WIND POWER IPO FILING: First Wind Holdings (WNDY)

We've just seen a filing for an initial public offering from First Wind Holdings Inc., which looks actually to be a holding company that owns class A and class B "Units" of First Wind Holdings, LLC. First Wind has applied to take the ticker WNDY on NASDAQ. As per the company name, the company is involved in WIND ENERGY.

For filing purposes it has listed the amount of $450 Million as the amount in shares that it intends to offer. Underwriters are listed as Credit Suisse, Goldman Sachs, and JPMorgan.

Below is a self description of the company:
We are a leading independent North American wind energy company focused exclusively on the development, ownership and operation of wind energy projects. As of June 30, 2008, our portfolio of wind energy projects included approximately 5,564 megawatts ("MW") of capacity, of which 92 MW were operating and 182 MW were under construction. We expect to start construction on a 203 MW project in 2008 and, as a result, to be simultaneously constructing three wind energy projects representing 385 MW of capacity. Our goal is to have approximately 1,100 MW of operating capacity by the end of 2010 and we target the construction and commissioning of approximately 400 MW annually thereafter to achieve approximately 2,300 MW of operating capacity by the end of 2013. We have entered into purchase contracts for turbines with an aggregate generating capacity in excess of 1,300 MW, which are scheduled to be delivered or commissioned between 2008 and 2013. We expect this supply will be sufficient to meet all of our anticipated turbine needs in 2008 and 2009 and approximately 80% of our anticipated turbine needs in 2010.

Jon C. Ogg
July 31, 2008

(Click to read the SEC filing)

Sites of 95 wind turbines are unveiled

CAPE VINCENT — BP Alternative Energy revealed the setting of 95 turbines for the Cape Vincent Wind Farm on Wednesday with a room full of displays, two large maps and a speaker who heartily endorsed wind power.

The evening at Cape Vincent Recreation Park on South James Street drew more than 100 people and lasted just over three hours, with the majority of that time devoted to conversations between residents and BP representatives.

The session seemed to change few minds; a map of the proposed turbines was met with skepticism by wind power critics and appreciation by those who have endorsed the Cape Vincent project.

The proposed turbines, overlayed on a U.S. Geological Survey map with outdated road names, were spread around the town along red power lines. Their locations were bounded on the southeast by the Lyme town line, in the northwest by wetlands and elsewhere by a proximity to Lake Ontario and other waterways.

"I live almost in the center of the project," said Beth A. White, president of Voters For Wind. Mrs. White, one of 68 landowners who have agreed to have wind turbines on their land, pointed to the four dots spread across her 500 acres of farmland along Rosiere Road.

"I'd like to have more, but I'm happy to have four," she said. "I love the way they look."

Stephen J. and Diane M. Rutigliano, Three Mile Bay, had a far different reaction after examining the map and counting how many of the 95 turbines they would be able to see from their house.

"What do I think of the layout? I think it's disgusting," Mrs. Rutigliano said. "I'm going to be looking right into them. Am I happy? No. I would like to spit nickels."

While the map is preliminary, BP project manager James H. Madden said, it represents a large move forward in the project process.

"We've had open houses before. It's a pretty big step to have an array plan," he said. "It allows us to move forward and complete the permitting process."

BP still has a significant amount of work to do before Cape Vincent residents can expect to see GE 1.5-megawatt turbines on their land.

The company plans to submit the project's final environmental impact statement by the end of the year and has said construction could begin in fall 2009.

Next week, a team of six to eight people will begin marking wetland boundaries, examining geological and ecological characteristics of sites where the turbines would be located, conducting biological assessments and performing archeological tests.

The geological study, in particular, will become part of a general stormwater State Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit application to the Department of Environmental Conservation.

Project manager Philip M. Ponebshek said the company already has completed preliminary noise modeling studies, to identify setbacks for turbines, and has compiled two years of data on the migratory patterns of birds and bats.

"We have a goal, even under the most quiet noise conditions in winter, to be at no more than six decibels above background levels," he said.

Although Mr. Ponebshek and other BP representatives repeatedly said that noise levels would be kept to a minimum and surrounding property values would not be affected by the turbines, residents such as Paul L. Docteur were not convinced.

"I think there's room for turbines in the world, but we have quite a unique area here and we need to respect the waterfront and the tourist trade," he said.

"I'm afraid property values are going to be influenced. Who knows? If they're too close and too noisy, it could have a big impact."

Seasonal resident Joyce F. Miles agreed that the proposed turbines appeared too close to the waterfront and to her house on Valley Road.

"I acknowledge we need to have some alternative energy," she said. "I'm just the classic 'not in my backyard.'"

In an effort to change the minds of people such as Ms. Miles, Dereth B. Glance, program director for Citizens Campaign for the Environment, gave a presentation on the benefits of wind power.

Ms. Glance, whose presentation was funded by her organization and not by BP, went on to knock down concerns about property values, noise levels, wind as a reliable energy source and the impact to birds and bats.

She said that in an era of environmental concerns, rising electricity prices and rising demand, wind offers a good source of renewable energy,

"We love our electricity in the United States. It's all got to be generated from somewhere," Ms. Glance said. "Wind is not the silver bullet, but it is part of the solution."

Robert A. Gauthier, Cape Vincent, said his own view of the turbines boils down to whether having them on his land would help him pay his property taxes. On Wednesday, Mr. Gauthier discovered that BP had designated three turbines for his 300-acre farm.

"This windmill deal is something we all fell into. Nobody asked for it," he said. "People who are so dead set against it would do the same thing it they owned enough land."

Big wind, big problems

Meanwhile, the opponents of big wind in western New York believe they are finally getting the recognition they deserve with this month's announcement by the AG's office in Albany.

"The phone has been ringing off the hook," said James Hall of Cohocton, who in an interview Monday said he had just returned from a trip visiting newspapers, like the New York Times, to explain why he and others oppose the project.

Mr. Hall, who said his house will be surrounded with more towers than anywhere else in western New York, credited a "district attorney in a rural county" for getting the AG's office involved.

Over the last few years wind farms have allegedly proliferated in the state, with more than 177 projects in the pipeline - a number Mr. Hall called mind-blowing.

"It's the largest infusion of cash in western, northern, and central New York in its entire history," he said, noting that the turbine count in his state is up to 7,000.

He believes the investigation will have statewide ramifications.

On the telephone Tuesday from his office in Newton, Massachusetts, First Wind spokesman John Lamontagne was reluctant to give the company's side of the story.

Seven landowners from Prattsburgh are expected to go to court and ask judge to throw out a local condemnation due to a conflict of interest by one of the members of the town board.

Ruthe Matilsky of Prattsburgh, an opponent of the wind farm, said in an interview last week that the board member in question had been asked to recuse himself from voting because of a real estate transaction he had with First Wind. He refused and broke a tie vote of 2 to 2 that allowed the condemnation order to go forward.

Ms. Matilsky also noted there are allegations that First Wind paid $22,000 for building permits it didn't need. She noted that no state agencies were on hand to supervise the project and watch out for public safety.

No towers have yet been raised in Prattsburgh, and of the 50 that have been erected in the Cohocton area, none are operational, according to Mr. Hall. Ultimately wind opponents hope to establish in court that the wind farms are being illegally built, and that the towers should be taken down.

(Click to read entire article)

Open house on Cape Vincent wind project

CAPE VINCENT, N.Y. -- Various people with various opinions, all wishing to find out more information and ask questions about the 142-megawatt, 95-turbine wind project planned for the agricultural areas of Cape Vincent. BP Alternative Energy held an open house Wednesday to inform people of the potential project. The company detailed where they would build roads, place transmission lines and most importantly, put up turbines.

"We want to make sure that people don't get misconceptions about our project and that we're able to address specific details. There are a lot of concerns people have about location, visual impact, sound and environmental studies," BP Alternative Energy Cape Vincent Project Manager Jim Madden said.

Along with those concerns came a group of people very much in support of the project.

"Wind power is clean," said Beth White, the President of a group called Voters for Wind. "It's renewable and it's local. It's very abundant here in Cape Vincent. We have plenty of it. We think we should take advantage of this tremendous opportunity."

And then there were those who are just going with the flow.

"We're building a house in Cape Vincent. We're looking at the wind mills on Wolfe Island anyway. We might as well look at them behind us too and get some benefit out of it," Cape Vincent resident Richard Tetzlaff said.

"There's an active discussion. Not everybody is all supportive, but we've had a real good discussion. I think overall people have been very supportive. It's good to see so many people come out and ask questions. I think generally people have an open mind," Madden added.

This project is in the middle of a SEQR process. Environmental, visual and sound studies could be done as early as October. From there, the permit process would take place next spring and construction would begin next fall. BP Alternative Energy says if everything goes as planned, the project could be finished by 2010.

Attorney General Investigating Windfarm Developers

Here is some up to date news:

Attorney General Investigating Windfarm Developers, Critical Lawsuit by Advocates for Prattsburgh Against Town Board's Eminent Domain Action Needs Your Support

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

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

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

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

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

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

NY Leaders favoring Iberdrola over NY taxpayers and electric customers by Glenn R. Schleede

Why are New York Political and Business Leaders putting the interests of Spain-based Iberdrola ahead of the interests of New York’s taxpayers and electric customers? New York’s taxpayers and electric customers are facing a serious threat:

• Iberdrola, the Spanish company that wishes to acquire Energy East and its electric and gas distribution subsidiaries1 is insisting that it will “walk away from” the deal if it is not permitted to build “wind farms” in New York.2
• High-powered New York political, business, labor and media leaders (including Governor Paterson and Senator Schumer) are working to get members of the NY State Public Utility Commission (NYS PSC) to overturn the PSC Staff’s recommendation and the Administrative Law Judge’s conclusion that Iberdrola should not be permitted to own both electric generating capacity (including “wind farms”) and electric distribution companies in NY.
• These NY “leaders” are striving in favor of Iberdrola despite the demonstrable negative impacts that Iberdrola’s proposal would have on New York’s taxpayers, electric customers, and state economy.

This brief paper:

• Provides details on the financial reason that apparently underlies Iberdrola’s insistence on the right to own “wind farms” in NY. That is, huge tax breaks available for “wind farms” could permit Iberdrola to sharply reduce or eliminate liability for paying federal or state tax income tax on profits from Energy East Companies’ electricity and gas distribution operations.
• Speculates about the reasons why NY “leaders” are working so hard on behalf of Iberdrola – and against the interests of NY taxpayers and electric customers – and the state’s economy.

1NYLEA%7E1.pdf

Clipper Windpower and BP Alternative Energy Form Joint Venture to Develop up to 5,050 MW

Carpinteria, CA (USA) - July 30, 2008 Clipper Windpower Plc ("Clipper”) today announced that it has entered into a 50:50 joint venture, the (“JV”), with BP Alternative Energy (“BP”) to develop the Titan wind project, a 5,050 MW South Dakota-sited wind energy project formerly known as Rolling Thunder. The project is expected to be constructed in multiple phases and, if completed, will be the world’s largest wind facility.

In accordance with the terms of the agreement, Clipper and BP will combine their 50:50 interests in a previously announced 1,550 MW South Dakota joint venture project together with a further 3,500 MW contiguous wind resource to form the expanded 5,050 MW, 50:50 joint venture.

In addition, the JV has agreed it will enter into a Master Turbine Supply Agreement (“MTSA”) which will enable the supply of up to 2,020 of Clipper’s 2.5 MW Liberty wind turbines upon the Project’s successful phase development and subject to the satisfaction of certain conditions in accordance with the MTSA.

“BP’s leadership in recognizing and acting on its commitment to increase its international renewable energy portfolio is exemplary” said James GP Dehlsen, Clipper’s Chairman and Chief Executive Officer. “We are pleased to be moving forward with this milestone development which will provide clean, renewable, and home grown power for approximately 1.5 million average American homes and offset nearly 24 billion pounds of carbon dioxide that would have otherwise been released into our atmosphere if produced by traditional means [according to the national energy mix].”

Dehlsen added, “Both South and North Dakota, with their abundant and renewable wind energy resources are an important part of our Nation’s clean energy, and energy secure future. We look forward to this and future world-class projects of this caliber which continue to be spurred by the growing demand for environmentally responsible and sustainable energy solutions.”

Project development of the Titan project is underway. The project’s Liberty turbines, at 2.5 MW of capacity, are the largest wind turbines built in the Americas.

About Clipper Windpower

Clipper Windpower, www.clipperwind.com, is a rapidly growing company engaged in wind energy technology, turbine manufacturing, and wind project development. With offices in the United Kingdom, United States of America (California, Colorado, Iowa, and Maryland), Denmark, and Mexico and a ISO9001:2000 QMS Certified, 330,000 square foot manufacturing and assembly facility located in Cedar Rapids, Iowa, the company designs advanced wind turbines, manufactures its 2.5-MW Liberty wind turbine and actively develops wind power generating projects in the Americas and Europe. Clipper is a public company listed on the London Stock Exchange’s Alternative Investment Market (AIM). Clipper’s ticker symbol is CWP.

The ordinary shares of Clipper Windpower Plc are traded on the Alternative Investment Market of the London Stock Exchange and are not registered under the U.S. Securities Act of 1933, as amended. Such shares may not be offered or sold to residents of the United States or to persons acting on their behalf, or to other persons who are "United States Persons" within the meaning of Regulation S as promulgated under the Securities Act of 1933, unless such shares have been registered under the Securities Act or there is an available exemption from registration.

Simple guidelines for siting wind turbines to prevent health risks

Industrial scale wind turbines are a familiar part of the landscape in Europe, U.K. and other parts of the world. In the U.S., however, similar industrial scale wind energy developments are just beginning operation. The presence of industrial wind projects will increase dramatically over the next few years given the push by the Federal and state governments to promote renewable energy sources through tax incentives and other forms of economic and political support. States and local governments in the U.S. are promoting what appear to be lenient rules for how industrial wind farms can be located in communities, which are predominantly rural and often very quiet. Studies already completed and currently in progress describe significant health effects associated with living in the vicinity of industrial grade wind turbines. This paper reviews sound studies conducted by consultants for governments, the wind turbine owner, or the local residents for a number of sites with known health or annoyance problems. The purpose is to determine if a set of simple guidelines using dBA and dBC sound levels can serve as the ‘safe’ siting guidelines. Findings of the review and recommendations for sound limits will be presented. A discussion of how the proposed limits would have affected the existing sites where people have demonstrated pathologies apparently related to wind turbine sound will also be presented.

Simple%20guidelines%20for%20siting%20wind%20turbines%20to%20prevent%20health%20risks.pdf

Corruption allegations swirl around push for wind power

First Wind and Noble Environmental Power LLC of Essex, Conn., are being investigated by Cuomo's office. A First Wind spokesman could not be reached for comment last week, and a Noble spokeswoman declined to comment.

Critics of the companies said their concern is not whether wind is a viable alternative energy source. They worry that wind companies are running roughshod over ill-prepared town boards, the final arbiters for the projects, and allege that companies are deliberately entering into contracts with town officials to grease the process.

In Prattsburgh, Steuben County, Supervisor Harold McConnell has come under fire for voting on wind-farm issues and also reportedly having a contract with a wind developer, according to the Naples Record.

In Hamlin, residents have questioned the role of Town Board member Paul Rath, who said he has leased land to a developer but has been abstaining from votes about wind energy. He did, however, vote to start a Wind Advisory Committee.

Opponents say public officials sometimes negotiate agreements with wind companies, then leave office and go to work for them.

"We need a consistent, thorough, comprehensive regulatory process that oversees the development of all these projects," said James Hall, a founder of Cohocton Wind Watch.

Hall and others contend that the state plays too small a role in the oversight of wind farms. Lawmakers have been trying to devise a more comprehensive system of regulation, but after years of debate the Legislature has been incapable of producing a law to streamline site selection for power plants.

(Click to read entire article)

Steuben County DA Tunney July 28, 2008 Letter from James Hall for CWW

Note that I talked briefly with Mr. Tunney who would only promise to read the letter, then implied he would respond. He would NOT agree to approve an appointment or look at evidence of potential criminal conduct. Mr. Tunney stated: "Now that the NYS AG has an active investigation, he would not want to compete with the the AG." My comment was that all that was requested was a meeting, so that the Steuben County DA could review the extent of official wrongdoing.

Maybe the public would like to ask DA Tunney why he refused to meet with CWW, well before AG Cuomo approved the NYS industrial wind investigation?

July 28, 2008

John C. Tunney
Steuben County District Attorney
3 East Pulteney Square,
Bath, NY 14810

RE: Follow-up to the May 5, 2008 complaint letter requesting a criminal investigation and grand jury – SCIDA, Government Officials and Wind Developers

Mr. Tunney,

You are aware that a formal request was made in the Cohocton Wind Watch May 5, 2008 letter for a criminal investigation and grand jury into the conduct of SCIDA, government officials and industrial wind developers in Steuben County. No response was received for a requested meeting from your office and the Corning Leader quoted you as stating “No Comment” to their news report.

Since contacting your office for an appointment to discuss evidence of wrongdoing, the Attorney General, Andrew Cuomo, of New York State has issued a press release on July 15, 2008. ATTORNEY GENERAL CUOMO LAUNCHES INVESTIGATION INTO WIND POWER COMPANIES' CONDUCT ACROSS UPSTATE NEW YORK A copy of this document is included. Subpoenas of the business records from First Wind (AKA UPC Wind) are part of the probe.

The national press has reported the gravity of this precedent setting investigation. Public officials, both elected and appointed, from Steuben County are subjects in this inquiry. The AG has confirmed CWW concerns for a full-scale inquisition into wind developments. District Attorney, Derek Champagne of Franklin County, is investigating Noble Environmental Power – the second wind developer listed in the Cuomo press release.

In the NYS Supreme Court Appellate Division: Fourth Department is an action to remove Republican Chair William O. Hatch from the Howard Town Board. In addition, an action is filed in an eminent domain suit against Prattsburgh Supervisor Harold McConnell that includes his acceptance of financial benefits.

Noticeably absent is your commitment for a professional review of the credible proof that supports allegations of criminal conduct. Once again, Cohocton Wind Watch demands that the Steuben County District Attorney fulfill his duty to examine evidence of illegal actions within his jurisdiction. What possible rational reason could absolve your refusal to meet and examine evidence? The public awaits an appointment.

Cordially,


James Hall for CWW

cc: David Paterson – NYS Governor, Andrew Cuomo – NYS Attorney General, George H. Winner – NYS Senator, James Bacalles – NYS Assembly, Steuben County Legislature

Ithaca, Enfield, Newfield study windmill plans

NEWFIELD — As residents and the town board in Enfield anticipate a wind farm and board members in the Town of Ithaca work out potential legislation, Newfield's Town Board passed a 180-day moratorium on windmills effective through the end of the year.


“It became clear we needed to educate ourselves about wind power,” said Richard Driscoll, a 30-year resident of Newfield and the newest town board member.

The Newfield board was unanimous in approving the moratorium at its July 10 meeting, he said.

In Enfield, which borders Newfield on the west, the town board held off on a vote July 9 on wind-farm developer John Rancich's proposal in order to send it back to the town attorney to get a stronger agreement.

Enfield Town Supervisor Frank Podufalski said from what he's seen and heard, a local wind law and a developer's agreement are used during wind farm projects, so asking Guy Krogh, the town attorney, to strengthen the agreement would allow the town board to eventually approve it.

The attorney expressed concerns over several portions of the agreement, most notably that the town has yet to adopt a local wind law. Councilman Herb Masser said the town planning board is close to submitting a proposal for the local law. All that's needed before passing it to the town are a few changes in the language, he said.

Rancich submitted the agreements in order to obtain the town's word that it won't block the Enfield project and so he may go ahead and sign a contract to purchase wind turbines. Steve Bauman, Rancich's associate, said the purchase could be as much as $10 million, which makes it prudent to seek an agreement with the town.

In Newfield, Council member Rich Dolge said board members favor renewable energy, but want to proceed carefully.

Dolge said he doesn't know of anyone in the Town of Newfield with even a personal windmill.

Driscoll said small personal windmills are less likely to cause concerns than wind farms. While investigating wind power, they didn't want to “entertain a request” for a big project.

The Town of Ithaca delayed a vote to allow residential windmills July 7, and a public hearing on the law is scheduled for the Town Board's meeting at 6:20 p.m. Aug. 11 in Town Hall, 215 N. Tioga St.

During a well-attended meeting on the law in June, the board heard concerns from town residents that allowing a 10-decibel increase above ambient sound level, as measured at a neighbor's property line, was too high.

During committee meetings in this month, board members reduced that to 8 decibels, but then added language allowing wind energy facilities to create up to 60 decibels of noise, “whichever is greater.”

Another public hearing on the law is scheduled during the Ithaca Town Board's Aug. 11 meeting at 6:20 p.m. in Town Hall, 215 N. Tioga St.

“We're very interested in what the Town of Ithaca comes up with,” Dolge said. “We don't want to reinvent the wheel. We're looking to take from the best.”

The next step in Newfield, after investigation and public hearings, would be legislation, Driscoll said.

“The moratorium is not in place because we're not interested in alternative energy development,” Dolge said. “We definitely want people to consider alternative energy sources.”

View of turbines from water will be disturbing

When St. Lawrence Wind submitted its draft environmental study to Cape Vincent, there was no assessment considering the viewshed impact from the St. Lawrence River. This is astounding and negligent considering much of Cape Vincent's economy is tourism based on water recreation. Many people will view this industrial wind plant from the water.

A major scenic entrance to town is via ferry from Wolfe Island which has a panoramic view of the entire wind project on the American shore. Shoreline residents on Carleton Island and Wolfe Island will be exposed to an uninterrupted view of the wind project's tremendous visual impact. On calm nights these shoreline residents will witness a bizarre spectacle of dozens of red strobes reflected in the water.

I believe I know why these particular visual studies were not included. Because it's impossible to mitigate the view of 425-feet monster wind turbines sitting on flat terrain when viewed over flat water. They would rather you not see the disturbing reality. Nor can you manipulate the visual impact as they do on land, by placing a tall object up close making turbines in the distance look small. If you have access to the river, you can witness the visual impact based on current towers of known height.

On the river near the head of Carleton Island, look for the tall, thin tower behind town. This is only turbine hub height, but you would add another 135 feet for the blade height. Don't confuse it with the cell towers which are much smaller.

If you are upriver of Linda Island, near green buoy 233, inland is another tower with a strobe on it. This tower is also only turbine hub height. You would add 135 feet here as well for blade height.

If you imagine 97 turbines with spinning blades and flashing strobes, based on these existing tower heights, and that these towers are smaller and much less obtrusive than what you will see, you start to realize the enormity of the impact.

If you can't get on the river I have provided animated simulations you can view by computer. They are accurate, and were done with engineering software using real distances and turbine sizes.

You can view them at: www.stlawrencewind.org, click on the links tab and look for new simulations. Or at: www.insigniodesign.com/sim/Project1.html or www.insigniodesign.com/sim/Project2.html. Please spread the word.

Art Pundt

Cape Vincent

Letter responding to Pat Wick Town Board member in Cattaraugus County

July 28, 2008

Dear Pat Wick:

I take exception to your disparaging and vitriolic comments made as a "Town Board member in Cattaraugus County" and directed at James Hall. Especially as Mr. Hall, and many others who are like minded, dedicate our valuable time and energy to defend your interests', and without re-numeration.

Your emotional diatribe about wind turbines is offered in context of what should be science-based, peer reviewed, and circumspect evaluation. The overblown benefits of wind energy and understated costs and risks associated with the same merit investigation by the Attorney General of the State of New York as well as by circumspect and respectful representatives of the public.

Casting aspersion on the messenger as you have indicates that you are woefully uniformed about the adverse impacts as well as the impracticality of this faith based initiative brought to you by industry. Perhaps you are not aware that PetroCats and WindCats are one in the same involved in the diversification of their energy investment portfolios. While carbon sink can be achieved by more earth friendly tree planting, conservation measures are not as profitable to industry, like GE and the entities represented by the American Wind Energy Association AWEA that are seeking tax sheltering opportunities--at the public expense. "Green is Green"

You may consider wind turbines to be kinetic art, while this is not an opinion shared by scores of homeowners whose idyllic peace, quiet, and tranquility has been shattered by them. If wind turbine noise is not a problem, then why do wind developers buy homes near them and create deed riders so that these developers will be held harmless for the noise they create? Do you suspect that the 3rd International Conference on Wind Turbine Noise held in Aalborg, Denmark last month was held and attended by "liars"?

I ask that you please investigate the facts as a representative of the public before leading the public down the primrose path that you've obviously taken. Please consider the supplemental information that I have provided if you are tasked with Town Planning and the creation of bylaws that attempt to address the public interest; such as set backs and wind turbine exclusion areas.

Sincerely,
Barbara Durkin
Northboro, MA

Pat Wick Town Board member in Cattaraugus County email to CWW

I just saw your video posted on You Tube and in your website of a windmill in Eagle, NY. I was there today. That video is an exaggeration and bold faced lie. None are positioned in "people's yards close to their houses" and none were noisy like jets. They were a gentle calming whoosh IF you heard anything. I got up to the base of them and have my own video. The loudest noise came from the base of the tower. Once I stepped about 10 feet away from it the sound wasn't there. We went to Eagle and were very impressed with the beauty of the wind mills and the quiet. The wind itself made more noise as well as the rustling of the corn in the corn fields. There was also constant wind keeping them going at all times that we were there. It was rather windy today on those hills too. I will work equally as hard to make sure people know you are lying as you do at your lying.

I also do not appreciate the fact that in YouTube you have it set so that no one can add comments to your video past the 3 that are negative as you are. I will post the best of my videos to show how you are exaggerating and lying.

I am a Town Board member in Cattaraugus County and sincerely hope we can get wind farms in our area. They are so beautiful and graceful. I also am 100% positive that the AG of NY will NOT find any improper dealings on the part of the companies you are trying to stop. Fossil fuels are going to be a thing of the past and you won’t be able to stop it.

Sincerely,

patwick@gmail.com

Pat Wick

Cattaraugus County NY

Charlotte OKs first-ever zoning code

SINCLAIRVILLE - For the first time, the town of Charlotte has a zoning law.

Following months of planning, hearings, and modifications, the new law, including several more changes, was adopted Wednesday night by the Town Board.

The action was carried out in a vote of 4 to 1, with council members Kenneth Bochmann, Henry Harper, Dennis Lewis, and Supervisor Gary Sargent voting yes, leaving Councilwoman Varsi Peterson casting the lone nay.

The board also adopted a zoning fee schedule, a duplicate of that of the town of Gerry, with exception of the wind energy met (meteorology) tower fee. The meeting was conducted by Lewis, in absence of Sargent, who was unable to attend all but a brief period at the end of the session.

It was a benchmark moment for property owners involved in a wind turbine energy project, planned for development by First Wind, formerly UPC Wind Management. However, Peterson warned that the board's failure to increase wind tower setbacks before the zoning law was adopted could lead to "serious problems" later on.

In comments following the board meeting, Peterson said she was a "strong supporter" of wind energy conversion. "I support wind energy, and I know the wind farm will mean more revenue for property owners and the town," she said, "but, I'm still convinced, after research and after talking with officials in other communities, that the wind tower setback for residences should be increased, and I can't in good conscience, vote for (the zoning law) if that is not changed.''

Peterson first called for a change in setback distances this past spring. In April, she suggested setbacks (distance between wind towers and roads and between towers and homes) be changed from 500 ft. to 1,000 ft. for roads, and from 1,000 ft., to 1,500 ft. for homes.

At that time, the board reluctantly agreed to a compromise, and the setbacks were increased to 750 ft for roads, and to 1,250 feet for houses.

Earlier in the session, town resident Patty Greenstein urged town officials to proceed with caution in connection with the development of the town's wind farm. "(Developers) are using our tax dollars for these projects..."

The town, she said, should make certain the best interests of property owners and the municipality are served. In comments later, Greenstein noted she was referring to government subsidies made available to development firms, whose costs for wind energy conversion systems may be subsidized up to 50 percent through NYSERDA (New York State Energy Renewal Development Agency.)

(Click to read entire article)

UPC First Wind Cohocton, NY Lies

E.On moving ahead with Hartsville wind project

Hartsville, N.Y.

A wind developer is serious about operating turbines in Hartsville, a turn-around from just a year ago.

If all goes well, according to Doug Colbeck, vice president of Northeast development for the German energy company E.On, there will be wind turbines in Hartsville.

“We’re going to basically get going on the permitting process,” Colbeck said. “We wouldn’t be spending the money if we didn’t think we could get it approved.”

According to Colbeck, the company’s predecessor, Airtricity, held off on development because there was not enough weather data to determine if there is enough wind in Hartsville.

E.On, a German-owned company, purchased the North American division of the Irish-run Airtricity in October 2007.

“They’re (E.On) very interested in developing their wind portfolio here in the U.S.,” Colbeck said, adding the company is operating a wind farm in Hamilton and is planning or operating wind farms in Pennsylvania and through the western United States. “The market changes all the time.”

There have been several stops in the project so far, Colbeck said, adding there may be more in the future.

“A project lives and dies a thousand times before it gets off the ground,” he said. “We’re going to make the commitment.”

While getting the permits and negotiations completed, Colbeck said, one of the most important group of negotiations have been completed for some time.

“Most of our landowners are already signed up,” he said, adding no list of participating landowners is currently available to the public, but one will be included in the permit application.

According to Colbeck, E.On is looking at developing between 50 and 80 megawatts of power production at the site, which would mean between 33 and 46 turbines, but there are many factors that will play a role.

“Ultimately, we’re going to have to look at constructibility, wetlands issues and environmental impact,” he said, adding the number of turbines is not set in stone.

The turbines are expected to cover a large swath of ground in the town, Colbeck said, with some turbines in the north and some in the south.

While E.On is moving forward, Hartsville town Supervisor Steve Dombert is looking forward to what the townspeople will see in terms of compensation for the project’s impact on the town of around 500 residents.

Dombert, who was elected after a vocal campaign against the way previous town officials handled the project, said he is not fundamentally against wind power in Hartsville.

“I’m against it if it’s a bad deal, but I’m in favor of it if it’s a good package that helps people,” he said. “We need to look at the people who are being impacted but are being overlooked.”

The development — and the way the town board handled it — lead to the resignations of former Supervisor Amy Emerson and Deputy Supervisor George Prior. According to Dombert, the problems with the town board involved transferring lead agency status to Steuben County Industrial Development Agency, thus removing the town’s voice from the application process, as well as incomplete disclosure from town officials of their interest in the wind project.

With the town’s say in negotiations gone, Dombert believes it is hard to know what the town is getting out of the project.

“The problem is we don’t understand what we’re being offered,” he said, adding he is trying to get someone from E.On and SCIDA to come to a town board meeting and explain the Payment in Lieu of Taxes proposal and the community host agreement.

"Gold rush" for wind energy fuels debate, allegations in small NY towns

MALONE -- The complaints last year were at first sporadic to Franklin County District Attorney Derek Champagne's office in this small North Country town.

Then the outcry grew. Residents were alleging undue influence was being put on local leaders to approve multi-million-dollar wind farms, with turbines 200 feet or taller, in their rural communities near the Canadian border.

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

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

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

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

Some critics question whether the wind farms will produce adequate wind energy, or are being built to tap into public aid and to sell wind-energy credits in the open market to help offset pollution from other industries.

Michael Lawrence, supervisor of Brandon in Franklin County, said the battle over whether to have a wind farm "has created devastation in the community." Champagne has turned over his cardboard box of documents on cases across the state to Attorney General Andrew Cuomo. Last week, Cuomo issued subpoenas to two of New York's major wind-farm developers, saying "if dirty tricks are used to facilitate even clean-energy projects, my office will put a stop to it."

The investigation comes as wind-farm companies are lining up at small towns' doors with deep pockets and with the promise of economic development for governments starved for new revenue to fund schools, fix roads and pay for emergency services.

There are roughly 65 wind projects in development in New York and about eight already operating, mainly in the Southern Tier, Finger Lakes and North Country regions. The state plans to have online about 1,000 megawatts of wind power - enough to potentially power about 800,000 homes - by year's end.

Advocates and land owners under contract with wind companies say the projects come at an opportune time because of skyrocketing fuel costs.

Paul Wolcott, a farmer from Cohocton, Steuben County, said he expects to have 13 wind turbines operated by First Wind, based in Newton, Mass., on his property later this year. He will get a percentage of the revenue from the energy sold to suppliers.

"What a waste of taxpayers' dollars for the attorney general to be investigating this," Wolcott said. "Here we are talking about getting an alternative source of energy, a renewable source that's local."

First Wind and Noble Environmental Power LLC., based in Essex, Conn., are being investigated by Cuomo's office. A First Wind spokesman could not be reached for comment Wednesday, and a Noble spokeswoman declined comment. Both companies said last week that they are cooperating with the investigation.

Opponents said their issue is not over whether wind is a viable alternative energy source. They are concerned that wind companies are running roughshod over ill-prepared town boards, which are the final arbiters for the projects, and allege that companies are specifically entering agreements with town officials to grease the process.

In Prattsburgh, Steuben County, Supervisor Harold McConnell has come under fire for voting on wind-farm issues and also reportedly having a contract with a wind developer, according to the Naples Record.

In Monroe County, Hamlin residents have questioned the role of town board member Paul Rath, who said he has a land lease with a developer but has been abstaining from votes pertaining to wind energy. He did, however, vote to start a Wind Advisory Committee and voted to put on board members.

Groups allege other instances in which public officials negotiate agreements with wind companies, then leave office and go to work for them.

"We need a consistent, thorough, comprehensive regulatory process that oversees the development of all these projects," said James Hall, a founder of the Cohocton Wind Watch group.

Hall and others contend that the state plays a minimal role in the oversight of wind farms. Lawmakers have been trying to get the situation under a more unified state system, but have spent years debating a new power plant siting plan.

"It puts a lot of pressure on municipalities who have to make tough decisions," said Carol Murphy, executive director of the Alliance for Clean Energy New York, which represents wind companies and wind-energy supporters.

Murphy said "we expect our members to uphold the highest, strictest standards of developing projects," and said groups opposing the wind farms often make baseless claims.

She and some state regulatory officials said the state provides adequate oversight and only provides aid and incentives to properly vetted projects.

"They can't sell any credits without producing energy," said John Saintcross, senior project manager for the state Energy Research and Development Authority.

Some of the groups' protests have made their way to court. In the town of Howard, Steuben County, Gerald Hedman is suing to have town-board member William Hatch, who is also the county Republican chairman, thrown off the board for alleged conflicts of interest. The case is to be heard in October in state appellate court in Rochester.

The lawsuit contends that Hatch spent years negotiating with a wind company and has voted on local laws that impact wind development, according to Hedman's attorney, Arthur Giacalone. This year Hatch officially entered an agreement with EverPower Renewables to potentially put turbines on his property, but he said has since recused himself when the board is dealing with wind-farm issues.

"They have been suing us for every reason they can and this appears to be the last one them can up with, I guess," Hatch said of the wind-farm opponents. He said he only has a land-lease option with the company and won't receive any money unless they build on his land.

Meanwhile, if the town gets the 25 wind towers proposed, it could mean a 40 percent reduction in town taxes through payments in lieu of taxes the company makes to the local government, Hatch said.

"For the community, it's a great thing," he said.

Schools opt out of tax exempt status of wind farms

The Westfield and Ripley school districts, as well as some municipalities such as the town of Portland, have chosen to opt out of the tax exempt status wind energy developers are eligible to receive.

"Wind farms fall under some tax exemption which taxing jurisdictions can reject (opt out of)," Peter Gross of Babcock and Brown explained. "This requires that we get a PILOT (payment in lieu of taxes) agreement with the county, otherwise our assets would be assessed at their full value, resulting in a tax payment that would kill the project economics.

"The PILOT agreements provide for lower payments instead of taxes. Those payments are then split between the town, county, and school districts in the project area. That is the route that we intend on pursuing and that most others have pursued as well."

The Westfield and Ripley Boards of Education recently passed resolutions providing that "no exemption provided under 487 of the New York State real property tax law shall be applicable within this jurisdiction."

"As far as we know, most districts and municipalities are opting out to ensure we receive tax revenue from these properties as we always have even if they become wind farms," said Ripley School Board President Robert Bentley.

According to Gross, with the PILOT arrangement, the landowner does not have any tax responsibility due to the wind farm assets.

"We were aware that all taxing jurisdiction had or would be opting-out," Gross continued. "We are not aware of any action we can take to keep the tax exemption so we intend on pursuing the PILOT route. I have already been in very preliminary discussion with the Chautauqua county industrial development agency (IDA) about the PILOT agreement and they support this process for us and other wind developers in the county (those being Horizon, Noble, and First Wind/UPC)."

Babcock and Brown has previously stated at public meetings that they would pursue the PILOT agreement.

NYISO Issues 2008 Comprehensive Reliability Plan

Market-based solutions address reliability of New York's bulk electricity grid through 2017

RENSSELAER, N.Y.--(BUSINESS WIRE)--The Board of Directors of the New York Independent System Operator (NYISO) has approved the 2008 Comprehensive Reliability Plan (CRP) for New York’s bulk electricity grid. According to the plan, proposed market-based solutions, together with implementation of planned upgrades to the bulk power system, meet or exceed reliability requirements through 2017.

The CRP is the product of the NYISO’s Comprehensive Reliability Planning Process (CRPP), which provides a blueprint for meeting the reliability needs of the state’s bulk electricity grid over a 10-year planning horizon.

In response to its 2008 Reliability Needs Assessment (RNA), released in December 2007 as the first stage of the CRPP cycle, the NYISO solicited and received proposals for market-based solutions to the reliability needs identified in the RNA. The market-based proposals submitted to the NYISO total 3,380 megawatts (MW), consisting of:

425 MW of demand-side management,
1,905 MW of generation, and
1,050 MW of transmission.
The 2008 CRP reports that resource adequacy and transmission security criteria will be met by development of at least 2,350 MW of the 3,380 MW proposed as market-based solutions. To address specific reliability needs within the state:

1,000 MW of new resources should be located in or available to serve New York City,
1,050 MW should be located in the lower Hudson Valley, and
300 MW can be located anywhere in New York State.
"Sufficient solutions to reliability needs are continuing to come from companies competing to provide electricity to New Yorkers and prepared to invest in the resources needed to serve consumer demand,” said Stephen G. Whitley, NYISO President and Chief Executive Officer.

“The reliability plan provides assurance that we can keep the lights on for the foreseeable future. However, we face an array of emerging energy challenges. New York must maintain and enhance an aging bulk power system, develop ways to relieve our reliance on expensive fossil fuels, and address crucial environmental concerns. The NYISO is prepared to supply policymakers with the objective analysis and technical expertise necessary to make informed decisions for the future,” he noted.

The NYISO received market-based proposals that are over 1,000 MW in excess of the minimum needed to meet resource adequacy and transmission security criteria. The NYISO does not choose which projects will be built. Rather, it is up to the proponents to proceed with, and the relevant state and federal siting and permitting agencies to approve, the specific projects. The development status of the proposals is monitored on a quarterly basis by the NYISO.

Other milestones identified in the 2008 CRP include actions to:

Maintain the in-service date for Consolidated Edison’s M29 transmission project, a new 345-kilovolt transmission line from an existing substation in the City of Yonkers to a new substation in Manhattan. In the 2008 RNA, this project was assumed to be in service for summer 2010. The planned in-service date is now prior to summer 2011. Further delay could cause reliability concerns in New York City for 2011 in the absence of other improvements or additions.

Implement the plans of transmission owners (Central Hudson Gas and Electric, Consolidated Edison, Long Island Power Authority, New York State Electric & Gas, National Grid, Orange & Rockland, and Rochester Gas and Electric) for transmission upgrades, firm external capacity delivered via the Neptune cable, and non-bulk power system projects.

Maintain bulk power system voltage performance, including ongoing review of the factors that affect performance such as modeling of system loads, testing of generator reactive capability, metering, and load power factor.
The report also states that, at this time, New York does not have to implement “regulated backstop solutions” offered by transmission owners or “alternative regulated solutions” submitted by other developers. Market-based solutions are financed by investment dollars. Regulated solutions are funded by consumer electricity rates.

The CRP report identifies a number of factors that could affect the plan, including:

*the absence of a streamlined siting process for new generating facilities,
*fuel diversity and fuel supply infrastructure concerns,
*dependence on capacity from neighboring regions and the related impact of the forward capacity markets in those regions,
*the value of long-term price certainty for market-based projects,
*the potential for additional plant retirements due to economic or environmental factors,
*the results of regulations initiated to comply with ozone standards,
*the impact of the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI) and its planned auctions of emission allowances, and
*the effects on electricity demand from implementation of New York State’s Energy Efficiency Portfolio Standard (EEPS).

The NYISO will closely monitor all risk factors through its planning process.

Over 7,000 MW of new power plants and merchant transmission projects have come into operation in New York since the formation of the NYISO wholesale electricity markets. The new projects are predominantly located in the downstate region, where reliability needs have been the greatest.

The 2008 CRP is the culmination of the NYISO’s third planning cycle. In each cycle, the market has responded with project proposals to meet identified reliability needs. More than 3,000 MW of market-based projects, submitted during the NYISO’s first two planning process cycles, are moving forward on schedule.

The full report, The Comprehensive Reliability Plan 2008: A Long-Term Reliability Assessment of New York’s Bulk Power System, is available for download at www.nyiso.com.

The New York Independent System Operator (NYISO) - www.nyiso.com - is a not-for-profit corporation that began operations in 1999. The NYISO operates New York's bulk electricity grid, administers the state's wholesale electricity markets, and performs comprehensive reliability planning for the state's bulk electricity system.

First Wind Encounters Trouble In New York

Massachusetts-based First Wind, formerly known as UPC Wind, is the subject of allegations of wrongdoing in New York, along with a Connecticut-based Noble Environmental Power LLC, according to the New York Attorney General's Office.

First Wind is the firm behind the wind farm proposal in Sheffield.

N.Y. Attorney General Andrew M. Cuomo alleges there have been improper dealings with public officials as well as anti-competitive practices.

Subpoenas were served on First Wind, based in Newton, Mass., and the Essex, Conn.-based Noble Environmental Power, according to the AG's office in New York. Complaints from citizens, groups and public officials in eight New York counties led to the investigation, the statement said.

"The use of wind power, like all renewable energy sources, should be encouraged to help clean our air and our reliance on fossil fuels," Cuomo said. "However, public integrity remains a top priority of my office and if dirty tricks are used to facilitate even clean-energy projects, my office will put a stop to it."

The AG's subpoenas of the two companies is seeking documents connected with any benefits given any individual or entity in connection with wind farm activity; agreements, easements or contracts regarding placement of wind turbines; agreements between wind companies which may indicate anti-competitive practices; and all documents pertaining to any payments or benefits received from local, state or federal agencies, the AG's statement says.

John Lamontagne, First Wind's director of communications, said in a brief e-mail response Wednesday to questions about the New York allegations, "We have received the New York attorney general's subpoena and we are reviewing it.

"We intend to fully cooperate with his office's review," Lamontagne said of the probe into First Wind's practices in New York. "Unfortunately, there isn't much we can tell you in terms of responding to the New York attorney general's statement," he said.

In Vermont, people saw the New York subpoena story on the evening television news. News of the New York probe was in the hands of watchdogs in the Northeast Kingdom who are fighting the arrival of a wind farm in the area.

JoAnn Stefanski of Barton on Wednesday was eager to share word of the New York probe.

"This is one of the reasons we in Barton are fighting so hard to exclude commercial wind from our ridge lines," she said in an e-mail.

"Until we find out what their impact will have on Sheffield and know that UPC (now First Wind) is a reputable company, we need to protect ourselves by closing the door to such development," Stefanski said. "It can always be opened, but once they are here, it cannot be closed."

Paul Brouha of Sheffield, one of the people who formed Ridge Protectors, which is fighting the state's approval of First Wind, said, "I guess we need to wait and see what he finds out. I guess that's about what I'd say. We've got our own feelings about how we've been dealt with, and I guess ours is just anecdotes and it'll be nice to have somebody that has the resources to assess just how their practices measure up. We will be interested, yes."

The Sheffield wind project was approved by Vermont Public Service Board in August 2007. The project calls for 16 turbines which will be 430 feet to the tip of the blade, Brouha said.

The state's approval is being challenged in a suit now being considered by the Vermont Supreme Court, which heard arguments in the case in Montpelier in May.

First Wind has three wind farms in operation and 48 others in development across the country, including the one in Sheffield, its Web site reads.

The company was founded in 2002.

CWW Media/Press Release - AG Industrial Wind Investigation

COHOCTON WIND WATCH

Seeks Wind Industry Public Accountability

Cohocton Wind Watch is gratified with the decision of New York State Attorney General Andrew Cuomo to launch a formal investigation into the business practices of First Wind/UPC Wind and Noble Environmental Power. This groundbreaking inquiry includes conduct of Public Officials and evidence of Wind Industry Anti-Competitive Practices.

CWW has compiled comprehensive evidence, volumes of empirical data and a paper trail of proof that public officials, developers and their agents and leaseholders have acted collectively to defraud NYS. With this AG announcement of an active investigation, claims and allegations of the industrial wind fraud and wrongdoing will finally be scrutinized by the highest level of law enforcement.

A special thanks goes to District Attorney Derek Champagne of Franklin County who profiles the very best traits of public service and enforcement of the rule of law. New York State has heard the outrage of thousands of exploited residents and scores of courageous community organizations. The diligent efforts, research, and documentation of scores of ordinary people finally bears fruit. Now this evidence will hopefully serve as the basis and proof of illegal conduct. All New Yorkers deserve judicial accountability for corruption and predatory developers.

The penalties of Anti-trust transgressions are severe. As the legal system works its way through the inquiry, CWW is confident that the evidence will justify grand juries, indictments, trials and convictions.

Cohocton Wind Watch supports the advancement of rational and economically beneficial alternative energy technology. First Wind/UPC Wind and Noble Environmental Power projects are not able to fulfill those standards. Industrial Wind developers want the public to believe their venture generates meaningful “Green Electricity”. The use of NYSERDA public funds by wind developers places an obligation on them to prove that ample prevailing wind patterns exist at their project sites. Wind developers refuse to release the data from test towers. Implication is clear! Much of the New York State has insufficient wind for these industrial turbines to become a reliable electric generating source.

More important, both companies and their dozens of corporate variants engage in a scheme of deception and duplicity. Remember the lesson of Enron’s lies and criminal activity, which lead to disastrous consequences for utility ratepayers. The Industrial Wind Swindle will be exposed in court.

Cohocton not surprised by wind investigation

COHOCTON, N.Y. -- The owner of a dairy farm has been working with First Wind for years to put more than a dozen turbines on his land in Cohocton.

"It's been a very good relationship. We've worked together to get this project underway," said Lent Hill Dairy Farm owner Paul Wolcott.

Turbines are starting to dot Cohocton's hills and some landowners say First Wind is staying cooperative.

"They seem up front and they've done about everything they said they were going to do," said Pine Hill landowner Doug Schwingel.

"It's been a team effort. It hasn't been push and shove. Everything we've done, we've done on our own free will," Wolcott said.

Now the state is investigating whether that's been the case across the board. Members of Cohocton Wind Watch say it hasn't.

"We've uncovered evidence throughout the past couple of years of very questionable business practices: anti-trust violations, potential bribery, fraud that's been going on," said James Hall.

The New York State Attorney General's Office is looking into whether First Wind did anything improper when it got permission to build turbines in Cohocton and in other areas. Landowners say they're not surprised by the investigation.

"There are will people who are emotionally opposed to this project. And they have tried to stir up as much dissension as they can through the whole thing. I think their claims are going to be unfounded," Wolcott said.

"We feel that the resources of New York State are well used to investigate and to hopefully prosecute wrongdoers," Hall said.

Whatever the state finds, it seems what won't change are the divided opinions and new landscape in Cohocton.

The Cohocton Town Supervisor was not in town for comment Wednesday.

A spokesperson for First Wind says the company has received the Attorney General's subpoena and is prepared to fully cooperate in the investigation.

Wind developer under investigation

Albany, N.Y.

The developer of two local wind farms is under investigation by state Attorney General Andrew Cuomo for alleged improper dealings with public officials and anti-competitive practices.

First Wind, formerly known as UPC, was served with subpoenas by the AG’s office Tuesday, according to a press release from Cuomo’s staff.

Based in Massachusetts, First Wind has projects in the towns of Prattsburgh and Cohocton, as well as Chautauqua, Genesee and Wyoming counties and an off-shore wind farm in Erie County.

Also included in the investigation is a second developer, Noble Environmental Power, which has projects in Allegany, Chautauqua, Clinton, Franklin and Wyoming counties.
“The use of wind power, like all renewable energy sources, should be encouraged to help clean our air and end our reliance on fossil fuels,” Cuomo said in a statement. “However, public integrity remains a top priority of my office and if dirty tricks are used to facilitate even clean-energy projects, my office will put a stop to it.”

First Wind officials said they had received the subpoenas from Cuomo and will fully cooperate with his office.

The investigation will not slow the projects now under way, according to spokesman John Lamontagne.

“First Wind intends to continue our operations and activities as we normally would,” Lamontagne said.

The news of the subpoenas was greeted with delight by the projects’ opponents in Prattsburgh and Cohocton.

“We’re extremely happy the attorney general is finally looking into the corruption repeated throughout the state and throughout the county,” said Judith Hall, of Cohocton. “We’ve been working toward this for some time.”

Hall’s husband and Cohocton Wind Watch founder James Hall deferred comment until a later date.

In Prattsburgh, where the first wind farm in Steuben County was proposed nearly six years ago, one project opponent said the investigation means the truth about the industry will become public.

“For five years I have been asking, wanting to know whether the commercial wind power projects, as proposed, are truly effective,” said Ruthe Matilsky. “There has been flagrant conflict of interest in Prattsburgh and because of the conflict of interest the realities of the project have been ignored.”

“Oh, this is just the beginning,” Matilsky added. Wind farm projects have been the subject of controversy since they were first proposed in early 2003, and have bitterly divided towns.

Supporters say the wind farms provide essential, renewable energy and allow small towns to raise much-needed revenues without increasing property taxes.

But opponents charge the projects are overrated as energy sources and claim the projects harm the local environment and community.

There has been litigation in every town that has encouraged a project, with a number of lawsuits and appeals already under way in Prattsburgh, Cohocton and Howard.

The wind farm in Howard is being developed by another company, EverPower.
The state investigation appears to dovetail with some existing local legal action, notably in the area of conflict of interest.

Officials in both Prattsburgh and Howard have been cited in lawsuits for using their influence or acting inappropriately in favor of the wind projects.

The subpoenas served on First Wind seek, among other things:
• All documents concerning any benefits conferred on any individual or entity in connection with wind farm activity.
• All agreements, easements or contracts with individuals regarding placement of wind turbines.
• Agreements between wind companies that may indicate anti-competitive practices.
• All documents pertaining to any payments or benefits received from local, state or federal agencies.

Attorney General Cuomo subpoenas Noble Environmental Power by Calvin Luther Martin

Sometime yesterday (7-15-08), NYS Attorney General Andrew Cuomo issued a stunning press release, “Attorney General Cuomo Launches Investigation into Wind Power Companies’ Conduct across Upstate New York.”

Noble Environmental Power is one of them. (The other, UPC Wind, operates downstate.) The investigation is based on months of research by the Attorney General’s office, including a discreet visit to Malone by an Assistant Attorney General to interview town officers and other interested parties.

“The allegations include accusations that the companies improperly sought or obtained land-use agreements with public officials and the officials’ relatives and acquaintances; gave bribes and other improper benefits to public officials; and entered into anti-competitive agreements or practices…. A Cuomo spokesman added that the two subpoenas are just the beginning. ‘This is an initial part of an ongoing investigation,’ said spokesman John Milgrim” (The Buffalo News, 7/16/08, p. A2).

The impetus for this statewide investigation (which, by the way, is the first of its kind in the nation) came from right here, by golly—from Franklin County District Attorney Derek Champagne, responding to voluminous complaints that the wind developers were not playing by the rules. Readers of this page will recall an article we did this spring, “Where the Buck Stops,” which began with:

Last week, District Attorney Derek Champagne forcefully stepped into the vacuum of government control over conflicts of interest between municipal officers and the wind developers. Up till then, every single NYS agency had been passing the buck about enforcing NYS General Municipal Law (GML) against (obvious) conflicts of interest.

And it ended with this:

Meanwhile, while this story plays out, mark this date on your calendar, April 2, 2008. The day the buck stopped with District Attorney Derek Champagne. The day “clean, green, renewable” wind energy moved from town hall to county courthouse—where, tragically, it belongs. It is said History repeats itself. Enron’s hubris drove it into corruption, then court, then jail.

Attorney General Cuomo’s announcement opens Chapter Two of this narrative: Courthouse.

RiverCityMalone applauds Mr. Champagne for initiating this inquiry and getting the AG involved. The word “applause” is not enough; we’re talking, folks, about one damn good DA. This took uncommon vision and determination. And lots of work. The man deserves a ticker tape parade.

All this is not to hang Noble. One of the most critical institutions in America is due process before the law. Let Noble have its day in court. At the same time let the people of this state, represented by their attorney general, examine all the evidence Noble has in its possession.

Noble, for its part, has issued a press release promising full cooperation. (This is of course standard from corporations that suddenly find themselves on the legal hot seat. See Enron.)

Meanwhile, the turbines go up. Daily. Whether Noble’s turbines have been producing any electricity is a good question. (Yes, they’ve been spinning, but that’s not the same as generating power.) The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) maintains a website (click here) whereon anyone can find out precisely how much electricity Noble’s windfarms are producing. (Not just Noble and not just wind energy, but all producers of electricity throughout the country.) FERC does not show any power generation for Noble’s windfarms through June 30, 2008. This may be because the production figures are still being processed, or because there has been no power generated so far. It’s unclear.

Cuomo probing wind farm dealings

Two wind power companies developing windmill projects in Western New York — including Steel Winds on the old Bethlehem Steel plant site in Lackawanna — are under investigation by State Attorney General Andrew M. Cuomo for possible improper dealings with local government officials.

Subpoenas were served Tuesday on First Wind, the lead developer of Steel Winds, which is also developing larger, rural “wind farms” in Steuben, Chautauqua, Genesee and Wyoming counties; and Noble Environmental Power, with three working wind farms and five in development in Allegany, Chautauqua, Clinton, Franklin and Wyoming counties.

“The use of wind power, like all renewable energy sources, should be encouraged to help clean our air and end our reliance on fossil fuels,” Cuomo said in a statement.

“However, public integrity remains a top priority of my office and if dirty tricks are used to facilitate even clean-energy projects, my office will put a stop to it,” he said.

Cuomo’s office has received numerous complaints from private citizens and public officials in eight counties — including Erie — alleging “improper relations between the companies and local officials” and other questionable practices.

The allegations include accusations that the companies improperly sought or obtained land-use agreements with public officials and the officials’ relatives and acquaintances; gave bribes and other improper benefits to public officials; and entered into anti-competitive agreements or practices.

The subpoenas issued Tuesday were for all documents related to any benefits conferred to an individual or entity in connection with wind farms; all agreements, easements or contracts regarding placement of wind turbines; agreements between wind companies that could indicate anti-competitive practices; and anything pertaining to payments or benefits received from local, state or federal agencies, according to Cuomo’s office.

A Cuomo spokesman added that the two subpoenas are just the beginning. “This is an initial part of an ongoing investigation,” said spokesman John Milgrim.

John Lamontagne, spokesman for First Wind, acknowledged the Newton, Mass.-based company had received the subpoena and said: “We intend to fully cooperate with [Cuomo’s] office.”

Noble Environmental, of Essex, Conn., issued a statement: “The company is in the process of reviewing the subpoena and will cooperate fully with the attorney general. We are confident the attorney general’s inquiry will find that Noble’s actions have been legal and proper and we look forward to his review.”

Lackawanna Mayor Norman Polanski said neither Steel Winds, made up of eight turbines each taller than Buffalo City Hall, nor the City of Lackawanna, is affected by the probe.

“We’re not involved at all,” Polanski said.

He pointed out that the city entered into an agreement over Steel Winds with the project’s other developer, BQ Energy, and that BQ Energy was not under investigation.

“We had no dealings with First Wind,” he said.

Polanski added that he did not receive kickbacks from any of the developers. “I got a model windmill and a shirt,” he said, and nothing else.

Last week, the Lackawanna Planning Board approved site plans for the second phase of Steel Winds, which would add 13 turbines to the current project.

Wind farm opponents were thrilled by the news that Cuomo’s office is looking into the two developers.

“We’re ecstatic that [Cuomo] is finally listening to what New York State taxpayers have been saying: that this is nothing but a total rip-off of the taxpayer,” said Judy Hall, a member of Cohocton Wind Watch, which is fighting a First Wind wind farm in its community.

Hall complained that communities aren’t made aware of proposed wind farms until they’re already approved and accused local leaders and developers of striking under-the-table deals to get the projects approved.

“We’re keeping our ear to the ground, and we’ll continue to provide information,” Hall vowed. “We just feel energized today.”

Noble wind-energy firm under investigation

CHATEAUGAY -- Noble Environmental Power LLC and a second wind-energy firm are under investigation by the state Attorney General's Office for "improper dealings with public officials and anti-competitive practices."

"We've had a number of complaints from counties all over the state, from Franklin all the way over to Erie," said John Milgrim, spokesman for Attorney General Andrew Cuomo.

Franklin County District Attorney Derek Champagne was among "DAs from eight counties, public officials and citizens" who bombarded Albany with complaints about Noble and Massachusetts-based First Wind, formerly known as UPC Wind, he said.

Subpoenas were served on both companies Tuesday, seeking an assortment of documents pertaining to agreements and easements obtained from property owners and public officials.

Noble, which is based in Chester, Conn., has three wind farms in operation and five in development in Clinton, Franklin, Allegany, Chautauqua and Wyoming counties.

First Wind has three operational wind farms and 48 others under development across the United States and in Steuben, Chautauqua, Genesee and Wyoming counties.

In a statement released late Tuesday, Noble said it has received the subpoena and that "the company is in the process of reviewing the subpoena and will cooperate fully with the Attorney General.

"We are confident the Attorney General's inquiry will find that Noble's actions have been legal and proper, and we look forward to his review," the statement concludes.

Cuomo's subpoenas seek:

All documentation about the benefits individuals or entities received in connection with wind-farm activity; all easements, agreements and contracts individuals were awarded as far as turbine placement; and agreements that could be viewed as anti-competitive practices, all paperwork concerning payments or benefits received by local, state or federal agencies.

The Attorney General will determine:

Whether companies developing wind farms improperly sought or obtained land-use agreements with citizens and public officials.

Whether improper benefits were given to public officials to influence their actions.

Whether the wind-farm companies entered into anti-competitive agreements or practices.

WLEA Radio Report on AG Cuomo Industrial Wind Investigation - #2 Report

cuomo%232%20.mp3

Wind companies being investigated

State Attorney General Andrew Cuomo reported today he has started investigating two companies developing and operating wind farms amid allegations of improper dealings with public officials and anti-competitive practices.

One of the companies served a subpoena is Massachusetts-based First Wind (formerly known as UPC Wind). First Wind began construction last fall of roughly 50 turbines in Cohocton, located in Steuben County just over the Ontario County line. First Wind also has plans for a 36-turbine project in Prattsburgh and Naples.

Wind farms are clusters of large electricity-generating turbines powered by wind and connected to the electric grid.

The investigation seeks to find out whether First Wind and Connecticut-based Noble Environmental Power LLC sought or obtained land-use agreements with citizens and public officials through bribes and submitted false statements for permits and during environmental studies.

The Office of the Attorney General said it is responding to complaints from citizens, groups and officials in eight counties.

Back in May, wind-farm opponents pressed the state Attorney General’s Office for an investigation into allegations of false claims, filing false instruments, bribery of public officials, larceny and fraud. Those accused by Cohocton Wind Watch of illegal actions are the Steuben County Industrial Development Agency, SCIDA Executive Director James Sherron, town and planning board members in several towns including Cohocton and Prattsburgh, and wind developers EcoGen and First Wind.

Allegations by citizens’ group include: the wind developers knowingly provided and submitted false statements and false instruments for permits and during environmental studies; the developers improperly influenced public officials through cash bribes, lucrative lease terms, bogus real estate transactions, purchase of personal property and contingent real estate purchase offers; developers seeking leases for wind turbine sites or easements for access roads and transmission lines have lied to convince landowners to sign away their rights.

The Attorney General's subpoenas seek, among other things:

• All documents concerning any benefits conferred on any individual or entity in connection with wind-farm activity.

• All agreements, easements or contracts with individuals regarding placement of wind turbines.

• Agreements between wind companies that may indicate anti-competitive practices.

• All documents pertaining to any payments or benefits received from local, state or federal agencies.

First Wind has three operational wind farms and 48 others in development across the country, according to its Web site. First Wind developed the Steel Winds wind farm in Erie County and has wind farms in development in Steuben, Chautauqua, Genesee and Wyoming counties.

Noble Environmental Power LLC has three active wind farms and five in development in Allegany, Chautauqua, Clinton, Franklin and Wyoming counties.

Cuomo's Office Investigating Wind Farms - WGRZ-TV

Attorney General Andrew M. Cuomo is launching an investigation into two companies that have developed and operate wind farms across New York state, including Western New York.

The Attorney General's office says subpoenas were served on First Wind (formerly known as UPC Wind) and Noble Environment Power, LLC.

According to First Wind's website, the company developed the Steel Winds wind farm in Lackawanna and has wind farms in development in Steuben, Chautauqua, Genesee and Wyoming (GenWY Wind) counties. The Attorney General's office says Noble Environmental Power, LLC, has three active wind farms and five in development in Allegany, Chautauqua, Clinton, Franklin and Wyoming Counties.

According to Cuomo's office, both First Wind and Noble Environmental Power are part of an investigation into whether companies developing wind farms improperly sought or obtained land-use agreements with citizens and public officials, whether improper benefits were given to public officials to influence their actions, and whether they entered into anti-competitive agreements or practices. The Attorney General's subpoenas seek:

All documents concerning any benefits conferred on any individual or entity in connection with wind farm activity.

All agreements, easements or contracts with individuals regarding placement of wind turbines.

Agreements between wind companies that may indicate anti-competitive practices.

All documents pertaining to any payments or benefits received from local, state or federal agencies.

The Attorney General's office says it has received numerous complaints regarding the two companies from citizens, groups and public officials alleging improper relations and practices.

Noble Enviornmental Power released this statement from CEO Walt Howard:

"Noble has received a civil subpoena from the Attorney General of New York State regarding wind development activities in New York. The company is in the process of reviewing the subpoena and will cooperate fully with the Attorney General. We are confident the Attorney General's inquiry will find that Noble's actions have been legal and proper and we look forward to his review."

WLEA Radio Report on AG Cuomo Industrial Wind Investigation

cuomo%232%20.mp3

Cuomo: Celebrate, but still investigate, alternative energy sources

ALBANY, N.Y. (Legal Newsline) - New York's top lawyer has swept into the world of wind farms, demanding information on the business practices of two companies that own renewable energy-producing turbines across the state.

State Attorney General Andrew Cuomo announced the investigation Tuesday. He says there have been allegations of improper dealings with public officials and anti-competitive practices against First Wind and Noble Environmental Power.

"The use of wind power, like all renewable energy sources, should be encouraged to help clean our air and end our reliance on fossil fuels," Cuomo said. "However, public integrity remains a top priority of my office and if dirty tricks are used to facilitate even clean-energy projects, my office will put a stop to it."

Cuomo said the investigation will determine if the two companies, both based out of state: Improperly sought or obtained land-use agreements with citizens and public officials; if improper benefits were given to public officials to influence their actions; and if they entered into anti-competitive agreements or practices.

Cuomo's subpoenas seek:

-Documents concerning any benefits conferred on any individual or entity in connection with wind farm activity;

-Agreements, easements or contracts with individuals regarding placement of wind turbines;

-Agreements between wind companies that may indicate anti-competitive practices; and

-Documents pertaining to any payments or benefits received from local, state or federal agencies.

First wind has three wind farms currently in operation and 48 others in development across the country.

Noble Environmental Power has three active wind farms and five more in development.

Attorney General Launches Probe Into Wind Farm Companies

The Office of the New York State Attorney General is investigating two wind farm companies for alleged improper dealings.

Officials are looking into the corporations First Wind and Noble Environmental Power.

Those companies are accused of giving improper benefits to land owners and public officials to influence their actions.

First Wind and Noble Environmental operate wind farms in upstate New York but are not connected to Lewis County’s wind farm and their websites list no interests in the tri-county area.

Wind farm deals under investigation

The state attorney general is launching an investigation aimed at two out-of-state companies developing wind farms in Lackawanna and across New York.

The probe, announced Tuesday, comes amid allegations of improper dealings with public officials and anti-competitive practices.

Investigators have served subpoenas on Newton, Mass.,-based First Wind and Essex, Conn.,-based Noble Environmental Power LLC. First Wind built the Steel Winds project along Lake Erie in the city of Lackawanna and has wind farms in development in Steuben, Chautauqua, Genesee and Wyoming (GenWY Wind) counties. Noble Environmental Power LLC has three active wind farms and five in development in Allegany, Chautauqua, Clinton, Franklin and Wyoming counties.

The companies are being investigated to see if they improperly sought or obtained land-use agreements with citizens and public officials; whether improper benefits were given to public officials to influence their actions, and whether they entered into anti-competitive agreements or practices.

"We have received the subpoena from the attorney general's office, and we intend to fully cooperate with his office," said First Wind spokesperson John LaMontagne.

In a Business First story reported the week of July 4, some officials in Lackawanna questioned the agreements negotiated by Mayor Norman Polanski with First Wind for construction of eight electricity-generating windmills on the former Bethlehem Steel site and a plan to construct 18 more turbines.

In recent months, the attorney general's office said it has received numerous complaints regarding the two companies from citizens, groups and public officials in eight counties alleging improper relations between the companies and local officials and other improper practices.

"The use of wind power, like all renewable energy sources, should be encouraged to help clean our air and end our reliance on fossil fuels," said Attorney General Andrew Cuomo. "However, public integrity remains a top priority of my office and if dirty tricks are used to facilitate even clean-energy projects, my office will put a stop to it."

Wind farms are clusters of large turbines powered by wind and connected to the electric grid.

AG launches investigation into wind power companies

STATEWIDE -- State Attorney General Andrew Cuomo launches an investigation into the alleged actions of two wind power companies developing wind farms in New York State.

Subpoenas were served on First Wind -- formerly known as UPC Wind -- and Noble Environmental Power, LLC.

Cuomo's office is looking into whether or not companies developing wind farms improperly sought or obtained land-use agreements, if improper benefits were given to public officials to influence their actions, and whether they entered into anti-competitive agreements or practices.

First Wind has several wind farms in development, including one in Steuben County. Noble Environmental Power has farms in development in Clinton and Franklin counties.

State launches investigation of wind farm developers

First Wind, with Steuben County projects, is one target of probe

Attorney General Andrew M. Cuomo said Tuesday his office has launched an investigation of the practices of two wind farm developers, including one with projects in Steuben County.

The investigation will focus on Massachusetts-based First Wind, which has wind farms under development in the Cohocton area of Steuben County, and Noble Environmental Power LLC. Noble is based in Essex, Conn.

Cuomo said in a news release that the probe resulted from numerous complaints by citizens, organizations and local officials in eight counties. The complaints alleged improper relations between the companies and local officials and other illegal practices.

Some of those complaints came from Cohocton Wind Watch, a citizens’ group that has opposed the Cohocton-area projects and accused First Wind of illegal activities.

“We deserve a little bit of the credit,” said James Hall, the group’s spokesman. “We’re very pleased to hear about the investigation. Anti-trust violations have been rampant in this industry and we need to hold questionable developers accountable for their conduct.”

Hall said he places First Wind at the top of the list of questionable developers. His group publicly claimed earlier that First Wind had made improper payments to local officials.

First Wind did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

ATTORNEY GENERAL CUOMO LAUNCHES INVESTIGATION INTO WIND POWER COMPANIES' CONDUCT ACROSS UPSTATE NEW YORK

ATTORNEY GENERAL CUOMO LAUNCHES INVESTIGATION INTO WIND POWER COMPANIES’ CONDUCT ACROSS UPSTATE NEW YORK

Allegations of Improper Dealings with Public Officials and Anti-Competitive Practices

Subpoenas Served on First Wind/UPC Wind and Noble Environmental Power, LLC

ALBANY, NY (July 15, 2008) - Attorney General Andrew M. Cuomo announced today the launching of an investigation into two companies developing and operating wind farms across New York state amid allegations of improper dealings with public officials and anti-competitive practices.

Wind farms are clusters of large electricity-generating turbines powered by wind and connected to the electric grid.

Subpoenas were served on Newton, Massachusetts-based First Wind (formerly known as UPC Wind) and Essex, Connecticut-based Noble Environmental Power, LLC. They are part of an investigation into whether companies developing wind farms improperly sought or obtained land-use agreements with citizens and public officials; whether improper benefits were given to public officials to influence their actions, and whether they entered into anti-competitive agreements or practices.

In recent months, the Office of the Attorney General has received numerous complaints regarding the two companies from citizens, groups and public officials in eight counties alleging improper relations between the companies and local officials and other improper practices.

“The use of wind power, like all renewable energy sources, should be encouraged to help clean our air and end our reliance on fossil fuels,” said Attorney General Cuomo. “However, public integrity remains a top priority of my office and if dirty tricks are used to facilitate even clean-energy projects, my office will put a stop to it.”

The Attorney General’s subpoenas seek, among other things:

• All documents concerning any benefits conferred on any individual or entity in connection with wind farm activity.

• All agreements, easements or contracts with individuals regarding placement of wind turbines.

• Agreements between wind companies that may indicate anti-competitive practices.

• All documents pertaining to any payments or benefits received from local, state or federal agencies.

First Wind has three operational wind farms and 48 others in development across the country, according to its web site. First Wind developed the Steel Winds wind farm in Erie County and has wind farms in development in Steuben, Chautauqua, Genesee and Wyoming (GenWY Wind) counties.

Noble Environmental Power, LLC, has three active wind farms and five in development in Allegany, Chautauqua, Clinton, Franklin and Wyoming Counties.

The investigation is being led by Assistant Attorney General Andrew Heffner of the Syracuse Regional Office under the supervision of Special Deputy Attorney General Ellen Biben, who oversees the Attorney General’s Public Integrity Bureau. Assisting in the case are Investigators Thomas Wolf, David Bruce and Andrea Burnham.

Schumer presses for utility-merger deal

ALBANY — To end a deadlock with the state, a Spanish company that wants to buy an upstate utility should agree to sweeten the deal for ratepayers, and state regulators should allow the firm to generate some wind power, Sen. Charles Schumer urged today as a way keep the deal alive.

"Both sides of the table must take a few steps forward if we want to bring low rates, high service, jobs and renewable energy to New York State," said Schumer, D-Brooklyn.

Schumer wants the company, Iberdrola, to put $640 million into a fund to offset potential rate hikes and put more money behind its announced plan to invest $2 billion in new wind-power projects.

He also wants the state Public Service Commission to drop its insistence that the company sell off its wind-generation facilities in New York and abandon plans to build more.

"The PSC needs to stop stonewalling Iberdrola's efforts to bring absolutely vital, cutting-edge energy assets to the state,'' Schumer said, "while Iberdrola needs to firm up their commitments and give a tangible incentive for the state to approve the deal.''

The proposed $4.5 billion sale to Iberdrola of Energy East, the company that owns Rochester Gas and Electric Corp. and the New York State Electric and Gas Co., has been held up by disputes about the wind-power and rate-protection issues.

The staff of the commission has recommended against approval of the merger, which already has the approval of regulators in Washington and three other states, without significant modifications. A decision by the five-member commission is expected in August or September.

Iberdrola so far has offered to put $200 million into a fund to offset rate hikes, and also has committed $100 million to wind-energy development, while saying it hopes to spend as much as $2 billion on the projects. Schumer wants $440 million more in that fund and firmer commitments to develop more wind energy.

The two utilities serve about 3 million customer upstate and in the Hudson Valley.
Schumer said he met with commission Chairman Garry Brown last Friday. He wouldn't disclose details, but termed the session a "positive meeting.''

"As long as all involved parties here can find a way to make sure that rates don't skyrocket for the consumer, this deal should be a no-brainer,'' Schumer said. "At stake here are not just thousands of jobs and billions of dollars for New York's economy, but our entire state's sustainability and viability for generations to come."

There was no immediate comment from the Public Service Commission.

Push for clean energy may capture the Lake Erie winds

At least two companies are interested in offshore wind development in New York’s Great Lakes waters — BQ Energy, which developed Lackawanna’s Steel Winds, and AWS Truewind.

“I don’t think it’s inevitable, but I think it’s very likely,” said Bruce Bailey, AWS Truewind’s president.

There are significant obstacles and unknowns. Among them:

• Right now, the costs. The cost of windmills in water far exceeds land-based turbines, and would be too high to justify the return for private investors, even with government subsidies aimed at spurring renewable energy development.

• While some of the European offshore wind installations are in icy waters, the freshwater ice sheet on Lake Erie will present special design challenges, according to experts.

• Many environmentalists, while generally supportive of the concept of wind power, want more research into potential impacts.

• And proponents say they aren’t sure how the public will react to the sight of turbines in the lake.

“That’s a question I’ve given a lot of thought to,” said BQ Energy’s Tim Ryan, who says he has been stopped by people who know of his connection to Steel Winds and asked when there might be similar turbines in the lake.

Interest has bloomed to the point where BQ Energy is developing an analysis of the prognosis for Lake Erie wind power.

The study, which will be completed by year’s end, will try to answer more precisely how much wind is available, how reliable it is, the best places to put turbines, how they would be connected to the electricity grids and what regulatory bodies would be involved.

Ryan said there have been some preliminary findings of the study, which is funded by the New York State Energy and Research Development Authority.

“I would say the output in Lake Erie might be 20 percent more than it would be on land,” he said.

The current technology allows for turbines in up to 70 feet of water, he said.

“The New York part of the lake gets pretty deep pretty quickly,” Ryan said. “So there’s a relatively narrow strip along the lake, extending out between three and six to seven miles.”

(Click to read entire article)

Schumer errs in supporting commercial wind power

Sen. Charles Schumer may believe he’s addressing critical issues by supporting commercial wind power, but real-life evidence and data that’s accumulated for more than 20 years seems to disagree.
It appears that industrial wind is mostly an environmental and economic folly that’s unfortunately diverting our attention and resources away from efforts to find truly meaningful solutions to ever-increasing, real problems. It’s being propelled by some of the world’s largest corporations because their investments in wind allow them to avoid billions in taxes each year, regardless of their oftentimes very “un-green” portfolios.

Schumer’s assertion that costs will come down as a result of wind power is inexcusably naive. In every electricity market with high penetrations of wind, consumer costs have sky-rocketed. Meanwhile, huge swaths of our remaining and cherished natural landscapes, which are not renewable, are being swallowed up by this boondoggle — ironically in the name of the environment.

The Public Service Commission had it right when trying to protect the interests of citizens from the likely consequences of the Iberdrola acquisition. Schumer hasn’t done New Yorkers, or this beautiful state, any favors by interfering.

Sue Sliwinski

Windmill project to traverse counties

Oswego, N.Y.

The Upstate New York Power Corp (UNYPC) presented a PowerPoint to Oswego County legislators Thursday outlining their proposed wind farm project.

Robert Burgdorf, of the Law Office of Nixon and Peabody, presented the powerPoint on behalf of the UNYPC, an electrical corporation formed to develop clean, renewable energy projects in the New York energy market.

The presentation outlined the specifics on a proposal for the Hounsfield Wind Farm on Galloo Island in Jefferson County, and the installation of a land-based transmission line necessary to transmit the wind power to an already established power grid.

The focal point of his presentation was to gain support of the legislators of the specific towns that this land-based transmission line is being proposed to cross through.

According to Burgdorf, the use of a landline is necessary, since a submarine line from Galloo Island to Oswego “would not be economically feasible.”

The route that this proposed transmission line would proceed through is still in its planning phase.

If the proposal is approved, approximately 10 miles of cable would be installed at the bottom of Lake Ontario from Galloo Island to the town of Henderson in Jefferson County.

The cable would then travel overland through the Town of Ellisburg, and the towns of Sandy Creek and Albion in Oswego County.

The overhead line would then connect with the New York State Electric and Gas 345 kV line in the town of Parish. From there, the power would be channeled into the proper facilities. The length of the transmission line is approximately 41 miles long.

Legislator Jack Proud R-Mexico, is a strong advocate for the wind farm, as well as the transmission line.

“I think there’s an inexhaustible source of power there (Galloo Island) and we should take advantage of it,” Proud said. “We’ve got to move away from petroleum however we can,” Proud said.

He believes that we are not doing enough with wind power and we should harness it any way we can wherever we can.

The UNYPC has approached up to 200 landowners in the projected path of the line and received mixed reactions. They are currently doing a survey of the respective towns, which the line will pass through one-by-one to determine the best route.

Local legislators also urged Burgdorf to ensure that the transmission line has the capacity to support further projects up north, so there won’t be the need for more lines.

UNYPC is still in the process of finalizing the route of the transmission line and the current route is still subject to change.

According to the UNYPC Web site, the construction and operation of the transmission line is received through the Article VII process under the New York State Public Service Commission. Article VII requires a full environmental and public health and safety review of a proposed facility.

According to Burgdorf, there are several contributing factors that the UNYPC must take into consideration when mapping the transmission line’s course. This includes avoiding sensitive environmental areas, avoiding wetlands, avoiding any sensitive historical properties and avoiding any impacts on agricultural resources.

According to the UNYPC, the Hounsfield Wind Farm Project includes the construction and operation of up to 90 wind turbines, the installation and operation of associated collection lines and related facilities.

Benefits of the project include meeting the energy needs of approximately 100,000 households, the prevention of releasing 1 million tons of CO2, allowing New Yorkers to decrease their reliance on expendable resources such as oil and to help New York meet its goal of increasing its renewable energy to 25 percent by 2013.

If established, the wind plant will produce 250 megawatts of power. It will also provide up to 250 jobs during construction, as well as up to 25 full-time post-construction jobs that are well paying.

Howard board gets planning board update

The Howard town board got an update from the planning board at its meeting Wednesday night.

The planning board has been dealing with various aspects of a proposed wind farm project in town, including a draft of the proposed State Environmental Quality Review findings statement and road use agreement.

“We got a three-page report from the planning board,” Councilman Bill Hatch said. “They’re very active right now with the windmill proposal.”

According to that report, at the planning board’s June meeting, it was informed by Bob Riekofski, town building inspector and code enforcement officer, that two building permits have been issued in area adjacent to the proposed siting of windmills by Howard Wind/EverPower, but neither of the permits were within the proposed fall zone regulations.

According to information presented to the town board, the planning board will be submitting the cultural mitigation suggestions to the councilmen and Highway Superintendent Anthony Clark will be reviewing the road use agreement. The planning board also is working on the decommissioning and site restoration plan, to spell out what will be done when the lifespan of the turbines is complete.

Plan to add more wind turbines OK’d

The Lackawanna Planning Board Thursday approved site plans for the second phase of the Steel Winds turbine project along Route 5.

The approval paves the way for 13 additional turbines to be erected on the property, on which 11 of the turbines would be located further inland, roughly midway between the Lake Erie shoreline and Route 5 on the old Bethlehem Steel site.

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

The Planning Board’s approval on Thursday actually covers 11 additional turbines. The board had previously, in 2005, approved two turbines north of the existing eight that were never constructed.

“So when we first came in with concept of Steel Winds, we had applied for site plan approval of 10 turbines,” Paul F. Curran, managing director of BQ Energy, explained after the meeting.

“We only built eight, though the approval [for 10 turbines] remained valid,” Curran added.

In all, 26 windmills are planned for the site. In addition to the existing eight and the 13 others that will be erected in Lackawanna, BQ Energy has already received approval from Hamburg officials to build another five turbines along the lake shore in Hamburg.

Even though, by state law, renewable energy projects like the Steel Winds farm are tax-exempt, the Lackawanna City Council last October unanimously adopted a law that would allow the city to collect property taxes on the second phase of the Steel Winds turbine project.

Instead, city officials worked out an agreement with the company in which it will pay the city $10,000 per megawatt for the power capacity generated by the turbines.

Each of the existing eight turbines in Lackawanna generates 2.5 megawatts of power, Curran said. If the additional 13 turbines each generates the same amount of power, that would be 32.5 megawatts and Lackawanna would receive $325,000 annually in taxes.

However, Curran said it has not yet been decided whether or not BQ Energy will use the same kind of turbines in the second phase of the Steel Winds project.

“We have to get all of our [other] approvals from the city and then we can go about the business of financing and ordering equipment,” said Curran. “The ones we have out there now are as big as they come. Our survey of the market is that they would either be [2.5 megawatts each] or a little bit less.”

He added that a firm date for when construction is to begin has not yet been set.

“We really have to get the equipment ordered now. Wind turbines are in popular demand. So it can take as much as two years to get the equipment on site. It might be 2010 that we get it. We’re still hopeful that we can get the equipment in by 2009 but likely it’s 2010,” Curran said.

Dual roles a hurdle in Iberdrola's takeover of RG&E parent

But so far the staff of the New York Department of Public Service has said ownership of both wind turbines and distribution-transmission lines is a no-no. The staff has opposed Iberdrola's plan to build three wind farms in Energy East territory.

The staff's position is important because it advises the five-member state Public Service Commission, which is to rule on the Iberdrola-Energy East deal this summer.

In short, the staff is saying that Iberdrola can deliver electricity and natural gas — what RG&E and NYSEG do now — but Iberdrola cannot also "make" the products, even if it uses the wind instead of coal or natural gas to generate electricity.

The staff's position is part of New York policy on energy deregulation, but it has left Iberdrola officials feeling as if they are facing an unfathomable government demand, especially because the state has set a goal of getting 25 percent of its energy from renewable sources such as wind and hydropower by 2013.

Iberdrola officials said they will walk away from the Energy East deal if the PSC votes to approve it but also insists on separating Iberdrola from its three proposed wind farms in Energy East territory.

Central to the disagreement is a worry that Iberdrola could exercise too much control over the electricity market, which might thwart competition and harm consumers. RG&E and NYSEG ratepayers who attended public hearings on the proposed deal earlier this year urged that any sale of Energy East lead to lower, not higher, rates.

(Click to read entire article)

Parcel owners act against Lyme

CHAUMONT — Ten town of Lyme property owners have brought an Article 78 proceeding against the Town Council, claiming it improperly rejected a petition protesting the adoption of a local law regulating the siting of wind turbines.

The owners group is asking a state Supreme Court judge to declare that its protest petition valid and that a local law adopted subsequent to the board's rejection of the petition be declared invalid, according to documents filed Monday at the Jefferson County clerk's office.

The property owners claim that a local law adopted by the board May 6 contains setback requirements for turbines that are "excessive" and effectively bans the development of wind-generating facilities within the town.

"We are not only challenging the protest petition invalidation, but the zoning law itself as capricious and arbitrary," said Dawn M. Munk, one of the landowners and spokeswoman for the group.

The landowners all are part of the pro-wind-power group Voters for Wind. They had expected to be a part of BP's Cape Vincent Wind Farm before the zoning amendment was designed and passed.

"We are not giving up on this," Mrs. Munk said.

The council was served the legal papers Wednesday night. A press release from Voters for Wind said the court has set July 31 as the return date for the petition.
"I think we were all surprised," Supervisor Scott G. Aubertine said. "We'll turn it over to the attorney and see what he recommends."

At issue is a section of town law dealing with zoning changes. Under the law, if owners representing more 20 percent of the total acreage in the town formally protest a change, a three-fourths majority of town board members is required to approve it.

The town rejected the petition May 6, maintaining that the signatures of property owners contained in the petition did not represent at least 20 percent of all property within the town. The board based its rejection on a review of properties by its assessor that concluded, among other things, that not all property owners of each parcel on the petition had signed it and that some of the signers were not listed on tax rolls as the owners.

The assessor said that each sheet of signatures on the petition needed to be witnessed and notarized or else there "is no proof that the actual property owner signed the petition."

The property owners say the signatures on their protest petition represent 9,610 acres, or nearly 27 percent, of the town's 35,920 acres. A representation of at least 7,184 acres would be needed to comprise at least 20 percent of the acreage. The town counters that, after removing parcels for which not all owners signed the petition and removing other ineligible signers, the petitioners represent just 5,302 valid acres.

According to the assessors' report from May 6, the foremost reason for rejecting parcels was that not all of the property owners of the parcels had signed the petition. For example, if a husband signed the petition but not his wife, when both are listed on the tax roll, the husband's signature would be invalid. That accounted for about 4,167 acres that were rejected.

"We did find an attorney general's ruling from 1989 that said both signatures are not required, so they illegally disposed of the petition," Mrs. Munk said.

On May 6, the board adopted a law requiring, among other things, a minimum setback of 4,500 feet from the high-water marks of Lake Ontario and the Chaumont River. It mandated the same setbacks from the village of Chaumont and the hamlet of Three Mile Bay.

According to court documents, the law makes "no distinction between the establishment of a single wind turbine or a project which includes dozens of turbines" under the state Environmental Quality Review Act and that siting of "small" wind energy facilities can be subject to the approval of adjoining property owners even if all other criteria for the location are met. In their Article 78 petition, the property owners contend this requirement, in essence, would give adjoining property owners "an absolute veto over windmills."

This was one provision that the council had taken out during its work sessions on the law. Another provision that is in the final version of the law, but had been removed during the work sessions, stated that the town would be entitled to all wind and sound data from wind measurement towers.

The town board approved the local law in a 3-2 vote, with Councilmen Warren A. Johnson, G. Norman Schreib and James R. Madill voting in favor. Supervisor Scott G. Aubertine and Councilman Michael P. Countryman voted against the amendment. If the protest petition had been accepted, four favorable votes would have been needed to adopt the amendment.

The property owners are asking a judge to rule the protest petition valid and thus require that a supermajority be achieved to approve the local law.

The property owners bringing the Article 78 proceeding are Julie E. and Guy E. Gosier, Jeanine and David N. Bourquin, Janice and Lawrence E. Comins, Dawn M. and Charles A. Munk, Charles B. Kingsley and Charles W. Mount. They are represented by Syracuse attorney James A. Gosier.

Enfield Town Board seeks stronger wind pact

ENFIELD — The Enfield Town Board held off on a vote Wednesday on wind-farm developer John Rancich's proposed developer's agreement in order to send it back to the town attorney to get a stronger agreement.

Town Supervisor Frank Podufalski said from what he's seen and heard, a local wind law and a developer's agreement are used during wind farm projects, so asking Guy Krogh, the town attorney, to strengthen the agreement would allow the town board to comfortably approve it down the road.

Krogh expressed concerns over several portions of the agreement, most notably that the town has yet to adopt a local wind law. Councilman Herb Masser said the town planning board is very close to submitting a proposal for the local law. All that's needed before passing it to the town are a few changes in the language, he said.

Rancich submitted the agreements in order to obtain the town's word that it won't block the project and so he may go ahead and sign a contract to purchase wind turbines. Steve Bauman, Rancich's associate, said the purchase could be as much as $10 million, which makes it prudent to seek an agreement with the town.

Krogh said in an e-mail to Podufalski that payments made to the town from the wind farm could be construed as a bribe as it's worded in the agreement. Podufalski and Masser said that was not the intent of the developer but rather a flaw in the language.

Originally Rancich requested the town be the lead agency in the state environmental quality review. However, Podufalski said the town cannot afford to take on such a project and the state Department of Environmental Conservation would likely want to be lead agency.

It would take the DEC at least nine months to conduct the review, Podufalski said.

The town board also held two public hearings on a proposal to build additional municipal buildings, which town officials estimate could cost between $1 million and $2 million.

Podufalski said if the town moves forward with the buildings, he would prefer not to raise funds through taxes but instead use a capital reserve of $500,000 as a down payment and bond the project for as many as 30 years.

The town has spent roughly $30,000 to date on site plan review for the project. The buildings are proposed in two locations — a public safety building and town court where the current highway department and town hall sit, and the additional buildings are proposed at the intersection of Trumbulls Corners and Route 327.

The board also discussed alternatives to the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals if it cannot give the town the lowest offer.

GE unit invests in wind farms

General Electric Co. said it will invest a total of $100 million in three wind farms under construction in New York, including one in the Wyoming County town of Wethersfield. GE, the largest supplier of wind turbines in the United States, is expanding investments to take advantage of federal tax credits and minimum state requirements for renewable energy. Wind is the fastest growing source of renewable energy worldwide because it's cheaper than solar or geothermal plants.

GE will buy the New York wind farm stakes from developer Noble Environmental Power. Noble will complete construction of the facilities, operate them and continue to own an undisclosed stake.

The facilities include a 126-megawatt wind farm in Wethersfield, a 106.5-megawatt farm in Chateaugay, Franklin County, and a 97.5-megawatt site in Altona, Clinton County.

Scipio town board discusses wind farm plan

SCIPIO -- What's in the wind for Scipio? The town board discussed a number of issues affecting future plans for the town.
Keith Batman, town supervisor, put a positive spin on his update of the wind farm/broadband plans. The board also weighed in on property issues related to its comprehensive plan, increases in highway expenditures due to rising fuel costs and their effects on budgets and taxes, and a review of its policies regarding the Southern Ambulence Service.

The Shell WindEnergy group met with a group of Scipio landowners on Monday at the Auburn Masonic Temple to discuss issues on which they disagreed, according to Batman.

"In the initial lease that Shell showed the landowners, all legal rights went to Shell. It was a big problem," he said. "Shell has economic concerns and proprietary technology that it's not willing to give away."

Batman said that they now seem more willing to discuss the landowners' concerns.

He said that there was sufficient information for the town to move ahead and consider forming an advisory group.

Landowners' concerns included placement of towers and placement of access roads, and they wanted to know who was going to decide. Batman said it's difficult to determine placement because of all the scientific testing that has to be done. Besides the wind, soil and subsoil samples have to be analyzed.

As for setback issues, a third concern, the town does decide how far back the towers can be set.

"The landowners were asking for some say in where they (the towers) would go," Batman said. While Shell Wind did not inform the town which landowners were invited to the meeting, Batman said it was easy enough to look at a tax map at the land between Wykoff Road and Route 34 to the town line to find out.

The meterological experimental tower (MET) was placed on the farm of Jay Horst on Skillet Road.

Even if there is a compromise on definitive issues, a process has to be followed where the landowners sign on, followed by a SEQRA process, which wouldn't be complete for another two or three years.

"They would like to be in by 2010 or 2011," Batman said.

Board breaks off with Empire State Wind Energy

SOMERSET — If Empire State Wind Energy wants to put wind farms in town, it first has to go through the planning board.

The town board made that split decision Tuesday, to the chagrin of board member Dan Engert, who made a motion to submit a counterproposal to ESWE. The vote was 3-2, with board members Randall Wayner, April Gow and Dudley Chaffee voting it down.

“At the apparent final turn, certain members of this board have stumbled and flip-flopped their position on this wind energy project in Somerset,” Engert said. “It’s been very difficult to stay the course and to attempt to see this project through for the benefit of the residents. I sincerely hope that at some point, this board can come together to support a wind project in our town.”

According to Engert, Wayner has consistently opposed the ESWE wind project and voted against any further discussions.

Wayner objected. “I have not been against ESWE. After receiving their rejection letter on May 12, I felt it was time to move on and open this up to other developers. I’m not anti-ESWE. They rejected our community host agreement, it’s time to move.”

On June 10, after debate, the Somerset Board voted 4-1 to send a letter to ESWE stating that the town was prepared to offer a counterproposal. It asked the wind energy company if it would consider the Somerset Host Community Agreement with an adjustment in the revenue-sharing formula.

Empire State CEO Keith Pitman had said that he wanted more specifics concerning money the town and his company would receive. On Tuesday, Engert made a motion, seconded by Supervisor Richard Meyers, to take a lower percentage of net revenue in order to entice ESWE back to the table.

Wayner objected to providing ESWE with actual numbers. The original percentage offered by ESWE to the town was 80 percent. The new Somerset proposal would have lowered the risk and the percentage of profit to the town. It was a graduated, eventually getting to 75 percent.

“I thought it was a mistake to offer that to ESWE in the first place June 10.” Wayner said Wednesday. “Last night, we corrected that mistake. I was very disappointed that, after all this time and energy and money spent by us, that ESWE declined to see the value of developing a wind farm in Somerset.

“It’s not a happy day. It would have been great to have it worked out. We spent a lot of effort on this,” he said.

It is not wise to go back to ESWE and offer a lower percentage, according to Wayner. A resident advised him, “When you put yourself in that position, beggars can’t be choosers. You become beggars instead of negotiators.”

Engert reported ESWE was eager to receive a counterproposal. “Why on Earth would the board not follow through and send a proposal when they resolved just one month prior to send a letter indicating as much?” he wrote rhetorically. “It’s clearly not a very positive development for the residents of Somerset who entrust these board members to negotiate in their best interest.”

Wayner said the board has supported wind energy since 2005. “We have the only commercial wind energy law in Niagara County,” he said. “We welcome wind energy, we have the laws ready to go.”

Wayner wants ESWE to enter an application to the town planning board. “Follow the process and we will welcome them with open arms. There is another developer who has expressed sincere interest in doing this. That’s AES.”

AES has not made a proposal, but expressed a desire to do so, according to Wayner. “Somerset will be there for any developer. We’re not going anywhere.”

A developer’s first step is to approach the landowners to see if it can secure land. Wayner said he does not know who has been approached.

“We will be taking no more steps regarding a Host Community Agreement with Empire State Wind Energy. This brings closure to that avenue,” Wayner said. “If they would like to develop wind farm in Somerset, they are more than welcome to submit an application to our planning board.”

GE reaches $4 billion mark for wind energy investments

General Electric, the world's biggest maker of power generation equipment, said that it would invest a total of $100 million in three wind farms under construction in northern and western New York.

The Fairfield, Connecticut-based GE will buy the New York wind park stakes from the developer Noble Environmental Power, a majority-owned unit of JPMorgan Chase. Noble will continue to own an undisclosed share, complete construction and operate the facilities.

They include a 126-megawatt wind farm in Wethersfield, a 106.5-megawatt farm in Chateaugay and a 97.5-megawatt site in Altona. Combined, the turbines can generate power for about 110,000 homes, the company said.

GE's power-plant unit is supplying each of the wind parks with 1.5 megawatt turbines.

(Click to read entire article)

Wethersfield turbines going up

Wethersfield is actually a continuation of the Eagle project, which is consuming the two adjoining towns almost in their entirety. It’s unbelievable that this could happen in such a populated area of NY (compared to the Tug Hill region, for instance). The total for this project will be around 160 turbines, but it’s not ending there. Plans are in the works to expand further into Orangeville, Sheldon, Centerville, and Farmersville - the towns that border to the north and south - forming a 50 mile crescent-shaped swath spanning three (once) beautiful rural counties. Additionally, many, many unrelated wind projects are underway in western and central NY. The NY-ISO queue lists almost 70 of them.

City tax rate adjusted up

The tax rate for Lackawanna taxpayers did not go down quite as much as city officials thought.

The City Council Monday was asked by Assessor Frank E. Krakowski to approve a correction of the adjusted base proportions of the 2008-2009 assessment rolls because of a computer error that did not assign an assessed value to one of the eight new wind turbines off Route 5.

“The dollar amount never got calculated into the computer,” Krakowski told lawmakers. “In March, we did the final roll and when things were [calculated] into the budget, that amount, somehow, was lost.”

The Steel Winds wind farm is under a Payment in Lieu of Taxes or PILOT agreement, which means the turbines are currently tax exempt, but they still must be assigned an assessed value in the final assessment roll totals, Krakowski explained.

As a result, the final assessment rolls, as approved by the City Council in March, were incorrect, requiring the Council to approve an adjustment to the tax rate to preserve the 10 percent shift between the city’s homestead and non-homestead base proportions it approved in March. Krakowski said the computer miscalculation had the effect of inflating the city’s taxable value by more than $1 million.

So while the city’s 2008-2009 tax levy will remain unchanged, the homestead tax rate paid by homeowners in Lackawanna was boosted 17 cents per $1,000 of assessed valuation from $11.12 per $1,000 to $11.29. That’s still 29 cents less than the 2007-2008 tax rate of $11.58 per $1,000 of assessed valuation.

The non-homestead rate paid by business owners in the city was bumped up from $32.35 per $1,000 to $32.95 per $1,000. The adjusted figure is 53 cents per $1,000 less than last year’s homestead tax rate of $33.48 per $1,000.

The adjustment approved by the City Council affect both the city and the school district portions of the 2008-2009 assessment roll.

First Ward Councilwoman Andrea Haxton balked at the late notice the council received regarding the incorrect assessment roll totals and suggested that lawmakers be given time to review it and hold a special meeting later in the week.

Krakowski said that would affect the timing of the tax bills, causing them to be mailed out a month later than originally scheduled.

Haxton also complained the Steel Winds wind farm project was supposed to lowertaxes for ratepayers in the city.

“With the windmills here, it’s ridiculous that taxes have to change,” Haxton said.

Wind power not answer

The exorbitant oil prices have still another unfortunate consequence: They are tricking some people into believing that we need to change to wind power.

Of course this is nonsense, but a lot of what we hear and see on energy matters is just that: non-science. (Among other reasons, it makes no sense given that only about 1.5 percent of U.S. oil imports are used for electricity generation, considerably less oil than the U.S. exports).

There are several reasons why oil prices have gone way up: decreased supply, increased demand, a devalued U.S. dollar, etc.

Recently on the Spiegel Online Web site was one of the best articles I've seen that explains how speculators (“noncommercial traders”) are likely the prime reason oil prices have escalated so much: “How Speculators Are Causing the Cost of Living to Skyrocket.”

The bottom line continues to be that environmentally, economically and scientifically sound solutions will get us out of this mess. In the meantime we can be certain that we will be aggressively solicited by Peter Pan Profiteers (e.g. wind power mercenaries) to line their pockets. They are banking on the technological ignorance of the public.

If we keep our wits about us, and employ critical thinking and scientific methodology, we will be able to resist their Siren's call. Feel free to e-mail me for scientific information about wind power at aaprjohn@northnet.org.

John Droz Jr.
Brantingham Lake, N.Y.

Texas oilman T. Boone Pickens wants to supplant oil with wind

SWEETWATER, Texas — Get ready, America, T. Boone Pickens is coming to your living room.

The legendary Texas oilman, corporate raider, shareholder-rights crusader, philanthropist and deep-pocketed moneyman for conservative politicians and causes, wants to drive the USA's political and economic agenda.

"We're paying $700 billion a year for foreign oil. It's breaking us as a nation, and I want to elevate that question to the presidential debate, to make it the No. 1 issue of the campaign this year," Pickens says.

Today, Pickens will take the wraps off what he's calling the Pickens Plan for cutting the USA's demand for foreign oil by more than a third in less than a decade. To promote it, he is bankrolling what his aides say will be the biggest public policy ad campaign ever. The website, www.pickensplan.com, goes live today.

Jay Rosser, Pickens' ever-present public relations man, promises that Pickens' face will be seen on Americans' televisions this fall almost as frequently as John McCain's and Barack Obama's.

(Click to read entire article)

CNBC.com Article: Oil Price Not Driven by Speculation: Pickens

DATE: July 8, 2008
TO: Boone Pickens on CNBC's Squawkbox
SUBJECT: Industrial Wind development in the United States
FROM: Jim Sawicki
jim@flmm.net
Canandaigua, NY

1) Please explain how industrial wind power will reduce America’s dependence on foreign oil when most of the oil is used for transportation vehicles including personal, freight, airlines, recreational, business, etc…

2) What are your thoughts on all the proposed United States industrial wind development outside the Texas to Canada corridor, especially the Northeast?

3) Concerning health and safety issues, what are your minimum setback recommendations? What recourse do landowners have if noise levels, including subsonic vibrations cause health problems? How will you ensure that stray electricity does no harm to humans or livestock? What is your plan to protect nearby homes and businesses from increased lightning strikes due to the incredible height of the industrial turbines?

4) What is your backup plan for electricity generation when the wind does not blow?

5) How will people close to these industrial machines be compensated when their property values fall and the quality of a quiet rural life they chose is compromised?

6) In your plan, you mention constructing a 4000MW facility. Is it correct to assume this 4000MW figure is RATED CAPACITY? If so, what are true net projections for actual electricity generation of your development? In your “corridor”, do you expect to achieve ratings higher than the typical very poor averages of only 20% to 30% of rated capacity?

7) Do you now live or plan to live within close proximity of industrial wind turbines? If so, how close? If not, why?

8) What are your plans for geothermal?

Thank you, for your time, Boone.
Respectfully submitted,
Jim Sawicki

Hanover presents proposed WECS law

HANOVER - Town officials introduced a new local law to regulate the construction of wind energy conversion systems in Hanover.

At a recent Hanover Town Board meeting, a public hearing was held for an updated local law regulating WECS - to replace the former local law from 2006 - in anticipation of the upcoming Ball Hill Windpark joint project with the town of Villenova through Noble Power.

The proposed project will be situated in the southern end of Hanover and the northern end of Villenova. An estimated 67 turbines are expected to be erected, producing 100.5 mega-watts, or enough electricity to power 40,000 to 50,000 homes each year. Of the 67 turbines, 11 will be situated on private property within Hanover, in addition to collection lines and a collection station.

According to the local law, the town board is designated as the sole permitting authority, and states "no wind energy conversion system shall be sited, located, constructed, erected or modified without the issuance of a special-use permit."

Application for a permit will be a two-step process, town attorney Jeffrey Passafaro explained. Applicants must first designate boundaries for a wind overlay zone.

A wind overlay zone is defined by the local law as "a district or zone which encompasses one or more underlying zones and that establishes requirements for wind energy facilities."

"The most important consideration is that the town is amending its local law to provide that no wind energy facilities will be permitted outside of a wind overlay zone," Passafaro said, "which is a zone to be created only upon application by the town board."

If the proposed wind overlay zone is approved by the town board, he explained, individuals must then make application for the actual wind energy facilities.

Applications, permits and inspection fees for WECS will be established by the town board. However, no amount was listed in the law.

Supervisor Katherine Tampio explained the new law outlines provisions for an escrow account to ensure all fees related to potential projects are covered by applicants.

"Any legal fees, consultant fees, or engineering fees that are incurred by the town of Hanover will be paid by the wind power applicant," she said. "It's not going to be at town expense."

In addition, the law requires all costs associated with decommissioning wind energy facilities to be paid by the applicant. Commercial WECS not generating energy for a period of one year must be removed, with the site restored to as natural condition as possible, and non-commercial WECS not in use for 12 successive months will be dismantled and removed at the owner's expense.

Revisions were also made to the height limit of commercial towers, which was extended to the statutory limit of 420 feet. Non-commercial towers are limited to 75 feet, or 120 feet including turbine and blades if the tower is located on a parcel of 10 or more acres.

Setback revisions require all commercial WECS to be 500 feet from the nearest property line, right-of-way, easement, power line, public road, as well as 500 feet from gas wells, and gas and electric distribution lines. They must be 1,000 feet from the nearest residential dwelling, school, church or historical structure existing at the time of application, and 100 feet from state-identified wetlands.

Non-commercial WECS must not be located closer than one and a half times the total height of the structure to any property line.

The law also set the noise limit at 50 decibels for both commercial and non-commercial WECS as measured from the nearest residences.

Failure to meet the requirements of a special-use permit will result in an applicants permit being revoked and order for wind energy facilities to be removed within 120 days of notification.

With the revised law, the town also leaves open the potential to receive revenue through a host community or PILOT agreements since WECS are typically tax exempt.

Kevin O'Connell suggested any money received be used to ease the tax burden of town residents.

"I realize the money received from this type of project could be minimal," he said, "but I would like to see these funds earmarked by the town board for property tax relief."

Mike Hall agreed and asked what town officials are planning to do with any revenue resulting from the wind farm project, and who will decide how the money will be used.

Tampio said the town board will ultimately decide how the money is expended, but has made no decisions since town officials don't know how much the town will receive yet. However, she said offering property tax relief to town residents will be a prime consideration.

The board tabled a motion to adopt the new WECS law in order to review and consider comments received from the Chautauqua County Planning Department and special council for a private developer. Copies of the WECS law are available at the town hall.

Selling the Scam and Messing Up the World

Wind turbine deal spins up controversy

The developer, in this case BQ Energy, must either pay taxes to municipalities and school districts or sign agreements to pay a sum in lieu of taxes, or negotiate separate payment schedules.

At issue is an earlier agreement between BQ Energy and the city that leaves the schools out of a 15-year payment plan. That still does not sit well with Paul Hashem, superintendent of schools at the time the deal was negotiated.

He felt, and still feels, the district was deliberately left out of negotiations when Lackawanna Mayor Norman Polanski signed the original Steel Winds deal.

The controversy began with the eight wind turbines occupying the grounds of the abandoned steel mill. Steel Winds I generates up to 20 megawatts of electric power and per the original agreement, signed Dec. 19, 2005, developer BQ Energy pays Lackawanna - the only benefactor of the agreement - $100,000 tax-free every year for 15 years.

(Click to read entire article)

Wind farm is tied to merger OK

ALBANY -- Iberdrola SA says that if the Public Service Commission does not approve its $4.5 billion acquisition of Energy East Corp., it will look elsewhere to make the $2 billion in wind-farm investments it plans for New York.

"Then Iberdrola would not view New York as a state with an attractive regulatory environment in which to target future investment," the company said in filing Thursday with the PSC. "In that event, Iberdrola would seek to redirect its resources from New York to other locations."

Iberdrola's remarks are the latest -- and perhaps the last -- that it will make officially in the lengthy approval process that the transaction has gone through before the PSC, the state agency that regulates utility companies.

Energy East, based in Maine, is the parent company of Rochester Gas & Electric and New York State Electric & Gas, which collectively serve about 1.3 million customers in upstate New York.

The five governor-appointed members of the PSC must ultimately vote to approve or deny the deal. They are expected to vote at their August meeting at the earliest.

But before that occurs, the process involves a legal proceeding that plays out much like a trial, with evidence submitted by the companies and various interested parties such as the staff at the PSC, the Consumer Protection Board and a group of large industrial businesses known as multiple intervenors.

The latest brief filed by the multiple intervenors on Thursday said the five PSC commissioners should ignore Iberdrola's threat not to build wind farms in New York.

"Efforts to hold the possibility of future wind generation development 'hostage' to merger approval should be met with skepticism and accorded little or no weight," the companies wrote.

Iberdrola Energy East deal must not be approved - facts about industrial wind

PSC Commissioners:

PLEASE read the following why NYS needs to rethink the role of industrial wind. Why would the PSC approve the Iberdrola deal when NYS has less wind than in the UK? The Industrial Wind record in the EU needs to part of the review within the regulatory NYSPSC process. Common Sense, NYS wind pattern realities and wind turbine technology deficiencies are core elements that clearly demonstrate that the world largest wind developer is not a positive candidate for ownership and managerial control of the NYS electric utility market.

James Hall
PO Box 657
Naples, NY 14512
(585) 534-5581

Research: Wind power pricier, emits more CO2 than thought

'Windfarm output is never zero. Sometimes it's less'

Fresh contenders have entered the UK wind power debate, as a turbines expert funded by the Renewable Energy Foundation publishes an investigation into a hotly-disputed subject - the variability in output to be expected of a large UK windfarm base.

In a just-released article for the journal Energy Policy, titled Will British weather provide reliable electricity?, consulting engineer Jim Oswald and his co-authors model the output to be expected from a large, 25+ gigawatt UK windfarm collection of the type the government says it would like to see in service by 2020. Wind is generally seen as the renewable technology best suited to the UK climate, and so it forms the bulk of most renewables plans for Blighty.

One of the most frequent criticisms levelled at wind power is variability. That is, when the wind drops (or blows too hard) the windmills stop spinning and you get no power. To begin with, Oswald simulates the output rises and falls that might result from a lot of windfarms distributed around the UK by using Met Office archived data from different points up and down the land. Many wind advocates have argued that with enough windfarms, widely enough distributed, you would get more reliable power output as some windmills would always have wind.

Oswald's analysis says this isn't true, with calm conditions across pretty much all the UK being fairly regular events.

Analysis from 1996 to 2005 shows similar results: large, rapid, and frequent changes of power output being common occurrences ... any national power system has to manage under the worst case conditions likely to occur ... These are not extreme cases, whose frequency is so low as to render the events negligible. Rather, these are representative ...

If the government succeeds in building its mighty 25 gigawatts of wind base by 2020, according to Oswald's Met Office data-based model its output will dip to pretty much nothing fairly routinely.

The next line of defence for wind advocates is normally the idea of hooking up the UK's grid with high-capacity links to those of other European nations, creating a "Supergrid" with wind so widely spread that output would be sure to even out. But Oswald has bad news for that idea, too. He compares his modelled UK big-wind output with that which has been produced in recent times by other European wind bases, particularly the substantial German/Danish one.

Not only does the large continental wind base exhibit nasty rollercoaster surges in aggregate output, these surges tend to match those to be expected in the UK. When the wind isn't blowing across most of the UK, it isn't blowing in Germany, Denmark etc. either. Worse still, this happens in the dead of winter when electricity demand is highest.

There is good agreement between the model and the [real-world European wind power output] data, which further supports the argument that wind output is controlled by the arrival and dispersal of large low-pressure systems moving over the coasts of Western Europe.

Being an engineer, Oswald examines the worst situations that occurred in his time frame - those that engineers would need to design the system to cope with. The nastiest situation that could happen would be early-evening flat calms in winter.

The relationship between wind power and demand was analysed by considering the moments of peak electrical demand in each of the last 6 years and ... the wind output for these moments ... each of them occur on a winter’s day between 5 pm and 6 pm, as this is the time when commercial and domestic demand combines into the day’s peak. As can be seen ... 16 January 2001 and 2 February 2006 were times of very little wind output ... and would likely fall into the category described as ‘low wind cold snap’ ... on 2 February 2006 the electricity demand in Britain reached its peak for 2006. The wind power model suggests that the output for the wind farms of Britain at that time would have been zero ... wind farm output for neighbouring countries has been determined for the same moment in time ... the measured output from NorthWest Germany, Ireland, and Spain was low ...

This passage in the report aroused particular ire from the British Wind Energy Association, speaking to the Sunday Telegraph on the matter at the weekend.
"When you look at the UK system as a whole, there is electricity coming from wind 100 per cent of the time," expostulated a testy spokesperson. "There is no moment in time when the output of the pool falls to zero."

Oswald's report partly agrees with this, saying that it is true that aggregate wind output is never exactly zero. Sometimes it's less than zero, though. It was during the nasty calm of 2006, for instance:

The [output of the UK's real-world] wind farms monitored by the National Grid [from 5-6 pm on February 2nd 2006] is shown as negative as the consumption of electricity used by these wind farms (to drive auxiliary loads) exceeded the total output.

And a supergrid to Europe wouldn't have helped, as everyone else had calms and high midwinter early evening demand too. That demand peak in 2006 was especially bad for wind power, but it was far from freakish. Such "low wind cold snaps" are routine, caused by midwinter high-pressure systems lurking on top of northwest Europe.

Like all such high-pressure systems they can easily hang about for a few days - sometimes longer - and according to Oswald this means you aren't going to cope with them by using pumped-storage kit. Such systems, typified by the Dinorwig installation in Scotland Wales, could lift water uphill using spare wind power on breezy mornings and let it flow down through hydropower turbines on calm evenings. They are much fancied by wind power advocates.

But speaking to the Reg yesterday, Oswald said that a realistically feasible UK pumped-storage base would only cope with one or two days of low winds at best. He said that there's a five-day calm most winters; and every twenty years or so you can expect a ten-dayer.

"I'm quite rude about pumped storage," he told us.

In his view, all this means that - certainly in a 2020 timeframe - the only feasible backup for the planned 25-gig wind base will be good old gas turbines. These would have to be built even if pumped storage existed, to deal with long-duration calms; and the expense of a triplefold wind, gas and pumped storage solution would be ridiculous. At present, gas turbine installations provide much of the grid's ability to deal with demand changes through the day.

The trouble is, according to Oswald, that human demand variance is predictable and smooth compared to wind output variance. Coping with the sudden ups and downs of wind is going to mean a lot more gas turbines - ones which will be thrashed especially hard as wind output surges up and down, and which will be fired up for less of the time.

Oswald is an expert on gas turbines, having worked for many years at Rolls Royce*. He says that most people, in allowing for gas backup to wind farms, assume that the current situation of gas-turbine usage applies. Not so, he says. Gas turbines used to compensate for wind will need to be cheap (as they won't be on and earning money as often as today's) and resilient (to cope with being throttled up and down so much). Even though the hardware will be cheap and tough, it will break often under such treatment; meaning increased maintenance costs and a need for even more backup plants to cover busted backup plants. Thus, the scheme overall will be more expensive than the current gas sector. And since people won't want to thrash expensive, efficient combined-cycle kit like this, less fuel-efficient gear will be used - emitting more carbon than people now assume.

High-efficiency base load plant is not designed or developed for load cycling ... Load cycling CCGT plant will induce thermal stress cracking in hot components ... The other impact on the individual plant is a reduction in the plant’s utilisation. This has an economic consequence, which will encourage operators of generation plants to buy cheaper, lower-efficiency and therefore higher carbon emission plants ... Reduced reliability will require more thermal plant to be installed ...

And it gets worse. All this will hammer the gas grid's pipeline networks and storage hardware too, costing the end consumer even more money - again, something that isn't currently accounted for in wind power schemes.

Power swings from wind will need to be compensated for by power swings from gas-powered plants, which in turn will induce comparable power swings on the gas network as plant ramps up and down. This will have a cost implication for the gas network, an implication that does not seem to have been included in cost of wind calculations ...

In essence, wind plans aren't actually wind plans, according to Oswald. They're gas plans with windfarms used to reduce the amount of gas actually burned in the plants. But he thinks the assumptions now made on costs and emissions reductions to be anticipated are unduly optimistic.

From one perspective, one might argue that this is the exact purpose of renewable plants, namely to reduce fossil fuel burning. However, it does this not by obviating the need for that plant, but instead by reducing the utilisation of power plants which continue to be indispensable. Electricity operators will respond to the reduced utilisation ... high capital [cleaner gas] plant is not justified under low utilisation regimes ... it is critically important that the carbon saving achieved by the whole system is known, understood, and achieved in practice. The effect of this higher carbon calculation does not appear to be mentioned ...

There was one little ray of light for wind power lovers, however. When we asked Oswald for his views on plans to deal with wind variation using car batteries plugged into the grid for charging, he said he hadn't so far factored that into his plans. There are those - Google, the Danes - who think this might be seriously useful if a large amount of road transport went electric. Obviously, that doesn't seem especially likely in a 2020 UK timeframe, but it might not take that much longer if oil prices stay high.

Of course, that in turn would mean a lot more electricity production required - perhaps magnifying the wind variation problem, if the increased 'leccy demand was met with windfarms. And the calm or windy periods might not come just when the electric car users wanted them to.
"It's an interesting dance," says Oswald.

PSC Iberdrola Energy East July 3, 2008 Letter by James Hall

July 3, 2008

PSC Commissioners
C/O Hon. Jaclyn A. Brilling
Secretary to the Commission
New York State Public Service Commission
Agency Building 3
Albany, NY 12223-1350

Dear Commissioners:

Cohocton Wind Watch has expressed its opposition in detail to the Iberdrola acquisition of Energy East. Since our last submission, the media has continually reported that Iberdrola would be making a $2 billion investment in NYS subject to PSC approval. As previously indicated in the record of testimony before Judge Epstein from the Rochester evidentiary hearing, Iberdrola has transgressed EU Anti-trust law.

As you are already aware, the use of this $2 billion figure is really the funds already committed to existing industrial wind projects approved by the NYISO. For egomaniacal politicians and greed driven media publishers to imply that Iberdrola will be a savior for NYS energy policy is deceitful and dishonest.

If Iberdrola were a proven Anti-trust violator with a worldwide pattern of vertical domination of energy markets, why would PSC commissioners believe their business practices would be different in NYS? There will be no new windfall of meaningful investment. Iberdrola will just assume the debt of their current industrial wind developments as they come online after commissioning. The salient point is that Iberdrola will become the master controller of electric rates in the Energy East district while having the duel ability to acquire industrial wind projects throughout the rest of the state.

Now if this is not anticompetitive, just what is the purpose of the long enforced de-regulation utility policy of the Public Service Commission? Any change in the separation of generation from transmission/distribution to favor a foreign monopolist would adversely place other utilities at a systemic non-competitive position.

Your duty is to protect the public and NYS ratepayers. The arrogance Iberdrola demonstrates in the world press towards the PSC is intolerable. Their defiant attitude should foretell the manner that this conglomerate conducts business.
Cohocton Wind Watch has provided significant and voluminous data and evidence to the PSC. Please review all the facts that support our conclusions. Iberdrola is a company that has refined the reprehensible Enron model and will destroy the reliability of utility distribution, while causing dramatic electric rate increases for New Yorkers.

Cordially,

James Hall for CWW

Attorney General Andrew Cuomo July 3, 2008 Letter by Jim Sawicki

July 3, 2008

Andrew Cuomo, Attorney General NYS
The Capitol
Albany, NY 12224-0341

Mr. Cuomo:

As a taxpayer, US citizen and lifelong resident of NYS, I am writing you objecting to the criminal activities associated with industrial wind development in NYS.

Our elected officials are being bamboozled by the industrial wind interests to believe that commercial/industrial wind projects are “friendly”, green and renewable. This is very misleading and incomplete information.

This industry is engaged in many illegal activities, supported by our elected officials that are supposed to be representing NYS citizens NOT the commercial wind interests, with their lobbyists, multi-national corporations and misleading and incomplete information (propaganda).

The corruption, deceit and disregard for proper procedure and laws by this industry should not be tolerated for one second. I personally know highly respected people with the highest level of integrity that possess information related to industrial wind’s illegal activities. They have already offered to meet with you on their time and dime. I strongly recommend you accept their offer.

A timely investigation is needed.

Legal rights of NYS citizens have already been abused and continue to be threatened by industrial/commercial wind companies that are allowed to do as they please through ignorant and/or bamboozled local governments AND their incomplete and misleading claims that have incorrectly affected the public’s and decision-makers’ views.

NYS citizens need your help to defend our legal rights and stop this madness!

Thank you for your consideration of this very important matter.

Respectfully,
Jim Sawicki
244 N. Main St.
Canandaigua, NY 14424
jsawicki@rochester.rr.com