Maligning community leaders does not help wind debate
SATURDAY, FEBRUARY 28, 2009
"It was the best of times. It was the worst of times." This is a quote that is well known, and I am sad to say we saw it played out in the last month in our small town of Cape Vincent.
First, we saw a tragic event happen when a young Cape Vincent man was murdered in his prime by a senseless shooting that took place as he was trying to help another in his EMS duties. This community united, and a fantastic tribute took place in his memory.
Then just a few days ago, while the community was still mourning over losing one of our young community members, some anti-wind folks viciously and maliciously attacked our town and Planning Board members in a public forum. These anti-wind folks cruelly condemned a group of our second- and third-generation citizens, accusing them of lying and abusing their voter-given rights when making decisions about wind farms.
I don't care if you are for wind or full of wind, we have known these men and women for 30-plus years and their families before them. In all that time, never have we known them to act in any way other than exemplary in their duties as elected officials.
Maybe anti-wind groups can say the same about their own group members, but I am sure the Cape Vincent community would like a complete list of the group members so that we can scrutinize their duties and contributions to our community.
If anti-wind folks' goal was to unite this community in full and enduring support of our town board and Planning Board members, then they have succeeded.
Gary and Ellen King
Cape Vincent
Saturday, February 28, 2009
Friday, February 27, 2009
Turbines will upset Hammond's way of life ~ Letter
Turbines will upset Hammond's way of life
FRIDAY, FEBRUARY 27, 2009
The very thought that wind turbines could be installed along the St. Lawrence River at Hammond is sickening. It will destroy a whole way of life. I am the granddaughter of Del and Nellie Haas, who lived at 70 Church St., Alexandria Bay, and the niece of Raymond and Mary Haas, who lived at 86 Church. My mother, Helen Haas Gormley, was born and raised in the beautiful Thousand Islands.
From the day I was born I spent summer vacations at the river. They were wondrous, beautiful days enjoying the natural beauty and the wildlife and fishing in the area. My whole family are great fishermen, and my grandfather and grandmother and uncle were duck hunters. The first cousins still gather every year for a reunion on the St. Lawrence. We love the quiet beauty and the magic of the river. My children and grandchildren have become river rats. Why do people flock to the area? Just for those very reasons. Everyone who lives there is dependent on tourism for their livelihood.
We have encountered the same disturbing business in the Southern Tier Finger Lakes region, a beautiful hilly region of natural wonder. It is shocking to drive around a curve of Route 53 going toward Naples and find yourself right next to one of these turbines. The size of them is unbelievable and scary. The noise is constant and unbearable. As the local people found out after the fact, no one in this part of the state will benefit from that energy source. Did their utility bills go down? Oh no.
My heart aches for the citizens of Hammond, both year-round and seasonal, for they are about to lose their entire way of life and the wildlife and peace and quiet of the area. The natural beauty will be gone. Friends and neighbors will be choosing camps, and lifelong grudges will be formed. Is it worth it just to pick up a few thousand bucks? Ask the people of Lowville what it has done to families and neighbors. I say to the turbine industry, go away and leave us alone. Stop appealing to people's sense of greed no matter what the cost.
Catherine Gormley Read
Macedon
FRIDAY, FEBRUARY 27, 2009
The very thought that wind turbines could be installed along the St. Lawrence River at Hammond is sickening. It will destroy a whole way of life. I am the granddaughter of Del and Nellie Haas, who lived at 70 Church St., Alexandria Bay, and the niece of Raymond and Mary Haas, who lived at 86 Church. My mother, Helen Haas Gormley, was born and raised in the beautiful Thousand Islands.
From the day I was born I spent summer vacations at the river. They were wondrous, beautiful days enjoying the natural beauty and the wildlife and fishing in the area. My whole family are great fishermen, and my grandfather and grandmother and uncle were duck hunters. The first cousins still gather every year for a reunion on the St. Lawrence. We love the quiet beauty and the magic of the river. My children and grandchildren have become river rats. Why do people flock to the area? Just for those very reasons. Everyone who lives there is dependent on tourism for their livelihood.
We have encountered the same disturbing business in the Southern Tier Finger Lakes region, a beautiful hilly region of natural wonder. It is shocking to drive around a curve of Route 53 going toward Naples and find yourself right next to one of these turbines. The size of them is unbelievable and scary. The noise is constant and unbearable. As the local people found out after the fact, no one in this part of the state will benefit from that energy source. Did their utility bills go down? Oh no.
My heart aches for the citizens of Hammond, both year-round and seasonal, for they are about to lose their entire way of life and the wildlife and peace and quiet of the area. The natural beauty will be gone. Friends and neighbors will be choosing camps, and lifelong grudges will be formed. Is it worth it just to pick up a few thousand bucks? Ask the people of Lowville what it has done to families and neighbors. I say to the turbine industry, go away and leave us alone. Stop appealing to people's sense of greed no matter what the cost.
Catherine Gormley Read
Macedon
Turbine noise dissected~LAFARGEVILLE
Turbine noise dissected
By NANCY MADSEN
TIMES STAFF WRITER
FRIDAY, FEBRUARY 27, 2009
LAFARGEVILLE — At its meeting Tuesday night, the Orleans wind committee got confirmation from an expert that turbines produce low-frequency noise and could cause health problems.
The committee held a conference call with Richard R. James, principal consultant at E-Coustic Solutions, Okemos, Mich. Mr. James has more than 35 years' experience and worked on revising the International Electrotechnical Commission's standard for measuring turbine sound levels. He worked with George W. Kamperman, consulting engineer in acoustics at Kamperman Associates Inc., Wisconsin Dells, Wis., on creating a guide to siting wind turbines for local governments.
Mr. James said low-frequency sound and infrasound, the lowest-frequency sound, are felt, not heard.
"Typically, they are not even measured," he said. "They are not very common in nature, but a few examples are distant thunder and tornadoes."
In creating guidelines for siting, Mr. James reviewed noise standards and studies from around the world. Many noise regulations for wind turbines are based on measurements that weigh audible noise, or dBA.
"But there are still hundreds of complaints of low-frequency noise annoyance in those communities," Mr. James said. "We decided we needed to include a low-frequency noise measure in the standard."
In their siting guide, Mr. James and Mr. Kamperman said audible sound from turbines should not exceed 5 decibels above pre-construction ambient noise levels. Low-frequency noise should not exceed 5 decibels above the pre-construction measurement. Those limits, they said, should be met at nonparticipating landowners' property lines.
"It's a standard for communities that could be enforced with instruments that most acoustic engineers have access to," he said.
He said walls and windows block audible noise well but do not block low-frequency sound.
Mr. James also said low-frequency noise causes health problems.
"We've known since the 1950s that sound outside the home can cause sleep disturbance," he said. "We also know noise, sleep and health are related."
He said that sleep disturbance, vibro-acoustic disease and wind turbine syndrome have been connected with low-frequency noise.
"It's clear that the majority of sound energy from a turbine is in the low-frequency range, but none of the information from a wind developer ever describes that fact," Mr. James said. "None of the data for the lower frequencies is collected or figured as part of their tests."
Mr. James said communities should have their ambient-noise levels tested by qualified engineers before a wind farm is developed.
The committee next will meet at 7 p.m. March 10 at the town office, when Keith D. Pitman, president and chief executive officer of Empire State Wind Energy, will present information on wind development and Charles E. Ebbing, facilitator and retired acoustic engineer with Carrier Corp., will talk about low-frequency noise and annoyance.
By NANCY MADSEN
TIMES STAFF WRITER
FRIDAY, FEBRUARY 27, 2009
LAFARGEVILLE — At its meeting Tuesday night, the Orleans wind committee got confirmation from an expert that turbines produce low-frequency noise and could cause health problems.
The committee held a conference call with Richard R. James, principal consultant at E-Coustic Solutions, Okemos, Mich. Mr. James has more than 35 years' experience and worked on revising the International Electrotechnical Commission's standard for measuring turbine sound levels. He worked with George W. Kamperman, consulting engineer in acoustics at Kamperman Associates Inc., Wisconsin Dells, Wis., on creating a guide to siting wind turbines for local governments.
Mr. James said low-frequency sound and infrasound, the lowest-frequency sound, are felt, not heard.
"Typically, they are not even measured," he said. "They are not very common in nature, but a few examples are distant thunder and tornadoes."
In creating guidelines for siting, Mr. James reviewed noise standards and studies from around the world. Many noise regulations for wind turbines are based on measurements that weigh audible noise, or dBA.
"But there are still hundreds of complaints of low-frequency noise annoyance in those communities," Mr. James said. "We decided we needed to include a low-frequency noise measure in the standard."
In their siting guide, Mr. James and Mr. Kamperman said audible sound from turbines should not exceed 5 decibels above pre-construction ambient noise levels. Low-frequency noise should not exceed 5 decibels above the pre-construction measurement. Those limits, they said, should be met at nonparticipating landowners' property lines.
"It's a standard for communities that could be enforced with instruments that most acoustic engineers have access to," he said.
He said walls and windows block audible noise well but do not block low-frequency sound.
Mr. James also said low-frequency noise causes health problems.
"We've known since the 1950s that sound outside the home can cause sleep disturbance," he said. "We also know noise, sleep and health are related."
He said that sleep disturbance, vibro-acoustic disease and wind turbine syndrome have been connected with low-frequency noise.
"It's clear that the majority of sound energy from a turbine is in the low-frequency range, but none of the information from a wind developer ever describes that fact," Mr. James said. "None of the data for the lower frequencies is collected or figured as part of their tests."
Mr. James said communities should have their ambient-noise levels tested by qualified engineers before a wind farm is developed.
The committee next will meet at 7 p.m. March 10 at the town office, when Keith D. Pitman, president and chief executive officer of Empire State Wind Energy, will present information on wind development and Charles E. Ebbing, facilitator and retired acoustic engineer with Carrier Corp., will talk about low-frequency noise and annoyance.
Clayton wind panel gets Cornell expert's advice on turbines
By NANCY MADSEN
TIMES STAFF WRITER
FRIDAY, FEBRUARY 27, 2009
Link to article
CLAYTON — The town's wind committee heard its second and possibly final expert at its meeting Thursday.
Paul G. Carr, engineering professor at Cornell University, Ithaca, and one of the founding principals of Bernier, Carr and Associates, Watertown, gave the committee more information on noise and safety setbacks.
Clayton's standing law, like many in the state, uses a 50-decibel limit for sound from turbines. That is the suggestion made by the New York State Energy Research and Development Authority.
"Much of the siting issues are tied to guidelines from NYSERDA, which published model ordinances for towns," he said. "Unfortunately, NYSERDA hired a number of firms who were also hired by energy companies."
He confirmed what Gregory C. Tocci, a senior principal consultant at Cavanaugh Tocci Associates, suggested to the committee. Mr. Carr and Mr. Tocci agreed the best way to control noise levels is to have an ordinance that allows only 5 decibels above pre-construction ambient noise.
Model leases also published by NYSERDA would give developers the right to general noise up to 65 decibels above ambient-noise levels. Under guidelines from the state Department of Environmental Conservation, sound that is 20 decibels above ambient is considered "objectionable."
If ambient is 40 or 45 decibels during the day, the upper limit of 110 decibels is the same level of sound that an accelerating motorcycle or a live rock band would produce.
Information from different wind turbine manufacturers claims current turbine models produce 100 to 105 decibels at the hub.
"It is illogical for NYSERDA to promote that as standard," Mr. Carr said.
Mr. Carr also explained that noise decreases by 6 decibels every time the distance from the noise producer is doubled. So if a turbine produced 100 decibels and the noise needed to be about 35 decibels to meet the ambient-noise-plus-5 requirement, the distance required would be more than 2,000 feet.
The noise consultant for Iberdrola on Horse Creek Wind Farm, CH2MHill, did a good job showing the sound levels in the proposed wind farm area, Mr. Carr said. It found the ambient noise levels to be as low as 28 decibels. And it said that adding the turbines would increase the noise levels by around 15 decibels at residences in the wind farm area.
"That is intrusive," Mr. Carr said. "Unless you put people who are non-leaseholders in a bargaining position to give noise easements to the developers."
He also warned against making short setbacks from roads and participating landowners.
"Public health and safety should not be a measure of a project's success," he said.
By the speed of turbine blades and height of the turbines, Mr. Carr said ice or blade parts could be thrown up to 1,300 feet from the turbine's base.
Committee member Patricia A. Patchen asked him for a number of failures or injuries in the U.S. Mr. Carr said he didn't know exactly how many incidents of failure or injuries there have been, but comparing it to bridge failure, he said, "As engineers, we design for the worst and hope for the best."
During the committee's discussion, members discussed the possibility of health effects from low-frequency noise.
"I want to have something that says, 'You need to do this or people will be sick,'" said member Leslie E. Drake.
Dr. John W. Jepma, another member, said, "You're not going to get what you want — 100 percent this causes this — but the evidence is there that causes concern."
At its next meeting, at 6 p.m. March 12 at the Antique Boat Museum, the committee will bring its suggestions for changing the law and discuss them. It could be the last meeting.
TIMES STAFF WRITER
FRIDAY, FEBRUARY 27, 2009
Link to article
CLAYTON — The town's wind committee heard its second and possibly final expert at its meeting Thursday.
Paul G. Carr, engineering professor at Cornell University, Ithaca, and one of the founding principals of Bernier, Carr and Associates, Watertown, gave the committee more information on noise and safety setbacks.
Clayton's standing law, like many in the state, uses a 50-decibel limit for sound from turbines. That is the suggestion made by the New York State Energy Research and Development Authority.
"Much of the siting issues are tied to guidelines from NYSERDA, which published model ordinances for towns," he said. "Unfortunately, NYSERDA hired a number of firms who were also hired by energy companies."
He confirmed what Gregory C. Tocci, a senior principal consultant at Cavanaugh Tocci Associates, suggested to the committee. Mr. Carr and Mr. Tocci agreed the best way to control noise levels is to have an ordinance that allows only 5 decibels above pre-construction ambient noise.
Model leases also published by NYSERDA would give developers the right to general noise up to 65 decibels above ambient-noise levels. Under guidelines from the state Department of Environmental Conservation, sound that is 20 decibels above ambient is considered "objectionable."
If ambient is 40 or 45 decibels during the day, the upper limit of 110 decibels is the same level of sound that an accelerating motorcycle or a live rock band would produce.
Information from different wind turbine manufacturers claims current turbine models produce 100 to 105 decibels at the hub.
"It is illogical for NYSERDA to promote that as standard," Mr. Carr said.
Mr. Carr also explained that noise decreases by 6 decibels every time the distance from the noise producer is doubled. So if a turbine produced 100 decibels and the noise needed to be about 35 decibels to meet the ambient-noise-plus-5 requirement, the distance required would be more than 2,000 feet.
The noise consultant for Iberdrola on Horse Creek Wind Farm, CH2MHill, did a good job showing the sound levels in the proposed wind farm area, Mr. Carr said. It found the ambient noise levels to be as low as 28 decibels. And it said that adding the turbines would increase the noise levels by around 15 decibels at residences in the wind farm area.
"That is intrusive," Mr. Carr said. "Unless you put people who are non-leaseholders in a bargaining position to give noise easements to the developers."
He also warned against making short setbacks from roads and participating landowners.
"Public health and safety should not be a measure of a project's success," he said.
By the speed of turbine blades and height of the turbines, Mr. Carr said ice or blade parts could be thrown up to 1,300 feet from the turbine's base.
Committee member Patricia A. Patchen asked him for a number of failures or injuries in the U.S. Mr. Carr said he didn't know exactly how many incidents of failure or injuries there have been, but comparing it to bridge failure, he said, "As engineers, we design for the worst and hope for the best."
During the committee's discussion, members discussed the possibility of health effects from low-frequency noise.
"I want to have something that says, 'You need to do this or people will be sick,'" said member Leslie E. Drake.
Dr. John W. Jepma, another member, said, "You're not going to get what you want — 100 percent this causes this — but the evidence is there that causes concern."
At its next meeting, at 6 p.m. March 12 at the Antique Boat Museum, the committee will bring its suggestions for changing the law and discuss them. It could be the last meeting.
Wednesday, February 25, 2009
Lyme petition signers may have been deceived
Lyme petition signers may have been deceived
WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 25, 2009
In September 2008, Albert Bowers, a member of the town of Lyme Planning Board, circulated a petition asking the town board to appeal Judge Hugh Gilbert's decision which had ruled in favor of those of us who wanted the very restrictive wind law which the town board had adopted thrown out.
Others who carried this petition were Charles R. Wilson, Muriel E. Barkley, Susan B. Warner, Susan Peters, Judith McGaughey, Peggy Ann Fikes, Richard Freshour, Patricia Hughes, Stephen Rutigliano, Gary Bird, Deanne Scanlon, Norman R. Alheim and our Planning Board Chairperson Anne Harris. All these people with the possible exception of one, live on the waterfront.
I feel it is shocking and unacceptable that Planning Board members carried a petition regarding a controversial topic which they are heavily involved in.
But I am even more concerned that people who signed this petition may not have understood what they were signing. If you signed this petition knowing that the law it asked to re-enact would prevent any wind company from ever doing business in Lyme, then you understood it correctly and I respect your right to stand up for your convictions. But if you signed it believing it was a good law which would allow responsible development by a commercial wind company, then you were greatly deceived
If this is the case, please let your town supervisor, Scott Aubertine, know it. Your name should be removed from that petition if you were deceived.
Julia Gosier
Three Mile Bay
WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 25, 2009
In September 2008, Albert Bowers, a member of the town of Lyme Planning Board, circulated a petition asking the town board to appeal Judge Hugh Gilbert's decision which had ruled in favor of those of us who wanted the very restrictive wind law which the town board had adopted thrown out.
Others who carried this petition were Charles R. Wilson, Muriel E. Barkley, Susan B. Warner, Susan Peters, Judith McGaughey, Peggy Ann Fikes, Richard Freshour, Patricia Hughes, Stephen Rutigliano, Gary Bird, Deanne Scanlon, Norman R. Alheim and our Planning Board Chairperson Anne Harris. All these people with the possible exception of one, live on the waterfront.
I feel it is shocking and unacceptable that Planning Board members carried a petition regarding a controversial topic which they are heavily involved in.
But I am even more concerned that people who signed this petition may not have understood what they were signing. If you signed this petition knowing that the law it asked to re-enact would prevent any wind company from ever doing business in Lyme, then you understood it correctly and I respect your right to stand up for your convictions. But if you signed it believing it was a good law which would allow responsible development by a commercial wind company, then you were greatly deceived
If this is the case, please let your town supervisor, Scott Aubertine, know it. Your name should be removed from that petition if you were deceived.
Julia Gosier
Three Mile Bay
Wind projects are a win-win solution ~ letter to the Editor
Watertown Daily Times | Wind projects are a win-win solution
WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 25, 2009
Wind makes sense for Cape Vincent. Many Cape Vincent residents are concerned with the local economy. Jobs are disappearing, farms are disappearing, taxes are up and the price of milk is down to levels of the 1980s. Those of us who are fortunate to have jobs worry about layoffs.
There is no one solution for the economic crisis, but part of the solution has been handed to the town of Cape Vincent. Two wind power projects have been proposed in the agricultural area of Cape Vincent. Wind farms create jobs for local contractors, local businesses will feel the influx of new revenue, landowners will receive royalties, taxes will decrease, the school can use the revenue for numerous improvements; the list goes on and on.
The silent majority sees the wind farm as a godsend in a particularly difficult time. The minority of naysayers spread lies and accuse our public leaders of not looking out for the town, when in fact the Cape Vincent town and planning boards have always looked out for the best interest of the majority. From the Cape Vincent Correctional Facility, to the numerous water districts, our leaders have done their best to make informed decisions that have served us well for many years.
The development of wind farms is a win-win situation for the majority. As our new president enters the White House and relays his vision for clean energy for our nation, we need to support clean energy initiatives right here in our own town.
Voters for Wind hopes to put our community in Cape Vincent in the forefront of this initiative, taking steps to inform and support the construction of the renewable-energy projects that will benefit everyone.
Kenneth White
Cape Vincent
WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 25, 2009
Wind makes sense for Cape Vincent. Many Cape Vincent residents are concerned with the local economy. Jobs are disappearing, farms are disappearing, taxes are up and the price of milk is down to levels of the 1980s. Those of us who are fortunate to have jobs worry about layoffs.
There is no one solution for the economic crisis, but part of the solution has been handed to the town of Cape Vincent. Two wind power projects have been proposed in the agricultural area of Cape Vincent. Wind farms create jobs for local contractors, local businesses will feel the influx of new revenue, landowners will receive royalties, taxes will decrease, the school can use the revenue for numerous improvements; the list goes on and on.
The silent majority sees the wind farm as a godsend in a particularly difficult time. The minority of naysayers spread lies and accuse our public leaders of not looking out for the town, when in fact the Cape Vincent town and planning boards have always looked out for the best interest of the majority. From the Cape Vincent Correctional Facility, to the numerous water districts, our leaders have done their best to make informed decisions that have served us well for many years.
The development of wind farms is a win-win situation for the majority. As our new president enters the White House and relays his vision for clean energy for our nation, we need to support clean energy initiatives right here in our own town.
Voters for Wind hopes to put our community in Cape Vincent in the forefront of this initiative, taking steps to inform and support the construction of the renewable-energy projects that will benefit everyone.
Kenneth White
Cape Vincent
Tuesday, February 24, 2009
Cape supervisor is degrading government ~ Letter
Cape supervisor is degrading government
TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 24, 2009
A recent newspaper article brought the best of our town supervisor Tom Rienbeck. He reportedly is angered by an ad placed in the Watertown Daily Times by the Wind Power Ethics Group. The ad lists the members of the town board and Planning Board who have conflicts of interest relating to wind power in the town of Cape Vincent.
Mr. Rienbeck is not angry because the information is inaccurate and untruthful. This information was quietly disclosed back in July of 2008. Apparently the disclosures were supposed to "remain under the radar" never to be discussed again. Mr. Rienbeck said the ad was "pretty upsetting" and that "it felt like a slap in the face ... it's an attempt to degrade the town government."
How does the publication of factual information slap someone in the face and degrade the town government? Is it because Mr. Rienbeck wanted the board to vote on the new wind power zoning law while most people were completely unaware of the deep conflicts of interest of three of the board members? Very, very, clever. Now who's degrading town government?
Mr. Rienbeck also said, "I heard comments by opponents of wind power and they were somewhat happy with what we put together. As much as they've said they're in favor of wind power, this makes it look more like they're not in favor." Say what?
First of all, what is somewhat happy? Is it 25 percent happy, or 50 percent happy? In the first sentence, Mr. Rienbeck mentions opponents of wind power and in the second sentence Mr. Rienbeck referred to these same people as being in favor of wind power. Isn't that referred to as double-talk?
He concludes that since WPEG ran the ad in the newspaper, WPEG members are not in favor of wind power. That conclusion couldn't be further from the truth. I know several WPEG members who are in favor of wind turbines so long as they are properly sighted. Apparently Mr. Rienbeck thinks WPEG should overlook the illegal and unethical conflicts of interest of these particular board members so that we can have a wind power zoning law on the books. Hmmm. What an interesting concept of town government.
Finally, Rienbeck says he is considering halting the process of writing a new zoning law because of what WPEG did. He's going to punish the whole community because WPEG informed the whole community about the widespread conflicts of interest of town officials. Now who's degrading town government?
Tom Gormel
Cape Vincent
Monday, February 23, 2009
Groups want changes to Wind Ethics code
Watertown Daily Times | Groups want changes to code
WIND ETHICS: State's pact being negotiated for many developers
By NANCY MADSEN
TIMES STAFF WRITER
MONDAY, FEBRUARY 23, 2009
Nearly four months after the state attorney general's office established a code of conduct for wind energy developers, local wind farm developers have not yet signed on.
In fact, only the two out-of-state companies that signed the agreement Oct. 30 have committed to following the attorney general's Wind Industry Ethics Code. Those two companies, Noble Environmental Power LLC, Essex, Conn., and First Wind, Newton, Mass., signed the pact after an investigation by Attorney General Andrew M. Cuomo into allegations that they were bribing local officials to push through wind projects.
WIND ETHICS: State's pact being negotiated for many developers
By NANCY MADSEN
TIMES STAFF WRITER
MONDAY, FEBRUARY 23, 2009
Nearly four months after the state attorney general's office established a code of conduct for wind energy developers, local wind farm developers have not yet signed on.
In fact, only the two out-of-state companies that signed the agreement Oct. 30 have committed to following the attorney general's Wind Industry Ethics Code. Those two companies, Noble Environmental Power LLC, Essex, Conn., and First Wind, Newton, Mass., signed the pact after an investigation by Attorney General Andrew M. Cuomo into allegations that they were bribing local officials to push through wind projects.
Alliance for Clean Energy New York~ wants changes to code
Watertown Daily Times Groups want changes to code
Groups want changes to code
WIND ETHICS: State's pact being negotiated for many developers
By NANCY MADSEN
TIMES STAFF WRITER
MONDAY, FEBRUARY 23, 2009
Nearly four months after the state attorney general's office established a code of conduct for wind energy developers, local wind farm developers have not yet signed on.
In fact, only the two out-of-state companies that signed the agreement Oct. 30 have committed to following the attorney general's Wind Industry Ethics Code. Those two companies, Noble Environmental Power LLC, Essex, Conn., and First Wind, Newton, Mass., signed the pact after an investigation by Attorney General Andrew M. Cuomo into allegations that they were bribing local officials to push through wind projects.
"The office continues to investigate various complaints and talk to the industry about the code," said John T. Milgrim, spokesman for the attorney general's office. "The code is what was developed as best practices for the industry, which is similar to codes for other industries."
He said the code gives transparency on conflicts of interest between wind developers and municipal officials.
The Alliance for Clean Energy New York is negotiating with the attorney general's office on behalf of many wind developers, including the four in Lewis and Jefferson counties. About 20 wind power developers are among its 52 members. Carol E. Murphy, executive director of the alliance, called the negotiations "collegial discussions."
She wouldn't discuss the details of the negotiations, but said, "We're trying to reach something that meets the needs for the attorney general's office and still allows wind development in the state."
She said the original code of ethics does not address cases such as community wind development or municipalities or schools installing wind turbines.
"If a code will apply to the industry, it needs to work for the industry," she said.
Conflicts of interest are a cornerstone of concerns of the Wind Power Ethics Group in Cape Vincent. The group published an advertisement on Feb. 15 highlighting contracts six municipal board members have with wind power developers.
"There has been no requirement by local officials for the wind companies to abide by Attorney General Cuomo's guidelines," group member John L. Byrne said Monday in explaining the ad. "It creates an atmosphere of suspicion."
Supervisor Thomas K. Rienbeck said Friday that the town lawyer and the attorney general's office asked the town to disclose possible conflicts of interest. Three members of the Planning Board and three Town Council members reported signed contracts with wind developers in July.
"You can't change the town board members," he said. "They were elected to the position."
On the Planning Board, two members have apparent conflicts with each developer, so a majority could still approve measures on each wind farm if those with conflicts abstained. But on the council, voting on a zoning law or payment-in-lieu-of-taxes agreement would require those accused of having conflicts to vote to gain a majority.
"We're in a tough situation," Mr. Rienbeck said. "It's one of those things that the antis have stirred up that probably exists in all small towns."
The supervisors of Clayton and Hounsfield, other towns with wind development in Jefferson County, were unavailable for comment Friday afternoon.
Cape Vincent Wind Farm project manager James H. Madden said the original Wind Industry Ethics Code held certain components that wouldn't work for some developers. The only provision he would specifically cite requires wind developers to educate all officers and employees on identifying and preventing conflicts of interest with municipal officers.
"BP has 100,000 employees worldwide," he said. "Training all of them on law in New York would not work."
Galloo Island Wind Farm developer Babcock & Brown Ltd. is part of the discussions, as well. Spokesman Matthew C. Dallas said in an e-mail that the developer is considering the code.
Representatives of Acciona, developer of St. Lawrence Wind Farm, and Iberdrola, developer of Horse Creek Wind Farm, did not return calls for comment Thursday or Friday.
)
Groups want changes to code
WIND ETHICS: State's pact being negotiated for many developers
By NANCY MADSEN
TIMES STAFF WRITER
MONDAY, FEBRUARY 23, 2009
Nearly four months after the state attorney general's office established a code of conduct for wind energy developers, local wind farm developers have not yet signed on.
In fact, only the two out-of-state companies that signed the agreement Oct. 30 have committed to following the attorney general's Wind Industry Ethics Code. Those two companies, Noble Environmental Power LLC, Essex, Conn., and First Wind, Newton, Mass., signed the pact after an investigation by Attorney General Andrew M. Cuomo into allegations that they were bribing local officials to push through wind projects.
"The office continues to investigate various complaints and talk to the industry about the code," said John T. Milgrim, spokesman for the attorney general's office. "The code is what was developed as best practices for the industry, which is similar to codes for other industries."
He said the code gives transparency on conflicts of interest between wind developers and municipal officials.
The Alliance for Clean Energy New York is negotiating with the attorney general's office on behalf of many wind developers, including the four in Lewis and Jefferson counties. About 20 wind power developers are among its 52 members. Carol E. Murphy, executive director of the alliance, called the negotiations "collegial discussions."
She wouldn't discuss the details of the negotiations, but said, "We're trying to reach something that meets the needs for the attorney general's office and still allows wind development in the state."
She said the original code of ethics does not address cases such as community wind development or municipalities or schools installing wind turbines.
"If a code will apply to the industry, it needs to work for the industry," she said.
Conflicts of interest are a cornerstone of concerns of the Wind Power Ethics Group in Cape Vincent. The group published an advertisement on Feb. 15 highlighting contracts six municipal board members have with wind power developers.
"There has been no requirement by local officials for the wind companies to abide by Attorney General Cuomo's guidelines," group member John L. Byrne said Monday in explaining the ad. "It creates an atmosphere of suspicion."
Supervisor Thomas K. Rienbeck said Friday that the town lawyer and the attorney general's office asked the town to disclose possible conflicts of interest. Three members of the Planning Board and three Town Council members reported signed contracts with wind developers in July.
"You can't change the town board members," he said. "They were elected to the position."
On the Planning Board, two members have apparent conflicts with each developer, so a majority could still approve measures on each wind farm if those with conflicts abstained. But on the council, voting on a zoning law or payment-in-lieu-of-taxes agreement would require those accused of having conflicts to vote to gain a majority.
"We're in a tough situation," Mr. Rienbeck said. "It's one of those things that the antis have stirred up that probably exists in all small towns."
The supervisors of Clayton and Hounsfield, other towns with wind development in Jefferson County, were unavailable for comment Friday afternoon.
Cape Vincent Wind Farm project manager James H. Madden said the original Wind Industry Ethics Code held certain components that wouldn't work for some developers. The only provision he would specifically cite requires wind developers to educate all officers and employees on identifying and preventing conflicts of interest with municipal officers.
"BP has 100,000 employees worldwide," he said. "Training all of them on law in New York would not work."
Galloo Island Wind Farm developer Babcock & Brown Ltd. is part of the discussions, as well. Spokesman Matthew C. Dallas said in an e-mail that the developer is considering the code.
Representatives of Acciona, developer of St. Lawrence Wind Farm, and Iberdrola, developer of Horse Creek Wind Farm, did not return calls for comment Thursday or Friday.
)
Tuesday, February 17, 2009
DEC gives guidelines for turbine bird studies
DEC gives guidelines for turbine bird studiesBy TOM WANAMAKER
TIMES ALBANY CORRESPONDENT
TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 17, 2009
ALBANY — Wind energy developers in New York now have guidelines on how to survey potential turbine sites for their impact on birds and bats.
Earlier this month, the state Department of Environmental Conservation issued its advice regarding how to minimize damage to bat and bird habitats.
"These guidelines set forth DEC's recommendations to commercial wind energy developers on how to characterize bird and bat resources at on-shore wind energy sites and how to estimate and document impacts resulting from the construction and operation of these projects," Alexander B. "Pete" Grannis, DEC commissioner, said in a press release.
DEC said its guidelines "are intended to provide comparability of data collection among sites and between years so that the information from each site contributes to a statewide understanding of the ecological effects of wind energy generation."
In the introduction to the guidelines themselves, DEC said that any "effort required to fully understand the movement of birds and bats at any given locale would be monumental and would take many years. Therefore, the studies recommended here are considered the minimum effort necessary to characterize bird and bat activity at a given project location within a reasonable time frame relative to construction."
The guidelines can be seen on the Internet at: http://www.dec.ny.gov/energy/40966.html
TIMES ALBANY CORRESPONDENT
TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 17, 2009
ALBANY — Wind energy developers in New York now have guidelines on how to survey potential turbine sites for their impact on birds and bats.
Earlier this month, the state Department of Environmental Conservation issued its advice regarding how to minimize damage to bat and bird habitats.
"These guidelines set forth DEC's recommendations to commercial wind energy developers on how to characterize bird and bat resources at on-shore wind energy sites and how to estimate and document impacts resulting from the construction and operation of these projects," Alexander B. "Pete" Grannis, DEC commissioner, said in a press release.
DEC said its guidelines "are intended to provide comparability of data collection among sites and between years so that the information from each site contributes to a statewide understanding of the ecological effects of wind energy generation."
In the introduction to the guidelines themselves, DEC said that any "effort required to fully understand the movement of birds and bats at any given locale would be monumental and would take many years. Therefore, the studies recommended here are considered the minimum effort necessary to characterize bird and bat activity at a given project location within a reasonable time frame relative to construction."
The guidelines can be seen on the Internet at: http://www.dec.ny.gov/energy/40966.html
Ethics Ad Has Rienbeck angry
Ethics ad has official angry
SUPERVISOR RILED: Conflict of interest issue raised again on wind farm plan
By NANCY MADSEN
TIMES STAFF WRITER
TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 17, 2009
CAPE VINCENT — An advertisement by the Wind Power Ethics Group has angered Supervisor Thomas K. Rienbeck
so much that he's considering halting progress on a revised wind development zoning law.
"I'm only one person on the board, but I certainly am not interested in the town spending any more money on getting this law through," he said.
The group's ad, which ran in Sunday's Times, outlined potential conflicts of interest State Sen. Darrel J. Aubertine, three Town Council members and three Planning Board members have with wind developers. The conflicts are leases they or family members have signed with one or both of the wind farm developers in the town.
The conflicts were acknowledged publicly in July when the board members filled out disclosure forms. Town officials with conflicts are town Councilmen Marty T. Mason, Donald J. Mason and Joseph H. Wood and Planning Board Chairman Richard J. Edsall and members Karen Bourcy and Andrew R. Binsley.
The ad, addressed to the project managers of the two wind farms, said, "You have entered into contracts with many of our town's officials and their families knowing this would create blatant conflicts of interest. This is a violation of the town's ethics code and NY State law."
It blamed the developers for creating the "unethical situation and bitter community" and called on state and local officials to investigate the conflicts of interest.
"It was pretty upsetting to see something like that," Mr. Rienbeck said. "It felt like a slap in the face ... it's an attempt to degrade the town government."
The Wind Power Ethics Group had a 10-member committee work on the ad, which was also reviewed by attorneys. Members of that committee said the content of the town's revised law is immaterial to the town's problem with conflicts of interest.
"Regardless of the content, it is illegal and unethical for three members of the board to vote on the law," member Arthur D. Pundt said. "That's something they will have to clean up. It needs to be resolved before things continue."
He said the disclosures should have happened immediately after those town officials entered contracts with developers. The town's ethics code states officials should declare conflicts whenever they know they could gain from proposed legislation.
"We wanted to bring conflicts of interest into the open so everyone is aware of how deep it is and how wide it goes," Mr. Pundt said.
Group member John L. Byrne said the entire process in the town was tainted because of the early failure of members to report and recuse themselves from votes based on conflicts.
"To gain the citizens' trust and confidence, they need different people voting on these issues," he said. "It's like a referee umpiring a game that he has bets on."
Mr. Rienbeck said the town has spent about $15,000 working on the wind zoning ordinance so far. A committee completed a five-month review of a proposed zoning ordinance in January. Mr. Rienbeck said he thought members of Wind Power Ethics Group had supported many of the changes.
"I heard comments by opponents of wind power and they were somewhat happy with what we put together," he said. "As much as they've said they're in favor of wind power, this makes it look more like they're not in favor."
Group member Brooks J. Bragdon said that the proposed zoning law does not sufficiently protect visual resources of the town.
"We've got a very, very unique community on the state level, the national level and even the international level," he said. "The purpose of the underlying zoning law is to protect the community. There is nothing in the zoning law that protects the aesthetics of the community."
Mr. Rienbeck said that if progress on the new wind development zoning law is suspended or if a vote does not occur, the current law stands. In the zoning law, wind farms are now considered utilities. That classification is undergoing a legal challenge by Wind Power Ethics Group.
"They need to keep in mind that if a law is not passed," he said, "wind power development is allowed to occur anywhere in the town under the current law."
SUPERVISOR RILED: Conflict of interest issue raised again on wind farm plan
By NANCY MADSEN
TIMES STAFF WRITER
TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 17, 2009
CAPE VINCENT — An advertisement by the Wind Power Ethics Group has angered Supervisor Thomas K. Rienbeck
so much that he's considering halting progress on a revised wind development zoning law.
"I'm only one person on the board, but I certainly am not interested in the town spending any more money on getting this law through," he said.
The group's ad, which ran in Sunday's Times, outlined potential conflicts of interest State Sen. Darrel J. Aubertine, three Town Council members and three Planning Board members have with wind developers. The conflicts are leases they or family members have signed with one or both of the wind farm developers in the town.
The conflicts were acknowledged publicly in July when the board members filled out disclosure forms. Town officials with conflicts are town Councilmen Marty T. Mason, Donald J. Mason and Joseph H. Wood and Planning Board Chairman Richard J. Edsall and members Karen Bourcy and Andrew R. Binsley.
The ad, addressed to the project managers of the two wind farms, said, "You have entered into contracts with many of our town's officials and their families knowing this would create blatant conflicts of interest. This is a violation of the town's ethics code and NY State law."
It blamed the developers for creating the "unethical situation and bitter community" and called on state and local officials to investigate the conflicts of interest.
"It was pretty upsetting to see something like that," Mr. Rienbeck said. "It felt like a slap in the face ... it's an attempt to degrade the town government."
The Wind Power Ethics Group had a 10-member committee work on the ad, which was also reviewed by attorneys. Members of that committee said the content of the town's revised law is immaterial to the town's problem with conflicts of interest.
"Regardless of the content, it is illegal and unethical for three members of the board to vote on the law," member Arthur D. Pundt said. "That's something they will have to clean up. It needs to be resolved before things continue."
He said the disclosures should have happened immediately after those town officials entered contracts with developers. The town's ethics code states officials should declare conflicts whenever they know they could gain from proposed legislation.
"We wanted to bring conflicts of interest into the open so everyone is aware of how deep it is and how wide it goes," Mr. Pundt said.
Group member John L. Byrne said the entire process in the town was tainted because of the early failure of members to report and recuse themselves from votes based on conflicts.
"To gain the citizens' trust and confidence, they need different people voting on these issues," he said. "It's like a referee umpiring a game that he has bets on."
Mr. Rienbeck said the town has spent about $15,000 working on the wind zoning ordinance so far. A committee completed a five-month review of a proposed zoning ordinance in January. Mr. Rienbeck said he thought members of Wind Power Ethics Group had supported many of the changes.
"I heard comments by opponents of wind power and they were somewhat happy with what we put together," he said. "As much as they've said they're in favor of wind power, this makes it look more like they're not in favor."
Group member Brooks J. Bragdon said that the proposed zoning law does not sufficiently protect visual resources of the town.
"We've got a very, very unique community on the state level, the national level and even the international level," he said. "The purpose of the underlying zoning law is to protect the community. There is nothing in the zoning law that protects the aesthetics of the community."
Mr. Rienbeck said that if progress on the new wind development zoning law is suspended or if a vote does not occur, the current law stands. In the zoning law, wind farms are now considered utilities. That classification is undergoing a legal challenge by Wind Power Ethics Group.
"They need to keep in mind that if a law is not passed," he said, "wind power development is allowed to occur anywhere in the town under the current law."
Sunday, February 15, 2009
Clayton panel rethinking law on wind
By NANCY MADSEN
TIMES STAFF WRITER
SUNDAY, FEBRUARY 15, 2009
Link Here
CLAYTON — The town's wind committee got a tutorial on noise and advice on rewriting the noise standard in the local wind development ordinance at its meeting Thursday night.
After the session, some members said it may be time to consider changing the law.
The committee had a teleconference with Gregory C. Tocci, principal at Cavanaugh Tocci Associates, Sudbury, Mass. Mr. Tocci's firm evaluated the noise studies done in Clayton by consultant CH2MHill for Iberdrola and in Cape Vincent by consultant Hessler Associates for BP Alternative Energy.
Clayton's current law allows for 50 decibels of noise measured at off-site residences, schools, hospitals, churches or public libraries. But Mr. Tocci recommended the committee use a set number of decibels above ambient noise levels as a standard.
"If you use an arbitrary number, you run the risk that it is too low or too high," he said.
Audible sound is measured in decibels as A-weighted sound.
"When a new facility is introduced, a person's judgment isn't necessarily based on the A-weighted sound itself, but how the A-weighted sound compares to the sound in the environment before it was introduced," he said.
According to the state Department of Environmental Conservation, the increase should be less than six decibels.
"It is very likely to say that 50 decibels allowed in the law would be more liberal than the DEC would allow," he said.
Mr. Tocci said it is entirely possible that in the country, background noise could be in the 20 decibel range.
"It may rise to more than 40 in the day or 70 in cities," he said.
He explained a few common terms of noise measurement. Background sound is termed "L90," or the noise level that is exceeded 90 percent of the time. "L10" is noise that is exceeded 10 percent of the time. The average of noise energy measured over time is "Leq."
He recommended basing a noise standard on the L90, or background noise. Transient sounds, such as a dog bark or a car passing by, would not influence the L90, but could influence the Leq.
"There's an advantage in using the background sound level because transients are not included," he said. "The sound of a truck comes and goes, but a wind turbine stays."
Sound should be measured either in the winter or in both winter and summer.
He said the state gives no guidelines on how sound should be measured. The wind industry generally uses 10-minute intervals, but Mr. Tocci recommended hour-long intervals measured over the course of a week.
"The low points are not as low, and the high points are not as high," he said.
He also said sound monitors should be placed every one-quarter of a mile, and sometimes even farther apart based on the topography and number of nearby houses.
In the Horse Creek draft environmental impact statement, CH2MHill tried to correlate wind speed and noise level. Mr. Tocci said this was a reasonable assumption, but the measurements were inappropriate to show greater wind speed meant more noise.
"Wind speed needs to be measured reasonably close to the sound monitor to have a relationship to the sound level," he said. "Wind has nothing to do with background noise in the way they measured it."
The consultants used only five sound monitoring stations and fewer wind speed devices. They also used wind measurements from 10 meters — or almost 33 feet — above the surface.
"Because it's a phenomenon at ground level, the best correlation would be measuring wind at ground level," Mr. Tocci said.
He explained that industry standards have allowed researchers to use data from 10 meters above the ground and then calculate what the wind speed would be at the surface and at a wind turbine's hub height. That may no longer be appropriate, based on a recently published paper.
After talking to Mr. Tocci, many on the committee agreed the wind zoning ordinance needed to be revised, at least as far as the noise requirement is concerned.
"Do we need to proceed with changing the law?" member Leslie E. Drake asked. "I've digested enough to say it needs to be changed."
TIMES STAFF WRITER
SUNDAY, FEBRUARY 15, 2009
Link Here
CLAYTON — The town's wind committee got a tutorial on noise and advice on rewriting the noise standard in the local wind development ordinance at its meeting Thursday night.
After the session, some members said it may be time to consider changing the law.
The committee had a teleconference with Gregory C. Tocci, principal at Cavanaugh Tocci Associates, Sudbury, Mass. Mr. Tocci's firm evaluated the noise studies done in Clayton by consultant CH2MHill for Iberdrola and in Cape Vincent by consultant Hessler Associates for BP Alternative Energy.
Clayton's current law allows for 50 decibels of noise measured at off-site residences, schools, hospitals, churches or public libraries. But Mr. Tocci recommended the committee use a set number of decibels above ambient noise levels as a standard.
"If you use an arbitrary number, you run the risk that it is too low or too high," he said.
Audible sound is measured in decibels as A-weighted sound.
"When a new facility is introduced, a person's judgment isn't necessarily based on the A-weighted sound itself, but how the A-weighted sound compares to the sound in the environment before it was introduced," he said.
According to the state Department of Environmental Conservation, the increase should be less than six decibels.
"It is very likely to say that 50 decibels allowed in the law would be more liberal than the DEC would allow," he said.
Mr. Tocci said it is entirely possible that in the country, background noise could be in the 20 decibel range.
"It may rise to more than 40 in the day or 70 in cities," he said.
He explained a few common terms of noise measurement. Background sound is termed "L90," or the noise level that is exceeded 90 percent of the time. "L10" is noise that is exceeded 10 percent of the time. The average of noise energy measured over time is "Leq."
He recommended basing a noise standard on the L90, or background noise. Transient sounds, such as a dog bark or a car passing by, would not influence the L90, but could influence the Leq.
"There's an advantage in using the background sound level because transients are not included," he said. "The sound of a truck comes and goes, but a wind turbine stays."
Sound should be measured either in the winter or in both winter and summer.
He said the state gives no guidelines on how sound should be measured. The wind industry generally uses 10-minute intervals, but Mr. Tocci recommended hour-long intervals measured over the course of a week.
"The low points are not as low, and the high points are not as high," he said.
He also said sound monitors should be placed every one-quarter of a mile, and sometimes even farther apart based on the topography and number of nearby houses.
In the Horse Creek draft environmental impact statement, CH2MHill tried to correlate wind speed and noise level. Mr. Tocci said this was a reasonable assumption, but the measurements were inappropriate to show greater wind speed meant more noise.
"Wind speed needs to be measured reasonably close to the sound monitor to have a relationship to the sound level," he said. "Wind has nothing to do with background noise in the way they measured it."
The consultants used only five sound monitoring stations and fewer wind speed devices. They also used wind measurements from 10 meters — or almost 33 feet — above the surface.
"Because it's a phenomenon at ground level, the best correlation would be measuring wind at ground level," Mr. Tocci said.
He explained that industry standards have allowed researchers to use data from 10 meters above the ground and then calculate what the wind speed would be at the surface and at a wind turbine's hub height. That may no longer be appropriate, based on a recently published paper.
After talking to Mr. Tocci, many on the committee agreed the wind zoning ordinance needed to be revised, at least as far as the noise requirement is concerned.
"Do we need to proceed with changing the law?" member Leslie E. Drake asked. "I've digested enough to say it needs to be changed."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)