Bookkeeping change addresses wind controversy
By NANCY MADSEN Watertown Daily Times, N.Y.
Publication: Watertown Daily Times (New York)
Date: Sunday, June 27 2010
June 27--CAPE VINCENT - To provide more public oversight on how wind developers are spending money on town attorneys and engineers, Supervisor Urban C. Hirschey has opened the books on two escrow accounts.
Those accounts - which total more than $160,000 - were set up by wind-power developers to help the town pay legal fees related to their projects' development. By opening the books, transactions from those accounts would be disclosed to the public.
to continue reading link here
Sunday, June 27, 2010
Saturday, June 26, 2010
Canadian firm will discuss wind project
Watertown Daily Times | Canadian firm will discuss wind project
PUBLIC MEETING: Company will unveil Duck Island plans
By NANCY MADSEN
TIMES STAFF WRITER
SATURDAY, JUNE 26, 2010
A Canadian company with an offshore wind power project planned for south and west of the Duck Islands will have a public meeting on this side of the border.
Trillium Power Wind Corp., Toronto, is proposing Trillium Power Wind 1, a 414-megwatt project.
PUBLIC MEETING: Company will unveil Duck Island plans
By NANCY MADSEN
TIMES STAFF WRITER
SATURDAY, JUNE 26, 2010
A Canadian company with an offshore wind power project planned for south and west of the Duck Islands will have a public meeting on this side of the border.
Trillium Power Wind Corp., Toronto, is proposing Trillium Power Wind 1, a 414-megwatt project.
Tuesday, June 22, 2010
GALLOO PSC ~ Procedural Ruling
STATE OF NEW YORK
PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION
CASE 09-T-0049 - Application of Upstate NY Power Corp. for a Certificate of Environmental Compatibility and Public Need for a 50.6 mile 230kV Transmission Facility From Galloo Island in the Town of Hounsfield, Jefferson County, to the Fitzpatrick-Edic Substation in the Town of Mexico, Oswego County.
(Issued June 22, 2010)
PROCEDURAL RULING
KEVIN J. CASUTTO, Administrative Law Judge:
On December 17, 2009, a Ruling on Schedule was issued, providing for evidentiary hearings from April 8, 2010 through April 22, 2010. On February 17, 2010, Upstate NY Power Corp., Inc. (Upstate Power) filed a letter-motion seeking to cancel the hearing schedule, supplement its application regarding alternatives analysis and its community involvement and outreach plan. On February 26, 2010, Department of Public Service Staff (Staff) filed a reply and cross-motion for suspension and postponement of litigation schedule. Additionally, on March 2, 2010, Roberta French, representative for citizen intervenor Margate Gavin, has provided comments in reply to the motion and cross-motion.
On March 31, 2010, a Ruling Canceling Schedule was issued, canceling the litigation schedule and stating that a procedural conference will be convened on September 15, 2010. In that ruling, I indicated that the parties’ remaining relief sought in the motion and cross-motion remains under review.
During a telephone conference on May 18, 2010, with Upstate Power, Staff, and Ms. French, Upstate Power indicated it is going forward with the additional alternatives analysis and anticipates filing a revised alternatives analysis sufficiently prior to the September 15, 2010 procedural conference, to allow the parties to review that analysis prior to the procedural
CASE 09-T-0049
-2-
conference. In addition, prior to September 15, 2010, Upstate Power will engage in outreach with affected municipalities regarding the revised alternatives analysis. It is my understanding, at this time, that neither Upstate Power nor Staff seek further relief pursuant to their respective motions. Therefore, unless Upstate Power or Staff notify me to the contrary, the motion and cross-motion are deemed withdrawn, without prejudice to renew, 10 days following the date of this ruling.
As stated above, a procedural conference will be convened on the morning of September 15, 2010 to consider further scheduling proposals. The location and time of the procedural conference will be the subject of public notice at a later date.
(SIGNED) KEVIN J. CASUTTO
PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION
CASE 09-T-0049 - Application of Upstate NY Power Corp. for a Certificate of Environmental Compatibility and Public Need for a 50.6 mile 230kV Transmission Facility From Galloo Island in the Town of Hounsfield, Jefferson County, to the Fitzpatrick-Edic Substation in the Town of Mexico, Oswego County.
(Issued June 22, 2010)
PROCEDURAL RULING
KEVIN J. CASUTTO, Administrative Law Judge:
On December 17, 2009, a Ruling on Schedule was issued, providing for evidentiary hearings from April 8, 2010 through April 22, 2010. On February 17, 2010, Upstate NY Power Corp., Inc. (Upstate Power) filed a letter-motion seeking to cancel the hearing schedule, supplement its application regarding alternatives analysis and its community involvement and outreach plan. On February 26, 2010, Department of Public Service Staff (Staff) filed a reply and cross-motion for suspension and postponement of litigation schedule. Additionally, on March 2, 2010, Roberta French, representative for citizen intervenor Margate Gavin, has provided comments in reply to the motion and cross-motion.
On March 31, 2010, a Ruling Canceling Schedule was issued, canceling the litigation schedule and stating that a procedural conference will be convened on September 15, 2010. In that ruling, I indicated that the parties’ remaining relief sought in the motion and cross-motion remains under review.
During a telephone conference on May 18, 2010, with Upstate Power, Staff, and Ms. French, Upstate Power indicated it is going forward with the additional alternatives analysis and anticipates filing a revised alternatives analysis sufficiently prior to the September 15, 2010 procedural conference, to allow the parties to review that analysis prior to the procedural
CASE 09-T-0049
-2-
conference. In addition, prior to September 15, 2010, Upstate Power will engage in outreach with affected municipalities regarding the revised alternatives analysis. It is my understanding, at this time, that neither Upstate Power nor Staff seek further relief pursuant to their respective motions. Therefore, unless Upstate Power or Staff notify me to the contrary, the motion and cross-motion are deemed withdrawn, without prejudice to renew, 10 days following the date of this ruling.
As stated above, a procedural conference will be convened on the morning of September 15, 2010 to consider further scheduling proposals. The location and time of the procedural conference will be the subject of public notice at a later date.
(SIGNED) KEVIN J. CASUTTO
Saturday, June 19, 2010
WOLFE ISLAND WIND FARM ~ BIRD & BAT POST CONSTRUCTION ~ MONITORING REPORT
Richard Blackwell
From Thursday's Globe and Mail
Published on Wednesday, Jun. 09, 2010 9:34PM EDT
.602 birds and 1,270 bats were killed by the turbines over that stretch. While the report says the numbers of dead birds and bats are similar to other wind farms in North America, Ottawa-based environmental advocacy group Nature Canada says the figures are actually surprisingly large and represent a significant threat to several endangered species.
“The monitoring reveals shockingly high numbers of fatalities of both birds and bats,” said Ted Cheskey, manager of bird conservation programs at Nature Canada. He said the figures underline what his organization has been arguing all along, that “there should not be wind turbines put in important bird areas or migratory corridors.”
WOLFE ISLAND ~WIND FARM~ BIRD AND BAT POST CONSTRUCTION MONITORING REPORT ~ July December 2009
From Thursday's Globe and Mail
Published on Wednesday, Jun. 09, 2010 9:34PM EDT
.602 birds and 1,270 bats were killed by the turbines over that stretch. While the report says the numbers of dead birds and bats are similar to other wind farms in North America, Ottawa-based environmental advocacy group Nature Canada says the figures are actually surprisingly large and represent a significant threat to several endangered species.
“The monitoring reveals shockingly high numbers of fatalities of both birds and bats,” said Ted Cheskey, manager of bird conservation programs at Nature Canada. He said the figures underline what his organization has been arguing all along, that “there should not be wind turbines put in important bird areas or migratory corridors.”
WOLFE ISLAND ~WIND FARM~ BIRD AND BAT POST CONSTRUCTION MONITORING REPORT ~ July December 2009
Wednesday, June 16, 2010
Lyme councilmen show a double standard ~ Letter
Watertown Daily Times Lyme councilmen show a double standard
WEDNESDAY, JUNE 16, 2010
On June 9, the town of Lyme held its monthly board meeting. There were two items on the agenda that had significant meaning: Under New Business, "Haying of State Road Ball Fields," and Under Resolutions and Motions, "Scheduling of Wind Law Work Session."
I was in attendance at the board meeting. Why did board members Mike Countryman and Don Bourquin abstain from a vote to have Bourquin Farms cut hay and keep the hay, in lieu of payment, around the ball fields? This is very puzzling. As the Supervisor Scott Aubertine said after the vote, they didn't have to abstain as no money was involved.
However, last year Mr. Countryman assured everyone at a public meeting that there were no conflicts of interest with the Bourquin family who holds wind lease contracts, even though they are related through marriage. Yet to cut hay, he abstained on the vote. Mr. Bourquin, who has a clear conflict, also abstained on the simple vote to cut hay.
Where is their integrity regarding leases held by family members involving thousands of dollars and impacting everyone in the town of Lyme? The public deserves an answer. This is an obvious double standard, and this is why our small towns have been torn apart and have developed a class warfare splitting the very fabric of our communities
Because of this conflict, integrity and honesty have been compromised so family members and friends can secure monetary rewards from wind contracts.
This inconsistency regarding their conflict of interest must be addressed by both men.
Let's be honest with the residents of Lyme who have grave concerns with the trustworthiness of BP and other wind companies. We the people have had enough of this political poison that believes they know best for the rest of us.
This is happening in nearly every small town across the state and country as big industrial wind companies move in on our communities with this plan of action so they can secure themselves profits on the backs of innocent residents.
Steve Rutigliano
Three Mile Bay
WEDNESDAY, JUNE 16, 2010
On June 9, the town of Lyme held its monthly board meeting. There were two items on the agenda that had significant meaning: Under New Business, "Haying of State Road Ball Fields," and Under Resolutions and Motions, "Scheduling of Wind Law Work Session."
I was in attendance at the board meeting. Why did board members Mike Countryman and Don Bourquin abstain from a vote to have Bourquin Farms cut hay and keep the hay, in lieu of payment, around the ball fields? This is very puzzling. As the Supervisor Scott Aubertine said after the vote, they didn't have to abstain as no money was involved.
However, last year Mr. Countryman assured everyone at a public meeting that there were no conflicts of interest with the Bourquin family who holds wind lease contracts, even though they are related through marriage. Yet to cut hay, he abstained on the vote. Mr. Bourquin, who has a clear conflict, also abstained on the simple vote to cut hay.
Where is their integrity regarding leases held by family members involving thousands of dollars and impacting everyone in the town of Lyme? The public deserves an answer. This is an obvious double standard, and this is why our small towns have been torn apart and have developed a class warfare splitting the very fabric of our communities
Because of this conflict, integrity and honesty have been compromised so family members and friends can secure monetary rewards from wind contracts.
This inconsistency regarding their conflict of interest must be addressed by both men.
Let's be honest with the residents of Lyme who have grave concerns with the trustworthiness of BP and other wind companies. We the people have had enough of this political poison that believes they know best for the rest of us.
This is happening in nearly every small town across the state and country as big industrial wind companies move in on our communities with this plan of action so they can secure themselves profits on the backs of innocent residents.
Steve Rutigliano
Three Mile Bay
Lyme to conduct new survey on wind power views
By Nancy Madsen Watertown Daily Times, N.Y.
Publication: Watertown Daily Times (New York)
Date: Wednesday, June 16 2010
Jun. 16--THREE MILE BAY -- It's back to the future for the Lyme Town Council.
While it began reviewing a draft zoning law for wind power development, the council agreed to conduct a new survey of town residents on their attitudes toward allowing such development to occur.
"I don't think we have room for any turbines in the town," Councilwoman Anne M. "Boo" Harris said during the work session Tuesday night. "But I will be glad to abide by a survey. I will abide by what the majority says."
To continue reading link here
Publication: Watertown Daily Times (New York)
Date: Wednesday, June 16 2010
Jun. 16--THREE MILE BAY -- It's back to the future for the Lyme Town Council.
While it began reviewing a draft zoning law for wind power development, the council agreed to conduct a new survey of town residents on their attitudes toward allowing such development to occur.
"I don't think we have room for any turbines in the town," Councilwoman Anne M. "Boo" Harris said during the work session Tuesday night. "But I will be glad to abide by a survey. I will abide by what the majority says."
To continue reading link here
Monday, June 14, 2010
Rep. Owens on wind power subsidies, information
JUDE SEYMOUR
MONDAY, JUNE 14, 2010
Link to WDT Article
During Rep. Bill Owens' town hall forum Sunday, the congressman was twice asked by constituents to take greater rein over the wind power development that is planned for the Thousand Islands region.
The Plattsburgh Democrat stuck to his long-stated position that siting of wind turbines is for the localities to decide, but did offer wind opponents a small measure of hope. The congressman said he shared these constituents' concerns that the government was only relaying information that put wind power development in the best light. Mr. Owens said the federal agencies should make the effort to portray both sides equally - and that he would work toward that goal.
Here's the video and transcript of that first conversation:
Bert Bowers: Congressman, my name is Bert Bowers.
I'm co-chair of an organization called the Coalition to Preserve the Golden Crescent and the Thousand Islands Area.
We formed this coalition earlier this year because all the towns along this end of the lake and the river are experiencing the same problem with wind development. Even if you could argue with wind development is a (garbled) - I'm an engineer and I would argue that it's never going to solve our problems, but - putting that matter aside, the way these wind developers have approached these small towns is very distressing. They come in secretly, sign secret agreements with some of the landowners and only years later do they reveal their intentions to the towns that they're going to construct a wind project, which means essentially taking an area that has been historically a resort area - and many people in the area depend on things like trailers parks, marina, hotels and restaurants for their living - and these are taken on exclusively or primarily by summer residents who come up to enjoy the peace and quiet and the fine scenery that you alleged in Plattsburgh is the same over on this side.
I think there are certainly places - even if you were to agree that wind development is the way to go and it's going to save us from global warming or whatever, there's places where these wind turbines really shouldn't be. Places of great scenic beauty. I think everybody would agree that you wouldn't have them at Mount Rushmore or Yellowstone Park and I don't think they belong in the Thousand Islands or the Golden Crescent either.
It seems the impetus behind these developments is the huge subsidies that they receive from the federal government mainly but also from the state of New York, which has gone along with this program. My frustration after years of fighting this thing is when I go to the federal and state agencies, I get back the same propaganda that the American wind industry puts out. It doesn't seem to be that the government has really taken a look at this, in terms of really asking: Is this really doing what it purports to do, which is reduce greenhouse gas emissions? There are plenty of independent studies around that say it doesn't or, in fact, does the opposite - that it potentially increases the use of our fuel.
I'm hoping that - I know this federal subsidy comes up for renewal every couple of years and I was hoping we can get some of you to stand up against it because I think it results in - we just have this incredible corruption in this area which doesn't seem to go away. We've done a bunch of - New York's attorney general, who developed a code of ethics who the wind developers and we have people who are named on the code of ethics - but the attorney general has nothing for him to enforce. He has no way to enforce this and have these people step down from making decisions. So thank you very much for listening.
Bill Owens: Thank you. From my perspective, I view the wind energy issue in terms of the siting of wind turbines or wind farms as being largely a local issue. It's something the local municipalities need to work their way through and come to a conclusion, presumably after they've held the appropriate hearings and listened to what the residents of the area have to say. In terms of the subsidy question, I think there's some debate about whether or not wind energy is effective. Personally, I think we need to be looking at all the possibilities - wind, nuclear, biomass - everything that's available that we can look at we need to be looking at as options to reduce our dependence on foreign oil. That to me is one of the critical issues both environmentally and economically.
Mr. Bowers: If I may say, the dependence on foreign oil has very little to do with electrical energy production because we don't use oil for more than about one percent of our electricity nationally.
Mr. Owens: I understand that but it's -
Mr. Bowers: This is just a piece of propaganda that the wind industry puts out.
Mr. Owens: And there's a lot of information out there, no doubt. And sorting through all that information - What troubled me most about what you said actually was the fact that when you speak to the government agencies, they're not giving you both sides of the coin.
Mr. Bowers: That's what troubles me as well.
Mr. Owens: And that, I think, is an issue and we need to focus on that. Because for people to make informed decisions, they need to have all of the information, not a piece of the information and not disinformation. In that respect - on the issue of the subsidies, certainly if that comes up and I look at this information more, I will certainly consider your position on that.
Joel Block: My name is Joel Block. I live in Chaumont. Thank you for letting me speak. I'm here to talk about the wind turbines. My wife and I moved up here in 2003 from New York City.
Bill Owens: I could tell.
Mr. Block: We moved up here because the people were friendly and we just fell in love with it. And for us, it's very affordable. We retiring here.
When we first moved up, we considered getting our own personal wind turbine. We thought it would be a wonderful way to reduce the carbon footprint. And upon investigation, I realized it would take at least 30 years to pay back and it was very expensive. So we decided not to.
Then when the issue of industrial turbines came up, we thought: This is the most wonderful thing. Some people consider them majestic in the background and clean air and they couldn't do any harm. It was all pretty good.
Unfortunately, what we learned is that the cost per kilowatt hour is much more expensive for turbines. The cost of the units is deferred by federal and local tax dollars, which means the citizens of Jefferson County and everywhere else are the ones who pay for that. And we had issues of setbacks - how far from the residences, whether there was damage to the wildlife, the birds, the bats, how they affect human health. There were many issues.
When you speak to one side, they say one thing. The other side says the other thing. I have my own opinion, but what I believe the solution is is that there should be a federal bipartisan investigation with scientists not only from the industry who have a vested interest, but the impartial scientist and that they should do the investigation on whether they really do or do not reduce the carbon footprint, if they're cost effective, all the other issues and then to make up guidelines for the local communities, because the local communities cannot afford to do this type of investigation. I think that would be (garbled)
Also we have in Chaumont - in Lyme, excuse me, the town of Lyme and Cape Vincent — we have people sitting on town boards whose families, relatives and friends can benefit from this. And in many instances, they're refusing to recuse themselves from the voting on this, which I believe would be the ethical thing to do. Thank you very much.
Mr. Owens: Again, I would say to you that my view is that we should be making this, in large measure, a local decision in terms of what will happen in local communities. In terms of getting information out where people can make informed, intelligent decisions about what is available in terms of virtually any kinds of technology, I think we do - one of roles the federal government should play is marshaling that information so people can review it and make a determination as to what they believe is appropriate in their community. I don't disagree with that at all. Again, we go back to the issue of information being delivered to communities that is not complete and frequently, not accurate. I would support a proposal that would provide for a high-level, if you will, 40,000 foot view of various technology approaches to determine whether or not in fact they're going to be beneficial as proposed. I'm very comfortable with that.
I'm not comfortable with the idea that the federal government - or for that matter, in many cases the state government - would be, in essence, giving the blueprint that had to be followed. That, in my view, is somewhat problematic.
The issues you addressed in terms of people acting and failing to recuse themselves - Clearly, that's an opportunity for the voters to take a position as it goes forward. And I suspect in some cases maybe the basis for a legal challenge of their decision.
MONDAY, JUNE 14, 2010
Link to WDT Article
During Rep. Bill Owens' town hall forum Sunday, the congressman was twice asked by constituents to take greater rein over the wind power development that is planned for the Thousand Islands region.
The Plattsburgh Democrat stuck to his long-stated position that siting of wind turbines is for the localities to decide, but did offer wind opponents a small measure of hope. The congressman said he shared these constituents' concerns that the government was only relaying information that put wind power development in the best light. Mr. Owens said the federal agencies should make the effort to portray both sides equally - and that he would work toward that goal.
Here's the video and transcript of that first conversation:
Bert Bowers: Congressman, my name is Bert Bowers.
I'm co-chair of an organization called the Coalition to Preserve the Golden Crescent and the Thousand Islands Area.
We formed this coalition earlier this year because all the towns along this end of the lake and the river are experiencing the same problem with wind development. Even if you could argue with wind development is a (garbled) - I'm an engineer and I would argue that it's never going to solve our problems, but - putting that matter aside, the way these wind developers have approached these small towns is very distressing. They come in secretly, sign secret agreements with some of the landowners and only years later do they reveal their intentions to the towns that they're going to construct a wind project, which means essentially taking an area that has been historically a resort area - and many people in the area depend on things like trailers parks, marina, hotels and restaurants for their living - and these are taken on exclusively or primarily by summer residents who come up to enjoy the peace and quiet and the fine scenery that you alleged in Plattsburgh is the same over on this side.
I think there are certainly places - even if you were to agree that wind development is the way to go and it's going to save us from global warming or whatever, there's places where these wind turbines really shouldn't be. Places of great scenic beauty. I think everybody would agree that you wouldn't have them at Mount Rushmore or Yellowstone Park and I don't think they belong in the Thousand Islands or the Golden Crescent either.
It seems the impetus behind these developments is the huge subsidies that they receive from the federal government mainly but also from the state of New York, which has gone along with this program. My frustration after years of fighting this thing is when I go to the federal and state agencies, I get back the same propaganda that the American wind industry puts out. It doesn't seem to be that the government has really taken a look at this, in terms of really asking: Is this really doing what it purports to do, which is reduce greenhouse gas emissions? There are plenty of independent studies around that say it doesn't or, in fact, does the opposite - that it potentially increases the use of our fuel.
I'm hoping that - I know this federal subsidy comes up for renewal every couple of years and I was hoping we can get some of you to stand up against it because I think it results in - we just have this incredible corruption in this area which doesn't seem to go away. We've done a bunch of - New York's attorney general, who developed a code of ethics who the wind developers and we have people who are named on the code of ethics - but the attorney general has nothing for him to enforce. He has no way to enforce this and have these people step down from making decisions. So thank you very much for listening.
Bill Owens: Thank you. From my perspective, I view the wind energy issue in terms of the siting of wind turbines or wind farms as being largely a local issue. It's something the local municipalities need to work their way through and come to a conclusion, presumably after they've held the appropriate hearings and listened to what the residents of the area have to say. In terms of the subsidy question, I think there's some debate about whether or not wind energy is effective. Personally, I think we need to be looking at all the possibilities - wind, nuclear, biomass - everything that's available that we can look at we need to be looking at as options to reduce our dependence on foreign oil. That to me is one of the critical issues both environmentally and economically.
Mr. Bowers: If I may say, the dependence on foreign oil has very little to do with electrical energy production because we don't use oil for more than about one percent of our electricity nationally.
Mr. Owens: I understand that but it's -
Mr. Bowers: This is just a piece of propaganda that the wind industry puts out.
Mr. Owens: And there's a lot of information out there, no doubt. And sorting through all that information - What troubled me most about what you said actually was the fact that when you speak to the government agencies, they're not giving you both sides of the coin.
Mr. Bowers: That's what troubles me as well.
Mr. Owens: And that, I think, is an issue and we need to focus on that. Because for people to make informed decisions, they need to have all of the information, not a piece of the information and not disinformation. In that respect - on the issue of the subsidies, certainly if that comes up and I look at this information more, I will certainly consider your position on that.
Joel Block: My name is Joel Block. I live in Chaumont. Thank you for letting me speak. I'm here to talk about the wind turbines. My wife and I moved up here in 2003 from New York City.
Bill Owens: I could tell.
Mr. Block: We moved up here because the people were friendly and we just fell in love with it. And for us, it's very affordable. We retiring here.
When we first moved up, we considered getting our own personal wind turbine. We thought it would be a wonderful way to reduce the carbon footprint. And upon investigation, I realized it would take at least 30 years to pay back and it was very expensive. So we decided not to.
Then when the issue of industrial turbines came up, we thought: This is the most wonderful thing. Some people consider them majestic in the background and clean air and they couldn't do any harm. It was all pretty good.
Unfortunately, what we learned is that the cost per kilowatt hour is much more expensive for turbines. The cost of the units is deferred by federal and local tax dollars, which means the citizens of Jefferson County and everywhere else are the ones who pay for that. And we had issues of setbacks - how far from the residences, whether there was damage to the wildlife, the birds, the bats, how they affect human health. There were many issues.
When you speak to one side, they say one thing. The other side says the other thing. I have my own opinion, but what I believe the solution is is that there should be a federal bipartisan investigation with scientists not only from the industry who have a vested interest, but the impartial scientist and that they should do the investigation on whether they really do or do not reduce the carbon footprint, if they're cost effective, all the other issues and then to make up guidelines for the local communities, because the local communities cannot afford to do this type of investigation. I think that would be (garbled)
Also we have in Chaumont - in Lyme, excuse me, the town of Lyme and Cape Vincent — we have people sitting on town boards whose families, relatives and friends can benefit from this. And in many instances, they're refusing to recuse themselves from the voting on this, which I believe would be the ethical thing to do. Thank you very much.
Mr. Owens: Again, I would say to you that my view is that we should be making this, in large measure, a local decision in terms of what will happen in local communities. In terms of getting information out where people can make informed, intelligent decisions about what is available in terms of virtually any kinds of technology, I think we do - one of roles the federal government should play is marshaling that information so people can review it and make a determination as to what they believe is appropriate in their community. I don't disagree with that at all. Again, we go back to the issue of information being delivered to communities that is not complete and frequently, not accurate. I would support a proposal that would provide for a high-level, if you will, 40,000 foot view of various technology approaches to determine whether or not in fact they're going to be beneficial as proposed. I'm very comfortable with that.
I'm not comfortable with the idea that the federal government - or for that matter, in many cases the state government - would be, in essence, giving the blueprint that had to be followed. That, in my view, is somewhat problematic.
The issues you addressed in terms of people acting and failing to recuse themselves - Clearly, that's an opportunity for the voters to take a position as it goes forward. And I suspect in some cases maybe the basis for a legal challenge of their decision.
Friday, June 11, 2010
Thursday, June 10, 2010
Listen to citizens committees on wind issues ~ Letter
Watertown Daily Times | Listen to citizens committees on wind issues
THURSDAY, JUNE 10, 2010
For three years I have spoken with many community citizens committees as they develop standards for turbine siting to protect the health, welfare and safety of the public. Renewable energy is a nice catch phrase, but when the turbines are up, there is no chance to renew a community subjected to improper protections and setbacks. Once the character of a community is gone, it is gone forever.
An important issue is the conflict of interest by board members holding wind contracts directly, or through family members. When a basketball referee bets on NBA games, he is immediately impeached for a violation of trust, and everyone can see that so clearly. However, when a town board member does the same thing, voting when he holds an economic stake in the outcome, it is somehow different. It is not. If you want to participate on the board, the answer is simple. Accept without amendment the recommendations of your independent citizens committees who have investigated and understood the issues of wind development. Protect the public by enacting those recommendations without developer-demanded changes.
Why is it that each of the citizens committees in Clayton, Lyme and Cape Vincent has recommended a noise limit above background sound levels, yet these limits are resisted? Those sound limits, as recommended by New York state, would allow non-contract holders, living in the midst of an industrial wind project, to negotiate payments for intrusive noise on their property. With the sound limits, the small landowner potentially impacted by the noise would have the option to receive payments for granting an easement. Who could be against that? It is the developer and contract holders who have no interest in sharing turbine payments with anyone. It complicates things. To make this scheme work, those conflicted who control the game must turn their backs on this obvious wrong.
After the failures of BP, does anyone honestly believe that a developer-drafted law provides for the protection of the community better than that recommended by the town- appointed citizens committees, recommendations rejected by those boards because the developers such as BP, Acciona and PPM tell them so?
This brings us back to the conflict of interest. The town boards must remove themselves from debate and accept the recommendations of their citizens committees. Cape Vincent, Clayton and Lyme must stop listening to those whose motive is purely profit, stop the debate and enact local laws as recommended by nonconflicted, honest and informed citizens who have developed recommendations to protect the public, while allowing appropriate wind development to proceed.
Paul Carr
Chaumont
THURSDAY, JUNE 10, 2010
For three years I have spoken with many community citizens committees as they develop standards for turbine siting to protect the health, welfare and safety of the public. Renewable energy is a nice catch phrase, but when the turbines are up, there is no chance to renew a community subjected to improper protections and setbacks. Once the character of a community is gone, it is gone forever.
An important issue is the conflict of interest by board members holding wind contracts directly, or through family members. When a basketball referee bets on NBA games, he is immediately impeached for a violation of trust, and everyone can see that so clearly. However, when a town board member does the same thing, voting when he holds an economic stake in the outcome, it is somehow different. It is not. If you want to participate on the board, the answer is simple. Accept without amendment the recommendations of your independent citizens committees who have investigated and understood the issues of wind development. Protect the public by enacting those recommendations without developer-demanded changes.
Why is it that each of the citizens committees in Clayton, Lyme and Cape Vincent has recommended a noise limit above background sound levels, yet these limits are resisted? Those sound limits, as recommended by New York state, would allow non-contract holders, living in the midst of an industrial wind project, to negotiate payments for intrusive noise on their property. With the sound limits, the small landowner potentially impacted by the noise would have the option to receive payments for granting an easement. Who could be against that? It is the developer and contract holders who have no interest in sharing turbine payments with anyone. It complicates things. To make this scheme work, those conflicted who control the game must turn their backs on this obvious wrong.
After the failures of BP, does anyone honestly believe that a developer-drafted law provides for the protection of the community better than that recommended by the town- appointed citizens committees, recommendations rejected by those boards because the developers such as BP, Acciona and PPM tell them so?
This brings us back to the conflict of interest. The town boards must remove themselves from debate and accept the recommendations of their citizens committees. Cape Vincent, Clayton and Lyme must stop listening to those whose motive is purely profit, stop the debate and enact local laws as recommended by nonconflicted, honest and informed citizens who have developed recommendations to protect the public, while allowing appropriate wind development to proceed.
Paul Carr
Chaumont
JCIDA's tax-exempt policy for wind farms won't include local, county issues
By NANCY MADSEN
TIMES STAFF WRITER
THURSDAY, JUNE 10, 2010
Local and county issues will not be part of a uniform tax-exempt policy for wind power projects, but the Jefferson County Industrial Development Agency board will consider the issues along with the projects.
The agency's governance committee met Wednesday morning to discuss changes to its uniform policy, which applies to all projects that ask for tax abatements.
Continue.
TIMES STAFF WRITER
THURSDAY, JUNE 10, 2010
Local and county issues will not be part of a uniform tax-exempt policy for wind power projects, but the Jefferson County Industrial Development Agency board will consider the issues along with the projects.
The agency's governance committee met Wednesday morning to discuss changes to its uniform policy, which applies to all projects that ask for tax abatements.
Continue.
Wednesday, June 9, 2010
Cape Community Power Project Feasible
Cape power project feasible
By Nancy Madsen Watertown Daily Times, N.Y.
Publication: Watertown Daily Times (New York)
Date: Wednesday, June 9 2010
Jun. 9--CAPE VINCENT -- The town's electricity transmission system could handle a community wind project.
Loren W. Pruskowski, vice president of Sustainable Energy Development, reported to the St. Lawrence River Public Power Association, which is behind an effort for a community-owned project, that a small project could be added to any of the handful of distribution lines in the town.
Link here to continue
By Nancy Madsen Watertown Daily Times, N.Y.
Publication: Watertown Daily Times (New York)
Date: Wednesday, June 9 2010
Jun. 9--CAPE VINCENT -- The town's electricity transmission system could handle a community wind project.
Loren W. Pruskowski, vice president of Sustainable Energy Development, reported to the St. Lawrence River Public Power Association, which is behind an effort for a community-owned project, that a small project could be added to any of the handful of distribution lines in the town.
Link here to continue
Tuesday, June 8, 2010
DEC won't claim review
Tuesday, June 08, 2010 5:02 PM
Source: Watertown Daily Times)
By Nancy Madsen, Watertown Daily Times, N.Y.
Jun. 8--The state Department of Environmental Conservation isn't interested in taking over the environmental review of dormant Horse Creek Wind Farm.
Clayton's joint village and town Planning Board didn't give the project a third year-long suspension during its environmental review process. Developer Iberdrola Renewable had asked for the suspension so it could further investigate the potential harm of the 62-turbine project to Indiana bats, a federally listed endangered species.
Link to continue reading
Source: Watertown Daily Times)
By Nancy Madsen, Watertown Daily Times, N.Y.
Jun. 8--The state Department of Environmental Conservation isn't interested in taking over the environmental review of dormant Horse Creek Wind Farm.
Clayton's joint village and town Planning Board didn't give the project a third year-long suspension during its environmental review process. Developer Iberdrola Renewable had asked for the suspension so it could further investigate the potential harm of the 62-turbine project to Indiana bats, a federally listed endangered species.
Link to continue reading
Monday, June 7, 2010
~Acciona to wait another month to submit final EIS
Watertown Daily Times | Acciona to wait another month
MONDAY, JUNE 7, 2010
Nancy Madsen
CAPE VINCENT - The final environmental impact statement for St. Lawrence Wind Farm will not be ready to submit this week, project manager Tim Conboy said Monday in an e-mail.
He said the company has not asked for a special meeting later this month to submit the statement, which is a summary of the environmental effects of the wind farm on the project area.
MONDAY, JUNE 7, 2010
Nancy Madsen
CAPE VINCENT - The final environmental impact statement for St. Lawrence Wind Farm will not be ready to submit this week, project manager Tim Conboy said Monday in an e-mail.
He said the company has not asked for a special meeting later this month to submit the statement, which is a summary of the environmental effects of the wind farm on the project area.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)