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

3 comments:

Anonymous said...

When this information was made public, it was then obvious why acciona reduced their number of turbines, and it was NOT because they were being considerate to public concerns like they claimed.

A coincidence that it just happened to make the project a frog hair below the 80 meg cutoff line?
Hogwash! It was carefully calculated to avoid the energy deliverability study.

DO THEY THINK THEY ARE DEALING WITH GULLIBLE MORONS?
What a crooked outfit!

Anonymous said...

There is another reason they reduced their project size, because they never intended to put a 96-turbine project in Cape Vincent. On the first project map in their DEIS they threw turbines everywhere! Many were within 100 ft of non-participants property lines; not 1,000 ft as required by our own "developer friendly" planning board. They also had turbines on people's property who wanted nothing to do with that snake-oil salesman Todd Hopper. Acciona purposely submitted a bloated project so they could tell us later they listened to our concerns and reduced their project because they are considerate, compassionate corporate citizens. Hogwash and bullshit! I hope the judge sees through the wash and shit and nullifies Edsall's slimy acceptance of their FEIS and findings.

Anonymous said...

This begs the question-has BP been subjected to the energy deliverability requirement,and if so what is the status of their project in relation to it?