BP's Tatics in Cape Vincent Ny

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 ?

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]

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. 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 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

Sunday, June 6, 2010


Jefferson's Leaning Left gives us a Birds Eye View into the New York State Department of Conservation Killing Fields .
I am not into conspiracy theories ,but massive corruption has crossed my mind.
In more than one NYPA press release announcing Kessels GLOW offshore wind project it has included the following statement ~ NYPA is supported by wind power proponents including the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation.~~~
I find it disturbing in light of the fact that Mr. Grannis represents the DEC , that the DEC is a proponent of wind ( what ever that means) that they have named them selves lead agency in the Galloo Island project setting a precedence.

link here to the Watertown Times article

POSSIBLE PRECEDENT: Agency, in ruling, names itself as lead on Galloo Island SEQR

The state Department of Environmental Conservation has declared itself the lead agency for a state environmental quality review of the proposed Galloo Island Wind Project — a ruling that may set a precedent of state review of future turbine projects.

The ruling by DEC Commissioner Alexander B. "Pete" Grannis on Friday afternoon is the first time the state has stepped in to perform a SEQR for a wind project. In the only other case where the commissioner made the lead agency determination, the Steuben County Industrial Development Agency was awarded lead agency status.

Now the subject of the Working families party ,and how this party is not a party and has nothing to do with working families either.

In a post earlier today ( Is the Party over for Darrel Aubertine? ) (This post explains the association between the WFP and the radical socialist organization the Apollo Alliance)
I mentioned Jefferson's Leaning Left and Darrel Aubertine breaking ties with the Working Families Party. This party has close ties with a radical socialist organization


"Climate", Jobs and Justice:

Copenhagen Report and Next Steps for Labor and the Environment At the forum, environment, labor and environmental justice leaders who took part in the Copenhagen meetings, as well as other experts, discussed next steps to a meaningful response to the climate crisis.
The event was co-sponsored by the Workforce Development Institute, Albany Law School's Government Law Center, New York State Apollo Alliance and the Albany Law School Environmental Law Society.
These Pod Casts are very dry; however, they are worth listening to. I have recently only begun to understand the scope of the alliances between business and government, and environmental organizations, how they together are shaping policy, this policy has a profound effect on our daily lives. The context of these podcasts will help bring to light the views of these people that are in key positions to change our future.

Keynote speakers were

Pete Grannis, Commissioner, NYS Department of Environmental Conservation
Sean Sweeney, Director, Cornell Global Labor Institute
Cecil Corbin-Mark, Deputy Director, WeAct for Environmental Justice
Additional speakers included:

Mark Watson, Program Manager, Environmental Research, NYSERDAJill Kubit, Assistant Director, Cornell Global Labor Institute
Jared Snyder, Assistant Commissioner for Air Resources, NYS Department of Environmental
Mark Bettinger, Director of Sierra Club's Federal and International Climate Campaign
Ed Murphy, Director, Workforce Development Institute
The event was co-sponsored by the Workforce Development Institute, Albany Law School's Government Law Center, New York State Apollo Alliance and the Albany Law School Environmental Law Society.