Tuesday, December 11, 2012

New York’s Energy Highway – It’s All About Wind

This will be news for many folks reading this discourse. Governor Andrew Cuomo has given birth to the New York Energy Highway and has created an energy Task Force and a new website you should have a thorough look at: http://www.nyenergyhighway.com

But first we need to re-examine what Cuomo said in 2010 when running for NYS Governor. He wrote a document he called Power NY; The New NY Agenda, Andrew Cuomo, 2nd in a Series in which he identifies NYS problems and his potential solutions for New York including energy. Here’s some Cuomo  philosophy from his Power NY document:

Make New York the Nation’s Leader in Wind
Wind is the most promising renewable
resource for large-scale energy generation in New
York. (page 73)

The Attorney
General’s Code prohibits conflicts of interest between
municipal officials and wind energy companies and
establishes public disclosure requirements on wind
companies. (page 74)

We must work hard to
address the lack of adequate transmission capacity
for renewable energy from upstate areas to the high-demand
downstate region (page 74-75)

Promote On-Shore Wind Projects...

Facilitate Siting (page 75)

As described in other
sections, the State should promote smart
transmission investments that expand the market for
wind power. Next, as described in sections below, the
State needs a new energy siting law that will create
an accelerated siting process—allowing for necessary
community input and protecting critical community
interests—that ensures that sound projects are
approved and permitted expeditiously. A new siting
law should include an expedited review and approval
for renewable energy.
Enter Into Power Purchase Agreement for
Off-Shore Wind When Economically Feasible (page 76)

Cuomo wrote another 2010 document called The New NY Agenda: A Plan for Action. Here’s some of his thoughts from this document:

New York State already has ambitious goals to improve energy efficiency and increase the use of renewable fuels, but not nearly enough is being done to meet those goals. To make more rapid progress, the New York State Power Authority and the Long Island Power Authority must be made full partners in advancing energy related projects that will create jobs and grow the economy. Their efforts should include both major wind-power projects and making possible smaller “distributed generation” renewable energy projects by allowing net metering. (page 122)

New York’s farmers must be able to share in the benefits of emerging technologies. Alternative energy sources—ranging from wind to biomass—can create new economic opportunities for farmers. (page 124)

And Cuomo authored yet another 2010 document called The New NY Agenda – A Cleaner Greener NY which includes these thoughts:

            Moreover, we should build the smart grid to empower citizens to
reduce their energy costs and increase efficiency, support and foster the growth of clean tech businesses, promote onshore and offshore wind projects, create a new “NY-Sun” renewable energy tax credit to stimulate investment in solar energy, jumpstart the use of solar thermal technology for water heating and enact a new fuel neutral power plant generation siting law that provides fast-track review and approval for efficient power plants that provide the most power and are located on existing plant facilities and for renewable energy projects. (page 48)

And lets not overlook NYS Lt. Gov. Duffy and what the Rochester, NY newspaper said in an article on Aug 20, 2010:
Duffy, who is running for lieutenant governor, said offshore wind farms were desirable as a source of renewable energy and, potentially, a source of jobs and economic growth for the Rochester region.

From Cuomo’s 2012 State of the State address:
We have an excess of generation capacity and tremendous
wind power potential in Upstate and Western New York and
north of the border in Quebec. We have tremendous energy
needs Downstate. Just as we built the New York State
Thruway to unite distant parts of the state, we will develop
an “Energy Highway” system that will bring excess fossil-fuel
energy from Western New York downstate, and also tap into
Upstate’s potential for renewable energy, like wind power.

The permanent Article X energy siting law
we passed last year will be a critical tool to help with meeting
our energy needs and protecting our environment in this

In late March 2012 the Wall Street Journal published an article announcing that the Obama administration cooked up a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) agreement with 5 Great Lakes states governors, including New York, to speed up approval of offshore wind factories. That’s right, Cuomo signed up for this after knowing how repulsive off shore wind factories were to NY counties bordering the Great Lakes. Jefferson, Oswego, Wayne, Monroe, Niagara, Erie and Chautauqua counties passed resolutions against offshore wind, the NYPA GLOW project, in 2010 and 2011.

The Conclusion---
May we hence conclude that Governor Cuomo is a HUGE supporter of wind energy and that his use of the words “renewable” or “clean energy” mainly infer wind energy? Solar, biomass, flywheels produce such minute amounts of electrical energy they can’t even be considered players in today’s commercial energy production. And can we conclude that Cuomo’s appointees (see below) for the New York Energy Highway Task Force as well as New York State Board on Electric Generation Siting and the Environment - would be people that strongly support his position on energy, especially wind?

Here are the appointed members of Cuomo’s new energy Task Force - or the good old boys club:

Task Force Members:

·         Gil C. Quiniones
President and Chief Executive Officer, New York Power Authority (NYPA) (Co-Chair), lives in New York City
·         Joseph Martens
Commissioner, New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (Co-Chair), lives in the Albany area
·         Kenneth Adams
President & CEO and Commissioner, Empire State Development, lives in Brooklyn
·         Garry A. Brown
Chairman, New York State Public Service Commission, lives in Averill Pk. (Albany area)
·         Francis J. Murray, Jr.
President and Chief Executive Officer, New York State Energy Research and Development Authority (NYSERDA), lives in Delmar (Albany area)

Quiniones is the replacement for the arrogant Richie Kessel, ex-CEO and Pres. of NYPA – you remember Kessel don’t you - biggest wind charlatan north of Manhattan. We already know NYPA’s position on wind, especially offshore wind as NYPA squandered millions of NY ratepayer dollars on the failed offshore GLOW project. Quiniones was part of that fiasco. And read between the lines of Quiniones presentation (in blue) made at the recent NY energy summit meeting April 4, 2012 at Columbia University where he was a featured presenter:
Higher costs to downstate consumers due to inability to access power from lower-cost power plants upstate  - do you think NYS would be concerned if upstate consumers paid higher electric costs than downstate consumers for the same reasons? Would there be any state effort to reverse this? Doubtful!

Limited downstate access to renewable energy generated upstate....

Build clean, economical new plants..... could economical new plants possibly be wind factories? Of course it is – what else could it possibly be? What’s clean about wind energy?
Encourage development of renewable generation could this possibly be wind factories? Its amazing how they all try so hard to avoid specifically mentioning WIND.

Be sure to check out Quiniones Energy Highway Overview illustration #3 showing a sketch of generation, transmission, distribution and consumers and note the wind turbines as part of the generation facilities. Then we see the sketch showing the power going over the high tension lines, then to the power poles and finally to the homes, apartments and factories in sunny downstate while upstate get nothing but unintended consequences and inverse condemnation from wind factories. No sunshine upstate – only gloom over the noisy, ugly wind factories. Quiniones message is there for those “in the know” however its humbly understated. Cuomo appointed Quiniones as President and CEO of NYPA.

If you’ve ever walked into NYSERDA headquarters in Albany you can’t help but be overcome with their dedication to wind energy with pamphlets supporting wind in the lobby as well as photos of turbines in the building and staff clearly speaking overwhelmingly in favor of wind energy. No question on where NYSERDA stands on wind energy! Francis Murray heads NYSERDA and he’s a huge wind supporter – and NYSERDA is all on your dime – a tax disguised as a “charge” on your monthly electric bill.

Now think about the Power NY Act of 2011 and its Article X section (co-authored by NY Assemblyman Kevin Cahill and NY Sen. George Maziarz) and its New York State Board on Electric Generation Siting and the Environment, "Siting Board" – the board of five unelected Albany bureaucrats that will site new power projects (wind factories) in NYS that are NOT wanted by the municipalities that are victimized by them. Think about how covertly both Cahill and Maziarz crafted this Power NY Act bill for Cuomo – acted on at night on the last week of the legislative session with zero transparency. The bill was wordsmithed with “feel good” items in the first and third sections unrelated Article X  to to make it extremely difficult for fellow legislators to say no – and few did say NO.  Tacked onto the bill is the disgusting Article X section that does the real damage to New Yorkers and the sole reason why this bill was designed via Cuomo’s shrouded direction. The bill strips New Yorkers of “home rule” regarding the siting of power plants and gives that task to the siting board whose members probably have never visited the community they will victimize. Did you know that EVERY downstate assemblyman and senator voted in favor of the Power NY Act of 2011 and Article X but I wonder how many of them fully realized they were signing off on home rule (for siting power plants) when they voted to approve this bill? Think of the Power NY Act as the enforcement mechanism for siting turbines but this will all play out in the courtroom soon after the first victimized town is selected. Home rule is something that’s been part of the state Constitution for decades – and to now take home rule away from New York municipalities is illegal. Here’s what Cahill said at a March 2012 Jefferson Community College forum when questioned about this:

…..when the state picks a compelling interest to legislate on, such as energy and the energy planning process and the energy siting process, and it is considered to be one of those compelling areas, the home rule laws take second place to this.

Its probable Cahill is standing on weak ground by making such statements but only time and an expensive legal showdown will clear the air – unfortunately at the expense of the taxpayers in the victimized community. Numerous NYS counties have passed resolutions opposing Article X of the Power NY Act. A statewide organization called Coalition on Article X (COAX) has organized to inform state residents about the Power NY Act, Article X and how New Yorkers will be hurt by this law. See the website http://coaxny.org/  for much more Art. X and "home rule" information.

The Art. X section is so cleverly worded that nobody would pick up on home rule being snatched from New Yorkers by this bill until days after the acceptance vote was made. Cahill must have cherished this exploit and how slickly it passed with little question or controversy. And Cahill praises his Article x law because there is limited money available called "intervenor funding" for unfortunate wind victimized towns to use to save their ass. Cahill doesn't bother to explain that this funding is available to many different group including groups that want wind energy. The pot of intervenor funding money isn't really what Cahill tries to convince people it would be used to help their cause while it may actually go the other way - against them. All this is what Cuomo had in mind when he scribed his: The New NY Agenda: A Plan for Action.  The Power NY Act of 2011 creates a new board to force unwanted electrical wind plants on New Yorkers and here is the siting board lineup - the unelected bureaucrats:

New York State Board on Electric Generation Siting and the Environment members:

·         Joseph Martens
Commissioner, New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (Co-Chair)
·         Kenneth Adams
President & CEO and Commissioner, Empire State Development
·         Garry A. Brown
Chairman, New York State Public Service Commission
·         Francis J. Murray, Jr.
President and Chief Executive Officer, New York State Energy Research and Development Authority
·        Nirav R. Shah, M.D., M.P.H.
           Commissioner, NYS Department of Health, lives near Albany

With the exception of Dr. Shah - are we experiencing a Déjà vu ? Do you see a duplication here? Maybe a conflict of interest? Ask yourself - could this possibly be ethical? What did Cuomo once promise about ethics? A shortage of volunteer bureaucrats maybe? Governor – what have you done? Four of the 5 members of the NY Energy task force and NYS Board on Electric Generation Siting and the Environment are the SAME  people!  These are Cuomo’s “yes” men and the ultimate good old boys club. (We wonder how much an MD might know about the energy highway, siting power plants, etc. and appointed by Cuomo to boot) Think about this - if the Task Force recommended an action -  do you think the Siting Board would question it? Isn't this all ethical?

Now look at the NY Energy Highway web site home page for a peek at:

The Energy Highway

Wind turbine population is how Cuomo sees future electrical power being generated for downstate NY and NYC. This could be your upstate town! And of course this complies with Cuomo’s promised New NY Agenda(s). But what happens when the wind isn’t blowing?  Think about how many wind turbines it would take to power your home when the wind speed is zero MPH. And think about the Task Force – suggesting the wind factory debacle for upstaters for the benefit of downstaters and dressing it all up by overstating how many jobs the project will produce. And then consider the separate NYS Board on Electric Generation Siting forcing the wind factory on a municipality that loathes wind - as a result of the Power NY Act of 2011 and its Article X. This is the future of New York State energy through Cuomo’s & Assemblyman Cahill’s eyes but shared also by Senators Schumer and Gillibrand – all downstate NY Democrats united supporting wind energy.

Cuomo and his gang are ignoring the sound advice of the New York Independent System Operator (NYISO) that has repeatedly advocated placing the power generators near where the power is needed. Cuomo simply won’t accept this. Cuomo’s NY Energy Highway website info says that 67% of New York’s generating facilities statewide are 30 years and older and 22% are older than 50 years. Could anyone possibly think that a wind factory could last beyond 20 years? The Energy Highway website map shows the need for power is from Westchester County south and especially western Long Island. Upstate has excess power – why erect wind factories trashing upstate? What’s in all this for upstate except problems?  NYISO claims there’s a serious bottleneck getting power from upstate to downstate declaring aging transmission lines need repairs and replacement especially from Oneida County to Albany and south as far as Dutchess County. Placing wind turbines in Westchester County and on western Long Island would bypass that bottleneck. Can you imagine if upscale Westchester County and affluent Long Island would tolerate a wind factory in their neighborhoods – no way. Then why should upstate NY accept this vandalism of the countryside? And Cuomo wants to kill the Indian Point nuclear power plant (Westchester Co.)  that supplies 30% of NYC power but Cuomo has no alternate source for replacing that lost nuclear power. Cuomo hasn’t yet given an indication of support for the largest power project ever perceived in NYS history – the Champlain Hudson Power Express – that could bring 1,000 Mw of power from hydro Quebec to Yonkers, NY via cables placed under Lake Champlain and the Hudson River - a $2 billion energy project – privately financed too, clean, carbon free dependable energy. Its time Cuomo took the blinders off and realized wind energy is a poor, unacceptable choice. Governor what are you thinking?

Hudson Valley residents are still proud of their historic successful fight to save Storm King Mountain — northern gateway to the fabled Hudson Highlands — from a Con Edison proposal to build the world's largest pumped-storage hydroelectric plant – a 17-year battle beginning about 1963. Who can blame Scenic Hudson for trying to protect their majestic landscape on the Hudson River but how is this any different than the hydroelectric plant on the Niagara River? Isn’t the Niagara Gorge just as beautiful as the scenic Hudson Valley? Maybe now is the time for the Storm King Mountain pumped-storage hydroelectric plant to be revived as a replacement for the Indian Point nuclear plant Cuomo wants to dismantle. Electric power is needed in this Hudson Valley area – why shouldn’t Hudson Valley residents accept part of the negatives that solve their power problems? Maybe they’d like a wind farm instead? Upstate doesn’t need a wind farm or its power and we already have the Niagara hydro power project. Why should downstate, NYC and LI escape a little industrialization that helps them? Do you think Cuomo’s Task Force or Siting Board would locate a power plant along the Scenic Hudson? In Westchester County?

Some Answer(s)
The answer is not hundreds or thousands of wind turbines littering the NYS landscape or waterscape in producing intermittent, low quality, expensive power. The answer is not expensive solar or biomass or flywheels – these technologies cannot produce meaningful amounts of commercial energy. Here are some possible answers to a shortage of power downstate and on LI.
(1)   NYS accepting and encouraging the Champlain Hudson Power Express and its host – Transmission Developers Inc., to bring clean and affordable Canadian hydro power to Yonkers - needs immediate endorsing and state approval to begin construction as soon as possible. This is a project that needs fast tracking.
(2)   Correct the power bottlenecks where needed as NYISO requests
(3)   Replace decades old power lines and infrastructure where needed as NYISO requests
(4)   Conversion of coal power plants to natural gas should be investigated and pursued as soon as possible where cost effective and practical.
(5)   NYS should become a leader in promoting modular nuclear or mini nuclear power plants that will produce power that’s affordable, reliable, clean and green and be located on small parcels of land (less than 10 acres) near where the demand for additional power is greatest. Modular nuclear units could be small enough they could fit into a 2-car garage. Modular or mini nuclear power plants, also called local reactors, CANNOT meltdown, they’re affordable and safe. NYSERDA would be the state agency to promote mini or modular nuclear and provide taxpayer seed money to encourage this energy development. NYSERDA could be effective here and should be directing money to encourage developing this source of energy instead of squandering taxpayer money on intermittent wind, & expensive solar and biomass. Billionaire Bill Gates gave his backing to the nuclear power renaissance, investing $50 million in TerraPower, a nuclear power research company that is hoping to design a new generation of reactors. Hyperion, a New Mexico-based manufacturer, has said it plans to start delivering 25-megawatt reactors, which are about the size of a garden shed and cost around $25 million, in 2013. Can you imagine the tons of jobs makers of these mini nuclear power generators would provide if NYS industry was smart enough to be first to design, manufacture and market this technology for the world?

There is considerable information on modular and mini nuclear energy sources on the internet. Unfortunately, Id say its more likely to snow in July than for Cuomo to accept nuclear energy at any level.

Although Cuomo’s Energy Highway may touch on energy other than wind – make no mistake about the ultimate Cuomo motive – this is all about wind factories and forcing wind factories upon upstate New York via Article X because downstate wouldn’t tolerate these massive machines and the harm they bring. Wherever you hear or read the word "renwables" from Cuomo - replace that word with wind turbines. The NY Energy Highway website FAQ sections says:

This bold proposal for an “Energy Highway” promises to help provide reliable, economical power to New York’s homes and businesses for the next half century…

There is nothing reliable about wind, its expensive and NOT economical and no wind factory would come close to lasting a half century. Wind benefits are oversold. Its time politicians woke up to the half-truths, exaggerations and outright lies propagated by the corrupt wind industry for their own self-serving benefit. After getting by the mouth watering appeal and opportunity rhetoric – the wind energy sideshow fails to live up to is hype and will actually help drive America into fuel poverty. Staking our future energy needs on intermittent, expensive, non-dispatchable wind is folly and a money waster. Investing public money in wind factories misdirects funding that would be better invested in more promising clean energy technologies. We do not need to infest beautiful New York State landscapes or waterscapes with steel forests of 500’ tall lightening rods. Cuomo’s NY Energy Highway is all about wind, an assault on resident’s health, property values, natural resources, the environment, people’s quality of life and more.

Lastly is a wind turbine image that shows the horrible truth of the matter - the photo is from Hawaii where the weather is perfect 365 days a year. Would you like this scene in your town? This is exactly what a wind farm will look like in 20 years. Would you like it in your town?

Deralict wind turbines

Photo acknowledgment – treedork, Flickr

Judge dismisses Litchfield, NY wind turbine lawsuit

Posted Dec 10, 2012
 Utica, NY

A Herkimer County Supreme Court judge last week dismissed a lawsuit challenging the Litchfield wind turbine law.
While town law bans industrial turbines, smaller, domestic powered turbines — 120 feet or less at 50 kilowatts — are permitted.
The complaint filed by several Litchfield residents challenged the local wind law and said the Town Board violated several laws in the process of creating the new law. The lawsuit alleged that:
  • The plaintiffs want to nullify the decision to ban large scale wind energy systems, which they say is in violation of the state Environmental Quality Review Act.
  • When adopting a zoning ordinance, Attorney Meave Tooher — of Tooher & Barone, LLP based in Albany who represented the residents — said officials did not refer to the county planning agency for review of the final local law. Though it was reviewed once, Tooher asserted that officials received suggestions but ignored them and enacted a completely different law.
  • Officials did not abide by the Open Meetings Law.
Attorney Douglas H. Zamelis, who represented the town along with Town Attorney David Malone, said Judge Norman Siegel held that the petitioners didn’t have the legal standing to bring a claim under the state Environmental Quality Review Act, that the argument concerning the Open Meetings Law is barred by the expiration of the statute of limitations, and the law is not a zoning law, so referral to the planning agency is not required.
“The court saw right through this meritless lawsuit and summarily dismissed the petition on the Town Board’s motion” Zamelis said.
Tooher could not immediately be reached Monday.
Zamelis said the residents would have the right to appeal.

Monday, November 26, 2012


The letter below is addressed to Jaclyn Brilling, Secretary to the Commission, New York State Public Service Commission, New York State Board on Electric Generation Siting and the Environment. The "siting board" is a good old boys club consisting of 5 unelected Albany bureaucrats who will decide if your NYS community will be cursed with an unwanted energy plant such as a wind factory. It's likely that none of these 5  have ever visited the community that will become the victim of  their decisions - nor do they care as they are totally unconnected to the victimized municipality. This all became possible because of the Power NY Act of 2011 and its Article X section which became law in August 2011 when Gov. Cuomo signed the bill passed by the NYS legislature THAT REMOVED HOME RULE from all NYS municipalities - home rule that up till passage of the Power NY Act - was guaranteed by the NYS Constitution. Make no mistake about it - Gov. Cuomo was the major behind the scenes force that caused this piece of disgusting legislation to happen. Cuomo's upfront man in the NYS Assembly is Ulster County Assemblyman Kevin Cahill - who co-authored this repulsive bill. Cahill is a wind zealot, a turbine hugger. Now energy company British Petroleum, who has been fined BILLIONs for environmental disasters,  is applying to the NYS Board on Electric Generation Siting and the Environment to erect a 124 turbine wind factory in the town of Cape Vincent - a horror of a project. And although the town of Cape Vincent has zoning regulations in place to prevent this type of development - the decision to allow this disgusting project will ultimately be made by the unelected 5-member siting board of good old boys. The letter below is not a fictitious letter written by some ghost writer with an axe to grind - but written by a real home owner who trusted & loved NYS and unfortunately is now getting ripped off for investing in a new home in NYS in Cape Vincent on the St. Lawrence River in an exclusive location. Think how you would feel if you were him. Do you think the good old boys club in Albany cares one bit? Read his letter:

Secretary to the Siting Board
Hon. Jaclyn A. Brilling

I have been a regular visitor to the St. Lawrence River and the 1000 Islands Region of New York State since the early 1960's.  Once I became familiar with the Cape Vincent, New York area, I fell in love with a section called the Tibbetts Point Lighthouse Road.
This road runs from the village of Cape Vincent  to the historic lighthouse on Tibbetts Point.  This is where Lake Ontario forms the St. Lawrence River.  There are no houses on the river side of the road.  Directlly across the river is Wolfe Island, Ontario, Canada.
I dreamed for years of owning property and a home on this road.  I wanted to sit on my front deck and watch the river run, the wildlife and the seaway traffic.
In 2006 that dream came true.  My wife and I were able to buy 7.7 acres for $313,000.  We started to build our river home in 2006 and finished it in 2007.  It was built by a local contractor.  When it was completed in 2007, our total investment in this land, house and landscaping came to $1,036,000.  A nice addition to the local tax base.
Shortly after we took possession of this home the Province of Ontario authorized the construction of wind turbines on Wolfe Island, Ontario, Canada directly across the river from our new home.  We can now see 67 of them from our front deck.  At night instead of stars, we have flashing red lights.  We hear the turbine noise 24 hours a day if the wind is from the west or northwest.
Two real estate agents have told us that if we were to try and sell our new home at this time we would be lucky to sell it for $500,000 to $600,000.  A reduction of my investment of some 40-50%.  I say again, a loss of 40-50%.  The reason they give is the view shed of 67 wind turbines on Wolfe Island and the threat of British Petroleum constructing 100 plus 499 foot tall wind turbines around the village of Cape Vincent, NY.
Industrial wind turbines should not be allowed to built anywhere there are residences that will see devaluation of their property value of 20-50 %.  There is no logic that can justify doing so.
The western end of Wolfe Island, Canada is now a real estate grave yard and will remain so until such time that the turbines are gone.  The same effect will be felt all around the village and town of Cape Vincent if BP is allowed to construct turbines.  It will be a real estate grave yard for years and the financial blow to the local tax base will be devastating.
Industrial wind turbines do not belong near people and residences.  Why should our tax dollars be used to subsidize their operation while at the same time we see our property devalued?  There is only one answer to the question - it should not be allowed to happen.
There is no single individual on the Siting Board, the PSC or in power in Albany that would want this situation forced on them..
Please do not allow this travesty to be forced on our area.  It would destroy the 1000 Islands;  one of the natural jewels of New York State.

Respectfully submitted

Tom McMullen

Friday, May 18, 2012

The Champlain Hudson Power Express

Transmission Developers Inc. has proposed bringing hydro power into NYS from Quebec to serve mainly New York City and the power line would be mostly underwater and all of it hidden.  But immediately there is controversy on this novel idea and NYS politicians have already taken a major blow to the project.  Sen. George Maziarz introduced legislation, BILL NUMBER:S7391, to prohibit the use of eminent domain for projects that import power, rather than buying power from New York state power plants.
   “Imported power is the wrong choice for our state’s economy and the wrong choice for our energy future,” said Maziarz, (R)Newfane, Niagara County, chairman of the Senate Energy and Telecommunications Committee.

Several of us question Sen. Maziarz's wisdom & position regarding the Champlain-Hudson Power Express (CHPE)  that would run this power line under Lake Champlain and the Hudson River to bring 1,000 mw of Quebec hydro power to NYC. Sen. Ritchie of the north country takes the same position as Maziarz and about 15 other senators followed suit. One of our folks actually spoke with north country Sen. Ritchie's staffers and didn't get reasonable answers. 

We can't help but wonder who's paying off Maziarz - the wind companies or the labor unions? The CHPE is the biggest energy project ever to hit NYS (yes - bigger than Niagara), a 100% privately financed $2B effort, it bypasses the eastern NYS electrical infrastructure congestion, it would send clean, continuous, 100% renewable electric to NYC as DC current (gets converted to AC in NYC), would save NYC residents money on their power bills, no power lines to fret about, silent, completely out of sight, won't attract terrorists, will get NYC out of power trouble if their Indian Point nuke plant gets shut down and more. 

Senator Patty Ritchie is seen here with NY Ag.
Commish and industrial wind lease holder,
Darrel Aubertine, the former Senator.
 Ritchie was supported by Northern New York anti industrial
wind  voters who have often been given credit for
turning enough votes for her to defeat Aubertine.
Like many politicians, it now appears that she may
be nothing more than a "wind chime".

Now think of all the reasons why you can't accept wind energy and the CHPE avoids them. We're not sure yet where Cuomo stands on the CHPE or where NYSERDA stands either but no doubt they are listening closely to what's happening right now in the Maziarz dilemma. The wind companies have come out opposed to the CHPE so that is enough to make me a supporter of the CHPE project. Maziarz has made decisions lately that make me question where he stands on wind energy and if he's really on our side of the fence or in line with fellow Republicans. Although he's opposed to Great Lakes offshore wind Im not sure his wind opposition goes beyond that. He's already said he's not completely against wind energy. He was a co-sponsor & big supporter of the Power NY Act of 2011 (and Article X) that stole municipal home rule from New Yorkers regarding power plant siting - something that Cuomo had in the cards for a long time if you've read Cuomo's agendas published long before election day. 

I even question Maziarz actions going further back when he was supposed to have a public hearing questioning  NYPA's arrogant Richie Kessel's actions & behavior but cancelled the hearing after he (Maziarz) hurt himself in a fall and never rescheduled the hearing. The reasons why Maziarz and a few others won't support the CHPE project are weak and puts "possible" jobs ahead of the need for affordable electric power to downstate New Yorkers. I do not believe this power line will put any New Yorker out of a job. 

In addition to Patty Ritchie's lack of CHPE support there are 16 other NYS senators NOT backing the CHPE. Although we have not heard Gov. Cuomo speak directly about the CHPE by name, you have read into this comment he made prior to his election. In essence Cuomo does back power coming into NYS from Canada to NYC.

We need to do a better job of transmission. We need to get the power from upstate New York, from Western New York, low-cost power from Canada down to the metropolitan area of New York City. That’s basically a challenge of transmission lines.” – Andrew Cuomo, Hofstra/Newsday Gubernatorial Debate, October 18, 2010.  
Maziarz position on the CHPE now put's this promising power project in jeopardy. They seem to think its unacceptable to have Quebec making money off this project yet never consider the enormous transfer of American wealth into the hands of offshore wind turbine manufacturers paid for with 60% American taxpayer money  on a wind power project that may last 20 years!  
What is Maziarz, Ritchie and the other senators thinking????

Tuesday, April 3, 2012

Maziarz announces creation of power allocation board

State Sen. George D. Maziarz, R-Newfane, said this years budget negotiation process includes formation of the Western New York Power Proceeds Allocation Board.

The Niagara Power Project allocates a certain amount of power each year for use by citizens of this state. Upon the circumstance that there is allocated, but unused power, the proceeds from that unused power are collected into a single account to be distributed for local economic development as opposed to being placed into the general state fund.

The new five-member panel, whose members will serve a five-year term, will designate where this money will go. Three of the board members must live within a 30-mile radius of the plant, two of whom will be chosen by the heads of the state Senate and Assembly.

All eligible companies for receipt of the money either private or not-for-profit must also be located within 30 miles of the Lewiston Plant and must show that funding will support the growth of business in the state. Funding can be used for capital investments in buildings, research and development, tourism, transportation projects or for land acquisition.

This is a huge victory for our district and the people of Western New York, Maziarz said. Having this money stay in the area for economic development will not only help the growth of the business of the state, but more importantly the businesses in Niagara County.

(article is from the Batavia Daily News 3/27/12)


Losses can be up to 40%; values affected 3 miles from turbine sites

By Billie Jo Jannen

For East County Magazine

March 30, 2012 (San Diego’s East County)--A real estate appraisal expert who has made a specialty of assessing impacts from nearby wind turbines has announced that he is revising his figures in response to a recent study of over 11,300 transactions near northern New York state turbine arrays.

Mike McCann of McCann Appraisal, LLC spoke at a Boulevard wind energy information meeting last winter and said property owners experience an average 25 percent value loss. At the time, he expected properties up to two miles away to experience value changes in response to turbine construction.

“I wish to refine my distance of forecast adverse value impacts to include at least three miles, should any 3 MW turbines be proposed by any of the developers in East County,” McCann said. “Furthermore, property value guarantees should extend to this greater range to reflect the nuisance and stigma effect of more powerful turbines on marketing of homes.”

The current study, released in July of 2011 by the Economic Financial Studies School of Business at Clarkson University, cites losses of up to 40 percent on properties located within 0.10 miles of new wind turbine facilities. This has prompted him to revise his loss figure upward to a maximum of 40 percent and expected adverse impacts out to three miles, with effects becoming less extreme with distance.

“The Clarkson study clearly shows value impacts out to three miles … and clearly shows the closer the turbine, the greater the impact,” McCann said.

A Department of Energy-funded study originally released in 2009 by Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, often cited by wind proponents, says property value impacts are negligible and that effect of what is known as “wind farm anticipation stigma” goes away after the turbines are built. The Berkeley results are divided into sale values for pre-announcement, post-announcement and post-construction time periods. The study may be flawed, however, as it leaves out some of the very properties that might provide the most telling results, McCann said.

In the study footnotes, Berkeley authors specified that land without homes, properties of over 25 acres, homes where the sale price was thought to deviate too far from the norm and 34 repeat sales were excluded from the study.

A co-author of the study, SDSU Economic Department Chairman Mark Thayer, defended the exclusions as appropriate from a statistical standpoint and said he feels the Clarkson study supports the Berkeley conclusion that negative value impacts go away after the projects are built.

The Clarkson study is based mainly on pre-construction figures, Thayer said: “There is no impact. Property values do not go down near turbines.”

However, real estate appraisers, which are closely regulated by the federal government, base their calculations on “comps,” or nearby sales of comparative properties. A licensed appraiser would not have the luxury of leaving out the properties omitted by Berkeley, McCann said, so the older study does not offer a realistic assessment of the value loss that would be suffered by neighbors of turbine arrays. Statistically appropriate or not, those sales would not be excluded from an appraisal.

“The fallacy of the Berkeley study is the assumption that value impacts must somehow be statistically significant against a data background of sales located 5 to 10 miles from turbines,” McCann said. “Had they focused on the 1/10th-mile to 3-mile range, I expect their findings would be significant to the homeowners who are losing 15 to 40 percent of their home equity and value.”

Neither of the studies consider time-on-market, McCann said, adding, “And what about the homes that don’t sell at all?” The latter do not show up on studies because there are no transaction records for them.

The size of the turbines being built is also a factor in McCann’s announcement, as almost all the data available is on older installations that contain smaller turbines. Increasingly, 3-megawatt machines are appearing on the landscape with concomitant increases in visibility and sound pressure. Sound is a “disamenity” often mentioned by wind farm neighbors, some of whom have abandoned their homes altogether because of the constant noise.

McCann is a proponent for property value guarantees in communities that are heavily impacted by wind turbine projects. Both the Boulevard and Jacumba planning groups have asked for property value guarantees as a condition for permitting large projects, as well as evidence-supported setbacks and protections in the noise ordinance to include low frequency and sub-audible effects. Both wind developers and the county have, so far, resisted addressing either.

Among the numerous energy projects proposed for the Boulevard area is Tule Wind, an up-to 137-turbine project slated to be built along McCain Valley Road by Iberdrola Renewables. The turbines will range in size from 2MW to 2.5MW.

Asked why, if they are so confident of no impacts, wind developers wouldn’t offer value guarantees, Tule Wind project manager JeffreyDurocher said the terms of some proposed guarantee programs are just too subjective.

Some proposals “… give the homeowner leeway to claim that any value loss is attributable to the presence of turbines, despite the possible effects of other factors,” Durocher said.

“It’s very difficult to get agreement among the various parties on what causes the value loss. To do that for a number of homes for an unspecified distance is pretty unmanageable,” Durocher said.

The Ugly Truth About Wind

Here's what a wind farm will look like in 25 years. Now try to get these eyesores removed and you'll find the decommissioning money has disappeared or was never properly appropriated to begin with. Do you think your local municipality could afford to pull these down? This double hit wreckage "complex" is in Hawaii and will likely curse the view for years. This is what many communities have signed up for while thinking the wind factory would be a plus for the community. And now - because of the Power NY Act of 2011 law - this hideousness will be FORCED onto NYS communities thanks to your state legislature. Be glad this monstrosity doesn't live near you.

Please pass this sight along and share it with as many people as you can. This is the ugly truth about wind.

Deralict wind turbines.
Photo acknowledgment – treedork, Flickr

Monday, April 2, 2012

MOU Signed by State & Federal Officials




I. Purpose
The purpose of this Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) is to support the efficient,
expeditious, orderly and responsible review of proposed offshore wind energy projects in the
Great Lakes by enhancing coordination among federal and Great Lakes state regulatory agencies
(collectively, “Participants”).
The Participants that hereby enter into an MOU are the following Great Lakes states: the
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, and the States of Illinois, Michigan, Minnesota and New York;
and the White House Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) along with the following federal
agencies: the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), the U.S. Department of Defense (DOD), the
U.S. Department of the Army (DA), the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP), the
U.S. Coast Guard (USCG), the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (FWS), the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), and the National Oceanic
and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).

II. Background
Great Lakes offshore wind energy resources present a significant opportunity to stimulate
economic revitalization of key sectors of the economy, to enhance our national security by
accelerating energy independence efforts, and to diversify the region’s energy supply. Federal
offshore wind resource data for the Great Lakes indicates a gross resource of more than 700
gigawatts, representing a substantial portion of the nation’s total gross offshore wind resource.
However, offshore wind ventures must be evaluated against potential social or environmental,
safety and security impacts and fully considered by the appropriate Federal and State regulatory
and resource agencies. Because the bottomlands of the Great Lakes are owned by each State
within its respective boundary and both Federal and State regulatory authorities apply, proposals to develop offshore wind in the Great Lakes require consideration and decisions by a number of Federal and State entities, including each of the Participants.

III. Responsibilities of Participants
In order to ensure successful collaborative implementation of this MOU, it is the intent of all
participants to:
1. Commit to provide staffing and resources, including attendance at periodic meetings, to
implement the provisions of the MOU and resulting agreements, to the extent resources
2. Work together to create a regulatory roadmap – a document that describes the
regulatory review process and identifies current and anticipated data needed to inform
efficient review of proposed offshore wind energy facilities in the Great Lakes. The
roadmap should also set forth a clear process to efficiently coordinate data collection
and dissemination and reviews undertaken by the Participants that will include
anticipated processing times for review, to the extent possible, and decision-making
associated with each type of permit. The roadmap will remain consistent with
Participants’ existing authorities. The Participants will complete and publish the
roadmap within 15 months of the effective date of this MOU;
3. Participate in pre-application consultations and joint reviews of applications for
offshore wind development, consistent with Participants’ jurisdiction and authorities, to
the extent resources allow;
4. Discuss, document and apply lessons learned during implementation of this MOU when
evaluating existing and future proposed offshore wind energy facilities;
5. Designate one or more appropriate points of contact to coordinate implementation of
this MOU. The points of contact will (1) assist with identifying and assigning
appropriate personnel and resources; and (2) assist in ensuring that responsibilities are
6. Attempt to resolve issues arising under this MOU expeditiously; and
7. Agree that the White House Council on Environmental Quality can serve as a single
Federal point of contact for communications under this MOU, as authorized by the
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. § 4321 et. seq.) to ensure
federal responsiveness to state inquiries concerning this MOU and that nothing in this
MOU shall preclude a state from working directly with individual Federal agencies.

IV. Mission and Statutory Authority
Each of the participants asserts their authorities and responsibilities as follows:

CEQ – The CEQ has authority to enter into this MOU under NEPA. NEPA assigns CEQ the
task of ensuring that federal agencies meet their obligations under the Act. Its principal purpose
is to formulate and recommend national policies to promote the improvement of the quality of
the environment and to coordinate federal agency actions in order to advance those policies. The
CEQ Chair is also a co-chair of the National Ocean Council. Efforts undertaken by the
Participants to fulfill the responsibilities of this MOU will inform implementation of the National
Policy for the Stewardship of the Ocean, Our Coasts, and the Great Lakes, including the process
for collaborative, regional coastal and marine spatial planning.

DOE – DOE has authority to enter into this MOU under Section 646 of the Department of
Energy Organization Act (Pub. L. 95-91), as amended (42 U.S.C. § 7256). DOE’s Office of
Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) mission is to enhance energy efficiency and
production, to protect the environment, and to bring clean, reliable, and affordable energy
technologies to the marketplace. EERE’s Wind Program focuses on advancing the offshore wind
industry in the United States.
DOD – DOD has authority to enter into this MOU under powers and authorities contained in 10
U.S.C. 113. Consistent with its national defense mission, the DOD reviews and comments upon
whether proposed offshore wind energy facilities will adversely affect Defense activities and will
work with the Participants to identify possible measures to mitigate those impacts.

DA – The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), a branch of the DA, has authority to enter
into this MOU pursuant to its responsibilities for administering laws for the protection and wise
use of waters of the United States, pursuant to the requirements of Section 10 of the Rivers and
Harbors Act (RHA) of 1899 (33 U.S.C. § 403), Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA) (33
U.S.C. § 1344) and Section 14 of the RHA (33 U.S.C. § 408). Under Section 10 of the RHA, the
USACE may authorize work and/or structures in or affecting the course, condition, location, or
capacity of navigable waters of the United States, which include the U.S. side of the binational
Great Lakes, their connecting channels, and adjacent wetlands. Under Section 404 of the CWA,
the USACE may authorize the discharge of dredged or fill material into waters of the United
States, including wetlands, where the USACE determines that the proposed action is not contrary
to the public interest and is in compliance with the Clean Water Act 404(b)(1) Guidelines (40
CFR 230). If any proposal would require alteration or modification to an existing Corps project
and/or structure, an additional authorization must be received from the Secretary of the Army
(delegated to the Chief of Engineers) in accordance with Section 14 of the RHA, or under 33
U.S.C. § 408. The USACE review is also subject to compliance with NEPA and several other
applicable federal laws.

ACHP – The ACHP has authority to enter into this MOU under Section 202 of the National
Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) (16 U.S.C. §§ 470 et seq.). The mission of the ACHP is to
promote the preservation, enhancement, and sustainable use of our nation’s diverse historic
resources, and advise the President and the Congress on national historic preservation policy.
Sections 106 and 110 of the NHPA require that federal agencies act as responsible stewards for
our nation's historic resources. When their undertakings affect historic properties, which can
include tribal historic and cultural resources, Section 106 requires federal agencies to take into
account the effects of their undertakings (which include issuance of leases, permits, and
licenses), on historic properties, and afford the ACHP a reasonable opportunity to comment on
such undertakings. The ACHP's regulations (36 CFR Part 800) set forth this process, involving
consultation with the State and Tribal Historic Preservation Officers and others, as appropriate,
to determine if the undertaking will affect an historic property, and if so, what measures might be appropriate to avoid, minimize, or mitigate adverse effects.

USCG – The USCG has authority to enter into this MOU under 14 U.S.C. § 93(a)(20), which
allows the Commandant of the USCG to enter into cooperative agreements with other
government agencies. The Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security delegated to the
USCG her authority under the Ports and Waterways Safety Act (PWSA) (33 U.S.C. § 1221 et
seq.) to prevent damage to structures on or in the navigable waters of the United States and to
protect the navigable waters of the United States and the resources therein. The USCG has
safety and regulatory jurisdiction over projects located in navigable waters of the United States
and is responsible for granting permits for private aids to navigation (see 33 C.F.R. Part 66). The
USCG, in coordination with the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, is a cooperating agency
for NEPA purposes and will provide recommendations to the lead federal agency responsible for
approving the proposed action on matters over which the USCG has jurisdiction by law or
subject matter expertise, to include, but not be limited to, issues related to safety of navigation,
OREI security, or to minimize potential impacts on other USCG missions.

EPA – The EPA has authority to enter into this MOU under a wide range of environmental laws,
including Sections 104 and 118 of the Clean Water Act (CWA, 33 U.S.C. §§ 1254 and 1268) and
Section 103 of the Clean Air Act (CAA, 42 U.S.C. § 7403). The EPA also has authority to carry
out the commitments contained in this MOU under a wide range of environmental laws,
including Sections 402 and 404 of the CWA (33 U.S.C. §§ 1342 and 1344) and section 309 of
the Clean Air Act (CAA, 42 U.S.C. § 7609). The EPA has responsibilities relevant to the siting
of offshore wind facilities, including participation in the CWA Section 404 permit process and
restriction, in certain circumstances, of the use of specific disposal sites for dredged or fill
material pursuant to Section 404(c). The EPA also has responsibilities related to activities that
involve discharges of pollutants subject to the requirements of the National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System, established under Section 402 of the CWA. Pursuant to Section 309 of the
CAA, EPA is required to review and comment on environmental impact statements (EISs) for
proposed actions of other federal agencies in accordance with NEPA and to make those reviews
public. EPA also has the discretion to review and comment on other documents prepared under
NEPA. EPA is also the lead federal agency on the U.S. side for implementation of the binational
Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement under 33 U.S.C. § 1268. The Agreement, first signed in
1972 and revised in 1978 and 1987, expresses the commitment of the U.S. and Canada to restore
and maintain the chemical, physical and biological integrity of the Great Lakes Basin Ecosystem
and includes a number of objectives and guidelines to achieve these goals. It also reaffirms the
rights and obligations of Canada and the United States under the Boundary Waters Treaty of

FWS – The FWS has authority to enter into this MOU under the Endangered Species Act (ESA,
16 U.S.C. § 1531et seq.), NEPA, the Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956 (16 U.S.C. §§ 742(a)-742d &
742e-742j-2), the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (“FWCA”) of March 10, 1934 (16 U.S.C.
§ 661 et seq.), the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (16 U.S.C. § 703 et seq.), the Bald and Golden
Eagle Protection Act (16 U.S.C. 668-668d), and Executive Order 13186, Responsibilities of
Federal Agencies to Protect Migratory Birds. The mission of the FWS is to work with others to
conserve, protect, manage, and enhance fish, wildlife, plants, and their habitats for the continuing
benefit of the American people. With respect to migratory birds, the Service’s goals are to
ensure long-term ecological sustainability of all migratory bird populations, increase
socioeconomic benefits, improve hunting and birdwatching and other outdoor bird-related
experiences, and increase awareness of the value of migratory birds and their habitats for their
intrinsic, ecological, recreational and economic significance.

FAA – The FAA has authority to enter this MOU under 49 USC § 40103, and 44718. 49 USC §
40103, Sovereignty and use of airspace, vests the FAA with broad authority to regulate the safe
and efficient use of navigable airspace. 49 USC § 44718, Structures interfering with airspace,
provides that that if the construction or alteration of a structure may result in an obstruction of
the navigable airspace or interference with air navigation facilities and equipment, the FAA shall
“conduct an aeronautical study to decide the extent of any adverse impact on the safe and
efficient use of airspace, facilities, or equipment.”
Section § 44718 requires a person to give notice of the construction, alteration or expansion (or
the proposed construction, alteration or expansion) when the notice will promote safety in air
commerce and the efficient use and preservation of the navigable airspace. Additionally, §
44718 requires an aeronautical study if the construction will result in an obstruction of the
navigable airspace. Based on the study findings, the FAA decides whether and to what extent a
structure will adversely impact on the safe and efficient use of the airspace, facilities or
equipment. The FAA decision is set forth in either a determination of no hazard or a
determination of hazard.
Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations part 77, Objects affecting navigable airspace, was
promulgated under the authority in the two above-referenced sections of Title 49 of the United
States Code. Part 77 sets out the specific requirements and procedures for the submission of a
notice and FAA review and decision making based on the notice. Part 77 requirements apply for
all structures affecting navigable airspace, including wind turbines.
NOAA – NOAA has authority to enter this MOU under the National Marine Sanctuaries Act
(NMSA, 16 U.S.C. §§ 1431 – 1445c-1) and the Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA, 16
U.S.C. §§ 1451-1464). NOAA has responsibilities under several statutes including NEPA, the
Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956 (16 U.S.C. §§ 742(a)-742d & 742e-742j-2), FWCA, the NMSA,
and the CZMA. Before permits for offshore wind facilities are issued, NOAA consults on
impacts to NOAA trust resources under the FWCA, and if appropriate NMSA, and makes
recommendations to avoid, minimize or mitigate impacts. The NMSA prohibits the destruction,
loss of, or injury to a Sanctuary resource and activities affecting a Sanctuary resource may be
subject to permits by the Secretary of Commerce. In addition, the Secretary of Commerce,
through NOAA, approves state coastal management programs under the CZMA. State coastal
management programs must have appropriate processes for siting energy facilities in their
coastal zones that consider the national interest in energy production as well as the national
interest in protecting coastal resources. All eight Great Lakes states have federally-approved
coastal management programs. NOAA’s National Weather Service (NWS) uses a national radar
network to provide weather forecasts and warnings for the United States and adjacent waters for
the protection of life and property (15 U.S.C. § 313), and for meteorological services necessary
for the safe and efficient movement of aircraft in air commerce (49 U.S.C. § 44720). The NWS
has a process to determine whether proposed wind energy facilities will adversely affect the
radar network and actively seeks mitigation of adverse impacts from wind facility developers.
The NWS also is involved in cooperative efforts to improve the basic wind forecast for all users,
including wind power. In addition to statutorily mandated regulatory responsibilities, the
mission related responsibilities of NOAA include the provision of scientific and policy expertise,
products, and services many of which are necessary for offshore energy facility development and
The States of Illinois, Michigan, Minnesota, and New York and the Commonwealth of
Pennsylvania have the authority to enter into this MOU under their respective laws and
constitutions and under the Submerged Lands Act (43 U.S.C. §§ 1301-1315). Specifically, the
Submerged Lands Act recognized and confirmed to the States the title to and ownership of the
lands beneath navigable waters within the boundaries of the respective States, and the natural
resources within such lands and waters, along with the authority to manage, administer, lease,
develop, and use such lands and natural resources. The nature of this authority is described by
applicable State and Federal law and the Public Trust Doctrine.

V. Administrative Provisions
1. Nothing in this MOU is intended to or will be construed to limit or affect in any way the
authority or legal responsibilities of the Participants. This MOU neither expands nor
limits those powers and authorities vested in the Participants by applicable law or
regulation, including preliminary and final action on leases, permits, licenses, or any
other matter requiring official decision, and nothing in this MOU should be interpreted to
preempt, abridge or supersede the rights of each State to manage the respective
submerged lands within the boundaries of each State in accordance with the laws,
directives and policies of each State. If a section or term of this MOU is inconsistent
with the authority or legal responsibilities of the Participants, that section or term shall be
invalid, but the remaining sections and terms of this MOU shall remain in full force and
2. Nothing in this MOU may be construed to obligate the Participants to any current or
future expenditure of resources.
3. The mission requirements, funding, personnel, and other priorities of the Participants may
affect their ability to fully implement all the provisions of this MOU.
4. Nothing in this MOU is intended to, or will be, construed to restrict the Participants from
participating in any other activities or arrangements with other public or private agencies,
organizations, or individuals.
5. This MOU is intended only to enhance and strengthen the working relationships of the
Participants in connection to offshore wind energy proposals in the Great Lakes region
and is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural,
enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States or any State, its
departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.
6. No Participant will make an official statement on behalf of any other Participant in
connection with this agreement.
7. Information furnished between the Participants under this MOU may be subject to the
Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. § 552, et seq. (FOIA), and, for participating State
agencies, a relevant State Freedom of Information Act. Determinations regarding the
release of federal agency information exchanged pursuant to this MOU that is responsive
to a valid request under FOIA will be made by the agency from which the information
originated. Absent express Congressional authorization, federal Participants will not
disclose to the other Participants any privileged or confidential trade secret, commercial
or financial information obtained from a third party, or other information protected by
law, unless the owner of such information expressly consents to such disclosure in
writing. Documents furnished to States under this MOU may be subject to applicable
state information handling and disclosure requirements.

VI. Contacts
All notices, communications and coordination will involve, at a minimum, the following
individuals, their successors and/or designees as follows:

White House Council on Environmental Quality: Deputy Director
U.S. Department of Energy:
U.S. Department of Defense:
U.S. Department of the Army:
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation:
U.S. Coast Guard:
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency:
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service:
Federal Aviation Administration:
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration:

State of Illinois:
State of Michigan:
State of Minnesota:
State of New York:
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania:
Senior Advisor to the Assistant Secretary
Office of Energy Efficiency & Renewable
Executive Director, Siting Clearinghouse
Regulatory Program Manager
Army Corps of Engineers
Great Lakes & Ohio River Division,
Mississippi Valley Division
Office of Federal Agency Programs
Chief, Navigation Standards Division
Great Lakes National Program Manager
Region 5 Regional Administrator
Senior Advisor to the Director
Manager, Obstruction Evaluation Group
Director of Policy
Deputy Director
Illinois Department of Commerce
Director, Office of the Great Lakes
Deputy Commissioner
Minnesota Department of Commerce
Commissioner, New York State Department
of Environmental Conservation
President & CEO, New York Power Authority
Energy Executive
Office of the Governor

VII. Effective Date, Modification, and Termination
1. This MOU is effective as of the date the last Participant executes the MOU and expires
five (5) years from that date, at which time the MOU will be subject to renewal or
expiration. When effective, the MOU will not be modified except through written
agreement executed by all Participants.
2. Any Participant may terminate participation in this MOU 120 days after providing
written notice to the other Participants.