BP's Tatics in Cape Vincent Ny

Saturday, April 25, 2009

TOWN LAW

NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF STATE
DIVISION OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT SERVICES
41 STATE STREET
ALBANY, NEW YORK 12231
(518)473-3355
localgov@dos.state.ny.us
www.dos.state.ny.us

NEW YORK STATE TOWN LAW

15. Alternate members.
(a) A town board may, by local law or ordinance, or as part of the local law or ordinance creating the planning board, establish alternate planning board member positions for purposes of substituting for a member in the event such member is unable to participate because of a conflict of interest. Alternate members of the planning board shall be appointed by resolution of the town board, for terms established by the town board.

(b) The chairperson of the planning board may designate an alternate member to substitute for a member when such member is unable to participate because of a conflict of interest on an application or matter before the board. When so designated, the alternate member shall possess all the powers and responsibilities of such member of the board. Such designation shall be entered into the minutes of the initial planning board meeting at which the substitution is made.

11. Court review. Any person aggrieved by a decision of the authorized board or any officer, department, board or bureau of
the town may apply to the supreme court for review by a proceeding under article seventy-eight of the civil practice law and
rules. Such proceedings shall be instituted within thirty days after the filing of a decision by such board in the office of the determination.

12. Costs. Costs shall not be allowed against the authorized board unless it shall appear to the court that it acted with gross negligence, in bad faith, or with malice in making the decision appealed from.

Friday, April 24, 2009


And Cape Vincent has more than enough to go around

The Wind Turbines as Utilities Issue


Nov. 8, 2006 PB meeting:

Edsall and the planning board (PB) are asked the critical question that sparks the controversy.

“Is a wind farm an acceptable site plan review use in the agricultural district?”

Is this is asked by Acciona? The minutes aren’t clear. Edsall asks his board for a vote on the question. They vote 5-0 yes. (With 3 conflicted votes) Note that the question is NOT are wind turbines a utility. That is where the confusion starts. The question is about a wind farm being a proper site plan review use. This is a very important point.

The Problem:

There is no discussion on why a wind farm is acceptable as a site plan use in the AG district by the PB. They give NO rational as to why it is allowed or under what category it might fall. There are 12 site plan review uses allowed in the AG district. A wind farm is not listed as a use. Utilities, light industrial, and commercial ARE listed uses, but the planning board never says which use a wind farm is. They just say it is acceptable and move on. So they must have had some reason in their heads. Did they think that they are a utility because that is what the wind company told them? And that was what SLW listed on their permit application?

There is also the problem that it is out of the jurisdiction of the PB to make this determination or answer this question. NY Town Law does not give the PB the power to interpret zoning law. That is for the Zoning Enforcement Officer Alan Wood, and if there is a question it goes to the Zoning Board of Appeals. So even though everyone blames WPEG, it is the planning board that screwed up 1st.


Dec 2006: VERY IMPORTANT

WPEG challenges the planning board’s decision before the CV Zoning Board of Appeal.

It is critical to understand that… WPEG did not challenge whether turbines are utilities. They only asked for a determination, that if a wind farm is an acceptable site plan review use, which use is it, because wind farms are not listed?

The problem starts here because

SLW AND THEIR LAWYERS SWEEP IN AND SAY…”OH OUR PROJECT IS OK IN THE AG DISTRICT BECAUSE IT IS A UTILITY UNDER YOUR CURRENT ZONING AND UTILITIES DEFINITION”.

WPEG never said a word about utilities…it was SLW who defined turbines as utilities. Then WPEG challenged that as well, saying a wind farm is not a utility as defined by Cape Vincent’s zoning law. This is important…how did WPEG get blamed for turbines being utilities if they were fighting that turbines are not utilities…this makes no sense at all.

It is also very important to note that SLW’s application for a permit, and site plan review that was turned in to the town, also says their wind farm should be considered a utility.
WPEG didn’t write that on their application for them.

The important thing is that even if WPEG didn’t challenge the PB decision these projects would have moved forward as utilities ANYHOW because that is what SLW put on their application. If nobody challenged it, it would have moved forward as a utility anyhow.

Now the other thing that is being lied about is they are saying WPEG is at fault for killing the 2006 wind law.

We have the minutes of an Aug 2006 meeting where Reinbeck voted to kill the old law. So that is a lie too. WPEG also have a letter from Rich Edsall telling the TB to kill the 2006 law.

Why does Reinbeck start a wind law committee, spend $20,000 on the law, and spend 5 months on it, when he knows he can’t pass it anyhow because of the conflicts of interest on his board? The answer is because he never wanted a wind law to begin with unless it was very weak and favored the wind company.

The wind law was finished in Jan…it is now almost May.
He is not going to pass a wind law because he and Edsall and the board and the lease holders do not want one.

No matter what they say, they want turbines as utilities so they can put as many of them in as possible and as close to the river and lake as possible!!!! THEY ARE LIARS!!!!

But to do this and create a public diversion they will blame WPEG for all the points above.

You have to have something for cover when you recklessly waste $20,000 of tax payer money.


Thursday, April 23, 2009

Aubertine wants to send Upstate farm funds to the Bronx

State Sen. Darrel Aubertine is questioned about his bill (S.1676) to use state funds to create "urban greenmarkets" in NYC. However, Aubertine included no funding in the bill, and the issue was not taken up through the normal budget process, so it's unclear how the bill will help struggling farmers, as Aubertine intends.

Sen. Cathy Young, past chairman of the Senate Agriculture Committee, also worries that Aubertine is trying to supplant an existing Republican program designed to help Upstate farmers directly by sending that money to NYC.

Thursday, April 16, 2009

CapeVincent a Philosophy of corruption

It seems as though the saga in Cape Vincent is a never ending tale.

The problems in Cape Vincent are not caused by wind development; they are caused by the corrupt philosophy by which the town government is based, coupled with an obvious lack of moral character and rampant greed.


CVWIND posted this letter on channel seven’s you news web page.





Nearly all men can stand adversity, but if you want to test a man’s character, give him power.
Abraham Lincoln

Tuesday, April 14, 2009

BREAKING NEWS : CAPE VINCENT

BREAKING NEWS:
A Strange New Disease Discovered In Cape Vincent



Researchers think it is genetically linked...

Symptoms manifest themselves in the following way
1.Confusion
2.Delusions
3.Ideas of grandeur
4.Dishonesty
5.Pathological lying
6.Cunning, self-centered behavior.



So far the only people in Cape Vincent Afflicted with this disease are members of the town government and people infected by greed.

Approach with caution...

Infected people will be hostile and may attack, or threaten you.

The sketch below will help you identify those with this affliction.





This disease is called: HEAD UP ASS SYNDROME!








These are remains unearthed during an archaeological dig in the Cape Vincent area.
Photo removed by blog administrator

Monday, April 13, 2009

Moratorium on Wind Energy Development in Northern NY Petition



Moratorium on Wind Energy Development in Northern NY Petition

Published by WPEG on Apr 06, 2009
Category: Government
Region: United States of America
Target: Governor Paterson
Web site: http://www.wind-watch.org/alerts/wp-content/uploads/2009/02/wpeg-conflict-ad-1.pdf

Background (Preamble):
Dear Governor Paterson,During a visit to Watertown, NY a few months ago you expressed concerns that we must be very careful when it involves the placement of industrial wind complexes near New York State’s environmental treasures.

Myself and the people included on this letter share your concerns and are asking you to take immediate action that will preserve these special places, and forever protect them from the rampant Klondike like wind rush that is overtaking our state, and is poisoned with unethical behavior.
It would be terribly unfortunate if the legacy that followed you was one of allowing the uncontrolled industrialization of our most treasure places. Consider this quote from a Draft Environmental Impact Study done by British Petroleum in Cape Vincent at the 1000 Islands.


“The cumulative effect of the adjacent St. Lawrence and Cape Vincent Projects would be very much the same as if either project were essentially doubled in size. On a regional level, the effect of the four wind projects will be to create a continuous swath approximately 25-30 miles east to west, from Evans Mill all the way onto mainland Canada, where wind turbines will be ubiquitous.


”This is the future BP sees for an area that has traditionally been one of NY’s prime environmental and recreational resources. Is this the future you envision for the 1000 Island region or the rest of NY? This amounts to an unacceptable sudden and uncontrolled environmental transformation of an entire region of New York State driven by corporate greed and questionable ethics.


Your idea is for wind energy to play and important role in NY’s energy future. However, it will be increasingly difficult to site wind energy projects when town’s and expanding anti-wind groups see these actions as the prime example of wind company behavior, and the perception becomes that state officials have the inability to control it.


Sadly the decisions being made in Cape Vincent by town officials, who should be the stewards of these sensitive resources, is poisoned with conflicts of interest with two wind developers. Neither developer at this writing has signed onto Attorney General Cuomo’s Wind Energy Ethics Code. Six out of ten officers hold wind energy leases in violation of their own town ethics code. The very people who should be protecting this area have deep financial incentives to do otherwise. There exists a clear blatant trend of actions that show their financial incentives have precluded them from carrying out their sacred oath to protect both citizens and the environment. Cape Vincent is the worst example, but other local town’s suffer from similar symptoms as well.


The entire atmosphere that surrounds wind energy development in Northern NY has become unacceptable and intolerable by any reasonable standard, unless you are a wind developer or a wind lease holder. Your office or the Attorney General can no longer ignore this situation for political expediency.


Petition:

We, the undersigned
•Request that an immediate moratorium be placed on wind energy development for two years to sort out all the evolving and constantly changing issues surrounding this new technology which carries so many potential negative impacts.

•Request that you direct the Attorney General to modify his wind ethics code to mandatory from
the current voluntary participation, and be unyielding in its enforcement.

• Request that you direct the Attorney General to immediately investigate the Cape Vincent ethics situation to ensure that this beautiful and precious area gets the protection it deserves, and that these officers are held accountable for their actions.

• Request that you be aggressive in the protection of New York’s treasured places by banning this questionable high impact use from such areas and those areas immediate adjacent so they receive the protections they deserve for future generations.

• Many of N.NY citizens have been intimately involved on these issues in their respective towns for some time. We are requesting a meeting with you and your staff with a representative group to discuss these matters and bring clarity to the threats that face our communities and environment.Thank you for your consideration of this extremely urgent matter.
Sign the petition

Cape Vincent Before and after. And what does Darrel think?
























Sunday, April 12, 2009

Judge rules against village wind turbine plans

 link not available

Elaine Maslin

12 April 2009 17:51Villagers who have spent £50,000 on a six-year battle against a proposed wind farm on their doorstep look to have finally won their fight.

A high court judge has ruled that the "considerable rural charm" of the area of Guestwick, between Fakenham and Aylsham, is reason enough to refuse plans for a group of wind turbines there.

The decision has been greeted with relief for local residents who first faced energy firm Enertrag's plans in 2003.

Guestwick parish meeting, which also represented other villages in the area, was at the front of the battle, part paid for by local fundraising, alongside Broadland Council.

Robin Back, chairman, said last night: "There is a sense of relief. The system has been proven to work.

"We have striven over six years to be reasonable and not to overreact. We looked at what was offered and saw the damage which could ensue to the local environment.

"He said about £50,000 had been raised locally, most spent on legal fees, and people had given their time and skills too.

Some £1,200 was awarded in costs by the high court to the parish meeting.

Enertrag's plans for six wind turbines, up to 125m high, with 45m-long blades at Skitfield Road, Guestwick, were first refused by Broadland Council in March 2005.

That decision was appealed but the appeal was dismissed. But that dismissal was then subject to a legal challenge which quashed it.

To decide the matter, an inquiry was set up and held in July 2007 and it ruled last year. This was then contested in the high court by Enertrag this year on March 9.

The main areas of contention were the visual impact of the proposal, noise and the extent to which air safety would be affected. Enertrag argued the inspector failed to show why there was a serious effect on listed buildings, there were no essential safety concerns relating to operations at Norwich Airport and the inspector had been wrong in suggesting the scheme could not be up and running by 2010.

Now deputy high court judge Frances Patterson QC, in the Royal Courts of Justice, has ruled against the plans.

She said: "Because of the strong and increasing need for renewable energy, I have found this to be a finely balanced case.

"But I have come to the final conclusion that the serious harm to the landscape and to the settings of some fine listed buildings outweighs the benefit in terms of sustainable energy production."

Saturday, April 11, 2009

Sen. Darrel Aubertine -- fighting for farmers?


xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx


xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Senator Aubertine "On the Bill" Senate Session March 31, 2009



xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx



xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Friday, April 10, 2009

Wind power is a complete disaster - FP Comment

Wind power is a complete disaster - FP Comment

There is no evidence that industrial wind power is likely to have a significant impact on carbon emissions. The European experience is instructive. Denmark, the world’s most wind-intensive nation, with more than 6,000 turbines generating 19% of its electricity, has yet to close a single fossil-fuel plant. It requires 50% more coal-generated electricity to cover wind power’s unpredictability, and pollution and carbon dioxide emissions have risen (by 36% in 2006 alone).

Flemming Nissen, the head of development at West Danish generating company ELSAM (one of Denmark’s largest energy utilities) tells us that “wind turbines do not reduce carbon dioxide emissions.” The German experience is no different. Der Spiegel reports that “Germany’s CO2 emissions haven’t been reduced by even a single gram,” and additional coal- and gas-fired plants have been constructed to ensure reliable delivery.

Indeed, recent academic research shows that wind power may actually increase greenhouse gas emissions in some cases, depending on the carbon-intensity of back-up generation required because of its intermittent character. On the negative side of the environmental ledger are adverse impacts of industrial wind turbines on birdlife and other forms of wildlife, farm animals, wetlands and viewsheds.

Industrial wind power is not a viable economic alternative to other energy conservation options. Again, the Danish experience is instructive. Its electricity generation costs are the highest in Europe (15¢/kwh compared to Ontario’s current rate of about 6¢). Niels Gram of the Danish Federation of Industries says, “windmills are a mistake and economically make no sense.” Aase Madsen , the Chair of Energy Policy in the Danish Parliament, calls it “a terribly expensive disaster.”

The U.S. Energy Information Administration reported in 2008, on a dollar per MWh basis, the U.S. government subsidizes wind at $23.34 — compared to reliable energy sources: natural gas at 25¢; coal at 44¢; hydro at 67¢; and nuclear at $1.59, leading to what some U.S. commentators call “a huge corporate welfare feeding frenzy.” The Wall Street Journal advises that “wind generation is the prime example of what can go wrong when the government decides to pick winners.

” The Economist magazine notes in a recent editorial, “Wasting Money on Climate Change,” that each tonne of emissions avoided due to subsidies to renewable energy such as wind power would cost somewhere between $69 and $137, whereas under a cap-and-trade scheme the price would be less than $15.

Either a carbon tax or a cap-and-trade system creates incentives for consumers and producers on a myriad of margins to reduce energy use and emissions that, as these numbers show, completely overwhelm subsidies to renewables in terms of cost effectiveness.

The Ontario Power Authority advises that wind producers will be paid 13.5¢/kwh (more than twice what consumers are currently paying), even without accounting for the additional costs of interconnection, transmission and back-up generation. As the European experience confirms, this will inevitably lead to a dramatic increase in electricity costs with consequent detrimental effects on business and employment. From this perspective, the government’s promise of 55,000 new jobs is a cruel delusion.

A recent detailed analysis (focusing mainly on Spain) finds that for every job created by state-funded support of renewables, particularly wind energy, 2.2 jobs are lost. Each wind industry job created cost almost $2-million in subsidies. Why will the Ontario experience be different?

In debates over climate change, and in particular subsidies to renewable energy, there are two kinds of green. First there are some environmental greens who view the problem as so urgent that all measures that may have some impact on greenhouse gas emissions, whatever their cost or their impact on the economy and employment, should be undertaken immediately.

Then there are the fiscal greens, who, being cool to carbon taxes and cap-and-trade systems that make polluters pay, favour massive public subsidies to themselves for renewable energy projects, whatever their relative impact on greenhouse gas emissions. These two groups are motivated by different kinds of green. The only point of convergence between them is their support for massive subsidies to renewable energy (such as wind turbines).

This unholy alliance of these two kinds of greens (doomsdayers and rent seekers) makes for very effective, if opportunistic, politics (as reflected in the Ontario government’s Green Energy Act), just as it makes for lousy public policy: Politicians attempt to pick winners at our expense in a fast-moving technological landscape, instead of creating a socially efficient set of incentives to which we can all respond.

Financial PostMichael J. Trebilcock is Professor of Law and Economics, University of Toronto. These comments were excerpted from a submission last night to the Ontario government’s legislative committee On Bill 150.

State Launches Investigation Into Turbine Collapse - News Story - WPTZ Plattsburgh

State Launches Investigation Into Turbine Collapse - News Story - WPTZ Plattsburgh

ALTONA, N.Y. -- The New York Public Service Commission has launched an investigation into the Noble Wind Farm accident in Altona and will make its own determination on the cause of the collapse.
Public Service Commission spokeswoman Anne Dalton said the agency requested information from Noble on turbine equipment and operations before the collapse, debris scatter and whether the company had proper emergency response and maintenance procedures, as well as whether they were followed. New Wind Turbine Investigation
She said the company has cooperated with the investigation, and a review of the information is under way.

She said the company has cooperated with the investigation, and a review of the information is under way.
Dalton said it is unclear how long the investigation will take, but added it is the first time the commission has investigated a turbine collapse.
Noble Environmental Power issued a statement in late March blaming the March 6 turbine collapse on a "wiring anomaly" that was exacerbated by a power outage at the wind farm

Monday, April 6, 2009

Moratorium on Wind Energy Development in Northern NY Petition

Moratorium on Wind Energy Development in Northern NY Petition

Published by WPEG on Apr 06, 2009
Category: Government
Region: United States of America

Target: Governor Paterson

Web site: http://www.wind-watch.org/alerts/wp-content/uploads/2009/02/wpeg-conflict-ad-1.pdf

Background (Preamble):

Dear Governor Paterson,
During a visit to Watertown, NY a few months ago you expressed concerns that we must be very careful when it involves the placement of industrial wind complexes near New York State’s environmental treasures. Myself and the people included on this letter share your concerns and are asking you to take immediate action that will preserve these special places, and forever protect them from the rampant Klondike like wind rush that is overtaking our state, and is poisoned with unethical behavior.

It would be terribly unfortunate if the legacy that followed you was one of allowing the uncontrolled industrialization of our most treasure places. Consider this quote from a Draft Environmental Impact Study done by British Petroleum in Cape Vincent at the 1000 Islands.

“The cumulative effect of the adjacent St. Lawrence and Cape Vincent Projects would be very much the same as if either project were essentially doubled in size. On a regional level, the effect of the four wind projects will be to create a continuous swath approximately 25-30 miles east to west, from Evans Mill all the way onto mainland Canada, where wind turbines will be ubiquitous.

”This is the future BP sees for an area that has traditionally been one of NY’s prime environmental and recreational resources. Is this the future you envision for the 1000 Island region or the rest of NY? This amounts to an unacceptable sudden and uncontrolled environmental transformation of an entire region of New York State driven by corporate greed and questionable ethics.

Your idea is for wind energy to play and important role in NY’s energy future. However, it will be increasingly difficult to site wind energy projects when town’s and expanding anti-wind groups see these actions as the prime example of wind company behavior, and the perception becomes that state officials have the inability to control it.

Sadly the decisions being made in Cape Vincent by town officials, who should be the stewards of these sensitive resources, is poisoned with conflicts of interest with two wind developers. Neither developer at this writing has signed onto Attorney General Cuomo’s Wind Energy Ethics Code. Six out of ten officers hold wind energy leases in violation of their own town ethics code. The very people who should be protecting this area have deep financial incentives to do otherwise. There exists a clear blatant trend of actions that show their financial incentives have precluded them from carrying out their sacred oath to protect both citizens and the environment. Cape Vincent is the worst example, but other local town’s suffer from similar symptoms as well.

The entire atmosphere that surrounds wind energy development in Northern NY has become unacceptable and intolerable by any reasonable standard, unless you are a wind developer or a wind lease holder. Your office or the Attorney General can no longer ignore this situation for political expediency.


Petition:

We, the undersigned,

• Request that an immediate moratorium be placed on wind energy development for two years to sort out all the evolving and constantly changing issues surrounding this new technology which carries so many potential negative impacts.

• Request that you direct the Attorney General to modify his wind ethics code to mandatory from the current voluntary participation, and be unyielding in its enforcement.

• Request that you direct the Attorney General to immediately investigate the Cape Vincent ethics situation to ensure that this beautiful and precious area gets the protection it deserves, and that these officers are held accountable for their actions.

• Request that you be aggressive in the protection of New York’s treasured places by banning this questionable high impact use from such areas and those areas immediate adjacent so they receive the protections they deserve for future generations.

• Many of N.NY citizens have been intimately involved on these issues in their respective towns for some time. We are requesting a meeting with you and your staff with a representative group to discuss these matters and bring clarity to the threats that face our communities and environment.Thank you for your consideration of this extremely urgent matter.

Sign the petition

Sunday, April 5, 2009

Watertown Daily Times | Wind developer offers more details

Watertown Daily Times Wind developer offers more details

CAPE VINCENT — St. Lawrence Wind Farm developer Acciona is offering a more precise explanation of what the project's effects on the environment will be in its supplemental draft impact statement.
The statement, released March 25, includes several changes and decisions:


In response to this Watertown Daily Times article
On Sun, Apr 5, 2009 at 8:42 AM, Lisa Linowes executive director of Wind action org.<lisa@linowes.com> wrote:

Dear Ms. Madsen,
Thank you for your reporting on the wind issue in the State of New York. Given your balanced approach, I was taken aback to read your article in today's paper where you highlight the assertions made in the Acciona's draft impact statement. If you changed the developer's name and the location of the project site, the article would read the same. In short, all applications prepared by the wind developers in the State, whether in Jefferson County, Franklin County, Wyoming County, Clinton County read the same and they're often prepared by the same "experts". But the fact is, their poorly formulated arguments and methodologies designed to ensure specific scientific outcomes have been challenged by qualified people. You've reported on these challenges in the Watertown Daily Times. To give Acciona this kind of press is surprising and does not serve your readership.

Respectfully,--Lisa Linowes executive directorhttp://www.windaction.org/

About Lisa Linowes
Ms. Linowes is an expert on the impacts of industrial-scale wind energy development on the natural environment, communities, and the regional grid systems. A conservation and land use advocate with over 20 years of executive business experience, Ms. Linowes has held high-profile elected and volunteer positions in community planning, land negotiation, and education outreach.
Since its formation in 2006, Ms. Linowes has served as Executive Director and spokesperson for the Industrial Wind Action (IWA) Group, a national advocacy focused on the impact/benefits analysis and policy issues associated with industrial wind energy development. As publisher and editor of the IWA website, www.windaction.org, she tracks news and research pertaining to industrial wind, and facilitates information sharing on the issue.
Ms. Linowes has presented and debated wind energy issues at numerous venues across the United States including the National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners (NARUC), Society of Environmental Journalists, and the Boston Museum of Science lecture series. She has appeared on CNN, NPR, and the CBS Evening News with Katie Couric, as well as in the New York Times, Washington Post, Christian Science Monitor, and dozens of smaller newspapers across the nation.
Ms. Linowes served as a member of the State of New Hampshire Energy Policy Commission, Wind Energy Facility Siting Guidelines Working Group to determine guidelines for the siting of land-based wind turbines. The committee was focused on minimizing and avoiding impacts of large-scale wind development on wildlife and sensitive habitat areas. Ms. Linowes has been an active participant in the ISO-New England’s Scenario Planning Process to determine regional energy requirements to meet growing demand in the region.
At the local level, Ms. Linowes has been an active member of planning boards and conservation commissions for over ten years, having reviewed hundreds of development plans including wind energy facilities, large subdivisions, office buildings, and shopping complexes. She has led numerous seminars on land use issues and the impact of such development on sensitive land areas. Ms. Linowes also served on the Board of Directors of the NH Association of Conservation Commissions, and was awarded a NH Coverts Cooperator for promoting wildlife habitats conservation and forest stewardship.

Saturday, April 4, 2009

Well, it looks like Darrel finds it easy to spend money that isn’t his, or maybe he thinks it is his.


Link to original
The Valley News Online

Carol Thompson 04-04-2009


by Carol Thompson

Despite New York State’s current financial crisis, numerous staff members of State Senator Darrel Aubertine received double-digit pay raises.

According to payroll information provided by the state, constituent liaison Kathryn White received a 27-percent raise in pay. Ms. White, whose 2008 salary is listed at $30,000 annually in state records, now receives $38,000.


- Valley News

Friday, April 3, 2009

BP Cuts 620 Jobs From Solar Business | BNET

BP Cuts 620 Jobs From Solar Business BNET

LONDON (Reuters UK) - BP on Wednesday said it would cut 620 jobs from its solar power business and that two plants in Spain and part of a plant in the U.S. would be shut as it looks to reduce costs at its renewable energy division.

Stray Voltage from Turbines Killing Cows

Guest column: No to turbines | htrnews.com | Manitowoc Herald Times Reporter


It's sad when those who support wind energy have no engineering facts to back their opinion and often resort to name calling to discredit the Wisconsin Independent Citizens Opposing Wind Turbine Sites (WINDCOWS).


Far too often, the effects that farmers face are overlooked. Misled into contracts like rats to poison, they, along with their neighbors, are left at the mercy of the developer.

For those who believe that the Public Service Commission (PSC) should set the safety standards for wind turbine placement, think again. Farmers who have dealt with the PSC on (stray) voltage issues would quickly tell you that the PSC standards are dead wrong. We call ourselves the Dairy State, but allow voltage contact high enough to kill our cows.

Instead of fixing the problem, the PSC denies that there is one. An upgrade of the electrical grid would solve many issues. Let it be noted that local utilities have come a long way, helping farmers solve some of the voltage issues through rewiring programs. However, the PSC and legislatures set the standards and this is where the argument continues.

If utilities are mandated into wind energy, will it create problems? Take into consideration that wind turbines have a variable speed generator, and that the grid is undersized. With wind being variable and usage being variable, will it be harder to stabilize the grid load?

Base load generator output — like coal and nuclear — can be controlled, while wind will increase and decrease without warning. You must also remember that the earth is used as a neutral ground and that each turbine will create its own electrical path back to the substation. If your farm or house is in the path, will it have an adverse effect? The PSC says no, but I would object.

In Fond du Lac County, people are complaining of flu-like symptoms from noise and flicker in their wind farm areas. While this may be a factor, could it also be electromagnetic frequencies (EMF)? With multiple underground cables and turbines scattered around the area, are people feeling the effects of electrical pollution? If you read what residents are saying on the Rock County Web site (www.betterspace.com) and look under Google health effects under EMFs, compare the two and make your own opinion.

So few people know that Navitas Energy has permits for 49 turbines in northern Manitowoc County. While pro-wind people will jump for joy, farmers will watch their land be divided into little wedges for roadways.

Like always, some farmers are too busy to read the operator's manual when they get a new machine on their farm. Only when they realize that something is seriously wrong will they take a look at the Vestas turbine manual, which clearly states a 1,300-foot distance should be kept.

For those who think that the Manitowoc County Wind Ordinance is wrong, you are right. It does not meet the requirements of health and safety found in the Vestas manual. Even though challenged in court by WINDCOWS, turbines in some cases will be as close as 600 feet to people's houses.

The old ordinance was based on the state model, which was drafted without engineering facts by the PSC for political reasons. The PSC is appointed by Gov. Doyle. You must also know that the old ordinance was written with the help of the former president of Navitas Energy. He now sits in prison for fraud. Google up Greg Jaunich, the former Navitas president, and you will see that wind energy in Manitowoc County may not be such a good idea after all.

Jerome Hlinak is a Tisch Mills dairy farmer and and WINDCOWS member.





Wind and Cows

www.windaction.org | No to turbines; Wind turbines raise many questions

Thursday, April 2, 2009

Letter: Cohocton not dealing with leaseholder noise complaints - Hornell, NY - Hornell Evening Tribune

Letter: Cohocton not dealing with leaseholder noise complaints - Hornell, NY - Hornell Evening Tribune

Cohocton, N.Y. -
The Town of Cohocton announced Monday it will no longer be dealing with any noise complaints generated by residents who lease property with wind energy developer First Wind.

The town board sent an open letter to the media Monday afternoon outlining its intentions on monitoring noise generated by the 50 wind turbines erected in the town in 2008 following complaints by residents and leaseholders involved with the project.

“Over the past few weeks, a resident of the Town of Cohocton, Hal Graham, has been lodging complaints with First Wind, the owner of the Town of Cohocton’s two wind farms, members of the Town Board, other State and local elected officials, and the Town’s Code Enforcement Officer concerning noise levels at his home,” the letter states.

Under the town’s wind law, the letter states, there is a distinction between participating landowners — like Graham, who has several turbines on his property — and non-participating landowners.

“The town wanted to allow those persons in the town signing leases or setback waivers to make their own decisions about the use of their land, without constraining any particular landowners’ ability to negotiate with First Wind,” the letter states. “Participating landowners are viewed under the Town’s local laws as, in essence, First Wind’s co-applicants.”

The board heard complaints on noise generated from the 50 turbines on top of Pine, Lent, Dutch and Brown hills around Cohocton at its Feb. 23 meeting. At the meeting, Graham — a Lent Hill resident — addressed the board and asked if there was anything the town could do about the turbines on his property.

“They (First Wind) told us we wouldn’t hear anything at 900 feet,” he said at the meeting. “The noise is so great that my windows are vibrating.”

The letter Monday said it will not be dealing with Graham’s problems.

“While we are hopeful that First Wind will be responsive to Hal’s concerns and the concerns of any other ‘participating’ landowners, the Town will not compromise its ability to address legitimate complaints received from the owners of ‘non-participating’ parcels by taking on a ‘participating’ parcel owner’s problems,” the letter states, continuing to explain that the town’s laws on wind noise do not apply to participating landowners and they must file their complaints with First Wind.

Non-participating residents’ complaints will receive the town’s attention, though.

The current procedure for complaints is to call a toll-free number belonging to First Wind, which rings into the office located on Main Street in Cohocton. From there, First Wind officials will schedule a time for the town’s and the company’s wind turbine noise consultants to test the property and determine if there are violations of the wind law.

“If First Wind does not adequately respond to your complaint, then follow up with the Town’s Code Enforcement Officer,” the letter states.

Calls to Cohocton town Supervisor Jack Zigenfus, who sent the letter to The Evening Tribune, and Graham were not immediately returned.

Wednesday, April 1, 2009

Is this an acceptable risk?

If a fire starts in a wind turbine nacelle, then molten, burning glass fiber from the blades will drop down onto the dry dead grass around the base and the fire will spread to the trees or barns, even homes nearby.
It is especially dangerous if the turbine starts burning at night. If wind turbines catch on fire the outcome could be deadly. Is this an acceptable risk?

Living Near A Wind Turbine