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.
No comments:
Post a Comment