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...


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

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.

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

Tuesday, August 3, 2010

Acciona FEIS ~ Complaint Resolution Plan


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.



Well things could be worse ~~~~


Monday, August 2, 2010

ACCIONA ~ WMD ~ FEIS~ Noise Resolution ~



FEIS SECTION C- 11 ~
ACCIONA”s ~ WMD ~( Wind Mill Development) proposal for Cape Vincent NY
Complaint resolution ~ Acciona has a big foot print they know how to handle pesky people with complaints like noise, here is the process as laid out in Acciona’s proposed WMD for Cape Vincent
This is how Acciona will address complaints about the WMD NOISE~~
1. If the complaint includes the character or quality of the Wind Turbine sound, than any subsequent investigation shall use best practices to evaluate the overall level, tonal, and/or temporal nature of the Wind Turbine sound prompting the 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 undertaken with full cooperation of ACCIONA ~~~ SLW Read the complete WMD resolution plan below !




GET THE PICTURE ~~~



Sunday, July 4, 2010

Spain cuts subsidies for wind, thermosolar power | Reuters

MADRID | Fri Jul 2, 2010 4:18pm EDT

July 2 (Reuters) - Spain has agreed with renewable energy associations to cut subsidies which have made the country leading producer of wind and solar power but saddled utilities with billions of euros of debt, the Industry Ministry said on Friday.

The Ministry added in a statement that premiums paid to wind power producers above market prices would be cut by 35 percent in 2013, when a current subsidy scheme expires, while the hours would be reduced for which both wind and thermosolar plants would be eligible to receive premiums. (Reporting by Martin Roberts; Editing by Marguerita Choy)

Wednesday, June 30, 2010

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

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

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 br="br" km="km" must="must" setbacks="setbacks" stop.="stop.">
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. Download PDF copy here: http://www.kselected.com/?p=7589.

2 For a summary, see Nina Pierpont, “Report for Clinicians,” in Wind Turbine Syndrome: A Reporton a Natural Experiment (Santa Fe, NM: K-Selected Books, 2009), pp. 26-125. Purchase a copy here: http://www.kselected.com/?pane id=4768.

3 Pierpont 2009, pp. 31-33, 127-192.

4 Pierpont 2009, pp. 287-292. See also testimony by F. Owen Black, MD, FACS, found at http://www, kselected.com/?p=4047

Wednesday, June 16, 2010

Pilot Payments ~ Easy money ?

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

Friday, June 11, 2010

JEFFERSON COUNTY ~ THE INDIANA BROWN BAT

JEFFERSON COUNTY ~ THE INDIANA BROWN BAT

AND DEADLY WHITE~NOSE

SYNDROME


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, roosts and foraging habitat (USFWS1999). Radio telemetry studies in NY have shown this to be true for maternity roost locations as well where the Indiana bat forms maternity colonies of 20 to 100 members.

I am concerned that the Cape Vincent Indiana bat studies that, SLW ~ St. Lawrence Wind Power~ commissioned Sanders Environmental to do for their DEIS, are insufficient. The length of time may not be sufficient to determine bat presence because weather conditions change from year to year and this could very well affect bat activity. The Cape Vincent test was conducted in July/August of 2007 but the report is not clear as to how many days were spent in the field and under what conditions.

I also noticed that the report on Indiana Bat Roost Trees and Emergence Counts on bats captured outside Cape Vincent, New York sampling by Sanders Environmental Inc. has a date of July & August, 2007. Upon going over the report prepared for the Horse creek wind farm in neighboring Clayton, New York, I noticed they reported in their study that they trapped their first Indiana bat on June 02, (although a gap in netting activities indicates that bats could have been present in late May) and the last radio telemetry location occurred on August 09. After July 31, capture rates significantly decreased. Depending on when the Cape Vincent studies were done this may have had an effect on the results as well.

Sanders Environmental did not do thermal imaging or use acoustical radar. The Indiana brown bat is difficult to distinguish from the little brown bat therefore additional mist net surveys need to be conducted during the spring and the fall migration to understand the project area number and diversity of bats passing through the project area. These are extraordinary times and they call for extraordinary measures. We have an endangered species mysteriously dying off by the thousands. The Indiana bats have been affected by white nose syndrome, the mysterious ailment that has killed thousands of these bats. White nose syndrome has been identified among Indiana bats wintering in Glen Park. The issue of the white nose syndrome, and the fact that the Indiana bat is already an endangered species requires that we must move with great caution since this could become a critical issue for the Indiana bat’s survival.

SLW ~ St. Lawrence Wind Power~ Acciona~ has the potential to significantly impact the future survival of the Indiana bat because the fragmentation of habitat can have a negative effect on an already dwindling bat population.

Within 3/4 of a mile from the shores of Cape Vincent there already is an operational 86 turbine wind power plant on Wolfe Island, Canada. In Clayton, NY, Horse Creek wind farm is proposing to erect 62 turbines and another 77 turbine project is planned for Galoo Island. BP’s Cape Vincent wind project indicates their number is up to 140 Plus, slated for the area and SLW lists 53 turbines. That is the potential for a total of ~ 86 + 62 + 77 + 140 + 53 = 418 turbines. This means that potentially if all these projects come to fruition there would be 418 wind turbines within a 25 mile radius of the Indiana bat hibernacula in Glen Park, New York. Henderson, New York is also entertaining the idea of a wind farm and if the project that is developed it would only further increase the potential damaging effect on the bat population.

Already diminished in numbers, we are then going to assault this creature by fragmenting its habitat and destroying its foraging ground. Without a more extensive detailed study in Cape Vincent there is no way of knowing how many Indiana bats are actually in the area. In the case of such a sensitive issue studies should be done by an independent company, not one who depends on their lively hood from the wind companies. Another issue to consider is pressure changes that the spinning blades have on the lungs of the bats once the turbines become operational. This will also increase the mortality rate of an already endangered species and could become a critical issue in the future survival of the bat population especially considering the cumulative effects.

Lastly, were the transmission lines routes also included as part of the area being tested? St Lawrence Wind will be irreversibly committing resources to this project, resources that will cause the destruction of habitat, foraging areas and possibly causing irrevocable damage to this federally protected species. Not only do I think that the bat studies are inadequate, but I think, due to the plight of the Indiana bat, and the sensitive nature of the area, these projects are inappropriate for Cape Vincent, and the surrounding areas. To sacrifice so much for so little is obscene. Once lost these are things that can never be returned, gone forever a legacy lost to rusting monuments of greed.

DEC Letter To Tom Rienbeck
RE: State Environmental Quality Review
& Endangered/ Threatened Species