BP's Tatics in Cape Vincent Ny

Thursday, December 30, 2010

Schomer Reviews Hessler Noise Reoprt

View Schomer Report -->here<-- p="">
Below are examples of how Hessler and Associates operate to ensure that they produce the results that their clients pay for





~~~~~~~~~~~~












The picture at the Top: “Quiet” Hessler view of his site The other picture at the Bottom: View from opposite direction showing
Monitor area was actually nearby to farm machinery and sheds, and not very near to the house.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


Also Hessler described position #3 in the BP study as “representative of a typical residence along NYS 12E.”However, he failed to show that the trailer in the photograph was a field office for a construction company installing a new Town of Cape Vincent water district.

Furthermore at the back of the trailer, out of view, was a marshalling yard for trucks, supplies and heavy equipment. The choice of this site and suggesting it is a typical residence was very misleading.


Schomer and Associates sent this letter to Cape Vincent Town Supervisor,
in response to the April 14, 2010 sound presentation, given at recreation park, by Hessler. Hessler’s presentation was sponsored by Acciona, the Mother company of Cape Vincent’s proposed St. Lawrence industrial wind project.


Tuesday, December 28, 2010

Why Did Acciona Reduce Their Turbine Numbers?

An important part of the WPEG lawsuit that stands out is the noise issue the planning board ignored their consultant’s recommendations. In Edsalls affidavit # 59.

The planning board stated with respect to operational noise, that impacts had successfully been minimized through project design (reduction of total number of turbines from 96 to 53) the Water town Daily times article below explains why Acciona areally reduced their turbine numbers.

This order by New York's Public Service Commission requires renewable energy developers to quantify and qualify whether their proposed project, if built, will displace other renewable energy and in what amounts.

Developers of the proposed Galloo Island, Horse Creek and Cape Vincent wind farms have one more study to add to their lists after an order from the Public Service Commission.

Under the PSC's order, dated Oct. 20, all renewable energy projects built at 80 megawatts or more in capacity must conduct the "energy deliverability" study

Monday, December 27, 2010

Many people who oppose industrial wind do not have a clue what it means to be a farmer in this area.

Letter to the editor from the watertown Times
TUESDAY, APRIL 20, 2010

Scott Aubertine has tried very hard to be fair in his interpretation of the wind power issue.

The majority of people who strongly oppose wind development in our farmlands are not even familiar with that part of our town.

The windmills, if put on our farmland north of Route 12E, would not be part of the waterfront viewshed. There is no law that protects a property owner's viewshed.

The tourism industry in Lyme is about as developed as it ever will be right now. Why? Because we have no good waterfront land left for tourism development. It is covered by private homes, cottages, garages near the roads, docks of all sorts hanging out over the water and decks suspended along the shoreline.


The natural flora and fauna of our shoreline have been driven out, and people who are not fortunate enough to own a piece of this "paradise" can seldom enjoy it. I have lived here for 40 years and have never known the pleasure of a walk along the beach.

Sometimes people who work hard all their lives elsewhere to buy a piece of this paradise give the impression that people who work hard here all their lives should be indebted to them for coming here and paying "big" taxes. Many people who live and work here feel that seasonal residents look upon them as servants. This is really sad.

Many people who oppose industrial wind do not have a clue what it means to be a farmer in this area. They think of local farmers as wealthy landowners who are lazy and greedy. How can supposedly well-educated people be so uninformed?

I sincerely hope that Scott and the rest of the town board will go to work right away to develop a wind law that is reasonable. The town board should not be afraid to talk to BP or Acciona any more than New York State Energy Research and Development Authority or anybody else. The more open they are to all sources of information, the more prepared they will be. And by the way, BP is more American owned than most companies, banks or other enterprises we deal with every day.

Scott is doing a good job.

Julia Gosier

Three Mile Bay

Link here to Watertown Times article and original comments

Sunday, December 26, 2010

Watertown Daily Times | Windmills won't hurt Lyme tourism

Scott Aubertine has tried very hard to be fair in his interpretation of the wind power issue.

The majority of people who strongly oppose wind development in our farmlands are not even familiar with that part of our town.[ Watertown Daily Times | Windmills won't hurt Lyme tourism]

Corey White Asks So how does the minority that elected Urban feel about his leadership now?

Hirschey is wasting taxpayers' money

THURSDAY, MARCH 11, 2010


I was shocked when I saw the recent ad by the anti-wind coalition. In this ad, the coalition compares windmills placed in the windiest sections of New York to the attack on Pearl Harbor, in which more than 2,400 American soldiers lost their lives. Coalition members are comparing their disappointment that cocktails on their summer home patios won't be the same anymore to the murder of 2,400-plus Americans on Dec. 7, 1941. This ad is incredibly disrespectful and Cape Vincent Town Council member Brooks Bragdon should be ashamed to be a member of this coalition.

Cape town Supervisor Urban Hirschey recently had an audit done for the town's finances because he and the Cape anti-wind group had themselves convinced that former Supervisor Tom Rienbeck and others on the town board were corrupt.[Watertown Times]

Wednesday, December 22, 2010

Anti-wind folks hide beyond anonymity

FRIDAY, MARCH 5, 2010
One of our local newspapers gives people the opportunity to respond online to letters people have mailed in. Whenever someone writes a logical, rational, pro-wind letter, you can expect anti-wind folks will attack the writer online with name-calling and personal threats. This is funny because people who mail in letters have the courage to include their names, but the online anti-wind writers choose to be anonymous and give themselves cute names like Outlaw and Windless.

People should look closely at the anti-wind responses, not because they're rational because they're not, but because it's interesting to see what the anti-wind don't try to deny. My son Cory wrote a letter, and he pointed out that the voter list from the November 2009 election proves that the Cape's anti-wind registered family members to their residences so that these family members who've never lived in the Cape could vote in our election. What's interesting is that in the 20 or so responses to Cory's letter, not a single anti-wind denied this. So if no one's denying this was done, is Urban Hirschey the legitimate supervisor? [Watertown Times]

Wednesday, December 15, 2010

WIND TURBINE SYNDROME ~ More Than Noise !

Excerpts:
~ Are Wind Turbines Hazardous to your Health?
[05.12.10]
ANDY BROMAGE OF THE SEVEN DAYS
VERMONTS INDEPENDANT VOICE RECENTLY REPORTED THAT

State Rep. David Potter (D-Rutland) told Statehouse reporters at a January press conference: “It’s pretty well established that industrial wind turbines can cause significant health and safety issues for some folks living near them.”

Bromage also reported about a meeting where some Vermonters got an earful about wind turbine syndrome from one of the theory’s leading purveyors,
Dr. Michael Nissenbaum, a Northern Maine Medical Center physician who found mysterious health problems among homeowners living near a wind farm in Mars Hill, Maine.

 ~~~~
Taking the opposite view was Dr. Robert McCunney, a staff physician at Massachusetts General Hospital’s pulmonary division who coauthored a study for the American Wind Energy Association (AWEA) that found turbine noise can be “annoying,” but is not causally linked to health problems.

 THE OTHER SIDE
Excerpts:
McCunney says he typed “wind turbine syndrome” into PubMed, an online database of 19 million citations for peer-reviewed biomedical research, and the search turned up nothing. Likewise, a search for “vibroacoustic disease,” another syndrome supposedly linked to wind turbines, revealed no case — control studies or longitudinal studies — the ones scientists consider valid, McCunney says.

McCunney’s group did no original research, but rather reviewed and compiled findings from a dozen other studies.




I would like to add my two cents

Pub med does have articles about symptoms and manifestation of Vibrocustic disease , there were 36 articles published about Vibrocoustic disease and low frequency noise. On the one hand,
McCunney stated that Wind Turbine Syndrome Does not exist because it has not been published in Pub Med, additionally he said that the articles that are published in Pub Med that recognize that Low frequency noise causes Vibrocoustic disease and a myriad of health problems are not reliable. He is actually discrediting his own credibility.



Below are three articles that I pulled out of the Pub Med data base specifically related to the ill effects of

wind turbine noise and humans


and one about underwater noise and the effects on porpoises and seals.
Plus there were 320 easy to find noise related articles, however I do not work for the AWEA so perhaps this somehow made it easier for me to find these articles .

I am not a Dr. and I was able to reason that since "Wind Turbine Syndrome" is a phrase coined by Dr. Nina Pierpont, and that she only recently published her book.
Perhaps there were no publications in pub med's data base titled Wind Turbine Syndrome, and if one were really interested in whether or not wind turbines were really hazardous to humans.
They would type in a phrase that would not limit their results unless they were intentionally trying to limit their results…
If you deny something it does not exist.

I would also like to point out that there are other databases available for research info that are reliable other than Pub Med.

Response to noise from modern wind farms in The Netherlands.


Perception and annoyance due to wind turbine noise--a dose-response relationship.


Wind turbine noise, annoyance and self-reported health and well-being in different living environments.

Underwater noise from three types of offshore wind turbines: estimation of impact zones for harbor porpoises and harbor seals.

Tuesday, November 23, 2010

Is Acciona a NIMBY ? ~ Why Don't They Look at Data From Our Back Yard? Wolfe Island Wind



Acciona searches far and wide for relevant data from wind plagued communities to compare to Cape Vincent.


~BUT NOT IN MY BACK YARD ~



Acciona ignores the most significant source of data within a bird’s eye view of Cape Vincent is Wolfe Island this community is our neighbor on the banks of the St. Lawrence River we have much in common .
And Acciona has chosen to look to non-relative areas to collective data to prove that their wind complex will not affect our community.
The Wolfe Island Bird and Bat mortality report was surprisingly large and represent a significant threat to several endangered species Acciona denies that there will be this kind of threat to bird and bat populations in our community .
Acciona did not look at Wolfe Island's Bird & Bat Mortality report when compiling data for their FEIS for their proposed wind complex; they chose to use data from Maple Ridge Wind Complex ~ a project that is roughly 50 miles away instead.
Acciona's Avian and Bat Protection Plan asks the question how do the fatality rates compare to the fatality rates from existing projects in similar landscapes with similar species composition and use?
Jefferson County is home to the northernmost colony of Indiana brown bats, a federally listed endangered species,
that are undergoing a serious population decline. There are hibernacula in Glen Park, New York approximately 20 miles from Cape Vincent. The Indiana brown bat typically moves between 12 and 40 miles to roost locations.
Acciona’s Indiana bat study reports that Cape Vincent provides summer colony habitat, roosting and foraging areas for the Indiana Brown bat and also it documented that there is a maternity roost location in this same area.
This is significant because Indiana bats have strong fidelity to summer colony areas.
Groups continue to study bird, bat mortality rates - The Whig Standard - Ontario, CA

An American bird specialist says no one should be surprised by the number of bats and birds being killed by wind turbines on Wolfe Island.

"Environment Canada ranked the site as their highest level of concern for raptors. It's an internationally recognized site for waterfowl," said Bill Evans, an ornithologist with Old Bird Inc. in Ithaca, N.Y.


"This was probably not a good place to build and that was said before it was even started."

Evans was invited by Wolfe Island Residents for the Environment to sit in on a meeting with various government officials as well as representatives from TransAlta, the company that runs the 86-turbine wind farm.
~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~
The Wolfe Island Wind Bird And Bat mortality Report


The total number of bird and bat deaths were estimated to be 602 birds and 1,270 bats were killed by the turbines from July 1 to Dec 31 , 2009. While the report says the numbers of dead birds and bats are similar to other wind farms in North America, Ottawa-based environmental advocacy group Nature Canada says the figures are actually surprisingly large and represent a significant threat to several endangered species.

~ WOLFE ISLAND REPORT ~
Link to the Wolfe Island report here

~~~~~~~~

MAPLE RIDGE REPORT ~

Link here to the Report for the Maple Ridge Wind Power Project
Postconstruction Bird and Bat Fatality Study - 2006May 31, 2007
Prepared for:
PPM Energy and Horizon Energy

BP ~ Cape Vincent Avian & Bat studies
Link here to view the avian and bat studies for Cape Vincent Wind Power Project

AVIAN AND BAT STUDIES FOR THE
ACCIONA ~ SPANISH ~ ST. LAWRENCE WINDPOWER PROJECT,
Cape Vincent Ny
Link here to view SLW ~ AVIAN & BAT ATUDIES


Links below for indiana bat samplings Cape Vincent NY in the proposed location of the SLW

Report on Indiana bat~sampling at 11 sites on the location of ~ SLW ~ JUNE 2008 ~

Report on Indiana bat~sampling at 11 sites on the location of ~ SLW ~ JUNE 2008 ~ report


Report on the Indiana bat ~ sampling on the proposed location of SLW at 6 sites
July & August, 2007

Saturday, November 20, 2010

Acciona Stock ~ Down ~Steepest Drop in more than six months

Spanish Stocks: Acciona ~ Point Shares Move - BusinessWeek

Bloomberg

Nov. 16 2010,

Acciona SA (ANA SM) fell 6.6 percent to 55.15 euros, the stock’s steepest drop in more than six months and the IBEX 35 Index’s worst performance today. The Spanish construction company said its nine-month net income dropped 3.3 percent to 101 million euros ($137 million). Separately, Acciona was cut to “neutral” from “outperform” at Exane BNP Paribas.
~~~~~~~~~~~~

NOVEMBER 15, 2010, 12:07 P.M.

WSJ
By Juan Montes, EFE Dow Jones;

on line
MADRID (Dow Jones)--Acciona SA (ANA.MC), the Spanish construction and renewable energy company, said Monday net profit dropped 92% in the nine months to September 30, on lower asset sales following the sale of its stake in Spanish power utility Endesa SA (ELE.MC) last year.

MAIN FACTS:

-Net profit for the first nine months of the year EUR101 million vs EUR1.23 billion.

-Results in 2009 were boosted by a gain of EUR1.13 billion linked to its Endesa stake sale to Italy's Enel SpA (ENEL.MI).

-Earnings before interest, taxes, amortization and depreciation, or Ebitda, EUR813 million vs EUR695 million.

-Net debt as of Sept. 30 EUR8.10 billion.

Sunday, November 14, 2010

Ticking Turbine Time bombs~ waiting to collapse?





Updated 12:10 pm 11/14/2010
Ynn is reporting today that Work on the Hardscrabble Wind Farm Project FAIRFIELD, NY in Herkimer County has hit a snag video report---> here<--- ~ Atlantic wind is behind the project a subsidiary of the Spanish company Iberdrola .
Ynn Reported that Iberdrola took core samples and found that their structures were not up to standards. They are now in the process of taking down some towers and bases as a safety precaution.
~~~~
Concrete problems with Wind turbines foundations are nothing new.
~~~~
Fenner wind owned by ENEL North America was the largest the wind complex east of the Mississippi when it was built 10 years ago. Fenner had a turbine collapse in December of 2009.

Concrete issues with turbine foundations apparently are becoming a common problem.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
In December of 2009 Hank Sennott, director of corporate affairs and communications for Enel North America is quoted in an interview~
by Martha E. Conway a reporter for the Madison County Courier ~
It was discovered that "concrete core samples from the foundations preliminarily showed inconsistent aging and degradation".
“Some of the samples looked like they were poured yesterday,” Sennott said. “Others… Didn’t”
According to Sennott the samples of five or six foundations led to the decision to test all 19 in the project. He said the company is in the home stretch of collecting data and a report is expected soon.
~~~~~~
It took 10 years for the turbine foundation to fail at fenner this prompted them to take the core samples otherwise they may not have tested the concrete. How many other wind complexes are out there with concrete like this? Are there more Ticking Turbine time bombs waiting to collapse?

~~~~~~~~~~~
Did the developers of Fenner's wind turbine system, actually pre - determined the wind turbine reaction forces in conjunction with the wind pressure forces on the towers, and the turbine blades themselves to withstand the overturning moments developed, that are being resisted by the soil or rock material that is, part of the anchorage resisting system, as required by New York’s Construction codes? One issue with wind turbines is that they actually try to unscrew them selves from the ground, due to wind pressure forces. The anchorage systems and subsurfaces are critical factors in wind turbine design.

I have not been able to find a final report on the Fenner Collapse.
The PSC Altona Turbine Collapse end of Investigation Report can be viewed--->here<-- Design of Wind Turbine Foundation Slabs .pdf file

~~~~~~
Jefferson's Leaning Left recently did a story titled ~ Business is not good for wind developers. JLL'S story highlighted a Wall street Journal article that was covering the bad economic news for Wind Development and how Enel stock was dropping. Speculating was that it was due to the world wising up about wind power read more ---> here<-- Is it any wonder that Enel's stock is dropping as fast as turbines are dropping...

Now Jefferson's Leaning Left reports about problems on Wolfe Island -->here<---

So many turbine problems so little time!!

Update ~
Sinking turbines could cost British wind farms £50million Mail Online
Daily Mail Reporter
14th April 2010

Hundreds of Britain's offshore wind turbines could be sinking into the sea because of a design flaw.
It is believed the concrete used to fix some turbines to their steel foundation can wear away, causing the power generators to drop a few inches.
The fault was first discovered at the Egmond aan Zee wind farm in the Netherlands and affects those with single cylinder foundations. Offshore farms are notoriously expensive, and large firms including BP and Royal Dutch Shell have pulled out of the sector.
More...


Monday, November 8, 2010

ACCIONA ~ ENEL ~ 2007~ Partners in Acrimonious Takeover Battle

Recently Jefferson’s Leaning Left posted a story covering a Wall Street Journal article about an energy company ENEL Spa. The WSJ story reported ~ (Nov 4) on its first day of trading, the “green” power utility is down almost 4% at 1.54 euros in an otherwise up market.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
In 2007 ENEL and Acciona partnered up to take over Endesa, the Spanish energy utility.
October 5, 2007 it was reported that Italy’s Enel and the Spain’s Acciona had taken control of 92.06 percent of the shares of Endesa. The companies, which had already controlled 46.01 percent of Endesa, acquired 45.05 percent more through a joint bid worth 42.5 million Euros.
Enel and Acciona paid 40.16 Euro per Endesa share, slightly more than the bid of 41.1 million Euro made by the German energy giant E.ON, which withdrew from the race, it was reported.

The European Commission took legal action against the Spanish government over restrictions it wanted to impose on E.ON to keep the energy market under national control.




Joint Press release~ 2007~ ACCIONA ~ ENEL ~ ACCEPTANCE PERIOD OVER ENDESA SHARES




ENEL ~ PR ~ Company Profile ~ NOV ~ 2007

Thursday, November 4, 2010

Letter from Nina Pierpont MD ~ to Mike Crawley, International Power Canada Inc

Opponents blown away by ignorance
News
By LUKE HENDRY, QMI AGENCY

PICTON -- Opponents of wind turbines sounded the alarm at a three-day symposium hosted by the Society for Wind Vigilance on the weekend.

Organizer Beth Harrington, who divides her time between Toronto and Prince Edward County, said the weekend was a chance to unite those who have been working independently on a common cause.


"The most important thing is for all the scientists to be in the same room together," she said.

Harrington said the weekend's speakers represented a "multidisciplinary research group" and had basically "come to the same conclusion."

That was summed up by Dr. Nina Pierpont, the event's keynote speaker.

"There are significant health effects from the noise," said Pierpont. more...

Below is a letterwritten by Dr. Nina Pierpont to Mike Crawley the President of International Power Canada Inc.
RE: Wind Turbine Syndrome

~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Mike Crawley, President
International Power Canada Inc.
105 Commerce Valley Drive West, Suite 410
Markham, Ontario L3T 7W3 Canada

May 7,2010

Dear Mr. Crawley,

I am writing on behalf of XX, Harrow, Ontario. Mrs. X informs me that her home has nine (9) 1.65 MW V2 Vestas wind turbines within 2 km of her home. Three of these are within 1 km. Indeed, all 24 turbines (for this project) are within 5 km.
Mrs. X tells me that she and her neighbor are motion sensitive (see below). She likewise tells me that 3 of the neighbors suffer from migraine disorder. Mrs. X’s son has a history of ear infections. A second cousin, living 1 km away, has documented tinnitus. Two children in the neighborhood have autism-both living within 1 km of the turbines. One young man (27 years old) living within 2 km of the turbines has epileptic seizures.

Mrs. X and her husband are over 50 years of age (see below), and her in-laws (living immediately across the road) are over 80 years old.

With this as background, permit me to speak plainly. To build these turbines next to these people is a reckless and violent act.

The evidence for turbines producing substantial low frequency noise and, worse, infrasound, is no longer in dispute. I quote from one of numerous studies demonstrating this: “Wind turbines and wind farms generate strong infrasonic noise which is characterized by their blade passing harmonics (monochromatic signals)” (Ceranna et al., p. 23). In this instance, the authors are referring to a single 200 kW Vestas V47 at 200 meters-a peashooter compared to the turbines adjacent to Mrs. X’s home.’

Second, the clinical evidence is unambiguous that low frequency noise and infrasound profoundly disturb the body’s organs of balance, motion, and position sense (called “vestibular organs”).2

Third, the case studies performed by me and other medical scientists have demonstrated unequivocally that many people (especially 50 years old and older) living within 2 km of turbines are made seriously ill, often to the point of abandoning their homes.3

Fourth, there is no doubt among otolaryngologists and neuro-otologists who have studied the evidence that wind turbine low frequency noise and infrasound seriously disrupt the body’s vestibular organs, resulting in the constellation of illnesses I have called Wind Turbine syndrome

The cure for Wind Turbine Syndrome is simple: Move away from the turbines or shut them off. The prevention of Wind Turbine Syndrome is even simpler: Don’t build these low frequency/infrasound-generating machines within 2 km of people’s homes.

Governments and corporations who violate this principle are guilty of gross clinical harm. Such governments and corporations should be taken before whatever level of court is necessary to stop this outrage.

These are strong words. They are carefully chosen. They are strong because governments and the wind industry stubbornly-l would now add, criminally-refuse to acknowledge that they are deliberately and aggressively harming people. This must stop. The evidence is overwhelming.

Some weeks ago I was contacted by the editor of a leading peer-reviewed American clinical journal to write a special article on Wind Turbine Syndrome. The journal is published both online and in hard copy and aimed primarily at audiologists, otolaryngologists, and neuro-otologists.

I accepted the invitation. The article will be peer-reviewed before publication and should appear online in the next few months. Following that, it will be published in the hard copy edition of the journal. This means, of course, that my research and my findings are being accepted by the clinical medical community. Wind developers may not take this research seriously-but medical experts are.

So is the international community of otolaryngologists and neuro-otologists. My research was presented in March 2010 in a paper at the annual meeting of the Meniere’s Society, in Austria. It was widely praised. The presenter was Professor Alec Salt, PhD, internationally acclaimed neuro-physiologist specializing in inner ear diseases, from the Department of Otolaryngology at the Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, Missouri.

I have interrupted my writing the above journal article to compose this letter to you. The handwriting is on the wall for wind developers and their wholly inadequate setbacks. Legal proceedings have begun in several states and nations. You would be unwise to proceed with installation of these turbines if you are planning on setbacks less than 2 km.

I repeat, <2 km="km" must="must" setbacks="setbacks" span="span" stop.="stop." style="color: red;">
Nina Pierpont, MD (Johns Hopkins), PhD (Population Biology, Princeton) Fellow of the American Academy of Pediatrics Former Clinical Assistant Professor of Pediatrics, College of Physicians & Surgeons, Columbia University cc Valerie M Garry, Attorney at Law 1 Lars Ceranna, Gernot Hartmann, and Manfred Henger, “The Inaudible Noise of Wind Turbines,” presented at the lnfrasound Workshop, November 28 – December 02, 2005, Tahiti.
Federal Institute for Geosciences and Natural Resources (BGR), Section 83.11. Stilleweg 2, 30655 Hannover, Germany.

Wind Turbine Syndrome Book Info -->here<--- Below is a radio broadcast Wind Turbine Syndrome with Dr. Nina Pierpont March 18, 2010 , 12:49 PM by Steve Martinhttp://www.divshare.com/download/11017144-40c

Tuesday, November 2, 2010

Pilot Payments ~ Easy money ?

A reader asked me to re- post this ~
because of the upcoming public hearing on a Draft Uniform Tax Exempt Policy for all industrial development in Jefferson County~

scheduled for Wed., Nov. 3, at 7:00 PM at the Jefferson County Community College Auditorium

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
PILOT PAYMENTS
Wind turbines are fairly expensive
The average cost of buying & installing a commercial wind turbine (per internet estimates) is roughly between $2M and $3M each. Then the wind developer and local IDA negotiate a PILOT (Payment In Lieu Of Taxes) "deal" and the wind developer avoids paying his fare share of taxes pays a small fraction of the project's net worth as a result of the IDA PILOT "deal". [1] A PILOT is a payment in lieu of taxes (also sometimes abbreviated "PILT"), made to compensate a local government for some or all of the tax revenue that it loses because of the nature of the ownership or use of a particular piece of real property.[2]

No PILOT has been negotiated for the Cape Vincent project, but the developer's reliance on the Galloo plan to project payments to municipalities is a troubling sign that it will be presumed as the basis for the future talks.[3] There, the terms of the Galloo Island PILOT plan are being used to estimate possible PILOT payments for BP Alternative Energy's 124-megawatt project in a debate over the town's proposal to regulate noise levels. It is a consequence of the JCIDA's failure to follow the intent of the Legislature.[3]


Lowville Local taxing jurisdictions are considering a payment-in-lieu-of-taxes agreement on the proposed 39-turbine Roaring Brook Wind Farm that is expected to pay out between $17 million and $24 million over 20 years. [4]
However, given the recent legal wranglings over the last payment from the existing wind farm here, board members may choose to hold off on approving this deal formally until they have a clearer picture of that situation .[4] "Due to energy market conditions, among other reasons, the Company is not able to make any representations regarding when the project would be constructed and therefore when PILOT payments would actually commence," the proposed term sheet states [4] The terms of the proposed PILOT are similar to an agreement approved recently by the Herkimer County Legislature for Atlantic Wind's 37-turbine Hardscrabble Wind Farm project there .[4] The wind company claimed it should pay only the so-called "fallback amount" since it had been decertified from the Empire Zone program, through which it receives state reimbursement for the payments .[4]

Galloo
The PILOT, which allows the developer to make reduced payments to taxing jurisdictions instead of paying property taxes, was approved along with a sales tax exemption and sale-leaseback agreement, which eliminates mortgage recording taxes. "This has been a very involved, committed, thoughtful process," JCIDA Chief Executive Officer Donald C. Alexander said. "It is one that has always had the best interests of the community at heart." [5] JCIDA attorney W. James Heary said the supplemental payments put in the PILOT give taxing jurisdictions extra revenue when electricity prices give the developer high earnings. "We don't necessarily need to go into the nitty-gritty of their plan," he said. Other board members chimed in and said they don't know the bottom line with several projects .[5] The PILOT for the 252-megawatt project will run 20 years and have base and supplemental payments .[5]

After the PILOT and sale-leaseback agreements were approved, the board unanimously agreed to a moratorium on accepting tax abatement applications from wind power projects until a uniform tax-exempt policy is approved. The board will hold a special meeting this month to discuss the policy .[5] "The economic benefits and earning potential are the company's business," said attorney Justin S. Miller, Harris Beach PLLC, Albany, which has consulted on wind farm PILOTs with the agency .[5]

On the wind farm aspect, the agency had worked for months on developing the uniform policy before Galloo Island Wind Farm's developer pressed for an individual payment-in-lieu-of-taxes agreement. That project's PILOT was different from the standard PILOT laid out in the agency's policy and those changes were approved in February after months of intense pressure
[6] If the wind farm operator ceases operation and doesn't pay the agency the PILOT, the agency returns title to the developer .[6]

The wind PILOT is based on income, not assessed value, anyway, consultant Mark E. Quallen said. "You've got variability around the annual production and you've also got variability around the price," he said. Though the developer may not give a pro forma, he said, the investment costs and revenue stream are easy to figure out .[6]


The Galloo draft policy includes a separate clause for renewable energy PILOTs, which allows for a fixed base payment per megawatt, increasing each year, and supplemental payments based on high electricity prices .[6] Board member John Doldo Jr. said the Galloo Island project wasn't lucrative enough for the taxing jurisdictions. He said the PILOT payments represented less than 14 percent of full taxation. "If you give that much away, there must've been a need to give that much," he said. Mr. Doldo based his numbers on the cost of the project " about $537 million of on-island investment .[6] Only about one mediocre paying job is created for every 10 turbines installed that's hardly job creation. Government watchdog groups say the absence of uniform standards makes the whole PILOT program open to abuse, because each wind company gets to negotiate its own private deal with the IDA. In addition, wind companies that fail to meet their original IDA job creation promises rarely get penalized .[1] New Yorkers in general are beginning to become completely fed up with PILOTs, IDAs, wind farms and seeing their tax dollars squandered by politicians and bureaucrats to offshore ownership. Taxpayers are beginning to revolt against the wind developers, IDAs and local governments and the November 2009 election results underscore this attitude .[1]

Once again the taxpayer is paying higher taxes to support the corrupt wind industry and people say the wind is free. Think about this - 65% of a commercial wind farm is being paid for with your American tax dollars thanks to stimulus money, NYSERDA, PTC (Production Tax Credits), rapid depreciation schedules, PILOTs, etc. while the foreign owner enjoys the profits while raping your community .[1] PILOTs are supposed to make jobs for communities but with wind farms this never happens .[1] PILOTs should be completely repealed and eliminated and taxpayers should demand the full value of tax revenue from the wind project and nothing less
.[1]

1. Beware NY Wind: PILOT Agreements - Corporate Welfare Ad Nauseum

2. PILOT (finance) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

3. Watertown Daily Times Wind PILOT

4. Watertown Daily Times PILOT proposed for new wind farm project

5. Watertown Daily Times JCIDA gives nod to Galloo wind PILOT

6.Watertown Daily Times : JCIDA's tax-exempt policy for wind farms won't include local, county issues

Sunday, October 31, 2010

Anti-wind GOP slandering Aubertine

 

SUNDAY, OCTOBER 31, 2010


I used to be proud to be a Cape Vincent Republican, but when I attended the last meeting for the Cape Republicans, I was surprised to find it being controlled by the local anti-wind ringleaders. Apparently, in their latest scheme, the anti-wind ringleaders have shoved aside the fair, reasonable and levelheaded Cape Republicans and bullied their way onto the ballot.

So Cape Republicans and other voters should think twice before voting for a Republican on the local ticket. I have known Sen. Darrel Aubertine since we were both 5, and I've never known a more honest, fair and reasonable person. Darrel's done so much for our district, and he's acquired the clout to make more good things happen for our district, but he's become the target of the anti-wind ringleaders, because he doesn't kowtow to special interest groups. That's all the anti-wind ringleaders are, a moneyed special interest group.

They deliberately manipulate voters into basing their vote on just one issue, and they put out propaganda to manipulate voters into seeing only one side of the issue.

Anti-wind ringleaders are slandering Darrel's name and campaigning for his opponent, Patty Ritchie. They don't care if she has nothing to offer or it she makes things worse. What makes them think Ritchie wouldn't make things worse?


Most important, it'll be disastrous for democracy and our community if voters base their vote on just one issue, especially when their knowledge on that issue comes from manipulative, conniving ringleaders and their propaganda.

Harvey White

Cape Vincent


Thursday, October 14, 2010

ACCIONA~ HOW DO YOU SPELL SCUM IN SPANISH?

Acciona’s Errand boy ~ Con Boy ~ Thinks that Lyme’s extension of their moratorium is unfair well that’s not a surprise considering the way that Acciona conducts business.
The Watertown times has the full story about Lyme’s extension of their moratorium and Acciona’s Con boy’s remarks, plus highlights of Julia Gosier’s input. Acciona has a record of attacking proposals that protect land owners. How do you spell scum in Span


Wind energy companies attack Baillieu proposal

ADAM MORTON
25 May, 2010

CLEAN energy companies have launched an advertising campaign attacking state Opposition Leader Ted Baillieu over his proposed wind farm policy, warning it could send thousands of jobs and more than $4 billion of investment interstate.

An advertisement in today's Age by six wind companies - Pacific Hydro, Acciona, AGL, Suzlon, Keppel Prince and REpower - says: ''Mr Baillieu, please don't send clean energy jobs and investment interstate!''
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Of course ACCIONA is one of these companies!

This is what the wind companies are objecting to.~


Under Mr Baillieu's policy announced last May that wind farms would be banned in national parks, tourist areas and growth corridors.

No new turbines could be built within two kilometres of homes without the consent of the
owners, and local councils would be given full control of the wind farm approval process.
Pacific Hydro executive manager Andrew Richards said the opposition policy would create a 13-square-kilometre exclusion zone around all homes.

Imagine that protecting citizens rights, no wonder ACCIONA is on the attack,
protecting citizens over wealthy developers ~ this is outrageous !
But I am not surprised considering what they have been up to in Cape Vincent !
HOW DO YOU SAY SCUM IN SPANISH?

Thursday, October 7, 2010

AWEA emails

Update:4/6/10
Emails recently obtained under the Freedom of Information Act.

Shown by Charlie Martin ~ for the first ~ at the Pajamas Media blog ~ These emails show how political influence and lobbyists are shaping Obama administration policy and public relations.

Click the links below to read the FOIA request and the emails:

“Emails obtained under the Freedom of Information Act show how the Obama administration's Department of Energy is using the American Wind Energy Association (AWEA) — the lobbying arm of “Big Wind” in the U.S. — to coordinate political responses with two strongly ideological activist groups: the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS), and the George Soros funded Center for American Progress (CAP).”

“The emails expose active coordination between the Obama administration, the DoE and its National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL), and the AWEA. These emails show the Obama DoE using the AWEA as a conduit to both the CAP and the UCS, and taking steps to ensure that aspects of its coordination were not committed to paper (or email) because the emails might be revealed later.”

Click the links below to read the FOIA request and the emails:

FOIA request

Part One

Part Two

Part Three

Examining the GreenJobsGate Emails: Obama Administration Takes Direction from Wind Lobby, Soros Group

The Department of Energy’s scientific conclusions were instigated — even dictated — by Big Wind’s lobbyists and leftists. Read here for the timeline and the key figures involved.

The emails show that the Department of Energy and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) coordinated their response to a damning Spanish report on “green jobs” with wind industry lobbyists and the Center for American Progress (the progressive think tank founded by John Podesta and funded by George Soros).

The report from Spain’s Universidad Rey Juan Carlos — which was the subject of a George Will column in the Washington Post on June 25, 2009 — showed each “green job” that had been added by Spain’s aggressive wind energy program cost Spain nearly $800,000 and resulted in the loss of 2.2 jobs elsewhere in the economy.

Eight times, Obama had publicly referred to Spain’s program as being a model for a U.S. wind energy program.
~~~
According to PJM there were 900 pages of emails that were obtained by the Competitive Enterprise Institute’s Christopher C. Horner, show staff members from the DoE’s National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) and the EPA developing a response to the report. They also show them coordinating the response with the Center for American Progress, plus the American Wind Energy Association (AWEA) and the Global Wind Energy Council (GWEC) — two wind industry lobbyist groups.

What the emails show runs contrary to statements made to Congress by the Assistant Secretary of Energy Cathy Zoi — the Obama administration response to the Spanish report was in fact instigated at the request of the AWEA. It was then written with the close cooperation of the AWEA, the Center for American Progress, and the Union of Concerned Scientists.

The emails concentrate on the political implications of the Spanish study — and how to discredit it.

There also appears to have been significant pressure to publish an internal report from the NREL as a DoE report — bypassing the internal review and publication procedures — and to do so quickly.

The emails suggest that wind industry lobbyists and political organizations have significant behind-the-scenes influence on scientific reports from the Obama administration. This contradicts Obama’s insistence that his administration would get the politics out of science. It also calls into question the objectivity and quality of the information they provided to Congress. MORE
Stay tuned to PJM and PJTV: Christopher Horner will break down the contents and the implications of the emails.

You can link to her blog here
~~~~~~
Sidebar:
NREL Launches Strategic Energy Analysis Institute.
The National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) has established a new global institute dedicated to analyzing, speeding and smoothing the transition to sustainable energy worldwide, including offshore wind development on the Great lakes.

Wednesday, October 6, 2010


What Ever Happened to Life Liberty And The Pursuit Of Happiness?


The foreign developer will have a community relations employee explain ambient noise before construction, have safety and environmental compliance briefings, create channels for registering a complaint~ isn't that nice will there be refreshments at the briefings?



Complaint resolution plan ~

Excerpts
link to complete complaint resolution document
here

Written complaints shall be directed to SLW and responded to by SLW or their duly authorized representative within 5 calendar days after receipt of any such complaint.


1. If the complaint includes the character or quality of Wind Turbine sound, then any subsequent investigation shall use best practices to evaluate the overall level, tonal, and/ or temporal nature of the wind complaint.

2. Any complaints which cannot be resolved during the initial response shall be subsequently directed to the Town designee, or if there is no Town designee to the Town of Cape Vincent Planning Board for investigation and any such investigation shall be with full cooperation of SLW.

3. If testing is necessary....

4.test results....

5. After the investigation, if the Town of Cape Vincent Planning Board reasonably concludes that operational violations of any applicable permit conditions are shown to be caused by the WMD, SLW shall use reasonable efforts to mitigate such problems.

6. Continued complaints from the same landowner will trigger additional investigation only if the Town determines that nearby Wind Turbine operational characteristics have changed since the first complaint.
~~~~~~~~~~

This means that if Acciona had a special use permit in RE: to noise for its Wind Mill Development (WMD) project in Cape Vincent,
and you had a complaint about wind turbine noise, your complaint would be directed to the Town Planning Board and after an investigation if it is found that there is a noise problem and Acciona is in violation the special use permit then they will use”Reasonable efforts to mitigate such problems" What does that mean?
Do they say if it is found that if we are in violation of our permit we will shut the offending turbine down?

NO!
This document states that they will use what they deem as reasonable efforts to mitigate such problems however they do not define reasonable efforts.

What happens if these reasonable efforts do not solve the problem?

Back to part 6 ~ apparently you are done,

6. Continued complaints from the same landowner will trigger additional investigation only if the Town determines that nearby Wind Turbine operational characteristics have changed since the first complaint
~~~~
but there is the complaint appeal procedure

This how it works
The complainant may appear before a complaint resolution board
This board will consist of three members: an SLW designee, a Town Officer or employee appointed to the position annually, and an independent third party expert.
Note: The decision of the complaint resolution board shall set forth the manner in which the complaint shall be resolved and the reasons why such resolution is appropriate. In making such a decision, the Complaint resolution board shall take into account the terms and conditions of the special use permit and approved site plans, and shall not require any resolution that is inconsistent with such terms. The decision of the complaint Resolution Board shall be final and binding.



The Developer will create channels for registering a complaint and formalize a resolution process.

Thursday, September 9, 2010

Supervisor Hirschey introduced Resolution #28 that would place a temporary moratorium on wind development in the town

updated 9/10/2010
Video added
Supervisor Urban Hirschey introduced Resolution #28 that would place a temporary moratorium on wind development in the town until the Attorney Generals investigation is complete or until March 1, 2011, whichever comes first.
The voting
Marty mason was absent~
Donald Mason abstained; reason given was that he had a wind contract.
Mickey Orvis voted no. Mr. Orvis said that the Attorney General could put a hold on the projects if he thought it was necessary.
Urban Hirschey voted yes, he said that breathing room was needed in light of the AG’s investigation, plus he said something about not putting any more money into the process at this point. "It is not going to slow down the work the developer has to do, but it will give us peace of mind."


What I find remarkable are the reasons that Brooks Bragdon gave for being in favor of a temporary moratorium on wind development.

Mr. Bragdon's comments on ~Resolution #28

Reasons why I believe the Town should place a hold on Wind Projects during the investigation by the NYS Attorney General.
The Office of the NYS Attorney General Bureau of Public Integrity has commenced an investigation. The Town should work with the NYS AG on a common good level and not insist on its right to go forward despite the investigation. A sense of sincerity and cooperation with high governmental authority on the one hand and of handling right a large development that will affect the history of the community are points of integrity that I believe the community has a right to expect from the Town Board . This is particularly so in as much as the dominating physical size of the project is such as to affect a broad regional area and not just the township itself.
On a practical level, if there are questions from law enforcement authorities these should be answered before a project is formally authorized. How could there even be a question on this? The Planning Board may approve the St. Lawrence Wind project at a special meeting scheduled for 15 September. Should the project be approved and thereafter the AG should challenge certain aspects of the way the SEQR has been handled the Town would have on its hands an ongoing project that the State itself questions. It would be better to go slow now and make any adjustments or corrections that may be required and then authorize the project.

Brooks Bragdon

Cape Vincent ~ A Concerned Citizen Urges Investigation into Planning Board Secret Meeting

Tonight at the Town Board meeting a citizen of Cape Vincent filed a complaint. The complaint is about a secret meeting that Mr. Byrne witnessed of a full quorum of the Town Planning Board as well as two town councilmen, the zoning officer and the wife of the Planning Board Chair: John Byrne read a letter describing what he had witnessed. As Mr. Byrne was reading a woman in the audience spoke out – she sounded angry, she said “I WANT TO ASK YOU SOMETHING”! Mr. Byrne replied “excuse me Miss I have the floor”. Then the woman said - I’ll HAVE IT WHEN YOU’RE DONE! As Mr. Byrne read the part where he urges an investigation Rienbeck piped up with “somebody oughta investigate him”. After the letter was read the woman that interrupted Mr. Byrne challenged the legality of his actions. There were a few tense moments, but everything seemed to simmer down, and the Town Board continued on with other business.

Mr. Byrnes letter.

September 9, 2010


Mr. Andrew Heffner
Assistant Attorney General
NYS Office of the Attorney General
615 Erie Boulevard
West Syracuse, NY 13204


Ms Cindy Inyschert
Jefferson County District Attorney
175 Arsenal Street
Watertown, NY 13601


Mr. Urban Hirschey
Town Supervisor
Town of Cape Vincent
1964 NYS Rte 12E
Cape Vincent, NY 13618

Dear Mr. Heffner, Ms Intschert and Mr. Hirschey:

At the June 10, 2010 meeting of the Cape Vincent Town Board I notified Supervisor
Hirschey and the Town Board of a meeting of the Planning Board that was in violation of
NYS Open Meeting Laws. The meeting, with a quorum of Planning Board members
present, occurred the previous night in the office of the Zoning Enforcement Officer
Alan Wood after the regular monthly meeting was adjourned.

Since 2008 I have routinely video recorded Planning Board and Town Board meetings.
On June 9, 2010 I video recorded the meeting, and when I was outside in my car ready
to leave I noticed the private meeting in ZEO Wood's office. I set my camera on my car's
dashboard and video recorded meeting participants moving about the room.

I then left my car shortly after setting up my video camera and went back into the town
offices. I moved down the hall near the Zoning Enforcement Officer's office and
listened to their discussion. I heard them discuss not only town business, but wind business. The conversation was not limited to but included:

[TR]...she's the one that said that that money goes...agency account. [RE] Where
do you guys have it? [TR] It's in two separate checking accounts... [CE] It would
have to be approved by them. [TR] Yes, you cannot draw on them... [TR] You
have the money in the account, I use to fax anytime the bills come in, the legal bills, made copies of whatever it was, fax and return. [TR] He'd go over it,
Madden would approve it and fax it back to me. [TR] Soon as I got that
approved... [TR] Can't put it in another account here... [TR] You can't to call Jim
Madden anymore and write a check out to Trust and Agency, you don't have to
call Jim Madden to write out a check... [CE] Well is there more known... [RE]
Wind turbine company... [RE] If they don't like it where they got it placed... [TR]
Well I think you better get the meeting... [??]I cannot be there I'm out of town...
[TR] I'm cancelling tomorrow night so I'm coming back to a call...


[NOTE: TR = Tom Rienbeck, RE= Richard Edsall, CE= Cindy Edsall]


Based on my understanding of the history and current status of the Acciona wind farm
proposal currently under review by the Cape Vincent Planning Board, these
conversations addressed an auditor's report, a trust account for deposits from Acciona
to the town and the Planning Board's budget account; escrow accounts in connection
with the Acciona project proposal; approvals for check writing from these accounts,
including approval from BP's project manager Jim Madden; conveyance of bills to
developers and approvals required for such bills; and arrangements to have someone
attend the following nights Town Board meeting. Clearly, the matters discussed involved
official town business


When I finished listening I returned to my car and repositioned my video camera in
order to record the officials as they exited the town offices. Those leaving
included Planning Board members Rich Edsall, his wife Cindy, Karen Bourcy, Andy
Binsley, and Tom Rienbeck. Other exiting attendees include Town Councilman Mickey
Orvis and Donny Mason as well as Zoning Enforcement Officer Alan Wood.

During the Town Board meeting the following night, Councilmen Donny Mason and
Mickey Orvis both admitted they attended the meeting, and both denied they discussed
any town business. I have a video recording of their responses at this meeting as well.

At the next scheduled Planning Board meeting on July 7, 2010 each of the members who
attended the June private meeting were asked if they had discussed town business.
Chairman Rich Edsall, members Karen Bourcy, Andy Binsley and Tom Rienbeck all
responded that they did not discuss town business. Their responses are also a part of
my video recording record.

These officials not only lied about discussing town business at their June 9, 2010
private meeting, but they all lied publicly in their official capacities as elected and
appointed officials of the town. Furthermore, according to disclosures made by wind
developers Acciona and BP, Rich Edsall, Karen Bourcy, and Donny Mason all have
potential conflicts of interest with wind developers seeking town approvals.1.
When these officials were elected and appointed to their positions they all took an oath
to uphold the Constitutions of the United States and New York State and to faithfully
discharge the duties of their offices. I do not believe meeting in secret and lying to the
public on important matters, especially the controversial wind issue in Cape Vincent,
constitutes faithfully discharging their duties.

I am urging each of you to investigate and these officials and to restrain them from acting on wind project proposals pending before them in their official capacities pending the outcome of your investigation.

Sincerely yours,
John Byrne
2892 Ontario Shores Dr.
Cape Vincent, NY 13618

Friday, August 20, 2010

Cape Vincent Wind History ~ Oh What a Tangled Web We Weave, Part 2

August 2005 marked the first open public wind meeting in Cape Vincent. At this meeting Acciona energies project manager Todd Hopper said that the plan from the beginning was to install 1.5 MW wind turbines in the town near the shore. “If you go further in, wind falls off, so keep that in mind when you talk about restricting it".
The closer to the water the stronger the wind is, and the probability of having a feasible project depends on wind velocity.

May of 2006
An opinion given by the Jefferson County Board of ethics advised Marty Mason and Joe Wood to recuse themselves from any notes or discussions of wind development issues.
Jefferson County Board of Ethics opinion #1
Jefferson County Board of Ethics Opinion #2

June 15, 2006 ,Darrel Aubertine wrote a letter to the Cape Vincent Town Board
letter to the town board urging the lease holding conflicted board members to vote on wind issues by telling them that it is their duty to vote, even though they are conflicted and he stated that governing by referendum (popular vote) is not wise. The vote in question would have a direct effect on the number of turbines allowed in Acciona’s planed turbine array plan. The elimination of turbines could affect the overall financial viability of the project.
Link here to read Darrel Aubertine's letter.

The same day of the Aubertine letter at the town board meeting of June 15, 2006 Supervisor Rhinebeck and Town Council member Mickey Orvis changed their mind about the restrictive setbacks, setbacks that would eliminate 12 turbines from Aubertine's neighborhood.
In defense of his letter to the town board Aubertine said that he was just writing as a citizen of Cape Vincent, and not in any official capacity. However, in this letter Aubertine wrote as elected representatives. We are responsible to make decisions for the benefit of our constituents and community and governing by referendum is unwise.
In his letter Aubertine clearly identifies himself as an elected official and outlines what he thinks are the responsibilities that come with the task of making decisions as an elected official.

2/22/2008 When asked by a Syracuse Post Standard reporter if it was appropriate to write the letter to the Cape Vincent town board, Senator Aubertine responded, “if it was me alone, no” but, he said, “it’s not me, it’s the town and dozens of other landowners.” this is the same response that he gave when questioned about using his position with the Standing Committee on Agriculture for potential personal gain by helping to develop and pass a law that eliminated tax penalties for farmers that host turbines on their land. Just three weeks before this vote May 25, 2003 Assemblyman Darrel J. Aubertine told a Watertown Times reporter that a company has approached him about installing wind-powered generators on his property and the properties belonging to three of his neighbors.

Additionally, Darrel Aubertine kept quiet about signing two lease agreements with Acciona in May of 2004 moreover; he did not make the required financial disclosures.

2008 during his bid for State Senator the Renzie campaign started questioning Mr. Aubertine’s ethics and the letter that he wrote to the town board in June of 2006.
October 23, 2008 Senator Darrel Aubertine told a Watertown Times reporter , "that his position was in a line with the separate council that the Town of Cape Vincent had, that there was absolutely no conflict of interest that the town board certainly had every right to vote on these issues”. There were excerpts from that legal opinion in the News story supporting his position as well.
The only problem with this is the Ethics opinion from the Albany law firm, Whiteman Osterman and Hanna. Was given in July of 2008, and Assemblyman Aubertine wrote his letter in June of 2006.
Assemblyman, Aubertine's letter to The Cape Vincent Town Board was an attempted to influence voting on a draft local law that would have direct consequences for St. Lawrence Wind. The Town Board members would stand to gain from this particular vote by ensuring that the project was viable, and there were financial interests that were of concern to Aubertine as well. At one point, he had told the Editorial board at the post Standard that if the wind project is developed, his farm could host turbines that could bring in 50,000 to 100,000 a year.

DARREL AUBERTINE EXPLAINS ~ PODCAST WHY HE URGED CONFLICTED BOARD TO VOTE.


A quote from Senator Aubertine concerning Wind Turbines and his land

“Who are you to tell me what I can do with my land"?

Friday, August 13, 2010

ACCIONA ~ FEIS ~ An Environmental Crime?~ Indiana Bat Post Construction Plan ~ Count The Dead Carcasses




Why should we concerned about bats in Cape Vincent?

Evidence of white nose syndrome has appeared in bats throughout the Northeast and is now being found as far south as Virginia, a fact that has scientists extremely worried. The Indiana Brown bat is virtually on the brink of extinction. As we decimate other bat populations with wind turbines there are no guarantees what the consequences will be.

In January 2009 the DEC region 6 Watertown wrote a letter to Tom Reinbeck, then Cape Vincent town supervisor .This letter expressed concern about two endangered species , and the impact that Acciona’s industrial wind project would have on these species specifically the Indiana brown bat and the Blanding turtle.
I have included the letter in this post and the YouTube
video where you can observe ~ Mr. Edsall Cape Vincent Planning Board Chairman address the concerns that the DEC region 6 has about the endangered species in Cape Vincent ,including the Indiana Brown Bat~
Edsall says that the DEC region 6 of Watertown ~they have no Idea what is going on in the world ~ these people here are like ~ the Janitor telling a teacher what curriculum to use.
In the video someone is heard saying Acciona is working with someone from Albany and not region 6 ~ who would that Albany person be PETE GRANNIS?? In 2008 Commissioner of the DEC ~ Grannis ruled that the DEC would be lead agency in the Galloo Island wind complex ~ Grannis came out and openly endorsed Kessel's Great lakes offshore Wind ~ GLOW scheme ~ Galloo Island is site for a proposed industrial wind complex. Galloo Island is also a neighbor to Little Galloo Island, a bird sanctuary, another inappropriate place for an industrial wind complex! The only thing about wind power that I find amazing is how easy it is for these massive projects to get approved. Maybe that is where the "GREEN" becomes the driving issue. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Of course Acciona mentions that they will be doing post construction studies ,this means that they count dead birds and bats. Will counting dead bird and bat carcasses protect endangered species? Will counting dead carcasses prevent other species from becoming endangered? ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ These projects are not just flawed but downright insane for our community ,and yet this sorry saga in Cape Vincents history moves on. MR. EDSALL Cape Vincent could use a good janitor right now! We need someone to clean up this disgusting , slimy mess. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ *** DEC Region 6 ~ letter to Supervisor T. Reinbeck ~ Cape Vincent ~ Concern Over Endangered species RE: potential impacts Indiana Bat

Friday, August 6, 2010

Pilot Payments ~ Easy money

The pilot payments for wind developers have been a sticky ~ slimy issue ~ Yesterday the Jefferson County Industrial Development met to vote on the UTEP ~ Jefferson's Leaning Left was there to get a first hand account of what happened. Check out his blog ~ he has the scoop!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
PILOT PAYMENTS
Wind turbines are fairly expensive
The average cost of buying & installing a commercial wind turbine (per internet estimates) is roughly between $2M and $3M each. Then the wind developer and local IDA negotiate a PILOT (Payment In Lieu Of Taxes) "deal" and the wind developer avoids paying his fare share of taxes pays a small fraction of the project's net worth as a result of the IDA PILOT "deal". [1] A PILOT is a payment in lieu of taxes (also sometimes abbreviated "PILT"), made to compensate a local government for some or all of the tax revenue that it loses because of the nature of the ownership or use of a particular piece of real property.[2]

No PILOT has been negotiated for the Cape Vincent project, but the developer's reliance on the Galloo plan to project payments to municipalities is a troubling sign that it will be presumed as the basis for the future talks.[3] There, the terms of the Galloo Island PILOT plan are being used to estimate possible PILOT payments for BP Alternative Energy's 124-megawatt project in a debate over the town's proposal to regulate noise levels. It is a consequence of the JCIDA's failure to follow the intent of the Legislature.[3]


Lowville Local taxing jurisdictions are considering a payment-in-lieu-of-taxes agreement on the proposed 39-turbine Roaring Brook Wind Farm that is expected to pay out between $17 million and $24 million over 20 years. [4]
However, given the recent legal wranglings over the last payment from the existing wind farm here, board members may choose to hold off on approving this deal formally until they have a clearer picture of that situation .[4] "Due to energy market conditions, among other reasons, the Company is not able to make any representations regarding when the project would be constructed and therefore when PILOT payments would actually commence," the proposed term sheet states [4] The terms of the proposed PILOT are similar to an agreement approved recently by the Herkimer County Legislature for Atlantic Wind's 37-turbine Hardscrabble Wind Farm project there .[4] The wind company claimed it should pay only the so-called "fallback amount" since it had been decertified from the Empire Zone program, through which it receives state reimbursement for the payments .[4]

Galloo
The PILOT, which allows the developer to make reduced payments to taxing jurisdictions instead of paying property taxes, was approved along with a sales tax exemption and sale-leaseback agreement, which eliminates mortgage recording taxes. "This has been a very involved, committed, thoughtful process," JCIDA Chief Executive Officer Donald C. Alexander said. "It is one that has always had the best interests of the community at heart." [5] JCIDA attorney W. James Heary said the supplemental payments put in the PILOT give taxing jurisdictions extra revenue when electricity prices give the developer high earnings. "We don't necessarily need to go into the nitty-gritty of their plan," he said. Other board members chimed in and said they don't know the bottom line with several projects .[5] The PILOT for the 252-megawatt project will run 20 years and have base and supplemental payments .[5]

After the PILOT and sale-leaseback agreements were approved, the board unanimously agreed to a moratorium on accepting tax abatement applications from wind power projects until a uniform tax-exempt policy is approved. The board will hold a special meeting this month to discuss the policy .[5] "The economic benefits and earning potential are the company's business," said attorney Justin S. Miller, Harris Beach PLLC, Albany, which has consulted on wind farm PILOTs with the agency .[5]

On the wind farm aspect, the agency had worked for months on developing the uniform policy before Galloo Island Wind Farm's developer pressed for an individual payment-in-lieu-of-taxes agreement. That project's PILOT was different from the standard PILOT laid out in the agency's policy and those changes were approved in February after months of intense pressure
[6] If the wind farm operator ceases operation and doesn't pay the agency the PILOT, the agency returns title to the developer .[6]

The wind PILOT is based on income, not assessed value, anyway, consultant Mark E. Quallen said. "You've got variability around the annual production and you've also got variability around the price," he said. Though the developer may not give a pro forma, he said, the investment costs and revenue stream are easy to figure out .[6]


The Galloo draft policy includes a separate clause for renewable energy PILOTs, which allows for a fixed base payment per megawatt, increasing each year, and supplemental payments based on high electricity prices .[6] Board member John Doldo Jr. said the Galloo Island project wasn't lucrative enough for the taxing jurisdictions. He said the PILOT payments represented less than 14 percent of full taxation. "If you give that much away, there must've been a need to give that much," he said. Mr. Doldo based his numbers on the cost of the project " about $537 million of on-island investment .[6] Only about one mediocre paying job is created for every 10 turbines installed that's hardly job creation. Government watchdog groups say the absence of uniform standards makes the whole PILOT program open to abuse, because each wind company gets to negotiate its own private deal with the IDA. In addition, wind companies that fail to meet their original IDA job creation promises rarely get penalized .[1] New Yorkers in general are beginning to become completely fed up with PILOTs, IDAs, wind farms and seeing their tax dollars squandered by politicians and bureaucrats to offshore ownership. Taxpayers are beginning to revolt against the wind developers, IDAs and local governments and the November 2009 election results underscore this attitude .[1]

Once again the taxpayer is paying higher taxes to support the corrupt wind industry and people say the wind is free. Think about this - 65% of a commercial wind farm is being paid for with your American tax dollars thanks to stimulus money, NYSERDA, PTC (Production Tax Credits), rapid depreciation schedules, PILOTs, etc. while the foreign owner enjoys the profits while raping your community .[1] PILOTs are supposed to make jobs for communities but with wind farms this never happens .[1] PILOTs should be completely repealed and eliminated and taxpayers should demand the full value of tax revenue from the wind project and nothing less
.[1]

1. Beware NY Wind: PILOT Agreements - Corporate Welfare Ad Nauseum

2. PILOT (finance) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

3. Watertown Daily Times Wind PILOT

4. Watertown Daily Times PILOT proposed for new wind farm project

5. Watertown Daily Times JCIDA gives nod to Galloo wind PILOT

6.Watertown Daily Times : JCIDA's tax-exempt policy for wind farms won't include local, county issues