Cohocton Wind Watch

SCE Wind Energy Production Records

2008-05-11T18:09:00.001-04:00

To my knowledge, these are the first actual wind energy production records ever to be made available to the public. I acquired them by contacting Southern California Edison's Renewable Energy Division.

The wind energy industry claims that they can provide power for thousands of homes with each new windmill development, but in fact, wind turbines can only generate kilowatts randomly and can't actually service even one home. By nature intermittent, wind is unreliable as a power source. At best, windmills intermittently generate 14% to 20% of their rated capacity. The small amount of power they do generate does not match the time of need profile. In fact, only 6% of this generation is at peak need time, 33% mid peak and 61% off peak (at night).

To put this in context, the 4,000+ windmills in the San Gorgonio Pass (approx. 565 megawatts of installed capacity) generate only approx. 100 megawatts per year. Edison uses approx. 13,000 MW of power in their service area per year. There is approx. 2,500 MW of installed capacity wind energy in the State of California which generates approx. 600 MW of power. California uses approx. 67,500+ MW of power annually.

The visual blight, myriad environmental impacts, adverse health effects, noise, and property devaluation from industrial wind energy development is a harrowing tradeoff for a minuscule amount of intermittent power.

Because wind is unpredictable, the utilities will always have to have the same amount of power from conventional sources ready to take over when the wind stops. Wind is a duplication of power that the utilities already have to have, otherwise there would be blackouts. As rate and tax payers, we are paying more than double for this duplication of energy. Wind energy is the most highly subsidized energy source in the US at $23-30 per MW.

Wind energy will not save oil and fossil fuels (an untrue claim frequently made by windmill developers) or preclude the need to build additional power plants. When there is a surge in wind power, the utilities back up wind with hydro, geothermal or gas turbines, because they are the easiest to manipulate to accommodate the vagaries of wind. California does not use oil for electricity generation.

In order for an energy source to be viable it must be able to perform on demand, which wind cannot do, and because of it's unstable nature, it's useless as capacity.

Perhaps knowing the amount of power windmills actually generate, from the very source that buys their power, will lead to an understanding of why this is happening. It's not about the negligible amount of power that they generate, it's about the huge tax credits and ratepayer subsidies given to wind energy developers (and SCE and other utilities who buy their power) and the wealth that has enabled them to buy great political influence.

Windmills haven't proliferated in the San Gorgonio Pass because of the minuscule amount of power they generate, but because of the tremendous wealth of local windmill developers from wind energy tax credits and ratepayer subsidies that have afforded them the luxury of contributing large amounts of money to Riverside County and Palm Springs elected officials who, for 25 years, have generously returned the favor by approving every one of their massive, land intensive projects, regardless of the consequences.

Alexandra Weit
Whitewater, CA
bobweit@msn.com

SCE__Wind_Energy_Production_Records.pdf

Wayland-Cohocton Central School District - Budget Public Hearing Tuesday May 13, 2008

2008-05-10T18:26:00.004-04:00

Important to attend, speak and submit written comments at the WCCS Budget Public Hearing - Tuesday, May 13, 2008 7:00 - 9:00 PM - LGI auditorium - WCCS Wayland, NY

Group critical of wind farms

2008-05-09T10:18:00.002-04:00

Coalition would keep watch on state energy policy issues

By Matt Surtel
msurtel@batavianews.com

Jim Hall has a philosophy. The 60-year-old Steuben County resident is part of Cohocton Wind Watch one of numerous small-town groups opposing wind farms proposed in their communities.

Each group is up against the same cookie cutter” approach when a wind energy developer enters their town with a potential project, Hall says. And they’re often re-inventing the wheel in their efforts.

Hail is among those organizing the Citizen Power Alliance. The coalition of groups and activists aims to address the bigger, state issues involved in energy projects and policy.

The CPA will conduct an organizational meeting the morning of May 18 at Letchworth State Park.

We’re not limited to strictly wind issues,” Hall said Wednesday. “We’re an environmental and energy alternative group that encompasses energy and environmental policy primarily in New York State but we have members outside the state ax well.”

The CPA includes 14 member groups so far, including Citizens for a Healthy Rural Neighborhood of Perry. They’re primarily based in Western New York, though the CPA is a statewide group, with other members in New Hampshire and Ohio.

“The alliance coalition has been organizing over the past several months,” Hall said. The Letchworth gathering is more a get-together because we don’t have a tremendous amount of opportunity where people can see each other face-to-face.”

Members will discuss which directions they’d like to pursue, along with organizing leadership and committees.

Eminent domain and the state’s proposed Article X legislation are among the CPA’s biggest concerns. Hall said.

The former has traditionally been used by the government to seize land for public developments such as highways and hospitals. But it’s more recently been used for commercial development, and CPA members fear eminent domain could be used for projects benefiting private companies, and which are not in the public interest.

Article X was developed to speed up the review process for determining the locations of new power plants, but expired in 2003. Proposals to renew the law are under way at the state level, and opponents have often cited fears it would take away local control over wind farms and other projects.

“Were really concerned home rule will be thrown aside and New York state will allow siting of all kinds of power projects, without taking into consideration the local economics and environmental policy like (the State Environmental Quality Review process).”

State officials have denied Article X would allow indiscriminate siting of power projects.

Hall said the state’s pursuing the “fast track” for such projects, which would override local laws and ordinances passed by towns.

We’re looking for a sound environmental and energy policy on the state level,” he said. “We feel the current direction does not work.”

The state is pursuing policies which ignore all the implications of subsidies given to corporations, that won’t really produce the desired energy, he said. He cited energy credit trading and problems with turbine gearboxes at the Steel Winds project in Lackawanna.

The CPA members feel that’s fraud, he said.

Besides the existing member groups, the CPA has another 15 to 20 partner links on its Web Site, Hall said. He believes the group represents several thousand members cumulatively.

Those interested in working with the group will be able to attend the gathering, 9 am to 10 pm May 18 at the Middle Falls pavilion. It’s asked that those attending be constructive, and the CPA reserves the right ask disruptive people to leave.

“We’re quite interested to invite anyone who has interest in sound and community-based environmental interests and energy policy in New York State to attend,” Hall said. “We don’t keep secrets. Were very open.”

Visit www.citizenpoweralliance.com for information.

Opponents demand investigation into wind farms by Mary Perham

2008-05-09T07:48:00.002-04:00

Bath, N.Y.

Wind farm opponents have called on Steuben County District Attorney John Tunney to investigate their wide-ranging allegations against a county agency, municipalities and individual officials.

In a May 5 letter to Tunney, Cohocton Wind Watch’s chief spokesman James Hall demanded an investigation into what he feels are alleged criminal actions. Those include false claims, filing false instruments, bribery of public officials, larceny and fraud.

Those accused 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 (formerly UPC).

Construction of roughly 50 turbines in Cohocton by First Wind began last fall. First Wind also has plans for a 36-turbine project in Prattsburgh and Naples.

EcoGen’s initial plans for a 50-turbine farm in Prattsburgh were approved two years ago by SCIDA, but the developer has taken no further public action since then.

Allegations by Cohocton Wind Watch against include:

. The wind developers knowingly provided and submitted false statements and false instruments for permits and during environmental studies.
. The developers have 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.
. Numerous allegations of fraud by governmental officials, developers and consultants.
. Unlawful conduct by Prattsburgh Supervisor Harold McConnell in voting for an eminent domain resolution by the Prattsburgh Town Board last month. If carried out, the resolution would allow the town to seize privately-owned property in order to bury transmission cables.

McConnell publicly admitted at the April 21 board meeting he set up an unpaid real estate transaction for UPC/First Wind last year. McConnell told the board he later received payment for the transaction after the town signed an agreement with UPC, adding he had been told by counsel the action would not prevent him from casting the deciding vote for eminent domain.

Sherron returned phone calls from The Leader Thursday but opted not to give a comment. Tunney said he had no comment on the letter.

If Tunney decides to take action, Steuben would be the third county in the state to investigate criminal wrongdoing associated with wind farms.

The Franklin County District Attorney’s office is conducting a grand jury investigation into wind farm-related abuses, and Delaware County is also investigating alleged criminal activity.

Representatives from the state Attorney General’s Office also reportedly met with wind farm opponents in Steuben County last week.

Schools readying for budget votes

2008-05-08T14:49:00.000-04:00

Wayland-Cohocton Central School District

The Wayland-Cohocton school board approved a $27.69 million budget, up $206,000, or 5.67 percent, from the $26.19 million budget passed last year.

In the budget, the school will levy $6.45 million in property taxes on the district, up $2.24 percent from $6.3 million in the 2007-08 budget.

Taxpayers wil see a tax rate of $17.06 per $1,000 of true assessed property value, up $0.38, or 2.28 percent, from last year’s tax rate of $16.68 per $1,000.

A property owner living in a $50,000 house with the Basic STAR exemption will pay approximately $511.80, up $11.40 from last year’s $500.40

The public will see the full budget at a hearing at 7 p.m. May 13 in the Large Group Instruction Room at the Wayland campus.

Incumbent John Sick will be joined on the ballot by newcomer Philip Trautman for two open seats on the Wayland-Cohocton school board.

Other propositions include increasing the schools payments to local libraries. Under the proposition, the Wayland Wayland Free Library Association will receive an additional $5,000, the E.J. Cottrell Library in Atlanta will get $2,000 more and an additional $10,000 is earmarked for the Cohocton Public Library.

The district also will have a proposition establishing a new vehicle and equipment reserve fund, which will ultimately set aside $2 million for new buses and other equipment.

Burke official must turn over wind-farm paperwork by DENISE A. RAYMO

2008-05-08T08:27:00.000-04:00

BURKE -- A Burke official with an option to lease land to a wind-farm company lost his court battle and must answer a subpoena from a Franklin County grand jury.

Town Council member David Vincent must turn over all correspondence, contracts, receipts, leases, purchase agreements, options or communications he has had concerning Noble Chateaugay Windpark, Noble Energy, Jericho Rise Windpark and Burke Wind Power.

"The grand jury is apparently investigating allegations of possible criminal conduct in the siting of wind farms in Franklin County," wrote St. Lawrence County Supreme Court and Acting Franklin County Supreme Court Judge David Demerest.

Vincent "is a member of the Town Board in the Town of Burke and, according to recordings in the County Clerk's Office, has entered into a contract with a developer of wind energy to lease some of his land," the judge stated.

Vincent attempted to have the subpoena quashed, claiming District Attorney Derek Champagne was conducting "a fishing expedition" by asking for a broad range of papers and information.

Vincent said that turning over the paperwork might violate his right to privacy and his right to avoid incriminating himself.

But, in making his ruling, the judge said Vincent did not show any proof that the information sought had "no conceivable relevance" to the grand-jury probe, nor did it appear as though the subpoena was issued in bad faith, as claimed.

Demerest said a grand jury must be given wide powers when making an inquiry.

"Here, the inquiry appears to be whether or not wind-energy developers are improperly interacting with local government officials," he wrote.

Vincent "has been linked to a developer through a search of public records, and it would appear that any writings that he might possess in relation to that transaction could have relevancy to the overall investigation," the ruling states.

Demerest also turned aside the argument that Vincent could incriminate himself if disclosures were made.

"Other than bald assertions by the petitioner that the production of these documents might tend to incriminate him, there is nothing before me that supports that assertion or that any other constitutional rights have been violated," the judge wrote.

"The documents sought involve negotiations leading to a public conveyance of a property right. They are legitimate business records."

Vincent could not be reached for comment Wednesday, nor could Chief Assistant District Attorney Jack Delehanty, who represented the DA in the case.

But Champagne said he was "pleased with the judge's decision," adding that it was "an important one. It strikes at the heart of our system.

Lyme council OKs strict zoning law for wind turbines by NANCY MADSEN

2008-05-07T20:08:00.000-04:00

CHAUMONT — The Lyme Town Council approved a strict zoning law for wind development that one developer said will make industrial turbine development virtually impossible.

The approval was on a 3-2 vote at a special meeting Tuesday night.

Before the vote, the council received a report from the assessors that invalidated a protest petition from wind development supporters that would have required four votes for passage of the law.

The law creates setbacks from wind turbines of 4,500 feet from Lake Ontario, the Chaumont River, the village of Chaumont and the hamlet of Three Mile Bay. The law also requires the wind farm developer to pay for several studies, including environmental, property value and well water quality testing.

"Tonight was the culmination of a lot of work by a lot of people, specifically on the Planning Board, citizens' group and town board," Councilman Warren A. Johnson said after the meeting. Mr. Johnson and Councilmen G. Norman Schreib and James R. Madill voted for the law.

BP Alternative Energy Project Manager James H. Madden has said that the law would make BP's proposed project section in Lyme impossible. BP's Cape Vincent Wind Farm had plans for 30 to 60 turbines in Lyme and up to 80 in the town of Cape Vincent.

Supervisor Scott G. Aubertine and Councilman Michael P. Countryman voted against the amendment.

"It's actually a bit of relief for me," Mr. Aubertine said after the meeting. "I've taken the brunt from a lot of people who said I wasn't representing the majority of the town, but I felt I was standing up for what was right. I felt that the law was restrictive to those landowners who wanted turbines."

Mr. Countryman said he had not been sure the council would vote on the law Tuesday night. "I'd like more time," he said after the meeting.

Supporters of wind power in Lyme were disappointed with having their protest petition knocked down. If the petition, which was submitted April 17, had been deemed valid and the council members had voted 3-2, the law would not have passed.

The petition is based on Town Law Article 16, Section 265, which deals with changing zoning laws. The section has several requirements for accepting such a petition, but it primarily states that if a petition contains the signatures of the owners of 20 percent of the land affected by the proposed change, the change must be passed by a supermajority of the council, or four votes.

Julia E. Gosier, a member of Voters for Wind, said, "I don't think there's any way that you can express the anger some of us feel right now."

The assessors' report said that the necessary 20 percent of the town's acreage would be 7,184. The petition had signatures representing 5,300 valid acres, after signatures for about 4,300 acres were ruled invalid. For almost 4,200 of those, the reason was that not all of the owners of record on the tax roll signed the petition. For example, if a husband signed the petition, but not his wife, when they are both listed on the tax roll, the husband's signature would be invalid.

In addition, the assessors said each page was not notarized.

The wind supporters will re-examine the petition and reasons for invalidating acreage.

"Just because they say so, doesn't mean it's true," said Charles A. Munk, a member of Voters for Wind.

Schools await windfarm decision by Mary Perham

2008-05-07T15:02:00.000-04:00

Bath, N.Y.

Just how tax payments from a windfarm development in Prattsburgh should be divided was argued last week before state Supreme Court Judge Peter Bradstreet.

No decision was made in a lawsuit filed by the Prattsburgh and Naples school districts against a payment-in-lieu of taxes agreement approved by the Steuben County Industrial Development Agency (SCIDA) in January. Bradstreet’s office said there is no timetable on when a ruling will be made.

The tax agreement was for a windfarm project by First Wind, formerly UPC Wind. The company is in the process of erecting 36 wind turbines within the boundaries of the Prattsburgh and Naples school districts.

The school districts are entitled to more money than the tax agreement provides for, their lawyers claim. A payment formula based on the potential output of the turbines — which generate electricity — was erroneous, the school attorneys argued.

The tax payments are included in a separate agreement between the town of Prattsburgh and UPC, which were approved by the town board last July.

According to Joseph Shields, attorney for the Prattsburgh school district, the district should receive $2 million more during the 20-year life of the tax agreement. Naples school attorney Ed Premo estimated his district should receive $560,000 more than the agreement calls for.

Attorneys for First Wind, SCIDA, the town of Prattsburgh and Steuben Conty asked Bradstreet to dismiss the districts’ lawsuit because the tax agreement has not yet been signed.

SCIDA attorney Dale Worrall said the agreement is expected to be finalized when the agency meets May 15. Worrall said one purpose of the SCIDA meeting will be to revisit the issue and consider a uniform tax exemption.

“All we’re saying is wait and see,” Worrall said.

Defendants also said the districts cannot ask to overturn the July fiscal agreement between the town and UPC.

“It’s a common tool used by projects to reimburse a community for the impact on the community,” UPC attorney Kevin Bernstein said. “It’s not taxes.”

But Premo said the town agreement was frequently referred to in discussions and documents setting up the PILOT.

“This was structured in a way to divert money away from the districts,” Premo said. “There is no indication they will do anything differently (in May).”

Group asks for criminal probe of Steuben wind projects

2008-05-07T14:07:00.000-04:00

Steuben County’s district attorney refused to comment Wednesday on a demand from an environmental group for a criminal investigation of wind farm development in the county.

Cohocton Wind Watch, a group opposed to wind farms already under construction, has called for a grand jury investigation of suspected criminal conduct by both wind developers and public officials.

In a May 5 letter to Steuben County District Attorney John C. Tunney, the group says “several residents and property owners of Steuben County have information of suspected criminal conduct.”

Tunney refused to comment Wednesday.

The list of alleged criminal activities includes:
• Making false claims and filing false statements.
• Bribery of public officials.
• Larceny.
• Fraud.

The only public officials named in the document are James P. Sherron, executive director of the Steuben County Industrial Development Agency, and J. Harold McConnell, supervisor of the Town of Prattsburgh. They did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

No response was immediately available from First Wind of Newton, Mass., developer of the Prattsburgh Wind and Cohocton Wind projects.

Town of Italy Wind Incentive District Plan - April 3, 2008

2008-05-07T07:28:00.000-04:00

Italy%20Planning%20Board.Resolution.08.05.03.pdf

Arkwright wind hearing draws overflow crowd by JOAN JOSEPHSON

2008-05-06T18:26:00.000-04:00

ARKWRIGHT — Extra chairs had to be brought into Arkwright’s highway barns to accommodate the number of people who turned out for the public hearing on the New Grange Wind Farm draft environmental impact statement (DEIS).

At the outset of the hearing, town attorney Daniel Spitzer said its purpose was to record public statements and opinions on the DEIS, which is part of the required State Environmental Quality Review process.

New Grange will have to respond to these statements, opinions and the slew of questions raised by the hearing attendees as well as written ones that have been submitted, Spitzer said

Because several individuals indicated they had a difficult time gaining access to the DEIS information, which is contained in two large notebooks, the board decided to extend the comment deadline to May 30.

Councilman Roger Cardot cast the lone no vote on this decision.

“We accepted the DEIS in February and provided access at the town hall and at the town clerk’s office and New Grange had a copy available on its Web site,” Cardot said. “I think we should stick with the 10-day comment period.”

With the rest of the town board approving the extended period, Supervisor Fred Norton said comments will be accepted by him and the attorney.

Arkwright Zoning Board of Appeals chairman Fred Bretl said he read through the DEIS and has forwarded concerns he has about the project to the town.

“I accept the fact that we need to address energy problems and, thinking about the future generation, I’m in favor of the project,” he said.

But, he noted, the project has fractured the community with some residents supporting it and others opposed to it.

“It will impact the environment and the economy - the overhead transmission lines will be in our faces and the biological impact on vegetation and wildlife has to be considered.

“We need specific plans that will address these concerns,” Bretl said.

Kerry Askins said he was among the “not in my back yard” advocates.

“The wind farm will completely change the character of Arkwright, the place I moved to for peace and quiet,” he said.

Askins was the first but not the last to raise the question of the impact the wind farm would have on property value.

Dorothy Holland raised the same question.

She also said the mitigation measures contained in the DEIS are not objectively defined.

“Will the township be subject to lawsuits filed by individuals who are opposed to the wind farm operation?” she asked.

Elizabeth Booth and Kathy Jackson said they found flaws and inconsistencies in the DEIS.

“I think the final plans should be known before any decisions are made,” Jackson said.

Booth suggested a copy of the DEIS be made available at a local library to give Arkwright residents better access to its contents.

Speaking in favor of the wind farm were Doug Fairbanks and his 11-year-old daughter Katie.

“I visited the Tug Hill wind farm and found the community’s economic hardship was no longer an issue. It is better off today because of the wind farm,” he said.

Katie asked the audience and the town board to think about the community’s children.

“I think it’s a great idea to provide us with clean air,” she said to applause.

Angela McAvoy said New Grange would provide the opportunity to build a strong economy for Arkwright.

“I think it will build a community that will encourage kids to stay here because Arkwright would be so much better,” she said.

Wendy Phillips said she thought the wind farm would be a solution to adverse environmental issues such as acid rain.

“New Grange would be a step in the right direction,” she said.

Jim Potter also supported the project.

“It will create a large lasting impact on our town and we should go forward with it,” he said.

Several others also spoke in favor of the wind farm project.

In response to Booth’s question about responses to the issues raised on the report, Spitzer said they would become part of the final environmental impact statement prepared by New Grange Wind Farm.

If there are significant changes to the report, another public hearing will be required, he said.

CRA consulting engineer Bob Adams said additional studies need to be completed before the final environmental impact study report is complete.

“It will take a while to have these supplemental studies done

“We review the final responses to determine if they are technically adequate and verify them,” Adams said.

State fails to lead on wind energy

2008-05-06T17:08:00.000-04:00

Canandaigua, N.Y.

Every new headline on wind turbines in the region documents another failure of the state to lead on an issue of importance to an increasing number of towns.
West of Rochester, the town of Hamlin, Monroe County, has adopted wind energy regulations following two years of sometimes angry debate, typically over how far turbines should be allowed from homes or property lines. Those who planned to lease land for turbines argued for a 1,000-foot setback. Opponents offered a variety of suggestions from 1,700 feet all the way to 1 1/2 miles.

Setbacks could spark a conflict between Naples, Ontario County, and Prattsburgh, Steuben County. Turbines for a wind farm in Prattsburgh would come within 500 feet of the Naples town line, though Naples residents have no say in the matter.

In a related issue, the Naples and Prattsburgh school districts are suing to get a share of the payment in lieu of taxes on the proposed Prattsburgh wind project. They realized too late that they had been left out of the deal.

Wind energy is not a local issue. Small towns and schools don’t have the high-priced lawyers and experts to evaluate a project or fight on their behalf when payment in lieu of taxes agreements are inked. Nor do they have jurisdiction on projects that might be just over the town or district line.

Before New York began its push for renewable energy, it should have funded objective research into the proper siting of wind towers. Surely somewhere between 1,000 feet and 1 1/2 miles is a setback that most people and wind energy companies can live with.

The state also should have set up ground rules for payment in lieu of tax agreements, requiring notification of all parties and general percentages based on how much of the project is in a given jurisdiction.

Instead, the state has stacked the deck in favor of wind energy companies, starting with former Gov. George Pataki’s executive order on June 30, 2001 — and continued by former Gov. Eliot Spitzer on Jan. 1, 2007 — that all state agencies buy 10 percent of their electricity from renewable sources by 2005 and 20 percent by 2010. Those orders turned the development of wind, hydro and other forms of renewable energy from desirable to a public imperative. The state Public Service Commission cited those orders in granting subsidiaries of UPC New York Wind, itself a subsidiary of UPC Wind Partners, permission to build the Cohocton and Dutch Hill wind farms, a total of 57 turbines, largely north and northeast of the village of Cohocton.

Wind turbines may yet have a valuable place among other forms of energy, each with its own advantages and drawbacks. Nuclear plants leave us with radioactive waste; the burning of natural gas, coal and oil — though oil is not a big player in electricity — pollute and are getting increasingly expensive.

State lawmakers manage to issue a press release on every headline of the day, from sex offender registries to a proposal for a gas-tax holiday. They are strangely silent on the gradual, haphazard implementation of wind utilities across the state. The time of leadership has come and nearly gone.

Bethlehem Steel site assessment deal hailed

2008-05-06T17:02:00.000-04:00

In other business Monday night, the City Council approved a payment-in-lieu-of- taxes agreement for Steel Winds II, the second phase of the wind energy development on the former Bethlehem site.

The agreement covers each of the proposed 13 turbines for 15 years, beginning when each is put into place. The payment will be based on $10,000 per megawatt for the 32.5 megawatts expected to be produced.

Each turbine is expected to generate 2.5 megawatts of power and $25,000 of revenue. The city will receive 50 percent; the school district, 40 percent; and Erie County 10 percent.

Under a voluntary agreement for Steel Winds I, only eight of 10 proposed turbines were erected on the site. The city receives $100,000 annually for those, which amounts to the same $12,500 per turbine they will receive under the new agreement.

A significant change in the new agreement is the inclusion of the school district and Erie County in the disbursement of PILOT monies. Neither was included in the original agreement, and the School District had explored options to stake a claim to money from the project.

School Board member Ronald Miller was among those who attended the City Council meeting. Referring to the PILOT for Steel Winds II, he said: “I hope that this fosters a closer communication and working relationship.”

Drake professor teaches wind energy law

2008-05-06T14:23:00.000-04:00

DES MOINES, Iowa - Students at Drake University are learning the laws of nature -- at least those that pertain to the wind.

Drake University law professor Neil Hamilton just finished teaching the school's first class in wind law to eight law school students and three attorneys. The students are taking their final exams this week and Drake plans to make the class permanent.

The class looks at the legal workings of wind energy, addressing land-use regulations, easements and leases, utility regulation and energy and environmental policies.

Hamilton's class is one of three across the country. The University of Texas at Austin and the University of Oregon in Eugene also teach wind law courses.

"With turbine farms going up all over Iowa, it's the next logical step," said Hamilton, director of Drake's Agriculture Law Center.

One student, John Hibschman of Logan, Utah, said he thinks the field will be wide open for wind law practitioners.

"Wind energy isn't as well-developed in Utah as here," Hibschman said. "But you can tell it's coming. I hope to be able to specialize in a practice."

Iowa ranks first in the country in the percentage of wind generation with 5.5 percent of electricity coming from wind turbines, according to the American Wind Energy Association.

While wind energy has a gentle, environmentally safe image, it has its share of conflict.

Some farmers in Buena Vista and Cherokee counties, in northwest Iowa, were angry when the owner of a 10-year-old wind farm built on their land cut their annual payments of $2,100 by two-thirds.

"We had no idea they could do it," said retired farmer Ronovan Meyer of Alta, who signed a lease with what was then an Enron subsidiary to allow a wind turbine on his 160-acre farm.

The lease signed by Meyer and about 30 other farmers called for payments of about 6 percent of the value of the power produced. The new terms cut those payments to 2 percent with landowners being guaranteed at least $750 per year.

"It was disappointing, but the amount of money is so small that it probably wouldn't be worth it to sue," Meyer said. "We may go through arbitration, though."

Hamilton said most wind farm leases don't have royalty clauses for electricity production. He said they tend to pay up to $4,000 a year to lease land with no royalties. That's different from many agreements for oil and gas production.

"You can claim your land rights, but how can you claim the wind?" Hamilton said.

Hamilton said he doubts wind energy will be an economic boon for rural Iowa.

"What you're seeing is income amounting to 1 or 2 percent of the total electric output from a turbine that goes back to the landowner," Hamilton said.

He said wind energy law may really take off if and when Congress passes a carbon emissions control system.

He said owners of green energy systems, such as wind farms, could profit from the sale of their energy credits to the owners of fossil-fueled power plants.

"There may be some windfalls there," Hamilton said.

Steuben County Distict Attorney John Tunney May 5, 2008 Letter from CWW

2008-05-06T09:29:00.002-04:00

May 5, 2008

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

RE: Complaint requesting a criminal investigation and grand jury – SCIDA, Government Officials and Wind Developers

Mr. Tunney,

Several residents and property owners of Steuben County have information and evidence of suspected criminal conduct. Three categories for investigation and corroboration of allegations include SCIDA and Mr. James Sherron individually, numerous town and planning board members of several towns (including but not limited to Cohocton and Prattsburgh) and Industrial Wind Developers – UPC (renamed to First Wind), and Ecogen (and their related LLC companies).

The scope of charges and areas of violations include False Claims and Filing False Instruments, Bribery of Public Officials, Larceny and Fraud.

1. Making False Claims and Filing False Instruments

From beginning to end of the entire process for approving and permitting industrial wind developers have knowingly provided and submitted false statements and false instruments. There is compelling and incontrovertible evidence that the developers and their associates have completely corrupted these processes:

 State Environmental Quality Review including Generic, Draft, Supplemental, and Final Environmental Impact Statements.

 Zoning Applications including Building Permits, Special Use Permits, and Requests For Variances.

 Bid Proposals submitted to NYSERDA that enable the wind project owners to receive millions of dollars in the form of production incentives, state and federal production tax credits, and Renewable Energy Certificates.

2. Bribery of Public Officials

There is a clear and persistent pattern on the part of the developers to improperly influence public officials through a number of schemes including cash bribes, lucrative lease terms, bogus real estate transactions, purchase of personal property, and contingent real estate purchase offers.

3. Larceny

In a great many situations, developers seeking to obtain leases for wind turbine sites or easements for access roads and transmission lines have relied on lies and deceptions to convince landowners to sign away their rights. These falsehoods are felonies under Penal Law Article 155 and other statutes.

4. Fraud

Constructive fraud has occurred by Mr. Sherron, SCIDA and numerous governmental officials and town boards. Developers have committed fraud of inducement by their suspect business practices and fraud in law by their substitution of LLC company names in their filings. Scores of representations made by consultants employed by town boards and paid by developers were based upon intentional deceptions.

The recent passage of an Eminent Domain resolution by the Town Board of Prattsburgh, provided additional proof of the unlawful conduct by the Supervisor J. Harold McConnell. Review the You Tube Video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OTEL0mw_Uq8

At the February Steuben County meeting, I publically called for a Steuben County DA grand jury investigation into the illegal actions involving industrial wind developers. The tone of the County Legislators projected an impression that several elected official are concerned that they may be the subject of a public and comprehensive investigation.

This fact is especially enlightening since the efforts of Franklin County DA Derek Champagne are rapidly approaching indictments. Also the DA in Delaware County is conducting an active investigation, as well.

It is the intention of this correspondence to request a formal meeting with you and your senior staff. Representatives of several community groups and individual citizens have proof of criminal conduct. Based upon the predominance of evidence from paper trails, video tape documentation, individual testimony and publicly filed documents; your office needs to convene a grand jury with the purpose of filing criminal charges against participants who violated the law.

Your prompt reply and scheduling for an initial meeting is appreciated.

Cordially,

James Hall and additional CWW members

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

Safety First on the UPC/First Wind- Cohocton CPP Project

2008-05-06T09:04:00.000-04:00

Note this NYSEG flyer that advertises wind energy from Community Energy - An Iberdrola Rewenable Company

2008-05-06T07:38:00.002-04:00

So Energy East is telling their customers that it doesn't matter what the PSC rules on the Iberdrola acquisition – IBERDROLA will be in the Wind business and you need to pay more so that more Wind Projects can be built.

ALBION: Wind witness speaks out by Nicole Coleman

2008-05-05T10:41:00.000-04:00

When commercial wind turbines were first proposed in Brad Jones’ hometown of Italy, N.Y., he thought it was a good thing.

As an environmentalist, he had looked into purchasing a small agricultural windmill at his farm for its clean, renewable energy.

Then he started asking questions.

Semi-retired, he began to spend close to 40 hours a week researching its potential effects. Others in his community joined in and they began networking with residents in areas facing the same issue with the Citizens Power Alliance. What they uncovered made them feel quite differently about the 400-plus-foot turbines, Jones said.

In their opinion, commercial wind energy doesn’t add up, he said: Concerns include the risk to wildlife and nearby residents, the lowering of property values and the loss of tourism.

When wind farms began going up in nearby Cohocton, also in the Finger Lakes region, they were convinced. While they support wind energy and alternative fuel options, big business wind development isn’t the answer, Jones said.

Although turbines have yet to be constructed in their town, they can see clearly the turbines in Cohocton. Their view from Main Street has drastically changed, said his wife, Linda Jones.

“I used to drive down Main Street and I was so in awe of the beauty,” she said. “Because of the enormity of the windmills, what is 10 miles away seems 1 mile away.”

A full crowd listened to Jones speak at Albion’s Pullman Universalist Church on Thursday evening at the invitation of the group Save Orleans County. Jones spends many of his evenings giving presentations in opposition to wind energy on a voluntary basis, he said.

Though he touched on only some of the issues, both positive and negative, he made it clear that in his opinion, the estimated economic cost far exceeds the economic benefit.

Those in favor of wind energy say they are in favor of wind energy over coal or nuclear generated power. The Orleans Industrial Development Agency has said that wind energy could attract new businesses.

Jones outlined some of the negatives. Wind farms generate a total of four jobs, each with an $18,000 salary, Jones said. Royalties to the landowner on which the turbines stand is minimal. Federal and state production tax credits make it a profitable venture for the developer, but not for the towns. They also take valuable land that could have been developed into a home or business off of the tax rolls, he said.

From a safety perspective, they pose the risk of ice throw, lightning strikes, blade and shadow flicker and audible, low frequency noise. Properly sited setbacks can prevent harm from ice throw, but many towns have adopted regulations far less than the necessary 1,500 to 2,600 feet, he said.

Their power production in this area of the state, less than 10 percent, is very little, Jones said. There has also been evidence that the power the turbines generate can create problems with the New York Power Authority grid, he said.

The harm to wildlife, especially birds, bats and raptors, has never been scientifically studied. The bird mortality estimate for a single communications tower is 1,000 per year. How many will the 1,500 industrial wind turbines proposed in New York kill, he asked.

When property values decrease and residents move away, taxes will increase to make up for the loss, he said.

“I won’t change the way I live in my home because a lobbyist wants to make more money,” Jones said. “They’re not going to give money to your schools. They’re not going to give money to your towns and governments.”

“We’ve seen the impact,” he continued. “You’re not going to be able to sell a home with a wind turbine. ... They destroy the value of real estate.”

Additional cause for concern is local air traffic. Mercy Flight is no longer able to fly through neighboring Cohocton, he said.

Wind energy developers, the majority of them foreign, make their money from the construction of the turbines, thanks to government grants, the production tax credits and renewable energy certificates, Jones said.

His personal opinion is that the government should reinvest these dollars into researching alternative solutions to increasing energy demands, he said. Some experts say the worldwide energy demand will increase 53 percent by 2030. Research on commercial fusion could be the answer to adding coal and nuclear plants to the landscape, he said.

At the local level, he advised towns to develop a comprehensive plan that states it will not allow any further industrialization.

“We live (in Italy, N.Y.) because it is absolutely beautiful. It’s quiet. It’s peaceful,” Jones said. “Why should we give up our quality of life? They have no right whatsoever. ... There are much better ways to make wind energy work.”

A number of representatives from Orleans County town and village boards attended the speech, among them Medina Mayor Adam Tabelski, Medina Trustee Andrew Meier, Gaines Supervisor Richard DeCarlo, Sr., Gaines Councilman Bill Lattin, Albion Supervisor Judy Koehler and County Legislator Gary Kent. Concerned Hamlin resident Paul Lapinski was also present.

Contact reporter Nicole Colemanat 798-1400, ext. 2227.

Senator Charles Schumer May 1, 2008 CPA Letter by James Hall

2008-05-05T08:26:00.000-04:00

May 1, 2008

U.S. Senator Charles E. Schumer
313 Hart Senate Building
Washington, DC 20510

Dear Senator Schumer,

The Citizen Power Alliance takes issue with your remarks about the PSC review on the Iberdrola acquisition of Energy East as reported in the D&C Schumer rips PSC staff on Iberdrola and in the Times Union Senator slams PSC in deal.

(Click to read entire letter)

Calvin Luther Martin May 4, 2008 Update Letter on Wind Industry Investigation

2008-05-05T08:15:00.002-04:00

… I live in Franklin County, New York State. Several months ago the Franklin County District Attorney, Derek Champagne, issued a press release announcing that his office was working with State Attorney General Andrew Cuomo to ensure that municipal officers were not violating state law regarding conflicts of interest. Mr. Champagne had been deluged with complaints from Franklin County residents, pointing out that it is not uncommon for town board members to hold contracts with the wind developers even as these very board members were drafting a wind law for their communities. (See Burke bought and paid for? and Where the buck stops ).

I am writing to give you an update. Mr. Champagne empanelled a grand jury to begin an investigation. Two of the town board members who had been subpoenaed (both have, or had, contracts with the wind developers) filed lawsuits against Mr. Champagne, effectively, in the eyes of many, admitting their guilt. There is a strong suspicion the wind developers put these two men up to their lawsuit.

It backfired. If they thought this would derail Mr. Champagne, they were wrong. He merely called in the State Attorney General to take over the investigation.

The Attorney General turned up at the Franklin Country Courthouse this past Friday in the person of an Assistant Attorney General and an Investigator. Between them, and members of the District Attorney’s staff, they interrogated a parade of town officers from the towns of Burke, Brandon, Bellmont, and Chateaugay. Some of these people had been issued subpoenas; others were sent polite letters of invitation.

In all, the AG spent from 8am till late Friday afternoon conducting interviews in the DA’s offices. They also interviewed town residents who have compiled documentary evidence against these town board members.

One of the goals of the investigation is to determine whether the developers are breaking the law, whether they have bribed or otherwise illegally influenced public officials, and to expose the wind developers’ relationships with various lawyers in the state who offer their services to municipalities to write pro-wind ordinances.

I believe NYS is the only state in the union where the attorney general has begun investigating the wind developers.

I believe we will be seeing indictments in the next few weeks.

Calvin Luther Martin
Malone, NY

Wind farms sprout in western New York

2008-05-04T07:55:00.000-04:00

Aside from Wyoming County, there are 62 other wind energy projects proposed across the state, according to the New York Independent System Operator. They include plans by Massachusetts-based First Wind for two projects in Ontario County and one in Genesee County; a 120-megawatt wind farm in Orleans County by Airtricity Inc. of Ireland; and a 75-megawatt wind farm in Genesee County by Tonawanda Creek Wind LLC.

First Wind, which last week changed its name from UPC Wind, also is planning a wind farm in Prattsburgh, Yates County, and has a pair of wind farms under development in Steuben County.

And Noble is planning 67 more turbines in the Southern Tier, primarily in Allegany County. It also has wind farms under development in Cattaraugus, Franklin and Clinton counties.

Iberdrola's presence

Noble's Wethersfield towers will be a short distance from the small Wethersfield Wind farm of 10 towers owned by a Pennsylvania subsidiary of Spanish energy giant Iberdrola SA, the company that seeks to acquire the parent of Rochester Gas and Electric Corp. and New York State Electric and Gas Corp. In all, Wyoming is home to two of the six wind farms currently operating in the state. The others are in Lewis, Madison and Erie counties.

According to paperwork filed with the New York Independent System Operator, the nonprofit organization that oversees the state's electricity transmission grid, Chicago-based Invenergy LLC and Texas-based Horizon Wind Energy both have proposals for wind farms in Wyoming County.

(Click to read entire article)

Stull vs. Gamesa Energy USA LLC and Allegheny Ridge Wind Farm, LLC

2008-05-04T07:45:00.001-04:00

Summary:

Todd and Jill Stull filed a complaint for damages and injunctive relief against Gamesa and Allegheny Ridge Wind Farm LLC (Babcock and Brown) due to excessive noise, flicker and other nuisance that are causing irreparable harm to the Plaintiffs and robbing them of their enjoyment of their property. A portion of their filing is detailed below. The full filing can be downloaded from the link at the bottom of this page.

StullvsGamesa%5B1%5D.pdf

(Click to read case summary)

ANOTHER CASE FOR ADEQUATE SETBACKS

2008-05-03T18:12:00.000-04:00

We are being told that 1200’ is an adequate setback for the mega-turbines slated for this part of New York State and that 600’ from property lines is reasonable. Those in favor of these figures are either total Neanderthals or just like playing fast and loose with facts and other people's lives.

Composites are now the main structural material in many boat hulls, power transmission poles, buildings, vehicles, aircraft structures, other large monolithic structures and, of course, wind turbine blades.

In aviation, so I am told, there are mandatory inspection documents which are issued whenever a problem is discovered or thought to exist. These are called “airworthiness directives,” or “AD’s.” Many have been issued recently for composite structures on jet aircraft, the same kind of “plastic” components of which turbine blades are made, but under far more stringent regulations and inspections than the wind energy industry enjoys. The introduction of composite components was the most radical change in commercial aviation since the advent of the jet engine of the early 50’s.

On Nov. 12, 2001, a catastrophic disintegration of a composite rudder and vertical fin occurred on an Airbus 300 near J. F. K. airport in New York. The ensuing crash killed 265 people in the second-worst air tragedy in history. In March of 2005 the rudder of another Airbus aircraft, this time an A-310, literally exploded and most of the rudder wound up in the Florida Straits.

In both of these and a list of other incidents, carefully manufactured and highly inspected composite parts were subjected to severe and massive delamination areas that could not be seen nor anticipated. In “composites” (a generic term meaning the product of joining different material surfaces under pressure and heat to form a lightweight yet strong structural entity), once the delamination process begins, rapid propagation and eventual failure of the structure can occur. Other aircraft have experienced partial or entire flight surfaces tearing off or becoming useless due to a hidden flaw in the manufacturing process and/or unusually rough handling of the structures, long-time fatigue or other factors. In no other industry are components as rigidly constructed, inspected and maintained as in commercial aircraft.

Yet, wind turbine blades – of similar construction and materials – never undergo the costly, painstaking treatment as do aircraft parts. Current materials, while generally strong and lightweight, can suffer these kinds of failure. Whether made from older technology glass fiber reinforced plastic (GFRP), aramid fiber reinforced plastic (AFRP), or the newer carbon fiber reinforced plastic (CFRP), the sandwich design of these surfaces – sometimes using a “honeycomb” design – and often a combination of technologies, can become contaminated. Lightening, bird strikes (Oh, yes; this all can happen, contrary to developers’ claims), moisture ingress and hydraulic fluid contamination and other factors can cause failure of the blades.

Question: how far can a turbine blade be “thrown” if the tip speed is in the neighborhood of 175 mph?

Possible Answer: Depends on the point at which the blade or portion of the blade separates from the rotor (angle with the horizontal) and how big a piece results. Chances are, it might travel “a country mile.”

Question: if an entire tower were to blow over while the rotor is turning at it’s operational speed, when the rotor strikes the ground, how far will the shattered pieces fly? (The “fall zone” is considered twice the height of the entire structure and is a minimal “safety area.” Shattered pieces could travel well outside of the fall zone, or in the case of the Cohocton towers, something in excess of 840’, perhaps a good deal farther.

Question: is it safe to assume (never “assume” anything!) that the stated 1200’ setbacks would be adequate in the event of a collapse? If there were a structure at the 600’ property line but owned by a non-participating landowner, what recourse would he have against the wind developer or lessee if the building were damaged?

Does anyone with a modicum of education really believe that living in a dwelling 1200’ feet from an industrial giant is a safe, prudent or reasonable distance? Do we really need these onerous and intrusive machines literally in our backyards? The politicians think so but, then, they won’t have ‘em anywhere close to their properties.

Sorry … I forgot. We’re just the country bumpkins who don’t have a clue about anything. Or, do we …?

Office Of Sheriff County Of Steuben PRESS RELEASE - 5/3/08

2008-05-03T18:02:00.004-04:00

THE STEUBEN COUNTY SHERIFF’S OFFICE ISSUED TWO SUBJECTS TICKETS YESTERDAY RELATED TO THE COHOCTON WIND PROJECT. THE SHERIFF’S PATROL STOPPED THE TRACTOR TRAILER HAULING A BULLDOZER ON COUNTY ROUTE 121 IN THE TOWN OF WAYLAND NEAR LOON LAKE. THE OPERATOR EDAWARD W. LAWRENCE, AGE 39 OF CLIFTON SPRINGS (NY) WAS CHARGED WITH VIOLATING THE OVERSIZE PERMIT CONDITIONS, OVER WIDTH VEHICLE, AND OVERLENGTH COMBINATION. THE OPERATOR OF THE OTHER VEHICLE ERIC M. BEASLEY, AGE 22, OF BREWERTON WAS CHARGED WITH ESCORTING WITH OUT AN ESCORT CERTIFICATE, IT IS ALLEGED THAT THE TRACTOR TRAILER OPERATOR HAULING THE BULL DOZER WAS IN VIOLATION OF THE SPECIAL HAULING PERMIT MAKING THE ISSUED PERMIT VOID. THE PERMIT ISSUED FOR THE HAULING COMPANY WAS FOR LOADS GREATER THAN 12 FEET REQUIRING A CERTIFIED ESCORT VEHICLE. THE VEHICLE WITH THE TRACTOR TRAILER WAS A REGULAR PICK UP TRUCK BELONGING TO THE CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, COUNTY ROUTE 121 HAD ONE LANE SHUT DOWN FOR OVER ONE AND A HALF HOURS WAITING FOR A CERTIFIED ESCORT VEHICLE TO SHOW UP. BOTH SUBJECTS ARE TO APPEAR IN WAYLAND TOWN COURT.

Schools await windfarm decision by Mary Perham

2008-05-03T11:38:00.000-04:00

BATH | Just how tax payments from a windfarm development in Prattsburgh should be divided was argued this week before Supreme Court Judge Peter Bradstreet.

No decision was made in a lawsuit filed by the Prattsburgh and Naples school districts against a payment-in-lieu of taxes agreement approved by the Steuben County Industrial Development Agency in January.

No decision on the claim was made and Bradstreet’s office said there is no timetable when a ruling will be made.

The tax agreement was for a windfarm project by UPC that is in the process of erecting 36 wind turbines within the boundaries of the Prattsburgh and Naples school districts.
The school districts are entitled to more money than the tax agreement affords, their lawyers claim. A payment formula based on the potential output of the wind turbines – which generate electricity – was erroneous, the school attorneys argued.

The tax payments are included in a separate agreement between the town of Prattsburgh and UPC which were approved by the town board last July.

According to Joseph Shields, attorney for the Prattsburgh school, the district should receive more $2 million during the 20-year life of the tax agreement.
Naples school attorney Ed Premo estimated his district should receive $560,000 more than the agreement calls for.

Attorneys for UPC, SCIDA, the town of Prattsburgh, and the county asked Bradstreet to dismiss the districts’ lawsuit, because the tax agreement has not yet been signed.
SCIDA attorney Dale Worrall said the agreement is expected to be finalized when the agency meets May 15. Worrall said one purpose of the SCIDA meeting will be to revisit the issue and consider a uniform tax exemption.

“All we’re saying is wait and see,” Worrall said.

Defendants also said the districts can not ask to overturn the July fiscal agreement between the town and UPC.

“It’s a common tool used by projects to reimburse a community for the impact on the community,” UPC attorney Kevin Bernstein said. “It’s not taxes.”
But Premo said the town agreement was frequently referred to in discussions and documents setting up the PILOT.

“This was structured in a way to divert money away from the districts,” Premo said. “There is no indication they will do anything differently (in May).”