Cohocton Wind Watch

False conclusions based on flawed real estate studies

cohoctonwindwatch@gmail.com (Cohocton Wind Watch) — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 11:55:23 PST

Wind energy proponents insist industrial scale wind turbines have no diminishing effect on nearby residential property values. They point to several analyses prepared in the last six years (including REPP1, Hoen2, and Hoen/Wiser3) as evidence of their claims.

These reports conclude that there is no significant relationship between distance from, or visibility of the windfarm on the sale prices of houses. However, as we've reported before, there is good reason not to place substantial weight on the findings.

The REPP report has been widely discredited due to key flaws in the methodology including the fact that sixty-six percent of the homes sampled did not see the wind facility at all and the analysis made no distinction between homes near the turbines and those five miles away thus assuming the effect of the turbines was equal on all properties regardless of proximity.

The Hoen 2006 master's thesis, while more legitimate, made clear its analysis only applied to homes near a windfarm in Fenner New York and communities similar to Fenner. Any general conclusion drawn about property impacts based on Hoen's 2006 report would be inaccurate.

And now here comes the U.S. Department of Energy's (DOE) Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) which has undertaken yet another study to show, once and for all, that utility-scale wind turbines do not harm property values.

In 2007, Ben Hoen teamed up with Dr. Ryan Wiser of Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, to expand Hoen's master's work nationwide. By June of 2007, with no report in hand, Hoen broadcast his preliminary conclusions of their study at the American Wind Energy Association's (AWEA) annual meeting. Bottom line: "No negative effects found" on property values. In November 2007, DOE touted the same preliminary conclusions at the National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners' annual meeting and again, Hoen appeared at the 2008 AWEA meeting where he reaffirmed his conclusions.

The Hoen/Wiser report has yet to be released, but that hasn't stopped Hoen from distributing his findings whenever and wherever possible. And since 2007, wind developers have been submitting Hoen's unpublished conclusions to State and local boards as definitive proof that properties are unharmed by the towers.

This September, Windaction.org was one of about twenty reviewers to submit comments on Hoen's work. Our full report can be viewed here. After all the hype, what we found was sobering. Windaction.org's report to Wiser and Hoen identified serious flaws in their methodology, rendering the results of their study meaningless. The independent real estate appraisal experts we consulted quickly recognized that any qualified appraiser with any experience in the regression techniques utilized -- and who was not predisposed to a preferred outcome -- would easily discredit the report.

For one, the study failed to meet a basic assumption of a regression analysis i.e. that the database of sales transactions compared were reasonably homogeneous.

The "hedonic regression method" used by Hoen argues that one can determine the marginal contribution of specific independent variables -- i.e. view of the turbines -- to the sale price. However, when variables are omitted from the model, such as number of bedrooms, or improperly weighted in assessing contribution to house price it is not possible to understand the single effect of turbine view.

Homogeneous means that the houses included in any transactions were similar in market characteristics such as approximate size, age, quality, available amenities (schools, shopping, security, access to work and recreation, etc) and were examined in a similar economic setting (employment, availability and cost of financing, market growth or decline and the like), among other factors. Homogeneity of the marketplace is fundamental to the type of regression analysis Hoen used. It is well documented that these techniques are difficult to utilize on data sets that vary substantially due to differing characteristics.

In Hoen's study, the data set spanned nine different states across the United States and included 4,895 sales of which a subset of property characteristics were identified and then averaged to produce a composite home of 47 years in age with 1,628 square feet of finished living area above ground, 1.75 bathrooms situated on 1.09 acres and having an average condition. The data showed home sale prices ranging from as low as $10,492 to as high as $647,500.

The variation in house price alone indicated a failure to meet the requirement of homogeniality. But the problem in Hoen's study was more pervasive. When we looked at the 'age' characteristic for the homes in the report, the average age of the home at the time of the sale was 47 years with a standard deviation of 36. In other words, within one standard deviation, 68.2% of the homes in the data set ranged in age from 11 years to 83 years. We have no way of knowing how age influenced sale prices within the study's data set or whether age affected house price more or less than view of the turbines. The same can be said for other property characteristics like square footage of the home, number of baths, etc. Remarkably, Hoen did not even track the number of bedrooms per house transaction or whether the houses sold had garages.

In addition, since the data set was drawn from diverse locations across the country, applying the same weight to property characteristics was inappropriate. For example, fireplaces or finished basements in Texas may be perceived as less valuable than central air conditioning and the reverse may be true for the same characteristics found in homes in upstate New York. Nonetheless, Hoen did exactly that.

Appraisers are highly critical of hedonic analysis and have warned that causal conclusions drawn about a data set when utilizing this technique are often times unsupportable. This criticism applies in cases where those conducting the analysis make every effort to obtain a homogeneous data set and include important basic property characteristics. In Hoen's case, it is clear he had no interest in conducting a legitimate study to determine the impact of wind towers on property values. On the contrary, it appears his conclusion was already predetermined back in 2007 when he raced to AWEA to promote his premature conclusions. With his "mission accomplished", unfortunately, he now has little incentive to release the final report.

1.The Effect of Wind Development on Local Property Values by the Renewable Energy Policy Project (REPP) - May, 2003

2.Impacts of Windmill Visibility on Property Values in Madison County, New York by Ben Hoen - April 2006

3.Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory report by Ben Hoen, Ryan Wiser et. al. - Not released

Thousands of Jobs Scammed or Created [del.icio.us]

cohoctonwindwatch — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 09:06:53 PST

Suicides in “Turbine Town”

cohoctonwindwatch@gmail.com (Cohocton Wind Watch) — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 08:06:52 PST

First, read this, taken from Two homes have been abandoned in “Turbine Town”:

I am angry, helpless, and disappointed our government would let something like this happen. I am appalled at their ignorance and lack of compassion. It saddens me to watch my family and friends suffer from the same [health] effects of the turbines.

I spend as much time as I can away from my home, away from my son who is also sleep deprived. We are exhausted and miserable. I often seek refuge with friends, often falling asleep minutes after I arrive.

I feel like a gypsy.

What was once a beautiful place to live has been destroyed.

» Tracy Whitworth, schoolteacher (Clear Creek, Ontario), 11/5/09

Then this, taken from “My entire house was vibrating along with all the contents — including me”:

My entire house was vibrating along with all the contents—including me. I tried to lie down and sleep a few times, but got jolted awake with a full body twitch each time. My skull was resonating to the extent that I became swimmingly dizzy, even just sitting, with sharp pains developing in my head. I was nauseous, I was aware of my insides trembling. . . . I could feel my fingers tingling with the vibrations. My eyes started to blur, an indication of oscillating eyeballs. The only alternative was to get out, and I did so in tears.

With all of this, I couldn’t really “hear” anything except the low droning hum that I have described to you in other reports over the summer. I ended up sleeping on a couch in a house 20 km directly to the north of me, and as I did, I could still hear and feel the deep, rumbling vibrations from the wind farm. These vibrations are similar to ones I’ve felt produced from a power steamroller as it approaches my house.

Having to sleep in my truck, having to drive to somebody else’s house in the middle of the night in order to escape, I now consider myself “homeless.”

This is criminal.

» Kay Armstrong (Clear Creek, Ontario), 10/12/09. See also “Like standing, walking, sleeping on a perpetually moving surface.”

Then this, taken from “Silent Spring”:

I hear the call of killdeer outside, and it occurs to me that this isn’t the first time I’ve heard them at strange hours of the night. They seem especially agitated. It strikes me that they, these birds that roost on the ground, are feeling what I’m feeling, perhaps to an even greater degree since they have direct contact with the ground.

The turbine vibrations have awakened them, as well, and they are flying around to escape them. In fact, these poor creatures have it even worse than I do because they have to keep flying and expend energy in order to be free of the vibrations that are disturbing what they had deemed home for the night.

Have I told you there are no frogs in my pond this year?

» Kay Armstrong (Clear Creek, Ontario), 11/8/09

Now brace yourself for this last one:

For documentation purposes: Two suicide attempts in the tiny village of Clear Creek over the past 2 months. The most recent one yesterday, successful, right across the road from me.

» Kay Armstrong (Clear Creek, Ontario), 11-20-09

Ecogen Wind LLC sues Steuben County town over wind farm delays

cohoctonwindwatch@gmail.com (Cohocton Wind Watch) — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 05:56:45 PST

A wind energy development company has sued a second town board in an attempt to force through a large wind farm without the approval of local elected leaders.

Ecogen said town officials purposefully obstructed the project by raising questions earlier this year about building and road permits, a benefits package and noise concerns. "These efforts to now delay the project were improper and in bad faith," the company stated in legal papers.

The petition, filed in state Supreme Court, expressed fears that anti-turbine Town Board members who will take office Jan. 1 will block the project entirely.

Prattsburgh Town Board member Steve Kula, who is cited in Ecogen's legal papers as being a particular thorn in the company's side, said the lawsuit is "a big dog-small dog fight. It's a huge thing for us to overcome."

Kula denied that board members have purposefully slowed the project and blamed lack of progress on the company. "They, in truth, are nowhere near beginning construction," he said.

If built, the farm would have 16 turbines in Prattsburgh and 17 in Italy, each 415 feet tall. The farm could generate up to 76 megawatts of electricity.

Ecogen said in the petition that it had spent seven years and $13 million pursuing the Prattsburgh-Italy wind farm.

The company's lawyers will ask state Supreme Court Justice Thomas A. Stander to grant Ecogen the right to proceed with the Prattsburgh portion.

The lawsuit against Italy, sparked by a 5-to-0 Town Board vote in October to kill the project, is pending before Supreme Court Justice Stephen K. Lindley.

SORR@DemocratandChronicle.com

Mergers & Acquisitions Deal Analysis – Iberdrola Sells 10% Stake In Gamesa Corporacion Tecnologica--Aarkstore Enterprise

cohoctonwindwatch@gmail.com (Cohocton Wind Watch) — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 05:31:14 PST

Aarkstore announce a new report "Mergers & Acquisitions Deal Analysis – Iberdrola Sells 10% Stake In Gamesa Corporacion Tecnologica" through its vast collection of market research report.

Mergers & Acquisitions Deal Analysis – Iberdrola Sells 10% Stake In Gamesa Corporacion Tecnologica

Summary

Acquiring and partnering for expansion, strengthening R&D pipeline and venturing into newer markets is a trend that’s definitely not new. It’s also regarded as one of the best defensive strategies to counter the competitors’ organic growth. The challenge that is most discussed in boardrooms is to identify the right partner with the right product portfolio so that the best strategic fit can be obtained and maximum benefits can be reaped from the deal.

Deal analysis reports are our independent analysis of the latest Mergers and Acquisitions deals within the global alternative energy industry. We keep our clients abreast of the very latest consolidation landscape by providing them with our independent and unbiased judgment on the past, present and future of the most important Mergers and Acquisitions deals within the alternative energy industry.

Scope

- In depth profiling of the latest and the most important Mergers and Acquisitions deal;
- Historical deal analysis of the companies involved in the deal, their deal making strategies and the markets they are venturing into;
- Review and analysis of the profiled deal supplemented with a strategic rationale analysis and impact assessment study; and
- Mapping of the prevalent and expected market and competitive landscape (s), the deal is likely to have an impact on

Reasons to buy

- Plan your business strategies by understanding your competitors’ deal making approach, acquisition trends and market entry/expansion strategies;
- Identify the latest consolidation trends in the market (s) you compete in;
- Exploit Mergers and Acquisitions opportunities by understanding the strategic rationale and success factors behind each deal; and
- Design your inorganic strategies by screening potential acquisition prospects in the market (s) you compete in.

For more information, please visit Link

Or email us at press@aarkstore.com or call +919272852585
Visit

And now a word from the voters...

cohoctonwindwatch@gmail.com (Cohocton Wind Watch) — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 07:02:18 PST

With yesterday's counting of absentee ballots that pushed Urban Hirschey ahead of five-term incumbent Thomas Rienbeck, the three towns where commercial wind-development policy became something of a local referendum have sent a loud and clear message to wind farm developers and their rabid supporters: wind politics is local.

In Hammond, an incumbent who had served for 18 years and who was strongly in favor of wind farm development, Janie Hollister, lost by 50 votes to Ronald Bertram, a newcomer who promised to look at all sides of the local wind debate. In the Town Council race, two candidates running on Bertram's platform defeated two men who have urged a quick adoption of a permissive wind energy law that would open much of the town up to windmill development. Douglas Delosh and James Tague will join Bertram on the council.

In Cape Vincent, Mr. Hirschey won in a town riven by the wind debate. He is joined by incoming councilman Brooks Bragdon, putting two members of the Wind Power Ethics Group, the Cape's wind farm opposition group, on the Town Council.

In Henderson, the results are more subtle but the message was clear: people in that town are opposed to wind farm development. A new supervisor leading a reconstituted town board without question heard that message.

To put these elections purely in the context of pro-wind or anti-wind is a simplistic view, however. In both Hammond and Cape Vincent, residents spoke to the concern over conflicts of interest on the part of public officials, the speed with which wind ordinances were proposed and the lack of heed the elected officials accorded to wind-power opponents. If you don't think this interaction is a vital component of the dynamic between elected representative and voters, look at Orleans and Clayton, where there was no backlash vote and where, not coincidentally, the town councils have made sure the public has been involved in the process with community based committees formed to advise on wind-power decisions.

Hammond resident Brooke Stark assessed the town election and why the incumbent board was rejected in the Nov. 4 story in the Times: "They really have done a lot," she said. "But I think they got complacent and were not interested in educating the community about something they'd already made up their minds about. They wanted the wind law to go forward and that was that. People got fed up with that, and every time we felt that our voices were being shut down, it provided more impetus to get active."

Caveat emptor! While the wind power issue was at the core of this election, the arrogance of power was the nail that sealed the coffins of the defeated incumbents. To take it a tad further, Henderson voters, while vocal about not endorsing wind power projects in the town, were probably more sick of the chaos that reigned over the Henderson Town Council; out-of-control meetings that lasted four hours, a deputy supervisor who frequently appeared to be in charge, petty bickering over nearly every matter to come before the board and a supervisor locked in a legal battle with his own town over what is probably an illegal junkyard all made Henderson voters simply unwilling to endorse the status quo.

Now comes the challenge for the victors: you all have to find a way to respond to the voters' mandate. In Cape Vincent, a Town Council unable, theoretically, to even vote on any wind-power-related issues has nevertheless bent over backward to ease the path for two wind developers. Actions taken by the lame-duck board between now and Jan. 1 will set the tone for the incoming council. Mr. Rienbeck appears determined to ram a wind-power zoning law through in the next six weeks, even though three of his fellow councilmen have acknowledged conflicts of interest because of existing agreements with wind-farm developers. The only way a zoning law can be enacted is if at least two of those three violate ethics codes to vote on an issue they have promised not to vote on.

If that happens, it is almost inevitable the town will be taken to court, the attorney general will be asked to undertake an investigation of how the law got forced through and Mr. Hirschey and his board will have to figure out how – and in fact whether – to defend the town against the actions. It's going to be a mess and it's going to be expensive. And it's needless.

In Hammond, the new council would do well to immediately return its wind policy to a legitimate, inclusive citizens committee with the promise to take their recommendations seriously. If those recommendations and subsequent public hearings end up severely restricting wind-farm development in Hammond, well, the people will have spoken – just as it should be.

And in Henderson, where the looming battle is over the transmission lines from a wind project that the town has absolutely no control over because it's in Hounsfield, the challenge will be to refocus the council so that it has the wherewithal and political resolve to respond in the way its citizens demand. A focused and rational governing body would be such an improvement in Henderson that an unsuccessful but well-waged battle against the transmission lines would no doubt be a huge relief to most Henderson residents.

This election sent a powerful message about the relationship between the elected and the electorate. It would be good if everyone was listening.

PSC approves Garrett County wind energy project [del.icio.us]

cohoctonwindwatch — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 05:17:32 PST

Cape wind hearing probably canceled

cohoctonwindwatch@gmail.com (Cohocton Wind Watch) — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 05:11:52 PST

CAPE VINCENT — The town Planning Board asked the Town Council not to hold a public hearing next week on a proposed wind development zoning ordinance, citing missing information.

The Planning Board, meeting Wednesday night, voted 5-0 on the resolution. The hearing for the law was to be Monday.

"On initial blush through the law, it looks satisfactory," Chairman Richard J. Edsall said. "But after a more thorough examination, I saw there was an error made in the law, a section left out."

Supervisor Thomas K. Rienbeck said later that the missing section would strictly exclude wind turbines from the river and lake districts."I didn't notice it until this morning," he said.

Adding it back in "would be significant enough to require another public hearing," he said.

Mr. Rienbeck said he would talk to each of the council members today to decide whether to cancel the public hearing.

"It's probably safe to say that public hearing will be canceled," he said.

Once the changes are made to the law, the Planning Board will make its recommendations first before another public hearing is scheduled, Mr. Rienbeck said.

Mr. Edsall explained to the crowd at the meeting that the Planning Board has to review any proposed zoning amendment and submit recommendations to the Town Council.

The law, which the council voted to move forward with Nov. 12, would regulate the placement of both personal and commercial wind turbines. Critics have said it would not restrict the turbines enough because it leaves out clear-cut noise criteria. The town had a committee work for five months on a recommended law that included language on measuring and regulating noise.

Wind-energy company sues another town board

cohoctonwindwatch@gmail.com (Cohocton Wind Watch) — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 05:08:24 PST

A wind development company has sued a second town board in an attempt to force through a large wind farm over the objections of local elected leaders.

Ecogen Wind LLC, which in early November brought suit against the town of Italy in Yates County, filed a similar action Monday against the neighboring town of Prattsburgh, Steuben County. The Buffalo-area company and a partner firm have been trying for years to locate a 33-turbine wind farm in the hilly towns.

Like the action against Italy, the new suit against Prattsburgh alleges that town officials have improperly thrown roadblocks in front of the wind farm to “thwart and delay the project.” Specifically, Ecogen’s petition claims that town officials raised questions this year about building and road permits, a benefits package and noise concerns. “These efforts to now delay the project were improper and in bad faith,” the company states in its petition.

The legal action, filed in state Supreme Court, expresses fears that anti-turbine town board members who will take office on Jan. 1 will block the project entirely.

If ever built, the farm would have 16 turbines in Prattsburgh and 17 in Italy, all of them 415 feet tall. The farm would have the capability of generating up to 76 megawatts of electricity.

The company’s lawyers will ask state Supreme Court Justice Thomas A. Stander, to whom the case has been assigned, to grant Ecogen the right to proceed with the Prattsburgh portion of the project “without further activities on its part,” or to order the Town Board to grant Ecogen all necessary permits.

The suit against the town of Italy, sparked by a 5-to-0 Town Board vote in October to kill the project there, is pending before state Supreme Court Justice Stephen K. Lindley.

SORR@DemocratandChronicle.com

Company to pay almost $400,000 in back overtime [del.icio.us]

cohoctonwindwatch — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 04:42:53 PST

Incentives to be examined [del.icio.us]

cohoctonwindwatch — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 04:39:33 PST

Boone County looking into wind farm health fears [del.icio.us]

cohoctonwindwatch — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 04:29:27 PST

Ecogen Lawsuit against the Town of Prattsburgh

cohoctonwindwatch@gmail.com (Cohocton Wind Watch) — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 03:40:43 PST

A21469241118.pdf

Ecogen Lawsuit against the Town of Italy - 09-15485

cohoctonwindwatch@gmail.com (Cohocton Wind Watch) — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 03:41:15 PST

A21469141118.pdf

Which way did windmill voting tilt?

cohoctonwindwatch@gmail.com (Cohocton Wind Watch) — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 03:35:49 PST

As we’ve been reporting, a wind-power development company called Ecogen Wind has filed suit against the town of Prattsburgh, Steuben County seeking a judicial order allowing it to proceed with construction of a wind farm there without town board approval. This comes in the heels of a similar court action by Ecogen in early November against the neighboring town of Italy, Yates County, asking a judge to set aside a town board vote killing the project.

Ecogen, based in suburban Buffalo and backed by a firm with offices in San Francisco and Houston, wants to build a 33-turbine wind farm in the hills of the two towns, which lie not far from the southern end of Canandaigua Lake.

At least part of the motivation behind these bare-knuckles lawsuits is the fact that voters in Italy and Prattsburgh elected anti-wind farm slates in voting earlier this month. Ecogen clearly fears the new boards will try to deep-six their project, on which they say they have spent $13 million so far.

The question I have is whether the voting in the two neighboring towns is part of a groundswell of opposition to industrial-scale wind farms in New York’s rural towns. There are several dozen wind farm proposals resting with town boards across the state, including some in the Rochester region - and most of the host towns had local elections on November 3. Someone I spoke with recently suggested a number of those elections did tilt against windmills.

This is where I’d like to enlist you visitors to help. If you know who won and who lost in town elections where wind farms were a major issue, post a comment here or shoot me an e-mail. Between your information and what I’m able to gather, I’ll post a running tally as we move along.

By the way, here are the legal petitions filed by Ecogen against the towns of Italy and Prattsburgh. They’re slow going if you don’t like legalese, but they might be worth reading – for the rural town-versus-wind farm conflict could prove significant in New York’s renewable energy future.

Ecogen sues Prattsburgh

cohoctonwindwatch@gmail.com (Cohocton Wind Watch) — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 03:27:32 PST

Prattsburgh, N.Y.

Wind developer Ecogen has filed another lawsuit against a local municipality in an attempt to erect electricity-producing wind turbines.

The lawsuit was recently filed in state Supreme Court in Rochester against the Prattsburgh Town Board and other town officials.

It is similar to legal action the company is taking against the town of Italy in Yates County, which has refused to grant Ecogen permission to build wind turbines there.
Ecogen had planned to erect 16 wind turbines in Prattsburgh and 17 in Italy as part of the same project.

The Prattsburgh lawsuit was made public at Tuesday’s town board meeting and essentially seeks permission from the court to move head with its development without any further delays.
The Prattsburgh Town Board has been split over wind development in the town in reaction to concerns residents have had on the impact towering turbines could have on the quality of their lives.

The board has not received a road-use agreement from Ecogen that regulates the transport of heavy equipment. Since Prattsburgh does not have zoning laws, questions of whether the town has the authority to issue building permits for the project have further delayed development.
Ecogen spokeswoman Beth O’Brien declined to comment Wednesday since the matter is in litigation.

Town Attorney John Leyden said he has not had an opportunity to study the allegations but believes Ecogen filed the lawsuit in response to the results of the recent town board election.
Two new members of the town board who said they favor strict regulations for wind turbines replace incumbents who have supported development.

“There were comments made in the election season (in Prattsburgh), there should be a moratorium,” Leyden said. “Motions were made. This lawsuit, I believe, is the company needs to know where it stands.”

Councilman Chuck Shick said the lawsuit is frivolous and Councilman Steven Kula said the lawsuit contains “blatant untruths.”

“(Ecogen says) they’re still waiting for the town to decide,” Kula said. “The truth is we are still waiting for them to sign the document that allows the town to go ahead with the engineering study we need for the road use agreement.”

Kula said his biggest concern is the lawsuit may persuade the lame-duck members of the town board to push an approval through before they leave office.

“What this really comes down to is, how does the court feels about municipal home rule?” Kula said. “The court is being asked to rule on whether local building permits are required, whether it can approve our road use agreement. I think the question is: Can the towns of Prattsburgh and Italy be compelled to do something they don’t believe is in their residents’ best interests?”

Hartsville races finally settled

cohoctonwindwatch@gmail.com (Cohocton Wind Watch) — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 03:23:57 PST

The results of the Hartsville race are in, and Zena Andrus has been elected Hartsville's new town supervisor. An independent candidate, Mrs. Andrus won with 112 votes over Republican Alice Bosch's 104. "I would like to thank all of the residents that took time out of their busy lives to come to the town hall and vote for me," said Mrs. Andrus. "It was a long wait from the time we voted until the results were finally tabulated but the new machines will make voting more accurate in the future. Alice Bosch was a worthy opponent and ran a clean campaign."

One factor that added to the Andrus victory was the fact that just before the election, the three way supervisor race became a two way race, between Zena Andrus and Alice Bosch. That was due to Mike Muhleisan dropping out of the supervisor's contest, and lent his support to the Zena Andrus campaign. "He was a great adversary and I appreciate his stepping down to support me in my quest for the role of Supervisor," Mrs. Andrus said after the election was finally finished.

Other Hartsville Town Board winners include Jim Perry (120 votes), Tom Dobell (115 votes). Perry and Dobell defeated Nick Petito and Ron Amidon, both Petito and Amidon recieved 103 votes.

The biggest issue in the Hartsville race is wind energy. Because of the defeat of the pro-wind candidates, it is now uncertain whether or not there will in fact be a wind project for the Town of Hartsville. If there is no wind project in Hartsville, there will be no wind project in Hornellsville.

Trouble in Green Paradise: Wind Farm Scams by By Bob Ellis

cohoctonwindwatch@gmail.com (Cohocton Wind Watch) — Wed, 18 Nov 2009 12:25:07 PST

Environmental activists like to tell us that the “green” movement is a benign, good-willed group of humanitarians who want humanity to be able to live in peace and harmony with our planet, while oil and coal companies are just a bunch of greedy white men in business suits who want to get rich and wreck the planet.

Really? There’s no greed in the environmentalist movement? There’s no greed, scamming, and dishonesty going on there?

Think again. Think again for a long time.

From the Financial Times:

Italian finance police, mounting an operation code named “Gone with the wind”, on Wednesday said they had arrested two of the country’s most prominent businessmen in the wind energy sector.

Police said the charges related to fraud involved in obtaining public subsidies to construct wind farms. They are also investigating the sale of wind farms to foreign companies…

“Gone with the wind”, mounted by the finance ministry’s anti-fraud police, started in 2007 and began by blocking public subsidies worth €9.4m ($14m, £8.4m) granted by the ministry for economic development. Last year police confiscated seven wind farms with 185 turbines in Sicily linked to IVPC.

Anti-Mafia prosecutors in Sicily have launched a parallel investigation. The Financial Times was told in April that a large number of wind farms had been built with public subsidies but had never functioned.

I have nothing against wind power or any other form of clean energy, per se. If a source of effective, clean, renewable energy can be crafted at the same or less cost than fossil fuels, I’m all for it. Unfortunately evidence is mounting that in addition to higher costs with less effectiveness, “green” projects like these are plagued by fraud (perhaps because most of the hot air driving them is based on a fraud?).

With the fossil fuel industry, even if there is some greed, at least we receive a useful product (one you cannot go a day without in our modern world) for a decent price, while “green” energy costs us more, gets us less, and can be a fraudulent enterprise built on a fraudulent claim.

One of those arrested in this scheme in Europe, Oreste Vigorito, is a former partner of Brian Caffyn, a former partner of the Nantucket “Cape Wind” project, according to the European Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow.

According to the Boston Herald, the American taxpayer and consumer is once again on the short end of the stick with this “green” scam:

In 2006, the Beacon Hill Institute at Suffolk University undertook the most comprehensive review yet of Cape Wind’s public subsidies.

“What we found was quite remarkable,” David Tuerck, the institute’s executive director, said at the time. “Cape Wind stands to receive subsidies worth $731 million, or 77 percent of the cost of installing the project and 48 percent of the revenues it would generate. The policy question that this amount of subsidy raises is whether the project’s benefit is worth the huge public subsidies that the developer gets.”

Even more interesting perhaps is the fact that this project received $115 million in porkulus, er, stimulus funds from the taxpayers, but hasn’t done anything to merit such a–excuse the pun–windfall:

In September, after First Wind affiliates received $115 million in federal stimulus money, U.S. Rep. Eric J. Massa (D-N.Y.) wrote to President Barack Obama, calling the grants “very alarming” and saying the company “abused the public trust.

“No electricity has been produced for sale out of the projects,” but the company “has already collected production rewards for non-existent energy,” Massa told Obama.

But the people pushing wind farms just want to save the planet, right? They aren’t the greedy ones; it’s those evil oil companies (that supply the material for the vast majority of our modern infrastructure including not only gasoline for our cars and to transport our food, but the plastics which virtually everything is made from these days) that are the only nasty profiteers, right?

Perhaps the environmentalist movement isn’t as altruistic as some Leftists environmental advocates would have us believe?

HT: European Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow.

Thousands of jobs scammed or created by Ben Shapiro

cohoctonwindwatch@gmail.com (Cohocton Wind Watch) — Wed, 18 Nov 2009 12:22:16 PST

President Obama has repeatedly stated that his stimulus package has "saved or created" hundreds of thousands of jobs. And hundreds of thousands of jobs have been created. In Unicornland.

According to the Recovery.gov website – a website that the Obama administration has spent $18 million "stimulating" – millions have been spent and hundreds of jobs have been created in heretofore unknown areas of America: 30 jobs using $761,420 of federal cash in the fictional 15th Congressional District in Arizona (there are only eight congressional districts in Arizona); $19 million in spending and 15 jobs created in mythical districts in Oklahoma; $10.6 million on 39 jobs in invisible Iowan areas; $68.3 million spent in the magical 1st Congressional District of the U.S. Virgin Islands; $35 million spent and 142 jobs created in the glittering fairy-tale kingdom of the 99th district of the Northern Mariana Islands; and the list goes on.

Apparently, somebody messed with Joe.

The biggest problem, amazingly enough, isn't the Obama administration's incredible creation of districts from scratch. It's the Obama administration's use of stimulus funds to pay off its political allies.

On Sept. 11, 2009, Democrat Rep. Eric Massa of the 29th Congressional District of New York – yes, this district actually exists – wrote President Obama a letter regarding the Obama administration's $74.6 million grant to Canandaigua Power Partners, LLC, and Canandaigua Power Partners II, LLC, in Cohocton, N.Y. These companies, according to Massa, "act as shell companies that deceptively operate on behalf of First Wind, which is currently under investigation by New York State Attorney General Cuomo for corruption charges in Cohocton and across the Northeast."

In fact, wrote Massa, "Constituents in our region see these projects as criminal actions … the award of $74.6 million to corrupt companies that have changed names time and again forming new LLCs and new Inc.s but maintaining their business model of lie, cheat and corrupt at the expense of taxpayers has stirred great unrest." Remember, this is a Democratic congressman.

First Wind is a green power company that produces windmills, the giant pieces of idiocy littering our landscapes. Its project in Cohocton, N.Y. – the project Massa rips – was so poorly done originally that residents reported that the turbines sounded like jet engines.

From March 31, 2007, to March 31, 2008, First Wind had revenue of $12 million and net losses of $73 million. Those losses forced First Wind to take out loans in the amount of $191 million. And up until October, the New York attorney general's office was investigating First Wind for its possible participation in bribery of public officials for land-use purposes.

Broke and under investigation. Not exactly a great candidate for stimulus. But that didn't stop the Obama administration. Why? Because First Wind is supported principally by Madison Dearborn Partners and the D.E. Shaw Group.

Madison Dearborn Partners, not coincidentally, is Obama Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel's "best source of funds," according to the Washington Examiner. During his congressional career, employees of Madison Dearborn gave Emanuel $93,600. And Emanuel is instrumental in oversight of the stimulus.

As for D.E. Shaw, White House economic adviser Lawrence Summers was paid $5.2 million in 2008 and 2007 by the company – to work for one day a week, according to the New York Times. Also according to the Times, "Summers said in an interview that his experience at Shaw, however brief, gave him valuable insight into the practical realities of Wall Street, insight he is now putting to use in shaping economic policy in the White House."

The Obama administration is so dominated by obfuscatory aureate and magniloquent verbosity that it believes it can get away with literally anything. This administration creates dollars out of thin air to pay fictitious employees in figmental places. It's no wonder that so far, the Obama administration has stimulated precisely nothing in the real world.

Zotos wants to build 330-foot-tall wind turbines

cohoctonwindwatch@gmail.com (Cohocton Wind Watch) — Wed, 18 Nov 2009 05:27:47 PST

GENEVA — Zotos International Inc. wants to build four 330-foot-tall wind turbines behind its Forge Avenue plant in the city’s industrial park.

Representatives of the hair products manufacturer presented modified plans for the $2.5 million project to the city’s Planning Board Monday night. In August, the company proposed 22 130-foot-tall turbines around the plant, but it was determined that four taller ones could generate more power, company officials said.

Anthony Perdigao, Zotos’ vice president of operations, told planners that the 330-foot-tall turbines would produce a total of 750 kilowatts of electrical power, compared to 150 kilowatts for the 22 shorter ones.

The company hopes the turbines will generate 60 percent of the plant’s power by the end of next year and 100 percent by the end of 2011.

Zotos would then offer the city 5 percent of the power produced, enough for more than 1,000 street lights, Perdigao said.

Planning Board member Larry Campbell said he was glad to see Zotos go for taller turbines and that he supports them as an alternative power source. He also noted that the 330-foot turbines would be as visible as Guardian Glass’s nearby smokestack.

“I thought going higher, you’d be getting more energy,” Campbell said.

Company representatives said studies would address such issues as ambient noise levels, ice throw from the blades and their impact on bats and migratory birds.

They’d be located in an industrial zone, with the closest residences about 1,300 feet to the north.

Pre-Emption Road resident Andrew Flynn told planners he has a number of concerns about the project, including noise levels in his neighborhood, comparing it to having four lawn mowers running constantly near his home.

“You’re trying to promote tourism,” he said, adding that the turbines would never be allowed to be built near the farmers on White Springs Road. “I don’t think this is in the best interest of Geneva. Let’s put it right on the lakefront and let’s everyone see it.”

During a recent visit to a wind turbine site near Rochester, Campbell said, he stood at the base of the tower and heard only a hum.

After the presentation, Planning Board Chairman Jeff Rokow said he wants to see what the community thinks about the project.

The project would have to go through a series of approvals, including the state Department of Environmental Conservation, the Federal Aviation Agency and the Federal Communications Commission.

Company officials hope to submit a site plan application for December and that at least one turbine would be in operation by July.

Galloo Island PILOT talks are reined in

cohoctonwindwatch@gmail.com (Cohocton Wind Watch) — Wed, 18 Nov 2009 05:03:00 PST

Jefferson County's Board of Legislators slowed down its consideration of the payment-in-lieu-of-taxes agreement for the proposed Galloo Island Wind Farm.

The board's Planning and Development Committee, which met Tuesday night, recessed to 5:30 p.m. Tuesday to hold its discussion then.

Chairman Barry M. Ormsby, R-Belleville, said representatives of the Jefferson County Industrial Development Agency and Galloo Island's developer, Upstate NY Power Corp., would come to the meeting.

Mr. Ormsby said they also would allow the public to speak during privilege of the floor, though no public hearing is required.

"I want to thank you for slowing this process down and having a chance to have some questions answered next week," Legislator Michael J. Docteur, R-Cape Vincent, said.

Legislator Robert A. Boice, R-Rutland, said, "I think there's a lot of questions to be asked and answers to be given before we move to approve or disapprove the PILOT."

Legislature Chairman Kenneth D. Blankenbush, R-Black River, encouraged all of the legislators to attend next week's meeting.

"Everybody is going to be voting on this thing down the road," he said.

After the Planning and Development Committee discusses the PILOT, the Legislature's Finance and Rules Committee must approve it before full board approval.

If those two committees approve it, the full board may hold a special meeting Dec. 1 to also approve the PILOT. The board of directors of JCIDA meets Dec. 3 and must be the final approval for the PILOT.

The Sackets Harbor Central School District Board of Education approved the PILOT on a 5-0 vote Tuesday night. The town of Hounsfield approved the PILOT, also 5-0, on Thursday.

Governor orders review of Oregon energy tax credits [del.icio.us]

cohoctonwindwatch — Wed, 18 Nov 2009 04:30:57 PST

We have a right to be turbine-free

cohoctonwindwatch@gmail.com (Cohocton Wind Watch) — Wed, 18 Nov 2009 04:12:35 PST

Ecogen Wind LLC's lawsuit claims the town of Italy, Yates County, delayed a decision on its industrial wind development proposal since 2002 and now can't deny its application (Nov. 5 story). In reality, Ecogen caused this long, drawn-out, expensive process by refusing to accept the town's original decision to remain non-industrial. A 2006 zoning law prohibiting industrial turbines, two town-wide surveys and several public hearings on this issue demonstrated that Italy wants to preserve its major strengths — natural beauty and a peaceful rural character. It was Ecogen's lawsuit threats and unrelenting pressure on the Town Board that led to a reluctantly made zoning law revision, application review and final denial.

Evidence submitted by citizens overwhelmingly showed that the short setbacks and high noise levels required to fit Ecogen's massive facility among our homes could damage Italy residents' welfare, property values, health and safety. Cohocton's experience with industrial wind turbines has been a nightmare and a learning experience. Recent elections in Italy and Prattsburgh clearly showed the people's choice to remain turbine-free.

We should have the right to say "no."

—JOAN SIMMONS
ITALY, YATES COUNTY

Absentees ballots give Hirschey win in Cape Vincent

cohoctonwindwatch@gmail.com (Cohocton Wind Watch) — Tue, 17 Nov 2009 12:55:27 PST

Absentee ballots have carried Republican Urban C. Hirschey to an apparent victory over Democratic incumbent Thomas Rienbeck in the Cape Vincent town supervisor's race.

Mr. Hirschey erased a 42 vote deficit at the polls by picking up 62 more votes than Mr. Rienbeck in absentees, 144-82. Mr. Hirschey's final tally was 634 votes, with Mr. Rienbeck receiving 614 votes.

Mr. Hirschey said even before the official count, he felt that he could win by just looking at the names on the absentee ballots. He said that several of the absentee ballots represent seasonal residents - from Syracuse, Rochester and Utica - who changed their registration to Cape Vincent to have a voice in the election.

“It sucks, doesn't it?” Mr. Rienbeck said. “These people, they have registered to vote here but they don't even live here. They obviously took advantage of the gray area of the law.”

Mr. Rienbeck who has been in office for 10 years, said most of the people who changed their registration to vote for Mr. Hirschey were rich seasonal residents who oppose wind farms.

“All they care about is their cottages on the river,” he said. “They are nothing but selfish people. It's a sad day for the people of Cape Vincent.”

Mr. Hirschey said one of his main priorities as the town's new supervisor is adopting a wind law that would spread out the wind turbines.

He said it was “disgraceful” that Mr. Rienbeck is attempting to adopt a zoning amendment for wind energy development, which does not contain restrictions on sound, at the very end of his term.

“If he tries to pass this, it's going to cost the town a lot of money in legal expenses,” he said. “If they had any sense, they would cancel it.”

Mr. Rienbeck said the sound restrictions would essentially prohibit industrial wind development in the town.

“People wanted this zoning law,” he said.

In Legislative District 11, Republican Robert "Bobby" Ferris extended his 21-vote Election Day lead in absentee balloting and won, 947-912, over Democrat Paul Simmons. District 11 encompasses Rutland and Watertown.

Meanwhile, Conservative Party candidate Doug Hoffman was on Glenn Beck's radio program Monday and said he wished he had not conceded the 23rd Congressional District race.

Mr. Hoffman was 3,176 votes behind Mr. Owens before absentees were counted and 2,957 after absentees in three counties he won were counted.

There were a total of 7,419 absentee ballots returned in the disrict.

The Times will be reporting today on the absentee count for this race and other local races.

Absentees did not change the results in other Cape Vincent races.

Debra J. Suller, the independent challenger for the town clerk post, picked up 19 more absentee votes than Town Clerk Jeri A. Mason. But Ms. Mason still won, 662-588.

Republican Brooks Bragdon and Democrat Mickey W. Orvis preserved their Election Day leads for two Town Council spots, picking up 120 absentee votes and 68 absentee votes respectively. Mr. Bragdon finished with 630, Mr. Orvis with 573. Democrat Richard H. Macsherry received 540 total votes, while independent John L. Byrne III received 480 votes. Republican Raymond R. Benjamin received 177 total votes.

Rush Limbaugh asks Governor Sarah Palin about Industrial Wind

cohoctonwindwatch@gmail.com (Cohocton Wind Watch) — Tue, 17 Nov 2009 12:40:23 PST

RUSH: What's our biggest energy challenge as a country? Do you believe at all or some or a lot in the modern-day go-green movement of solar and wind and all of these nefarious things that really don't produce anything yet?

GOV. PALIN: I think there's a lot of snake oil science involved in that and somebody's making a whole lot of money off people's fears that the world is... It's kind of tough to figure out with the shady science right now, what are we supposed to be doing right now with our climate. Are we warming or are we cooling? I don't think Americans are even told anymore if it's global warming or just climate change. And I don't attribute all the changes to man's activities. I think that this is, in a lot of respects, cyclical and the earth does cool and it warms. And our greatest challenge with energy is that we're not tapping it to the abundant domestic supplies that God created right underfoot on American soil and under our waters. It's ridiculous that we are circulating hundreds of billions of dollars a year in foreign countries, asking them to ramp up production so that we can purchase it from them -- especially from the regimes that can control us via energy, using it as a weapon against us, potentially. It's nonsense that this administration and past administrations haven't really understood yet that inherent link between energy and security. I think more and more Americans are waking up to the fact, though, and we will hopefully see changes there soon.

Chinese Breeze: A-Power Plans Big Wind-Turbine Plant in U.S.

cohoctonwindwatch@gmail.com (Cohocton Wind Watch) — Tue, 17 Nov 2009 12:29:25 PST

Call it the Chuck Schumer effect.

Less than two weeks after New York’s senior senator railed against the Chinese wind farm planned for Texas, since it would mean mostly Chinese jobs, the companies behind the project announced their plans to build a huge wind-turbine factory in the U.S.

A-Power, the Chinese wind-turbine maker, and local partners U.S. Renewable Energy Group said they would build a massive wind-turbine plant in the U.S. that could produce 1,100 megawatts of wind turbines a year and employ more than 1,000 U.S. workers. The factory would use U.S.-made wind-turbine components, the company said.

“The decision to construct this wind energy facility in the United States is the direct result of America’s commitment to renewable energy and the strength and skill of the American workforce,” said Cappy McGarr, US-REG Managing Partner, in a press release.

It won’t matter for the Texas wind farm, which is meant to break ground next spring. But the planned factory would be huge—the same size as A-Power’s Chinese plant, which the company says is the biggest wind factory in China. The projected output of the factory would be somewhere between 15% and 20% of the recent annual installations of wind power in the U.S.

How, exactly, will it place all those turbines? Competition is fierce in the U.S., with global heavyweights General Electric, Vestas, Gamesa, and Siemens all fighting for market share in the world’s biggest wind-power market. All have a much longer track record than A-Power, which got into the wind business last year and uses German technology.

Can the plant compete on cost? Hard to see how. The whole point is to use U.S. labor, which costs more than Chinese labor. Ditto with U.S. wind-turbine components. There’s no cheap yuan to help sell the U.S.-made turbines, either. And tax credits for manufacturing facilities help all renewable-energy producers equally.

Maybe the real play is for Latin America. Despite all the talk about serving the U.S. market, the companies say the new plant will provide turbines “to renewable energy projects throughout North and South America.” Unlike wind markets in the U.S. and Europe, Latin America doesn’t have any home-grown wind-turbine makers gobbling up market share.

And even though the continent has been a wind-power laggard, governments from Mexico to Brazil are starting to warm up to the idea.

Mafia Tied to Wind Fraud in Italy

cohoctonwindwatch@gmail.com (Cohocton Wind Watch) — Tue, 17 Nov 2009 12:25:22 PST

Italian finance police have arrested two prominent businessmen — including one with ties to a former investor in the Cape Wind project in Nantucket — in the wind energy sector on charges of fraud. Arrested were Oreste Vigorito, head of the IVPC energy company and president of Italy’s National Association of Wind Energy, and Vito Nicastri, a Sicilian business associate, according to the Financial Times [1].

According to the European Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow [2], Oreste Vigorito has ties to Brian Caffyn, a former investor in the Cape Wind project [3], which has been criticized as a poor investment for taxpayers, reports Dakota Voice [4].

Vigorito once owned IVPC with Brian Caffyn, founder of Cape Wind and First Wind, according to the Boston Herald [5]. Caffyn sold his interest in Cape Wind in 2002 and sold his interest in IVPC in 2005. Vigorito has never had any involvement in Cape Wind, according to Mark Rodgers, Communications Director for the Cape Wind project.

The Herald reports that Caffyn was surprised to learn of Vigorito’s arrest:

“I read about it in the papers, and I was very surprised,” Brian Caffyn said from Hong Kong, where he is now building wind-energy farms in China and the Philippines.

“I know of no fraud with (former partners) Oreste (Vigorito) and IVPC,” said Caffyn, a Cape Cod native and Babson College graduate.

The “Gone with the Wind” sting operation, started in 2007, netted 11 others who were charged but were not arrested. Italian police told Financial Times that the fraud charges are related to obtaining millions of dollars in public subsidies to construct wind farms that never worked. Police confiscated seven wind farms with 185 turbines in Sicily linked to IVPC, according to the article.

The anti-fraud team also is investigating IVPC’s sales of wind farms to foreign companies, and already has sent requests for documentation to five companies located in the Netherlands and Spain, as well as IVPC’s Italian affiliates in Ireland and the UK, according to the article.

Anti-mafia prosecutors in Sicily also have launched a parallel investigation, reports the Financial Times.

Fraud appears to be an emerging problem in the nascent clean energy sector. Most recently, two clean energy auditors — SGS UK and DNV — were accused [6] of not properly auditing projects in carbon trading markets.

Meanwhile, the UK is dealing [7] with carbon trading credit scams that could cost millions of dollars. In Australia, to prevent bogus carbon offset schemes, federal police agents can now enter [8] company premises and request paperwork to monitor their emissions.

Article printed from Environmental Leader: http://www.environmentalleader.com

URL to article: Read Link

URLs in this post:

[1] Financial Times: Read Link

[2] European Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow: Read Link

[3] Cape Wind project: Read Link

[4] Dakota Voice: Read Link

[5] Boston Herald: Read Link

[6] accused: Read Link

[7] dealing: Read Link

[8] enter: Read Link

Eric Massa and an ill blowing wind

cohoctonwindwatch@gmail.com (Cohocton Wind Watch) — Tue, 17 Nov 2009 05:42:37 PST

So, what’s the story with the wind farms of Cohocton? Have you driven down there? There are something like 30 of them dotting the hillsides by Route 17 heading through the Southern Tier. I think they’re beautiful. I love the idea of renewable energy being produced on such a large scale.

But, do they work? I’ve heard rumors that they have been constructed in an area that is not really a wind corridor and they don’t turn on their own, that there are generators powering those which are turning, to create the facade of functionality. (please note, the generators are rumor, I can’t find sources to back that up.)

So, why the wind turbines if they’re not producing energy? As usual, follow the money:

In 2006, the Beacon Hill Institute at Suffolk University undertook the most comprehensive review yet of Cape Wind’s public subsidies.

“What we found was quite remarkable,” David Tuerck, the institute’s executive director, said at the time. “Cape Wind stands to receive subsidies worth $731 million, or 77 percent of the cost of installing the project and 48 percent of the revenues it would generate. The policy question that this amount of subsidy raises is whether the project’s benefit is worth the huge public subsidies that the developer gets.”

Cape Wind spokesman Mark Rogers said the wind farm would only receive government monies after it is up and working, and meeting certain production criteria.

“It’s all performance-based,” he said.

Really, Mr Rogers? (Not to be confused with Fred Rogers, who didn’t have a dishonest bone in his body.)

In September, after First Wind affiliates received $115 million in federal stimulus money, U.S. Rep. Eric J. Massa (D-N.Y.) wrote to President Barack Obama, calling the grants “very alarming” and saying the company “abused the public trust.

“No electricity has been produced for sale out of the projects,” but the company “has already collected production rewards for non-existent energy,” Massa told Obama.

Further, here is a video of Eric Massa responding to this issue at a town hall meeting: View the Video

77 million dollars for a private, for profit adventure that has nothing to do with the taxpayer”

There is no one more enthusiastic about the possibilities of renewable energies in the form of wind power, than I. I’m heartbroken that, again, crooked corporations are running with this ball to the goal of profits without accountability. A quick buck made while the wool is pulled over the starry eyed gaze of a public wanting to believe in a path to the greater good.

Once again, thank you to Eric.

Related posts:

1. Once more, Eric Massa on the right side of wrong
2. (I know, how cliche’!) The Answer is Blowing in the Wind
3. On the Bill Press Show, Eric Massa “Calls ‘em as he sees ‘em”.
4. Hate Crimes legislation passed in the House last week, take a moment to thank Eric Massa.
5. Eric Massa interviewed by City. Here’s the Health Care part.

Transmission line gets no support

cohoctonwindwatch@gmail.com (Cohocton Wind Watch) — Tue, 17 Nov 2009 05:22:53 PST

Landowners in Henderson and Ellisburg are charged up over the proposed transmission line for Galloo Island Wind Farm.

They voiced their displeasure with the plan during public hearings for the Public Service Commission on Monday morning and evening in Henderson and Belleville. In fact, none of the about 50 speakers at Monday's hearings supported the project.

Upstate NY Power Corp., the developer for the entire project, is seeking to build a 50.6-mile, 230-kilovolt transmission line. It would begin on Galloo Island and run underwater to the town of Henderson, where it would make landfall near Hovey Tract Road. From there, it would run east and south through the towns of Ellisburg, Sandy Creek and Richland to connect to a 345-kilovolt line in the town of Mexico.

The latest maps show the developer plans to circumvent the village of Pulaski and go to the east side of Interstate 81 there.

"There is nothing green or earth-friendly about building a power line through prime agricultural land," said Sharon B. Rossiter, co-owner of Doubledale Farms in Ellisburg.

She and her husband, Daniel L., choked up as they spoke about the crop cycle on the farm and the acres they would lose for crop production because of the proposed line. Mr. Rossiter said even with the poles spread out about 500 feet, it is difficult to plant crops around them.

The Rossiters stand to lose about 100 acres to the transmission line right of way.

"The obstacles for dairy farmers have become bigger and bigger," he said. "I have always remained optimistic about farming in Northern New York, but we must compete in a global economy. We don't need any other obstacles."

Jay M. Matteson, Jefferson County agricultural coordinator, also spoke out against using agricultural land in light of other alternatives.

"When state land is available that is not any more valuable environmentally than neighboring private lands, these transmission facilities projects should be sited on the available public land," he said. "The burden should be on New York state and the developer to prove to local landowners why their land is less valuable than public land."

John M. Irwin, Clay, argued against the proposed route, given the alternatives. In the application, the developer ruled out an underwater line because of cost and reliability issues.

"The claim about reliability of a subaquatic route is without merit," he said. "An underwater cable is not affected by an ice storm, or by lightning."

He also said the application lacked a realistic cost comparison of going to the Coffeen Street substation west of the city of Watertown. That substation would be the closest to the project, but would require upgrades to the substation.

"Their proposed line runs straight through the middle of the blueberry farm, which is what we've been working at building over the last six years," said Roberta F. French, owner of Farnham Farms in Sandy Creek.

The plan would eliminate about two-thirds of the blueberry field, she said. She said she will offer a proposal to go around her current and future fields.

Ms. French and others complained that they had not been notified that the transmission line is planned for their or neighboring property. Upstate NY Power representative Robert W. Burgdorf, of Nixon Peabody, Rochester, explained that the developer originally had talked to about 300 landowners along possible routes. But once the PSC process began, it did not notify individual landowners as the route changed.

Several landowners voiced fears about the use of eminent domain.

In August, a PSC spokeswoman said that although eminent domain could be attempted after the developer received a certificate of environmental compatibility and public need, it would require a separate process through local jurisdictions.

"They do not automatically gain the rights afforded under eminent domain law," Anne V. Dalton said.

Officials in Henderson also were vocal in opposition to the line.

"The town is vehemently opposed to the line coming through the town at all," said Holly K. Austin, the town's attorney on the transmission line proposal. She works for the Syracuse law firm Hancock & Estabrook LLP.

"The foundation of the town is tourism and agriculture," she said. "The community is very concerned about the visual impacts of this project."

Robert E. Ashodian, chairman of the Henderson Harbor Area Chamber of Commerce's Economic Development Committee, said the transmission line would violate the town's comprehensive plan. The plan was approved in 2004 after the town board and local Chamber of Commerce compiled surveys of residents.

"The scenic resources of the community and the natural resources are at the heart of the value of the community," he said. "How can the developer think about having a utility of this magnitude built with no reference to the long-term use plan of the town?"

Mr. Ashodian said people in Henderson didn't know it was coming.

The Times first reported in January 2008 the proposed path for the power line.

The hearings continue todayat 10 a.m. at the Barclay Court House, 1 Jefferson St., Pulaski, and at 6 p.m. at the Pulaski Junior-Senior High School, 4324 Salina St., Pulaski. The PSC and developer will present information during the first hour, followed by time for public statements.

NY Court of Appeals Opens Door to Standing for Environmental Review Challenges

cohoctonwindwatch@gmail.com (Cohocton Wind Watch) — Tue, 17 Nov 2009 05:07:40 PST

In a victory for those who have long believed that the New York Court of Appeals needed to open the courthouse door wider for advocates seeking standing in environmental disputes, a decision last week by the Court delivered. The court began its decision, “We hold that a person who can prove that he or she uses and enjoys a natural resource more than most other members of the public has standing under the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) to challenge government actions that threaten that resource. Applying that rule to this case, we hold that the individual petitioners who are members of petitioner Save the Pine Bush, Inc., and the organization itself, have standing to challenge an action alleged to threaten endangered species in the Pine Bush area.”

Following the required environmental review and subsequent rezoning of a 3.6 acre parcel adjoining the Pine Bush Preserve to accommodate a parking lot for a proposed hotel, nine members of Save the Pine Bush commenced challenging the City’s action under the State Environmental Quality Review Act, alleging that they “live near the site of the hotel project” and they “use the Pine Bush for recreation and to study and enjoy the unique habitat found there.” The trial court denied a motion to dismiss the proceeding for lack of standing, vacated the City’s SEQRA determination, and annulled the rezoning. The trial court determined that the environmental impact statement was flawed because while it gave “considerable attention” to the Karner Blue Butterfly, it did not contain “a hard look” at the potential impact on other rare plant and animals.

The Appellate Division affirmed (with two judges dissenting), finding, with respect to standing, that the plaintiffs could show evidence that “they regularly use the Preserve” and that “at least one of the petitioners resides in sufficient proximity to the Preserve to facilitate that use.” Applying Society of Plastics Industry v. Suffolk County (77 N.Y.2d 761), the Court said that “In land use matters… the plaintiff, for standing purposes, must show that it would suffer direct harm, injury that is in some way different from that of the public at large,” and that standing of an organization could be “established by proof that the agency action will directly harm the association members in their use and enjoyment of the affected natural resources.”

The Court of Appeals agreed, finding it was likely that members of the Save the Pine Bush organization would frequent and enjoy the Pine Bush. They referred to the finding by the United States Supreme Court in Sierra Club v Morton 405 U.S. 727 (1972), agreeing that a “generalized interest in the environment could not confer standing to challenge environmental injury, but that injury to a particular plaintiff “[a]esthetics and environmental well being” would be enough.” Here, the City did not challenge the injuries the petitioners asserted and the court found that the petitioners were able to prove the direct harm to the organization members.

The court, while holding that the petitioners had standing, nonetheless found for the City on the merits. The Court noted that the fact that not all possible potential impacts were studied was not fatal to the City approval of the zoning change. They stated “[w]hile it is essential that public agencies comply with their duties under SEQRA, some common sense in determining the extent of those duties is essential too.”

Save the Pine Bush v. Common Council of the City of Albany, 2009 WL 3425317 (NY 10/27/2009)

The opinion can be accessed at this link.

Posted in Current Caselaw - New York, Environmental Review, Standing

One doctor’s quest to sound the alarm on ‘wind turbine syndrome’ [del.icio.us]

cohoctonwindwatch — Mon, 16 Nov 2009 06:26:00 PST

Commissioners OK regulations for wind turbines [del.icio.us]

cohoctonwindwatch — Mon, 16 Nov 2009 06:20:05 PST

The reality of wind turbines is not as efficient as lobbyists would like the public to believe

cohoctonwindwatch@gmail.com (Cohocton Wind Watch) — Mon, 16 Nov 2009 03:10:51 PST

The article in the Thursday, Oct. 27 edition of The Daily Observer, ‘Energy solution blowing in the wind,’ is an example of alternative energy propaganda funded by wind farm companies and promoted by environmental lobby groups.

Mr. Berton has nothing but praise for Spain and its supposedly 13 per cent production figure, but what he doesn’t tell you is that although the wind is free, the means to produce power from it is twice as expensive as conventional power plants. Furthermore, Spain is now realizing how inefficient wind power is.

England is on the brink of a blackout in about seven years because of its commitment to wind power. The British have spent billions of pounds installing 2,000 wind turbines that barely produce one per cent of the power needed.

They signed on to Kyoto and are legally obligated to produce 32 per cent of their power from alternative energy sources by 2010. Let’s do the math: If 2,000 wind turbines barely produce one per cent of need, then 32 times 2,000 means it would take 64,000 turbines to meet the target. Each turbine needs about four acres, four times 64,000 amounts to 256,000 acres and England would be hard-pressed to find room for 10,000 turbines. Prime Minister Brown and his group of environmental dreamers are in fantasy land.

They are proposing to close their coal and oil-fired power plants and eight of their nine nuclear plants are so old that they will be forced to shut down, amounting to approximately 65 per cent of their power production.

The government is now reluctantly proposing to build a new generation of nuclearpower plants, but it has waited too long and will not have them in place before the county runs out of power. Britain sold its world class nuclear construction company, Westinghouse, to the Japanese for a fire sale price.

Germany has installed more than 3,000 wind turbines and are in the process of building 40 more clean coal-fired plants, because they now realize how inefficient and expensive wind power is.

In Ontario, Mr. McGuinty and his group of socialist comrades are travelling down the same road, and if not stopped, WE will be looking at power shortfalls in 10 years. I suggest rather than wasting our tax dollars on wind power, we should be refurbishing or building new nuclear power plants and also clean coal power plants.

The notion that wind power can replace conventional and nuclear power production is ridiculous and just a means for extracting our tax dollars from naive political leaders by the use of alarmism.

The sad reality is there is a lot of money behind wind power promoted by environmental lobby groups, and I would love to follow that paper trail to see who is getting it.

Mack Thrasher, Laurentian Valley

Italian wind executives arrested in fraud probe [del.icio.us]

cohoctonwindwatch — Sun, 15 Nov 2009 04:14:41 PST

“Industrial Wind Power in Maine’s Mountains is Bad Policy” (Testimony of Citizens Task Force on Wind Power) [del.icio.us]

cohoctonwindwatch — Sun, 15 Nov 2009 03:27:18 PST

State Energy Secretary Delivers Concessions on the Oceans Plan [del.icio.us]

cohoctonwindwatch — Fri, 13 Nov 2009 04:51:27 PST

Turbine tax named No. 1 priority [del.icio.us]

cohoctonwindwatch — Thu, 12 Nov 2009 04:01:33 PST

Town pokes holes in ocean plan on offshore wind [del.icio.us]

cohoctonwindwatch — Wed, 11 Nov 2009 14:30:40 PST