Beware NY Wind

Power NY Act of 2011 is a Farce

2011-12-30T17:36:00.000-08:00

This year the NYS legislature introduced and overwhelmingly passed a bill that will allow an unelected group of Albany bureaucrats to site energy plants anywhere in NYS they choose WITHOUT municipal approval. The bill was signed into law by Governor Cuomo in August 2011 and the law is called the Power NY Act of 2011. Part of this law is entitled Article X and this section essentially strips all NYS municipalities of home rule when it comes to siting electrical power plants. This, of course, includes wind factories. A group called COAX, Coalition on Article X, has formed this summer to fight Article X action. COAX is attempting to convince all county leaders and town leaders in the state that this new law removes of freedoms each municipality used to enjoy as a home rule state. COAX has sent the letter below to all county leaders to educate them on the Power NY Act and Article X and asking them to pass resolutions against this new law. As of 12/30/11 seven counties have passed resolutions opposing this law - Jefferson, Herkimer, Ontario, Cortland, Wayne, Wyoming, and Oswego. There is considerable more information on the COAX website at this address: http://coaxny.org Please read the legislator letter below to become better informed.

Dear County Legislature Chairman,

We are contacting you to make you aware that both branches of the NYS Legislature on June 22, 2011 passed a bill entitled Power NY Act of 2011. Part of this bill is called Article X. On August 4, 2011 Governor Cuomo signed this bill into law, unfortunately.

The Power NY Act of 2011 was sponsored by Sen. George Maziarz (R - Niagara Co.) and Assemblyman Kevin Cahill (D - Ulster Co.). The NYS Senate voted to approve it by a 59 to 3 margin and the Assembly voted to approve it 120 to 14. Every New Yorker should revile the bill and its passage process. This bill (1) was passed with zero transparency, (2) deliberately kept under the radar by the legislature because the assembly and senate knew how outraged the towns and counties would be once they learned the contentious details, (3) the bill was passed in only one day with (4) NO public input! Is all this clandestine process ethical? How would all this pass new Gov. Cuomo’s ethics standards after listening to him rant for months about new improved NYS ethics in his term as Governor?

THE BAD NEWS:

Article X, as passed by the legislature and since approved by the Governor, strips ALL towns in NYS of their municipal home rule regarding the siting of electrical power plants. The Article X bill abrogates New York’s Consolidated Law - Municipal Home Rule. The new Art. X expedites a state-led program for permitting electric generating facilities while preempting local requirements. This law is a strike against freedom and democracy as it transfers power from local municipalities into the hands of unelected bureaucrats who are completely disconnected from the municipality they are victimizing! THIS IS WRONG. As one person put it – NYS has neutered municipal home rule.

Assembly speaker Sheldon Silver said this about Power NY Act 2011:

“……we will help give New Yorkers an increased voice in the development of power plants in their communities”. Reading the Art. X section will bring one to reality and instead of having an increased voice in the development of power plants in their community – New Yorkers will eventually realize they no longer have a voice of any kind regarding developing power plants in their community. The removal of voice is what Power NY Act 2011 does. Who is Speaker Silver trying to fool when he says the Power Act will give New Yorkers an increased voice when precisely the opposite has taken place! Leaders of the state legislature somehow managed to convince the majority that the Power NY Act was beneficial and without them having time to do their homework they were sold a bill of goods based on false rhetoric and passed the bill.

The Power NY Act of 2011 reauthorizes & revives Article X of the Public Service Law, which expired on January 1, 2003, governing the siting and approval of power plants in New York State. The new version expedites a state-led program for permitting electric generating facilities while preempting local requirements. The law usurps local control on siting projects in communities. Those involved in the electric generating business will celebrate this passage of this law because it now gives them a free pass to avoid municipal rejection and now opens the door for the most disruptive conditions their industry is known for.

Article X creates a new “Board” that is now the supreme authority on locating proposed new electrical power plants. The seven-member siting Board will consist of five state agency officials (Department of Environmental Conservation, Department of Economic Development, Department of Health, Department of Agriculture and Markets and the New York State Energy Research and Development Authority), as well as two ad hoc members who are required to reside in the community in which the proposed facility is to be located.

THE "BOARD" MEANS THE NEW YORK STATE BOARD ON ELECTRIC GENERATION SITING AND THE ENVIRONMENT, WHICH SHALL BE IN THE DEPARTMENT AND CONSIST OF SEVEN PERSONS: THE CHAIR OF THE DEPARTMENT, WHO SHALL SERVE AS CHAIR OF THE BOARD; THE COMMISSIONER OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION; THE COMMISSIONER OF HEALTH; THE CHAIR OF THE NEW YORK STATE ENERGY RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY; THE COMMISSIONER OF ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AND TWO AD HOC PUBLIC MEMBERS, BOTH OF WHOM SHALL RESIDE WITHIN THE MUNICIPALITY IN WHICH THE FACILITY IS PROPOSED TO BE LOCATED, EXCEPT IF SUCH FACILITY IS PROPOSED TO BE LOCATED WITHIN THE CITY OF NEW YORK, THEN ALL AD HOC MEMBERS SHALL RESIDE WITHIN THE COMMUNITY DISTRICT IN WHICH THE FACILITY IS PROPOSED TO BE LOCATED.

The Board will be tasked with determining if the contemplated project should receive a Certificate of Environmental Compatibility and Public Need ("Certificate"), which must be obtained before commencement of any site development or facility construction.

Opposition to Art. X

As a direct result of the passage of the Power NY Act of 2011 – several people concerned about the loss of municipal home rule have banned together and formed an organization called COAX – Coalition On Article X.

COAX’s mission statement is as follows: As a diverse, grassroots, statewide coalition we will act as advocates for the Towns of New York State that have lost their home rule to Albany bureaucrats in critical community planning and zoning decisions.

COAX’s purpose: Our purpose as Coalition on Article X ("COAX"), is to protect and reinstate "Home Rule" regarding siting of energy facilities and to involve the public, elected officials and appointed officials in this cause.

The COAX web site (www.coaxny.org) will disclose how your senator and assemblyman voted on this important issue. The web site contains the entire text of Article X. The web site documents what’s wrong with Article X and suggests what needs to be done.

What we are asking of every NYS county legislature chairman:

Pass this information to every town supervisor and town clerk in your county. (This is extremely important) We ask that each town supervisor pass this information to all town board members, planning board members and zoning board members and other town officials that may be interested.

Pass this information to all legislature members in your county.

Town supervisors – please become familiar with Art. X then encourage your town board to pass a resolution AGAINST Article X and make your senator, assemblyman and the Governor aware that your town opposes Art. X and wants this legislation repealed. Please do this as soon as possible and notify COAX when the resolution is passed. A sample copy of a resolution is enclosed.

What we want.

· We want Art. X repealed.

· We want NYS towns and counties to put laws in place to prohibit new above ground power lines emanating from state sited power plants which do not have town or county approval and limit the vehicle weight on town roads.

· We want the towns and counties to pass resolutions against Art. X

We want the Assn. of towns to lead the fight against Art. X repeal.

· We want the Assn of counties to assist in the fight to repeal Art. X.

Despite all the flowery unsubstantiated euphemisms freely strewn about by our politicians and the beneficiaries of this draconian legislation, two facts remain: 1) this is a retraction of Home Rule right of NYS citizens, and 2) the real objective here is to implement more expensive, less efficient electricity (like wind and solar energy),upon communities that may not want such an imposing industrial complex that may not fit the character of the municipality that it victimizes.

If power plants were not harmful to a community then why is Art. X needed in the first place? Such measures translate to talk is cheap, and there is business as usual in what used to be the great state of NY. The power industry will adore the state legislature and Governor for this “free pass”

The dark way the Art. X was revived is an embarrassment to the state and reeks of poor ethics. In my view this is simply the beginning of NYS ramrodding more unwanted land use down our throats. They're telling us its good for the economy and will create jobs as all these horrible actions always do - there is little other reason for selling us this trash. Telling New Yorkers the Power Act will bring jobs is simply another example of false mouth-watering appeal. We must take a stand against this or the downstate machine will rape upstate in other ways. Next year they'll take the next step and amend Art. X to pass legislation that would allow them to site landfills, chemical plants and hydro fracking upstate and where Albany chooses without municipal or public input. What’s next?

Sincerely,

COAX

The Latest Wind Scam

2011-12-30T17:29:00.000-08:00

Well you’ve heard for years about our government paying American farmers NOT to grow crops. That’s basically what the UK wind developers are now receiving – a welfare check from National Grid NOT to produce electricity! This new wind scam in the UK is called “constraint payments” whereby 17 wind developers have been paid about £10M this year to shut their wind turbines off and not produce the renewable electric their consumers were taxed to support in the first place in the building of wind factories. The Telegraph newspaper claimed: “The rules meant that some renewable energy companies were paid more to switch off their turbines than they would have received from ordinary operations. The payments are made when too much electricity floods the grid, with the network unable to absorb any excess power generated and the electric producers are paid to shut the wind turbines off.” Needless to say – this has severely raised the ire of wind opponents in the UK. Get this: “The rules meant that some renewable energy companies were paid more to switch off their turbines than they would have received from ordinary operations”. The constraint money is ultimately added onto household electric bills and paid for by UK National Grid consumers. Consumers are essentially now paying (£10M in 2011 in the UK) operators NOT to allow the turbines to operate to prevent electricity from being generated that they never used - in addition to subsidizing renewable power to begin with! This is the ultimate of adding insult to injury but what can you expect from a sleaze ball company like National Grid. Can similar action in the US be far behind? Reported in The Daily Telegraph, 27 Dec 2011.

Perry Puts People First

2011-06-09T16:03:00.000-07:00

Posted: Thursday, June 9, 2011 11:11 am - taken from the The (Batavia, NY) Daily News

By Mary Kay Barton

A “de facto” approval to put people first was approved by the Perry Town Board at their May 11, 2011, Town Board meeting.

In this “anything for a buck” world we live in today — where all too often it seems people just don’t care about one another any more — the fact that the Perry Town Board put their citizens first when it came to siting an industrial wind installation within their town is absolutely refreshing to one’s soul!

It is understandable that our town boards had to look at these projects when they first showed up six or seven years ago now, because of the potential income industrial wind salesmen seemed to be offering. However, the overwhelming evidence exposing industrial wind as the “Emperor Who Has No Clothes,”far outweighs the dollar signs and devastated communities left in their wake in the long run.

Health studies from around the world indicate that the setbacks recommended in Perry’s new law are still inadequate to protect the health of nearby neighbors. The fact that these still-inadequate setbacks effectively “ban” industrial wind turbines in Perry because they now “won’t fit in,” only highlights the absurd and dangerous nature of the wind industry’s initially proposed setbacks.

The failure of many local governments across the state and nation to provide appropriate leadership on this issue has been appalling. Massive wind plants create incivility — pitting neighbor against neighbor, and even family member against family member. A major duty of good government is to foresee, and prevent or eliminate this kind of incivility.

Those who endorse or profit from placing such industrial complexes near the homes of others evidently don’t have a clue about how to foster civil society! Perry’s Town Board is more than clued in! They have proven they are committed to common sense, grounded in common decency! Such leadership is increasingly rare, and correspondingly valuable.

Citizens here should be proud of Perry’s Town Board! Rather than swallowing the usual snake-oil offered by corporate shills to make people believe that pigs can fly, the Perry Town Board approved no-nonsense wind regulations — insisting on civility and reality, and ultimately keeping these hucksters at bay.

Therefore, I would like to take this opportunity to say a well-deserved thank you to the Perry Town Board! You listened, and took the time to educate yourselves. We all greatly appreciate and admire your perseverance, courage and dedication to doing the right thing in the face of such great pressures. The result was the enactment of enlightened public policy which all towns should strive to emulate. Perry’s new wind law will protect not only Perry’s citizens, but all New York state taxpayers and ratepayers who are sick and tired of footing the bill for this corporate welfare scam. (See: "The corporate welfare bar" and "Wasteful, redundant schemes must stop")

The Perry Town Board’s new industrial wind law is what responsible government looks like in a land where people still care about their neighbors! I am sure that Perry Town Board members sleep easy at night knowing they put people above money, and abided by Jesus’ commandment to “Love your neighbor as yourself.”

God bless you all, and thank you for putting people first in Perry!

Mary Kay Barton lives in Silver Lake.

NY Power Authority Chairman Does About-Face

2011-06-02T16:17:00.000-07:00

Michael Townsend doubts viability of offshore wind farms

(article by Steve Orr of the Rochester Democrat & Chronicle newspaper)

New York Power Authority board chairman Michael Townsend questioned Monday whether the authority's offshore wind farm proposal should go forward."From my perspective, I don't think that project is very viable at this time, politically or economically," said Townsend, a lawyer with the Perinton-based law firmHarris Beach.The authority, an independent arm of state government, has been reviewing five private-sector proposals to erect wind turbines in state waters of lakes Ontario or Erie. Officials are supposed to announce a decision by June.Townsend, appointed to the board in 2004 by former Gov. George Pataki, does not expect to be reappointed when his term expires later this month.He noted that authority President Richard Kessel, a champion of the offshore idea, had said offshore turbines would not be built where they're not wanted. County lawmakers in seven of the nine shoreline counties, including Monroe, have voted to express opposition to the plan for aesthetic, environmental and other reasons. "We're not being welcomed," Townsend said.He also said the project might be financially burdensome. Kessel had said the authority would support an offshore wind farm by signing a long-term power purchase agreement on terms favorable to its private development.But Townsend said the authority, which generates or purchases electricity for hundreds of business, government and other customers, might be "spread too thin" financially to sign an expensive agreement. That's especially true, he said, if the authority finalizes a costly purchase agreement to support construction of a huge transmission line under the Hudson River to carry power to New York City.He said that "unofficially, other board members agree" that offshore wind may be too expensive. Gov. Andrew Cuomo, who supported the offshore concept during his gubernatorial campaign as long as it was financially feasible, is "the big X factor," said Townsend, who pointed out that offshore projects elsewhere in the Great Lakes have been axed or frozen.Connie Cullen, a spokeswoman for the authority, said Monday that "while we greatly respect the opinions of our trustees, NYPA hasn't yet completed its review of the bids for the ... initiative. We hope to present the full results of the review to our trustees in the next couple of months."Townsend said the common wisdom is that John S. Dyson will replace him as chairman. Dyson chaired the authority during the Hugh Carey and Mario Cuomo administrations, and he was named to the board again by Andrew Cuomo earlier this year.Townsend said he had nothing to say to rumors that Kessel, authority president since October 2008, could be leaving.Cullen said Kessel had no plans to resign.SORR@DemocratandChronicle.com

Report Questions Wind Power’s Ability to Deliver Electricity When Most Needed

2011-06-02T09:14:00.000-07:00

Stuart Young Consulting, with support from the John Muir Trust, has released a report studying the ability of wind power to make a significant contribution to the UK's energy supply. It concludes that the average power output of wind turbines across Scotland is well below the rates often claimed by industry and government.

Indeed, for numerous extended periods of time all the wind turbines in Scotland linked to the National Grid muster less than 20MW of energy - that's enough power for a mere 6,667 households to boil their kettles for a cup of tea.

Helen McDade, head of policy at the John Muir Trust, the U.K.’s leading wild land conservation charity, said: "This report is a real eye opener for anyone who's been wondering just how much power Scotland is getting from the fleet of wind turbines that have taken over many of our most beautiful mountains and hillsides. The answer appears to be not enough, and much less than is routinely claimed.”

Stuart Young, author of the report, said, “Over the two-year period studied in this report, the metered windfarms in the U.K. consistently generated far less energy than wind proponents claim is typical. The intermittent nature of wind also gives rise to low wind coinciding with high energy demand. Sadly, wind power is not what it's cracked up to be and cannot contribute greatly to energy security in the UK."

Mr. Young said: "It was a surprise to find out just how disappointingly wind turbines perform in a supposedly wind-ridden country like Scotland. Based on the data, for one third of the time wind output is less than 10% of capacity, compared to the 30% that is commonly claimed.

At the end of the period studied, the connected capacity of wind power was over 2500MW so the expectation is that the wind network will produce, on average, 750MW of energy. In fact, it's delivering far less than everyone's expectations. The total wind capacity metered now is 3226MW but at 3a.m. on Monday 28th March, the total output was 9MW.”

The report, Analysis of UK Wind Generation, is the result of detailed analysis of windfarm output in Scotland over a 26-month period between November 2008 to December 2010 using data from the BMRS (Balancing Mechanism Reporting System). It's the first report of its kind, and drew on data freely available to the public. It challenges five common assertions made regularly by wind industry and the Scottish Government:

1. 'Wind turbines will generate on average 30% of their rated capacity over a year'
In fact, the average output from wind was 27.18% of metered capacity in 2009, 21.14% in 2010, and 24.08% between November 2008 and December 2010 inclusive.

2. 'The wind is always blowing somewhere'
On 124 separate occasions from November 2008 to December 2010, the total generation from the windfarms metered by National Grid was less than 20MW (a fraction of the 450MW expected from a capacity in excess of 1600 MW). These periods of low wind lasted an average of 4.5 hours.

3. 'Periods of widespread low wind are infrequent.'
Actually, low wind occurred every six days throughout the 26-month study period. The report finds that the average frequency and duration of a low wind event of 20MW or less between November 2008 and December 2010 was once every 6.38 days for a period of 4.93 hours.

4. 'The probability of very low wind output coinciding with peak electricity demand is slight.'
At each of the four highest peak demand points of 2010, wind output was extremely low at 4.72%, 5.51%, 2.59% and 2.51% of capacity at peak demand.

5. 'Pumped storage hydro can fill the generation gap during prolonged low wind periods.'
The entire pumped storage hydro capacity in the UK can provide up to 2788MW for only 5 hours then it drops to 1060MW, and finally runs out of water after 22 hours.

[1] BMRS (Balancing Mechanism Reporting System) The source of the information on which this analysis is based is the Historic Generation by Fuel Type Data Files on theELEXON Portal website. Registration is required to create an account.

ELEXON Ltd is the Balancing and Settlement Code Company (BSCCo) defined and created by the Balancing and Settlement Code (BSC and also known as the Code). ELEXON Ltd procures, manages and operates services and systems, which enables balancing and settlement of the wholesale electricity market and retail competition in electricity supply.

A wealth of information is to be found on the Balancing Mechanism Reporting Service (BMRS) website at from where links to related sites are found.www.bmreports.com

Stuart Young and the John Muir Trust is grateful to ELEXON Ltd for permission to use its generation data, and for the not inconsiderable help I have had from the BSC Service Desk.BSCServiceDesk@logica.com

New York Wind: Much Ado for So Little

2011-06-02T09:00:00.000-07:00

(Posted May 9, 2011)

The United Kingdom has long been regarded as having the best wind resource in Europe.

A 2005 analysis of hourly wind speeds collected from sixty-six locations across the UK, identified three characteristics of the wind resource that proponents rely on to justify an expansive build-out of wind energy facilities.

The study concluded that over a 35-year period from 1970 to 2005, there was never a time when the entire country was without wind, the wind always blew enough to generate electricity somewhere in Britain and that the resource tended to blow more strongly when demand was highest, during the day and winter months. The analysis found that wind would operate at an annual average capacity factor of 27% -- above levels found in Germany and Denmark -- and low wind speeds affecting most of the country (90%) would only occur for one hour every five years.

Last month, the 2005 study was put to the test.

The United Kingdom's leading wild land conservation charity, the John Muir Trust, released a report that examined wind power's actual contribution to the UK's energy supply. The findings, based on real-time energy production, were sobering. Wind generated at substantially below the 27% capacity factor and low wind events (defined as output falling below 10% of capacity) occurred over one third of the time, or almost nine months in aggregate.

The report created a firestorm for those tracking wind development. Legislators and energy policy experts immediately questioned whether the same reality existed in their area. Since preconstruction forecasts for wind power performance are based on wind speed data, what if the modeling overstated actual generation?

New York wind follows the UK's lead

In fact, we need only look to New York State to see an identical story line.

In 2005, the New York State Energy Research And Development Authority (NYSERDA) worked with General Electric torelease a study aimed at assessing the impact of large-scale wind generation on the reliability of the State's bulk power system and to understand the operational and economic effects of deploying 3,300 megawatts of wind (10% of New York's peak load).

The study concluded that New York could support a 10% penetration of wind into its grid system with turbines reliably operating at 30% average capacity factor or better. To its credit, NYSERDA acknowledged that most of the high wind output would occur during nighttime hours with some overlap occurring "late in the day when the wind output is picking up before the loads have fully dropped off."

Several years of wind generation data are now available and we took a look at how well NYSERDA and GE predicted output levels. We were particularly interested in project performance after developers had a year or more to address start-up issues.

By the end of 2010, New York State claimed fifteen wind energy facilities totaling an installed capacity of 1,275 megawatts. The projects are geographically distributed in the northern and western regions of the State but typically away from denser population centers including New York City with the highest demand for electricity.

Twelve of the fifteen projects comprise the bulk of the nameplate capacity (1225 megawatts). These facilities went into service in the years between 2006 and February 2009. Less than 50 megawatts of wind was installed prior to 2006. Since early 2009, wind development in the State has been largely stagnant with only one wind project built in the last two years. Iberdrola's 74 megawatt Hardscrabble project went online in February 2011.

The lull in construction has provided a valuable opportunity to evaluate two full years of wind generation and to assess whether the promises of New York wind have been realized.

The below table, prepared using the New York ISO's Gold Book data, provides an important glimpse at wind performance in New York in the years 2008-2010.

Promises meet reality

No wind project in New York achieved a 30% capacity factor and most are operating at well below this figure including Maple Ridge 1 and 2 touted by wind proponents as a premier wind site. Maple Ridge was forecasted to have a capacity factor of 34% prior to construction but has consistently operated around 25% -- a significant performance reduction.

Noble Environmental's projects produced at even lower levels. When the company sought community acceptance of its projects in upstate New York, John Quirke, an officer and founder of Noble, insisted their projects would operate at 30-35% of their nameplate capacity. In the tax agreement signed with Clinton County, New York, Noble went so far as to sweetened the deal by offering to pay a bonus of $1000/MW every time the annual capacity factor of any of their projects exceeded 35%. Clinton County officials had no way to verify the sincerity of Noble's offer since preconstruction wind data was confidential, but Noble certainly knew the truth. Noble's upstate projects operated with a 20% to 22% capacity factor in 2010.

Wind forecasts and project financing

When determining whether a wind energy project is worth the financial risk, a credit analysis is prepared based on conservative wind production. This production amount, known as the annual energy yield prediction, represents the average wind speed forecast for a project with a 90% confidence (P90). In other words, the wind production level that the project is expected to operate at 90% of the time.

The P90 figure needs to be within 12% to 15% of the average production figures in order to catch a bank's attention. If the difference between the average capacity factor (P50) and P90 is off by 20% or better, a project would be considered 'unfinanceable'. We can't know the P90 figures presented to investors for most of New York's wind projects, but our guess is that most of these projects would have been considered unworthy had actual production numbers been available. We'd be interested in knowing whether those who fronted the money for the projects would bother again.

Meeting the public's goals

NY ratepayers who are subsidizing wind development in the State are also receiving considerably less than promised. Square miles of New York's most rural areas have been transformed into industrial power plants, communities and families are split over project opposition, and homeowners have been driven from their homes due to turbine noise, shadow flicker and other nuisances. If tax revenue agreements with communities were negotiated based on inflated capacity factors, actual payments will be lower.

State and local officials have long encouraged wind as an economic development tool for rural areas, but at some point the public needs to know whether the projects are delivering on the primary plan i.e. to see more renewable energy on the grid. At capacity factors in the low- to mid- 20% range, many more wind turbines and related infrastructure (transmission) will be needed to meet State mandates which will increase costs and impacts.

Our review only looked at average annual capacity factors and did not consider the hourly and daily variability of the resource and whether the wind helped meet peak demand needs. But looking at average performance alone is enough to suggest New York's wind is not worth all the fuss.

WIND ZEALOTS AND THEIR LIES!

2011-06-02T08:55:00.000-07:00

Wind Power Promises and Predictions Gone Awry

April 26th, 2011

by Jack Sullivan

The predictions and promises made by wind developers for Northern New York in 2005-2007 can now be analyzed in the light of a number of wind projects that have been in operation for 3 or more years.

I have scrutinized a number of news articles, press releases, and meeting minutes from the above period on wind power. Developer promises have come to pass in nearly none of the cases.

Most of the wind plant statistics I have quoted refer to the 106.5 MW capacity Chateaugay project. (All are verifiable). I use Chateaugay because it is in Franklin County and is the largest of the four area wind plants. The other three -- Clinton, Ellenburgh, and Altona -- have virtually identical outputs.

John Quirke of Noble Power said that local wind projects should average 30-35% of their listed capacity. In 2010, however, the Chateaugay wind plant only averaged 20.6%. The predicted value was exaggerated 58% over actual. According to Public Service Commission Report #09E-0497, if transmission losses and wind project electric use are subtracted, the wind projects only returned about 10% of their advertised capacity to consumers.

Noble’s Mark Lyons said the Chateaugay project would produce enough electricity to power 33,000 homes. The actual output of 192,000 MWh in 2010 would power fewer than 18,000 homes, again a significant exaggeration over estimate. There is a huge caveat in these figures, since Chateaugay had 1,222 hours of no output (that’s more than 50 days). Since this down time is unpredictable, Chateaugay can supply reliable electricity to ZERO homes. The low average value of NNY wind speeds coupled with a very high degree of variability means Northern NY is NOT suitable for economically viable nor dependable industrial wind installations.

In hyping a tentative 70 turbine project for Malone, Noble's Mark Lyons predicted it would create up to 45 jobs. This sounds like an exaggeration since the 195 turbines at Tug Hill created less than 40 jobs. The job creation aspect of wind projects is also often over-inflated. A Dept. of Energy document tells of a loan guarantee to First Wind for $117 M for a project to create 10 jobs. That’s nearly $12M per job.

All of Noble’s presenters claimed that wind would produce cheap electricity since the fuel is free. The reality? Chateaugay’s electricity cost of $38 MWh is more than 20% higher than the cost of power from the FDR Seaway hydro plant. Maybe wind power should be touted as “not so cheap electricity”. The sale of electricity in Chateaugay will not be sufficient to pay for the turbines before they are worn out!!

Chuck Hinckley said “there is no evidence of property devaluation near large wind turbines”. In fact, there are a number of well done professional studies that have found significant property devaluation near wind turbines. Studies done in Texas and Wisconsin are among the best. Some local realtors avoid listing properties near turbines because they are hard to sell.

Dan Boyd, Noble’s project manager, stated on several occasions that wind power could reduce our dependence on foreign oil. Any such effect is laughingly small. The entire 2010 energy production at the Chateaugay wind plant is equivalent to a mere 17 minutes of imported oil. Since oil and electricity generally serve different uses, the effect is negligible. To produce 25% of imported oils energy would take approx. ½ million turbines occupying 30+ million acres (5 Adirondack Parks). An impossible dream.

All of Noble’s spokepersons claimed that free and clean windpower would combat global warming. No one mentioned the huge carbon emissions debt created when building a wind project.

An in-depth study by the internationally respected Pacific Research Institute found that a typical project must operate for 7 years at full capacity before it pays back all the emissions produced in manufacture and construction. Since our local wind plants operate at about 20% capacity, it would take 30+ years to become emission free. Not bad for machinery that the manufacturer (GE) says will last 20 yrs.

Then there’s the mercury problem. Through cement use, wind projects have released enough airborne mercury to render most of the fish in the Adirondacks inedible.

Mark Lyons and Chuck Hinckley insisted that Noble would pay its fair share of taxes. Yet the PILOT agreement with Franklin County has most homeowners paying 10 times the tax rate that Noble does.

In the PILOT agreement with Clinton County IDA, Noble offered to pay a bonus of $1000/MW every time the annual capacity factor of any of their projects exceeded 35%. The problem? No NY wind project has ever exceeded a 35% annual c.f. Probably none east of the Mississippi has ever done so. Did Noble know this? If so, it was a con.

Lyons insisted that all the land around turbines could have the same use it could have had before they were installed. Not quite. If a turbine had to be sited say 1500’ from a home for health and safety reasons, then future homes could be built no closer than 1500’ to existing turbines. Thus, each turbine would exclude 160+ acres from home building.

Lyons and others claimed that 1&1/2 times the tower height was a safe setback from roads, trails and other areas frequented by people. Basic physics, however, shows that debris from blades at normal operating speeds can fly up to 1000’ far more than 1&1/2 tower heights. The runaway turbine that self-destructed in Altona in 2009 could theoretically throw debris up to 1640’. 1&1/2 tower height setbacks are woefully inadequate, actually downright dangerous.

Lyons and Hinckley maintained that noise was not a problem and the sound emitted by turbines was “no louder than a refrigerator”. Neighbors soon found the turbines at times much louder than a refrigerator. Medical experts are just learning that sound undetectable to the human ear (infrasound) is causing serious health problems. This is known as Wind Turbine Syndrome(WTS). These problems have been diagnosed in hundreds of people worldwide who live near wind turbines. This has led the prestigious French Societe de Medicine to recommend 2 km. (1.24mi.) between turbines and all houses.

Lyons said their turbines only turned at 20 RPM’s therefore they were little threat to birds. A little math shows that the tip speed of a 20 RPM 240’ diameter rotor is nearly 180 mph. -- certainly fast enough to do in most birds!

One has to wonder if the huge discrepancy between what the wind developers promised and what ultimately transpired is due to ignorance of a fledgling company that did not do its homework or the result of a concerted deceptive propaganda campaign designed to dupe a naïve and trusting rural populace?

****

Jack Sullivan is a member of the Malone (NY) Town Council. An earlier version of this article appeared in the Malone Telegram on April 19, 2011.

Rochester (NY) Gas & Electric wind scam

2011-06-02T06:44:00.000-07:00

Something suspicious this way blows

Did you get the letter from RG&E? You know, the one where they want you to “do your part to support a clean energy solution for our community.” It’s called “Catch the Wind Program.”

RG&E thinks it would be just great if we “choose wind power” and “reduce our carbon footprint, advance green jobs and the economy, encourage energy independence, and make a difference for future generations.” All you have to do is pay an additional $7.50 per month. That’s to cover the expense of producing 300 kilowatt-hours of wind-generated electricity that’s sent to the New York State power grid.

The letter says that signing up at the 300 kwh level per month has an environmental benefit of planting 30 tree seedlings or not driving 3,006 miles per year. And as more people sign up, more wind farms are built to meet the demand. And they’ll give you a certificate each year you complete the program.

Let me get this straight. I should pay $7.50 per month more than I pay now to pretend I’m getting electricity from a wind farm so that RG&E (now owned by the Spanish company Iberdrola) can sell that same electricity to the power grid? Let’s say I fall for this; just how would that 300 kwh coming down the line from the wind farm know to exit at my house?

In other words, they can’t produce electricity from wind power as cheaply as other sources. So they try to get customers to subsidize operational losses by twisting the environmentally friendly facts. They get nice tax credits for building wind farms while they pad their bottom line with customer subsidies. It’s “Catch the Wind” all right, if “wind” stands for Wonderfully-Intentioned Naïve Dupes.

I am absolutely in favor of sustainable, clean energy; the sooner, the better. The energy industry has to figure out how to create and deliver it transparently and economically. I’d gladly send $7.50 per month to a non-profit organization dedicated to this outcome. Trying to hoodwink the public to line Iberdrola’s pockets is an insult to intelligence and intention.

But I’m sure it’s a nice certificate.

WADE SARKIS
Canandaigua

(taken from National Wind Watch)

Power Rationing & TOU Pricing Is Coming Soon!

2011-04-24T14:07:00.000-07:00

Comments made 3/1/2011 in the UK by Steve Holliday, CEO of National Grid (based in the UK; National Grid also operates in the eastern USA including Mass.; New Hampshire, Rhode Island and upstate NY from Syracuse toward Albany & into the north country, and probably other areas of eastern NYS)

From the internet, 2 sources:

Steve Holliday, Chief Executive of National Grid plc, is arguing the case for a £200 billion ($320b) investment in the new smart grid. This technology allows power to be rationed at peak times for selected customers (probably those least able to pay). £200b is a large figure – enough to keep Mr. Holliday in bonuses for many years to come. And it might be a surprise to learn that the National Grid would be one of the principle beneficiaries of the proposed investment.

Don’t count on constant electricity under renewable energy, says UK electricity CEO

Electricity consumers in the UK will need to get used to flicking the switch and finding the power unavailable, according to Steve Holliday, CEO of National Grid, the country’s grid operator. Because of a six-fold increase in wind generation, which won’t be available when the wind doesn’t blow, “The grid is going to be a very different system in 2020, 2030,” he told BBC’s Radio 4. “We keep thinking that we want it to be there and provide power when we need it. It’s going to be much smarter than that.

“We are going to change our own behaviour and consume it when it is available and available cheaply.”

Families would have to get used to only using power when it was available rather than constantly, said Steve Holliday, chief executive of National Grid. Mr. Holliday was challenged over how the country would “keep the light on” when it relied more on wind turbines as supplies of gas dwindled.

Holliday has for several years been predicting that blackouts could become a feature of power systems that replace reliable coal plants with wind turbines in order to meet greenhouse gas targets. Wind-based power systems are necessary to meet the government’s targets, he has explained, but they will require lifestyle changes.

Under the so-called “smart grid” that the UK is developing, the government-regulated utility will be able to decide when and where power should be delivered, to ensure that it meets the highest social purpose. Governments may, for example, decide that the needs of key industries take precedence over others, or that the needs of industry trump that of residential consumers. Governments would also be able to price power prohibitively if it is used for non-essential purposes.

Smart grids are being developed by utilities worldwide to allow the government to control electricity use in the home, down to the individual appliance. Smart grids would monitor the consumption of each appliance and be capable of turning them off if the power is needed elsewhere.

Comment on Holliday’s comments:

And this guy Holliday gets paid to spew this poppycock! How could any consumer possibly accept this trash? Holliday needs replacement quicker than NYPA’s Richie Kessel. (Al Isselhard)

Note Steve Holliday’s wonderfully creative use of the word “smarter”. In the old days, it used to mean positive things like “more intelligent”, “better dressed”, “sharper”, “quicker”, “wittier”. In Holliday’s Newspeak, however, it means “rationed according to the whims of Big Brother.”

That consternation from solar panels is as nothing when wind power is concerned. The wind can and does die down suddenly over vast geographic expanses, causing utilities to lose up to 99% of the wind power they had expected. As worrisome, the wind can just as easily rise up unexpectedly, overwhelming the power grid. Whether there is too much or too little wind power, blackouts again loom.

Unlike most conventional power plants, solar and wind technologies can’t be powered on and off as needed to meet the varying demands of customers. These still immature renewable technologies, prematurely brought to market by politicians seeking alternatives to fossil fuels, are entirely hostage to the weather.

The smart grid would solve the problem of instability by controlling the customers instead of the technologies. To protect the grid from sudden drops in the power being produced, for example, the smart grid engineers would reach into our homes and businesses to instantly turn off our refrigerators, freezers, washing machines, air conditioners, and other smart appliances as needed to match the sudden power losses.

The smart grid and the smart meters with which they are integrated would control customers in other ways, too — by changing our lifestyles to have them better conform to the technologies the politicians have chosen for us. Here the smart grid engineers would reach into our pocketbooks, by pricing power cheaper in the middle of the night, on political criteria, to encourage us to soak up an excess of power that their anti-fossil fuel scheme has produced. Most of that excess power, they fantasize, will recharge the batteries of our electric vehicles as we sleep. But electric cars are going nowhere, the marketplace has made clear — they remain unaffordable even with big rebates on the vehicle’s purchase price.

Neither will wind and solar systems go anywhere — cash-strapped governments throughout the world are slashing subsidies to them, leading to numerous bankruptcies and an inevitable collapse.

But Holliday's comments really aren't that far off the mark when considering what our friends in Ontario, Canada are now facing. From Nationalpost.com 4/19/2011 (Parker Gallant): "Ontario electricity consumers received the latest whack to their pocketbooks Tuesday. The Ontario Energy Board (OEB) announced that electricity rates will rise anywhere from 8% to 15% beginning May 1. The biggest increases will hit consumers who are part of the province’s brave new world of time of use (TOU) pricing. For off-peak electricity (between 11 pm to 7 am), the cost of electricity will jump 15% to 5.9 cents a kilowatt hour. Mid-peak electricity (early morning to 11 am and early evenings) jumps 10% from 8.1 to 8.9 cents per kWh. Peak use electricity (11 am to 5pm) rises 8% to 10.7 cents a kWh from 9.9 cents."

With the wind industry heavily promoting the shut down of coal-fired electric plants and nuclear power plants - the days of unexpected brownouts and blackouts and extremely expensive electricity will soon be upon us. The result will be more crippling than $7/gal gasoline. The wind industry is attempting to force or bully consumers into expensive, low quality, intermittent electricity upon us for their own self serving benefit and the uneducated general public will likely fall for this ruse.

Gov. Cuomo Fails Ethics, Appoints Aubertine

2011-01-09T17:59:00.000-08:00

Voters in the 48^th State Senate District kicked out Darrel Aubertine in November’s election. His term as senator didn’t last long – from Feb 2008 to Dec 2010. Aubertine’s defeat comes mainly as a result of his advocacy with wind energy and his blatant conflicts of interest with wind developers. Now, like a bad penny, Gov. Cuomo has cursed NYS voters and hired Aubertine as commissioner of the NYS Department of Agriculture and Markets. So here’s Aubertine feeding again at the public trough after north country voters just ousted him – bounced out of the Energy Valley of New York State by voters who understand the truth.

But Aubertine is still very much a conflicted state officer and should not have been appointed by Cuomo to this patronage position because of his conflicts of interest, integrity and ethics – well known by Mr. Cuomo from his AG days. His appointment is in direct violation of Public Officer’s Law §73 & §74. Aubertine, by his own admission, has wind contracts. Consider this:

Wind Watch: Industrial Wind Energy News

filed: August 22, 2010 • New York

Aubertine paid by wind developer

[ Alternate short URL for linking • HOME ]
» Translation tools are available at the bottom of the page «

Credit: By JUDE SEYMOUR, Johnson News Service, www.ogd.com 22 August 2010

State Sen. Darrel Aubertine receives more than a $1,000 annually from a Cape Vincent wind developer even though his spokesman said there are no plans to build a turbine on his property.

The Democrat disclosed the income from St. Lawrence Wind Farm on an annual report to the state Legislative Ethics Commission that recently was made available on the Internet by the New York Public Interest Research Group.

************************************************************************

Cuomo has reneged his position, violated his own ethics policies and forced an unwanted conflicted turbine hugger back on the public payroll. And what has Cuomo done to deal with the corrupt municipal officials in Cape Vincent since starting his investigation – NOTHING!

Below are parts of the NYS Public Officer’s Law. Aubertine, now a NYS officer who is being compensated by a wind developer that has leases with mainly agricultural lands in NYS. (note – we have used red text to emphasize the problems with Aubertine) Aubertine is being investigated by the state’s AG. Aubertine’s NYS ag business would be directly involved and interface with rural land owners, farmers, etc., many of whom already have leases with wind energy companies or might soon sign leases. Wind leases are part of ag business – can anyone dispute that? Could anyone possibly think rural property owner’s wouldn’t want to discuss wind leases with Aubertine as he makes his rounds as AG Commissioner? How would Aubertine respond? THIS IS AN UNQUESTIONABLE CONFLICT OF INTEREST. How could Cuomo appoint Aubertine knowing Aubertine is conflicted and part of an ongoing investigation? Why would Cuomo taint his strong ethics/integrity stand by taking such controversial action thus making himself a certifiable hypocrite?

NYS Public Officers Law §73

Business or Professional Activities by State Officers and Employees and Party Officers

§ 73. Business or professional activities by state officers and employees and party officers.

1. As used in this section:

(a) The term "compensation" shall mean any money, thing of value or financial benefit conferred in return for services rendered or to be rendered. With regard to matters undertaken by a firm, corporation or association, compensation shall mean net revenues, as defined in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles as defined by the state ethics commission or legislative ethics committee in relation to persons subject to their respective jurisdictions.

(e) The term "regulatory agency" shall mean the banking department, insurance department, state liquor authority, department of agriculture and markets, department of education, department of environmental conservation, department of health, division of housing and community renewal, department of state, other than the division of corporations and state records, department of public service, the industrial board of appeals in the department of labor and the department of law, other than when the attorney general or his agents or employees are performing duties specified in section sixty-three of the executive law.

(g) The term "state agency" shall mean any state department, or division, board, commission, or bureau of any state department, any public benefit corporation, public authority or commission at least one of whose members is appointed by the governor, or the state university of New York or the city university of New York, including all their constituent units except community colleges of the state university of New York and the independent institutions operating statutory or contract colleges on behalf of the state.

(i) The term "state officer or employee" shall mean:

(i) heads of state departments and their deputies and assistants other than members of the board of regents of the university of the state of New York who receive no compensation or are compensated on a per diem basis;

(ii) officers and employees of statewide elected officials;

(iii) officers and employees of state departments, boards, bureaus, divisions, commissions, councils or other state agencies other than officers of such boards, commissions or councils who receive no compensation or are compensated on a per diem basis; and

(iv) members or directors of public authorities, other than multi-state authorities, public benefit corporations and commissions at least one of whose members is appointed by the governor, who receive compensation other than on a per diem basis, and employees of such authorities, corporations and commissions.

2. In addition to the prohibitions contained in subdivision seven hereof, no statewide elected official, state officer or employee, member of the legislature or legislative employee shall receive, or enter into any agreement express or implied for, compensation for services to be rendered in relation to any case, proceeding, application, or other matter before any state agency, whereby his compensation is to be dependent or contingent upon any action by such agency with respect to any license, contract, certificate, ruling, decision, opinion, rate schedule, franchise, or other benefit; provided, however, that nothing in this subdivision shall be deemed to prohibit the fixing at any time of fees based upon the reasonable value of the services rendered.

3. (a) No statewide elected official, member of the legislature, legislative employee, full-time salaried state officer or employee shall receive, directly or indirectly, or enter into any agreement express or implied for, any compensation, in whatever form, for the appearance or rendition of services by himself or another against the interest of the state in relation to any case, proceeding, application or other matter before, or the transaction of business by himself or another with, the court of claims.

7. (a) No statewide elected official, or state officer or employee, other than in the proper discharge of official state or local governmental duties, or member of the legislature or legislative employee, or political party chairman shall receive, directly or indirectly, or enter into any agreement express or implied for, any compensation, in whatever form, for the appearance or rendition of services by himself or another in relation to any case, proceeding, application or other matter before a state agency where such appearance or rendition of services is in connection with:

(i) the purchase, sale, rental or lease of real property, goods or services, or a contract therefor, from, to or with any such agency;

(ii) any proceeding relating to rate making;

(iii) the adoption or repeal of any rule or regulation having the force and effect of law;

(iv) the obtaining of grants of money or loans;

(v) licensing; or

(vi) any proceeding relating to a franchise provided for in the public
service law.

NYS Public Officers Law §74

2.  Rule with respect to conflicts of interest. No officer or employee

  of a state agency, member of the  legislature  or  legislative  employee

  should have any interest, financial or otherwise, direct or indirect, or

  engage  in any business or transaction or professional activity or incur

  any obligation of any nature, which is in substantial conflict with  the

  proper discharge of his duties in the public interest.

3 h. An officer or employee of a state agency, member of the legislature

  or  legislative  employee  should endeavor to pursue a course of conduct

  which will not raise suspicion among the public that he is likely to  be

  engaged in acts that are in violation of his trust.

Who Can You Trust?????????

2010-12-30T18:37:00.000-08:00

Many of you know of the AES Somerset coal fired electric power plant in the northeast corner of Niagara county right on Lake Ontario as seen in the above photo. This is a large operation, 675 Mw, 1800 acre site, serving 650K homes, state of the art pollution equipped (their words) and they employ about 120+ people, many union. Somerset began operating in 1984 and in 1999 AES purchased six power plants in New York (including the Somerset station) from NGE Generation, Inc. for $953 million. A 15.9-mile long railroad line was built for delivery of coal to the plant and there’s a single smoke stack nearly 300 feet tall there. There is a PILOT (payment in lieu of taxes) agreement between the power plant and the Barker school system, the town of Somerset and county of Niagara so you know that this operation is presently getting a very huge break on taxes since being built.A couple of years ago the plant proposed building a pier 3200’ into the lake for 750’ long freighters to deliver coal and limestone to the plant. This was a $25M plan, called LUP (lake unloading project) that never was built. The plant is now considering selling off 178 acres of land to Verizon for a multi-billion dollar data center.

About Nov 5, 2010 something strange happened. AES Corp. temporarily stopped producing electricity at its coal-fired Somerset plant on Lake Road. Meanwhile, the company also withdrew its request for an increased tax break from the Niagara County Industrial Development Agency, although that may only be temporary. The plant was temporarily taken off-line for economic reasons, AES plant manager Peter Bajc said in an e-mail to The Buffalo News. According to the letter AES sent the IDA with its application for a revised tax deal, the AES company had placed two other coal-burning power plants in New York in "protective lay-up" in September because they were losing money. Not only that – the AES Dresden, NY coal fired plant electric plant near Seneca Lake is also scheduled to be mothballed in 2011.

According to the Lockport newspaper - AES Somerset went back on line about Dec 1 after the coal-burning power plant on Lake Road was down 24 days. This article stated in part:

“The plant is in start-up today,” Plant General Manager Peter Bajc said. “During the time we were down, the Somerset people remained on the job.”

AES is asking the Niagara County Industrial Development Agency to amend the payment-in-lieu-of-taxes agreement it has with the Town of Somerset, Barker School District and Niagara County. According to Bajc, AES Somerset needs its annual PILOT payment reduced to $9.8 million from $15.8 million in order to stay competitive – a whopping 48% decrease!

But wait a minute – maybe what was decided less than a year should be reviewed.

In January 11, 2010 article the Tonawanda News reported in part –

NIAGARA COUNTY: IDA on board with AES ‘PILOT’

AES Eastern Energy has agreed to pay $15.8 million in taxes (PILOT) annually for five years, and there will be no further litigation between AES and the municipalities.

(Barker) School Superintendent Roger Klatt noted that the PILOT provides revenue certainty through 2016 at a time when state aid to education is unclear.

AES has no incentive to get out of it early, according to (Somerset town supervisor) Meyers. The PILOT can be adjusted in five years and because of the uncertainty in the coal industry, the PILOT can be negotiated again.

The newspaper article also reported that AES is the “county’s largest taxpayer”.

One wonders what school Superintendent Klatt would say today about the PILOT revenue certainty or what Somerset Supervisor Meyers would say about AES now attempting (renege?) to get out of their agreement of less that a year ago?

Now all this is interesting to the wind turbine foes as why would anyone possibly consider spending $1.5B in a 166 turbine, 500 Mw offshore wind facility (now proposed by the New York Power Authority known as the GLOW project – Great Lakes Offshore Wind) that would risk selling electricity for several times per kilowatt hour MORE than that produced by an upstate lake shore coal plant – if the coal fired AES plant can’t produce power for a profit in today’s market place? Or would AES’ recent temporary plant closure simply be an intimidating action by AES to get their PILOT agreements reduced? Could the Niagara Co. IDA be foolish enough to fall for this ruse? If there’s not enough demand for a coal fired electricity plant - then why build a $1.5B offshore wind powered electric plant? The truth is there is no need for an offshore wind powered plant. There is no need for additional expensive electricity generated by wind. NYPA’s spokesperson Sharon Laudisi appeared before the Niagara Co. legislature in Sept. 2010 hinting that electric power produced by a GLOW project could sell for an outrageous $.40/kilowatt hour! Who needs this?

We wonder if anyone’s even thought about what may happen if the NYPA GLOW project gets located offshore from Niagara County and all wind generated expensive power will be bought via NYPA’s power purchase agreement hence more expensive, low quality, intermittent electric may be unloaded on NYPA ratepayers against their will. The forcing of offshore wind generated electric may trump lesser expensive coal fired electricity and plants like Somerset would be forever less in demand and hence shuttered permanently like others even though it’s a relatively new plant. And the worst news – Niagara county, the town of Somerset and Barker school district – whose budgets are heavily depending upon the AES PILOT agreement that could soon be reduced may be faced with yet another demand from AES to lower the agreement terms again (lower than $9.8M) after a wind farm is located offshore from Niagara County! In the meantime this desirable 1800-acre AES lakeshore site could have been used to develop a great housing project of beautiful deluxe homes that would have produced enormous amounts of 100% value tax revenue forever for the county, school district and town without the ugliness, pollution and downside of what’s there now. What’s the likelihood that the Somerset plant would ever be razed for a super-housing complex in our lifetime? And if a NYPA supported GLOW project is ever developed in Lake Ontario, a spoiler, you can bet there won’t be any PILOT agreement for the town, school district or county. And the way things are now going – don’t be surprised to see both projects haunting Niagara County in the future. A wind farm could permanently close AES and what might that do to the PILOT agreement? Would a wind farm in Niagara County bring in the amount of taxes that the AES PILOT now produces? Of course not. Would a wind farm cause further havoc with AES (and Niagara Co. IDA) and result in an even smaller AES PILOT in the near future? You bet it would. There will be no PILOT agreement with any offshore wind farm development.

Rochester Area, Beach Ave. & Wind

2010-12-30T16:19:00.000-08:00

BEACH AVE. HOMEOWNER’S BEWARE

ROCHESTER, NY IS DOING NOTHING TO STOP

AN OFFSHORE WIND FARM IN LAKE ONTARIO

In April 2010 we passed out flyers to lakeside Beach Ave. residents warning them that the New York Power Authority (NYPA) was promoting an offshore wind farm in either Lake Ontario or Lake Erie (or both) called GLOW – Great Lakes Offshore Wind. Our April handout warned of major consequences for lakeshore property owner’s should this project take place such as: lower property values, loss of darkness over the lake replaced by flashing bright strobe lights and fog horns on wind turbine towers 450’ high, forever loss of view shed, avian slaughter, boating/fishing restrictions, noise of turbine rotor rotation, lake bed sediment displacement pollution onto your shores and much, much more. This impending debacle can very easily take place in the lake near your Beach Ave. homes and drastically affect your property FOREVER. Greece, Irondequoit and Webster have already passed resolutions opposing the GLOW project. Jefferson, Oswego, Wayne and Chautauqua counties have also passed resolutions against the GLOW project in both Lake Erie and Ontario. NYPA has already designated on its maps – a potential offshore wind farm that is located directly north of Rochester’s Beach Ave. homes. Look on the NYPA website and you will see their maps showing this potential location. Included is Irondequoit, Webster and Greece but they have acted.

THE CITY OF ROCHESTER HAS DONE NOTHING TO OPPOSE GLOW!

We contacted Mayor Duffy’s office via email in late November 2009 asking the mayor to contact us to discuss GLOW and while we received an automatic email reply that someone from the mayor’s office would contact us – we are still waiting! We passed out flyers in April 2010 to Beach Ave. lakeside property owners and nothing happened. We contacted, via email on July 28, 2010, Rochester city council member for the Northwest District (includes Beach Ave.) Carla Palumbo and never received the courtesy of a reply from her – should people like her be in elected office? We are proud to inform you that your Monroe Co. Legislator Rick Antelli has done much to oppose the GLOW project and we highly commend him.

Five wind developers have submitted proposals for the GLOW project but NYPA won’t release any details on their locations – keeping this in total secrecy until its too late to change. Several people and organizations have submitted Freedom of Information (FOI) law requests to NYPA to find out where the GLOW projects might be located and ALL requests have been rejected. Not only that – NYPA has ignored the FOI laws on answering appeals as well. NYPA has nothing but contempt for the NYS FOI laws. NYPA is a dysfunctional organization headed by downstaters seeking to trash our Great Lakes for their benefit. The NYPA supported Long Island wind project touts how their offshore turbines will be well out of sight of the landowners – how nice for them and not upstaters. Google NYPA CEO Richard Kessel and read what comes up – would you trust this man?

Here’s what Mayor Duffy had to say about the GLOW catastrophie in a Aug 20, 2010 Democrat & Chronicle article:

Rochester Mayor Robert Duffy said he believes passing resolutions of opposition is short-sighted. “We need to look at this for the long term and explore this,” he said. 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.

But, he said he knows people have legitimate concerns about the turbines, especially their esthetic impact. “If they buy a home on Beach Avenue or anywhere along the lake, they want to look out their windows every morning and see the water. I respect that,” Duffy said. “I don’t think we in any way can make a rash decision. If we put our minds together, I bet we could come up with some alternatives and compromises that could produce that first wind farm.”

Very clearly – based on his brief comments - Duffy favors the GLOW project in Lake Ontario and suggests there’s a possible compromise. Our new Governor Andrew Cuomo also favors offshore turbines in the Great Lakes too! Do you think they care about the value of your home or quality of life? There is no compromise for (166) 450’ turbines 2.3 miles offshore from Beach Ave. in the lake. Look for better representatives to run for office next time that will look out for your neighborhood - probably Republicans.

Lastly - NO Monroe County Democrat signed Legislator Rick Antelli’s recent resolution against GLOW when this opportunity was presented in summer 2010. Four Republicans refused to sign too.

Rochester homeowner's you need to take action right now before it’s too late. You MUST get the city of Rochester to pass a resolution against GLOW just as the many other Great Lakes municipalities have already done. You must appear before city council and demand that they say NO to GLOW.

This could be the view from Beach Ave. homes into Lake Ontario in 2015 after the GLOW project has been installed. Will you like seeing the flashing red strobe lights all night long or hearing helicopter maintenance crews and heard the turbine blade whooshing noise these eyesores will generate? This may be avoided if action is taken now - not after it’s too late. Rochester and Monroe County must say NO to this project right now. Share this info with your neighbors and anyone else who values the lake shore! Get to you elected representatives and demand action.

Lovely Warren, another city Democrat, is President of the Rochester City Council and has a welcome message on the web site for city council but we question the true sincerity of the message. Here’s Ms Warren’s text on the City of Rochester web site which says the city council attempts to: “to preserve, protect and improve the quality of life for city residents through the legislation we review and approve”. A local wind opposition group offered her and the City Council, the opportunity to view a wind presentation given to the full city council on why the NYPA GLOW project will harm the city of Rochester and especially the fine homes along Rochester's Beach Ave. in Charlotte. The presentation would last one hour and give a history of how the GLOW project came about, who is involved, it's timeline, what’s already gone wrong, the many negatives involved for the city of Rochester and Lake Ontario, and suggestions for a course of action. There was no charge for the presentation but that didn't matter to city council. It is critically important city council learn about this project immediately since NYPA planning is now taking place that could dramatically affect the Charlotte offshore area and the Genesee River in the city. This project is contrary to Ms. Warren's goals mentioned about quality of life issues for city residents. The towns of Webster, Irondequoit and Greece have already passed resolutions against GLOW (many others have too) as have four NYS Great Lakes counties.

We asked that Ms. Warren contact us by phone or email to discuss setting up a date and time for a presentation or to discuss the matter further. We also asked her to drop us a return email that she received this email offering the program. Ms Warren avoided any personal contact by phone and had city council Chief of Staff, Andrea Guzzetta, contact us by email who said: Thank you for taking the time to contact City Council President Lovely Warren. In your email you requested to make a presentation. Could you please let me know exactly how much time you are looking for and if you need anything for the presentation (smart board, computer, etc). As of now group meetings for the Council are booked through the new year. I do however feel that this is not something at this point that needs to be before the entire Council, instead I think it would be best for you to present to the Jobs, Parks and Public Works Committee.

Please send me the information requested and I will also reach out to Dana Miller, Chair of the Jobs, Parks and Public Works Committee to discuss when a good time would be for the presentation. Thank you and thank you for reaching out to City Council.

So much for the effort to educate Rochester city council! THEY ARE USELESS.

The GLOW project would have no interest to the Public Works committee and Warren knows this. Once again – property owner’s along Beach Ave. do not know that the mayor blew us off, that city council rep. Palumbo ignored us and that city council president Warren sloughed us off too. None of them would take the time to learn about the many negatives the city of Rochester would suffer from the NYPA GLOW project. Maybe they know too much already and can’t waste time listening to the Great Lakes Concerned Citizens.

NYPA knows they would have no trouble with Rochester and that the city would likely sacrifice the beautiful Beach Ave. lake shore neighborhood for the GLOW project and Kessel may have already promised money to the city. Good thing Greece has already said NO as the former RG & E Russell Station link to the grid is critical for the GLOW project. (the Russell Station is now closed and was a coal fired electrical plant, still exists in the town of Greece)

The reader should know that Democrats, federal, state and local, are responsible for efforts to place offshore turbines in the Great Lakes. Andrew Cuomo is among them and so is Robert Duffy. These people would be pleased to industrialize the Great Lakes and destroy the natural beauty and resource for a few dozen mediocre jobs.

Great Lakes Concerned Citizens

Andrew Cuomo's New NY Agenda

2010-12-22T19:15:00.000-08:00

Our new Governor Andrew Cuomo needs to enroll in John Droz course on Wind Energy 101 and learn what really happens scientifically within the wind industry because apparently Cuomo hasn’t learned from his years experience as NYS AG what the wind industry is really all about. Cuomo has apparently authored three agendas in 2010 on his thoughts about improving NYS after he takes charge as governor. The agendas are entitled: The New NY Agenda Power NY; The New NY Agenda: A Plan for Action; The New NY Agenda - A Cleaner, Greener NY. – all are available to view on the internet. Should anyone have doubts that Cuomo highly supports wind energy in NYS, both terrestrial and offshore – then read through his three recent New NY Agendas and come to a conclusion. Cuomo’s thoughts are sometimes repeated somewhat in all 3 “agendas”. These are a blend of overstatements; understatements, dreaming, moonstruck and just plain errors. But the reader should be convinced that Cuomo is definitely looking out for his downstate friends and their best interests. If you believe what Cuomo has written in these “agendas” – you must believe in the tooth fairy. Regarding wind – we have major reason to worry with Cuomo in command! To save you time - please continuing reading and we’ll share with you some of Cuomo’s thoughts as mentioned (culled) in these three “Agendas”. Their page numbers are on the left and the text in blue is what Cuomo’s agenda thoughts are about.

Beginning with:

The New NY Agenda Power NY.

p. iv - Make New York the Nation’s Leader in Wind Power

p. iv - Promote On-Shore Wind Projects and Facilitate Siting

p. iv - Enter Into Power Purchase Agreement for Off-Shore Wind When Economically Feasible

p. 1-2 Environmental Quality: Environmental quality and sustainability must be a prime consideration in New York’s energy policy. This means transitioning to cleaner fuels with less carbon emissions and renewable fuel sources like wind and solar power and other alternative technologies.

p. 8-9 we should add new transmission capacity where necessary to meet our energy goals. An example of the type of transmission project that could meet our criteria is one that would build a transmission line that enables New York to purchase low-cost and renewable hydropower from Canada in the hot summer months (our peak usage time) while selling our excess energy—including unused wind power—in Canada’s cold winter months. One of our priorities of our transmission policies should be to expand the market for wind power and other energy sources from Central and Western New York, thereby advancing both our renewable energy goals and economic development in that part of the State.

p. 11 With strong leadership and enlightened policies, New York can be a leader in this transition to a more efficient and greener energy economy. New York hosts major “cleantech” businesses such as General Electric and Corning that are leaders in sectors such as wind power, high tech glass insulation that improves energy efficiency, and the burgeoning field of battery technologies that can support electric and hybrid cars.

p. 12 Expanding the State’s use of renewable fuels such as wind and solar power, as well as repowering power plants so that they operate more efficiently and produce fewer harmful emissions, reflect our commitment to environmental quality.

p. 23 The State must ensure that its generation sources include both sufficient baseload supply as well as other sources that, although may be less consistent in producing electricity, supplement the baseload supply, such as wind turbines that produce greater amounts of electricity at night and under windier conditions.

p. 71 Expand Wind and Solar Power and Repower Old Plants to make them Cleaner and More Efficient

p. 71 On-shore wind power is generally cost competitive, but its greatest output often comes when demand is low.

p. 72-73 However, even as the State increases its use of renewable energy, it must ensure that it has a sufficient supply of electrical power that can be dispatched when needed at any time—a quality that wind and solar power do not yet have because they generate electricity only when those resources are available.

p. 73 Wind is the most promising renewable resource for large-scale energy generation in New York. While up-front costs remain significant, recent developments in wind power generation technology—including increases in the size of available turbines—have substantially lowered such costs.

p. 73-74 Now, with the support of the federal production tax credit for wind power generation, state-of-the-art wind power plants can generate electricity for less than 5 cents/kWh, a price that is competitive with new gas-fired power plants.

p. 74 Unfortunately, in recent years some unscrupulous developers of wind power engaged in unethical and illegal behavior. That’s why, as Attorney General, Andrew Cuomo established a Wind Industry Ethics Code (“Code”). The Attorney General’s Code prohibits conflicts of interest between municipal officials and wind energy companies and establishes public disclosure requirements on wind companies. This code is the result of investigations of the relationship between wind energy companies and local government officials who control local zoning and land use decisions. The Code is monitored by a Wind Energy Task force made up of representatives of local government, good government advocates and the wind industry.

p. 74-75 The robust development of wind power generation in New York requires that we overcome some significant barriers. We must work hard to address the lack of adequate transmission capacity for renewable energy from upstate areas to the high demand downstate region, while remaining sensitive to the guiding principle of equity among regions of the State. In addition, we must reform the State’s regulation of both siting and financing of such projects to ensure that unnecessary delays and uncertainty do not prevent power producers and utilities from investing in upgrades to the transmission infrastructure. The Power NY Agenda will achieve these goals through the measures outlined below.

p. 75-76 Promote On-Shore Wind Projects and Facilitate Siting There are various wind generation projects that have been proposed in New York State and are currently awaiting development with the assistance of strong leadership in Albany. With existing subsidies from the Renewable Portfolio Standard (“RPS”) that is included in ratepayers’ bills and federal tax incentives, on-shore wind power is now cost-competitive with other forms of generation and thus has the potential to increase dramatically if the State takes the proper steps. 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.

p. 76 Enter Into Power Purchase Agreement for Off-Shore Wind When Economically Feasible

In 2009, NYPA issued a request for proposals for developers to build the nation’s first freshwater wind farm in the Great Lakes—a utility-scale project that would produce as much as 500 MW of new electric power to be purchased by NYPA. NYPA has also set up a “Great Lakes Offshore Wind Business Registry” to involve local companies in the project and create a list of companies to draw upon in the construction and development of the project.

p. 77 In addition, several responses were received to the Request for Information issued by the LIPA, NYPA, and Con Edison (the “Collaborative”) for a new off-shore wind facility off of the Rockaway Peninsula (the “Long Island-New York City Offshore Wind Project”) in the Atlantic Ocean. Because of its location, the Long Island-New York City Offshore Wind Project would help address the difficult transmission problems associated with bringing sufficient power to customers downstate.

p. 77 Because off-shore wind projects produce energy at a higher cost than the current market price, we must be mindful of the impact on the affordability

of energy. We cannot have renewable energy irrespective of cost. But if these projects can be delivered at a cost that has only a minimal impact on total energy costs, building these projects will serve to hedge against unforeseen future increases in fossil fuel prices, create significant economic development opportunities and serve as a strong endorsement of New York’s commitment to environmental quality and the new energy economy.

p. 78 One of the distinct advantages of solar energy is that, unlike wind turbines and other sources of renewable energy, solar energy can be implemented in New York City and other downstate regions such as Long Island where the demand for energy is greatest. Solar power can provide these downstate areas with new sources of power without requiring new hard-to-site power plants or transmission lines.

p. 100 A number of transmission projects have been proposed that should be carefully evaluated to determine if they meet the criteria adding new transmission capacity in New York. One such project contemplates building a transmission line that would enable New York to purchase low-cost and renewable hydropower in the hot summer months (our peak usage time) while selling our excess energy including unused wind power to Canada during the cold winter months (their peak usage period).

p. 101 To determine where and what types of new transmission infrastructure should be built, the State should build on the ongoing work of the State Transmission Assessment and Reliability Study (“STARS”) task force, a multi-stage analysis of the State’s transmission needs and plans for addressing those needs. The STARS process is currently addressing the enhanced transmission that will be needed to bring future wind power into the bulk transmission system.

p. 101-102 New York State has not built a major new above-ground transmission line in more than 20 years, leading not only to increased congestion and aging infrastructure but also a lack of capacity to bring new wind power downstate.

Now: The New NY Agenda: A Plan for Action

p. 122 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.

p. 124 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.

p. 167 Accelerate efforts to achieve energy efficiency and expanded sources of renewable energy. To make more rapid progress towards these goals, 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.

p. 168 encouraging the use of emerging technologies such as alternative energy sources—ranging from wind to biomass; and increasing affordable access to broadband which will help connect farmers and other rural residents to the world economy.

Finally: The New NY Agenda - A Cleaner, Greener NY

p. 48 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. (Fast tracking new power plants is exactly what Cuomo wants in order to prevent or discourage legal action against power plants. What Cuomo wants to do is remove or bypass Municipal Home Rule that would prevent downstaters like Cuomo from forcing unwanted power plants upon upstaters. This would include any type of power plant be it coal, nuclear, wind, etc. This is against the NYS Constitution and would no doubt be opposed by any upstate municipality.)

p. 95-96 Close Indian Point. Andrew Cuomo has long been a supporter of closing the Indian Point nuclear power plant in Westchester and has argued that the federal government should not renew the plant’s operating license when it expires in 2013. We must find and implement alternative sources of energy generation and improve transmission to replace the electricity now supplied by the Indian Point facility. It is reported that the Indian Point nuclear facility supplies 30% of New York City’s electricity. How could Cuomo possibly suggest the closure of this plant in a few years without a plan for its replacement? What new power plant could possibly supply NYC with 30% of its electricity?

As NYS Attorney General, Cuomo developed the Wind Industry Ethics Code. This came about as a result of shoddy and illegal wind practices by First Wind and also Nobel as they operated in NYS. Here is the gist of Cuomo’s code:

The Attorney General’s Wind Industry Ethics Code prohibits conflicts of interest between municipal officials and wind companies and establishes public disclosure requirements. The Code:

Bans wind companies from hiring municipal employees or their relatives, giving gifts of more than $10 during a one-year period, or providing any other form of compensation that is contingent on any action before a municipal agency
Prevents wind companies from soliciting, using, or knowingly receiving confidential information acquired by a municipal officer in the course of his or her official duties
Requires wind companies to establish and maintain a public Web site to disclose the names of all municipal officers or their relatives who have a financial stake in wind farm development
Requires wind companies to submit in writing to the municipal clerk for public inspection, and to publish in the local newspaper, the nature and scope of the municipal officer’s financial interest
Mandates that all wind easements and leases be in writing and filed with the County Clerk
Dictates that within sixty days of signing the Wind Industry Ethics Code, companies must conduct a seminar for employees about identifying and preventing conflicts of interest when working with municipal employees

Now if the wind industry were so clean, honorable, transparent and trusting – why would there be a need for such an ethics code? Have you ever heard of an attorney general in any state developing such a code to be signed any industry or business? Does this speak well of the wind industry? Absolutely not!

Andrew Cuomo:

“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.

This quote from Cuomo, apparently telling the truth, made during his campaign for governor surely reveals mountains of intent. Cuomo, a typical downstate Democrat, wishes to achieve a goal of delivering huge amounts of needed electrical power to metropolitan downstate areas and Long Island. But he is respecting downstate’s wish not to pollute viewsheds with hundreds of ugly 450’ tall industrial giants that intermittently produce electricity 30% of the time so the answer is to transmit the power, to downstate, from far outside the metropolitan area and well away from pricey Long Island neighborhoods. His answer is to locate the ugly power plants upstate and build better transmission lines to downstate. One of the novel new suggestions is to buy inexpensive hydro power from Hydro-Quebec and run a transmission line laid under Lake Champlain and then over to the Hudson River and along the river bottom to the metro area – and this may not be a bad idea!

On a final note – Rochester, NY Mayor Robert Duffy is now Cuomo’s Lt. Governor.

Here’s what Robert Duffy had to say about the GLOW catastrophe in a Aug 20, 2010 Rochester Democrat & Chronicle newspaper article:

Rochester Mayor Robert Duffy said last week he believes passing resolutions of opposition is short-sighted. “We need to look at this for the long term and explore this,” he said. 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.

But, he said he knows people have legitimate concerns about the turbines, especially their esthetic impact. “If they buy a home on Beach Avenue or anywhere along the lake, they want to look out their windows every morning and see the water. I respect that,” Duffy said. “I don’t think we in any way can make a rash decision. If we put our minds together, I bet we could come up with some alternatives and compromises that could produce that first wind farm.”

In other words Duffy is willing to sell out to NYPA’s foreign developers and sacrifice Rochester’s lake shore beauty! Now that he and Cuomo are in bed together we’ll bet they attempt to find a way to force this on an unsuspecting public.

NYSERDA = Part of the Problem

2010-12-01T07:26:00.000-08:00

NYSERDA seeks to 'transform our economic system'

As the G20 summit meeting scheduled in Cancun approaches, the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) co-chair, Dr. Edenhoffer of Germany, candidly admitted, "... One must say clearly that we redistribute the world's wealth by climate policy." This has been clearly exemplified here in the United States by the fact that of the $2.2 Billion dollars of the stimulus money that was allotted for "renewables" (and supposed "green" job creation) -- over 80% of that money went overseas (See: http://investigativereportingworkshop.org/investigations/wind-energy-funds-going-overseas/story/renewable-energy-money-still-going-abroad/ ). Industrial wind is a major component of the IPCC's "climate policy" redistribution of wealth scheme, and NYS - with plenty of Big Wind lobbyists and political cronies in high places, is a major player in this redistribution of wealth and, as Al Gore & George Soros refer to it - "global governance" scheme.

The push for the redistribution of our wealth through politicalization of our energy policies was made clear once again at the annual NYS Energy Research & Development Authority (NYSERDA) "Partnership for Environmental Improvement" meeting held on 11/18/10 in Albany, when NYSERDA executive, Janet Joseph stated, "...We are looking at transforming our economic system."

The objective of the meeting was supposed to be for NYSERDA to give Environmental Groups from across NYS an opportunity to bring their concerns to NYSERDA's attention, so that NYSERDA could properly address these concerns. The absolute frustration we have faced at getting them to address any of our concerns over the past several years now, was made even worse at this year's meeting. Dr. Thorndike, the Cornell professor on NYSERDA's board who chairs these meetings, elected to skip over the folks from across NYS she knew were there about wind, while letting all the other attendees speak - despite the fact that we had all been invited by NYSERDA to this meeting, and driven hundreds of miles to get there. When it got to be 3:00 - past the time the agenda said would be allotted for our comments - and the meeting was only scheduled to go until 4:00, I decided to speak out - much to their chagrin, I'm sure.

I pointed out to them that the entire focus in each of their varied presentations that day had been about improving "energy efficiency & reliablity" -- of which industrial wind is neither.

I asked, "You admitted that we don't have the money, the equipment, or the transmission lines in your presentation on Offshore Wind, - so why are we wasting the time and resources soliciting these projects? I can testify that my hometown would be much better off if we spent the money insulating, and installing energy efficient windows in every home. And I dare say, we'd probably save millions in dollars, and emissions in the process, while creating thousands of jobs!" (Why create jobs for local contractors when it's all about servicing Big Corporate, though?!?)

I went on and said, "Two things are missing when it comes to industrial wind -- the science and the money!" NYSERDA has yet to provide the independent, transparent, empirical proof that wind energy can live up to any of the wind industry's claims.

I asked how they could compare industrial wind - something that has virtually a zero capacity value (can be relied on to be there when called upon), to our reliable, dispatchable, baseload energy sources (i.e. - hydro, nuclear, gas, & coal), which "is like comparing a soap box derby car to a Boeing 747." (See: http://www.stopillwind.org/downloads/Overblown.pdf )

I referenced the Colorado/Texas Bentek studies, which looked at actual wind performance data in Texas and Colorado, and concluded that wind caused coal plants to operate more inefficiently, "often resulting in great SO2, NOx, and CO2 emissions than would have occurred if less wind energy were generated and coal generation was not cycled."

No one debated any of the facts I presented.

I looked to the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative presenter who had proclaimed that "We must raise the cost of carbon!", and told him that in spite of their demonizing of coal, there is the inconvenient fact that with over 100,000 IWT's that have been installed worldwide to date, NOT one coal plant has been closed down anywhere in the world thanks to industrial wind. I elaborated that it was cheaper, affordable energy that had made our country what it is today, and our poorest poor in this country are far better off than the poor in any other country in the world because we have had affordable power. Their plans to "transform our economic system" will hurt the lowest income folks the most. (See: "Resisting the Green Dragon" at the CornwallAlliance.org )

His response was, "We answered all your questions at the meeting a year ago."

I said, "No you didn't! Dr. Jan Storm, the NYS Dept of Health rep who spoke at the June, 2009 meeting acknowledged the existence of health problems around the world due to citing these things too close to peoples' homes -- but that NYS had not yet undertaken any studies. Here it is a year and a half later, and NYS still has done NO health studies. Yet, you continue to push these projects through! Furthermore, former PSC Sound Engineer, Dan Driscoll, told us all at the June, 2009 meeting that setbacks of approximately 3500' would probably alleviate most problems, yet you still have made NO recommendations to communities across NYS dealing with industrial wind developers. As a matter of fact, you have done NOTHING to help protect NYS residents!"

Of course, the typical reply came back, "It's a local matter."

I challenged them, and said, "As NYS's Energy Research & Development 'authority', you have a responsibility to make recommendations to the state on behalf of the people you work for in regard to these projects!"

A fellow advocate from the Tug Hill area jumped in - citing the fact that she had brought in FERC numbers showing the ridiculous output levels of 12% & 16% from the Maple Ridge project at the last meeting, and then handed all of them copies of the latest peer-reviewed study on the negative health effects of living too close to industrial wind installations. Advocates there for the first time from the Great Lakes group, then voiced their utter dismay with the way we had all been treated and ignored, and got up and left.

And how were our questions and concerns answered? With lame excuses and condescending lectures.

Why doesn't our government listen, you ask? One can only surmise that our government and its agencies (i.e. - NYSERDA) are in bed with the developers. NYSERDA is bent on raising your electric rates in order to benefit multi-national developers, and in turn - themselves.

NYSERDA told us straight out at last year's meeting, "Industrial wind is not up for debate as it is a political agenda that has been handed down from Washington & Albany." Really???

The hypocrisy of the NYS Energy Research & Development bureaucracy's Mission Statement of providing "independent, objective, scientific proof," versus pursuing "political agendas," is clear, and it is we - the NYS taxpayers & ratepayers, who will pay the price, while OUR tax & ratepayer dollars continue to be exported overseas in this "climate policy" fraud.

I'm afraid that I could not agree more with the statement Environmentalist, Jon Boone, made three years ago at a presentation in Chautauqua County:

"The politicalization of electricity production, which is what is happening here, corrupts any reasonable sense of enlightened public policy, driven as it is by propagandized sloganeering and a press that much of the time couldn’t hit water with an accurate story about wind if it fell out of a boat. New York State’s Energy Research and Development Authority (NYSERDA), the politically correct renewable energy oversight group within the state’s PSC, has become one of those grotesque bureaucracies that exist to justify its existence, generating gratuitous inaccuracies about the potential for wind energy in much the same way Cinderella’s step sisters connived to make that damned slipper fit their outsized feet. NYSERDA’s levy of a renewable energy surcharge is nothing more than a legalized bunko scheme for defrauding consumers."

Folks, accountability is a biblical principle. Not only is it time that we held our politicians and government bureaucracies accountable -- we all have a duty to speak out! Silence is agreement. Ignoring what is going on is akin to denial of an addiction -- It won't get better until we acknowledge the problem, and ask God for His help to deal with it. We have a responsibility to educate ourselves, speak out, and demand accountability from our elected officials. As Edmund Burke said, "All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing."

The next "political" development in NYS will likely be "Article X", which is being promoted by Governor-elect Cuomo. This will effectively take away NYS citizen's Home Rule rights to determine whether or not they want wind projects in their community, and if so, under what conditions. Are you willing to sit back and accept this removal of our constitutional rights, or will you stand up and speak out?

Mary Kay Barton
Silver Lake, NY

Monroe County - Parma, Greece, Rochester, Irondequoit & Webster ATTENTION!

2010-04-14T13:08:00.000-07:00

Property owners along Lake Ontario in Monroe County should worry. The New York Power Authority (NYPA) has plans to find a developer who would install a utility scale wind farm 2.3 miles off shore in waters less than 150’ deep. The offshore wind turbines would be 450’ or more tall and initially consist of up to 166 turbines. The potential locations now identified on NYPA maps (see their web site) are offshore from Parma, Greece, Rochester, Irondequoit and Webster. This whole plan is called the GLOW project (Great Lakes Offshore Wind) and is potentially planned for not only Lake Ontario but Lake Erie as well. As of early April 2010 few people in Monroe County along the lakeshore are aware of the GLOW project and how it could impact their property and quality of life. Could anyone be naive enough to think that if one wind farm was developed that there would never be another? The exact locations of the turbines in the lakes are not yet known.

The chief proponent of this project is Richard Kessel (pictured above) – President and CEO of NYPA. Kessel is a spokesman for Gov. Paterson who also heavily supports the GLOW project. The project was launched in April 2009 and mostly kept quiet until Nov. 2009 when details were released at a NYPA meeting in Oswego, NY. Attendees were shocked at what was revealed in Oswego – that gigantic offshore wind turbines would trash Lakes Ontario and Erie. This is not Kessel’s first attempt at forcing this issue upon unsuspecting waterfront property owners – he tried this in his Long Island home area a few years ago as President of the Long Island Power Authority (LIPA) - the LIPA offshore project was quickly defeated. People were so upset that Gov. Spitzer fired Kessel from his LIPA job. So now we have Governor Paterson with new ideas about renewable energy and how he wants to be seen “green”. So Gov. Paterson, against the advice of many, appointed Kessel as new head of NYPA pushing out the former NYPA President/CEO. Kessel is detested by many – a controversial, aggressive, egotistical man, a master panderer willing to run roughshod to get his way at any cost. To gain a better idea of the character of Kessel – please, please Google Richard Kessel or Richie Kessel (he likes to be called Richie) and read what comes up then decide if this is the type of man you would support running this plan. Kessel has spoken many times recently in upstate New York to business people, higher elected officials, etc. but never to the unwashed town level community. His message is always the same – turbines have 8,000 parts and the GLOW project will bring thousands of jobs to wherever the turbines are located. The jobs will consist of making turbines parts and assembling them and some construction but Kessel dwells on the message of GLOW bringing thousands of jobs - taking advantage of the poor NYS economic situation to advance his cause. Consider him the equal of a snake oil salesman from a century ago trying to sell not a product - but an idea – an idea that will suck taxpayer’s dollars to the tune of $1.5B to help pay for offshore wind turbines that will actually hurt New Yorkers in the long run. Kessel says repeatedly that he will not allow the turbines where they are not wanted (and thus the jobs will not be located where the turbines are not wanted – that’s the catch!). Kessel’s right about jobs being created - except they won’t be in New York or even America – they will be offshore!

Once again both NYPA’s Board Chairman Michael Townsend (of Pittsford, NY) and Kessel kept bringing up the thousands of jobs tease - that jobs would be created only where the project is located. They promised 45 to 80 permanent jobs per AWS Truewind's Bruce Bailey. This is virtually the only possible benefit or plus- the GLOW project could possibly offer. They assured listeners that jobs would be in the manufacture of turbine parts and the assembly of them and certainly some temporary construction jobs would be available but is this worth industrializing the lakes for decades and the harm it creates? But ignore Kessel’s tease of thousands of local jobs making and assembling turbine parts as it will simply not happen because (1) there is NO American manufacturer of offshore turbines (2) no American developer has ever developed project offshore anywhere (3) there has never been a offshore turbine project developed in freshwater anywhere in the world (4) never an offshore project completed in deep water anywhere in the world (5) never an offshore project developed where ice conditions would play an important part as it would in the Great Lakes. AWS Truewind and offshore wind developers are underestimating the power of Lake Ontario. We are convinced that if the project ever gets built the developer would use tested and proven turbine winners made in Europe and that there would be no parts manufactured or assembly of turbines done on US soil. Nobody would risk using a new turbine design under these circumstances with this much money at stake. We predict the developer would also be European and when we asked NYPA's Jill Anderson yesterday how many of the 11 developers that responded to NYPA's intent to bid were non-Americans - she gave us a nebulous answer - that she didn't really know for sure. Jobs are a complete unknown and are NOT part of any NYPA document – there are actually NO guarantees of any jobs whatsoever.

Richie Kessel has said repeatedly that an offshore wind farm won’t be located where its not wanted. Kessel doesn’t stoop low enough to have a dialog with towns. – he deals with the next level above – the legislators. We could be wrong but it seems Richie will accept legislator’s NO messages about the GLOW project. In March 2010 the legislators in Jefferson County voted unanimously to oppose NYPA’s GLOW project. In Oswego County the legislators also voted in March - 20 to 4 opposing the GLOW project. In March 2010 the Wayne County Board of Supervisors voted 15 to 0 opposing the GLOW project. NYPA was invited to attend numerous county or town meetings but declined most of them. No doubt they don’t like being asked questions.

Webster & Irondequoit – This writer notified the town of Webster in mid-December 2009 that the NYPA offshore project was coming down the pike. This message was delivered by phone to a staff lady at the Webster town hall who sounded responsible and articulate and assured us that the message would be delivered to the supervisor and that we wished to discuss this matter with the supervisor. The reason for the call was discussed with her for several minutes and she obviously knew the importance of the call. We never heard from the town of Webster after that. I refuse to believe the Webster staff lady didn’t get the message to town Supervisor Nesbitt. As many lake shore property owners as we can notify – will soon get a poly bag with brief details of the NYPA plan by April 17. All lakeshore Monroe County Legislators (they are Carmen Gumina – Webster; Dan Quatro - Webster, Penfield & Brighton; Vince Esposito – Irondequoit; Richard Yolevich – Ogden, Sweden and Parma; and Rick Antelli – Greece) were emailed asking them to call us about a major problem. Only one legislator actually called (to date) and that was Legislator Carmen Gumina. Legislator Gumina knew nothing of the GLOW project but after 20 minutes on the phone he knew a lot more about this debacle. He was sent additional information via the internet. There are many very pricey beautiful homes along the lake on Lake Road and the value of these properties will plummet if turbines are ever place offshore from Webster. The Irondequoit town supervisor is new to the job and actually returned this writer's phone call within minutes after the message was left on her answering machine. Supervisor D’Aurizio didn’t know a thing about the GLOW project prior to our call. Like Legislator Gumina, she listened intently (maybe in shock) while the major points of the GLOW project were explained to her. And additional GLOW info was also sent to her. At the April 12 NYPA Get Listed presentation at Monroe Community College – during the power point slide show – harbors along the lake were shown but not the Rochester harbor. Harbors are a requirement for turbine storage, repair, staging, assembly, maintenance vessels, etc. One slide showed an aerial photo of Irondequoit Bay bridge with the bay and Lake Ontario in the background. Obviously the message is that NYPA is considering using Irondequoit Bay as a possible harbor and staging area otherwise why would they have included this particular slide in their presentation and omitted the Charlotte harbor area? Well how do you think the Webster and Irondequoit people that invested in the gorgeous town houses, condos, and expensive homes with a view around & above Irondequoit Bay will accept seeing the bay turned into an industrial complex catering to wind turbine operations and maintenance? How will a gigantic ugly jack-up barge fit into the neighborhood scene plus many other GLOW related commercial vessels? The outlet into the lake will need widening & deepening by several times to accommodate all the operations necessary for construction of the wind farm much less O & M work. Can you imagine all the noise created by this nuisance? But NYPA will tell you it creates jobs and that’s good for everybody! Without a doubt the temporary bridge used during winter at the Irondequoit Bay outlet channel will become history, as the channel will be forever open all year. But don’t think that just the waterfront property owners will be jinxed by this horrible GLOW project, as it gets worse. You’ll be paying higher taxes because of it - since grants and seemingly unlimited financial subsides will pay for 60% of the wind farm – probably money going mostly offshore too – to an absentee owner who could care less about the impact of his actions in Irondequoit, NY and Webster, NY. Then when all the folks in their expensive homes line up at the assessor’s office demanding lower assessments because the wind farm 2.3 miles offshore had devalued their properties – and going to court to get lower assessments if necessary – after the assessments are reduced the rest of the town will experience a higher tax rate due to reduced assessments in the town’s most heavily taxed districts – waterfront. And since the wind developer has a power purchase agreement with NYPA – who has agreed to buy all the electricity the wind farm produces (but only for 10 years) – your electric rates will rise since the developer has to make a profit and electric produced by wind is the most expensive other than maybe solar.

We did receive a collective email response from Legislators Quatro, Antelli and Yolevich telling us they would look into the GLOW issue if presented to them. Legislator Esposito did email me but never called to discuss the issue. We need more than this kind of response from the lake shore legislators – we need the legislature to quickly resolve the issue and “nip it in the bud” before wind developers consider locating the offshore wind farm off the Monroe County area and get their foot in the door.

Greece & Parma – When contacted this month by phone, Parma Supervisor Peter McCann’s first words were that Parma didn’t need turbines offshore. Funny how quickly this supervisor understood the problem even though he had not heard of the GLOW project before our call. We hope Supervisor McCann speaks soon with Legislator Yolevich and enlightens him about the GLOW project.

We knew we’d never be allowed to speak with Supervisor Auberger of Greece and we were right. But a call to his office earlier this month was returned by a staffer who knew a very little about the GLOW wind issues. He was briefed and promised he’d speak about this the following day during a scheduled meeting he had planned with Auberger. A follow up call to the staffer’s answering machine the next week was never returned so we don’t have any idea where the Greece supervisor stands on this important issue. But NYPA maps are very clear and show a potential wind farm all the way across Greece and 2.3 miles offshore. Greece Legislator Antelli never did call us but email responded collectively with Majority Leader Quatro and Yolevich. Unfortunately we do not know if they are researching the offshore issues or doing nothing. All of them knew their feelings would soon be made public either way and thus far they have stonewalled us and refused to speak directly with us even though we were probably the first to report this problem to them. This is how government works in Monroe County.

Mayor Robert Duffy and Monroe Co. Exec. Maggie Brooks - Both Mayor Duffy and Monroe Co. Exec Brooks were notified by this writer in late Nov. 2009 of the NYPA GLOW project following the Oswego city hall meeting where GLOW project details were revealed by NYPA staff. Brooks was notified through the county internet site and so was Duffy notified through the city of Rochester web site. Brooks office never responded to this day about our email. Duffy’s office sent an automated reply to us in early December saying that someone would get in touch with us but that never happened. We still have the automated reply in our files & now we are nearly 5 months closer to a “project”. Key NYPA staff met with Maggie Brooks on 4/12/10 in Rochester and we can only guess what went on at that meeting but no doubt Kessel inundated her promising thousands of jobs for Monroe County if the county supports the GLOW project – there is little else promising he could offer.

If you are a lake shore Monroe County property owner reading this article and are concerned about the future of your property please understand this – The Monroe County Legislature can put a stop to NYPA’s GLOW plans by voting NO to this project. YOU MUST CONTACT YOUR COUNTY LEGISLATOR AND ASK HIM/HER TO VOTE NO.

There are many other GLOW, Kessel, NYPA articles on the Beware NY Wind site - have a look. Also - a new Rochester, NY area committee has formed in opposition to offshore wind and the GLOW project. If you are interested in joining them please email: speedway2742@gmail.com

Isn't it amazing that NONE of the town web sites have bothered to mention this horrible NYPA plan to their residents as of 4-17-10 - that the town supervisors have all known about this NYPA scheme for at least 2 weeks and word of it is still being kept from their residents. Why haven't they been warned? What the hell are town web sites for? Take off the rose-colored glasses and look at reality. THE ENEMY IS AT THE GATE!

NYPA Chairman Threatens Oswego Co.

2010-04-01T09:45:00.000-07:00

From the National Wind Watch, April 1, 2010

And we thought New York Power Authority CEO & President Richie Kessel's arrogance was bad - maybe he gets it from NYPA's (attorney) Board Chairman Michael Townsend - this is from the Palladium Times newspaper in Oswego, NY read on:

Legislator, NYPA chair exchange words over rejected wind power proposal

Credit: By Aaron Curtis, The Palladium-Times, palltimes.com 30 March 2010

Oswego County Legislator Morris Sorbello, R-Granby, revealed a letter to the Legislature’s Economic Development and Planning Committee written by a New York Power Authority (NYPA) chairman about the county’s recent opposition to a wind turbine project proposal which would be based in Lake Ontario.

The letter, initially mentioned during Tuesday’s meeting, was addressed to Sorbello, chairman of the committee, who was concerned about the letter’s wording, which prompted the legislator to issue a written response to the NYPA chairman.

“Please be advised that I will do everything within my power to ensure that no NYPA power projects are located in any municipality within Oswego County, New York” wrote Michael J. Townsend, NYPA chairman.

Wayne County, NY Rejects Offshore Wind, NYPA & Kessel

2010-04-01T08:01:00.000-07:00

It was standing room only at the Wayne County courthouse in Lyons, NY on March 31st. Approx. 30+ people spoke on the New York Power Authority (NYPA) offshore turbine issue with the vast majority highly opposed. Several people wanted more info. When it came to a vote at the end of the meeting - the Board of Supervisors were unanimous - 15 to 0 against NYPA and the offshore project. The Board was not happy that NYPA reps didn't attend the meeting but this is NYPA CEO & President Richie Kessel's style not to get his hands dirty mingling with the unwashed common public. Some Wayne Co. supervisors wanted to look into offshore turbine issues more thoroughly but the aggressive NYPA timeline made them feel there wasn't enough time hence the safest thing to do was vote against the offshore issue rejecting the entire scheme.

One point brought out by a speaker was that offshore turbines would be the site of graffiti - we never heard that point before but its got to be true.

Now we'll have to see what Monroe County will do about the NYPA offshore turbine issue - with time running out. Wait till the folks in Irondequoit and Greece and other lake shore towns affected - begin to understand what offshore turbines are all about. This writer contacted the town of Webster supervisor's office in mid-December wishing to speak with him about offshore turbines but he never had the courtesy to return the call! The Irondequoit supervisor was very interested in our words and the Greece supervisor's office did have a rep. return our call.

This writer sees the next major hurdle as attempting to convince the Monroe County Legislature to also reject NYPA and the offshore wind effort but it will not be easy as Richie Kessel will be dangling the job and money carrot before their eyes and this greed symbol is hard to ignore. The goal is to get the Monroe County Legislature to vote NO on this issue as soon as possible because of the timeline involved. And we also need to get working in the Lake Erie area due to the timeline - Lake Erie property owners probably know less about offshore wind than those along Lake Ontario.

Its clear to this writer that NYPA is their own worst enemy & Kessel hasn't learned from his prior mistakes. Kessel himself is a major part of the problem. Let's hope Kessel continues his evil ways and causing people and elected officials to say NO. He's being driven closer to the Niagara River but then he actually does have a few friends in Niagara County despite the fact that Niagara County is suing NYPA and NY for over a half billion dollars NYPA raided from ratepayer monies to "donate" to Gov. Paterson's general fund last year to help Paterson balance the NYS budget. Niagara County has spent over $171k so far in this lawsuit against NYPA and the state - money that could be better spent on Niagara County roads and bridges.

Here's the offshore turbine NYPA scorecard:

March 9 - Jefferson County votes 14 to 0 against NYPA & offshore turbines

March 11 - Oswego County votes 20 to 4 against NYPA & offshore turbines

March 31 - Wayne County votes 15 to 0 against NYPA & offshore turbines

Wayne Co. New York - Say NO to NYPA & Offshore Wind

2010-03-22T17:40:00.000-07:00

The Wayne Co. Board of Supervisors will HOLD A PUBLIC HEARING and vote on March 31, 2010 on whether to support an effort by the New York Power Authority to industrialize and ruin Lakes Ontario and Erie by promoting offshore wind turbines in the Great Lakes. You have a chance to speak against this outrageous plan by attending their meeting at 7 pm in the Wayne county courthouse in Lyons, NY, speaking out AGAINST offshore wind and letting the supervisors know this plan is bad for Wayne County as they are planning to vote on this issue at their March 31st meeting. There is considerable other offshore info on this blog site - search for NYPA and offshore articles. The map photos with this article show the potential locations in Lake Ontario that are being shown by NYPA to wind development companies world-wide trying to attract them to develop these wind farms. Dark areas in the lake 2.3 miles off shore are the potential locations but NYPA says the turbine location could be anywhere in NYS waters. DON'T LET THE DOWNSTATE NYPA PANDERERS FOOL YOU WHILE THEY TRASH LAKES ONTARIO AND ERIE!!!!! Jefferson and Oswego Counties have already said NO to NYPA earlier this month. There is nothing in this plan that does any good for Wayne County. Allowing just one of these turbines would create a domino effect and before long there would be thousands in our beautiful lake for the rest of our lives. Governor Paterson also heavily backs NYPA in this disaster - what does that tell you! When NYPA tells you this project will bring thousands of jobs and reduce America's dependence on mid-east oil they are LIARS.

A Tale of NYPA Folly, Richie, and Upstate New York

2010-03-12T12:36:00.000-08:00

After attending a crowded community meeting in Pulaski, NY on the evening of March 3, 2010 in the Oswego County courthouse hosted by the newly formed Joint Commission for the Preservation of Lake Ontario Communities – this writer realized how well focused and strong people in this upstate area had become organized against New York Power Authority’s (NYPA) plans for the Great Lakes Offshore Wind Project (GLOW). The Joint Commission is non-partison and composed of people (including legislators) from both Jefferson and Oswego Counties opposed to NYPA’s repulsive GLOW project. Another major player in this mix opposed to the GLOW project is the Coalition for the Preservation of the Golden Crescent and the 1000 Islands Region based in the Jefferson/Oswego counties area.

At about 7pm March 9, 2010, Tuesday evening, Richie Kessel, CEO & President of the New York Power Authority, and his entourage , appeared at the Jefferson Co. historic courthouse in Watertown, NY (seen in the above photo postulating at the podium) with their dog and pony show to promote the dreaded NYPA GLOW project in Jefferson County. Kessel and his down state minions were greeted with numerous anti-wind signs posted about the courthouse façade same as they were in Pulaski the week before for the Joint Commission meeting. Kessel did nearly all the preaching for NYPA and began by attempting to intimate there essentially was no project - yet. (This is like telling a condemned man not to worry about his execution – that it hasn’t been decided yet if the method will be by hanging, shooting, chemical injection, gas or electricity or who will deliver final blow & when) Kessel stated numerous times that if an offshore wind farm was unwanted in the Jefferson Co. area - it would not happen there. Kessel stated that many NYS counties wanted a project like this and mentioned Erie and Niagara counties as among them. He also promised thousands of jobs (manufacturing parts and assembling them) would be created for upstaters near wherever the offshore wind project was located. In NYPA’s Request for Expressions of Interest (RFEI) and Request For Proposals (RFP) there is no mention or guarantee of jobs for upstaters whatsoever as Kessel verbally promised! There is no guarantee that the turbines used would be USA made - its not required in either the RFEI or RFP. No guarantee that most workers would be US citizens – read the documents on the NYPA web site.

When a legislator asked who would pay for this offshore project Kessel answered that NYPA would not pay for it nor would taxpayers. Kessel said the developer would pay the whole cost of the wind project and that NYPA would buy all the power produced through a Power Purchase Agreement with NYPA. Now read what NYPA has in their RFEI that contradicts what Kessel stated:

3.4.3.1 Federal and State Incentives
NYPA is seeking information related to the expected federal and state incentives potentially available for a Great Lakes Offshore Wind Project, such as the Production Tax Credit and other government incentives, and the impacts of such incentives on pricing. NYPA is also seeking an analysis of potential grants that might be available from the Department of Energy pursuant to the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act for feasibility studies of wind sites and offshore wind projects.
Keeping in mind what Kessel said about who pays for the offshore wind project - not taxpayers - his RFEI clearly tells a different story -that DOE grants and ARRA monies will subsidize the wind farm. Now - can you trust Kessel?

Several questions were asked of Kessel by legislators demonstrating the main issue against an offshore wind project would be objections the legislators had concerning the GLOW impact on tourism – a major industry in this upstate area. Long into his talk Kessel had the nerve to state that people would actually travel to see an offshore wind farm in their area. This comment literally jolted spectators in their seats from an otherwise quiet crowd of about 60 people. Their shock & reaction at Kessel's outrageous statement surprised even Kessel himself.

Richie – lie to us if you wish - but DON’T insult us!

Kessel attempted several times to suggest that the legislators not vote on the project so soon (that night) and wait until developers submitted plans and then vote but the legislators would have none of this delay. Kessel and NYPA have an extremely aggressive timeline for this GLOW project. Kessel attempted to answer several more questions put forth by the legislators. When asked about a community benefits package he told legislators that there would be a benefits package for the area where the wind project was located but there is no mention or guarantee of this in either the RFEI or RFP – it’s simply not mentioned and something that would need to be provided by the developer not NYPA rate payers – simply more Kessel pandering. Kessel was asked about the output of the turbines and his NYPA associate stepped up and said the turbines would each develop 3 mw of power. Her answer is questionable as the NYPA RFEI says:

NYPA’s concept of a utility scale project suggests that the largest commercially available turbine may be required. As such, this RFEI requests information concerning the largest lake-based wind turbine that is currently available (or is expected to be available) on the market as well as the prospects and timing for larger turbines.

Does this all sound like a 3 mw turbine for GLOW? No it doesn’t! Believe what’s in writing – that’s what the developers are basing their proposals on. Ten megawatt turbines are now being developed. Turbines wouldn't be placed in the lake for maybe 2 years and all the while newer more powerful, larger, noiser units will be available and used.

Questions were not entertained from concerned citizens and area residents, probably a great relief to Kessel, and he and his NYPA cortege of several - left the building about 8:45pm. Jefferson Co. Legislature Chairman Ken Blankenbush then asked if any legislator had comments. Legislator Kent Burto asked that the resolution on the floor against an offshore wind project be amended to support Niagara County’s efforts to get an offshore wind project in their area and this comment brought laughter to the great unwashed and legislators too. Legislator Chairman Blankenbush asked if Burto was serious about his amendment and Burto said he was serious. Then another legislator seconded Burto’s amendment and the amendment passed unanimously. Chairman Blankenbush then asked if any legislator had questions on the resolution opposing the NYPA offshore wind project and hearing none he called for a vote on the resolution. The vote was 14 to 0 against the NYPA offshore wind project. Following the vote Chairman Blankenbush took comments from several concerned people that attended the session – none of which spoke in favor of the GLOW project. Its unfortunate Kessel didn’t stay another 10 minutes to witness the defeating blow to his fallacious plans. Later, word outside the meeting room was that Kessel & NYPA cannot be trusted and could very well pursue locating a wind farm in eastern Lake Ontario anyway - regardless of the vote since the offshore project is within NYS but not within the jurisdiction of a municipality.

As an aside – this writer emailed the chairman of the Niagara County Legislature the following day to ask if they supported NYPA’s plans for an GLOW project in Lake Ontario off Niagara County and an answer was received a few hours later. It reads:

Niagara County is interested in economic development that will create jobs. Yes, the county supports the proposed offshore wind farm by NYPA.

Niagara County wants the megawatts generated by the proposed offshore wind farm to stay in Niagara County for economic development and / or reduction in energy rates for our county.

Bill Ross

************************************************************************************************************

One cannot help but wonder what the Niagara County legislature’s attitude would be if NYPA could not or would not agree to the second part of Mr. Ross’ statement? One cannot help but wonder how the many boaters & fishermen using the Niagara River will react to NYPA’s plans off the Niagara County shoreline? NYPA would need to bias the GLOW project from the river centerline to the east since the Canadian border is also the river centerline. One cannot help but wonder how the Canadians will respond to an NYPA offshore wind project well within their view. Turbines anywhere in the lake offshore from Niagara County would easily be seen from Toronto. The area where the Niagara River flows into Lake Ontario is extremely historic and no doubt there will be significant resistance to offshore wind when people in this area, both Canadians and New Yorkers, hear of the impending NYPA GLOW debacle near the mouth of the Niagara River. This area also lacks a staging area in US waters.

But old Richie didn’t tell the Jefferson Co. Legislature about his little tiff going on with the Niagara County Legislature. It should be mentioned that Niagara County is in a bitter lawsuit against NYPA and NYS over NYPA’s sweep of $544M in NYPA surplus ratepayer monies that were “donated” last year by NYPA to Gov. Paterson’s General Fund to help balance the NYS budget. When the Niagara County legislature discovered this deal between NYPA and NYS - the Niagara Co. Legislature demanded the monies be returned to NYPA for the benefit of ratepayers and when this didn’t happen the Niagara Co. Legislature sued and the matter is now going through the court system. Sad thing is that Niagara County has spent $171,000 (as of March 2010) since last summer funding lawyers to pursue the lawsuit – money that could have done taxpayers in Niagara County some good if Richie Kessel and NYPA hadn’t done this little favor for the man who appointed him. Do the readers sense a minor conflict of interest here? And more taxpayer money will be squandered on this lawsuit in the future thanks to Kessel and his cheerleader Paterson before everything is settled. This whole scenario reeks of abject Albany corruption – nothing new for New Yorkers!

On Thursday March 11, 2010 at a long afternoon meeting of the Oswego County legislature, county officials voted 20 to 4 against NYPA’s offshore wind project. Many Oswego Co. legislators had already observed Kessel during his Nov. 13, 2009 visitation to Oswego city hall promoting offshore wind. Word was that several people came to this week’s legislature meeting from SUNY Oswego College supporting the offshore wind project. After meeting for several hours - the legislature voted opposing NYPA’s offshore wind project. This is an especially bitter blow to Kessel’s GLOW project since Oswego has a fairly large harbor area that may have been a great staging, lay down, assembly area for wind turbine assembly prior to them being placed in the lake. There are few harbor areas within NYS in Lake Ontario - capable of hosting an area large enough to handle projects of this magnitude making this writer wonder if ports in Ontario, Canada may be used should the project move forward.

This writer is concerned that Kessel’s potential location choices for his GLOW project are diminishing and Wayne County residents should be concerned that the project may be driven in their direction and end up offshore from Wayne County. Virtually no Wayne County residents (lakeshore property owners and others) know about NYPA’s horrible plans to trash & industrialize Lakes Ontario and Erie. The Wayne County Board of Supervisors is well aware of NYPA’s plans but made no effort yet to deliver the NO message to Kessel like Jefferson County and Oswego County have. Three Wayne County town supervisors – Hoffman (Williamson), Leroy (Sodus) and Crane (Huron) – have publicly stated they are opposed to NYPA’s offshore wind factory. It should be mentioned that the town of Huron in Wayne County is the only NYS town that DID take action when last December the town board voted and passed a resolution unanimously opposed to NYPA’s plans for a GLOW project. Fortunately the Huron supervisor observed Kessel firsthand at the Oswego city hall NYPA presentation in November 2009 and considered the many pitfalls a GLOW project would bring her town. Wayne County, like Oswego County, currently has the very best source of electrical generating power on earth – nuclear power via the Robert Ginna plant – hence wind power in the lakes isn’t needed or wanted. Let Kessel and his lackeys erect the wind turbines on Long Island and around Manhattan where the power is needed. But that would be a difficult sell since Kessel and his offshore project were already kicked out of Long Island a few years ago and Kessel was shortly thereafter fired as head on Long Island Power Authority by former Gov. Spitzer. Wayne County needs to act soon opposing the NYPA GLOW project before Kessel's foot blocks the door.

NYPA’s deadline for wind developers to submit a Notice of Intent to Submit Proposal is March 20, 2010. NYPA’s web site says they will keep the names of any developer confidential that submits a Notice of Intent of Submit Proposal. This is, of course, to keep curious anti-GLOW people from knowing that mainly foreign companies will submit GLOW proposals and NYPA doesn’t want those concerned to know about this. This writer believes it is absolutely illegal for NYPA to withhold this information from the public on a FOIL request but getting the NYS AG’s office or NYS Dept. of State to enforce the FOIL is nearly impossible. This demonstrates NYPA’s attitude toward due diligence on transparency – we should be worried! Could this be why Jefferson County wouldn’t wait on voting in opposition to the GLOW project? Would you like a neighbor like NYPA running the show?

What also must be kept in mind is that controversial Kessel’s biggest advocate is none other than the man who appointed him – Governor Paterson. And we all know that Paterson, the most unpopular governor in NYS history in the most corrupt state, has less than a year on the job before his replacement inherits the scandals. This situation should make Kessel just a bit nervous about his employment future and his $240k/year salary. Ditto the NYSDEC chief – Pete Grannis - another offshore wind supporter and loathed NYS official.

Lake Erie town and county elected officials and populace - may be totally oblivious to the GLOW project.

One can only hope that with the departure of the most scorned Governor in NYS history that Kessel will soon follow Paterson and the final result will be the permanent termination of any GLOW project in the Great Lakes within NYS waters. Maybe the Jefferson County legislator’s vote wouldn’t have been so one-sided if Kessel hadn’t personally appeared before the legislature?

Municipalities Countersue Wind Farm

2010-02-21T16:37:00.001-08:00

(Lewis County, NY and the involved taxing municipalities deserve the screwing they're getting from the wind companies for ever getting involved in wind energy to begin with! Not only are the taxing municipalities getting ripped - so are the land owners that have had liens put against their properties as a result of wind developers not paying their contractors for the work they did.)

Credit: By STEVE VIRKLER, TIMES STAFF WRITER, Watertown Daily Times, www.watertowndailytimes.com 18 February 2010

LOWVILLE — Maple Ridge Wind Farm municipalities are countersuing the wind company, claiming it is in default for failure to make its full annual payment in December.

“Plaintiff has no valid excuse or defense for its failure to pay,” states a recent legal filing from Kevin R. McAuliffe and David G. Burch of Syracuse law firm Hiscock & Barclay.

The firm is representing the involved taxing jurisdictions — Lewis County, the towns of Martinsburg, Harrisburg, Lowville and Watson and the Lowville, Copenhagen and South Lewis school districts — in a state Supreme Court lawsuit filed in late December by Flat Rock Windpower, the company under which the 195-turbine wind farm was developed.

The municipalities’ counterclaim asks the judge to dismiss the complaint, declare that Flat Rock was not entitled to make a lesser payment and is, therefore, in default of its 15-year payment-in-lieu-of-taxes agreement and order the payment of $6.7 million plus interest, penalties and legal fees.

Lewis County Attorney Richard J. Graham earlier this month sent a notice of default to the company, according to legal filings.

Flat Rock was billed in December for an $8.99 million annual payment but paid only $2.29 million and filed a lawsuit to justify the payment. Flat Rock claims it should pay only the so-called “fallback amount,” since it was decertified in June from the state Empire Zone program.

The company is appealing the state ruling but also seeking court approval of its PILOT interpretation, just in case its appeal is denied.

The attorneys for the municipalities dispute Flat Rock’s interpretation of the PILOT agreement.

They state that the fallback clause should only be invoked if the company’s property tax credits were “eliminated, reduced or capped through a change in law or regulation, but not as a result of Flat Rock’s failure to comply with the requirement of the Empire Zone Act.” That section of the PILOT specifically refers to Section 15 of state Tax Law, which has not been amended since Dec. 1, 2007, the counterclaim adds.

The filing also lays out a number of legal defenses the municipalities may employ, including failure to state a cause of action or act in good faith.

According to the Flat Rock lawsuit, the company has put $6.7 million into an escrow account with U.S. Bank that will be given to local taxing jurisdictions upon Empire Zone recertification.

The countersuit refers to the escrow as “an entirely self-serving act that allegedly permitted the Plaintiff to claim a tax deduction for the amount of deposit, but at the same time, deprived the Defendants of the benefits of the monies deposited.”

Flat Rock was one of 363 businesses that appealed their zone decertifications statewide. So far, the state Empire Zone Designation Board has recertified 10 companies and upheld the decertification of 93.

The board is slated to meet again at 9 a.m. Friday in Albany, but there is no indication which appeals will be acted upon.

Most of the companies awaiting decision on their appeals — including Flat Rock — were targeted as “shirt-changers,” or companies reincorporated as different entities that claimed they created jobs when, in reality, they transferred employees from one entity to the other.

While Flat Rock doesn’t seem to fit that definition, it was apparently lumped into the category based on the company’s response to a question in its 2006 financial report to Empire State Development, Mr. Graham has said.

A Dose of Raw Hipocrisy

2010-02-21T16:31:00.000-08:00

Credit: Watertown Daily Times, www.watertowndailytimes.com 17 February 2010

For raw, undisguised political pandering, you’re going to have to search for awhile before you can top the Jefferson County Legislature, which will consider a resolution at its next meeting to oppose the New York Power Authority’s proposal to seek wind developers for offshore locations in a wide strip roughly from the mouth of the St. Lawrence to Mexico Bay.

This is the legislature, led by Ken Blankenbush’s public salivation over a 20-year payment-in-lieu-of-taxes agreement, that bent over backwards (some would say they bent the other way) to get the Galloo Island Wind Farm on the way to reality. Apparently that project, which will be visible from shore, will be much prettier than any as yet unproposed projects in the lake – since one of the Legislature’s objections to the NYPA proposal is the aesthetics of the projects and the potential adverse effects on property values.

Wow. Belleville Legislator Barry Ormsby’s absurd contention that the NYPA proposals and Galloo Island are nothing alike aside, both are wind farms out in the lake. That the NYPA plan has towers planted on the state’s lake bottom, while Galloo Island towers will be on ground taxed by the town of Hounsfield and Jefferson County, seems to be the only real distinction between the proposals.

And there is the rub: like just about everyone else who has had cash carried by wind project developers rubbed under their nose, the county Legislature can’t resist the bitter but alluring smell of lucre.

In fact, I’ve got a tip for NYPA chief Richie Kessel: all you’ll have to do to make this opposition melt away is to propose a PILOT payment agreement for any offshore wind farm that is proposed. That will make the project pretty once again – even if it is little more than lipstick on a pig.

The Legislature’s action plays to the group of activists trying to keep wind farms out of the Golden Crescent. Blankenbush, Ormsby and others seem to think those folks will easily distinguish between the Galloo Island project and any other offshore project that comes along. I suspect, however, the folks united to oppose all wind farm development along the stretch from Oswego to Cape Vincent will see the raw hypocrisy of the Legislature’s action, as I suspect everyone else will, too.

Jefferson Co. Says NO to Offshore Wind

2010-02-19T14:40:00.000-08:00

Legislature opposed to wind farms in the lake

By NANCY MADSEN

TIMES STAFF WRITER

WATERTOWN DAILY TIMES WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 17, 2010

ARTICLE OPTIONS

A wind power project on an island is OK, but turbines in the lake are not.

The Jefferson County Board of Legislators' Planning and Development Committee passed on Tuesday night a resolution opposing the New York Power Authority's plan to put a wind farm in Lake Ontario.

NYPA has asked for developers to submit proposals on building towers for up to 500 megawatts of wind power in possible sites in Lake Ontario and Lake Erie.

This action came two weeks after the legislators approved a payment-in-lieu-of-taxes agreement for the proposed 252-megawatt Galloo Island Wind Farm.

"While I certainly intend to support it at the full board, my concern is our inconsistency in our message," Legislator Scott A. Gray, R-Watertown, said. Mr. Gray is not a member of the committee. "We're opposing a project with some of the very same things we approved a few weeks ago with the Galloo Island project."

The resolution included language that the NYPA project would hurt landowners, "including potential effects on real estate values, scenic vistas, and quality of life."

Chairman Barry M. Ormsby, R-Belleville, disagreed.

"The two projects, when compared side-by-side, are apples and oranges," he said. "One project is on a 2,200-acre island six-and-a-half miles offshore where 84 turbines will be confined."

He acknowledged that a certain section of the shoreline will see the turbines.

"But compared to the possible NYPA sites on the maps, you see a total littering of the Eastern basin from Tibbets Point to Mexico Bay," he said.

The six members of the committee at the meeting approved the resolution, which the full board will consider on March 2

Dear Mr. President - from Congressman Massa

2010-02-19T14:29:00.000-08:00

February 15, 2010

President Barack Obama
President of the United States of America
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington, DC 20500-0005

Dear Mr. President:

In recent months, I have learned of some very troubling news regarding the use of stimulus funds for supporting wind industry jobs abroad. I do not believe this use of U.S. taxpayer dollars is in accordance with the purposes of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act and I request that your Administration refrain from giving any awards to wind companies tunneling money to foreign corporations. Sending money abroad to support jobs in other countries while continuing to ignore problems facing the American wind industry is simply bad policy.

To date, I do not believe the use of stimulus funds to support wind projects in the U.S. has met the promises of substantial job creation and clean renewable energy. With these and other federal funds, we must make wise investments in the American people by weighing the job and energy creation prospects of each proposal. Quite simply, the potential benefits offered by a project should be commensurate with the size of the investment. I am not convinced that this is the case right now.

While it is true that these funds are used only to support American-based projects, the development corporations and the suppliers involved are, more often than not, headquartered outside of the U.S. This means that ultimately, a large portion of the nearly $2 billion invested in wind projects through the ARRA will go directly to supporting foreign businesses that compete with American workers. The stimulus package was meant to bolster American productivity, not hand over control of an entire industry to other countries, including China.

Instead of dumping billions of dollars into so many wind projects that support very few domestic jobs and produce limited energy benefits, while propping-up foreign industries at the expense of U.S. taxpayers, I believe your Administration should focus on addressing the underlying problems of the American wind industry. If we are to have successful American wind energy development, we must have an industry built by American workers that supply real energy to American homes and reduce our dependence on dirty fossil fuels. I believe it is necessary to slow down the wildly haphazard "progress" in wind power development which is having a destructive impact on many small communities. We need to address these and many other concerns because frankly, the current policy is not working.

As it stands now and as it has been proven by stimulus investments in wind power, our nation is dangerously reliant on foreign wind corporations. As with so many other industries, we have been surpassed by our foreign competitors in the wind sector. Even worse, now we are funding them. This is entirely wrong.

Moving forward, we must take a critical look into the American wind industry that we see today and develop comprehensive, long-term plans that address the many serious issues facing wind power in this country. The goal must be to use wise investments in this energy source to safely, responsibly, and effectively create clean energy while also establishing strong manufacturing and construction sectors that will build a truly American industry supported by American jobs.

Eric JJ. Massa Member of Congress

Cc: Steven Chu, Secretary of Energy

More Opposition to NYS Offshore Wind Turbines

2010-02-09T18:08:00.000-08:00

The following published in the 2/9/2010 Watertown Daily Times

Opponents organizing to fight wind plans

Credit: By Nancy Madsen, Times Staff Writer, Watertown Daily Times,

Legislators and other officials from Jefferson and Oswego counties will begin mounting opposition to New York Power Authority’s proposal to put 500 megawatts of wind energy development in Lake Ontario.

Jefferson County Legislature Chairman Kenneth D. Blankenbush, R-Black River, said they first will find out more about the proposal and then organize to oppose a widespread project.

The Board of Legislators voted to approve the Galloo Island Wind Farm payment-in-lieu-of-taxes agreement Feb. 2, which helped pave the way for that 252-megawatt project.

“Having them on an island is one thing, but scattered along the shoreline is totally different,” Mr. Blankenbush said.

NYPA asked developers in December to submit proposals to build up to 500 megawatts of wind power, possibly spread out over several potential sites, including 10 sites in Lake Ontario and 13 sites in Lake Erie. Those sites were chosen in part because they have average wind speeds of at least 16.8 mph, have water depths of less than 150 feet and lie 2.3 miles or farther offshore.

One site spreads from Galloo Island north to Grenadier Island and another stretches from Galloo Island south along the eastern shore in Oswego County.

“We’ll figure out what we can do and listen to what is the project they’re talking about,” Mr. Blankenbush said. “But what I’ve heard, I don’t like.”

NYPA’s proposal energized local opposition to wind power and helped the Coalition for the Preservation of the Golden Crescent and Thousand Islands Region to coalesce. Legislator Barry M. Ormsby, R-Belleville, organized the first meeting for Thursday night in Henderson Harbor.

“We will get something organized,” Mr. Ormsby said. “We’ll know how to strategize moving forward.”

He expects another meeting with NYPA officials soon. The deadline for a project proposal from a developer is June 1. NYPA will contract with the operator to buy all of the power from the wind farm or farms through long-term power purchase agreements.

NY Town of Huron Votes "NO" on Offshore Wind

2010-01-22T16:49:00.000-08:00

The NYS Town of Huron town board (Wayne County) officially took a position opposing the New York Power Authority's plan for offshore wind farms in Lake Ontario and voted 5 to 0 against it. Huron is a rural lake shore town and NYPA's map indicated the potential for an offshore wind farm off Huron's coast. ALL towns and counties along Lakes Ontario and Erie need to follow Huron's lead and pass similar resolutions to put a halt to NYPA's and Gov. Paterson's threat of industrializing the Great Lakes.

Genesee Co. Planners Say "NO" to NYS Thruway Turbines

2010-01-17T06:32:00.000-08:00

It didn’t take long for Genesee County planners to understand Gov. Paterson’s horrible plans for gigantic turbines placed along the NYS Thruway at the interchanges. By NYS suggesting that it might erect just one turbine as a possibility at the Batavia interchange - caused a unanimous reaction from the planners as published in Batavia’s Daily News newspaper - please read:

Genesee Planners Oppose Windmills Near Thruway Exit
by Paul Mrozek of the Batavia Daily News

Friday, January 15, 2010 6:27 PM EST
Members of the Genesee County Planning Board said Thursday they want no part of a state proposal to erect commercial windmills by Exit 48 of the Thruway in Batavia.

The board voted 9-0 to inform the Thruway Authority it is not in favor of the plan. The reason for the opposition is that windmills would pose a potential safety hazard for planes that use the County Airport.

Planning Director Jim Duval said the airport, on Saile Drive in the town of Batavia, is about 4,500 feet from the Thruway’s Batavia interchange.

Duval said county Highway Superintendent Tim Hens received a letter this week from the Thruway Authority that asked for local input on the proposal. Proximity to the airport was an issue raised by Hens.
Thruway officials “don’t share the same concerns that Tim Hens does,” Duval said.

The planning director said it seems as if the state “is fishing a little bit,” to try to take measure of the responses to the windmill plan unveiled this week. The proposal calls for installation of electricity-generating turbines along the Thruway in Batavia and sections of the interstate highway that parallel the shore of Lake Erie in Erie and Chautauqua counties.

Duval said there is no local control over Thruway Authority policy or plans. The state agency “can pretty much do what they want,” he said.

Turbines Along the NYS Thruway?

2010-01-10T19:14:00.000-08:00

Well Gov. Paterson is at it again. Not only is he willing to sacrific Lakes Ontario and Erie - he's willing to place industrial turbines along the NYS Thruway and word about this possibility surfaced recently. People now living near the potential sites will need to tolerate yet another nuisance (in addition to traffic noise and light trespass) from turbine noise and the horrid daytime view of them too! This shows how desperate Paterson is for money to add to the state coffers. The following text is from the National Wind Watch web site.

The Thruway Authority announced Friday (1/8/10) it will seek proposals from the wind turbine industry to assess the feasibility of constructing “medium-sized” windmills at six Thruway sites in Western New York.

The idea is to determine if the authority could generate power from the machines to sustain many of its own operations and possibly sell excess power back to the grid, spokeswoman Betsy Graham said.

“We think this goes a long way to offset our utility costs, and in turn, protect and enhance the environment,” she said.

The interchanges under study for turbines are Batavia, Eden-Angola, Silver Creek, Dunkirk, Westfield and Ripley.

Graham said the proposed turbines are not as big as those n the Bethlehem Steel site and will be appropriately sized for the Thruway properties at the exits. She said the studies will also determine if wind velocity at the six sites is strong enough to sustain the proposed turbines. It is expected the authority will make a final decision on the idea this summer, Graham added.

“The Thruway Authority is eager to hear from the wind power development industry as to how it can work towards a more sustainable environment and making New York a greener state, benefiting all New Yorkers,” said Thruway Executive Director Michael R. Fleischer.

The plan is also part of Gov. David A. Paterson’s objective of meeting 45 percent of the state’s electricity needs through energy efficiency and renewable energy.

“Last month, I accepted the State Energy Plan which provides a detailed road map for achieving this clean energy target, and one of the recommendations is to inventory state-owned land that is suitable for renewable energy development,” Paterson said. “I commend the Thruway Authority for acting so swiftly to help us implement this piece of the State Energy Plan.”

NYPA and the Despicable Oswego 11/13/09 Offshore Wind Project Presentation

2009-12-31T18:03:00.000-08:00

Shown here are the Great Lakes Offshore Wind Project power point slides presented at the 11/13/09 meeting in Oswego, NY city hall given by the New York Power Authority. The slides are in order with the slide#1 one at the bottom of this group and the last one at the top. These slides are what the NYPA has been hiding from the general public!! Unless you were at the Oswego 11/13/09 presentation - seeing the slides here is the first opportunity the average person will have had to view early details of this offshore wind debacle - the images are NOT on the NYPA web site. Matter of fact - there is no mention whatever of the Oswego 11/13/09 meeting anywhere on the NYPA web site. Notice how beautiful the lake scene is in the (title) slide #1 of the NYPA presentation (bottom slide) - this scene is what they propose to change for the rest of our lifetime. They are planning to place hundreds (maybe thousands) of the largest wind turbines money can buy - into this scene beginning 2.3 miles from shore & in water depths less than 150 feet deep - creating an industrial offshore wind facility in Lakes Ontario and Erie. Lake Erie and Mexico Bay in eastern Lake Ontario are likely to suffer the worst due to shallower water conditions. NYPA's effort is to create electrical power for metropolitan NYC and Long Island because the folks downstate couldn't stand having this nightmare offshore facility in their neighborhoods. But don't blame just NYPA CEO and President Richie Kessel - he's just a mouthpiece for the real villain - Governor Paterson. Paterson is the mastermind behind this offshore debacle and Kessel is pushing it for him. New York's Great Lakes fresh water and land under the water is owned by the people of New York State and we shouldn't let Paterson and Kessel alter or destroy this natural resource. Few states in the USA are fortunate enough to have this fresh water resource in their backyard. For Kessel and Paterson - New York's north coast is simply an industrial repository to locate massive, ugly, noisy, property depreciating machines that will work less than 30% of the time producing volatile, intermittent, expensive electric to be shipped downstate where the need is greatest while the New York's north coast gets raped. It's no different than shipping downstate's garbage upstate or industrial power lines leading downstate. Upstate is a dumping ground for land uses NYC and Long Island refuse to tolerate. The wind profiteers will be foreigners while the abused US taxpayers foot the bill for 70% of the offshore wind facility! Lake shore municipalities that are most affected will have little or nothing to say about stopping the project.

NYS just witnessed its second major collapse of a terrestrial industrial grade wind turbine (in Fenner, Madison County on 12/27/09) - the first being at Altona, Clinton County, on March 6, 2009. The NYPA proposed offshore wind farms will have much larger turbines than the ones that have collapsed - in addition to the fact that they will be mounted on monopoles 150 feet tall "attached" to the lake floor. And no USA company has ANY experience building an offshore wind facility. NO offshore turbine has been located anywhere in the world in freshwater! Furthermore - USA made wind turbines don't have a good track record on land much less in water. Both collapsed turbines were built by G.E. and the Clipper turbines erected at the Steel Winds project in Lackawana, NY and others at Cohocton, NY have been plagued by major gearbox and fractured blade problems. How much hope would you have of success in an offshore turbine lasting in either Lake Ontario or Lake Erie? But who cares? US taxpayers will foot 70%+ of the bill to erect the wind facility that will operate maybe 30% of the time. And when we are in the dog days of summer when the temperature is near 100 degrees and there's no wind and the turbines are sitting there idle and brownouts are on the verge of happening - think about the $1.5B investment squandered on this folly! NYPA's Richie Kessel claims he's looking to build a 500Mw offshore wind facility in the lakes and that NYPA will buy ALL the power the facility produces through a power purchase agreement (PPA). Compare that with the existing Robert E. Ginna 498Mw nuclear power plant in Wayne County, NY now producing safe, dependable, reasonably priced electric 100% of the time as it has for the past 40 years - on less than 500 acres of land. The Ginna plant just sold recently to Constellation Energy for about $420M.

[Niagara County lawmakers earlier this year filed a lawsuit against the New York Power Authority that seeks to rescind the illegal transfer (sweep) of more than $544 million in surplus NYPA funds to the State of New York General Fund. No doubt both NYPA’s Kessel and Gov. Paterson knew the details of this illegal transaction and approved it. Keeping this $544M illegal sweep in mind – if NYPA had taken $420M and purchased the Robert E. Ginna nuclear power plant (Wayne County, NY) to become part of NYPAs operation to produce electricity – the output of Ginna would equal the output of the proposed offshore wind fiasco and $1.5B wouldn’t be needed to build Kessel’s offshore wind facility that would work only 30% of the time producing low quality, intermittent, volatile, expensive electricity. And the life of the offshore wind facility is only 25-30 years while Ginna is licensed until at least 2029 and has been operating since 1966 producing electric power nearly 100% of the time at a fair rate. What is NYPA thinking? What gives a better bang for the buck – wind or nuclear?]

Could you be naive enough to believe that only one wind farm would be built in the Great Lakes in NYS waters? That the whole process would stop there? Is that what Kessel's drawings show? Kessel and his downstate minions have no compassion for the Great Lakes - this is a money issue not an environmental or electrical power issue - Kessel and his political friends don't live upstate or play here or have to look at the Great Lakes. Former Gov. Spitzer has already kicked Kessel's ass and ideas for an offshore Long Island wind facility out of the picture. Kessel has already tried and failed to sell Long Island on an offshore wind plant at over $1B. You see - Kessel was fired by former Gov. Spitzer as head of the Long Island Power Authority for his mismanagement in his home area. Now, Gov. Paterson, the most unpopular governor in New York's history, a novice we didn't even elect, has resurrected Kessel - since they both wish to force their "green" idealogy on unsuspecting upstaters via the back door. Kessel failed to sell his dog & pony show on his home turf on Long Island but he's persistent and trying again except the victims this time are upstate New Yorkers - which should be more acceptable to downstaters. But the task of erecting the offshore wind facility won't be easy. Think about this for starters - there isn't a vessel right now in America that's capable of installing an offshore wind turbine anywhere in the Great Lakes. A vessel would need to be designed and built to do this job as any from Europe would not fit through the St. Lawrence Seaway!

Please have a look at these power point slides from the Oswego presentation beginning with the bottom slide #1 - most of the text and illustrations are self explanatory. Please share this information with anyone you think may be appalled by what Paterson and Kessel have in store for upstate New Yorkers. This project must be stopped! This project is illegal! Pressure must be brought upon municipalities and counties bordering the lakes to take a position strongly opposing any offshore wind project. Don't think for a moment that only the lake shore property owners and businessmen will be the victims of this development - the ripple effect from an offshore wind project will be widespread - particularly when assessments and property taxes are updated.

See the many other articles on this site referring to the NYPA offshore wind turbine debacle. Additional offshore project details on the NYPA Request For Proposal (RFP) can be seen on the NYPA web site.

Comments on these Oswego presentation slides. Slide #1 is the NYPA title slide, at the bottom of this group, with a beautiful view of a lake scene with NO wind turbines. Slide #2 shows Richie Kessel on April 22, 2009 announcing the horrible Great Lakes Offshore Wind Project plan on the shores of Lake Erie. Slide #3 begins the NYPA misrepresentations by hinting that wind energy is "clean" when its not. What's clean about a sideshow technology that kills birds and bats. What's clean about offshore wind turbines that can impact aquatic life? What's clean about disturbing the lake bed while trying to install monopoles to support turbines? What's clean about noise generated by these ugly machines that disturbs people's ability to sleep and causes other well documented health issues? NYPA touts the local development opportunities which will be limited and hardly worthy of mention. Kessel's idea of local development opportunities needs revision too. He makes a big deal trying to convince listeners that the need to make offshore turbines parts will bring thousands of well-paying jobs into NYS. This too is wishful thinking as the foreign wind developers will use well tested and proven turbines manufactured in Europe not the troublesome units like those installed in Buffalo's Steel Winds project or the Cohocton, NY disaster. NYPA also mentions the public's desire for renewable energy but let's go a couple of steps further - why not ask the public about sticking offshore wind farms in the Great Lakes and see what the response is? NYPA should stick to what they know about renewables - hydro and the fact that hydro is a renewable without the many drawbacks of wind. And Gov. Paterson's 45 x 15 proclamation - can this be taken seriously? Here's another downstater wishing to industrialize the Great Lakes - a guy we New Yorkers didn't even elect - someone who has become the most unpopular governor in the state's history - now drawing a line in the sand proclaiming what we'll be doing for energy in 2015. Nobody will remember in 2015 who Paterson was! He'll be kicked out of office in less than a year and downstater Kessel will soon follow. Slide #4 Why Offshore Wind - if there truly is a need for more energy then why opt for a means of producing it with the worst choice? If there is a growth in demand for energy why pick a means of producing it (via wind) where you pay more for it than other choices you could make? Why pick a means of producing it (via wind) when the means produces intermittent power, and volatile electricity? Why select a means of producing electric (via wind) when it may produce nothing when the need is the greatest? This slide also perpetuates the biggest lie wind supporters use to convince or sell people on the idea of wind energy - that wind energy will help reduce America's dependence on fossil fuels and middle-east oil. The NYPA should know better than to continually repeat this lie as Kessel did during the Oswego presentation. Less than 2% of all electricity produced in the USA is produced by fossil fuel generators. With that in mind - IF the middle eastern countries suddenly stopped selling oil to the USA - this action would have virtually NO IMPACT whatever on America's ability to generate electricity. The slide also says there's no water or waste generation but doesn't mention that wind turbines are BIG users of electricity and cannot operate without electricity. Without electric power to each turbine - they cannot run and are designed to shut down immediately to prevent self destruction. And the note about proven offshore technology in Europe - there's a world of difference between the few offshore wind farms built in Europe recently and what's planned for the Great Lakes. Start with the differences between freshwater and salt water, ice affects, earthquakes, and turbines sizes planned for the Great Lakes vs what's been built in Europe. Slide #9 shows a typical proposed offshore wind farm. Text that's too small to read identifies a 33KV/132KV offshore substation and another arrow identifies a transmission cable to shore. Offshore substations contain thousands of gallons of oil. Turbine nacelles also contain over 1,000 gallons of oil. Oil is also found within the electrical cable that runs between the turbines and to the shore. Lots of opportunity for spillage and contamination here! At the Oswego presentation they showed a short video that demonstrated how a cable was being buried under water using a jet plow. The video seabed is hardly what's to be expected in rocky Lake Ontario - the jet plow would never work but it sure looked neat in the video showing how easy it might be to bury a large cable in a sandy ocean bottom. Slide #11 Outreach and Education is another NYPA misrepresentation as the public has deliberately been kept from knowing what NYPA plans for the Great Lakes. The information in these slides is a great example of the lack of outreach. The only people invited to the few "public meetings" that have been held are elected officials and selected business leaders. There has been no "outreach" or open or inclusive process to date involving the general public. NYPA wants the turbine developers (foreigners maybe?) to be the ones who unload details on the general public and take the resulting flak and heat that's sure to happen. Slide #12 Permitting Agencies - notice that those shoreline municipalities affected the most - the ones who are the victims of this horrible project - won't have anything to say about their future and all the grief this project will dump upon them. The towns and counties are not among the permitting agencies as the land under water is NOT within their jurisdiction! This is what NYPA likes best about this project - taking the public and local officials right out of the picture and have virtually no voice to object. Instead you'll have the downstate gang like Kessel, Paterson, Schumer, Grannis, & Bloomberg running and supporting the show. On the other hand - there are many other agencies not listed that will need to approve this horrible plan. PILOT payments to the towns and schools - there won't be any in this scenario! But don't give up hope - this project is illegal and the NYPA knows the legal steps will be tested and this process will use up plenty of time and millions of taxpayer dollars before the whole plan is scuttled in the end. Slide #13 - NYS and Federal permitting considerations - the list is hardly complete and some of the most important considerations are missing. Slide #14 Environmental Considerations - it's always amazing how much thought is given to how a project is going to affect wildlife & the environment yet its horrible impact on humans is never considered an issue. What about property values, noise, light trespass, shuttering, viewshed loss, splitting communities, turning neighbor against neighbor, greed-driven conflicts of interest, etc.? NIMBYism - doesn't this mean Next It Might Be You? Slide #15 Site Screening - some of what this slide refers to is more visible with the map slides coming up. The wind resource note 7.5 m/s at 80 meters is referring to wind speed requirements meaning that the wind must blow at 7.5 meters per second at 80 meters above water level. The 80 meters is the approximate distance from the water to the rotor hub height. (A meter is approx. 39") Slide #17 shows Lake Erie waters offshore in NYS in mostly reds where the mean wind speed is 7.5 m/s or greater making this area good for wind farms. The blue area above the dotted line is Canadian water and the blue area to the left is off the Ohio coast. Slide #18 show the mean wind speed exclusions in dark blue off the NYS shore in Lake Erie. These areas would not be suitable for turbine locations and are close to the shore anyway. Slide #19 shows the Lake Erie Bathymetry (water depths) off NYS in four section depths. The area in deep blue toward the center of the lake is too deep for locating offshore turbines (over 150 feet deep) and would be excluded from turbine locations. Slide #20 shows the deepest area of the lake in deep blue - where turbines won't be located. Slide #21 shows other exclusions that might affect turbine locations such as shipping lanes. Turbines would not be located in known shipping lanes. One shipwreck location is also marked with a red triangle. Slide #22 shows the potential wind farm locations crosshatched blue in Lake Erie after the exclusions have been removed. The numbers indicate the possible megawatt capacity of that potential area. Slide #23 shows in reds - Lake Ontario's mean wind speed in NYS waters that is acceptable for wind turbines. Slide #24 shows mean wind speed exclusions for Lake Ontario in dark blue these are very close to the shoreline. Slide #25 shows Lake Ontario Bathymetry and you can see the water depth patterns of Lake Ontario are much different than Lake Erie making for less possible locations for offshore turbines. Slide #26 shows a dark blue area that is over 150 feet deep - too deep for turbine locations while the lighter blue areas are acceptable locations for turbines. Slide #27 shows other exclusions in Lake Ontario such as shipping lanes and several shipwreck locations. Slide #29 shows the tentative timelines that NYPA is supposedly working to on the offshore project - they've already missed badly the community outreach goal by a year. Slide #30 shows offshore mini-turbines in Denmark in saltwater. Slide #32 is of a Danish wind farm 8 to 12 miles offshore! That's hardly what's being proposed for Lakes Erie and Ontario but still unacceptable.

HULLABALOO IN HOUNSFIELD

2009-12-30T10:38:00.000-08:00

(The following opinion was written by Bob Ashodian. Bob is a member of the Henderson Harbor (NY) Chamber of Commerce and head of the Chamber’s Economic Development Committee.(eastern Lake Ontario area - Jefferson County) Bob assisted in forming the Preservation of the Golden Crescent Committee (http://www.preservethegoldencrescent.com/) that hopes to prevent turbines from industrializing their area in Jefferson County, NY both on and off shore. The thought of placing turbines on Galloo Isand (in eastern Lake Ontario) is especially appalling and Bob’s group is fighting that development. Galloo Island is in Lake Ontario in the town of Hounsfield and unoccupied)

Some thoughts about the Hounsfield Hearing, Monday, December 21, 2009
Some Suggestions for Letter Writing

My purpose of putting these rough notes together is to document some thoughts that I can draw on for our column in the Jefferson County Journal as well as incorporate into letters.

I would also like to provide some “talking points” or thoughts others might want to draw on to put their own letters or news releases on paper. We need to keep up on the speaking out. The more people that communicate to those we must influence, the better off we will be.

As usual when attending these meetings I am struck by how many things really upset me after the fact. If you are like me, you may find it difficult think right on the spot, to formulate just the right thoughts, then stand and deliver the appropriate hard hitting counter argument. Monday morning was no different.

The scope of the hearing was narrowly defined – Planning Board action on a site plan on an island I would suspect no board member had ever visited; they are simply looking at lines on a chart, pictures in a book. I suspect it is beyond their authority to deny or approve the project unless there is some zoning law provision that prevents the implementation of the special use Galloo Island will be put. As a member of the Henderson Town Planning Board for more than five years, we have looked at many projects that we may or may not like, but we are bound to apply the zoning laws as they exist. I do not know what the underlying zoning classification is for Galloo Island, but suspect what ever it is, building industrial towers cannot be prohibited by the current zoning laws applicable to the island.

I thought they were quite generous in allowing the discussion of many issues that were not Planning Board topics and clearly beyond the scope of the Planning Board hearing rules outlined in their introduction. There were several issues that invited direct confrontation. But, we all behaved ourselves.

Many of the points made from the audience were quite telling. Those points are worth following up on in submitting additional written documents to the Hounsfield Planning Board (even if beyond the scope of what they can deal with) and the likes of the DEC, Barry Ormsby, the JCIDA or anybody else that we can make listen.

The following points stick in my mind and I feel are worth pounding the table about to who ever can open an e-mail or letter and has a stake in the game. The issues include:

1. Class warfare – the haves and the have-nots; the concept that the rich people are protecting their view of the lake; a view from their expensive homes that the rich some how do not deserve to have. Basis for counter argument – yes, some of us have very expensive homes, properties and businesses. Yes, we have more money and our properties are worth a lot of money. That valuation is based on the view shed we have and the quality of life we are willing to pay extraordinary dollars to have, as are so many others coming to this area. Our properties are assessed higher than any other properties in the county. We can afford it because we worked for it, and WE PAY THE TAXES based on the extraordinary value of our properties. So lower the value of the property, destroy our businesses and guess who will foot the tax shortfall that results. I pay more than $11,000 a year in property taxes. You want to pick up what I won’t pay if my property value declines 30%, or you want to make up the difference if the local campground, marina, or any other business fails because we wasted the primary resource that keeps the economy afloat. Lots of meat there for an article or a letter to the editor.

2. The only reason this project is being pursued is because of the federal, state and local subsidies – billions of dollars going to a hoax – the best government plan since subsidized ethanol and where we burned food to make inefficient fuel at a premium cost. The hoax was simple – we can grow our energy. Unintended consequences – corn is the basic ingredient to thousands of basic food products. The world cost of food went up and millions of people starved because the government elite totally overlooked the basic laws of economics. Some farmers and some related industries cleaned up – they got the money. Subsidized wind energy – sounds good – wastes billions on subsidies and the big money flows to foreign countries, the investors get rich while desperate communities sell out for pennies on the dollar and the energy produced is very expensive. You want a subsidy? You want a PILOT – how about a PILOT for the tax payers? Definition of a PILOT, what they don’t pay, we pay.

3. Who cares about efficiency – 20% is good enough, cost is no object, the government pays for it. Our tax dollars are being thrown down the toilet. No matter – its green, its green. I love it. Forget that I’m saving the planet by being green while I destroy forever, the very quality of life that so many people are willing to pay a premium to have. Let’s convert the entire water front to wind towers, the closer to shore the better, cheaper to build and maintain. I don’t live there, the rich people live there.

4. Who cares about my neighbors? This thing is 12 miles out in the lake. I can’t see it, too bad if you can. This means money to ME. I need the tax benefit, we are poor, we need jobs, they promised us jobs, I believe, so sell it off, sell it off, the sooner the better. Who cares? Never been out there, never will, so who cares about a few acres of land that might be worth ten times as much in the future. Who cares that it can never be replaced? I want the money, any kind of money, now, right now.

5. This is a Hounsfield project. There are no other considerations. Cape Vincent’s wind towers, not my problem. In the water turbines, not my problem. Who cares about 2000 towers out in the lake? We are working on our town, not yours.

Here’s a couple of other issues, not so much related to the Hounsfield hearing itself, but still considerations worth giving visibility:

1. The DEC is only one of many agencies supposedly looking out for us; to protect us and others from doing harm; to protect us all from the greed of others who might otherwise see only short term profit now for themselves, to the disadvantage of the rest of us. Now, are we facing the real risk that our own DEC will have identified the harm that will be done, simply be a bystander? This is the harm you will do; now you know, so the rest of the government promoters and the developer can have a clear conscience. Of course we will have taken mitigating action – we won’t blast when the fish are spawning. But, we can’t be sure of when, but we will try. Yeah, no doubt we will kill some birds and bats and turtles, cull (slaughter) some deer, but we will try to mitigate that. ANWR (Alaska National Wildlife Reserve) is a tiny blip in a vast wildness, seen and visited by virtually no one. Can’t industrialize any of that, but we can contemplate the complete industrialization of the north eastern end of Lake Ontario; home and vacation land to hundreds of thousands of people, an international destination. This is truly madness.

2. Following the meeting, Donald Metzger, Karl Williams, Mitch Franz and I heard a very interesting story. Don’s a St. Lawrence River pilot. A very interesting guy to talk with. He gets that marvelous opportunity to chat with ship captains from around the world. In the parking lot, he relates a conversation he had with a captain who was very familiar with wind towers in the North Atlantic. In the water towers. Towers placed there by the Europeans. The captain tells Don that he has talked to the fisherman in the area. They report that for some reason, fish avoid the area for several miles around the towers. The suspected reason – the blades set up a noise, a pulse, a sound, that bothers the fish, but a sound not heard by us humans. (Dogs can hear sounds we can’t.) So why bring up this point – 84 sets of turbine blades, their metal structures anchored into the ground with poured concrete, will create all manner of sounds. Think of each structure as a gigantic tuning fork placed on a foundation of virtually solid rock surrounded by water. Who from any agency has any idea what the impact of the tuning fork effect will be on the creatures that inhabit Galloo Island or what sort of frequency vibrations will broadcast itself like a gigantic sonar device into the fisheries of the Golden Crescent. How far away will the pulse and vibration of 84 turbines be heard by the creatures of the lake? Will some creatures simply move beyond the hearing range, or will they simply perish having been deprived of their habitat. Who knows? Does anybody really care? I say no one knows, but some may suspect, many might care if they knew what might happen. This is a topic that should be raised with the DEC and other environmental groups and the fishing interests.

These are just a few thoughts while I am feeling really cranked up. I will incorporate some of the above in future Jefferson County Journal pieces.
I would encourage others to pick up on any of the above thoughts for their own letters to the editor, especially to the WDT or as news releases directly from the Coalition, the Chamber or the Heart of Henderson and as letters to the political fools that are in charge of our future.

For those with engineering backgrounds, you should be able to expand on my non scientific analogies of the tuning fork effect of wind turbines anchored into the rock of Galloo Island.

Do what you can. We are at war.

Bob Ashodian

The New Civil War - Rural vs Urban

2009-12-02T16:09:00.001-08:00

(This treatise was written by J.P. Michaud who is a Kansas research scientist, currently serving as an assistant professor of entomology researching new ways to protect agriculture from insect pests. He reviews manuscripts for scientific publications and sits on the editorial boards of two international journals. Although this opinion was written by the author with Kansas in mind – it surely can be applied to NYS. He is fighting wind projects in Kansas and is a thought provoking writer.)

There is a civil war arising from the land use conflicts inherent in alternative energy generation and it thrives on a certain disconnect between urban and rural elements of our society.

While rural communities possess the required land resources, large urban centers have the hunger for the power and the political influence needed to acquire it, along with little empathy for the pastoral quality of life that defines and motivates rural living.

Politicians of almost every stripe are currently stampeding over each other to masquerade as protectors of the environment by promoting and embracing “renewable energy.”

All demand that vast tracts of land be pressed into service in order to produce relatively slender yields of energy. In the rush to promote these alternative energy sources, federal and state governments have provided generous tax breaks and lucrative capital depreciation incentives to big business to encourage development.

In doing so, they have laid the foundation for a civil war that is currently ravaging dozens of rural communities nationwide.

Forget about grass-roots conservation and “bottom up” local energy reform. Developments must be large scale to qualify for any real government support.
And where to find large acreages of land that can be leased cheaply? The same place residential and commercial developers have looked in the past — farmland.

Farms have always been vulnerable to development because just about any other use will generate more income from the land than agriculture. Now it is renewable energy developers that need land, and lots of it.

Our politicians have loosed upon us a virtual army of scheming, profit-driven developers and allowed them to wrap themselves in the seemingly unimpeachable cloak of “green energy” while they aggressively exploit unsuspecting rural neighborhoods.

Local governments have neither the resources nor the expertise to make informed decisions when it comes to large-scale energy developments and cannot always be relied on to act in the best interests of their community.

They are easily coerced by developers and often end up supporting projects before they have any real grasp of their long-term implications.

Wind energy developments are typically preceded by years of covert scouting, signing of confidential leasing agreements, bribing of local politicians with payments in lieu of taxes, etc.

Developers will tout the economic benefits of their project to the community, invariably exaggerating the number of jobs they will create and the amount of money they will spend. They never talk costs — only benefits.

The impending socio-economic fallout from these conflicts is chilling to consider. Local newspaper headlines are telling: “County wind turbine debate pits neighbors, families against each other.”

People feel outraged and disenfranchised by the undemocratic nature of the development process.

We may be facing a new form of class warfare: true rural conservationists versus phony environmentalists, industrial wolves in sheep’s clothing, and the political posers that license and subsidize them.

Communities are left with broken friendships, mistrust of neighbors, political animosities, and a compromised future.

Such will be the legacy of the civil war over renewable energy, born out of leadership failures and politicians that turned a blind eye to the civil injustice created by their policies.

By J. P. Michaud

Endeavor News
20 December 2008

Fishermen Incensed Over Offshore NY Turbines

2009-12-02T11:40:00.000-08:00

Here's what serious boaters & fishermen are saying since learning of the 11/13/09 NYPA Oswego, NY presentation:

Underwater powerlines would be strung all over restricting the use of anchors by small craft.
*************************

I have received countless Emails the past few days regarding this "project" from representatives from Oswego County. They are all aware of this proposed windfarm, and the majority appears to be opposed to this going through. Jefferson County has already started the process to adopt a resolution which will be sent to the PSC should this project be given the go-ahead. It has been suggested that Oswego County do the same.
***********************

Imagine the disruption to radar systems in the shipping lanes and all of us who use radar to navigate and watch weather with. They already show up on doppler radar over the ridges east of Buffalo and over near Lowville when you look for radar weather reports. They look like a real bad rain storm that never moves away.
***********************

Do you think we will be allowed to fish anywhere near these turbines? No way! It will be just like the 9-Mile Point nuke plant was after 9/11 - restricted zones. What about the power transmission lines? The lines will have to be run underwater. Downrigger balls often track very close to the bottom of the lake where these lines will be run. Just in Mexico Bay alone, they are proposing 560 of these turbines. That is like taking the entire Lowville farm and putting it in the water where hundreds of thousands of boats troll during the fishing season. Think about the annual fishing derbies and tournaments on the lake and how they will be affected.
**********************

If this project goes through, we may as well all sell our boats, because we will not be able to use them anymore where we use them now. You may tell us to just move to another location to fish, but when you are talking about 560 turbines in one area alone, where do you go? Another thought on these turbines. I have found out that the power generated by these turbines will NOT be used to power the area they inhabit. All power will be transferred downstate. I have an issue with that. If downstate needs more power and windfarms are the answer, there are plenty of places downstate to put windfarms.
**********************

Those electrical fields will disrupt the E-W movement of salmon & trout around the lake. Additionally, people complain about their noise – noise is amplified & travels faster through water. How will that constant rumble transmitted through the tower affect aquatic life? (Fishermen generally try to be fairly quite when out there.) Lake Trout habitat will definitely be affected. We don’t need any new navigational hazards. The quantity they’re talking about will affect nearshore currents, especially in 100-150 FOW range.
**********************

The purpose of this project is to make money for the guy that thought it up. It's not to be good to the people nor about us going green. It's an attempt to put big money in someone's pocket. The originator is not proposing this out of the goodness of his heart. He's trying to cash in on the environmental movement. If you want a windmill farm for NY City then put them on top of the buildings down there or off your own ocean beaches. Put them in your backyard, let the windmill farm affect the people that will benefit from it, which obviously won't be me.
**********************

Others fear the offshore turbines will disturb fishing and spawning grounds and endanger birds that migrate at night.
"We have to be very sensitive to the environment of the Great Lakes, whether it's the fish or the birds or bats, or the water itself," is what NYPA President Richie Kessel said on 12/1/09 at the Niagara Power Project. Gee Richie – didn’t you leave out one other segment of the environment we should be sensitive to?

More Bad News from NY Power Authority

2009-12-02T10:22:00.000-08:00

The NYPA has just released new information (as of 12/1/09) on their proposal to trash Lakes Ontario and Erie. The main news is that the NYPA Request For Proposals (RFP) document is now public and available for all to review at: www.nypa.gov/NYPAwindpower/rfp.html. They have included maps that are easily accessible for additional disgusting information about the scheme they propose to victimize upstate New Yorkers. The RFP will tell you, among other things, that the NYPA plan is to place offshore turbines in the lakes as close as 2 nautical miles (2.3 statue miles) from shore or islands – what a horrible thought! Please check out other articles in this Beware NY Wind blog for much more info on the NYPA proposal by people we didn’t even elect including the biggest offshore turbine supporter of all – Gov. Paterson, lowest rated NYS governor in our lifetime. NYPA President Richie Kessel was FIRED by Gov. Spitzer from his job as head of the Long Island Power Authority (both are Democrats) and now he’s been adopted by Gov. Paterson and directs his efforts at destruction of the Great Lakes since being booted out of the LIPA. You can also read the NYPA news release about the offshore RFP document at their web site: http://www.nypa.gov/

NYS Bureaucrats That Support Offshore Turbines

2009-11-30T20:40:00.000-08:00

Here are some of the bureaucrats that would trash Lakes Ontario and Erie for the sake of low quality, volatile, unreliable, erratic, expensive electricity to be sent down state to NYC or Long Island while foreigners enjoy all the rewards. In the meantime lake shore property owners have had the value of their biggest dream/investment permanently stripped out forever and then suffer the turbine noise, loss of view shed, loss of darkness and many other turbine related nuisances through no fault of their own. How many of the charlatans listed below did you elect or can you vote out of office? How many of them would welcome turbines in their neighborhood? Do you think they believe in the golden rule?

Governor David A. Paterson said: “We have an opportunity to ensure that New York is the national leader in the growth of the clean energy economy, which will create thousands of jobs across the state. To get there, we must take full advantage of our natural resources, including hydropower, solar, and wind. I have set the goal for New York to meet 45 percent of its electricity needs through improved energy efficiency and renewable sources by 2015. Harnessing the power of wind is critical to achieving that goal and the Great Lakes Offshore Wind Project will help us reach it.”

Reported 12/1/09 Gov. Paterson said "The development of a wind energy project in the Great Lakes off the shores of New York will bring us another step towards my goal to meet 30 percent of the State's electricity needs from renewable resources by 2015, help demonstrate the significantly untapped potential of offshore wind, and bring new clean energy jobs to Western New York," Governor Paterson said.

"I commend the New York Power Authority for helping transition New York to a clean energy economy, and for maintaining New York's leadership position in developing renewable energy resources."

“Today we reach a milestone in New York’s energy history by seeking the development of a wind energy project in the New York waters of the Great Lakes."
**********************************

"We have to be very sensitive to the environment of the Great Lakes, whether it's the fish or the birds or bats, or the water itself," is what NYPA President Richie Kessel said on 12/1/09 at the Niagara Power Project. (Gee Richie – didn’t you leave out one other segment of the environment we should be sensitive to?)

‘New York City needs renewable energy sources, such as offshore wind, to meet the ambitious greenhouse gas reductions in PlaNYC, our long term vision for a greener, greater New York,’ said Mayor Michael R Bloomberg. ‘ We hope that working with the Collaborative will be the best way to implement large-scale, offshore wind, and I look forward to working with ConEd, LIPA, NYPA and the other partners to make this project a reality.’

Michael J. Townsend, chairman of NYPA’s board of trustees, said: “With over 70 percent of NYPA’s electricity generated by clean renewable hydropower, the Power Authority has always been at the forefront of the development of clean energy sources. The magnitude of the Great Lakes Offshore Wind Project has the potential to not only provide power but also many green collar jobs for the construction, operation and maintenance of wind power facilities.” On 12/1/09 Townsend is quoted “Hand in hand with the development of renewable energy sources like the Great Lakes Offshore Wind Project, are the potential of jobs and manufacturing opportunities that could help make the Upstate economy the leader in green industry initiatives through the efforts of the region’s talented entrepreneurs and skilled workforce,”

Jonathan F. Foster, vice chairman of NYPA's board of trustees, said: “In late 2008, the United States became the world leader in wind energy production. Our state, New York, was one of the leading states in adding wind capacity last year. With the Great Lakes Offshore Wind Project, the Power Authority will pursue additional opportunities to give Western New York a competitive edge in developing workforce training and other assets to attract the growing wind power industry.”

Elise Cusack, NYPA trustee, said: “Through the Great Lakes Offshore Wind Project, Western New York should be confident that the Power Authority and its supporters will do their due diligence to ensure the right wind projects go forward, which meet the environmental and economic concerns of our communities and our region.”

D. Patrick Curley, NYPA trustee, said: “Since the New York Power Authority gleans so much of its inertia from the earth’s predominant component, water, it is fitting that the Power Authority be part of today’s Earth Day Celebration and I am personally delighted with our participation.”

Paul A. Dyster, mayor, City of Niagara Falls, said: “While the 21st Century holds challenges for us in this region, it clearly holds enormous opportunity as well. If we are successful in harnessing wind power without compromising the quality of our environment, we will become a national leader in advancing green employment. Developing this new source of renewable energy can and should deliver tangible long-term economic benefits to the region.”

State Senator Antoine M. Thompson said: “I am dedicated to making Western New York a leader for ‘green’ initiatives and the green economy. The potential for offshore wind in the Great Lakes is enormous and should be used to our environmental and economic advantage.”

State Senator William T. Stachowski said: “We believe the Great Lakes Offshore Wind Project has tremendous energy potential for upstate New York. This initiative is particularly exciting because science has shown us the ways that properly harnessed wind power can cut energy costs, reduce our dependence on foreign oil, and protect public health and the environment by reducing pollution. In addition, this growing industry has the potential to create thousands of jobs in New York. My colleagues and I will continue to make this important project a priority.”

Said Kevin Cahill, Paterson's energy advisor - "I look forward to building upon this new era by working with Governor Paterson and President Kessel to further even more policy initiatives to restore the Power Authority to its rightful place as the preeminent public utility in the nation,” said Assemblyman Kevin Cahill, Chair of the Assembly Energy Committee.

Tom King, president of National Grid in the U.S., said: “Addressing climate change and fostering a diversity of energy supply will require looking at all options to reduce our dependence on fossil fuels. National Grid is pleased to join the New York Power Authority in supporting this comprehensive information gathering initiative to explore the potential of wind energy along the Great Lakes.”

Pete Grannis, commissioner, New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, said: “Wind is a low-carbon, renewable fuel source that will play a significant role in New York's push for a clean energy economy. We look forward to working with the Power Authority as this initiative goes forward to ensure that any Great Lakes wind projects are carried out in an environmentally-sound way.”

Ashok Gupta, senior energy economist, Natural Resources Defense Council, said: “NRDC strongly supports increased use of wind energy and commends NYPA for its announcement today. The technology for producing electricity from wind energy has improved greatly over the past twenty years, and wind on- and offshore—now represents one of the most promising sources of emissions free electricity. Indeed, offshore wind power is probably the region’s largest untapped renewable energy resource. Developing this resource is essential to help reduce pollution that threatens public health and our climate.”

Brian Smith, WNY program director, Citizens Campaign for the Environment, said: “The Great Lakes Offshore Wind Project sends the critical message that large scale energy production doesn't have to come from polluting fossil fuels but rather it can be obtained from renewable, clean, homegrown sources such as wind. Our nation's wind-rich Great Lakes have the potential to generate renewable energy that will help combat climate change, drive economic development and promote energy independence. Now the Great Lakes can be great for one more reason. Congratulations to NYPA and Governor Paterson for thinking outside the barrel.”

Terry L. Yonker, current chair of the Great Lakes Wind Collaborative Steering Committee, said: “The announcement by NYPA is a clear sign that the development of wind power offshore is becoming attractive as a way to meet future green energy demands in the Great Lakes region. NYPA is positioned to strategically move such a project forward and has the capacity within its system to balance the wind power output. The Great Lakes Wind Collaborative is a U.S.-Canadian group that works to further its collective understanding to resolve environmental, capacity, transmission, and sustainability issues surrounding the development of wind power all across the Great Lakes region. The membership of the GLWC is drawn from U.S. and Canadian federal agencies, all eight Great Lakes states and two Canadian provinces, as well as municipal, environmental, and industry sectors. The potential for wind power development in the Great Lakes is very large and could significantly reduce the carbon footprint of the entire region, the world's third largest economy. But we also need to work cooperatively to insure that wind power development on the Great Lakes is environmentally sound and economically sustainable.”

Carol E. Murphy, executive director of the Alliance for Clean Energy New York, said: “Offshore wind energy would bring much-needed local jobs and economic activity to communities from Buffalo to Watertown, and it would further solidify New York's place as a clean energy leader. We commend NYPA for launching this bold initiative and look forward to working with leaders across the state to make it a reality.”

In June 2009, the NEW YORK STATE COMMISSION ON ASSET MAXIMIZATION recommended to Gov. Paterson the placing of privately owned wind turbines on offshore state property, generating clean, low cost energy while raising revenue for the state. Offshore turbine generated wind is hardly low cost - in fact - its the most expensive generated electric but who could overlook the other commission recommended motivation - revenues for NYS from this fiasco!

SOMEBODY HELP NEW YORK STATE - WE CAN'T WAIT TILL 2010 ELECTIONS!

Rogue NY Power Authority Document to Hustle Lakes Ontario & Erie

2009-11-28T16:42:00.000-08:00

The New York Power Authority issued a fifteen-page document on April 22, 2009 that reveals their disgusting early plans to industrialize Lakes Ontario and Erie with offshore wind turbines. The document is called Request For Expressions of Interest (RFEI). (See http://www.nypa.gov/NYPAwindpower/GreatLakesWindRFEI.htm) The RFEI is the beginning of the whole offshore wind farm process and the document is soliciting a response from anyone having an interest in the offshore wind project and this would include foreigners. There are no offshore wind turbines anywhere in North America yet therefore it’s likely that the foreigners would prevail as they have “some” experience in offshore wind. NYPA President and CEO Richie Kessel is pictured postulating at the 11/13/09 Oswego, NY NYPA presentation.

Page 5 says: “This initiative has the interest of wind power supporters including National Grid (“NG”), New York State Energy Research and Development Authority, the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, local and statewide environmental organizations and the University of Buffalo.”

Id like to see proof that the National Grid supports the NYPA offshore wind project. Ditto the NYSDEC. They may have interest but I need proof they support this ludicrous idea. And what statewide environmental organizations would possibly support this outrageous project – Id love to see the organizations named if they’re not from downstate and Long Island. Typical NYPA staff hyperbole!

Page 5 also says: “While it is understood that sources of renewable energy, such as a Great Lakes Offshore Wind Project, typically incur a price premium…”

If this isn’t the understatement of the whole RFEI document I don’t know what is.

Page 6 says: “it will seek to use the output of the Great Lakes Offshore Wind Project to meet the needs of upstate customers”

This statement is nothing more than a carrot dangled in front of upstaters in a weak effort to gain their support. What proof is there that upstate NY lacks sufficient energy? What is really going to happen is the electricity generated from this fiasco will be sent downstate to help metropolitan NYC and Long Island while Lakes Ontario and Erie get polluted in numerous nauseating ways.

Page 6 says: “The anticipated project(s) would be located in New York State waters of Lake Erie and/or Lake Ontario and would be utility scale, i.e., at least 120 MW.”

Could anyone possibly believe it would take a billion dollars to build a 120MW offshore wind farm? In 1966 Rochester Gas & Electric finished their Ginna nuclear power plant on Lake Ontario for $75M and they just sold it to Constellation Energy for $420M and it occupies less than 500 acres and produces safe, dependable electric 100% of the time with no pollution at a fair price.

Page 7 says: “NYPA’s concept of a utility scale project suggests that the largest commercially available turbine may be required. As such, this RFEI requests information concerning the largest lake-based wind turbine that is currently available (or is expected to be available) on the market as well as the prospects and timing for larger turbines.”

This text says it all – make it as big, loud, visually objectionable and obnoxious as possible.

Page 7 says: “As the project will likely be located in water depths of at least 50 feet, the design and construction of the support structure and foundation are critical to a successful project. It is NYPA’s understanding that to date there have not been many wind projects installed at these depths.”

Why not let NYS be the guinea pig for this curious experiment? Lets see what a good upstate NY winter of hard ice, high winds and industrial strength waves do to these expensive lightening rods. BTW - the Oswego NYPA presentation said that offshore turbines would not be placed in water depths of 150 feet or greater – lets not get too far from shore or people’s homes and valuable property!

Page 8 says: “…..the need for an offshore substation;”

Page 12 says: “The installation of the wind turbines will likely have impacts for local communities. Key to the success of the project is local community acceptance. Therefore, the RFP will require respondents to describe their plans for educating the affected communities on the benefits of wind energy. While NYPA intends to publicly support the project and will endeavor to arrange for meetings between the developer and key constituencies and local, state and federal officials, it will ultimately be the developer’s responsibility to address community issues.”

The first sentence is another gross understatement. Local community acceptance of an offshore wind farm is as likely as accepting a toothache. And then for NYPA to have the nerve to slough off to the wind farm developer - the responsibility to face a hostile community! But then – when there’s this amount of money in it for them – any greedy developer will make a weak attempt to satiate the community before ultimately giving up. Maybe the NYPA has experience putting lipstick on a pig?

Page 13 says: “The Great Lakes Offshore Wind Project would be expected to contribute substantial environmental benefits to the region, but could also have certain environmental impacts at the project site.”

Another understatement – Id like to see a substantial list of environmental benefits an offshore wind farm can produce. If you believe this statement you must believe in the tooth fairy. Id also like to see the NYPA list of certain environmental impacts at the project site – could they be heinous by chance?

Page 14 says: “Freedom of Information Law - Responders to this RFEI are cautioned to clearly label as “proprietary” and “confidential” any specific information or other material that responders consider to be confidential. NYPA is subject to the New York State Freedom of Information Law (“FOIL”) which provides, as a general rule, that NYPA records are accessible to the public, subject only to exceptions enumerated in FOIL which include, but are not limited to, an exception protecting trade secrets. After receipt of a FOIL request for information provided by a responder to this RFEI, NYPA, to the fullest extent permitted by FOIL, would seek to protect the information submitted by the RFEI responder that is marked “confidential” and “proprietary”.

This statement reeks of NYPA President Richie Kessel, his style and his apparent disdain for the NYS FOIL Law. What this statement is meant to do is to encourage developers answering the NYPA’s RFEI to label their replies "proprietary" or "confidential" specifically to trump New York’s FOIL law and prevent offshore wind skeptics & opponents from seeing who replied to the RFEI and learning their ideas and proposals that will outrage the affected public. Keeping this RFEI information “secret” and out of the hands of the general public to avoid the hue and cry of those opposed – apparently is the normal modus operandi of the NYPA. The NYPA has a known history of stonewalling FOIL requests. As a matter of fact – NYPA has its own regulations about making FOIL requests and has a section regarding FOIL on their website [NYPA regulations (21 NYCRR Part 453)]. Do NYPA FOIL regulations trump NYS FOIL regulations? Nothing transparent about how the NYPA does business – this is Richie Kessel. He’s the big boy in charge.

Well - you've had a brief review of Richie Kessel's document to peddle Lakes Ontario and Erie, probably to foreigners. If you don't take action opposing NYPA's plans then you must suffer the consequences.

Please see other blog entries on this site about the NYPA proposal to despoil the Great Lakes. Check out the 2 NYPA maps (on the 11/15/09 blog) shown at the 11/13/09 Oswego, NY presentation showing potential turbine locations of NYPA’s proposed offshore wind farms. Do you live or travel and enjoy the lakes near these locations? Savor what the lakes’ benefits have brought you as they may soon disappear forever.

Lakes Ontario and Erie - - - -GOING, GOING, .........GONE!

2,200 Offshore Turbines Planned For Lakes Ontario & Erie

2009-11-15T15:19:00.000-08:00

Lakes Ontario and Erie to be Decimated

NYPA Proposes Over 1,000 Turbines in Lake Ontario, 1200 in Lake Erie

Nov 13, 2009 – New York Power Authority President Richie Kessel and his staff made an hour and a half presentation at Oswego, NY city hall today to reveal the New York Power Authority Great Lakes Power Project that divulges a horrible future for Lakes Ontario and Erie. Approximately 60-70 people
attended the presentation. The presentation was originally supposed to be for elected officials and community leaders until word of this covert meeting leaked out and spread rapidly. Information was mostly presented by two of Kessel’s staff (Sharon Laudisi, government and community affairs specialist for NYPA and Kathleen (?), environmental specialist) who are convinced that wind energy would be terrific for the Great Lakes and upstate NY. The information given is a regurgitation of what Kessel presented on Earth Day, April 22, 2009 in Buffalo. Luadisi said that Buffalo wanted a wind farm and people supposedly asked the NYPA that the turbines be located closer to Buffalo. At Oswego there were several people who expressed an opposing view to NYPA’s plans and made their feelings known. Several slides were shown that gave the attendees an overall idea of “the project” and how abhorrent it is for New Yorkers. I came away from the presentation convinced that “the project” is being forced upon Upstaters by a downstate Long Island Democrat appointed by a grossly unpopular NY governor we didn’t even elect. Kessel wishes to pollute Lakes Ontario and Erie with thousands of wind turbines so that volatile, low quality, unreliable, expensive power could be sent to metropolitan NYC and LI. Kessel speculated that turbines and necessary related parts could be manufactured upstate creating thousands of jobs. The presentation mentioned that the project would be reviewed by NYSDEC, US Coast Guard, US Army Corp of Engineers and US Fish & Wildlife Service and others. However – the slides shown that identified what agencies would be involved in siting “the project” - didn’t include input from local municipalities along the shorelines. In other words – towns bordering the lakes with offshore turbines – the major victims of this horrible project - wouldn’t have much, if anything, to say about the project. This project would be forced upon them. Turbines would need to be located in water depths of less than 150 feet. Whether or not tax payments to those municipalities nearest “the project” would be made are also questionable. Yes – this is what Richie has in store for upstaters.

The Lake Ontario & Erie maps illustrate what NYPA’s Kessel has been hiding from upstate New Yorkers – maps that are a “first cut” - showing the potential project sites (offshore wind farms) of this massive project that will hurt so many New Yorkers in numerous ways. The map slides were shown at Oswego this afternoon and graphically illustrate potential offshore wind farms very close to the shoreline. On the map slides please note there are two numbers shown for each offshore wind farm. The numbers indicate the electrical generating capacity of the farm. For example, let’s look at the one for Lake Ontario & Niagara County. The numbers show 90-180 meaning the megawatt capacity range being considered for the wind farm. Each turbine according to NYPA will produce about 3 megawatts therefore to determine how many turbines might be in the farm simply divide the megawatt range numbers on the map slide by 3. Therefore – offshore in Niagara County you could expect to find between 30 to 60 turbines! Up to 60 turbines near the outlet of the Niagara River into Lake Ontario off Niagara County! This should really upset the owner’s of beautiful yachts in the Niagara River marinas as well as our Canadian neighbors who will be forced to look upon these 450’ high eyesores. The next Lake Ontario area victimized is Monroe County (Rochester & 103 offshore turbines) from the town of Parma then east to Greece, then past Irondequoit and Webster to Wayne County’s town of Ontario – this comprises 3 wind farms. Another offshore wind farm (20 turbines) is shown off the town of Williamson and then east and north of Sodus Bay – this should really cause chaos for the Sodus Bay boaters & fishermen. Another large offshore wind farm (106 turbines) continues north of Sodus Bay and east past the towns of Huron and Wolcott and just reaching north of Cayuga County and the town of Sterling. The next offshore wind farm is enormous (560 turbines) and located in Mexico Bay just off of Oswego and Jefferson counties. Two more offshore wind farms (53 and 136 turbines) show in Lake Ontario just north of Galloo Island and of course this is in addition to what’s already in the controversial works on Galloo Island and the Jefferson county mainland! The last offshore wind farm (16 turbines) shows off Grenadier Island and just inside the Canadian border.

Lakes Ontario/Erie would change forever if this happens!

New Yorkers need to stop Kessel’s horrible project in its tracks.

If you do not want this tragedy to happen you must send this email to warn your neighbors, businesses, boating friends, charter captains, fellow workers, cottage owners, neighborhood associations, environmental groups, realtors, our Canadian neighbors, and especially shoreline property and business owners. You must pressure your local and state elected representatives to take immediate action opposed to Kessel’s objectives to industrialize the Great Lakes for downstate’s benefit. There is no need for offshore wind farms in Lake Ontario or Lake Erie. Don’t be fooled and allow Richie and NYPA to rape upstate NY.

Is it any wonder why New York state suffered the largest loss of residents to other states in the nation from 2000 to 2008, with more than 1.5 million people leaving, a report found. The report, commissioned by the conservative Empire Center for New York State Policy, found 8 percent of New York’s population at the start of the decade has left to other states. Efforts like Kessel’s trashing of Lakes Erie and Ontario will lead to a greater exodus of people from NYS during the next decade. Kessel has truly put a curse on lakeshore upstaters. Allowing any wind turbines anywhere in the Great Lakes will encourage more to follow in the future.
Kessel’s Great Lakes Power Project plan must be fought with a vengeance.
The New York Post said this about Kessel possibly being selected as NYPA chief:
"There couldn't be a worse choice to run the New York Power Authority than long-time Long Island gadfly and political gofer Richie Kessel -- yet Gov. Paterson seems set to tap him for just that post.
"What a huge mistake."
Paterson gave him the job.

Richard Kessel is the mastermind behind this Great Lakes Power Project fiasco and not free of controversy. You do not have to Google very long to discover what a train wreck Kessel is. He was fired from the Long Island Power Authority by former Gov. Spitzer. (both downstate Democrats) NY Times.com reports Kessel was investigated by the state inspector general for accepting dual salaries at LIPA for his twin roles as chairman and president. His plan for a 150 turbine offshore Long Island wind farm was dropped when costs ballooned to $800M and residents complained it was too near shore. He’s proposed putting a major power line under the NYS thruway (to downstate, of course). NYS Sen. George Maziarz of Niagara County testified that Kessel is a liar and a cheat. The North Country Gazette reported numerous Kessel blunders while he headed the LIPA. But the most damning Kessel commentary is described by George J. Marlin, former executive director of the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey. Read Marlin’s extensive Kessel scorchers in several articles at http://streetcornerconservative.com and at http://libn.com/thedebateroom/2009/02/13/marlin-kessel-to-blame-for-the-power-authority’s-woes - you won’t believe it!

No doubt Gov. Paterson won’t be re-elected hence Kessel won’t enjoy his NYPA job too long either but he’ll continue to do damage to NYS until he’s replaced from his $240K/year patronage job.

************************************************************************
Above information respectfully provided by Al Isselhard; email speedway2742@gmail.com

See another Beware NY Wind blog on offshore turbines: “Say “NO” to Offshore Great Lakes Turbines”

Say "NO" to Offshore Great Lakes Turbines!!!!!!

2009-11-15T14:59:00.000-08:00

Richard Kessel, President of the New York Power Authority is expending all his energy these days pursuing an issue that will hurt New Yorkers! He’s attempting to sell your government officials and the public an idea that planting wind turbines in the Great Lakes is good for our state. Well – he’s wrong! Kessel is touring NYS trying desperately to pedal this horrible use of the Great Lakes to whoever will listen.

“Our goal is to have an offshore wind project . . . within five years,” said Kessel, who developed plans for a controversial wind power project off Jones Beach when he served as president of the Long Island Power Authority. The plan was scuttled. But Kessel’s back with a vengeance and now he’s targeting the Great Lakes. That’s unfortunate!

Here’s why concerned New Yorkers should actively and strongly oppose offshore wind projects in Lakes Ontario and Erie:

Lakeshore property owners will not tolerate the tremendous loss of property value and marketability that are certain to occur wherever offshore turbines are located. Turbines will cause lower assessments of neighboring property and thus a higher tax rate for the rest of the community.

Lakeshore property owners pay the highest state/local property taxes because of their beautiful waterfront locations and do not wish their view shed to be forever ruined by the sight of 450 ft. high offshore wind turbines located in the lake generating small amounts of electricity to be sent downstate to metropolitan areas. The certain loss of view and quiet enjoyment by lakeshore property owners is unacceptable.

Lakeshore property owners don’t want light trespassing (both direct and reflecting) as a result of blinking red strobe lights atop the offshore turbines. There may be turbine mid-base lighting and navigation lighting too – all of which contribute to loss of darkness, reflecting lighting off the water, etc. – all of which is unacceptable. Turbine blade shuttering and reflections will also be a nuisance. Their property suddenly becomes a Turbinetown, an undesirable place to live.

Lakeshore property owners do not want the loud noise, both audible and inaudible, generated by the turbines. The noise would be far worse than that already well documented from terrestrial turbines wherever turbines are now in place since there is no foliage/hills/buildings to help absorb noise. Studies show sound travels 3 times farther over water than land. Multiple turbines increase sound intensity. This is not only a nuisance but a serious health problem called wind turbine syndrome. A new book being released November 2009 documents the many serious health problems caused by wind turbines – read: Wind Turbine Syndrome by Dr. Nina Pierpont.

Wind turbines produce low-frequency noise (LFN) and seismic vibrations—on this there is no longer any question or worthwhile debate hence there will be huge negative implications for all aquatic life wherever the offshore turbines are located. When it is discovered that offshore turbines have an enormous affect on fishing do you think they will be turned off and removed? Once installed they will be there for the rest of your life. Read Dr. Nina Pierpont’s article Fish and Wind Turbines Don’t Mix that can be found on the internet.

Recreational & commercial boaters and fishermen could not possibly welcome this appalling use of the Great Lakes that can only create a danger for them, particularly during the nighttime hours, and place restrictions on where they can use their boats. Don’t listen to Kessel tell you offshore turbines won’t have an effect on boating and fishing! These lies were doled out continuously to property owners where turbines were planned when turbine neighbors were told they made no noise and didn’t devalue homes – and look what has happened to them. There can be unknown fish impacts that aren’t discovered until the development is created.

Monopole construction of wind turbine bases can cause silt debris, contamination of potable water intakes, disruption of water intakes for nuclear power sites, fracturing the bedrock during monopole construction thus allowing sulphur into the water, and also stirring up unknown sediments from prior pollution.

Scuba diving could be affected as well as historic shipwreck sites

Marina owners & the charter fishing boat industry will lose business as a result of the offshore turbines and new rules that will affect boating in a negative way.

Tourists will avoid any area blighted by the installation of offshore turbines. How would you like to view a sunrise or sunset through spinning turbine blades? Have a look at nearby Wolfe Island on the St. Lawrence! The wind folly there can be seen from Watertown.

Bird and bat kill carnage (blade tips rotating at 200 MPH) cannot be avoided. The Atlantic flyway crosses Lake Ontario right where some offshore wind farms are proposed. Offshore turbines conflict with safe bird havens.

Winter ice conditions will damage and destroy the turbines and deter winter maintenance.

There will be certain wind turbine caused electromagnetic interference affecting microwave signals, power surges, TV reception loss, weather radar interference - causing corrupt data, false precipitation signals, doppler radar – wind turbine flutter, aircraft & boating communication interference – its already happened!

Dirty tricks played on unsuspecting property owners by the corrupt wind industry are now well known. Can you wonder why NYS Attorney General Cuomo is investigating the corrupt wind industry and asking the wind developers in NYS to adopt and sign his wind industry ethics code? What other industry or business have you ever heard of in NYS being asked to sign an ethics code? Does this speak well of the wind industry? New York cannot afford the corrupt wind industry or their bait ‘n switch tactics.

Clearly, most local governments are not equipped to deal with the aggressiveness of wind farm developers or to evaluate the technical, economic, environmental and energy implications of “wind farms” or deal with people like NYPA President Richard Kessel. This is particularly true when wind industry lobbyists have already pushed tax breaks, subsidies, and other measures favorable to “wind farm” owners through state legislatures. Elected local officials are easily coerced (or intimidated) by developers (maybe by NYPA too) and often end up supporting projects before they have any real grasp of their long-term implications. Cultivating elected officials is part of the wind developer’s operating scheme and this is where Mr. Kessel fits in nicely.

Ask the numerous upstate and northern NYS land owners that trusted wind developers to develop a wind farm on their property but were later hit with a lien (this year) because the developer failed to pay his bills to the contractors. Now the land owners can’t do anything with their property and have a huge lien to deal with that they cannot afford. Read: 47 New Liens Filed Against Nobel Environmental Power on the National Wind Watch website.

Dripping toxic wind turbine fluids will pollute the lakes – hundreds of gallons are in each nacelle.

Turbines might be abandoned after 10 years because all the tax benefits had been captured, performance has deteriorated, newer more efficient technology has replaced 400+ ft. high turbines or maintenance costs become prohibitive. And there they are in Lakes Ontario and Erie – rusting away like 400’ high junk cars.

Taxpayer money dedicated to offshore wind development is money that could otherwise be invested in worthwhile and effective electrical generating projects such as solar or nuclear. Oswego has plenty of positive experience with nuclear and gas electrical generating energy that also provides good jobs.

Unknown impacts will also develop AFTER the wind farm is constructed and these impacts may never be corrected thus hurting man and nature forever. There are NO offshore wind turbines in North America. Do we want to be a guinea pigs in Kessel’s experiment?

Today’s Kessel presentation was deliberately kept quiet – by request of course – this is how covert the wind industry normally operates. Does Mr. Kessel believe in transparent government? Does Mr. Kessel care about your property value or your health or quality of life? Does Mr. Kessel live near Turbinetown?

************************************************************************************

Above information respectfully provided by Al Isselhard; email: speedway2742@gmail.com

Most of the above information was handed out to attendees at the 11/13/09 NYPA presentation in Oswego, NY city hall. About 70 people attended the presentation.

See Beware NY Wind blog "2,200 Offshore Turbines Planned for Lakes Ontario & Erie" for a report on the NYPA presentation at Oswego city hall on 11/13/09.

Please visit this great Canadian anti offshore turbine site dealing with Lake Erie and more in depth studies of this issue. Google CALEWT for Citizens Against Lake Erie Wind Turbines and see their video. Their website address is: http://lakeeriewindturbines.com

PILOT Agreements - Corporate Welfare Ad Nauseum

2009-11-09T17:41:00.000-08:00

When you purchase a new home or build one for, let’s say $200k, the transaction must be recorded with the county clerk in the county where the property is located. The sale/build price is also part of this legal requirement and this figure is publicly available and of interest to your local assessor. As a result - the property assessment must be as close as possible to 100% of the property value – the price you paid for it. Therefore if you paid $200K then the assessment will likely be $200K – period. And your property tax will be based on this assessment.

Now consider a wind developer who comes into a rural community and builds a “wind farm”. The average cost of buying & installing a commercial wind turbine (per internet estimates) is roughly between $2M and $3M each. Then the wind developer and local IDA negotiate a PILOT (Payment In Lieu Of Taxes) “deal” and the wind developer avoids paying his fare share of taxes – pays a small fraction of the project’s net worth – as a result of the IDA PILOT “deal”. Furthermore – the developer is probably based in a foreign country and never even visited the area where the wind farm is located. Because of the PILOT program the foreign wind developer can legally pay a mere fraction of the true 100% value of the wind farm while home owner’s taxes are based on 100% value of his new property. How can this be fair? This is corporate greed and manipulation at its worst combined with misdirected irresponsible government. And it’s likely the turbines are manufactured in a foreign country too. And the crew that installs the entire wind project would never be from your community – they are a transient bunch and gone a few months after construction never to return. And often the lessor is an absentee landlord and doesn’t live anywhere near where the turbines are sited, Turbinetown, and avoids the noise, loss of viewshed, shadowing, etc. much less face-to-face contact with extremely upset neighbors who have suffered physical pain and permanent loss of property value. Turbine neighbors have become prisoners in their own homes (because their homes will never sell for anywhere near what they were worth before the creation of the windfarm – if they’re sold at all) and their only escape is to abandon their life’s major investment to gain relief for health reasons. But some town board members make out well approving wind development because they are likely to have a conflict of interest and benefit financially either directly or indirectly and as a result betray their own neighbors including people that trusted them and may have actually voted for them. And think about this – the bad guys assisting the foreign wind developer with PILOTs are your county IDA reps. They would sell out their mother for a low paying job in your county and IDA staff are not even elected. The whole relationship between your IDA and your county legislative board needs constant monitoring. The IDA officials are appointed by your county legislature or board of supervisors. Like a bad cold - corrupt IDA staff are difficult to get rid of. PILOT agreements are developed by your IDA not the town board.
*************
The office of the NYS Comptroller says the following about IDAs:
There are 20 Industrial Development Agencies (IDAs) in the eight county
region of western New York. Pursuant to General Municipal
Law, Section 858, these IDAs are independent public benefit
corporations created by State legislation to improve economic
conditions by encouraging and assisting businesses in maintaining,
constructing or improving facilities. In so doing, they advance job
opportunities and improve the health, general prosperity and economic
welfare of the people of the State of New York.

To accomplish this, IDAs provide project owners financial assistance
which includes, among other things, exemptions from taxation.
Without this assistance, project owners would generally pay a real
property tax based on the assessed value of land and improvements to
a site. Any real property owned or controlled by an IDA is not subject
to ad valorem real property taxes. Therefore, the IDA would take
title to, or leasehold interest in, real property and the property would
become 100 percent exempt from ad valorem real property taxes. To
accommodate the needs of affected taxing jurisdictions, many IDAs
execute written agreements requiring Payments In Lieu Of Taxes
(PILOT) by project owners to municipalities and school districts
where the projects are located. These affected tax jurisdictions (ATJ)
receive PILOT revenue that is generally equal to, or a portion of, the
amount they would have received had the IDA not been involved.
PILOT agreements must contain, among other things, the amount due
annually to each ATJ, or a formula by which the amount due can be
calculated.
*************
PILOTs are supposed to make jobs for communities but with wind farms this never happens. Only about one mediocre paying job is created for every 10 turbines installed – that’s hardly job creation. Government watchdog groups say the absence of uniform standards makes the whole PILOT program open to abuse, because each wind company gets to negotiate its own private deal with the IDA. In addition, wind companies that fail to meet their original IDA job creation promises rarely get penalized.

In addition, the presence of a wind power facility will drive down the value of surrounding properties (homes), lowering assessments and thus causing a loss of tax revenue that cuts into any possible gain by the presence of a wind farm. NYS property owners have already successfully had their assessments reduced because their properties had the unfortunate circumstance of being located near a new wind farm. This reduces the tax base for the community and must be made up by increasing the tax rate which is then paid by those property owners within the community. Once again the taxpayer is paying higher taxes to support the corrupt wind industry and people say the wind is free.

And think about this - 65% of a commercial wind farm is being paid for with your American tax dollars thanks to stimulus money, NYSERDA, PTC (Production Tax Credits), rapid depreciation schedules, PILOTs, etc. while the foreign owner enjoys the profits while raping your community.

One of the worst recent situations involving IDAs & PILOTs is in Cattaraugus County New York. In Cattaraugus County, a proposed 32-turbine Everpower wind farm in the Chipmunk area of the town of Allegany – the town’s portion of the payment in lieu of taxes (P.I.L.O.T.) negotiated by the Cattaraugus county IDA would be roughly $22,000 a year for the entire wind farm! That’s right - the town would only be getting about $22,000 in PILOT payments a year. That’s for all 32 wind turbines, not each one. Town supervisor Eaton said he did not believe there would be additional “host community fees” available outside of the PILOT agreement, which is negotiated by the IDA. “We’re not doing it for $22,000,” he stated.

Attorney Dan Spitzer said the wind-turbine issue, and its legalities, are complicated at best.

“It’s a very complicated topic and the one thing I say, whether I’m representing the community or representing the developer, is that it will change your community for a generation, at least,” Mr. Spitzer said of a wind-turbine farm.

Mr. Eaton, Allegany town supervisor, who was listening in the background, revised Mr. Spitzer’s statement by saying, “It will change it forever.” Can you imagine a more outrageous IDA than the one in Cattaraugus County? Are they taking a kickback from the wind developer? They are certainly not acting in the best interests of the community. Shame on the Cattaraugus County Legislature and the IDA for attempting to sell the Allegany residents all out, for so very little.

New Yorkers in general are beginning to become completely fed up with PILOTs, IDAs, wind farms and seeing their tax dollars squandered by politicians and bureaucrats to offshore ownership. Taxpayers are beginning to revolt against the wind developers, IDAs and local governments and the November 2009 election results underscore this attitude.

PILOTs should be completely repealed and eliminated and taxpayers should demand the full value of tax revenue from the wind project and nothing less. Industrial Development Agencies should not endorse industrial wind development in NYS, since IDAs were created to stimulate economic development by industries that create permanent jobs and financially benefit the area. Industrial wind will do neither, and is actually contrary to the IDA mission. IDAs are eroding your quality of life in collusion with an “unscrupulous” industry and this must stop. Can you wonder why NYS Attorney General Cuomo is investigating the corrupt wind industry and asking the wind developers to adopt and sign his wind industry ethics code? What other industry or business have you ever heard of in NYS being asked to sign an ethics code? Does this speak well of the wind industry? New Yorkers cannot afford the corrupt wind industry or PILOT agreements.

PSC rule exposes wind company’s motives

2009-11-06T17:18:00.000-08:00

(This article was copied from the National Wind Watch website)

A few days ago there was a most revealing article in the Albany Times Union, and it affects all state citizens.

The Public Service Commission recently said that before industrial wind projects could be approved that they had to:

* Prove that their electricity was not just going to replace carbon dioxide-free hydro-produced electricity, and

* Verify that available transmission capability was sufficient to carry their anticipated new power.

My first reaction was that these things haven’t been formally checked out all along? The admission of that is simply astounding.

Then I see from the story that the big multinational wind companies have objected to these conditions as being too expensive. Additionally they expressed great concern that, if the results of these analyses turned out to be negative, that this information could be used against them as a basis to turn down a project. Imagine that.

So, in other words, state taxpayers and ratepayers should simply fund the developers’ lucrative projects even though they may well be providing zero environmental benefit (replacing hydro) and may not be able to have their power go onto the state grid?

That should make it quite clear to anyone paying attention as to what their motivation is. It is not about benefiting state citizens, the state environment or the state electricity situation.

Then, to top it off, a purported “environmental” representative, Carol Murphy, executive director of the Alliance for Clean Energy New York (ACE-NY), said that the PSC’s required checks are: “ridiculous, they’re not helpful at all. They send a very, very bad message. What they tell people to do is try to avoid the PSC.” She went on to say that ACE-NY might sue the PSC on this matter.

ACE-NY’s Mission Statement makes bold proclamations about their organization being all about benefiting the state economically and reducing air pollution. Why would they object to making sure that carbon dioxide was really being saved and that the power being paid for was really going to the grid?

They are really wind energy lobbyists, and those good words about their “mission” are just a sleight-of-hand show to rope in the gullible public to support their self-serving lobbying efforts. It’s good that this situation has given us an opportunity to see their real spots!

So kudos to the PSC for finally asking for some extremely reasonable information; hopefully this will be the start for them asking for even more worthwhile data, and more are definitely needed.

John Droz jr.

Brantingham Lake

Watertown Daily Times

www.watertowndailytimes.com

6 November 2009

Confessions..........................

2009-11-02T17:07:00.000-08:00

Confession of a former wind turbine supporter
(copied from the National Wind Watch website)

They say that confession is good for the soul, so here is my confession:

A few years ago I thought like so many other people in this country, in particular in this town of Orangeville,NY (Wyoming County) that wind must be good, after all it’s free. I even went so far as to have a “green energy” sign on my lawn. Free works for me, but it didn’t take a lot of research to discover that like the lunch, nothing is free!

I began to ask questions such as: Why does each industrial wind turbine contain 400-plus gallons of oil? Why are the employees of the industrial wind turbines told to not get within 1,300 feet of a working turbine? Why have the issues of wind sheer noise and blade flicker not been resolved? And the questions kept coming. So many unanswered questions and no real answers were coming from the industrial wind turbine people or my elected town board.

For instance, I discovered that if the wind isn’t blowing or is blowing too strong, the turbines are shut down, hence, where is the reliability in this? I do not believe we could do a load of laundry or dishes, or even take a shower with this undependable energy source.

The current grid is ancient and when energy is sent into it, the grid is unable to handle the overload and the energy cannot be stored. Hence, all this free energy is now costing us the taxpayer money. I started to wonder exactly how many coal cars have been saved and how many barrels of oil have not been used by the use of the industrial wind turbines? And, my research revealed that the industrial wind turbines that we are seeing are actually antiques themselves. Since they were purchased by the wind company, new models which are more reliable and efficient are now available. But the wind company that wants to put up industrial wind turbines have already purchased these antiques and they want to pawn them off on us, the unsuspecting landowner.

Something else that I discovered while researching industrial wind turbines is that there is now an industrial wind turbine heart condition, which is caused by the adverse affects of having an industrial wind turbine near one’s home.

Additionally, I learned that the industrial wind turbine investors are just that. They have no real interest in providing accessible wind energy to this country, New York State, or the town of Orangeville, instead they are more interested in the tax benefits that they will gain from New York State and the federal government. Plus, when they receive too much in tax credits they can actually sell the excess tax credits, as they are fully transferable. We then end up with non-resident owners who really don’t care that the current machinery is antiquated and outdated before it is erected.

Needless to say, all this acquired knowledge left my head spinning so I went to the supervisor of one of the wind companies and was told that yes I too could be an investor if I had the amount of money needed to purchase an industrial wind turbine. Further, because of the tax benefits, the profitability of investing in an industrial wind turbine is very lucrative. Thus, I began to wonder how is it that the investors and the industrial wind turbine companies do not pay their fair share in taxes but instead are allowed to pay a payment in lieu of taxes (PILOT) which amount to several hundred thousand dollars for each town, but again, against the millions generated by tax benefits and credits received by the investors, this amount seems incredibly small and nearly insulting to the towns that accept this PILOT payment.

Now the town of Orangeville wants to put the industrial wind turbine within 700 feet of a property line, not the 1,300 feet recommended by the company.

The industrial wind turbine companies have done to Orangeville what they did in Sheldon, Bliss and all the other towns and counties where they have signed people up for leases or land variances. The industrial wind turbine companies have successfully split these towns and pitted neighbor against neighbor. There is a better way to do business, but the industrial wind turbine company has chosen to come into each town with no information about them and sign unsuspecting landowners up without giving the land owner any knowledge at all about the hazards of these turbines.

Now that you’ve read my confession I urge you to also look into these industrial monsters before you are swayed by a slick talker from out of town, into signing your property away. Know what your rights are, know what you are signing and know the end results.

Soon an election will take place in Orangeville which gives you, the voter, a genuine opportunity for change, real change. The opportunity to vote for folks who are not anti-industrial wind turbine and indeed support them in non-residential areas. Steve Moultrup, Mary Jo Hopkins and Darryl Dickinson each want what is best for Orangeville, not their own personal pocketbooks.

Here ends my confession. I feel relieved knowing that you, the reader, now have information that you can discern and are the wiser for having received it.

Linda Makson

Warsaw

The Daily News Online

www.thedailynewsonline.com

27 October 2009

US Money Stimulates Foreigners

2009-10-30T07:36:00.000-07:00

(More than eight out of 10 US stimulus dollars spent on wind energy farms have gone to foreign companies, according to a report by the Washington-based Investigative Report Workshop, a non-profit journalist group. The 11 US-based wind farms that received cash grants from the US Treasury have imported 695 of the 982 wind turbines that are to be installed. Since the manufacture of turbines is by far the largest employment generator in wind energy, it is estimated to have created 4,500 jobs overseas – far in excess of the jobs created in the US from these grants. The whole disgusting story can be read at: investigativereportingworkshop.org - see how your tax money is helping foreigners get rich while raping the USA)

Overseas Firms Collecting Most Green Energy Money

By Russ Choma (of the Investigative Reporting Workshop)

Thursday, October 29th, 2009

One of the major selling points of President Barack Obama’s $787 billion stimulus plan was that it would put the economy back on track partly by investing in renewable energy industries, like wind and solar.

The president and many other advocates of alternative energy argue that an investment in green energy would lessen the nation’s reliance on foreign oil, cut greenhouse gases, and most importantly, create thousands of new jobwind money washington s for out-of-work Americans.

But of the $1.05 billion in clean-energy grants handed out by the government since Sept. 1, 84 percent – a total of $849 million – has gone to foreign wind companies. Spanish utility company, Iberdrola S.A., alone has collected $545 million through its American subsidiary.

Even more striking is the fact that there are few restrictions on the how the grants can be used, according to a transcript of a Treasury Department briefing. In fact, more than $800 million has been given to firms for wind farms that were already producing electricity before they received the grants, according to a review of the records by the Investigative Reporting Workshop at American University.

"There are no restrictions on the use of the funds," Dan Tangherlini, an assistant secretary for management at the Department of Treasury, said, during a Sept. 1 conference call to announce the grants.

Could the money be used to pay shareholders?

"You know, that's possible," Tangherlini said, when a reporter asked that question during the call.

Wind Turbines, Foreign Oil & the Truth

2009-10-22T19:02:00.000-07:00

THE #1 FALLACY – WIND TURBINES WILL REDUCE
AMERICA'S DEPENDENCE ON FOREIGN OIL

Here's why wind turbines will never have an affect on imported oil. The author of this article, Glenn Schleede, is a well known energy consultant from Virginia.
In any case - you may have been misled as many people have - about dependence by the USA on how much foreign oil is used to produce electricity in the USA - VERY LITTLE. This is a scare tactic embraced by wind energy supporters and it is false! Here's Glenn Schleede's thoughts based on his extensive research, please read:

Wind Energy Will NOT Reduce US Oil Dependence – July 2007 Update -- 2006 Data
One of the false claims made by “wind energy” advocates is that greater use of wind energy would reduce US dependence on oil, including oil imports.
In fact, adding more wind turbines will have no significant impact on US oil consumption. Unfortunately, many well-meaning people (including reporters) and some regulators and political leaders have accepted – and repeated -- the wind advocates’ false claims about reductions in oil use. This brief paper explains why the reduced oil use claim is false.(The claim about reduced oil dependence is only one of many false and misleading claims made by the wind industry, US Department of Energy (DOE), DOE’s National Renewable Energy “Laboratory” (NREL) and other wind advocates)

Facts about oil use in electric generation in the US:
1. The only potential use of wind turbines is to produce electricity.
2. Very little oil is used in the US to produce electricity. In 2006, only 1.6% of the electricity generated in the US was produced by using oil.
Oil use was down significantly from 2005, undoubtedly due to high oil prices which led to greater use of other energy sources principally natural gas, and coal. Shares of electric generation from nuclear energy and hydropower also increased. The share of electricity produced by oil has dropped well below EIA’s projections.
3. Most of the use of oil in the US for electricity generation occurs in a few states. In 2006, 3 states (Florida, Hawaii and New York) accounted for more than 70% of all the electricity in the US generated by using oil.
4. Oil accounted for more than 5% of electric generation in only 4 states and the District of Columbia. Those states are Hawaii, Florida, Massachusetts, and Alaska.
5. Oil accounted for less than 1% of electric generation in 39 states. Thirty-six of those were less than ½ of 1%.
6. Even in the 11 states (and the District of Columbia) where oil accounts for more than 1% of electricity generation, adding wind turbines would have very little, if any, impact on oil consumption. The facts supporting this conclusion are complex and many of those who have believed the false claims might be forgiven for their errors. However, the complexity does not excuse officials from DOE, NREL or the wind industry who should know better. But, in any case, here is why wind energy is highly unlikely to reduce to reduce oil use in electric generation:
a. About 7.7% of the oil used in electric generation in 2006 was “distillate” oil
used in combustion turbine and internal combustion electric generating units.
The cost of this oil is high and such units are used almost exclusively in times when electricity demand is at its highest level (e.g., during hot weekday afternoons in July and August). Little if any wind generated electricity is available during those times.
b. Most of the remaining 92% of the oil used in electric generation was “residual oil” (#4 & #5) that is used in older, oil-fired steam-electric generating units (oil is burned to heat water and create steam to drive a turbine).
c. These older oil-fired steam-electric units are quite unlikely to be the units that are backed down or ramped up to adjust for the intermittent, highly volatile (output often varies widely minute to minute) and largely unpredictable output from wind turbines – which produce electricity only when the wind is blowing in the right speed range. Also, some of the old oil-fired steam-electric units are located close to major load centers (e.g., New York City and Long Island) and must be run to maintain proper voltage.
d. Instead, the generating units that are likely to be used to “back up” the intermittent wind turbines will be units that are either:
1) Designed and designated to serve in an Automatic Generation Control (AGC) mode
to keep an electric grid in balance (i.e., frequency and voltage),
2) Producing at less than full capacity and capable of ramping up or down on short
notice, or
3) Operating in a “spinning reserve” mode. Electricity supply and demand must be kept in balance. Electricity production is constantly adjusted to meet electricity demand. The generating units that serve best in backing up intermittent, volatile wind turbines are hydropower units because the output from these units can be increased or decreased almost instantaneously. The next best alternatives are gas-fired turbine-based generating units (e.g., combined-cycle or larger
simple cycle). Oil-fired units are less likely to be used in the required balancing role for wind turbines because (a) the oil-fired combustion turbine and internal combustion units are unlikely to be running except in times of peak demand, and (b) the oil-fired steam electric units are likely to have slower response times than is necessary to back up wind turbines. (e) The generating units used to “back up” intermittent and volatile wind generation will depend on the generating mix and other conditions in the grid control area that is receiving the electricity from wind turbines. In the Pacific-Northwest, for example, hydro power would likely serve in the balancing role – with no savings in oil. In New England, with its heavy dependence on natural gas and a significant amount of newer gas-fired
generating capacity, a gas-fired unit would likely serve in the balancing role, again with little or no savings in oil use.

In summary, there is very little likelihood that any oil use in electric generation would be reduced by adding wind turbines. This would certainly be true in the states with only small shares of their electric generation from oil.

The electric industry officials who will have the exact data on the generating units that are run to balance the intermittent and volatile output from wind turbines are those who handle the day to day management and control of electric grids and transmission systems; i.e., depending on the region of the US, electric utility, the power pool, the independent system operator (ISO), or the regional transmission organization (RTO).

Where is most oil used in the US?
During 2006, US oil use averaged 20,588,000 barrels per day. The shares of 2006 US oil consumption by sector were as follows:
• Transportation. - 68.9%
• Industrial - 24.1%
• Residential - 3.6%
• Commercial - 1.8%
• Electric generation - 1.6%
Total - 100%

As the above table suggests, those seeking a reduction in US oil consumption will need to focus primarily on oil use in transportation.

Glenn R. Schleede
Round Hill, VA 20141-2574

Corrupt Wind & Another Opinion

2009-10-22T18:53:00.000-07:00

July 31, 2008

Dear Wayne County Star Editor,

The editor’s comments in the 7/30/08 Star on gas leases signed by naïve landowners who later regret their actions are nothing new - but there’s a new twist to the scam. The corrupt wind industry is also raping landowners who sign leases and easements for potential wind farms and subsequently the landowners discover that their wind lease includes gas and mineral rights too. And because the poor landowner didn’t understand the text of the lease contract and signs it – he’s legally obligated by terms of the lease. This bait and switch by the wind developer may not be discovered for years and well after a number of other landowners in the area have collectively made the same mistake. It might well be that the “wind developer” was more interested in the gas and mineral rights than wind capability since these leased “rights” could then be parlayed to a third (possibly foreign) party for future development and huge profits – profits that unfortunately exclude the landowner who was duped – he trusted and was then betrayed. Not only that – the landowner is likely to already have been a victim of antitrust violations, misrepresentations, false claims and outright fraud by the wind profiteers at the onset. Furthermore - the landowner may also be obligated by other terms of a lease that prohibit him from operating his property in his traditional manner unless the lessee approves of the new methods of (farming) operation. Landowners who leased their land to wind developers have later found out they couldn’t get a second mortgage (eg. home improvements) because the bank they applied to couldn’t be the first lien holder (the wind company is) - or not be able to subdivide their property because lease terms prohibit it. Competent legal help is required, as the Star editor recommends and even that’s no guarantee of a fair outcome for the landowner (farmer). Towns are ripped off too - ask Keith Pitman, President and CEO of Empire State Wind Energy (ESWE) – the so called “wind developer” that’s been romancing eastern Wayne County towns for well over a year now – why his company won’t respond to a $5,000 legal bill ESWE owes to the town of Huron! The message is blatantly simple – BEWARE THE CORRUPT WIND INDUSTRY!

Al Isselhard
Huron, NY
7/31/08

A Legal Opinion (about wind energy) Worth Reading

2009-10-22T18:33:00.000-07:00

PETER HENNER
ATTORNEY AND COUNSELOR AT LAW
P.O. BOX 326
CLARKSVILLE, NEW YORK 12041-0326

Phone: (518) 768-8232
Fax: (518) 768-8235
Email: peter@peterhenner.com

WEB SITE: peterhenner.com

*via facsimile transmission and regular mail

October 15, 2007

Betsy Bernocco, Supervisor
Town of Richmondville
211 Winegard Road
Richmondville, NY 12149

Alicia Terry, Director
Schoharie County Planning and Development Agency
349 Mineral Springs Road
Cobleskill, NY 12043

Re: Wind turbines are not a special use within the meaning of the Richmondville Zoning Ordinance

Dear Ms. Bernocco and Ms. Terry:

Schoharie Valley Watch has asked me to provide an opinion with respect to the question of whether wind turbines can be sited in the R-2 zone in the Town of Richmondville. Apparently, it has been suggested that wind turbines can be sited in the R-2 zone because a wind turbine is allegedly a "public utility station or structure", which is a permissible use in an R-2 zone if the applicant obtains a special use permit.

For the reasons set forth below, I do not believe that a wind turbine qualifies as a special use under the Town's Zoning Ordinance. Furthermore, if an applicant seeks a variance to site a wind turbine in the R-2 zone, the applicant would not be entitled to the benefit of the "relaxed" zoning standards applicable to "public utilities".

A commercial wind turbine is not a "public utility station or structure" under the Town of Richmondville Zoning Ordinance

Although the Town's Zoning Ordinance contains a comprehensive list of definitions, the term "public utility station or structure" is not defined. In the absence of a statutory definition, we must rely on the plain, ordinary meanings of the words. A wind turbine, owned and operated by a private commercial enterprise, is not a "public" entity. Furthermore, a company that uses a wind turbine to generate electricity for sale to a competitive market, rather than to provide a necessary service to the public, is not a "utility".

A "public utility" has been defined as a "private business, often a monopoly, which provide services so essential to the public interest as to enjoy certain privileges such as eminent domain and be subject to such governmental regulation as fixing of rates, and standards of service", 2 Anderson, American Law of Zoning § 12.32 at pages 568-569 (3d Ed.). Typically, a public utility: 1) provides essential services, 2) is subject to some degree of public regulation, and 3) is subject to some logistic constraint with respect to the siting of its facility.

However, a wind turbine does not meet any of these criteria. Although it may be argued that the electricity which is generated is important, the electricity is not sold to customers, but, instead, is typically sold to the electric grid through the Independent System Operator, and is then distributed to public buyers. The sale of electricity is no longer a monopoly; in the past, all electric generation was done by a utility company, such as the former Niagara Mohawk, which was heavily regulated by the Public Service Commission ("PSC"). Today, after the "restructuring" or deregulation of the electric industry, generators of electric power, such as the owners and operators of wind turbines, are merchant plants, that compete with each other to sell electricity. The electricity that is generated can not be considered "essential", since it may not be sold if, on any particular day, cheaper electricity is available from other generators (electricity generated by wind turbines can not be stored; it must be used when it is generated). This is in sharp contrast to the former system, where virtually all of the electricity that was used within a service area was generated by one company, and both the amount of electricity and its price were regulated by the PSC.

Furthermore, for the most part, wind turbines operate outside of any public control or regulation. They do not have a franchise from a public entity, the prices of the electricity are not regulated, nor do they have any quasi governmental powers, such as the power of eminent domain. In short, even assuming that wind turbines could be considered to be "utilities", they do not have any indicia of any "public" character.

Accordingly, a wind turbine is not a "public utility station or structure" under the Zoning Ordinance. Therefore, it can not be sited in the R-2 zone as a special use. The "public utility" use variance exception does not apply to wind turbines

In Consolidated Edison Company v. Hoffman, 43 N.Y.2d 598 (1978), the New York State Court of Appeals established a "public utility" use variance exception. In Consolidated Edison, the owner of a nuclear power plant had sought a variance from local zoning standards to build a 1000 foot tall cooling tower and the Village had denied the variance. The denial was overturned because Consolidated Edison provided an essential service in the form of electricity generation, subject to governmental regulation. Furthermore, since the nuclear generating plant was already in existence, the cooling tower had to be built relatively close to it, and could not readily be built at an alternative location. The Court found that public utilities needed to have relaxed zoning standards in order to accomplish their mission, and that the zoning standards should be interpreted to facilitate their operation.

15 years later, in Cellular Telephone Company v. Rosenberg, 82 N.Y.2d 364 (1993), the Court of Appeals held that cellular telephone facilities qualified for a public use variance, pursuant to Consolidated Edison. The Court noted that cellular telephones were heavily regulated under the Public Service Law and the Transportation Corporations Law, and that there was a need for an additional cell tower, to remedy a gap in service coverage. The Court of Appeals repeated and reaffirmed its earlier determination that, in order to obtain a variance, "the utility must show that modification is a public necessity in that it is required to render safe and adequate service, and that there are compelling reasons, economic or otherwise" which justify the departure from existing zoning standards, Consolidated Edison, 43 N.Y.2d at 611, quoted in Cellular Telephone, 82 N.Y.2d at 372 and cited with approval at 373.

I am aware that the advocates of wind power have frequently claimed that wind turbines will qualify as a public utility, and will therefore be entitled to the relaxed zoning standards that the Court of Appeals has authorized in Consolidated Edison and Cellular Telephone Company. Nevertheless, I respectfully submit that such an opinion represents mere wishful thinking on the part of wind advocates. No court has ever held that any privately owned, unregulated electric generating facility, including a wind turbine, is a public utility entitled to relaxed zoning. In any event, commercial wind plants simply do not meet the basic criteria for the application of the public utility exception because, rather than generating electricity for a public need, they are generating electricity for private sale, and wind turbines are not subject to governmental regulation.

It is important to note that while there have been a number of cases citing Cellular Telephone since 1993, no New York State Court has applied the public utility doctrine to any facility other than cellular telephones. Furthermore, even for cellular telephones, the question of whether the public utility doctrine applies must be considered on a case-by-case basis, Nextel v. Fort Ann, 1 A.D.3d 89,93 (3d Dept. 2003). In any event, in all of the cases since Cellular Telephone, courts have noted that the cellular telephone company must demonstrate that the requested variance is actually necessary to enable the requester to fulfill its mission as a public utility. In most of these cases, the cellular telephone company demonstrated such a need, and the Court overturned the variance denial (but see Cellco. Partnership v. Town of Hurley, 262 A.D.2d 849 (3d Dept. 1999), where the Court determined that the telephone company had not met its burden, and sustained the denial of the variance).

In the event that a wind developer applies for a special use permit in the Town of Richmondville, it would initially be required to present arguments as to why it is a public utility. Assuming that it met the three criteria for public utility, that it: 1) provides an essential service, 2) is subject to public regulation, and 3) needs the specific site in question, it would still need to demonstrate that there is a "public necessity" for the electricity that will be generated. I do not believe that a wind turbine developer can meet such a burden. To meet such a burden, the developer would have to show why the wind turbine is necessary when other, cheaper power is available. If the proposed developer cannot make the necessary showing, the Zoning Board of Appeals would be well within its authority to deny an application for either a special use permit, or for a variance to permit the siting of the wind turbine.

Conclusion

There may be some advantages for the Town of Richmondville to adopt regulations to specifically address the potential development of wind energy within the Town. However, at the present time, the Town's existing Zoning Ordinance provides protection against unwanted wind turbines. In any event, the Town can provide adequate protection by adopting a moratorium until it can make a careful, reasoned determination of how it wants to handle the prospective development of wind energy.

Consequently, the Town Board should not take any immediate action with respect to the adoption of a wind ordinance, but should instead take the necessary time to determine the best course of action to protect the citizens of the Town, and to evaluate all of the costs and benefits that may be associated with the potential development of wind energy within the Town.

Very truly yours,

Peter Henner

cc:
Marvin Parshall, Jr., Town of Richmondville Attorney
Harold Loder, Chairman, Town of Richmondville Planning Poard
Gene DiMarco, Town of Richmondville Code Enforcement Officer
Michael West, Schoharie County Attorney

This Politician Understands the Wind Industry

2009-10-22T18:17:00.000-07:00

WHY I VOTED AGAINST WINDPOWER

John F. “Jack” Sullivan
Town Councilor
Malone, NY

July 22, 2006

To whom it may concern:

To some, my vote against wind power in Malone was a vote against progress; however, be assured that this decision was based on hundreds of hours of study and research, as well as numerous mathematical calculations backed by years of business experience and a graduate degree in physics. This vote was against the degradation of local property values, destruction of some wonderful viewsheds, lowering the quality of life of some local residents, and the accruing of millions of dollars of NY taxpayer dollars by a few wind developers.

The following should be kept in mind concerning New York wind power projects:

(1) Not a single kw-hr. of electricity will go directly to local residents. Over 99.9% of the power produced goes out of town, mostly to large urban areas.

(2) Wind power WILL NOT be cheaper. Currently, National Grid offers wind power at 1.5 cents above market. ( How can they possibly separate wind power to an individual house?) Last year, when the largest wind project in the east went on-line, did your light bill decrease?

(3) Wind power has almost no relation to oil imports. Almost no electricity is produced by burning oil. Because of the expense of oil, the few oil fired plants in the country are used mainly as backups during peak demand, such as sultry summer days when wind is virtually nonexistent. Wind power would not dent our oil imports. All of New York's wind turbines produce less energy in a year than is contained in ONE DAY’S WORTH of imported oil. Besides this, the tiny amount of oil used to generate electricity all comes from the residue (basically, sludge) left over in the tanks from refining gas and diesel fuel. Essentially, then, this oil is a waste by-product of gas and diesel refinement.

(4) The typical PILOT program offered by area wind developers is far less than 1% of the total budgets of the taxing entities involved. PILOTS are a tiny percentage of company profits. You & I pay full taxes; it is unfair not to demand this of the wind energy companies, which contribute very little by way of jobs to the local economy.

(5) Currently, North Country wind projects can have towers within 1000' of an inhabited dwelling. This distance is much too close for a 400' tall tower. Towers this close have a potential for causing many problems, including: lowering property values, shadow flicker (an annoying problem and, for people prone to seizure disorder or car-sickness or sea-sickness, a serious health hazard that occurs when the sun is low on the horizon), bird kills (especially on migratory routes, as we have here with the Greater Snow Geese and other species), and excessive (health-damaging) sound levels. NOTE: sound pressure levels (decibels) emitted by wind turbines vary widely, depending on wind speed and direction, distance from turbine blades, and even time of day. Scientists using professional-grade instruments have measured sound levels up to 84 db. at 3300' ( over half a mile). That's twice the noise level of a 500 hp Corvette under full throttle.

(6) Windpower is unpredictable: you never know how much you are going to get or how long it will last. The wind salesmen are wont to lead us to believe that the nameplate capacity is the same as the constant output of the turbines. A 1.5 MW GE turbine doesn't produce 1.5 MW until wind gets to 16-18 m/s (about 36 to 40 mph ). Production drops off dramatically at lower wind speeds: less than 0.2 MW at 20 mph, and a miniscule 0.02 MW at 10 mph. Malone's past 2-year average wind speed was 6.05 mph-not enough even to start a large wind turbine. Why try to have a wind project in Malone? READ ON!

(7) The current 1.5 MW turbines have been in use over ten years. Why then, only now, do we get this onslaught of wind developers? The answer is recent government tax credits, subsidies and rapid depreciation allowances. Actually, their cumulative value is more than the value of the electricity produced. It seems likely that without our tax dollars the New York wind industry would simply vanish.

(8) In testing its own turbines GE found their overall net efficiency to be 10 percent!

(9) Wind developers say wind turbines use free fuel and are totally emission free. What they don’t acknowledge is that the emissions produced in manufacturing, transporting, construction and erection of a tower may take up to 7 years of operation to get back.

(10) The wind industry's goal is to produce 10% of NY's electricity. This is either an impossible dream or a blueprint for unbelievable destruction of rural NY landscape. Ten percent of NY's power is about 4000 MW, which translates into 15,000 1.5 MW turbines at 25% efficiency (probably a generous figure ). Since NY wind projects use an average of 60 acres per tower (according to NYSERDA), this means using 900,000 acres of our land for the next 20-50 years. According to NYSERDA (New York State Energy Research & Development Authority), 4000MW of (unpredictable, often gusting) wind power is likely to completely destabilize the entire power grid.

(11) Wind turbines shut down other facilities when in operation, thus reducing polluting emissions. However, figures of reduced emissions published by wind developers are greatly overblown, since only certain types of plants are taken off-line. The first to shut down are pure turbine natural gas plants, which produce much less pollution than coal plants and, secondly, hydro plants are shut down. It is absurd to replace one non-polluting renewable source with another.

(12) In initial presentations the wind salesmen promised up to 45 permanent jobs as a result of a 67 turbine project in Malone. My research found the industry average was 1 job per 10-12 turbines. Either the wind salesmen were exaggerating or they had the most inefficient company in the industry. In addition, their claimed "economic benefits" for the area included the cost of turbines (purchased in foreign countries) and construction contracts (most of which would certainly be awarded to out-of-area firms).

(13) The wind salesmen who invaded Malone actually had their lawyers write a zoning ordinance to govern themselves and then tried clandestinely to sneak it into the Planning Board as a sample from another town. One provision would have allowed 400’ high turbines less than 500’ from a home (the closest in NY State, I believe).

(14) The Malone wind project proposal would have impacted 5000 acres of land for up to 50 years, with little net gain to the community at large.

In attending a number of wind developer presentations it became obvious that they contained duplicitous, misleading statements, exaggerated benefits, and ignored the disadvantages. This, alone, was enough to turn me against wind power for Northern New York.

In addition, I really can’t reconcile the wind companies’ insistence on leasing land when they can buy it cheaper. Liability avoidance? Plans to walk out when the project is depreciated?

And you should see the lease agreements! I have never seen such a one-sided document in my life! I find it hard to believe anyone who signed this read it carefully. I’m sure many only read the financial clauses. I say, “Get a lawyer!” I would be happy to share a lease agreement with anyone wishing to examine one.

Is industrial wind power presently a viable choice for Northern New York? I think not. Yes, we need to reduce emissions and find user-friendly alternatives. Here are some realistic ways of accomplishing this:

(1) Industrial & residential conservation. The average homeowner can reduce electricity use by 15-25% with only very affordable expenditures.

(2) Clean up emissions from coal plants. Entirely feasible and less costly per megawatt-hour than wind power.

(3) Build some nuclear plants. France is 80% nuclear, SAFELY. It is far more dangerous to cross Malone’s Main St. than to live near an American nuclear power plant.

(4) Encourage small wind turbines (as the Malone local law does) and solar installations, both of which give realistic energy aid to local residents, instead of resorting to industrial wind turbines, which provide billions in tax money to multi-billion-dollar companies that take most of the profits out of the area.

AG Cuomo's Code of Conduct for Wind Energy Companies

2009-10-22T18:02:00.000-07:00

Listed below are the rules wind energy companies must comply with in NYS. Please note that all easements and leases must now be in writing and filed with the county clerk. Since wind companies have low or no ethics and normally operate under the radar and covertly - here's your opportunity to make an attempt to find out if they are active in your county and town. Simply present yourself at the county clerk's office and file a F.O.I.L. (freedom of information law) request to look at all leases and easements for your county from wind companies. There's no charge to do this just to look at them and obtaining copies is cheap.

ATTORNEY GENERAL CUOMO ESTABLISHES CODE OF CONDUCT FOR WIND ENERGY COMPANIES OPERATING IN NEW YORK
Noble Environmental Power and First Wind first to sign Wind Industry Ethics Code
New Task Force to monitor and ensure compliance includes: District Attorneys Gerald Stout, Michael Green, and Derek Champagne, Executive Director of the NYS Association of Counties Stephen Acquario, Executive Director of the NYS Association of Towns G. Jeffrey Haber, and NYPIRG’s Legislative Director Blair Horner
ALBANY, N.Y. (October 30, 2008) – Attorney General Andrew M. Cuomo today announced a new Wind Industry Ethics Code that establishes guidelines to facilitate the development of alternative energy in New York while assuring the public the wind power industry is acting properly and within the law. The Code calls for new oversight through a multi-agency Task Force, and establishes unprecedented transparency that will deter any improper relationships between wind development companies and local government officials.
The first companies to sign the Attorney General’s Wind Industry Ethics Code are Essex, Connecticut-based Noble Environmental Power, LLC and Newton, Massachusetts-based First Wind (formerly known as UPC Wind). Both companies currently operate wind farms in New York and have several others in development.
“Wind power is an exciting industry for the state that will be a cornerstone of our energy future. But it is important to make sure that this alternative energy sector develops in a way that maintains the public’s confidence, and that is what this new Code of Conduct does,” said Attorney General Cuomo. “I commend Noble and First Wind for taking the lead by adopting this Code, and we fully expect other companies that want to develop wind farms in New York to follow suit.”
The Wind Industry Ethics Code is a result of the Attorney General’s investigation into, among other things, whether companies developing wind farms improperly sought land-use agreements with citizens and public officials, and whether improper benefits were given to public officials to influence their official actions relating to wind farm development. Both Noble and First Wind fully cooperated in the inquiry and their assistance was instrumental in developing the Code of Conduct that is being announced today.
The Attorney General's Wind Industry Ethics Code prohibits conflicts of interest between municipal officials and wind companies and establishes vast new public disclosure requirements. The Code:
· Bans wind companies from hiring municipal employees or their relatives, giving gifts of more than $10 during a one-year period, or providing any other form of compensation that is contingent on any action before a municipal agency
· Prevents wind companies from soliciting, using, or knowingly receiving confidential information acquired by a municipal officer in the course of his or her officials duties
· Requires wind companies to establish and maintain a public Web site to disclose the names of all municipal officers or their relatives who have a financial stake in wind farm development
· Requires wind companies to submit in writing to the municipal clerk for public inspection and to publish in the local newspaper the nature and scope of the municipal officer’s financial interest
· Mandates that all wind easements and leases be in writing and filed with the County Clerk
· Dictates that within thirty days of signing the Wind Industry Ethics Code, companies must conduct a seminar for employees about identifying and preventing conflicts of interest when working with municipal employees

Wind Farms = lower property values (read this Wisconsin study!)

2009-10-21T19:46:00.000-07:00

Wind Turbine Impact Study

Author: Appraisal Group One

This is a study of the impact that wind turbines have on residential property value. The wind turbines that are the focus of this study are the larger turbines being approximately 389ft tall and producing 1.0+ megawatts each.

The study has been broken into three component parts, each looking at the value impact of the wind turbines from a different perspective. The three parts are: (1) a literature study, which reviews and summarizes what has been published on this matter found in the general media; (2) an opinion survey, which was given to area Realtors to learn their opinions on the impact of wind turbines in their area; and, 3) sales studies, which compared vacant residential lot sales within the wind turbine farm area to comparable sales located outside of the turbine influence.

The sponsor for this study was the Calumet County Citizens for Responsible Energy (CCCRE) (Calumet County, Wisconsin), which contracted our firm, Appraisal Group One, to research the value impact that wind turbines have on property value. Appraisal Group One (AGO) protected against outside influence from CCCRE by having complete independence to the gathering of facts, data and other related material and the interpretation of this data to the purpose of this study. AGO chose the location of the study, the search parameters, the methodology used and the three-step approach to the study. AGO does not enter into any contract that would espouse any preconceived notion or have a bias as to the direction of the study and its findings. The purpose of the study was to investigate the value impacts of large wind turbines, the issues influencing these impacts and to report these findings on an impartial basis. …

The geographic area of this study was focused in Dodge and Fond du Lac Counties. These two counties have three large wind farms. They are:

* WE Energies − Blue Sky Green Field wind farm which has approximately 88 wind turbines and is located in the northeast section of Fond du Lac County, bordering Calumet County to the north.
* Invenergy − Forward wind farm which has approximately 86 wind turbines and is located in southwest Fond du Lac County and northeast Dodge County.
* Alliant − Cedar Ridge wind farm which has approximately 41 wind turbines and is located in the southeastern part of Fond du Lac County.

Of these three wind farms, only the WE Energies and Invenergy wind farms were used in the sales study since the Alliant – Cedar Ridge wind farm did not have enough viable sales within the turbine influence area to use as a base of comparison. The Realtor survey was limited to Fond du Lac and Dodge Counties, that being the area which had the three wind farms. …
Summary of Findings & Conclusion of Impact

The survey indicated that in all but two scenarios (those being Questions #8 and #9), over 60% the participants thought that the presence of the wind turbines had a negative impact on property value. This was true with vacant land and improved land. Where the group diverted from that opinion is when they were presented with a 10-20 acre hobby farm being in close and near proximity. In these cases 47% (close proximity) and 44% (near proximity) of the participants felt that the wind turbines caused a negative impact in property value.

The answers showed that bordering proximity showed the greatest loss of value at −43% for 1-5 acre vacant land and −39% for improved properties. Next in line was the close proximity showing a −36% value loss for 1-5 acre vacant land and −33% for improved property. Last in line was the near proximity, showing a −29% loss of value for a 1-5 acre vacant parcel and −24% loss in value for improved parcels. These losses show a close relationship between vacant land and improved land. This pattern was replicated regarding the bordering proximity for a hobby farm, whereas 70% believed it would be negatively impacted. Lastly, the opinions regarding the impact of the wind turbines due to placement, that being in front of the residence or behind the residence, showed that in both situations most participants believed there would a negative impact (74% said negative to the front placement and 71% said negative to the rear placement).

In conclusion, it can be observed that: (a) in all cases with a 1-5 acre residential property, whether vacant or improved, there will be a negative impact in property value; (b) with 1-5 acre properties the negative impact in property value in bordering proximity ranged from −39% to −43%; (c) with 1-5 acre properties the negative impact in property value in close proximity ranged from −33% to −36%; (d) with 1-5 acre properties the negative impact in property value in near proximity ranged from −24% to −29%; (e) in all cases the estimated loss of value between the vacant land and improved property was close, however the vacant land estimates were always higher by a few percentage points; (f) it appears that hobby farm use on larger parcels would have lesser sensitivity to the proximity of wind turbines than single family land use; and (g) placement either in front or at the rear of a residence has similar negative impacts.

Eminent Domain & Article X - the Public Loses

2009-10-13T19:50:00.000-07:00

The Prattsburgh, NY town board (Steuben County) in 2008 brought local government to a new low by voting (3-2) to use eminent domain against private land owners who refused to allow wind farm developers to bury their electric cables on their private land. This is the act of taking someone’s legitimate property by force – against the will of the property owner. The use of eminent domain brought by the town board against its townspeople was requested by the wind developer – First Wind! This is akin to holding a gun against someone’s head before asking them to decide. This is appalling. The case was heard in NYS Supreme Court, Appellate Div., 4th Dept. (Rochester, NY) in Dec. 2008 and the land owners LOST the case.

And the NYS Legislature is considering passing Article X of the NYS Public Service Law that would allow bureaucrats from Albany and downstate to site an electrical generating plant anywhere in NYS without the site municipality’s permission thereby trumping municipal home rule law. In other words your town board could not say NO to the project! Can you imagine how wind developers would love this debacle?

With repugnant issues like these looming over New Yorkers – is it any wonder why people are leaving this state in droves?

Friendly Iberdrola? You Must Be Kidding!

2009-10-13T19:34:00.000-07:00

Seen the recent large ads’ from Iberdrola in Rochester’s Democrat & Chronicle lately - the ones that say, “A friendly wind is coming your way…” and promise reliable wind power? They’re lying to you big time. There is no friendly wind from Iberdrola - what they’re serving you is foul air. What’s friendly about pitting neighbor against neighbor or splitting communities and destroying friendships over wind farms? What’s friendly about massive 400-foot high structures conflicting with the landscape and ruining the view shed? Do friends kill birds and bats like wind turbines do? What’s friendly about darkness loss the turbines create or the incessant low frequency noise the rotor blades generate? What’s friendly about the loss of property value those will suffer who live near one of these behemoths? What’s reliable about a machine that doesn’t work over 70% of the time? What’s friendly about the use of eminent domain to steal private property for this disgusting use? Think about transferring the critical electrical power generation, transmission and distribution infrastructure to foreigners like Iberdrola – this is NOT wise! We do NOT need wind turbines in New York State.

Turbines in Lake Ontario & Lake Erie? Beware!

2009-10-13T18:52:00.001-07:00

Governor Patterson wants them. The New York Power Authority (NYPA), America’s largest state-owned power organization and Richard Kessel, newly named New York Power Authority chief executive – wants them and he’s a huge, huge supporter of offshore wind turbines. (The NY Power Authority announced an initiative on Aril 22, 2009 that could lead to the construction of a billion-dollar wind farm off the Lake Erie or Ontario shorelines) NYSERDA (New York State Energy Research and Development Authority) supports them. NYC Mayor Bloomberg is actively involved in an offshore Long Island wind project. Sen. Schumer is a strong wind turbine supporter. Do you think these people care about the disappearance of your quality of life as long as they appear to be “green” to voters? Patterson, the lowest rated NYS governor in our lifetime, can still do considerable damage until NY voters finally kick him out for good.

But think about & consider the following:

Noise from offshore wind turbines will carry many times further than land based turbines and disturb far more people than terrestrial located wind turbines. The value of shoreline property will be dramatically reduced as a result of offshore turbine generated noise. Wind farm developers have downplayed and denied and lied about turbine noise for years! The loss of sleep is only the beginning of health problems associated with turbine noise. Research the Internet about this horrible turbine generated nuisance – better yet read Dr. Nina Pierpont’s new book: Wind Turbine Syndrome A Report on a Natural Experiment.

Catastrophic loss of property value - After turbines are placed in the lakes - the view shed of those waterfront property owners, traditionally the highest taxed property owners in any community – will be negatively changed forever causing their property to become considerably less valuable. People living near the Lake Ontario and Lake Erie shoreline will become victims of this appalling industrial development while the foreigners financially backing this calamity (with American taxpayer help and support from betraying NYS politicians) enjoy huge profits at the expense of the NYS taxpayers while suffering virtually none of the consequences. People living near the shoreline and subject to turbine noise, loss of the natural lake views, shadowing, light trespass and other turbine generated nuisances that never before existed – will demand enormous reductions in their assessments for loss of property values, etc. and then head for the courts when the town’s assessor’s turn them down. When lakeshore property owners finally realize the dilemma they’re in and can’t sell out – they’ll be prisoners in their own homes on the waterfront. For lakeshore property owners - offshore wind farms will become a legal apocalypse.

Loss of view shed –The aesthetic effect of numerous offshore wind turbines on the Lake Ontario/Lake Erie shoreline would be disastrous – forever! Can you imagine watching a gorgeous lake sunset or sunrise through the rotating blades of a battery of wind turbines? What do you think will command your attention?

Light trespass - The bright blinking red strobe lights atop the off-shore turbines will also reflect in the shimmering water and look like a water-borne emergency or carnival - every night –a repulsive distraction - forever. The blinking will be heightened during a haze or fog. Not only will your daytime view shed be destroyed – your loss of darkness at night will be missed too - forever.

Shadow flicker (or shadowing) when the turbines blade comes between you and the sun leaving you in the shadow. Shadow flicker will provoke quality of life issues and precipitate health problems for people living near the turbines. See how long you can stand someone in the room turning the lights off and on every 3 seconds! This is similar to shadowing. Again – read Dr. Pierpont’s book.

Other important issues -

Recreational boating near these offshore wind farms will be negatively changed forever. (Can you imagine hitting one of these turbines at night? Or not being able to pilot a boat or watercraft near an offshore wind farm due to restrictions?)

Offshore turbines are a threat to commercial and recreational fishing as well as shipping.

Offshore turbines will adversely affect communications, marine radio, television reception, microwave communication and aviation & weather radar.

Birds, bats, fisheries and aquatic resources will take an enormous hit from offshore wind farms.

There will be spillages and discharges from the turbine nacelles (they contain hundreds of gallons of fluids) & rotors contaminating lake waters. Lightening strikes and turbine fires will happen much less collapsed turbines like the one that self-destructed & collapsed near Altona, NY on March 6, 2009 and was kept quiet.

Ice impact on freshwater offshore wind turbine towers is a virtual unknown posing another potential danger of this development. (will NYS be the guinea pig in this experiment?)

Municipalities located near off-shore wind turbines will be powerless to control this unwanted development, especially regarding setbacks, because municipal authority ends at the shoreline. Federal and NYS authorities will decide and process if a wind farm is erected in Lakes Ontario and Erie. What a win-win situation this would become for the foreign dominated corrupt wind industry – no PILOT payments or other taxes to pay, no town officials to deal with, no bribing of local officials is needed, no frantic townspeople to face, no local public information meetings or local public hearings to deal with. The whole offshore wind project will be handled by federal people you don’t know, people you didn’t elect and people who don’t live near the disgusting wind turbines they will help develop. It’s likely the project is owned by corrupt foreigners who will rape NYS while enjoying the profits in their homeland. The Army Corp of Engineers and Public Service Commission will be big players trying to force this development onto New Yorkers. The NYS PSC has recently approved $95M for renewable energy projects in NYS including wind and don’t forget the PSC approved Iberdrola’s $4.6 billion acquisition of Energy East earlier this year. (Iberdrola of Spain is the largest wind farm developer in the world. U.S. Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y. pressured the PSC to approve the Iberdrola deal without any restrictions on wind development)

Not one commercial wind turbine has ever been placed in fresh water anywhere in the world.

More and larger turbines will populate an offshore wind farm.

Decommissioning (read: removal) of the rusting offshore inoperable turbine hulks will take a lifetime at great taxpayer expense – victimizing a community yet again!

Wind turbine energy is a fraudulent sideshow technology that will never pay for itself, will hurt many New Yorkers and cost NY taxpayers billions with little return.