Shame on you Ted Liddiard and YES supporters

Cohocton Voters:

Many folks have read the full page ad in the Valley News on Oct 30, 2007 by YES spokesman Ted Liddiard, which attacked my wife and Eric Massa. For months we have built a solid and factual case that Cohocton Town Officials and Yes/UPC Wind can’t be trusted. Truth matters and documented facts are true reality.

Listen to the entire Massa in the Morning radio program that broadcasted on Oct. 21, 2007 on the above link: http://www.massaforcongress.com/multimedia/massa1021.mp3

Judge for yourselves what was said on that radio program. Then demand an answer and a formal apology from Mr. Liddiard and YES Wind for deceiving the public in the Valley News. Mr. Liddiard was a call in guest on Oct. 21 and on a second occasion on Oct 28, 2007 to the same Eric Massa radio program.

YES Wind members debase their own reputations if they associate themselves with the falsehood that Mr. Liddiard was not given the opportunity to speak his mind (what may be left of it) on the radio program. He embarrasses himself continually and shame on you if you accept sure disgraceful conduct.

The public deserves to have the record corrected. Call in this coming Sunday to WHHO-AM - 607-654-0322, 10:00 AM to NOON. The best advertisement possible for electing Reform Cohocton Candidates comes from the words out of the mouth of YES Wind.

James Hall

Judge rejects NYRI's challenge to state eminent domain law

Homeowners in the path of New York Regional Interconnect's power line proposal got a reprieve Friday.

That is, for now.

U.S. District Judge Thomas J. McAvoy dismissed NYRI's lawsuit challenging a law written by Assemblywoman Donna Lupardo, D-Endwell, which would protect homeowners from private companies trying to obtain property they need through eminent domain. Lupardo has no problem with eminent domain which she says can be a "valuable economic development tool." However, what did bother her was that this proposal "could have devastating impacts on New York's economy, environment and energy policy."

If NYRI wants to pursue its proposal, the next step is the federal government. This hurdle has been lowered substantially for NYRI after the Department of Energy designated two national interest electric transmission corridors this month -- one of which is the mid-Atlantic corridor. That corridor comprises 10 states including New York. By doing this, the federal government has the right to bypass any state in the corridor that does not approve a proposal within a year, because the designated corridor has shows a need for increased power beyond current energy resources.

Of course that's good news for private companies such as NYRI, but bad news for the thousands of people who have protested the NYRI proposal, will lose their property and fear the environmental impact. As state Sen. Thomas W. Libous, R-Binghamton, said, "It's a dangerous precedent." He adds that "allowing a private organization like New York Regional Interconnect (NYRI) to seize property without the approval of our community or our state violates constitutional integrity."

When the corridor designation was announced Oct. 2, Rep. Maurice Hinchey, D-Hurley, said "The reality is the only thing that matters to the DOE is how much more of a profit it can create for the energy industry." Hinchey, along with 29 other members of Congress, sent a letter Oct. 12 calling on the Department of Energy to "order an immediate study of cutting-edge alternatives using 21st-century technology that can be utilized without resorting to the standard answer that building transmission infrastructure is the only solution."

They're right. There must be a better, less-environmentally invasive solution to transporting power through a grid. Hideous 10-story towers lower property value, destroy its aesthetic appeal and present hazards for wildlife. You can understand the anger of those who fear the loss of their property and the destruction of upstate rural beauty so downstate can access more power. There is no win-win in this situation.

Constitution Party of New York Radio Ads for Reform Cohocton Candidates

http://www.nyconstitutionparty.com/candidates.htm

Listen for Constitution Party of New York ads for Reform Cohocton Candidates on the radio stations - WLEA, WHHO, and WDNY
Click on above link to hear the ad.

Judith Enck Deputy Secretary for the Environment April 26, 2007 Letter by GARY A. ABRAHAM

J%20Enck%20re%20Art%20X%20Apr07.pdf

April 26, 2007

Judith Enck
Deputy Secretary for the Environment
Office of Governor Eliot Spitzer
State Capitol
Albany, NY 12224

Dear Judy,

I am writing about Governor Spitzer’s recent announcement of support for Article X reform, and particularly about one small element of the Governor’s proposal, the consequences of insufficiently critical promotion of wind power.

It takes 60 industrial 1.5 megawatt wind turbines, each 400 feet high producing intrusive noise levels as far as one mile away to produce 90 megawatts of power–theoretically. In fact, because wind is intermittent and thus unreliable, at best only 20 percent of that rated capacity can be achieved. Thus five wind farms with 60 turbines will be required to produce 90 megawatts and, as Europe has learned, due to its unreliability the need for convention power plants will not be lessened by wind power.1 As the Governor notes, a moderate-size conventional power plant generates 14,500 megawatts.2 That means 805 industrial wind plants, each with 60 turbines, will be required to produce the energy generated by a conventional power plant.

What landfills were in the 1970s, 1980s and 1990s (New York has since enlarged the permitted size of its commercial landfills rather than sited new ones), industrial wind farms are today. Every community in New York where a wind farm proposal has been made has formed a concerned citizens group, and now regional watchdog groups have formed to counter the misinformation of the industry, which covets the federal Production Tax Credit for wind, providing about half the cost of each $2 million turbine installation. Benefitting additionally from the 15-year tax exemption for wind in New York, the fast-tracking of wind power plants began running roughshod over rural communities two years before the Governor took office. Now NYSERDA and PSC will offer millions more.

What’s wrong with this picture is that the host communities are not in the picture. Public interest lawyers like myself, Bob Cohen, Richard Lippes, Art Giacalone and Drayton Grant have taken cases for citizens groups against towns wooed by false claims of the wind industry and against the environmental impact statements wind power companies offer, but as with landfills, that route promises little success. Once a polluting industrial project finds a permissive political and regulatory climate, it’s usually too late to do anything about it.

New York is not an ideal environment for the development of wind energy because the rural areas, in contrast to the western United States, are highly populated. A public health risk is created by the sound levels generated by industrial wind turbines. While the gearbox has been engineered to run more quietly than earlier turbines, the increased size of new turbines results in noise-generating air displacement that has more than offset mechanical sound reduction. A recent, unbiased analysis of the latest research on sound generated by the newest generation of wind turbines by the UK Noise Association recommends a minimum setback of one mile from homes to avoid the risk of chronic sleeplessness and resulting serious health effects. In light of growing complaints about noise from wind farms, European officials are redirecting the development of wind energy off shore.

A consistent M.O. of wind power companies has emerged: first they urge the host town to enact a local law with setbacks from homes of about 1,000 feet and noise limits of about 50 dbA (neglecting altogether nighttime noise impacts: this is the level of normal conversation in a small room), promising the town board about a quarter-million dollars in a PILOT agreement, a fraction of what it would pay if taxed at its assessed value. In return, the town board issues a negative declaration as lead agency under SEQRA, deferring any meaningful look at the potential impacts of such short setbacks and high noise limits till later, when a project application comes in pursuant to the local law. By then, the town will be loathe to deny approval of a project application that complies with the noise levels and setbacks. And the town will be lead agency for the DEIS, relegating other involved agencies to restricted review.

I approve of almost everything in the Governor’s proposal for Article X reform. But a new Article X must include siting restrictions on wind power plants informed not by the industry’s facts, but by a scientific and public health approach to noise pollution in areas where people live precisely for peace and quiet. It will not do to rely on project-specific DEIS’s offered by a wind power company to a rural community with insufficient resources to obtain expert review of what is offered. This is an instance where failure to set sufficiently protective ground rules will allow the market to trample the weakest communities. There will be no wind farms in Westchester County, but there are already wind farms and wind farm proposals all over rural upstate New York.

Those of us who have come up from the trenches must not forget to listen to new voices that come from the trenches. I urge you to take twenty minutes out of your day to listen to some of those voices on the enclosed DVD.

Respectfully submitted,

Gary A. Abraham

gaa/encs:

UK Noise Association, “Location, Location, Location: An investigation into wind farms
and noise,” July 2006 (on enclosed DVD under folder “UKNA”). Saveupstateny.org, “Life Under a Wind Farm,” 2006 (DVD).

1 In 2004, the New York System Independent Operator (NYSIO), a non-profit corporation managing the state's electricity grid, commented to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission that new wind power facilities pose reliability issues, requiring greater flexibility on the part of system operators like NYSIO. See NYSIO, Comments on American Wind Energy Association’s Petition for Rulemaking, FERC Docket RM02-12-000 et al. (September 20, 2004).

2 Governor Spitzer, “A Clean Energy Strategy for New York” (April 19, 2007).

3 Id. (“NYSERDA and the PSC will announce the approval of 21 contract awards for clean, renewable power plants . . . total[ing] approximately $295 million”). NYSERDA says 19% of New York’s electricity already comes from renewable energy sources, and of the remaining six percent needed to reach the goal of 25% renewable energy, wind energy can “supply a significant portion.”

The policy problem wind energy presents to New York by Gary A. Abraham

NYS%20wind%20policy%20problem.pdf

The policy problem wind energy presents to New York

Gary A. Abraham garyabraham.com October 29, 2007

To begin to understand this problem it is necessary to assess realistically the contribution industrial wind plants can make to New York’s electricity needs, and to assess the land resources that will be needed. Utility terms “capacity factor,” the “capacity credit” assigned to a power plant by a regional electric grid operator, and the plant’s “baseload capacity” are helpful for understanding the ability of wind to generate electricity.1

Capacity Factor

Only some power plants operate at near full capacity, also called “nameplate,” “rated” or “installed” capacity. The “capacity factor” for a power plant is calculated based on the amount of energy actually generated over the course of a year as a proportion of the energy the plant would have produced at full capacity, operating 24/7 every day of the year. Conventional power plants that burn coal typically operate at around 70% of their full capacity (70% capacity factor), nuclear power plants operate at 90% to 100%. Wind power plants typically operate at a capacity factor between 20% and 40%, depending on the local wind resource.2

The low capacity factor for wind reflects poor performance. Commercial wind turbines begin to generate electricity at about 9 mph and reach their rated capacity when winds reach about 27 mph. Below 9 mph, no electricity will be 3 generated, and between 9 and 27 mph less that full capacity will be generated. The energy actually generated (capacity factor X rated capacity) reflects the average wind resource over the year.

The diminished capacity factor of wind plants is obscured in official reports of wind’s “capacity.” For example, the New York State Energy Research and Development Authority (NYSERDA) states: “NYSERDA’s, New York Energy $martSM program through 2001, has supported the construction and operation of 41.5 megawatts (MW) of wind energy generation in New York.”4 This statement refers to two wind energy projects rated at 30 MW and 11.5 MW, respectively.5 Similarly, the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) states: “U.S. wind power generating capacity quadrupled between 1990 and 2003—to 6,374 MW.”6 However, because they refer to installed capacity these statements provide no insight about how much actual energy would be generated by these investments.7

To date, on an annual basis no wind power plant in New York has achieved a 30% capacity factor.8 The primary reason for this is that Class 4 winds (average winds ranging from 15.7 to 16.8 miles per hour) are the minimum necessary for large-scale wind power projects, and there are few areas in New York that possess such wind resources.9 Accordingly, many wind power plants in New York are being proposed for locations with less optimal wind resource areas, with an exponential decrease in capacity factors.10

Capacity credit

The capacity factor is only part of the story of wind power’s ability to contribute to New York’s energy needs. The New York System Independent Operator (NYSIO), a non-profit company that manages the electricity grid for the state, needs to secure the amount of energy needed at times of peak load plus a reserve margin. NYSIO therefore assigns a “capacity credit” to each power plant in the state, representing the amount of electricity that the grid operator can rely on to meet peak demand.11

Based on NYSERDA-funded research, NYSIO assigns to wind power plants a 10% capacity credit in the summer and a 30% capacity credit the in winter.12 This represents the grid operator’s judgment about how much energy per unit of rated capacity can be relied on in each season. Thus, for the Maple Ridge Wind Farm on the Tug Hill Plateau in Lewis County, New York’s largest wind power plant, located in the highest land-based wind resource area in the state, NYSIO calculates the plant can provide 32 megawatts in the summer, compared to its rated capacity of 322 MW.13

The poor capacity credit NYSIO assigns to wind probably overestimates wind’s reliability since there will be many days in any summer when there will be little or no wind–less than 9 mph–and therefore wind plants will generate no energy at all. This means, to meet our peak demand needs we need to continue to build new more dependable capacity or continue to delay retiring old, polluting but dependable power plants.

Baseload capacity

An assigned capacity credit is based on an expected average over a season. Wind’s contribution diminishes even further when we look at how daily fluctuations in electricity demand and electricity generation are managed. Most power plants can provide steady generation of electricity around-the-clock at a large fraction of their rated capacity. These plants provide what is called baseload capacity, that is, a minimum amount of electric power required over a given period of time at a steady rate.14 “Fluctuations, peaks or spikes in customer power demand are handled by smaller and more responsive types of power plants.”15

Daily demand for electricity is usually highest in the afternoon and early evening, “with about 16 hours of ‘on-peak’ time in the day and about 8 hours of ‘off-peak’ time during the night.”16 Due to the degree of its unreliability, wind power is unable to respond to fluctuations, peaks or spikes in customer power demand and therefore provides no baseload capacity.17 Baseload plants must be kept on line even if substantial wind-generated electricity is added to the grid.

In fact, substantial amounts of wind-generated electricity increase the fluctuation in the grid as wind power comes on and off, and may increase the demand for responsive baseload plants. Fluctuations caused by integrating wind power into the regional electricity grid also require additional “balancing” services from the grid operator, potentially increasing the cost of electricity.

Baseload plants may also be operated at reduced capacity when electricity from wind plants is added to the grid. If operated at reduced capacity (for example in the winter, when substantial wind-generated electricity might be added to the grid), power plants that burn fossil fuels operate less efficiently, emitting more pollution per unit of energy produced than if they were allowed to run continuously at maximum capacity. “Combined with the pollutants emitted and CO2 released in the manufacture and maintenance of wind towers and their associated infrastructure, substituting wind power for fossil fuels does not improve air quality very much.”18

Land resources

Wind power is being promoted in New York not because it is cheaper or effective in achieving the state’s energy needs, but because it might provide a some of the last few percent mandated by the state’s policy to obtain 25% of its energy from renewable sources, the “renewable portfolio standards” mandate.19 A central consideration in any policy to increase the role of commercial wind power in achieving renewable portfolio standards in New York should be the amount of land required to reach such a goal.

In 2005 New York consumed 154 million MWh of electricity.20 NYSERDA has said that New York has enough “land based wind potential . . . to generate . . . 10 percent of the State’s electricity consumption.”21 A typical 60-turbine wind plant in New York requires about 10,000 acres (a conservative assumption).22 Thus, to generate 15.4 million MWh with wind plants that on average achieve a 20% capacity factor will require about 146 wind plants and 1,460,000 acres, or 2,281 square miles.23

The small potential contribution commercial wind power can make to New York’s electricity generation needs coupled with the large land resources wind power requires raises the following policy questions:

(1) Whose landscape will bear the burden of the effort to achieve maximum windpowered electricity in New York? Put differently, do downstate electricity consumers want to sacrifice upstate land values to feel good about unreliable renewables?

(2) Do New York taxpayers want their renewable energy capital investments to be directed at the lowest energy output of any current alternative24 while avoiding little if any building of new fossil fuel capacity?

(3) Should wind power require greater scrutiny into the potential adverse impacts of wind plants on rural communities (such as changes to nighttime noise and viewscapes, habitat fragmentation, avian mortality)? Put differently, should New York consider state-wide siting restrictions on commercial wind plants?

1. Cf. U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), Energy Information Agency (EIA), “Glossary” (“capacity factor,” “capacity credit,” “base load,” “base load capacity, and “base load plant”), available at http://www.eia.doe.gov/glossary/.

2. University of Massachusetts, Renewable Energy Research Laboratory, “Wind Power: Capacity Factor, Intermittency, and what happens when the wind doesn’t blow?”, n.d., p. 1, available at (link)(visited August 20, 2007) (“Typical wind power capacity factors are 20-40%”); American Wind Energy Association, “How Does A Wind Turbine’s Energy Production Differ from Its Power Production?”, available at http://www.awea.org/faq/basicen.html; Wikipedia, “Wind Power,” http://en.wikipedia.org/ wiki/Wind_power.

3. GE Energy, “1.5 MW Wind Turbine Technical Specifications, available at (link). See also Iowa Energy Center at Iowa State University, “Wind Energy Systems,” available at (link); American Wind Energy Association, “How Does A Wind Turbine's Energy Production Differ from Its Power Production?”, available at http://www.awea.org/faq/basicen.html.

4. NYSERDA, “Utility Scale / Large Wind” (n.d.), available at (link) . This statement describes two wind power facilities, the Fenner Wind Project, rated at 30 MW, and the Madison wind Project, rated at 11.5 MW.

5. These are the Fenner Wind Project and the Madison Wind Project. See id. (map).

6. GAO, Renewable Energy: Wind Power’s Contribution to Electric Power Generation and Impact on Farms and Rural Communities, September 2004, at http://www.gao.gov/ new.items/d04756.pdf. The GAO study uses installed capacity as the basis for this statement. See id., p. 15 (Table 3). See also e.g., American Wind Energy Association, “Wind Energy Projects in California,” note (**), available at http://www.awea.org/projects/california.html.

7. The GAO study acknowledges this but only in footnotes. See id., pp. 1.n.3, 14.n.16. However, the study goes on to compare electricity generation from wind with facilities using fossil fuel, nuclear, natural gas and oil, all of which have at least twice the capacity of factor of wind. Id., p. 9.n.6.

8. U.S. Department of Energy, Annual Report on U.S. Wind Power Installation, Cost, and Performance Trends: 2006 (May 2007), p. 17, Fig. 23, available at (link). See also id., p. 4 (“New wind plants contributed roughly 19% of new nameplate capacity added to the U.S. electrical grid in 2006, compared to 13% in 2005”). See also Prefiled Testimony of Thomas A. Hewson, BSE, in the matter of the East Haven Windfarm,

January 1, 2005, available at http://www.windaction.org/documents/720 (average capacity factors for new wind projects in 2003 was 26.9%); NYSERDA, “Madison Windpower Project Final Report, December 2003, p. iii, available at (link) (capacity factor for the Madison Windpower Project in Madison County is 21%). Compare NYSERDA, Frequently Asked Questions for Large-Scale Wind Energy Projects, p. 4 (n.d.), available at (link)(“When averaged over a year, wind projects typically operate at levels equivalent to 30 to 40% of their full capacity (aka capacity factor.”).

9. Wind resource maps for New York are available from NYSERDA, “Wind Speed of New York at 100 Meters [328 Feet],” (link). See also EIA, “Classes of Wind Power Density at Heights of 10m and 50m” (table), July 2007, available at (link); EIA, “Wind Resource Potential” (map), available at (link) (both visited August 20, 2007).

10. Energy output from the wind is proportional to the cube of the wind speed. That is, as mean wind speeds decrease, the capacity factor for wind turbines decreases exponentially. Cf. Brad G. Stevens, P.E., “Wind Energy Resource and wind Farm Siting” (powerpoint for Northwest Wind energy workshop, August 3, 2006), slide 9, available at (link) .

11. NYSIO, 2007 Load & Capacity Data (2007 Goldbook), available at (link) (visited October 5, 2007).

12. Id., p. 58.

13. Id., Table III-2, p. 28.

14. EIA, “Glossary,” note 1, above (“load capacity, and “base load plant”).

15. Wikipedia, “Base load power plant,” at (link) (visited October 5, 2007).

16. EIA, THE CHANGING STRUCTURE OF THE ELECTRIC POWER INDUSTRY 2000: AN UPDATE, p. 9n.16 (October 2000), available at (link) (visited October 5, 2007).

17. New Jersey Blue Ribbon Panel on Development of Wind Facilities in Coastal Waters, Final Report, p. 21 (April 2006), available at (link) : wind power alone cannot reduce the state’s dependence on fossil fuels. Nor can wind power provide “base load” power needed to meet every day energy demands. Due to these limitations, wind power cannot remedy the current energy related environmental issues facing New Jersey.

Compare the industry advocate Alliance for Clean Energy New York, “New York State Wind Facts,” available at (link)(“20 percent of the total wind energy can be considered base load, like traditional fossil-fuel plants, and that . . . helps to improve overall utility system reliability.”).

18. H. Sterling Burnett, Ph.D., “Wind Power: Not Green but Red,” testimony presented to the American Legislative Exchange Council Task Force on Energy, the Environment, Natural Resources and Agriculture Austin, TX (May 1, 2004), available at (link)(visited October 5, 2007).

19. See NYSERDA, “About New York’s Renewable Portfolio Standard,” Available at http://www.nyserda.org/rps/about.asp.

20. EIA, “New York Electricity Profile” (2005), available at (link)(retail sales and direct use).

21. NYSERDA, “Utility Scale/Large Wind,” at (link) .

22. Phase 1 of the Maple Ridge Wind Farm in Lewis County, with 120 1.65 MW turbines, “spans approximately 21,000 acres.” PPM Energy, Press Release, “PPM and Zilkha Announce Maple Ridge Wind Farm Landmark Project Will Quadruple New York Wind Energy Capacity,” April 5, 2005, available at (link). However, a recently approved 65-turbine wind power plant in Washington requires 6,000 acres. See Energy Facility Site Evaluation Council, Order No. 826, In the Matter of . . . Kittitas Valley Wind Power Project (March 27, 2007), available at (link).

23. That is, (15.4 million MWh ÷ 8,766 hrs. in a year = 1,757 MW) X 20% capacity factor = 8,785 MW rated capacity needed ÷ 60 turbines per wind plant X 10,000 acres = 1.46 million acres or 2,281 square miles.

24. One promising alternative is enhanced geothermal energy, recently assessed by MIT in a study that concludes known deep geothermal resources can provide 57,000 times the current energy needs of the U.S. Links to the MIT study and current information on enhanced geothermal energy are posted on the website of Concerned Citizens of Cattaraugus County, at (link)

FERC Extends Financial Houses’ Leave to Acquire Utility Securities

The role of financial institutions in energy markets is steadily increasing. In furtherance of this trend, FERC recently granted blanket authorizations to three financial and investment companies allowing them to acquire securities of electric utility companies in the course of their business, without needing advance FERC approval under the Federal Power Act (FPA) for each transaction.

As part of the Energy Policy Act of 2005, Congress amended the FPA to require prior FERC approval for holding companies to acquire securities with a value of over $10 million of utilities or holding companies owning utilities. Financial institutions have since sought and received from FERC waivers to allow them or their affiliates to acquire these securities in amounts exceeding $10 million without advance FERC approval, provided the acquisition is in their ordinary course of their business, which includes taking security for a loan, in connection with their asset management business, or as part of their routine activities as a broker, dealer, and trader.

In 2006, FERC granted these blanket approvals for only one-year terms. But having grown more comfortable with these arrangements, FERC now granted blanket approvals for a three-year term. The authorization granted two of the companies, The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. and Morgan Stanley, were renewals for these longer terms, while the third, Legg Mason, Inc., received an initial three-year authorization. The conditions FERC imposed on each company include not exercising control over public utilities whose securities they acquire and compliance with reporting requirements.

Terry Tree Service - Cohocton, NY

Natural disasters and land-clearing projects keep Terry Tree Service of Chili busy. Russ Hathaway of Cape Vincent helps to clear land for a wind farm in Cohocton.

Turbine Foe's Barn Burns in Starkville

STARKVILLE Just after midnight Friday, Oct. 19, Willow – one of Denise Como’s whippets – barked. Denise, one of the three-person team challenging Stark town board incumbents in the Nov. 6 election, heard an engine running. A truck door slammed, and the vehicle drove off down Ellwood Road toward Salt Springville. “A few minutes later my dogs went crazy,” she recalled that Saturday afternoon, sitting on the long front porch of the family’s rambling farm house, guinea hens pecking at the chrome fender of a nearby truck. “When I got to the front porch, everything was aglow.” She hurried across the road to the century-old barn, but it was engulfed. There was no wind. The flames shot straight up into the air. “A perfect night for arson,” Denise called it. “I just came back here and watched it burn,” she said.


When the firemen arrived from Starkville a few minutes later, there was nothing they could do either. “I never saw anything burn so fast in my life.” Three fire trucks were at the scene, and firefighters executed a “controlled fall,” ensuring the structure didn’t collapse into the roadway. The embers were still smoking amid the drizzle 36 hours later when a neighbor, Walter Bych, pulled over in his pick-up truck. The morning before, he had seen the glow from his bedroom window and had come to the scene. The word that kept cropping up in the conversations of the firefighters and investigators was “suspicious, suspicious.” “That’s the word I kept hearing,” he said. The candidate – she and Steve Reichenbach, running for town council, and Sue Brander, for supervisor, are all Advocates for Stark, members of the anti-wind-turbine group – doesn’t know why her barn was targeted. The week before, she’d knocked down a hunter’s stand set up on her property without permission. Maybe it was the disgruntled hunter. However, the political signs she’d set up in front of her barn were gone. “It’s hard to make a conclusion,” she said, adding, “I think it’s some kind of statement. Why would you burn down some little barn?”

Wednesday, Oct. 24, a state police investigator at the Herkimer barracks said the troopers were at the scene, but lacked sufficient evidence at that point “to open an arson case.” Down the road in Van Hornesville, Sue Brander is fearful Como, who moved up from Lakehurst, N.J., just four years ago with her husband, Richard Whritenour, was being punished for her politics. The Brander-Como-Reichenback team grew out of the Town of Stark’s support for Community Energy/Iberdrola’s Jordanville Wind Project, recently reduced from 68 turbines to 49. Landowners who stood to benefit from leases with the wind company have been irate about the opponents. “I’m saddened this has happened,” said Brander. “It’s certainly sobering to have a barn burned in this community under these circumstances.” Next to Como’s barn is a corrugated metal shed, where haying equipment is kept. (Denise and Richard train whippets, borzois and salukis, and keep the fields cut to run the dogs.) The door was open and two cans full of gasoline were missing. There was power to the barn, but Como said the troopers told her the fire started in a corner of the structure away from the electrical connections.

Inhofe slams two-hour Senate speech debunking climate fears

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NDXDmsgaBfA

According to a Science and Public Policy Institute release on September 13:

"The authors [David and Gordon] present unsuspecting children with an altered temperature and CO2 graph that reverses the relationship found in the scientific literature. The manipulation is critical because David's central premise posits that CO2 drives temperature, yet the peer-reviewed literature is unanimous that CO2 changes have historically followed temperature changes."
David has now been forced to publicly admit this significant scientific error in her book.

Ruthe Matilsky email appeal to Prattsburgh to Italy property owners

We know for fact that UPC absolutely does not have a contiguous line from the windmills to the proposed substation in the Prattsburgh project. In addition, Ecogen, which has bought up lots of land, still can't get to its substation because (among other reasons) the County of Yates is not allowed by law to sell them 10 acres of land on Emerson (it has something to do with green acres) People upon whom pressure has been put have been standing firm and refusing to sign easements.

In talking to your neighbors and acquaintances please tell them:

Ecogen and UPC do not have a contiguous transmission route from the wind turbines to their substations

If UPC and Ecogen can't get to their substation then they can't make their projects work.

The town of Prattsburgh has said that UPC has permission to use town right of ways, saying that this is all that is required for UPC to bury its cable, but this is not true.

Landowners own land up to the middle of the road. The Town has 25 foot easements from the middle of the road in order to maintain the roads. The town does not own this land and cannot sublease this land. So while town permission is necessary to use this land to bury cable, landowners' permission is absolutely required. The town has intentionally misled the citizens.

In addition, UPC is misleading people by hiring an outside firm (Prospect Land services I believe) to contact people and act like they are representing the town. They are pressuring people to sign right of ways and easements for UPC to bury the cable.

No one is required to sign an easement. UPC is not an electric utility and does not have power of eminent domain.

And once a landowner signs an easement it is forever. Perhaps for this project they will bury the cable, but if the companies have easements and in the future want to put up huge power lines, there will be nothing a resident can do if those easements are signed. And remember it is not just the poles and wires -- there is also the 100 foot "tree clearing rights" that will be invoked.

Please make sure to share this information with everyone you know.

Ruthe Matilsky

Iberdrola to replace chief executive at ScottishPower

Spanish Energy group Iberdrola, which acquired ScottishPower earlier this year for £11.6bn, is searching for a new chief executive for the Glasgow-based utility, and hopes to replace the Spaniard who now heads the company with a Scot, a senior source at the group revealed yesterday.

At a private meeting at Iberdrola's offices on the north-western outskirts of Madrid, it emerged that Jose Luis de Valle, ScottishPower's current chief executive, will likely leave the company next spring.

He is expected to be transferred into a far more powerful role within the fast-expanding Bilboa-headquartered company. He will likely head its US and UK operations, as Iberdrola moves to consolidate itself as the world's leading producer of electricity from clean technologies such as wind farms.

advertisementThis means De Valle will have overall responsibility for Energy East, a US electricity and natural gas company that Iberdrola has agreed to acquire for $4.5bn (£2.2bn), PPM Energy in Oregon and other assets in the US, which Iberdrola has clearly earmarked as its next big growth market. He will also have overall control of ScottishPower.

De Valle, who was parachuted into ScottishPower as its chief executive just days after Iberdrola completed the acquisition in April, is widely regarded as the right hand man of the Spanish power company's executive chairman, Jose Ignacio Sanchez Galan. He has maintained a dual role as the group's global strategy director.

He is also the man who Iberdrola credits with originally identifying ScottishPower as a potential takeover target after the British utility rebuffed the advances of German behemoth E.ON in 2005. De Valle led the negotiations to buy ScottishPower and has headed up what Iberdrola now regards as a "model integration that took only five months".

He is also responsible for pushing through the 4.2bn (£2.9bn) investment in ScottishPower under Iberdrola's three year strategic plan - a third more than its Spanish investment plan - announced at the Madrid Stock Exchange on Wednesday.

The senior source, who asked that his name be withheld, said: "Jose Luis de Valle will be replaced by someone British who knows Scottish society.

"This is our style. An American runs our American operations and a Brazilian runs our business in Brazil. It makes sense. We are not moving around the world with a flag. We are moving around the world with common sense."

De Valle had also identified PPM and Energy East as a potential acquisition to increase its presence in the US as Iberdrola expands internationally, and he is widely expected to integrate that company with the same aplomb he demonstrated at ScottishPower.

The source added: "His position with ScottishPower was always going to be a transitory position. We are looking to replace him now with someone more permanent, and I can tell you we are looking both inside and outside the company."

Another source said De Valle's tenure at ScottishPower is likely to last until April 2008, by which time it is anticipated that a replacement chief executive will be recruited and the acquisition of Energy East will be completed.

"He is now basically in charge of everything he has brought to Iberdrola," the source said.

Asked about Iberdrola's relationship with First Minister Alex Salmond and the Scottish Government, particularly in light of the SNP's previous objections to the potential takeover by E.ON, the senior source highlighted the common cultural ground between the Basque utility and ScottishPower.

"Iberdrola and E.ON have very different styles. I need to be diplomatic here. We try to integrate, not impose," he said.

"We met Alex Salmond in July, and we found him to be extremely capable and committed, and we are also in touch with him regularly."

In spite of the fact that executive chairman Galan is originally from Salamanca, and not from the Basque region, the senior source added: "As a Basque company, we have the same complexes and frustrations as they do in Scotland, but when we are together we are very proud."

Meanwhile, he also reiterated that the "synergies" from its purchase of ScottishPower would reach 260m by 2009 - twice the amount originally forecast - but that this would not be achieved through job cuts.

He said: "The synergies will come from the integrations of the systems. We are always thinking about how can we be more efficient and more competitive.

"It's logical that we integrate the different systems. This is critical if we want to share our wealth with our customers and our shareholders.

"But we are also investing 350m in retraining. Otherwise it's bread today and nothing for tomorrow."

The company has around 9000 employees in the UK. The firm poured cold water on rumours that it has plans to move out of its ScottishPower headquarters at Atlantic Quay in Glasgow, where it employs around 70.

The senior source said: "Don't listen to all the noises you hear."

Since the April takeover, the cuts have occured in areas that had been involved in ScottishPower's activities as a stock market-listed company, but are no longer required as an Iberdrola subsidiary.

It is estimated that less than 20 such jobs have gone through a voluntary redundancy programme, and up to 80 in total are working out their notice across ScottishPower.

When asked about the cuts related to the recently announced synergies, a spokesman told The Herald: "No job cuts have been identified, although there may be some losses through natural attrition or early retirement."

‘Suspicious’ Stark fire under investigation by Janine Giordano

STARKVILLE – Officials are investigating a barn fire in the hamlet of Starkville that occurred just after midnight early Friday morning.

The barn belongs to Richard Whritenour and his wife, Denise Como, a town council candidate in the town of Stark.

According to Robert Vandawalker, director of emergency management in Herkimer County, “at this point we’re still sorting out the details. No determination has been made as to whether or not it is arson or who, if anyone, caused it. It is being treated as suspicious at this point. To say it is being treated as arson is not a correct statement.”

The approximately 30 by 40 foot barn had remained empty, Como said, since she and her husband purchased the house a few years ago. “I’m (angry). I loved my little barn. My daughter and I were going to open a coffee and tea shop and used book store,” she said.

Como said that around midnight her dog, Willow, began barking frantically, which alerted Como to a vehicle idling outside. She heard a door slam and the vehicle drove off. Shortly after this, all seven of her dogs began barking near the front of the house. She opened the front door “and saw the barn engulfed in flames,” she said.

The Van Hornesville Fire Department “was very efficient. They kept the fire contained until they could get close enough to put it out,” Como said. Despite their efforts, there was nothing they could do to save the structure. “They basically just had to watch it burn out,” said Como. Nothing but the framework is left.

While she spoke with the fire chief, Como said she noticed that one of three campaign signs she had put up a few hours earlier were missing. She mentioned this to the chief who went and inspected the area the signs had been displayed. When it was determined all three signs were missing, she called the state police.

The next day, she noticed gas cans she had filled the day before were also missing from her storage shed, which is located near where the old barn stood.

Thursday had been spent working on the yard, mowing, which is why Como said she had filled the gas containers. By the time she finished mowing and was about to put the signs up, it was near 7 p.m. and her running mate, Sue Brander, who is running for town supervisor, came and collected her for some campaigning.

She arrived home too late to eat dinner so she made some popcorn, which she burnt. It was about 10 p.m., she noted. At 10:30, she brought the burnt popcorn bag to the dumpster, which is located next to the barn.

At that time, she decided to put up the campaign signs which she didn’t get to earlier after her mowing was complete. “It took about 15 minutes,” she said. The signs displayed information about her and her fellow board candidate Steve Reichenbach, about town superintendent candidate Sue Brander and about the highway candidate, Ron Douglas.

The four are vying for two town council positions held by Ann Miller, Tom Puskarenko and Richard Bronner’s supervisor position. The highway superintendent seat is currently held by Tony Greschek Jr.

Como and her running mates are concerned the fire may have been started by someone or by people who do not want them to be elected to the board.

“The fire is under investigation,” said town supervisor Richard Bronner. “And until details are known I would hope people would not react in that manner. Too many people have too much to lose. I would hope no one would overreact. Let’s find out what happened first.”

In Search of Effective Energy Policy: Is Industrial Wind Technology a Good Idea? by Jon Boone

Demand for electricity, a cornerstone of modern society, accounts for about 39 % of all energy use in the United States, even though electricity accounts for 30% of the energy used for heating. Electricity demand doubled from 1970-2000 and is on pace to increase another 20% by 2009. We expect electricity to be highly reliable, affordable, and secure, made more difficult because it must be used immediately at industrial levels; unlike the water supply, it can’t be stored. The key to success turns on providing power to supply demand precisely when consumers desire it, second by second. The goal is to forecast demand as accurately as possible, then assemble the most dependable, controllable supply in order to achieve confidant reliability, or capacity.

When gauging a power generator’s ability to perform, energy experts consider the machine’s design potential, then measure its actual performance over time while also assessing confidence in its availability for use during critical peak demand times, since heavy demand challenges the adequacy of supply. A power unit’s design potential is known as its rated or installed capacity, which is the average energy it should produce, usually over a year, if it worked at maximum without stoppage—expressed in thousands (kilowatts, kW) or millions (megawatts, MW) of watts. Engineers use the term capacity factor to project what percentage of its rated capacity a power plant will actually deliver over a specified time, since they realize no machine, for a variety of reasons, can function perpetually at full tilt. To express their level of confidence about a particular generator’s availability to produce as expected at whatever time it was needed, energy experts measure the unit’s capacity value or credit, again as a percentage of its rated capacity.

Conventional units must pass stringent tests for reliability and effectiveness. Generators that satisfy basic levels of demand, such as nuclear, large coal plants, and hydro, have capacity factors in the 90%+ range, with capacity values exceeding 99.99%. Smaller, more flexible units, such as natural gas, coal, or oil, which may be used only a few hours a year, may have capacity factors of as little as 5%, reflecting not the limitations of their potential so much as operator choice. When selected, however, their reliability produces a capacity credit in the range of virtual certainty.

Because of wind energy’s intermittency and relentless volatility, along with downtime for maintenance, the average national capacity factor for wind technology is about 25%; less than 1% of all wind plants achieve a capacity factor of 30%. The random, desultory nature of the wind, which rapidly changes energy levels at frequent intervals, limits what wind machinery can do, condemning wind turbines to intrinsically low capacity factors. The wind typically blows hardest at night, at times of least demand, and much less during the afternoon, at times of peak demand. And in 
summer months, when demand for electricity is greatest, there is often no wind at all. The capacity credit for wind technology is in the low single digits—and often it is zero.

Chautauqua County has the wind potential to absorb about 500-2.0MW turbines, each more than 400 feet tall and spread over 100 miles, with a collective installed capacity of 1000MW. Annually, projecting a capacity factor of 25%, these might provide about 250MW of very sporadic and highly volatile energy to the state’s grid, which has an installed capacity of 37,500MW and a summer peak demand of 34,000MW. Their capacity value at any peak demand period will vary from zero to no more than 5% of their installed capacity, which means they can be reliably expected to contribute no more than 50MW to augment power at times when it is needed most. Given the way that dependable conventional generation must mix with the wind energy to balance and smooth its skittering activity, wind technology can neither supplant those units nor assure that it could abate significant levels of carbon dioxide emissions throughout the energy production/transmission system. No independent, transparent measurement has demonstrated system-wide CO2 emissions abatement due to wind technology anywhere in the world, largely because wind developers insist on the confidentiality of proprietary performance information.

Wishful thinking about any technology, particularly such massively intrusive technology as industrial wind, should be filtered through and tested against reality before it is unleashed throughout the countryside. Wind energy for the production of electricity is not new. Nearly 18,000 wind turbines exist in the United States, revealing enough evidence about their actual performance, despite proprietary efforts to conceal it, to derive informed decisions about its potential effectiveness in New York.

FURTHER INFORMATION ABOUT INDUSTRIAL WIND TECHNOLOGY by Jon Boone

On May 3, 2007, the National Research Council of the National Academy of Science, at the behest of Congress, published its conclusions after a year of study about the Environmental Effects of Wind Energy Projects in the nation’s Mid-Atlantic region
(www.vawind.org/Assets/NRC/NRC_Wind.htm). It comprehensively evaluates the problems and limitations of the wind industry over a range of issues. See especially Chapter 2 for a Context for Analysis of Effects of Wind-Powered Electricity Generation in the United States and the Mid-Atlantic Highlands.

Jesse Ausubel, noted conservation biologist and climate change researcher, and Director for the Human Environment at Rockefeller University, recently published a brief essay, Renewable and Nuclear Heresies in the International Journal of Nuclear Governance, Economy and Ecology, Vol. 1, No.3, 2007 (http://phe.rockefeller.edu/docs/HeresiesFinal.pdf). He discusses the importance of conserving important natural habitats on land and the oceans, shows the intrusive nature of renewable energy projects, and summarizes the continuing per capita decline in the use of carbon for energy.

Britain’s David White wrote Reduction in Carbon Dioxide Emissions: Estimating the Potential Contribution from Wind-Power, commissioned and published by the Renewable Energy Foundation, December 2004: www.windaction.org/documents/225 . It is a thorough, beautifully reasoned analysis of the limitations of industrial wind as a source of energy and as a method of reducing CO2 emissions.

Tom Adam’s Review of Wind Power Results in Ontario: May to October 2006 published in Energy Probe, November 15, 2006: . Adams is executive director of Energy Probe, an independent consumer and environmental research team in Canada. He provides a detailed analysis that reports accurately about the subject, despite Energy Probe’s active support of industrial wind development.

E.ON Netz GmbH Wind Report, 2004: www.ref.org.uk/pages/press/061004.html...REPORT.

E.ON Netz GmbH Wind Report, 2005: www.ref.org.uk/images/pdfs/eon.2005. These reports provide the most comprehensive summary of the way in which extensive wind facilities affect grid operations in Germany.

National Wind Watch: (www.wind-watch.org) was the first nation-wide organization dedicated to understanding industrial wind issues, in the process gathering thousands of articles and news stories about the industry, and then providing informed interpretations for the public’s edification and education. Many newer organizations stand on NWW’s shoulders. Now the president of National Wind Watch, Eric Rosenbloom is a science writer who lives in Vermont. He also maintains perhaps the nation’s best wind blog: http://kirbymtn.blogspot.com, as well as the website, Industrial Wind Energy Opposition: www.aweo.org, which contains a cornucopia of facts and research about the subject.

Industrial Wind Action Group: www.windaction.org is dedicated to providing educational material to communities and government officials in order to enable better public policy. The site contains over 6,500 items comprised of news articles, opinion pieces, research, photos and quotes pertinent to industrial wind energy. The organization’s executive director is Lisa Linowes, a New Hampshire resident concerned about providing, among other issues, the best consumer value for alternate energy sources.

Jon Boone wrote three major essays over the last two years that appear on his website: www.stopillwind.org, one of the first websites to feature the problems with industrial wind in the eastern United States. Start with The Aesthetic Dissonance of Industrial Wind Machines (www.stopillwind.org/lowerlevel.php?content=Downloads), which was published in Contemporary Aesthetics on September 28, 2005. The Wayward Wind (www.stopillwind.org/lowerlevel.php?content=WaywardWind), a speech delivered in June, 2006 to the citizens of Wyoming County, New York, and, in January, 2007, Less for More: The Rube Goldberg Nature of Industrial Wind Development (www.stopillwind.org/lowerlevel.php?content=WaywardWind) will be published next Spring by McGraw-Hill in an anthology of essays entitled, Taking Sides: Clashing Views on Environmental Issues, edited by Thomas Easton.

Also note the Top Ten False and Misleading Claims the Wind Industry Makes for Projects in the Eastern United States: www.stopillwind.org/lowerlevel.php?content=topten_intro. Detailed debunking follows.

For those interested in a comprehensive analysis of the issue vis a vis a regulatory wind hearing, consult Jon Boone’s Maryland Public Service Commission testimony (www.stopillwind.org/lowerlevel.php?content=Downloads) as an intervenor in the Synergic Wind case, including his Responses to a variety of Data Requests and his Appeal to the Proposed Order of the Hearing Examiner.

Both his speech tonight in Westfield, Industrial Wind: A Bill of Goods and his introductory remarks at the League of Women’s Voters wind debate in Fredonia, will also soon appear on stopillwind.

Life Under a Windplant, Jon Boone’s documentary about the Meyersdale, PA wind facility, which he produced and directed with David Beaudoin, can now be seen in three parts on Youtube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SNxvkrgoPLo&mode=related&search= . It features how the wind plant affects the lives of the people in the community and shows the sights and sounds that emanate from 375-foot tall wind turbines sited atop surrounding ridgetops.

Introductory remarks at a League of Women Voters - Oct 17, 2007 Jon Boone

As an artist and environmentalist who values aesthetics and the methods of science—and wants an effective energy policy, I’ve looked for evidence substantiating claims made for wind technology by those who would profit from it, financially and ideologically. By evidence, I mean real world encounters with actual performance to see if its key premises are true. Of all people, environmentalists should embrace the skepticism of science, rather than be seduced by deceits of fashion. They should not confuse the trappings of science—the engineering grandeur of a huge wind turbine, for example—with the real work of science, which would insist upon verifying the machine’s performance. My values are green; I believe we should conserve, minimizing our footprint on the earth, not intruding on it with bombast and self-serving incivility. Although I understand why well-intentioned people support the wind industry, I’m mindful the road to hell is often paved with good intentions. Environmental history is the chronicle of how adverse consequences flowed from the uninformed decisions of the well intentioned.

Weren’t we enthralled by images of the Grand Coolee and Hoover Dams a few generations ago? Because it generated bulk levels of reliable, responsive power, hydroelectricity became the symbol for clean, sustainable energy during much of the twentieth century; it still provides New York with 20% of its electricity generation. But it’s now clear that renewable hydro is so environmentally treacherous, responsible for degrading millions of acres of invaluable watersheds, that no one outside China and some third world countries is building new hydro plants; many are being dismantled across the continent, at taxpayer expense.

The renewable du jour is wind. Because it’s perceived as non-polluting, it has become popular with the public and politicians. However, claims it will help end our reliance on fossil fuels, be competitive with coal, and make air cleaner and the country safer are sound bites Enron honed years ago to sell wind technology as an environment-coated tax avoidance scheme for corporations in search of increased bottom lines. Wind energy is a sideshow technology with great potential for mainline environmental harm.

Wind plants produce little energy relative to demand and what little they do produce is incompatible with the standards of reliability and cost characteristic of our electricity system. Mathematically, it would take more than 2,000 2.0MW turbines spread over 400 miles to equal the average annual output of one 1600 MW coal farm, although, operationally, it would take many more than this. Because they’re not reliable, they have virtually no capacity value, which is critical, since the whole point of the modern grid is that one can count on power precisely when it’s needed. A recent analysis of over 7000 German wind turbines showed that, more than half the time, they produced less than 11% of their designed potential. Therefore, they can’t replace existing dependable coal plants or obviate the need for more as demand increases —or even augment power during critical times of peak demand. Ironically, as more wind installations are added, almost equal conventional generation must also come on line for grid security. Crucially important: Because of the inherently random variations of the wind and the nature of grid operations, wind technology will not reduce meaningful levels of greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide, which is its reason for being.

The grid deploys a combination of nuclear, hydro, coal and natural gas generators to produce capacity—controllable, steady, reliable power—precisely matching fluctuating demand second-by-second. Wind energy is unpredictably intermittent and highly variable. The challenge is how to integrate the square peg of firm reliability with the round hole of wind’s fluttering caprice. As it skitters unbidden on and off the grid, like sandpipers at the beach, wind is indistinguishable from demand fluctuations: when it appears, it’s equivalent to people turning off their appliances; when it departs, it’s like people turning the lights back on. But the fluctuations of wind are much greater than those from demand --and much less predictable. At small levels of wind penetration, grid operators must maintain flexible rapid start generators—the spinning reserves used to balance demand flux—to also follow and balance the additional flux of wind energy, for desultory wind can’t be loosed on the grid by itself. The larger the wind penetration into the grid, the greater need for the spinning reserves as the wind energy bounces around both slowly and quickly. Wind integration is Rube Goldbergesque, costly in dollars and increased greenhouse gases.

Given its rapid fluctuations, wind energy will not displace slowly responsive large coal and nuclear plants, as many believe, but rather rapidly responsive plants like hydro and natural gas, and be balanced by them as well. If wind displaces hydro, there will be no carbon savings—and very little carbon savings if it displaces natural gas, which burns 60% cleaner than coal. And if wind flux were balanced by natural gas, any carbon emissions saving would be negligible. Just the torrent of CO2 alone given off in the making of gigantic concrete footpads for each turbine would take years to offset.

No independent, transparent measurement has demonstrated system-wide CO2 emissions abatement due to wind technology anywhere in the world.. Currently, the United States has over 17,500 wind turbines in 26 states, more than two-thirds built in the first five years of this decade. Altogether, these machines produce less that one-fourth of 1% of the nation’s electricity supply. California’s arsenal of over 13,000 turbines contributes about 1% of that state’s actual generation; last year, California’s carbon emissions increased 2% over those in 2005. Europe’s wind poster child, Denmark, has built nearly 6,000 turbines that, on paper, provide 20% of that tiny country’s installed capacity. But, for grid security reasons, 84% of Denmark’s actual wind production is shunted to other countries, replacing hydro—with no carbon savings. According to a prominent Danish energy official, “Increased development of wind turbines does not reduce Danish carbon dioxide emissions.” Germany, now the world’s wind leader with nearly 20,000 turbines producing about 5% of its annual generation, must add additional conventional generating capacity to integrate the fidgety wind energy. But it achieves no real CO2savings; last year Germany increased them by .6%. There are reasons public subsidies for wind technology are not indexed to reductions in carbon emissions.

Wind is not David to coal’s Goliath. It’s a foster sibling to coal, related because the same corporations that own most of the nation’s wind plants also own and control the majority of the nation’s coal operations. Contrary to public perception, wind technology has been around since the Bronze Age, and over the last 25 years has received more than $1 billion of public financing, making it, on a per kilowatt hour basis, the country’s most heavily subsidized form of industrial electricity. Enron owned the country’s largest stock of wind facilities before selling them to General Electric. Today, G.E., along with the nation’s third largest utility, Florida Power and Light, BP, and AES, control most of the nation’s wind projects—as well as most of the country’s dirtiest burning coal facilities. They use wind’s unearned environmental cachet as public relations while cashing in on wind’s lucrative subsidies. What’s particularly galling is their practice of using wind’s cap-and-trade and renewable energy credits—provided by the most cynical or gullible of politicians—to avoid the cost of cleaning up their coal plants. These politicians give the appearance of challenging Big Coal when in reality they're reinforcing it, especially since more wind facilities very likely will result in more coal plants. Although conventional power is also heavily subsidized, these subsidies result in reliable service. The subsidies for industrial wind, which can provide virtually no capacity to the system while delivering energy in fits and starts, will be used to make ineffective and uneconomical technology falsely appear to be effective and economical.

My opposition to this technology is a considered response to the fact it doesn’t work very well, even as an occasional fuel substitute, certainly not commensurate with the damage it causes and the monies it drains from rate and taxpayers. Like many celebrities born of spin, it’s famous for being famous, not for its actual performance. Chautauqua County could absorb 500 wind turbines, each more than 400 feet tall and spread over 100 miles, with blades spinning 175 mph at their tips. Annually, these might provide about 250MW of highly sporadic energy to the state’s 37,000MW installed grid total, unable, however, to replace any conventional power, including coal, since they will have virtually no capacity value, and with no hard evidence they would save any carbon emissions. Their massive footprint will transform the landscape, changing its appearance from natural views into those dominated by gargantuan industrial machinery. How green is this? In the process, nearby property values will plummet while a number of residents will experience relentless noise, at times exceeding the legal limit. The county will likely receive only a fraction of promised revenues and taxes, and it’s extremely unlikely the wind facilities will employ more than a handful of county residents or union workers. And like all tall structures that are lit at night, they will kill thousands of migrating birds and especially bats. All of these problems have been well documented—many of them admitted in “confidential” property leases that exculpate wind companies for creating them. This is dystopia, a nightmare, and not effective energy policy.

Chautauqua County represents low hanging fruit for distant wind capital seeking to exploit the people and resources of rural America, made even more shameless by the Orwellian charge that those who oppose its intrusions are NIMBYs when the corporate shills themselves live hundreds of miles away. If industrial wind succeeds here, it will be because the gullible are led by the pretentious, a process made easier because of a lack of accountability, no penalty for lying, and the pervasive vacuity of our political culture.

INDUSTRIAL WIND: A BILL OF GOODS by Jon Boone

Of all people, environmentalists should embrace the skepticism of science, rather than be seduced by deceits of fashion. They should not confuse the trappings of science (the engineering grandeur of a huge wind turbine, for example), with the real work of science, which would insist upon verifying the machine's performance in a real world setting.

My values are green; I believe we should conserve: minimize our footprint on the earth, not intrude on it with bombast and self-serving incivility.
Although I understand why well-intentioned people support the wind industry, I'm mindful that the road to hell is often paved with good intentions. Environmental history is the chronicle of how adverse consequences flowed from the uninformed decisions of the well intentioned.

(CLICK below link to read entire speech)

IndustrialWInd-ABillofGoods.pdf

IRS Creates Safe Harbor for Wind Energy "Flip" Transactions

The Internal Revenue Service has published a revenue procedure establishing a safe harbor with respect to allocation of production tax credits from wind energy facilities. Section 45 of the Internal Revenue Code (IRC) provides for a renewable electricity production credit for each kilowatt hour of electricity produced by the taxpayer from a qualified energy resource, including wind, at a qualified facility and sold to an unrelated person during the taxable year. The credit continues for 10 years from the time the facility was originally placed in service. Wind energy projects frequently are owned and operated by LLCs formed between a wind developer and one or more investors interested in earning returns from operating cash flow and IRC ? 45 credits from the project. The IRS previously had announced that it would no longer rule on any issues for partnerships (LLCs generally are treated as partnerships for federal tax purposes) claiming the IRC ? 45 production tax credit.

The newly issued revenue procedure, Rev Proc 2007-65, establishes a safe harbor for the allocation of a partnership’s IRC § 45 production tax credits from wind. It does not apply to any other tax credits, or to the allocation of a partnership’s IRC § 45 credits from other qualified energy resources. If "each and every requirement" of the safe harbor is satisfied the IRS will respect the allocation of IRC § 45 credits in the operating agreement.

In brief, the safe harbor sets forth eight primary requirements:

Minimum Interest. The developer must have an interest of at least 1 percent in each material item of partnership income, gain, loss, deduction and credit at all times during the existence of the partnership. Each investor must have an interest in each material item of partnership income and gain, at all times while it owns an interest in the partnership, at least equal to 5 percent of the interest it will have in the year in which its interest is largest.

Investor’s Minimum Investment. Each investor must maintain, as long as it owns its partnership interest, an investment at least equal to 20 percent of the sum of its fixed capital contributions pursuant to the operating agreement, plus reasonably anticipated contingent capital contributions. The required minimum can be reduced by distributions of project cash flow or in connection with a sale pursuant to the exercise of an option as described in 4 below. Stop-loss arrangements are not permitted.

75% Fixed Obligation. At least 75 percent of an investor’s total capital contributions must be fixed and determinable obligations that are not contingent either in amount or in certainty of payment.

Only Fair Market Value Purchase Options. The exercise price of any call option held by the developer, an investor or any related party to purchase the project or any interest in the partnership must be at fair market value as determined on the date of exercise of the option. In the case of an option held by the developer or a related party, the option may not be exercisable earlier than five years after the qualified facility is placed in service. Special limitations are provided with respect to the effect of certain contractual arrangements on value for this purpose.

No Put Rights. The partnership may not have a right to require any party to buy any or all of the project, and an investor may not have a right to require any party to buy its interest in the partnership.

No Wind Guarantee. There can be no guarantee to an investor of any allocation of credit. Among other things, this means that the partnership must bear the risk that the wind does not blow as predicted. So long as the partnership or the investor pays the premium or cost, however, the partnership or the investor may acquire a weather derivative contract from an unrelated insurance company or other unrelated party. A long-term power purchase agreement with an unrelated party would not be a guarantee for this purpose.

No Developer Loans or Loan Gaurantees. Neither the developer nor a related party may loan any funds to an investor to invest in the partnership, or may guarantee any debt connected to that investment.

Proper Allocation. The IRC § 45 credit must be allocated in accordance with Treasury Regulation § 1.704-1(b)(4)(ii). Among other requirements, this means that the credit must be allocated the same way gross income from sale of electricity is allocated.

The new revenue procedure includes two helpful examples. The examples appear to clarify several issues, including the fact that a 0 percent interest in cash distributions for a period of time does not violate the safe harbor, and the fact that flips in sharing ratios do not violate the safe harbor.

If you have any questions about this alert or if you would like our assistance in connection with this matter, please contact Ashley Henry, Energy Industry Liaison.

Industrial Wind Turbine DANGER ZONE

NPR radio interviews today in Ellenburg Wind Turbine area

http://www.northcountrypublicradio.org/news/audio/71023windlift.mp3

Lifting giant windmills into the sky

Few issues have generated as much controversy as wind power. Supporters love the green energy and the economic boost they bring to struggling rural communities. Detractors hate the noise, the view, and what they call deceptive claims made by big corporations. Tomorrow, we look at the challenges facing local town boards stuck in the middle of the debate. Today, an upclose look at the giants themselves, and two neighbors’ reactions. Noble Environmental Power has already erected 60 of 122 turbines in the western Clinton County towns of Clinton and Ellenburg. David Sommerstein was there as turbine #6 went up, and has our story.

http://www.northcountrypublicradio.org/news/archive.php?id=10178

Governor Spitzer October 23, 2007 Letter by Donna Marmuscak

Dear Mr. Spitzer,

How can you be so worried about drivers licenses for illegal immigrants and keeping track of them, when our state is being overtaken by foreign companies who are destroying our environment, health, property values, source of income,(tourism, hunting etc.) and more, by allowing them to put up false towers called wind turbines under the guise of creating electricity? Not everyone here is a dumb country bumpkin and will not succumb to governmental and corporate corruption and greed. Iberdrola is trying to worm its way into NYSEG so that they will be able to control more of the state and national electrical grid. I am sure they are in cahoots with the other wind power companies, just waiting for projects to be completed so that they can take over the whole mess.

It is only a matter of time before they start using eminent domain and steal our property. A public outcry prevented the sale of our ports to a foreign entity. When New York State residents start paying exorbitant electrical rates and discover that they have been sold down the river to foreign companies who are gleefully lining their pockets with governmental approval, I can only imagine the firestorm that will erupt!!

If local farmers would advertise available work at decent paying wages, I know many desperate teenagers who would love a job, especially since the laws prevent so many of them from working in gas stations, convenience stores, restaurants etc because of alcohol and tobacco sales. If large local farms would not just have to mention the fact to certain people that they needed some Mexicans and they would show up on their doorstep the next morning ( an actual comment made to Randy Kuhl in public), We would not have so many here. I have nothing personal against them but we need the jobs for out own.

Donna Marmuscak-Tuscarora, New York

Christopher B. Vaughan photo tour of Cohocton UPC Wind Turbine project

Dear Friends and/or Soon-to-be-Enemies,

Today Jim Fitzgibbons and I jumped in a plane and did a photo tour of the Cohocton Turbine sites as well as the Wind Farm built just west of Letchworth Park near the town of Pike. Jim took around 70 pictures which we will be sharing with you soon. I counted about 60 turbines near Pike. The Cohocton site seems to have around 16 sites with the concrete foundation poured in 10 of them.

In addition, Jim attended the last Jerusalem town board meeting and to sum it up, these guys have no clue as to the detriment these turbines will be.

I propose:

-Spread the word and get out the vote this November 6 to vote against anyone for the turbines. We have time to make a difference. Call the candidates. Flood them with telephone calls and make this an issue! Find out what their commitment is. Niel Simmons is FOR! Daryl Jones says there are no health issues! I have yet to hear Ray Stewart's or Loretta Hopkins' views. Call them!

-Let's have a get together of anti-turbine people and consolidate our efforts against these things. We need to share time at town board meetings and figure ways to get the word out. Even non Jerusalem residents should attend because your town may be next! I'm not so ignorant as to think that pro-turbine people will not attend. Talk to everyone you can and simply ask, "how do feel about wind turbines in your town". I bet 80% will say they need more info. Get them to this meeting. I will work on a time and place and let you know. Any feedback on convenient times is welcome.

-With enough signatures we can get this issue to be put to the public as a referendum. I am looking into that.

I will leave you with this. Those Cohocton turbines will be visible for 30 miles or more. As I was flying over them I could line-of-site my vision to Naples, Wayland, Dansville, Springwater, Cohocton as well as hills for miles. I ask, What right does a group of just 5 individuals have to pollute the skies and vision of every town in a 30 mile radius!? Turbines in Jerusalem will be visible in Ovid! We have a duty to protect the beauty and integrity of our lakes and hills (PLURAL) for all residents of and visitors to the Finger Lakes.

Christopher B. Vaughan

Green Power Pseudo-Environmentalism

1%20Whole%20Foods%20Wind%20Energy%20Pseudo%20environmentalism.pdf

Dear Mr. Ryan,

Perhaps you and your colleagues -- all of whom are living on our tax dollars -- should spend a little time in objective analysis of "green energy" purchases. I'm attaching an analysis of Whole Foods Markets December 2005 decision to buy credits for electricity generated from wind. Everything in it applies to the organizations 2007 purchases, except that a few more wind turbines will be needed..

Three of the interesting conclusions from the analysis:

" "109 huge (32+ story, 350+ foot), low electricity producing wind turbines will be needed to produce the 458,000,000 kWh of "wind generated" electricity that Whole Foods has (in theory) purchased."

" "$1 million spent for energy efficient light bulbs would avoid the use of 171,550,000 kWh of electricity over 5 years -- which is more than 3 times the 56,064,000 kWh of electricity that a $1,000,000 wind turbine might be able to produce over 20 years!"

" "Like the leaders in other organizations that have undertaken similar pseudo-environmental actions, it appears that Whole Foods executives thought only about the favorable PR benefits they would enjoy, while failing to consider the adverse impacts of their action."

It has become increasingly apparent that you folks now in government have:
a. Forgotten how to do objective benefit cost analysis.
b. Apparently have no ability to tell the difference between facts and blatant propaganda.
c. Chosen to ignore adverse environmental, ecological, economic, scenic or property value impacts of your favorite energy solutions -- as long as they don't affect you; i.e., not in YOUR back yard (NIYBY).

Glenn Schleede
18220 Turnberry Drive
Round Hill, VA 20141-2574
540-338-9958

Judith Hall will be the guest on the Eric Massa radio program Sunday, Oct. 21, 2007 - 10:00AM to NOON

Tune in to the WHHO - 1320 AM from 10:00 AM to NOON, Sunday, October 21, 2007.

CWW Treasurer Judith Hall and Refrm Cohocton Candidate for Town of Cohocton Supervisor will be Eric Massa's guest.

Telephone: 607-654-0322 for the call in number to the radion program.

http://hornellradio.com/index.php?option=com_contact&Itemid=3

Global Warming by Tom McClintock

Speech: At the Western Conservative Political Action Conference, October 12, 2007

Global%20Warming.pdf

Mary Kay Barton Report From Perry, NY

At the recent "Wind Symposium" put on by Horizon Wind at the Perry High School (thought schools were only supposed to host non-profits?!? One of the major landowners who stands to gain is on the school board. Hmmm!?!), Horizon was quoted as saying to the crowd in the article in the 10/11/07 Perry Herald entitled, Horizon Panelists Talk Wind Benefits, "Optimally, turbines operate 90% or more." This goes beyond false advertising. These are the type of outright lies they continually tell all the local residents.

Etherington, J. (2007) The Failing Wind

The Government recognizes two major energy challenges: the need to “tackle climate change by cutting greenhouse gas emissions, and the need to ensure we have secure energy supplies” (1). Wind power fails on both these counts and neither can it end the oft-made “threat of nuclear power..." (2)

1) Wind farms produce little electricity for a huge ‘footprint’, and it is unreliable

A large wind turbine generates 2.0 megawatts (MW) or more and, with an average wind limitation figure of near 25% (load factor), will produce a running average of 0.5 MW. Compare this with a big power station of 1500 MW which gives a running average of 1000 MW, or more. It would need at least 2000 turbines to displace this and at 0.2 km2 per turbine would require 400 km2 of land to provide about 2% of UK average generation! Into a bad bargain, the conventional station cannot be closed, as is needed to cover low wind-speed periods as discussed below – the problem of intermittency.

2) Wind power has minimal impact on CO2 emissions

The Government's own figure for saving of CO2 emission by renewable power generation, mainly wind, is just 9.2 million tonnes per year by 2010. That amount is less than the emission from a single middle sized coal-fired power station, and more tellingly, it is less than four ten-thousandths (0.0004) of global total CO2 emission and stands no chance of altering atmospheric CO2 concentration, still less deflecting climate change (3a & b).

3) Wind power is intermittent and unpredictable

A recent report from UCTE, the European transmission coordinator put the matter succinctly: - “The variable contributions from wind power must be balanced almost completely with other back-up generation capacity located elsewhere" (4). Because the UK has a small capacity grid-connection to Europe, the back-up generation will need to be fossil fuel power stations in this country – some indeed dedicated to supporting wind.

4) Wind power cannot replace nuclear generation

This is dismissed by the Sustainable Development Commission which wrote: - "... it would be unrealistic to assume that wind energy would displace any nuclear capacity..." (5). Nuclear generation is ideally suited to providing base-load generation, running continuously at peak output except for servicing. Intermittent wind power cannot do this.

5) Wind power is expensive

Wind power is two to three times as expensive as conventionally generated electricity (6) a problem which is addressed by the covert subsidy of the Renewables Obligation, and associated extras. "Without the renewable obligation certificates nobody would be building wind farms." (7). All electricity consumers pay substantially for this in their bills, providing a subsidy to the wind industry which will total more than £1 billion/year by 2010 (8). In 2005, the Commons’ Committee of Public Accounts criticized this arrangement: - "The Renewables Obligation is currently at least four times more expensive than the other means of reducing carbon dioxide currently used in the United Kingdom......Requiring users to source supplies from uneconomic providers has the same affect as taxing users to subsidize the providers, but is not as transparent or amenable to parliamentary control."

6) Wind power is economically damaging

The target renewable figure for 2010 will require more than 6500 turbines (2.0 MW) in some of the finest coastal and upland landscapes (necessary for high wind availability). The impact will be enormous. Many parts of Britain depend on tourism, for example in rural Wales it is probably an order of magnitude more valuable than agriculture and there is evidence that wind development will deter tourists. A Scottish survey suggested that more than a quarter might be deterred from returning by ‘turbinisation’ whilst, in 2003, the Wales Tourist Board concluded from a survey of businesses in mid-Wales that "Just over half of the respondents thought wind farms have already and will continue to have an adverse effect on visitors coming to the area" (9a&b). The financial implication is dire. The maximum predictable earning by wind electricity, e.g. in Wales, is much smaller, by more than 30 times, than that of the tourism which it will harm.

Property values may also be at risk. A study of its members' opinions by the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors in 2004 concluded that "60% of the sample suggested that wind farms decrease the value of residential properties where the development is within view..." (10) In mid-Wales, individual properties have been shown at valuation to lose perhaps 25% of their worth (11).

7) Wind power is environmentally damaging

In addition their impact on the landscape, there is unequivocal evidence that wind farms in some places kill large numbers of birds and bats. Soaring raptors and other large slow-flying birds are particularly at risk. The RSPB is at last beginning to oppose some planning applications on such grounds, e.g. on the Isle of Lewis where there is risk to eagles (Birds August 2007). Altamont Pass in California has taken a gigantic toll of raptors - including more than 75 golden eagles per year, and wind farms are known to be killing hundreds of bats per year in the US (12 a & b).

Many planned wind farms are situated on areas of deep blanket peat which are made up of stored carbon compounds which have accumulated over many thousands of years but are prone to rapid oxidation if they are drained, as is almost inevitable if access roads and deep wind turbine foundations are constructed. Though the energy and carbon payback time of a wind turbine is only a year or so (13), in deep peat areas this may be much more than doubled by the oxidative loss of stored carbon (14) – a paradoxical situation in which CO2 is emitted to save its emission!

Conclusion

Government policies with regard to wind power development are fatally flawed. This damaging industry can provide only a tiny electricity supply of low grade 'wobbliness', at huge expense and needing subsidy paid by all consumers. Furthermore, the economic, environmental and, ultimately, political damage are unacceptable.

References

1. Energy White Paper: Our Energy Future (2007).
2. Yes2Wind website.
3. a. DEFRA (2004) Consultation on the review of the UK Climate Change Programme (the report actually gives a figure of 2.5 Mt carbon/year saved by renewable electricity generation [mainly wind]. This is equivalent to 9.2 Mt CO2). b. OECD Factbook 2005. Economic Environmental and Social Statistics (c. 24,000 Mt CO2 total global emission p.a. of human origin – by ratio the UK renewable electricity target saving is 0.00038 – about four ten-thousandths).
4. UCTE (2007) European Wind Integration Study: Towards a Successful Integration of Wind Power into European Electricity Grids.
5. Sustainable Development Commission (2005) Windpower in the UK.
6. PB Power (2006) Powering the nation (an update of RAE’s 2004 report, The Costs of Generating Electricity.
7. Paul Golby, CE of E.ON UK quoted in Daily Telegraph 26/03/2005.
8. Energy White Paper:Meeting the Energy Challenge (2003) S.4.7
9. a. VisitScotland (2003) Investigation into the Potential Impact of Wind Farms on Tourism in Scotland. b. Wales Tourist Board (October 2003) Investigation into the Potential Impact of Wind Farms on Tourism in Wales. Summary report;
10. Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors (2004) Impact of wind farms on the value of residential property and agricultural land.
11. Remax Estate Agency (2005). Report on a sample of properties inspected near a proposed wind farm at Esgairwen Fawr .
12. a. Center for Biological Diversity. Altamont Pass is the most lethal wind farm in North America for raptors. B. Scientific American February (2004) When Blade Meets Bat (the author is a writer for Windpower Monthly).
13. House of Lords (2004) Science and Technology Committee Fourth Report.Appendix: energy payback times.
14. Hall, M. J. (2006). Peat, carbon dioxide payback and wind farms. REF.

(Dr Etherington was formerly Reader in Ecology, University of Wales)

Law would allow city to tax windmills by Harold McNeil

LACKAWANNA

Law would allow city to tax windmills
By Harold McNeil NEWS STAFF REPORTER
Updated: 10/16/07 6:59 AM

The Lackawanna City Council on Monday unanimously adopted a law that would allow the city to collect property taxes on a portion of the Steel Winds turbine project.
By state law, renewable energy projects, like the partially completed Steel Winds farm along Lake Erie on the old Bethlehem Steel site, are tax-exempt. However, municipalities that host such projects are allowed to opt out if they adopt a local law rescinding that tax exemption, which the Lackawanna Council did Monday at its regular meeting.

The developers, Clipper Windpower, broke ground in 2005 on the $40 million wind-energy project, erecting eight turbines along the lakeshore after agreeing to pay the city $100,000 annually over the next 15 years.

In all, as many as 26 windmills are planned for the site, but the local law removing the project's property tax exemption status would pertain only to the property on which the last 13 windmills will be built, or what developers call Phase II of the project.

"We were fortunate the last time, because we entered into an alternative type agreement, not a taxation agreement," City Attorney Arc J. Petricca explained.
The alternative agreement, which was negotiated by Mayor Norman Polanski, covers property on which the first 13 turbines are installed under Phase I of the project. It includes the eight that already exist on the site, as well as five additional windmills yet to be built.

After the meeting, 1st Ward Councilwoman Andrea Haxton and Council President Ronald R. Spadone disagreed over whether the mayor had authority to negotiate an alternative monetary agreement on the city's behalf.

"Before anything can proceed forward, it all has to be on the approval of the City Council," Haxton said. "That wasn't done in 2005."

But Spadone insisted there were sound reasons for having Polanski negotiate the first phase of the Steel Winds project and the city taking a different route on the second phase.

"As this unfolds, it becomes more of a competitive situation," Spadone said.
"The laws are changing, so it becomes more difficult to negotiate a good business deal. That's why [negotiations are] being approached differently," he added.

Patty Booras-Miller response to Maple Ridge Wind Farm Tour

Personal impressions from the Maple Ridge wind farm bus tour
Each time I've visited the Maple Ridge Wind Farm I've become more depressed about wind energy development. I could never seem to reconcile the professed benefits of these projects with their obvious adverse impacts. But today I learned the most valuable reason to oppose this industry. The Maple Ridge project site is 12 miles long by 3 miles wide. Up and down the roads we went today and I viewed this industrial power facility once again. In viewing the entire expanse of impacted area I couldn't help but notice that there was no sense of a living community - no routine life. No people walking their dogs, no hikers, no bicyclers, no children laughing and playing (school was out), no clothes hanging out to dry, no school buses, no dogs barking, and very few birds, no one on their four wheelers on their own lands enjoying the open air. There were no roadside stands selling pumpkins. The serenity of rural community life that we all know and love here in northern Jefferson County was strangely absent. In its stead, we saw massive machines everywhere we looked, on both sides of the road. This was Bill Moore's world and PPM literally owned it all.

Rate this item: Select... 1 star (worst) 2 stars 3 stars 4 stars 5 stars (best) October 16, 2007 by PBM, Vice President ECCO (Environmentally Concerned Citizens Organization) PPM Energy sponsored a bus trip today, October 16, that was open to all interested members of the public. The trip was coordinated through Clayton Township.

The Bus Ride to Maple Ridge
We left the Clayton Arena at 9:30 am this morning. In all, there were about thirty-one (31) residents from the townships of Lyme, Orleans, Clayton and Hammond who took advantage of this tour. I chose to ride the bus while eight (8) others drove their own vehicles.

PPM offered us a very comfortable coach bus at their expense. Bud Baril, of Clayton's Planning Board, was the only official representative from Clayton Township. This was to be expected as officials from the Townships of Clayton and Orleans, and the Horse Creek Wind Farm committee had already been given a personal tour of Maple Ridge -- a tour that included visits to homes and interviews with the locals. Bud Baril told us on the bus that he had been served many wonderful pies during his visits. He also informed us that today's tour was part of Clayton's ongoing educational experience for residents to get a close up view of the turbines. It was our opportunity to speak directly with PPM representatives. We were encouraged to ask questions.

Bud also asked Twila Cushman, assistant to the Clayton-Orleans Horse Creek Wind Farm committee, to distribute cards for residents to list questions we might want Clayton's Planning Board to raise. What a joke! We learned early on with the draft generic environmental impact statement (DGEIS) that public comment pertaining to this project was not welcome and largely ignored.

Officials from the Township of Orleans chose to drive their own vehicles. Unfortunately, they missed Bud Baril's speeches on the bus. However, they were nicely represented by their Town Supervisor and members of the ZBA Board.

Hammond residents enlighten us that their proposed project will also be PPM Energy owned with at least fifty turbines, but still too early to be certain. We expect transmission issues to pose a problem in Hammond.

Even though there were only a small number of participants on the tour, we were a well-balanced group of individuals from the townships including a) planning board members from Clayton, Lyme, and Orleans; b) Town Supervisor from Orleans, c) participating and non-participating landowners from both Clayton and Orleans and, of course, d) Hammond Township representatives who are new to the world of industrial turbine proposals.

First Impressions
When we arrived at the site, THERE WAS NO WIND!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Turbines were visible from every direction and they were NOT moving. The few that were, seemed to be moving in slow motion. Every turbine faced north, contrary to PPM project manager Bill Moore's assertion that the wind profile for the area showed winds from the southeast.

This was my fifth visit to Maple Ridge to exactly the same locations we visited today. I have videos of these visits. The amount of noise and flicker observed during these previous trips was unbelievable. Today's visit was surreal: NO WIND -- NO NOISE, a first for me! I was stumped, shocked really. I've visited with residents at the site. I've stood in their front yards and listened as they explained how they try to handle the noise and the flicker problem. Even those on the tour who've visited before were troubled. We wondered how we could we ask questions about the ill-effects of turbine noise when there was no noise or spinning from the turbines. One had to laugh. It was clear to me and others on the trip that this visit was not representative of life under the Maple Ridge wind plant.

Meeting Farmer Burke
PPM invited residents from Maple Ridge (most now employed by PPM) and of course they were all happy with the facility. In retrospect, I suppose we shouldn't have expected anything else. Mr. Burke, the farmer who changed his career from agricultural farming to PPM employee, gave us the pitch about turbine profits. I hoped others on the trip didn't believe for a minute that they'd realize the same financial reimbursement or job opportunity as Burke. Admittedly, he was a good spokesperson for PPM and he will tell you he no longer has to push cow manure. His, I suppose, is a wonderful life.

He pointed out his home. "I live right there, the farm house next to the gazebo and staging site. There's no noise from these machines." I loved his response about shadow flicker - "it will only bother you if you let it". Most importantly, beside his once quaint home, there were huge turbine blades lying on the ground, unpaved roads, and massive amounts of cable all over the place -- and he loves it! He clearly represented the financial side of this industry. If you are the right resident in the complex, and given the right amount of money, you too can be bought out. It's just business.

As expected, PPM's sales speech was all about the financial benefits of an industrial wind farm, including increased tourism. I questioned why the majority of visitors came here and what percentage of those visitors were like me, folks who were facing a "wind proposal in their community". PPM employees were ready for my questions and the answers were saccharine sweet. Still, Mr. Burke, like others with turbines on their land, admitted it's all about the money.

PPM's Mr. Bill Moore
My goal today was specifically to meet and speak with Bill Moore, PPM's employee responsible for bringing the Maple Ridge project to the area. I had my chance. I wanted Mr. Moore to know that in the past six months since we first met him, back when ECCO was formed, that the residents of the townships of Clayton and Orleans along with other residents in neighboring townships were becoming much more educated and informed regarding installation of these machines in and around our homes. He and I discussed ECCOs presentation held in LaFargeville and I told him ECCO was very disappointed that PPM refused to be a participant -- we had an excellent turnout. He was taken back - "you asked us?"

Back when we were organizing the event, I spoke with PPM's Dan Murdie. Mr. Murdie thought it was an excellent idea and encouraged me to speak with Clayton Councilman Justin Taylor as well as Bud Baril, which I did. Mr. Taylor said they would not participate; that they would do their own education. I explained to Mr. Moore that residents in these two townships have received no educational presentations by the town. And we now know that there is no intent to hold educational meetings. Instead, we're subjected to turbine committee discussions - discussions that permit NO public input and NO education materials -- just committee discussions.

I told Mr. Moore that we would like to hear from PPM, both landowners and residents, especially on construction issues. I explained that other townships that do not presently have proposed wind farms but will in the future are just as anxious for this information as we are. I told Mr. Moore that it's critical that ECCO share facts that are supported by documentation and reliable sources about industrial wind farms to all residents in Jefferson County and everyone needs to be informed. There is no comparison between the plateau of Maple Ridge's environment to our wetland and bedrock environment that we have in northern Jefferson County along the St. Lawrence River. Mr. Moore stated he wanted the opportunity to speak and that we should privately ask to have his company speak to residents at a community meeting or presentation. He also encouraged us to inform the town officials so they were aware that we made the request. It was a very long day...

Lasting Impressions
Each time I've visited the Maple Ridge Wind Farm I've become more depressed about wind energy development. I could never seem to reconcile the professed benefits of these projects with their obvious adverse impacts. But today I learned the most valuable reason to oppose this industry.

The Maple Ridge project site is 12 miles long by 3 miles wide. Up and down the roads we went today and I viewed this industrial power facility once again. In viewing the entire expanse of impacted area I couldn't help but notice that there was no sense of a living community - no routine life. No people walking their dogs, no hikers, no bicyclers, no children laughing and playing (school was out), no clothes hanging out to dry, no school buses, no dogs barking, and very few birds, no one on their four wheelers on their own lands enjoying the open air. There were no roadside stands selling pumpkins. The serenity of rural community life that we all know and love here in northern Jefferson County was strangely absent.

In its stead, we saw massive machines everywhere we looked, on both sides of the road. This was Bill Moore's world and PPM literally owned it all. There are no leaseholders here that will continue life for the next generation of citizens. There is no beauty here.

A woman on the tour asked me "Don't you think that children who grow up around these machines will stay here because they are use to it?"

I thought about it for a moment and I had to say no I don't. I told her this is an industrial complex; there is no fun here for children. Look around, all of this is owned by someone else - a foreign energy corporation. The residents may have a piece of paper, a deed, but it's only a piece of paper from what I could see. The land is no longer theirs but for that paper. I truly believe that every American's greatest achievement is to own his or her own piece of land. It's what gives us the ability to speak out. There is no option here to speak out, and those living in the area that have tried, have long given up.

She and I looked around together. We saw huge trucks on the road, constant work on the machines, equipment strewn everywhere - poles, wires, cables. There was no place for a ball field or for kids to play. Mr. Moore will tell you he doesn't even live nearby -- he lives in Massachusetts.

The woman seemed surprised by my answer - "I guess I never looked at it that way," she said. I felt sorry for her as she, too, has a very hard decision to make. As we drove out of the complex of turbines I could only imagine how the southern parts of the townships of Clayton and Orleans will look should the Horse Creek Wind Farm be constructed. That facility is proposed to have 62 towers standing 407-feet from base to blade tip. Our turbine setbacks are exactly the same distances as those at Maple Ridge and more than 1000 of my fellow residents will live under the blades. While I understand that Americans feel a need to do something regarding the fight against fossil fuels, installing giant industrial wind turbines -- hundreds at a time across square miles of New York's rural landscape -- is just plain wrong.

Ms. Booras-Miller is vice president of Environmentally Concerned Citizens Organization of Jefferson County (ECCO). ECCO advocates for policy and laws that will ensure a clean and healthful environment in and around Jefferson County.

Advocates for Springfield, Update on Jordanville, NY

ADVOCATES FOR SPRINGFIELD
P. O. Box 25
Springfield Center, New York 13468

Update #40

October 17, 2007

Public Service Commission Reduces Size of Turbine Project PSC Approves Wind Project with Conditions

At its meeting August 20, 2007, the NYS Public Service Commission approved the Jordanville wind project but set three significant conditions based upon a very thorough review of the application.

First, the PSC required that 19 of the proposed 68 turbines be removed.
These are the turbines with the greatest visual impact on Otsego Lake and the Glimmerglass Historic District. Second, the PSC required the applicant to consult with the Mohawk Valley Heritage Corridor Commission regarding further mitigations to offset negative historic and cultural impacts. And third, the sponsor was required to come up with a plan to mitigate local historic impacts including a fund to carry out the recommendations. Included in this last item is a requirement that a conservation easement fund be established to protect lands from further development.

The PSC order was very well written with the staff doing an especially thorough job. Although many of our criticisms of the plan were dismissed or not addressed, the three key conditions were similar to suggestions that we had submitted to PSC. ("We" refers to Otsego 2000, Advocates for Stark, and Advocates for Springfield.)

Neither the applicant nor the town boards of Stark and Warren are particularly happy with the order. A local advocacy group, Friends of Renewable Energy (FORE), both towns, and the developer have all formally requested a re-hearing. The bases of that request include:

• The order to remove 19 turbines was "directly contrary" to the "carefully conducted" SEQRA hearing and findings of the lead agency (Town of Warren).

• The order was "appalling" in that it favored distant populations over local farmers.

• The PSC allowed testimony from project opponents despite the failure of these opponents to register their concerns in a timely manner.

• The order requires a program of conservation easements which is a violation of landowner rights.

It is our position that the Lead Agency (Town of Warren) failed to take the required "hard look" during its SEQRA review. During that review, the lead agency did not adequately consider the project’s impacts on neighboring communities (as required by SEQRA). The PSC order is simply a reflection of these shortcomings of the local approval process.

Article 78 Petition Continues

In separate action, our joint Article 78 complaint against the local approvals granted in July to Jordanville Wind was heard in oral argument in early October before Judge Greenwood of the State Supreme Court, Onandaga County. The petition asserts several failures: the lead agency failed to take the required "hard look" at the project impacts; the lead agency failed to request public input when it "scoped" the project; both towns conducted numerous illegal executive sessions for review and evaluation of the project; and one participating town board member failed to recuse himself despite having a financial interest in the project.

The judge listened to both sides while demonstrating a good understanding of the issues. He will issue his ruling in 2-6 weeks.

Wendy Todd resident of Mars Hill Maine, Sept 26, 2007 Letter

Wendy%20Todd%209-26-07.pdf

Chairman Giffin and Task Force Members: 09/26/2007

Thank you for allowing me this opportunity to speak.

My name is Wendy Todd. I am a resident of Mars Hill and a lifelong citizen of the state of Maine. I live approximately 2600 feet from multiple turbines located at the Mars Hill Wind Facility. To date, I have attended two of the task force meetings and have tried to keep up with most of the reading material. Today I am here representing a number of families who are my neighbors and friends. They are experiencing the same things that my family and I are experiencing, with respect to the wind turbines.

My husband Perrin and my three children moved back to Aroostook County after living is Southern Maine for approx 14 years. We moved back because we wanted to raise our children in a known, safe, nurturing environment. You see, Mars Hill is my hometown. It is a small town, with a reasonably good sense of community. It has a great school system – but most of all it is where my family lives. My parents own a farm on the Canadian border that lies on the Northeast side of Mars Hill Mountain. My grandfather purchased the farm in 1914 and farmed potatoes for 46 years before my parents continued the tradition of farming in 1960. In my opinion it is some of the prettiest acreage in Aroostook and I was very happy to come home to it, in fact…it was my dream.

The turbines however, have changed most of that as the land that was once known for its remote nature, wildlife and solitude is now home to an industrial power plant. For anyone to say that a wind turbine facility has a low impact on the local environment… is irresponsible. Yet the industry and the media surrounding it seem insistent on making light of the problems that exist. The problems are real and they are hurting families emotionally, physically and economically.

1.) Many are worried about how the turbines have affected their property value and what they planned to leave to their children. Some families have given up their dreams of building homes because the turbines have changed the very nature of the land and how they planned to use it. The construction phase drove much of the wildlife from the area and it has been very slow to recover. We wonder if the wildlife population and characteristics will ever be the same.

2.) Noise and shadow flicker create anger and frustration as they invade our homes and land. The noise keeps many residents from a proper night sleep, resulting in more frustration, anger and stress. It has lead to time missed at work for some and sleep aids for others. Most of these families have resorted to sleeping with the house shut up tight, curtains drawn with fans running or other white noise sources at their bedsides. Sleep deprivation and stress has led to a number of other issues that are of concern. One resident has started on anti-depressants, three residents are experiencing increased migraines and another family has separated. These families attribute the blame of these issues on the surrounding turbines. Recent studies correlate the noise and vibrations associated with living too close to turbines to a number of health issues that range from ringing in the ears to vibro-acoustic disease. Other determined health issues include an increased risk of seizures for those who are prone to seizures, an increased frequency and intensity of migraines, stress headaches and inner ear problems.

Unfortunately for us, the very mountain that has provided the wind facility with a class 3-wind resource often acts like a fence protecting us from the upper level winds that push the turbines. There are many times when winds are high on the ridgeline but are near calm at our homes. The noise and vibrations from the turbines penetrate our homes. At times there is no escape from it. It doesn’t matter which room you go to, there is no escape from the noise. The noise ranges from the sound of a high range jet to a fleet of planes that are approaching but never arrive. When it’s really bad it takes on a repetitive, pulsating, thumping noise that can go on for hours or even days. It has been described as a freight train that never arrives, sneakers in a dryer, a washing machine agitating, a giant heartbeat, a submariner describes it as a large ship passing overhead.

If the wind turbines are spinning we hear them. Yes, there are days when the turbines are rotating and very little noise is emitted. There are days when we can’t hear them at all inside our homes. Those are generally days when the turbines are spinning less than 15 rotations per minute (rpm’s). A visiting engineer from GE said that the turbines do not start generating power until the turbines reach 17 to 18 RPM. The turbines need consistent wind speeds of 4 ½ meters per second - so… on most days when they are not making noise they are not making power either.

People think that we are crazy. They drive out around the mountain stop and listen and wonder why anyone would complain about noise emissions. But, believe me when we are having noise problems you can most assuredly hear the justification of our complaint. We have had people come into our yard get out of their vehicles and have watched their mouth drop. We have had company stop in mid conversation inside our home to ask, “What is that noise?” or say “I can’t believe you can hear those like that inside your house.”

Visiting a wind facility, or sitting at the end of someone’s driveway once or twice for 2, 3 or even 10 minutes to listen does not make that person an expert on turbine noise. To be an informed witness could take days or weeks for one to know and experience what we are living. Not until an individual has been in a home and has heard turbine noise emissions of 45 decibels or higher does that individual have any right to judge how turbine noise truly affects the lives of people. Even noise experts should be talking to residents who are living next to turbines to ensure they are collecting data that is relevant to the burdensome noise emissions heard by those who live closest to them. Let us tell the sound experts when we are having a noise issue.

Nick Archer, our Regional Director with the DEP thought we were all crazy, too. But he finally made it to our homes and heard what we were talking about. I don’t believe he has ever heard a 50+decibel day but he has heard close to that on more than one occasion and has made statements like these. “This is a problem.” “ We need to figure out what is going on with these things before we go putting anymore of them up.” “I thought you were crazy at first but you are not crazy.” “The quality of life behind the mountain is changed.” Did he say these things just to appease us? I don’t believe so.

Because of the complaints from residents around the mountain the DEP started an investigation into the noise levels being emitted from the Mars Hill wind facility. The wind company agreed to do a sound study and is working with the DEP to determine compliance. Maine state law allows projects to emit 45 dBa of noise at protected locations like ours, (quiet areas) up to 500 feet from sleeping quarters. For some reason, the Maine DEP granted the UPC/Evergreen project a 5-decibel variance, thus allowing the turbines a noise ceiling of 50 dBa at protected locations. Resource Systems Engineering (RSE) conducted the first round of sound tests in May of 2007. The May study revealed two locations on the North end of the mountain with readings over 50 decibels.

Presently, the DEP is reviewing that May study along with a series of questions posed by the Mountain Landowners Association of Mars Hill. The study has been in their possession since the end of June and again the residents whose lives are being affected by the noise are being asked to be patient. I want everyone here to understand, it has become extremely disheartening to be asked to live with noise that UPC/Evergreen stated would never exist. It is frustrating to know that the turbines are being allowed to continue operations with no restrictions even though the study shows that they are over the limit that the permit allows.

Nick Archer our Regional Director of the DEP stated at a meeting with our group that “anything over the permit level would be out of compliance, whether its out by 1dBa or more, out of compliance is out of compliance”. The study shows that the turbines are over the DEP’s limit yet it seems that things are no longer that clear cut. The World Health Organization says, “Where noise is continuous, the equivalent sound pressure level should not exceed 30 dBA indoors, if negative effects on sleep are to be avoided.” www.who.int/docstore/peh/noise/Commnoise4.htm

I understand the Governor’s desire for wanting wind to work in Maine, but surely it is not to the detriment of people who live and pay taxes here. Many were for the Mars Hill wind turbine project but we were misled as a community and as a state we are still being misled.

The wind company that came to Mars Hill misrepresented facts and spoke in half-truths. The town manager and town council of Mars Hill believed them and based their decisions on this information and the project moved forward. Most people truly believed that the benefits to the town, county, state, country and world were well worth any negative impact from the visual aspect of the turbines. Visual impact was the biggest negative impact that was ever talked about.

Maine Site Law & Regulations – Section 484 states that “the developer is responsible for fitting a development harmoniously into the existing natural environment and to demonstrate that the development will not unreasonably affect existing land uses.”

Now, of course, it is to late for the truth. The turbines are there and most likely will remain. But this task force can help other communities protect themselves. Information is power and the people of Maine and the nation have a right to all the facts.

What am I talking about…?

Statement:The wind company said it would create hundreds of local jobs that would be filled by local businesses whenever possible.
Reality:Most of the construction jobs went to contractors outside of Aroostook County.

Statement:
When asked how much electricity would be created and where it would go the answer was “At full capacity the plant will generate 50 megawatts, enough to power approximately 50,000 average Maine homes and at 40% capacity it would supply electricity for 24,000 – 25,000 homes. All the electricity from the Mars Hill “wind farm” will be used in the region, most likely by Aroostook County homes and businesses.
Reality:Now we know that any given wind facility has an efficiency rating somewhere between 25% and 35%. The electricity generated from the Mars Hill facility goes to Canada.

Statement:They said that the facility would likely help to stabilize electric prices. “Electricity cost from wind power is very competitive and sometimes lower than most other sources of fuel-based power. The more wind power that can be generated in Aroostook County and Maine the more you can count on the possibility of more stable or even lower electric bills in the future.”
Reality:
The truth is that our electric bills went up approximately 40% this year and are due to go up again.


􀂃 They didn’t mention the blasting that shook our homes, rattled dishes, cracked walls and allegedly even dried up wetlands and damaged leach fields.
􀂃 They didn’t mention shadow flicker and strobing effects.
􀂃 They didn’t mention ice shear, or risk of tower collapse or blades breaking off.
􀂃 They didn’t mention anything about increased risk of lightning strikes or fire.
􀂃 They didn’t mention interference of TV, radio or radar waves.
􀂃 They didn’t mention anything about possible devaluation of property to those who live a mile or less from the site.

Statement:The wind company told the town of Mars Hill that there would be no noise at all at the bottom of the mountain. They said that a person would have to be 500 feet or less from the project to hear anything at all. If the wind is blowing, the background noise of wind in the trees is all you will likely hear! It was said verbally, it was in handouts at the town meetings and it was on the Evergreen/UPC website.
Reality:You have heard my testimony on what the reality is for those that live the closest to the turbines.

Statement:They said that public access to the mountain would be unchanged.
Reality:The landowners still have the right to allow people on their property but many have been made to feel that the dangers of allowing access to an industrial power facility would be unwise.

They stated that there would be major environmental benefits because of the Mars Hill Wind Facility.
􀂃 120,000 tons of Carbon Dioxide = to removing exhaust emissions from 17,000 automobiles
􀂃 420 tons of Sulfur dioxide
􀂃 288 tons of Nitric Oxide

Where are the carbon emitting plants that the Mars Hill wind facility shut down or reduced the output of? The fact is the fossil fuel burning plants are still on line. Even if they are on “standby mode” they are still emitting. They need to be ready to take on the load whenever the wind isn’t blowing. Show the public where the carbon emitting plants are that have been shut down or have reduced output due to wind turbines…or stop saying that they reduce carbon emissions.

What about the tax benefit to the town of Mars Hill? The town signed a TIF agreement with the wind company for $500,000 a year for the life of the project (20 years). Because of that $500,000 a year, the town of Mars Hill will be losing $249,000 in school funding. That brings the total benefit to the town down to $251,000.

During the last task force meeting I believe Kurt Adams with the PUC said that Maine makes all the power it needs. It doesn’t need to make more power to service Maine homes and business. Why should Maine taxpayers pay to upgrade the grids if they do not benefit from the power? I believe Mr. Adams also stated that Maine calls for the most electricity in the summer and yet the wind plant in Mars Hill is off for days at a time in the summer because there is no wind. Someone, please correct me if I am wrong.

I think by now most of us have heard about and done a little research on the government subsidies and green credits that are helping the wind industry to thrive. During a meeting on April 30, 2007 before the Agriculture, Conservation and Forestry Committee, Senator Sherman from Houlton asked the question “If it wasn’t for the subsides and green credits would these turbines be going up?” The answer was “No. It is not feasible or viable.” The subsidies and other programs are what make wind turbines lucrative. The green credits are being resold (at a premium) to the fossil burning plants, which in turn allow them to fall into federal compliance. That “premium” is paid to the turbine developers who benefit again.

So then, what is this all about?? Is it about a need for more electricity? Is it about a need for renewable energy in the hopes of saving the planet from carbon emissions? Is it a need for new industry? Is it to lessen our dependency on foreign oil? How do you make the answer important enough that it is OK to drive people from their homes, land and dreams?

Is it really practical to continue the rush to site and construct wind turbine facilities that we know are at best 35% efficient?? Where is the logic? If any of us were to establish a business that was only 35% efficient, invent a machine that was only 35% efficient, or heat a home with a unit that was only 35% efficient…would there be any investors?? Has Maine looked into what will balance that inefficiency? I have seen documents that show that the west coast states are seeing good results from the combination of hydro and wind because hydro can come on line when the wind isn’t blowing.

A recommendation might be to use the taxpayer’s money by instituting a state conservation program that mandates housing upgrades such as new windows, new insulation, etc. for every house in the state of Maine. All of which, if implemented would further reduce our electricity/oil consumption and decrease our dependency on foreign oil and decrease fossil fuel emissions. I realize that this wouldn’t be easy nor would it fix the whole problem, but it is directly related to the taxpayer in a positive way and would have real and meaningful numbers that include a decrease in cost for heating and air conditioning for each home.

We are not against people making money. We are not against wind turbines. Proper set backs take care of most of the issues with turbines. But, if you allow siting to continue as it is now and thereby negatively change people’s lives, then you also need to ask yourselves if you are all willing to live with those impacts.

Are you willing to live beside a neighbor who makes so much noise that it keeps you from sleep, drives you inside from enjoying your land or makes reading and other thought process difficult? Are you willing to alter the way you live in your home and use your property so that a neighbor can prosper? How about your children and grandchildren? Are you willing to have them live this close to turbines with the health risks that I spoke of earlier?

All of you are in positions of responsibility and are charged with having to make important decisions regarding wind turbine siting. The decisions that you make here on this task force are not only related to the people of Maine, but to people across the nation, and even the world. You have heard from the industry, the PUC, the residents who are both for and against these projects and many more. You now need to find a way to achieve a balanced direction and make recommendations that will protect everyone.

I have included some web site addresses within this document and hope to encourage you to read the informative contents of each. I would also like you to pretend for a couple of hours that you are about to have an industrial wind turbine facility constructed in your backyard. I want you to research these documents as if they were going to affect you and your loved ones. The Mars Hill wind facility has affected my family and my neighbors in ways that only a few can understand. I feel that it is my duty to inform you the best way I know how about our stories, so that what happened in Mars Hill doesn’t have to happen to anyone else.

I thank you for your time.

Noise Radiation from Wind Turbines Installed Near Homes: Effects on Health
http://www.windturbinenoisehealthhumanrights.com/Effects of the Wind Profile at Night on Wind Turbine Sound
By G. P. van den Berg
http://www.nowap.co.uk/docs/w

If you found “Effects of the Wind Profile at Night on Wind Turbine Sound” helpful this later study may be of interest as well. It is a little more technical but helps explain why turbine noise is so burdensome to residents who live too close. The sound of high winds: the effect of atmospheric stability on wind turbine sound and microphone noise May 12, 2006 by G.P. van den Berg
http://dissertations.ub.rug.nl/faculties/science/2006/g.p.van.den.berg/

If you would like other studies, articles, pictures, videos, and perspectives pertaining to most wind turbine subject matter you could visit www.windaction.org - we have found it very helpful in saving time when researching an item. We start there and branch out. Their video and picture section may help some on the task force who have not visited a wind turbine site understand the visual impact.

An Environmental Choice

For the sake of this discussion, let’s just assume that we are in agreement on this much: a) that there IS such a thing as global warming, b) that it IS mostly man-made, and c) that we need to do something meaningful about it, ASAP. OK, so what should we do?

Well, how about industrial wind power?

On the surface wind power seems to be a potentially good thing: a free, clean, renewable source of energy, etc. And wind power developers promote it by saying that it will reduce emissions from fossil fuel utility plants. Sounds good!

Well, the developers’ promise turns out to be inaccurate — but let’s just pretend that it is true. The question still remains: is wind power a good environmental (and financial) choice?

The fact is that we actually have several options available to us to deal with our energy consumption and global warming problems. To continue to keep it simple here, we will look at just two. Then you decide which is better for you, your community, and our planet.

CHOICE #1: Industrial Wind Facilities

The US government would like to have wind power supply about 5% of our current usage of electricity. This would require at least 100,000 1.5 MW wind turbines.

Here are just some of the consequences and costs of 100,000± industrial wind turbines — The environmental effects of: Æ building hundreds of miles of roads, etc.; Æ removing hundreds of thousands of trees, etc.; Æ excavating 350 million± cubic yards of earth (plus bedrock dynamiting), etc. (e.g. for tower bases); Æ the production & delivery of 250 billion± pounds of concrete (e.g. for tower bases); Æ the manufacture & delivery of 30 billion± lbs. of steel (for the towers); Æ the refinement & delivery of 200 million± gallons of oil (each turbine uses oil); Æ the gas used and exhausts emitted for all other transportation; Æ having to build hundreds of miles of new transmission lines, etc.

The cost to taxpayers between government subsidies and higher electric rates: $20± Billion The cost to citizens for the loss of natural views, wildlife, peace & quiet:PRICELESS!

CHOICE #2: Ban Most Incandescent Light Bulbs

Doing this would save MORE than the energy generated by the 100,000+ wind towers above!

[Surprisingly, most light bulb manufacturers favor this (e.g. NY Times: March 14, 2007 “A US Alliance to Update the Light Bulb”).]

Apply the subsidy money earmarked for wind power to genuinely benefit the environment (e.g. alternative energy research) and we could make some real progress here. [A variation of Choice #2 is that the government could put a $5 tax on every incandescent bulb sold.]

Which do you think is the simplest, least expensive, and best environmental choice? john droz, jr. [email: aaprjohn@northnet.org]
PS — I am a physicist who has a 20+ year track record of interest in our environment in a variety of areas [like water quality]. I live on an Adirondack lake. No wind farms are proposed for my community, so this is not a NIMBY issue to me. To research this for yourself, please consider the findings of independent, environmentally concerned scientists that are reported at such sites as: , , , .

Wind Power: An Executive Summary

Upstate New York State may end up with some TWENTY THOUSAND wind towers...

If this concerns you, keep reading. (FYI, I am a physicist who has a 20+ year track record of interest in our environment in a variety of areas [like water quality]. I live on a lake in the Adirondack Mountains, as communing with nature is one of my highest priorities.)

At first glance, wind power seems to be a potentially good thing: a clean, renewable source of energy, etc. But scientists don’t make decisions based on first glance impressions.

To come to a meaningful understanding of complex matters like wind power, open-minded people need to do a thorough examination of all major components of the issue, plus do a review of accumulated evidence to date (e.g. from wind power experiences in Europe).

Such an analysis will lead to two fundamental conclusions:
1) there is no consequential environmental benefit to industrial wind power, and
2) it is being promoted because it is an extremely lucrative business opportunity.
Below is a brief overview as to why these are so.

There is no real environmental benefit as: a) wind is an unpredictable commodity. b) Energy generated from wind power can not be stored. c) Due to the complexity of nuclear and coalfired power plants, they can not simply be “turned down” when wind power is available. Hydro power (a clean and low cost energy source) is cut back instead. Since nuclear and coal-fired power plants must operate at full capacity 24/7 — no emissions are reduced!

This is a lucrative business opportunity as: a) take the cost to build and erect a typical wind tower, b) subtract the government provided financial incentives (your money). c) Then the government requires the local utility to buy ALL of the electricity generated (needed or not) and to pay a premium rate (your money). d) After taking all of these numbers into account, each turbine turns out to be a government guaranteed 25%± per year income generator.

How did this all happen? Basically: a) global warming has become a hot political item, b) so the US Congress decided that they had to do something to show that they were “addressing the problem”, and they set up a committee to determine what to do. c) Accurately sensing an opportunity to tap into some big money, the wind power special interest lobby heavily influenced the process (some say they wrote the entire legislation — not that unusual).

The bottom line is that what was legislated was not about helping the environment, and was not about benefiting taxpayers. It was principally designed to enrich large business concerns who wanted to feed at the government trough. Again, not that uncommon.

When a wind power developer targets a community, their objective is to put up as many 25% income generators as possible. To achieve this they employ three effective strategies: 1) they not only take advantage of the global warming concern that is prevalent, they make it into a patriotic matter, 2) they know that most people do not understand the complexities of the wind power issue, so they make unsupportable claims, and 3) they rely on the support they get from local people that they essentially buy off — with taxpayer money!

Since this problem was legislatively created, it must be legislatively fixed. That will only happen when citizens are informed, and when citizens subsequently speak up.

To research this to your own satisfaction, please consider the findings of independent, environmentally concerned scientists that are spelled out at such sites as www.windwatch.org/ and www.windaction.org/. Thank you for your interest in this issue.

john droz, jr. [email: aaprjohn@northnet.org]

NINA PIERPONT and Calvin Luther Martin - Gov. Spitzer Oct 15, 2007 Letter

NINA PIERPONT M.D. PH.D.
19 Clay Street,
Malone New York 12953
pierpont@westelcom.com

October 15, 2007

Governor Eliot Spitzer
Executive Chambers State Capitol
Albany, New York 12224

Dear Governor Spitzer,

Recently, you were sent a letter imploring you to take a careful look at the wind energy companies currently building wind farms throughout New York State. (We have reproduced the letter, below.)

We write merely to say that the issues identified in this letter are not, by any means, confined to the community of Cohocton and its environs. The North Country counties of Franklin and Clinton have been subjected to the same unethical and, we believe, in illegal activity.

We add our strong support to the letter reprinted below. Sincerely,

Nina Pierpont, M.D.
(Johns Hopkins School of Medicine '91), Ph.D. (Princeton '85)

Calvin Luther Martin, Ph.D. (University of California 74) Associate Professor of History (retired) Rutgers University

www.ninapierpont.com
Phone: (518) 483-6481 Fax: (518) 483-6481

Cohocton Assessor October 12, 2007 Steve Trude Letter

October 12, 2007

Cohocton Assessors
PO BOX 327
15 South Main Street
Cohocton, NY 14826

Dear Ms. Damboise, Mr. Densmore and Mr. Domm:

SCIDA has not approved a PILOT for the UPC/CPP/CPPII Projects. The developer has taken the risk of starting construction without building permits. As with any building construction that does not have "special exemption", the value of the entire project is subject to industrial tax assessment.

These UPC industrial machines, if built, reside on land of several Cohocton property owners, who supposedly have lease agreements with UPC. A host agreement between the Town of Cohocton and the UPC developer does not cover the independent tax jurisdiction of the Cohocton - Wayland School District and the County of Steuben.

Without a valid PILOT, it is legally required that such a project must be assessed at full value and applied to each of the individual property accounts where any portion of the project is erected.

Every tax payer in the Town of Cohocton has a financial interest in the consequences of the proper tax assessment that your board will assign to each of the leaseholders property. Your board has a fiduciary responsibility to compute a market cost value for assessment of this industrial project, publish your determination and adjust the tax rolls accordingly.

A PILOT exemption cannot be approved after the fact. It has been publically acknowledged by UPC that the entire project has a cost in excess of $150,000,000. There is no agricultural exemption for an electric utility, which UPC was granted by the Public Service Commission. NYSEG and Frontier are taxed in this manner, so must UPC.

Although it is recognized that the aforementioned circumstances are perhaps unusual as a normal course of business for your office, never-the less it falls well within the realm of your responsibility and mandate. How you knowingly and intentionally go forward at this point with required and necessary decisions is now the question and will be monitored closely in and for the public interest.

In the interest of full disclosure, the Cohocton Assessment Board should release their full tax value assessment for the UPC Project before the 11/06/07 election.
Regards,

Steve Trude - CWW President

Governor Spitzer October 13, 2007 James Hall (and Brad Jones) Letter

October 13, 2007

Governor Eliot Spitzer
State Capitol
Albany, NY 12224

Dear Governor Spitzer,

Cohocton Wind Watch (CWW) seeks comprehensive New York State oversight of the Industrial Wind Industry. Our members do not oppose sensible and financially viable alternative energy projects. However, the pattern of questionable business practices demonstrated by numerous corporate wind developers has produced a record of consistent and substantial violations of local laws, NYS statutes, regulatory requirements and public health and safety mandates.

We understand your support for alternative energy projects and your delegation of review to Lieutenant Governor Paterson. But what is missing in the current rush to fast-track ill-conceived industrial wind development is accountability with well-established legal requirements. Your previous record, as NYS Attorney General of taking on fraudulent corporate businesses is well known. Yet, that same vigilance has been lacking in your current administration.

On 9/26/07 I hand delivered the enclosed letter to AG Andrew Cuomo. Then on 9/27/07 the second SCIDA letter was presented to each SCIDA Board member. Both documents indicate that significant and widespread Anti-trust violations have taken place. From our extensive research, we submit that RICO and other criminal conduct have occurred as well.

Consider the following:

Legal Issues

1. Sherman Antitrust Act: a Complaint alleging market allocation, price fixing, and bid rigging was filed with the Department Of Justice on April 25, 2007 by 94 citizens across the northeast. The market allocation is perfect and complete; no landowner or taxing authority has had the opportunity for competitive bids as the wind developers divided up the countryside long before any of the projects were made public. Hundreds of millions of dollars of revenue are being denied citizens of New York as a result of this illegal activity. In addition to the DOJ filing we now have two law firms researching class action civil lawsuits alleging antitrust and RICO felony violations.

We have been in discussion with the NYS Attorney General's office since our DOJ filing but they have taken no direct action to date. This is not a major concern for us as we believe that the civil actions will put enough of the developers in jail that the State can continue to watch from the sidelines, at least until the voters find out what has been taking place under the Spitzer/Cuomo watch.

2. False Claims Act: wind developers have consistently lied about the productivity of their projects in applications to state and federal authorities such as NYPA, NYSERDA, and FERC. As a result of this fraud they will receive millions of dollars in subsidies, grants, and tax credits. A series of lawsuits under the federal False Claims Act will put an end to these illegal practices.

3. Bribery: we have documentation and witnesses to the bribery of public officials by the wind energy developers. The monetary value of these bribes ranges from a few thousand dollars to several hundred thousand dollars. In addition there are number of real estate flips that appear to drive hundreds of thousands in additional profit to certain third parties.

4. State Environmental Quality Review Act: wind developers have carefully selected and then paid small Lead Agencies to accept Environmental Impact Statements that are entirely without merit. Throughout the review process hundreds of pages of expert testimony is simply ignored. There is no consideration of legitimate third party scientific analysis of the environmental impacts of these projects, and there is no attempt whatsoever at reasonable mitigation of hazards. In short, the citizens of New York have no environmental protection and are being forced to take matters into their own hands.

Economic Development Concerns

1. Tourism: the most significant economic development engine for the Central Finger Lakes is tourism. There is no other aspect of economic opportunity that is so consistent with our rural heritage and values. Unfortunately, studies from around the world have demonstrated that industrial wind projects are not compatible with tourism in the countryside. The developers have maintained that their projects will not damage the golden goose of our economy but they are once again completely wrong. The net annual impact from industrial wind developments will reduce our tourism revenue by tens of millions of dollars, and cost us thousands of good jobs.

2. Property Values: the developers paid for a "study" several years ago that concluded that wind developments had no negative impact on the value of sited or adjacent, or nearby properties. We now have valid and independent reports from developments in Mars Hill ME, Meyersdale PA, and Garrett County MD, which demonstrate that the impact of wind developments on property values is devastating. Not only have nearby properties lost most of their value, many impacted properties have lost all of their value. These properties are now considered "un-saleable". Retirees who have relocated to these scenic locales now find that their retirement nest eggs (their new retirement homes) are worth nothing although they continue to have six figure mortgage obligations. Fair and caring elected officials must take an interest in the plights of these fine people.

3. Decommissioning: at some point down the road every wind project will have outlived its usefulness and will need to be dismantled. Unfortunately the developers have refused to set side the monies for safe and complete decommissioning and remediation. It will be left to small rural towns to find the hundreds of millions dollars to cover this expense.

4. New Business Development: attracting new businesses to upstate New York, particularly to rural upstate, is a major challenge. The few opportunities for business growth rely on our natural assets: scenic beauty, rural character, and heritage values. The construction of thousands of industrial wind turbines will destroy our natural assets and create an economic development wasteland. Public policy must take into account the negative economic impact of wind turbines in rural upstate.

5. Upstate vs. Downstate Generation capacity: upstate New York has excess electricity generation capacity and is a net exporter of power. Downstate is a net importer of power and is the one region where power demand is growing substantially. The solution to electrical demand in New York is not to build wind projects in upstate but to build clean conventional capacity in the NYC region. We also recommend that NYSERDA should be instructed to get out of the wind energy business entirely and begin to devote their capabilities on the only sensible and safe long-term energy, commercial fusion.

CWW requests your direct involvement in a statewide investigation into an organized scheme to defraud the State of New York and burden the hard pressed tax payers to bear the financial consequences. The public health and safety risks of dangerous siting are of little concern to the developers. These same developers have provided State agencies with deceitful representations in their rush to erect projects far too large for the areas under development.

Governor Spitzer, groups of concerned citizens from across the state need your help. Please support an active investigation and coordinate with AG Cuomo in a comprehensive task force to look into the illegal practices of the wind industry, and to formulate sound energy policy based on economic considerations and scientific expertise.

Cordially,


James Hall for CWW

Great Global Warming Swindle - Some obvious errors in Al Gore's "An inconvenient Truth" film.

The decision by the government to distribute Al Gore's film An Inconvenient Truth has been the subject of a legal action by New Party member Stewart Dimmock. Although a full ruling has yet to be given, the Court found that the film was misleading in 11 respects and that the Guidance Notes drafted by the Education Secretary's advisors served only to exacerbate the political propaganda in the film. In order for the film to be shown, the Government must first amend their Guidance Notes to Teachers to make clear that

1.) The Film is a political work and promotes only one side of the argument.
2.) If teachers present the Film without making this plain they may be in breach of section 406 of the Education Act 1996 and guilty of political indoctrination.
3.) Eleven inaccuracies have to be specifically drawn to the attention of school children. The inaccuracies are:

The film claims that melting snows on Mount Kilimanjaro evidence global warming. The Government's expert was forced to concede that this is not correct.

The film suggests that evidence from ice cores proves that rising CO2 causes temperature increases over 650,000 years. The Court found that the film was misleading: over that period the rises in CO2 lagged behind the temperature rises by 800-2000 years.

The film uses emotive images of Hurricane Katrina and suggests that this has been caused by global warming. The Government's expert had to accept that it was "not possible" to attribute one-off events to global warming.

The film shows the drying up of Lake Chad and claims that this was caused by global warming. The Government's expert had to accept that this was not the case.

The film claims that a study showed that polar bears had drowned due to disappearing arctic ice. It turned out that Mr Gore had misread the study: in fact four polar bears drowned and this was because of a particularly violent storm.

The film threatens that global warming could stop the Gulf Stream throwing Europe into an ice age: the Claimant's evidence was that this was a scientific impossibility.

The film blames global warming for species losses including coral reef bleaching. The Government could not find any evidence to support this claim.

The film suggests that the Greenland ice covering could melt causing sea levels to rise dangerously. The evidence is that Greenland will not melt for millennia.
The film suggests that the Antarctic ice covering is melting, the evidence was that it is in fact increasing.

The film suggests that sea levels could rise by 7m causing the displacement of millions of people. In fact the evidence is that sea levels are expected to rise by about 40cm over the next hundred years and that there is no such threat of massive migration.

The film claims that rising sea levels has caused the evacuation of certain Pacific islands to New Zealand. The Government are unable to substantiate this and the Court observed that this appears to be a false claim.

North Country Advocates wind turbines and property value - real life experience

`My spouse and I have a home to sell in the village of Malone. One prospective buyer, pre-approved for a loan, had a list of items that were "deal breakers" for the bank. Among those terms and conditions of the property site were: 1.) It not be located on a landfill, 2.) It not be constructed near an oil spill or any identified DEC site and ... 3.) It not be near "windmills" as the term was said. So much for no loss of property value. Here we have a local bank who will not approve a loan if the property is near "windmills".

Have you seen the ones that are constructed just beyond Chateaugay?
Horrifying!!

Beth Mosher

North_Country_Advocates@yahoogroups.com

Herkimer residents take wind farm battle to court by Tim Knauss

Fifteen residents of a scenic area of Herkimer County have gone to court in Syracuse to try to block construction of a large wind farm they said would ruin their community's character.

The plaintiffs farmers, landowners and a Russian Orthodox monastery claim officials in the rural towns of Warren and Stark failed to take a "hard look" at the environmental impacts before they approved the Jordanville Wind project.

The opponents, all neighbors of the project, are suing in state Supreme Court in Syracuse to nullify permits that were issued by the towns earlier this year.

(Click to read entire article)

Inergy unit sets open season on NY state gas storage

NEW YORK, Oct 10 (Reuters) - Inergy LP (NRGY.O: Quote, Profile, Research) said Wednesday its wholly owned Inergy Midstream LLC unit was conducting a nonbinding open season to gauge interest in firm natural gas storage services in central New York state.

The company said it was considering the development of both a depleted gas reservoir and conversion of certain salt dome caverns to natural gas storage in Steuben County and surrounding areas.

The services would interconnect to several natural gas pipelines, including Tennessee Gas Pipeline and Columbia Gas Transmission, with potential connections to Dominion Gas Transmission, Empire Pipeline and Millennium Pipeline.

The open season will run through Nov. 2, with an anticipated initial in-service date for the facilities in autumn 2009.

Another response to Marlyn Bacon

Ma'am,

I'm not sure where you got your information concerning "us" windwatch people but you are so far off that it's pathetic. My husband and I own over 170 acres, as well as a lot of the other people in this group. It has nothing to do with acrage. Have you ever been to this town? Probably not. This town is one of the few places left that has the natural beauty of the fall foliage. People come from miles and miles every fall to enjoy this scenery. Once the windmills are put up this will dwindle to just about nothing. There are many people, outside of the windwatch that don't want to see them here either. They are afraid to speak up though as to the reprocussions that might happen. If it had been put to public vote I am sure that it would of never passed. People can speak their minds through voting. I think that the board and everyone else involved knew that they would never be here if the people, all of the people in this village and town could voice their opinions.

You seem to forget that this is farm country. If the electric goes out the majority of us have generators, so NO we don't call immediately when the lights go out.

You must not have done your homework on what an actual windmill produces. It's just about zilch. You, me or anyone else that has them do not benefit from them. I can send you a lot of actual fact literature so that you can get the facts straight before you decide to open your mouth about something that you don't seem to really know about.

Our biggest concern with this whole deal is the fact that no-one here will actually benefit from them. There is just a handful that actually get anything from it. If they want to be here, that's fine but let them pay like any other industry would have too. They want to make 1 payment in instead of paying industrial taxes. Why? So that they can pocket all of the money?! Eventually all of this will be put back onto the taxpayers. And everyone knows that New York State is the highest in tax rates of any other state. This community consists of more welfare than working people. We are taxed to death now to pay for those that are to lazy to work. Plus, when this company came here they said that they were going to hire all local people to do the work. Now that they have the go ahead on some of the projects they have hired no-one from here. They were all brought from out of state, from their own companies.

So ma'am, if you are interested in getting your facts straight e-mail me back. I will be glad to send you all the literature to prove to you that they are only around to make a certain few rich. And it surely isn't going to be me, you or our communities.

A Critical Evaluation of the Energy Plans and Actions Announced in April 2007

1%20Critical%20Evaluation%20of%20New%20York%20Energy%20Plans%20061207.pdf

Wind Energy Will NOT Reduce US Oil Dependence – July 2007 Update -- 2006 Data

209%20Wind%20Energy%20Will%20Not%20Reduce%20US%20Oil%20Dependence12061.pdf

Glenn R. Schleede Response to Marlyn Bacon Pro-Wind Advocate

Dear Ms. Bacon:

I saw your email (quoted below) to one of the growing number of grassroots organizations that is working to protect its area and its people from a proposed "wind farm" and concluded that you need some help in understanding complex issues raised by "wind energy."

Please understand that you are not the only one who is not up to date on the facts about wind energy and, therefore, have opinions that are not well founded. There are a many federal, state and local officials who are in a similarly situation.

There are several points that you should consider:

1. You indicate that you are "all for Windmills to eliminate our dependence on oil or other fuels." In fact, very little electricity in the US is produced from oil. As explained in the attached paper, adding wind turbines will not reduce US oil dependence.

2. You suggest that NOT building "windmills" will lead to a situation where electricity is not available. This simply isn't true. Wind turbines are not a reliable source of electricity. Their output is intermittent, volatile and largely unpredictable. Wind turbines produce electricity only when the wind is blowing in the right speed range (between about 8 and 56 mph). Many times they produce no electricity at all. Most of their electricity is produced at night and in cold months -- not on hot summer late afternoons when electricity demand reaches peak levels.

3. Like many state and local government officials, you apparently do not recognize that RELIABLE generating units (those that can be counted on to produce electricity whenever needed) will have to be built to satisfy growing electricity demand and to replace old generating units. Neither wind turbines nor solar photovoltaics can fulfill this need because their output is intermittent, volatile and unreliable.

4. Wind energy will never make any significant contribution in supplying US electricity needs. In fact, the US Energy Information Administration (EIA) expects wind energy to supply only 89/100 of 1% of US electricity by 2030 (Reference: EIA's Annual Energy Outlook 2007).

5. Your email makes an important point that has been totally overlooked by NY Governor Spitzer, NYSERDA, the NY PSC, County economic development agencies, and local government officials. You indicate that you live in PA but that you own land in NY where a wind project that you favor would be located. Therefore, you apparently are an "absentee landlord" who would receive rental payments if the project is approved. New York officials, when making claims about local economic benefits, have erred badly by assuming that landowners receiving rental payments live in the immediate area of a wind farm and that all those rental payment would be spent or invested in the immediate area. They have made a fundamental error and your situation confirms that error. They have grossly overestimated the potential favorable local or state economic and job impacts that might be expected from a "wind farm." (Similar mistakes are being made in PA.

6. You criticize opponents of wind projects because they don't want wind turbines "in your backyard." This is an interesting criticism since your would live many miles from the wind farm that you favor. Please consider what it would be like to have (a) a huge (40+ story) wind turbine (with a blades that cover an area slightly larger than the length and wing span of a 747 aircraft) in YOUR back yard, and/or (b) several of such turbines desecrating a mountain ridge or other scenic areas that you cherished.

7. Finally, you command that wind turbine opponents "Get with progress because you know this is the way we must go." You are mistaken. In fact, more and more people across the US and in other countries where "wind farms" have been proposed or built have learned that:

a. The wind industry and other wind energy advocates have greatly overstated the environmental, energy and economic benefits of wind energy and greatly understated its adverse environmental, ecological, economic, scenic and property value impacts. They have misled the public, media and government officials.

b. The primary reason that "wind farms" are being built is for a few large corporations to take advantage of very generous tax benefits (i.e., tax shelters) and not for environmental reasons. Tax burden escaped by these corporations (some have avoided paying any federal corporate income tax) is shifted to ordinary taxpayer who do not have such tax shelters.

c. Electricity form wind energy is very expensive, particularly when all its true costs (including tax breaks and subsidies, backup power costs, transmission costs) are taken into account. This pushes up the cost of electricity for ordinary electric customers -- all for the benefit of a few large corporations, many of them foreign owned.

d. Yes, you and other landowners would receive additional income, however you would do so at the expense of neighbors -- who would be left to live with the noise and other adverse environmental impacts.

Since you apparently are interested in a proposed "wind farm" in NY, I'm attaching a second paper that you may find useful. It evaluates the "energy plan" announced on April 19, 2007, by NY officials.

I do hope you will reconsider your position on wind energy. Your email is shown below.

Respectfully,

Glenn R. Schleede
18220 Turnberry Drive
Round Hill, VA 20141-2574
540-338-9958

James Hall response to Marlyn Bacon and all Wind Industry 'True Believers'

Marlyn Bacon,

You will find nine responses to your email. Hope you are a serious person and will start doing meaningful investigation. The Wind Industry is a financial fraud and a criminal scandal. Ex Enron executives scamming the public with taxpayer money.

Read the responses on the CWW site: http://cohoctonwindwatch.org

Then take the time to answer each. You will not be able to refute their arguments. The facts are clear, now it is up to you to reflect upon your position.

James Hall for CWW

Wayne M. response to Marlyn Bacon

Dear Ms. Bacon:

I'm writing in response to your email to WindWatch: a grass roots organization trying to protect YOUR interests, even if you don't recognize it. I hope you'll take a moment and read the following brief, partial explanation why it it really in your interest to oppose the proposed massive deployment of and expensive, ineffective technology. And why it's really not progress to do so.

The Edsel was also called ‘progress.’ So was using x-rays to see if new shoes fit our feet. Just because something is new doesn’t mean it’s better. Determining the truth in such matters takes time and hard work. As your parents probably told you, “The devil is in the detail.”

Well, I earnestly hope you will look at the details and not just rely on the over-blown and patently false claims of industrial wind developers. And don’t rely on the high hopes of environmental groups advocating the massive industrialization of rural landscapes. Read the fine print in the position statements of the more thoughtful organizations. You’ll find that they each support the concept of wind energy, but have concerns about how it should be developed. These concerns are routinely swept under the rug by the developers in their rush to make profits based on taxpayer funded incentives, rather than from the production of usable electricity.

As for what I want to have as my neighbor, my first answer is another neighbor who, like me, will do everything possible to conserve energy and reduce our carbon footprint. Many rural folks are in the lead on this. And we resent the profligate ways of urban folks who see the answer as once again raping the landscape. Strip mines, nuke plants, sanitary landfills, clear-cut forests: seems like the solution to every urban problem is to put it on the backs of rural America. We don’t have the votes or the money, so we don’t seem to have the clout. All we have is the truth, if we can get the urban-controlled media to tell it.

Before you continue advocating for the developers in the mistaken impression that you are doing something to reduce global warming, look at the growing evidence that wind ‘farms’ have little positive effect on this rising crisis. In fact, the data is more and more suggesting that the net effect of the current technology is to INCREASE, not lessen, greenhouse gas production.

The core of the problem is that we can’t rely on the meager amounts of electricity being produced by current designs. The wide, unpredictable swings in when and how much is produced mean that places that rely heavily on current wind technology are finding it unreliable. Check out the problems they have in Spain. Intermittent electric service is acceptable in third world societies as an alternative to NO electricity, and rural folks have never forgotten how to get along when the power goes off, but urban areas quickly descend into chaos. Is that what you are advocating?

If you were living on that one acre in Hardscrabble and a wind turbine next door was causing you health problems and you couldn’t afford to move because no one else wanted to live there either, what would YOU do? You could keep a stiff upper lip and think, “I’m taking one for the team,” and you’d be wrong. You’d only be taking the fall not for the environment, but so investment bankers could reap windfall profits.

As J.P. Morgan (whose company is now one of the biggest wind developers – Noble Environmental) once said, “There are two reasons why a man does anything: a good one, and the real one.” He also said, “I owe the public nothing.” And his company and the rest of the wind development industry continue to operate under the same cynical and corrupt immorality.

Best wishes in your search for truth and justice,

Wayne M.
wlmmail-wind@yahoo.com

Prattsburgh officials still misleading the public

To the Editor,

The Wind Factory situation in Prattsburgh gets more and more bizarre as UPC tries to talk landowners into signing easements that it desperately needs for a contiguous transmission route to its substation. At the same time, an issue of trust is arising because of misleading statements from local officials.

It seems that UPC has hired a firm - Prospect Land Services - to contact landowners so that they will sign easements for the transmission cables. This was surprising news since town officials had stated that UPC would be able to use easements that the town has for maintaining roads. However, what residents were not told is that landowners own their property to the middle of the road, and while the town's approval is necessary, the landowners must approve the easement as well.

It's a bit confusing for the landowners.

Last spring UPC bragged that they would begin work in June - then July - then August. Supporters of the project went so far as to "leak" an e-mail to this effect to those who have raised objections to the project. However, aside from some-out-of state trucks and out-of-county surveyors driving around Prattsburgh, real work has not commenced and will not commence until and unless they have a contiguous route to the substation. UPC is not an electric utility, cannot force people to sign easements and neither can the Town of Prattsburgh. Prattsburgh officials should be ashamed for misleading its citizens.

Al Muscianese Prattsburgh

Linda LaWare response to Marlyn Bacon

Hi Marilyn,

I am against windmills for several reasons. The foremost reason is that I have read many articles on the net that talk of people living near windmills who have had to abandon their property because of the noise and because they become sick. There are ongoing studies that even suggest that children become autistic if they live in near proximity of these behemoths. I also feel they are NOT nice looking and are a blight on the beautiful landscape, I believe they will become obsolete very quickly and your town will be responsible for removing the 40 foot cube from the ground plus dismantling a 400 foot monster, I can't imagine the cost or where they might put these things. They kill birds and bats no matter what you have heard and they drive wildlife to other areas.

Add to the above that they are primarily owned by foreign investors and are actually being traded all the time or bought by other countries...not America. They produce very little energy and they are attached to the existing grid so there will be even more coal us and more coal burning plants.

Yes, nuclear power, in my opinion, is cleaner and safer!! If you happen to be drivin by a windmill this winter, make sure you watch out for huge blocks of ice that the blades can thrown for huge distances. If you happen to be hit by one of these blocks you would most likely be seriously injured or worse.

I wish you all the best and I hope you will take time to read the other side comments on the Internet. Also make sure you read the information that is from other countries where the windmills have been used for a longer period of time. Maybe you could even find out if any of the government officials live near these things...I will bet you will find out that they do not, they know the real story and they are the people making money from these monsters.

I wish you the best,

Linda LaWare
Attica, NY
llaware@aol.com

Brad Jones response to Marlyn Bacon

Dear Marlyn,

We saw your note to Cohocton Wind Watch and thought that, as an informed citizen, you might want to learn a little bit more about the realities of industrial wind energy.

Attached is a recently published letter that summarizes the conclusions from our review of a great deal of independent research. Also attached are comments we submitted on the Cohocton project which go into much more detail.

Bt the way, we are not NIMBY's; we are simply studying the proposals with open minds and our conclusions are driven by scientific facts, not fantasy.

Please feel free to contact us with any comments or questions.

Linda and Brad

Brad Jones
PerformancePlus Business Consultants
3996 Donley Road
Naples NY 14512
585 233 8539 (Cell)
585 374 2627 (Office)

windfarm-%20Cohocton%20Wind%20SDEIS%20comments-final.doc

windfarms%20letterThe%20Inconvenient%20Truths%20of%20Wind%20Power.doc

Bonnie Palmiter response to Marlyn Bacon

Maryln,

First I would like to respond with most that you say are against windmills are against Town Governments allowing foreign companies coming in and taking over our prestine countrysides without following their own laws and permitting laws.

Most live in the country and certainly own more than an acre of land, along with living in the country we have other means of acquiring our own electricity if the power goes out. We have made ourselves self sufficient living in the country, and not all depend on others to take care of them when power goes out.

It is the towns people that aren't affected by the windturbines, not windmills as you state, that are the ones that call for electricy the minute they lose it.

Research if done by you and not through wind developers would know that windturbines do not eliminate our dependence on oil or other fuels. When your electric bills go up, which it will and your taxes go up, which they will I'm sure you will be the first complain. Nothing in this life is free you pay and you pay dearly. Not just through money but also through prestine country sides, as you know from Three Mile Island Atomic Power Plant you live by.

When we sell our country out to foreign investors and developers they then start owning our electricity, when they decide to pull the plug so to speak on our electric grid then will you think windturbines are a great thing? I fear not, educate yourself through the errors that other countries and our own states have come across instead of listening to foreign developers.

Progress is work in motion and through past mistakes, and those mistakes get altered through developers, I certainly don't know that this is the way to go, like you state it as a fact. It's peoples thinking like yours that have a problem with educating yourself on the full facts out there that what to dictate what we as landowners who chose to live out in the hills and country are suppose to live with. Groups like ours, not handfuls of people like you think, are educating the people to look at all there is out there to show that windturbines are not the way to go. You, pro-wind are the ones dictating what we landowners out in the country are suppose to live with.

Bonnie Palmiter

Dick's response to Marlyn Bacon

It sounds like you have not researched wind turbines. They are wind turbines and not windmills. They are not a new technology as they have been installed in Europe for over 30 yrs and the US for over 20 yrs.

They do not make electricity when the wind is not blowing. They also do not run at capacity when the wind blows under 35 mph. They also do not run when the winds are 55 mph. So you will get electricity from them when the wind window is from about 10 mph to about 55 mph.

Denmark has been using wind turbines for 30 yrs and has never shut down any power plant that runs on fossil fuel. No country that has installed wind turbines has ever decommissioned a power plant that uses oil, coal, natural gas or nuclear energy. Denmark buys electricity from bordering countries even with all their wind turbines

When a representative of a wind company makes statements that a wind turbine will power X amount of homes he is not telling the whole truth. That statement is for when the turbine has the right amount of wind to run at capacity. Here in New York state they only produce electricity 30% of the time. Of that 30% only 1/3 is used as the other 2/3 is produced when it is not needed. This data was produced by General Electric at the request of the state of New York.

I am not against wind turbines if they are not destroying the landscape of the state of New York. That they pay the same tax rates as all the other business and industry pays in the state. That all the people are hired from the state of New York for the construction and operation of the wind farms. That they have a 3,000 foot setback from any other persons property line. That the people that represent the wind company are honest about the facts of wind turbines and wind farms.

What the people in the US need to know is that wind farms will not replace power plants that use fossil fuels to make electricity. To imply that they will is leading the people of the US down a road of lies and untruths.

Yes we have to do something about our energy consumption. The fastest way to do this is called conservation and every person has the ability to do that. Conserving energy is immediate and costs individuals no moneys.

People need to research things before they say yes to any major changes in their community and not just see dollars and say yes.

I wonder if your dislike for people that are not for wind farms is because you own land that has the potential for wind turbines and you are looking at the dollars.

I don't like to subsidize something that is not going to fix the problem be it electricity or any other problem.

True progress is when one finds a solution to a problem and wind farms are not a fix or a solution to our energy needs.

Dick dicksrag@frontiernet.net

Spencer Lyman response to Marlyn Bacon

Marlyn,

The people who have made up "an orgnization such as ours" are not just raising issues for vanity's sake. I can speak for our group in particular as being made up of a very varied group of backgrounds and education levels, from an artichect to a banker to a farmer and a bus driver, all of whom started raising issues that they felt impacted them personally which then brought them into contact with each other. These are people who had lived together in the same area for many years but would never have come to know each other but through this common effort. Some were local or "natives", others long term transplants who valued what they found here and so chose to protect the things they have come to love and yet other newcomers who also arrived because they recognized the specialness here.

No one is against wind -- just this type of industrial wind in an inappropriate location. And the fact that we already have several sources of renewable hydroelectric producing projects nearby that will be ramped down when the towers come on line because the grid can not accommodate the additional power. It is not like the new electricity will give us "more" power thereby lowering the cost. but only replacing it with a different source.

In Europe where there have been wind turbines for better than 20 years, there are studies that show no traditional popwer producing plants have been replaced by the start up of wind projects, and the European countires who initially were the front runners in this new technology are now denying permitting for new construction.

Groups like ours are not ranting radicals but we thought out and researched our positions before we began this fight. We took on a considerable amount of personal debts and hard work to back our position which would not have been a voluntary choice unless considered absolutely essential.

To comment on your mention of being inconvenienced by a power outage, this is a reality we live with very regularly. And have many more "inconvenience" when it happens. No water, even to flush the toilet; no heat in below freezing and below zero temperatures due to snow/ice storms that may be days before repaired, just to name a few.

Marlyn, please take the time to read this article titled "Less For More" on the website www.wind-watch.org found under "key documents". And just because we are not the majority of people in town with objections, it does not make us a small group. When a vote on the issue was called by the town leaders, the results of the vote was 97 against to 120 for; not exactly an overwhelming majority. Meanwhile the next town over did have a unanimous vote against so not every person is an ongoing "active" fighter but we represent many people behind the forefront.

Spencer Lyman spncr_lyman@yahoo.com

John Bose response to Marlyn Bacon

Ms. Bacon,

I'm one of those opposed to wind mills anywhere not just in my back yard. When I think of electric power I think of words like "reliable" and "dependable". Wind power is neither of these. I look at the hundreds of wind mills out west put up as a alternate source of energy because a bunch of people were sold a bill of goods, this plan has given us the term "BROWN OUT" because wind power is not reliable nor dependable.

You can't begin to equate the reliability and dependability as well of the cost effectiveness of atomic power to wind power.

We have two in our group who have private wind mills, they know just how useless wind power is. I would like to see just how far wind power would make it on there own, without all the Government $$$. My guess is there would be no wind mills at all. Real companies don't invest big bucks in things that have a bad batting record.

Respectfully,
John Bose

Phyllis Darling response to Marlyn Bacon

First of all, they are NOT windmills. They are WIND ENERGY CONVERSION SYSTEMS!!!!!!! a/k/a W.E.C.S.!!!! Second of all, are you by any chance a beneficiary of one or more of these "W.E.C.S" on your hardscrabble property???? (and yes, i am a farmer, who would not allow a corporation to ursurp my property rights with a phony, self-serving contract).

In our area, the only people who speak FOR wind TURBINES are those who will be getting MONEY to site them on their property. If they are SO GREAT, then why cannot the corporations give that very important information to the public---i.e. how much usuable electricity is put on the grid, by day, by week, by month, by these great machines??? Yet, you expect property owners to buy into very little information, given out by corporation representatives, so that the corporations can make a major profit, and mess up our landscape, so that you can pat youself on the back that you have saved the world!!!

I have been told by my own state senator that she cannot get that information. also, the state public service commission cannot get that information (it is considered CONFIDENTIAL by the corporations). If YOU can PROVE to me as a consumer, that the turbines will benefit my town and the U.S. economically, i will buy your argument. But the feeble balogny that they reduce the dependence on foreign oil, where are YOUR figures--barrel for barrel, turbine for turbine. AND please do not quote me the hogwash that each turbine will produce enough energy to light 300-or-500-or-600 homes---that dog doesn't track!!! That home will be "energized" intermittently, as that is the way of the TURBINES. Are you are willing to wait for your neighbor to finish toasting his bread, so that you can read your mail with a 60 watt bulb??!!!!! Come on, are you up for the challenge??? Give me FACTS!!!!!!!!

Phyllis Darling
electra@2ki.net

Barry Miller response to Marlyn Bacon

Hi Marlyn,

Having spent 20 years in the wind energy business, I could not agree with you more about the importance of wind generated electricity.

One of the experiences I had working in the wind business (I operated a wind farm in the Altamont Pass area of California) was the ruthlessness of many of the wind turbine manufacturers and developers. They did not have the values and ideals of conscientiousness I would have suspected would be prevalent in the business.

Those of us who are living in the incredible beautiful area here in western New York and Pennsylvania are being subjected to this ruthlessness. The developers are lying to us and using underhanded methods to site turbines which are way too large and way to close to our homes. In addition, with knowledge of wind resources, there is not enough wind here to justify the ripping up of our forest lands for minimal power generation.

I am for small wind and solar development in the area; in fact, home generated power is really where this country needs to revert back to.
There were over a million small wind turbine systems throughout the mid-west of the US in the 1930's and half of the homes in Pasadena, CA in 1900 had solar water heaters.

We need to be following the European example of off-shore wind turbine installations where the wind is more suitable and the health of the public is not compromised.

Thanks,

Barry Miller
Concerned Citizens of Cattaraugus County

On 10/7/07, MarlynBacon@aol.com wrote:

I have a real problem with organizations such as yours who is against windmills. I bet the minute you are without electricity you are on the phone complaining because you are inconvienced. I own property in the Hardscrabble Project of New York and I am all for Windmills to eliminate our dependence on oil or other fuels.I live in Pennsylvania and are 40 miles from Three Mile Island Atomic Power Plant. Would you want to live beside an Atomic Power Plant or a Windmill?

Your organization wants to enjoy the fruits of Electricity but not in your backyards.

There is always a hand full of people like you who probably own one acre of land and want to dictate what all the neighbors around you do with their land.

Get with progress because you know this is the way we must go.

marlynbacon@aol.com

UPC: Permits to be signed soon by MARY PERHAM

The recent lawsuits charge UPC with violating their conditional Public Safety Commission permit. The action also challenges the issuance of special use permits by the Cohocton Planning Board. Opponents also claim certain turbines intrude upon the property in neighboring towns and Ontario County.

An antitrust complaint filed early this year by other Cohocton residents charges the wind industry as a whole violates the Sherman Antitrust Act by preventing competition and restraining trade.

Recent complaints by local labor unions put a halt to the Steuben County Industrial Development Agency's plan Sept. 27 to approve property tax breaks for the UPC project.

The unions say UPC is hiring out-of-state construction workers instead of using local labor resources. Encouraging local employment is a part of SCIDA's mandate.

But labor representatives said UPC also has hired firms from out of the area, including a downstate firm, Delaney Heavy Highway Construction, of Gloversville, for road work.

“We have no problem with them hiring supervisors. We have no problem with local people, whether it's union or nonunion,” said Mike Altonberg, business agent for The Ironworkers in Rochester.

The Ironworkers are now picketing UPC offices in Cohocton.

“And by local, we mean Steuben and the surrounding counties. But I don't know how many in the area are familiar with crane work. And putting up 60-ton towers takes some doing, I can tell you,” Altonberg said.

(Click to read entire article)

Site work rolling in anticipation of permits to erect 50 wind turbines: Contractor putting in 26 access roads, scraping topsoil by Bob Clark

UPC Public Outreach Coordinator Rick Towner points toward the bolt alignment rings for attaching a 420-feet tall wind turbine on Dutch Hill to a concrete anchor 57 feet in diameter. Mortenson Construction, the main contractor on the project, has been moving earth on the project for the last two weeks, but building permits for pouring the concrete anchors have not been issued yet.

COHOCTON - The bulldozers are rolling again in Cohocton, following a short hiatus late last month.

Construction is under way at the Cohocton and Dutch Hill wind projects, according to UPC public outreach coordinator Rick Towner.

“Right now, we're only moving topsoil, building access roads, and laying power lines.” Towner said. “(The state Department of Agriculture and Markets) says we can only have five acres of topsoil exposed at one time. As soon as we move it out of the way, we go right through and mulch it.

“As I understand it, the permits are ready to be signed, and (Cohocton Code Enforcement Officer Joe Bob) is waiting to hear back from their engineering firm,” he added. “We could have permits in hand by this afternoon.”

For now, Mortenson Construction is scraping topsoil around the 50 turbine sites, 32 on Lent and Pine hills, 15 on Dutch Hill, and 3 on Brown Hill, eight miles to the south near the project's connection to the main power grid, but the underlying soil cannot be disturbed.

“All the sites need to be completely level,” said Towner, looking over the site of Turbine 1, which will sit on what now is a sloping field. He added the topsoil is only 1 foot thick in many places on top of the hills.

Each site will have a 200-foot diameter circle with the wind turbine set in the middle, according to Towner. Each of the 420-foot tall turbines, with a component cost around $2.5 million for each unit, will sit on a concrete pad 57-feet across and varying in thickness from 15-feet deep in the center to two feet at the edges.

“The edges will be far enough underground that farmers will still be able to plow,” Towner said, adding only a 16-foot circle of concrete will stick up a foot and a half out of the ground, and, “A five-by-five foot transformer will sit at the base of each tower.”

The transformer will change the voltage of the electricity from the 600 volts coming from the turbines to 34,500 volts for transmission to a substation.

The 26 access roads for the site are currently under construction as well, according to Towner, and several were already completed as of Wednesday afternoon.

As for when the turbines will be operational, there is no official answer.

“People keep asking me how long it takes to build (a turbine),” Towner said. “From my understanding, it takes about a week for the concrete to cure, and another week to build the tower in a best-case scenario. The generator and blades can not be raised in winds over 20 miles per hour, which is a problem since we're building in a place with as much wind as we could find.”

With the uncertainty, there is no way of knowing when all the turbines will be up and operational, but this year seems unlikely.

Despite several recent setbacks for UPC, construction is still moving as far as it can.

UPC broke ground on the two projects on Sept. 18. Within two days, the Steuben County Highway Department had placed weight limits on several roads that gravel and equipment were being transported to the site on, until the roads were inspected and deemed safe. The highway department later removed the restrictions.

“By the next Thursday, we were rolling again,” Towner said.

The Steuben County Industrial Development Agency did not approve the Payment in Lieu of Taxes agreement for UPC last week, which surprised many in the local wind power scene.

“It's hard for me to believe that they would not approve (the PILOT agreement),” Towner said. “On the flip side, I don't think (UPC) would continue work if they didn't think they would get it. Without the tax breaks in the agreement, it would be hard for any company to build here.”

In related news, three members of the Iron Worker's union were set up outside the UPC office Wednesday.

“It's not that I'm against wind power, it's just that they're bringing in workers from out of state to work on the project,” said iron worker's union marketing representative Paul Sirianni. “When you go up to the work site, look at the license plates on the vehicles up there.”

“We're going to be here all weekend,” he added, saying protesting workers will be on hand for the Cohocton Fall Foliage Festival.

Towner said applications are still being accepted by