restrictions. But, because all land in the district is subject to the same rules, and because no two parcels of land are precisely the same, problems can arise.

Labels: Cohocton, Freedom, Legal Issues, Morality, Process

Last night the Cohocton Planning Board hosted its second public meeting to air community concerns about proposed turbine site placement, but this week their format was different. Held in the larger Hatch Fire Hall in Atlanta, comments were limited to 3 minutes per speaker, which caused a great deal of frustration on the part of effectively silenced neighboring landowners. In addition, leaseholders, who are obviously in total support of the project and had nothing new to add that the Planning Board had not already heard, were allowed to speak. The evening became contentious, but the Planning Board was able to wrap up their pro-forma deliberations in an hour, instead of the 2 hours that had been set aside for the meeting. This is apparently "public input" under UPC Wind's new Cohocton administration.

What became clear at this meeting is that leaseholders and their supporters don't care what their neighbors think or how they feel about the project: as Councilman Wayne Hunt explained, it's going full-speed ahead unless the Town Board receives a court injuction to stop it.

What became clear to me personally as a neighboring landowner is that UPC and its supporters are seriously planning to engage in corporate trespassing on an enormous scale. By siting their turbines within 1500 feet of non-project land they will be effectively spreading noise pollution over properties that people have purchased expressly for their peace and quiet. Similarly, by allowing the ill-conceived 1500-foot perimeter of Windmill Law #2 to overlap neighboring land, they are limiting the safe and undisturbed use that landowners in Cohocton should have guaranteed to them by proper zoning ordinances.

There are so many things wrong with the way this entire project is being handled that it should rightly be rejected on its demerits alone. Some day enough good people will come to their senses and recognize this, hopefully sooner rather than later.

Labels: Process

Last week the public unveiling began. The Cohocton Planning Board hosted the first of several "Special Meetings" for the preliminary review of UPC Wind's site plans for its proposed turbine towers. UPC was there in force with its diagrams, legal counsel, public relations people, and local supporters in green YES! shirts. But neighbors whose property lines adjoin the 12 proposed tower sites being considered were there in large numbers also and had a lot to say.

What was the tenor and gist of the evening? Read our article in this week's Valley News, check our Community Calendar for dates, and then come out to some of Cohocton's public meetings and see for yourself what's happening.

Labels: Cohocton, Process

Wind-farm development put on hold

Meaghan McDermott
Rochester Democrat & Chronicle Staff writer

March 12, 2007 8:13 pm — HAMLIN — By a vote of 3-0, the town board tonight approved a one-year moratorium on wind farm development, giving a nine-member town committee time to research wind farms and make recommendations about what areas of Hamlin, if any, would be appropriate for a wind farm.

“This moratorium will give our committee time to thoroughly discuss the facts without the fear of a developer coming in tomorrow” asking for a project approval, said Town Supervisor Denny Roach.

One board member, Paul Rath, abstained from the vote. He is a landowner in Hamlin and has been approached by a wind power company. Another board member, David Rose, was out of town.

Developers haven’t yet asked the town to approve a wind farm. However, Massachusetts-based Competitive Power Ventures Inc. negotiated some land-lease agreements with property owners and built two 200-foot tall meteorological towers in the town’s northwest quadrant late last year. The towers will collect wind speed and direction information for up to 18 months. That information will tell the company if Hamlin is a good spot for wind power.

Editor's Note: Click here to read a background article by Meaghan McDermott published in the Democrat & Chronicle earlier today.

Labels: Legal Issues, New York, Process

Recently a farming UPC Wind leaseholder wrote an opinion piece in The Valley News in which he said, “except for Agriculture and a few stores in Cohocton, there is nothing in Cohocton.” Unfortunately, this seems to be the narrow mindset of many local wind power supporters, a view that leaves out a large majority of our Town’s citizens. We appreciate the heritage and contribution that agriculture makes in our community, but we beg to disagree that there is nothing else here. What (or should we say who) else is in the Town of Cohocton? Our article in this week's Valley News opens the question and puts forward a partial answer. What do you think?

Labels: Cohocton, Process

"One windmill up - seven more to go.

"The first of eight massive wind turbines that will make up the 'Steel Winds' wind farm at the old Bethlehem Steel site in Lackawanna was completed Monday afternoon as workers attached the three 153-foot-long blades to a tower.

"But Steel Winds has not been without controversy.

"School officials are concerned, and some even upset, that the district is not getting any tax money from the project.

"The developers, BQ Energy and UPC Wind, do not have to pay taxes on Steel Winds because wind and solar energy projects are exempt from paying taxes, according to New York property tax laws.

"In fact, the project is eligible for many millions of dollars in federal, state and local breaks because it is creating a renewable source of energy."

Click here to read the full article in The Buffalo News. For further input about this project, read this report submitted by the Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC), and then try to find out what UPC did with it. And how about this recent report from the Public Service Commission (PSC), filled with legal mumbo-jumbo that carefully exempts UPC's "Steel Winds" project from being defined as an "electric corporation" and thus coming under PSC jurisdiction? If people in Cohocton think life is going to be easy with UPC Wind in town, they'd better think about it more than twice.

Labels: Money, New York, Process

Last month the Cohocton Planning Board, as lead agency for UPC Wind's industrial power plant proposal, invited the community to a Public Hearing on the strengths and weaknesses of the developer's latest SEQR submissions, the Supplemental Draft Environmental Impact Statement (SDEIS) for the Lent/Pine Hill Project and the initial DEIS for their proposed Dutch Hill Project. Citizens were asked to give brief 2-3 minute presentations and offered the opportunity to submit written comments until today's deadline. We posted an initial report about the Public Hearing and followed up with another article. We've just posted the written comments we submitted to the Planning Board in their original form and with supporting links on our main website. Please read our comments and let us and our Town leaders know what you think.

Labels: Process

It's been 10 months now since UPC Wind first notified the general public in Cohocton about its plans to build an industrial power plant on all of our hilltops, kicking off the mandated State Environmental Quality Review (SEQR) process. Ever since then the local political scene has been buzzing. Our article in this week's Valley News addresses some of the political dynamics operating in our community. At Cohocton Free, however, we're more interested in the facts about wind turbines than we are in politics. Will they really reduce CO2 emissions? Are they properly sited? Have the SDEIS and DEIS studies been done properly for SEQR? Is the community aware of the whole story? Are we rushing into something we’ll regret later? We’re confident that truth will eventually triumph over half-truths.

Labels: Cohocton, Process

Two weeks ago I posted a news report about the Public Hearing hosted by our Planning Board to receive community input on the Pine/Lent Hill SDEIS and Dutch Hill DEIS. As I indicated, I thought the meeting went well overall, given the level of energy in the community that's been raised by this issue. Many of those who were critical of UPC Wind's intiative(s) had clearly read through the SDEIS/DEIS material carefully and offered specific comments about particular aspects in each report. Others were critical of the one-sided way the process has been handled by our Town leaders so far, a problem that only seems to be getting worse. It was clear from Chris Swartley's presentation on behalf of UPC Wind, for instance, that UPC fully expects the Planning Board to give their final approval within a month so that the permit process can move forward, giving the clear appearance that January 19th's "hearing" was really only for show.

Speakers were asked to the podium in the order in which they had signed in, somehow leaving most of those who spoke on behalf of the project toward the end of the list. Their comments were generally brief, had little if anything specific to say about either the SDEIS or DEIS, and expressed primarily their ongoing support of the project. Several were leaseholders. There were bursts of applause and vocal expressions of support or dismay during and after several presentations throughout the evening, but certainly nothing as loud or emotional as one might experience at a hotly contested a sports event. All in all, the evening actually went better than one could have expected.

However, that was all before last week's Valley News came out. To read the entire page of comments published there by YES! supporters, you'd think the meeting was a shocking display of social disorder on the part of wind critics "that showed their total lack of respect for our entire system of American government" complete with "jeering, and taunting... parading through the gym trying to distract everyone." Those who opposed the project were accused in print of avoiding commentary on the SDEIS/DEIS documents and using the meeting "to call a great-grandfather names and to verbally attack him after the meeting." Another sponsored writer said critics "ridiculed the handicapped... and mocked and made slanderous comments toward local officials." Still another said "their tactics included false statements, bullying, and the threat of lawsuits." And on and on.

Ladies and Gentlemen. My wife and I were among the first of those to arrive and the last to leave. I spoke early on and listened carefully to every speaker. I've been to lots of meetings in my life, and this one was spirited, to be sure, but not at all the way you've depicted it. Let's get real here. This is American democracy in action, not its antithesis. Sadly, many of your comments are such gross exaggerations that they spill over into complete misrepresentations of the truth. It looks like you've become so emotionally entangled in this project that you're becoming false witnesses.

Honestly, can't we do better than this?

Labels: Cohocton, Process

In an ad in last week's Valley News, Town Board member Wayne Hunt, an ardent supporter of UPC Wind's local projects, proclaims that the proposed wind farms will be “the most significant economic engine that we have ever had.” We know these are difficult times for a number of citizens but wonder if turning the Town of Cohocton into a giant power plant is really the solution. We have a good base in our local economy already, some new but much of which has been carried by faithful families for generations. Are we in a crisis? Isn't there a better way to move forward together as a community? Our article in this week's Valley News opens up the subject and responds to some of Wayne's other points along the way. Your comments are welcome.

Labels: Cohocton, Money, Process

We've all received an 8-page packet of information from Superintendent Michael Wetherbee at the school district asking for public input about Propositions 1 & 2 for renovations and pool expansion at the school. A public hearing will be held on January 30th, followed by voting on the Propositions on February 13th. What do we like about this whole enterprise? In several words, our school administration has done it right:

1) They've laid the whole thing out to the public - project details, financials, and public process - in a well-done publication.
2) They've done their homework, found the resources, and have cogent answers.
3) All totaled, it's an $11 million project with no downside that will enhance our community measurably.
4) Taxpayers know almost exactly how much it will cost and what they will get for their money.
5) And still, with all the "no-brainer" aspects of this, the whole matter is being put to a vote. The citizens will decide.

Read through the Special Edition of the Eye of the Eagle we've posted online, ask our school district any questions you want, and then come out and vote on February 13.

It would have been very nice if our Town Fathers had entrusted the citizens of this community with as much respect when they took on UPC Wind's ever-changing $125+ million project.

Labels: Cohocton, Process

Public Hearing Brings Good Turnout

Last Friday's public hearing, sponsored by the Cohocton Planning Board to address the Lent/Pine Hill SDEIS and new Dutch Hill DEIS brought a good turnout of concerned citizens, both pro and con, to the Elementary School auditorium. Supporters, many in green sweatshirts or jackets and wearing YES hats, mostly sat in one section, while critics gathered on the other side of the aisle and in the back bleachers. Time was limited due to a deadline at the school and the number of attendees who had signed in to speak. Overall, the crowd was respectful although chuckles and expressions of disagreement were scattered here and there throughout several presentations. Speakers with critical commentary probably outnumbered those with supportive comments by about 2 to 1, but all were passionate in their appeals to the Planning Board and assembled audience.

We've gathered several of Friday night's submissions here for your review, including analyses by Don Sandford, James and Judi Hall, Bonnie and Karl Palmiter, and Robert Strasburg. Richard Bolton submitted an excellent scientific critique of the SDEIS/DEIS Noise and Shadow Flicker reports that we will try to post as soon as it is available. If you have commentary that you're submitting to the Planning Board (deadline February 15) and would like it posted on our site, just send it along as an attachment to the email address provided in our Blogger profile.

Labels: Cohocton, Process

Unbeknown to many people the UPC wind power proposal in Cohocton has undergone a number of changes since it was first presented publicly 9 months ago. These revisions have been so extensive that they’ve triggered another public review under the provisions of New York’s SEQR Act. The first Public Meeting is scheduled for this coming Friday evening, January 19th at 7 pm in the auditorium at the Wayland-Cohocton Elementary School on Park Avenue in Cohocton.

Read our full article in this week's Valley News, visit our main website for a graphic presentation of UPC’s latest pictures, and then follow the following links to the material being discussed: Lent/Pine Hill SDEIS and Dutch Hill DEIS. Please prepare yourself as a citizen by reviewing as much of this material as you can before coming to the Public Meeting on the 19th to express your opinion. Thanks!

Labels: Cohocton, Process

Some people thought it was cute, but others recognized it for what it really was, crass exploitation. For the holidays, UPC Wind sponsored a“coloring contest” in Cohocton’s elementary school and published pictures of the winners in The Valley News. The object? To use our children to make their controversial wind project look kid-friendly. Read our response in this week's Valley News and let us know what you think.

Labels: Cohocton, Morality, Process

Welcome to 2007! For those of you who thought that 2006 was quite a year in the wind turbine debate, it looks like we’re in for more of the same in 2007. UPC Wind has just posted a Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS) for the latest revision of their proposed windpower project, and it’s the same old shell game of trying to sell their project by exaggerating claims and minimizing impact. What does the new SEIS exaggerate and minimize? Read our article in this weeks Valley News, then pore over the new UPC SEIS and see what you think.

Labels: Process, Smile

On December 20, 2006, Cohocton Wind Watch and a number of Cohocton residents filed an Article 78 lawsuit against the Town to annul the passage of Local Law #2 of 2006, which purports to regulate the siting, construction and operation of windmills within the Town. The petitioners claim that the law was passed without required environmental review, and violated various other zoning procedures.

James Hall, a member of Cohocton Wind Watch and a petitioner in the lawsuit stated that "we all live in Cohocton because we love and appreciate the beautiful rural and agricultural nature of our Town. These huge industrial windmills will destroy this quality of life."

The case has been assigned to Judge Mary Anne Furfure, and will be heard at the Steuben County Courthouse in Bath on January 16, 2007 at 10:00 AM. Richard Lippes of Buffalo, NY and David Miller of Naples, NY are the attorneys for the petitioners.

Labels: Cohocton, Legal Issues, Process

Proposed wind farm canceled

SPRINGWATER — PPM Atlantic Renewable has dropped its plans to build 14 wind turbines in Springwater. PPM spokeswoman Jan Johnson said Tuesday that the company’s options on property in the town have expired. “We decided to focus our efforts on the development of wind projects in other parts of New York,” Johnson said. In early 2005, PPM — owned by a Scottish parent company — proposed building the 397-foot windmills along two miles of ridge east of Strutt Street. Informally called the Bishop wind farm, it would have been visible from parts of Canadice in Ontario County. The project raised objections in Springwater and prompted officials in Canadice to start working on wind-farm regulations in the event that an energy company started looking for turbine sites there. Canadice will hold a hearing on that law as early as February. Earlier this year, PPM Energy opened the Maple Ridge Wind Farm on the Tug Hill Plateau in Lewis County — 120 turbines, each 320 feet tall.

Labels: Process