Monday, October 31, 2011

“Vacant lots are selling like hotcakes.”




The Voters for Wind deny that an Industrial Wind Complex has any negative effect on property values. In fact, Voters For Wind even went on a fact-finding trip to Wolfe Island Wind. At the Town Board meeting of July 14, 2011 Voter For Wind Karen Stumpf presented the results of their research junket to Wolfe Island. Mrs. Stumpf said that
the only thing they kept hearing from Non-lease holding residents of Wolfe Island was that it is the “Best thing that ever happened, Best thing that ever happened to us.”

“Vacant lots are selling like hotcakes.” “Prices are way, way, way, above assessed values.” “Construction is going wild on Wolfe Island.” She said.
Additionally, she said that she had names and numbers!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

This is a copy of a letter submitted to Scott Aubertine, supervisor of the Town of Lyme, Jefferson County, NY. It was written by a local real estate dealer who faces the reality of and expresses concern about the inevitability of reduced real estate sales and loss of property values as a result of BFW.
~~~~~~~~~

Dear Scott,
Well……. Here goes, after sitting back and watching, listening, and seeing the negative impact of the wind turbines on business the last year or so, I have decided to speak up.
There are a few things I have to say, and I hope you are listening. I have thoroughly observed things that have been going on over the last couple years, and am amazed by how corporate greed and deception can win over so many, turn friends and neighbors into enemies and even break apart families.
I am amazed that any town would consider a project like this in a Resort/Waterfront community where most of our revenue that has kept us alive comes from our natural beauty that we are so fortunate to have, but are apparently so eager to destroy.
I am further amazed that a town would consider something that has a drastic negative impact on so many, and benefits so few….. and can jeopardize are current tax basis and our historic natural beauty. We have something special here, and whether you want to see it or not, it will hurt us as a town in both tax revenue, real estate values and tourism.

It was interesting to see how ill prepared Pittman* was the other night, he was obviously invited thinking that this town was open armed to this idea and probably realized quickly that was not the case. We are not the type of town that Pitman was describing where most of their projects are going (desolate towns with no economy or natural beauty to hurt) and he even agreed that our town may not be appropriate for this type of project. I also think it is interesting how a survey was done, that clearly shows (and I agree there was no confusion) this town does not want wind turbines anywhere near the water or village communities.

As a town supervisor, I would think this would show clearly the opinion of the people you are supposed to represent, and yet you fight to discredit it in any way possible? Send out another survey to every taxpayer and, again you will see the clear choice of the people!! I am all for clearing things up! This is a democracy and your job is to clearly represent your people.
I also have to say how sad it was to learn the fact that you did represent while trying to obtain office that you were not for the wind turbines. This was clearly miss leading and you changed your opinion very quickly once obtaining office. You are the last person I ever would have ever expected this type of behavior from. I have always held a lot of respect for you, but I do not understand.

1- There will be negative effects on Real Estate values, I can promise you that. There have been studies done that show clearly 60% of the time there is a major negative effect, and up to 40% depreciation of properties can occur.
I already have people who refuse to buy until they know the windmills are NOT coming near the water. I have people who have sold and left the area already because of the talk of windmills, and I know many more people on the fence, ready to dump their properties of wind comes in. Lastly, I had deals actually fall apart last year because buyers heard windmills may come in to our town.
I have already seen the storm cloud come in that Cape Vincent has been living under the last few years.

2-The wind turbines will have a negative effect on our tourism and our economy.
Have you seen Cape Vincent lately? People hate each other down there, business’s that got involved were shunned and dis-credited, families torn apart, and oh yes, you cannot sell anything down there, and everything is for sale!

PLEASE DO NOT TURN US IN TO CAPE VINCENT! PLEASE!
I think it was made very clear, most people do not object to wind, but they object to them near the water. We are a waterfront community and they are not appropriate for our area. I am not saying they are not appropriate anywhere, but here they are not.
On my last note, after much research, I truly believe these are a fad. Maybe 5-10 years, and something newer, better, smaller will be on the storefront.

There are already so many alternatives out there for green energy, and more will come out in the next few years. Committing to some type of 30-40 year project is absolute insanity.
Why can we not invest in making our Tourism economy stronger and better? Attracting more people to our community and not doing something to drive them away? Something that benefits all and hurts no one?

I have to laugh because a 240 home subdivision that would have extended our village, added major tax revenues, and grown our community in a stable positive way was shunned and put thru hell for 5 years. Yet wind turbines are being shoved down our throats. Things just don’t make sense.

It is also sadly dis-heartening that people on the board with major conflicts will be allowed to vote. I understand it is legal, but it is not right. They are not properly representing the people and are too close to the issue with family members standing to have major financial gain.

I love this town and this community, and what I see is scares me. This town could grow to be an even more wonderful place, steady, stable growth is what it needs. Please focus on what the town needs and what the people need and want. This is what should be most important to you and your board members.

I mean no dis-respect to anyone, I just could not sit back and say nothing when I already see the negative impacts setting in.

Thank You for your time, I truly believe you will help make the right decision in the long run. I still have faith……

I would like to add to Mr. Ormsby’s quote, above, about the 40% of the tax base. That is an average and when you consider that the wind factory hosting communities have a Lake and River district tax base of 80% and up, that is one hell of a sacrifice to make by those citizens because a very few that will benefit are willing to give away and trash those communities.


*Note: The writer of this letter mentions a Wind development Presentation given by Kieth Pittman, Pittman was a partner in Empire State Wind Energy LLC. A company that was backed by Billionaire and Paychex founder Thomas Golisano until it ceased operations because its leaders believe the venture will not be profitable.

Wind turbine maker Vestas Plunges Most in Eight Years

Vestas Plunges Most in Eight Years After Cutting Forecasts - Bloomberg

Turbine makers led by Vestas and its rival General Electric Co. are suffering from slower demand growth, falling prices and narrowing margins as Chinese companies including Xinjiang Goldwind Science & Technology Co. grab market share.
Source: Industrial Wind Action Group


October 31, 2011 by Reed Landberg and Alex Morales in Bloomberg News

Vestas Wind Systems A/S, the biggest wind-turbine maker, dove the most in three years in Denmark after cutting margin and revenue forecasts because of delays in expanding production at a new plant in Travemuende, Germany.

The stock fell as much as 26 percent and traded at 87.65 kroner, down 21 percent, as of 9:06 a.m. local time.

The manufacturer expects revenue of 6.4 billion euros ($9 billion) in 2011, down from the 7 billion euros it had forecast in August. Continue reading

US govt $$ not enough to save Beacon Power from bankruptcy

 Boston Business Journal by Galen Moore, Web Editor
Date: Monday, October 31, 2011


Beacon Power has filed for bankruptcy, after struggling to find the financing it needed to build a second energy regulation plant.

.. ..If the U.S. government is picking winners and losers in alternative energy, Beacon Power Corp. .Beacon Power Corp. Latest from The Business Journals Feds defend Beacon Power loan guarantees Boston law firm Edwards Wildman is top Beacon Power creditor Stephentown plant owner Beacon Power files for bankruptcy Follow this company .(Nasdaq: BCON) may be one of the firms Uncle Sam has allowed to lose. Facing delisting from the Nasdaq for its rock-bottom stock price, the Tyngsboro, Mass. maker of smart grid technology has filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy, following California-based Solyndra .Solyndra Latest from The Business Journals Second firm with federal loan guarantee goes bankrupt Solyndra loan under review Stephentown plant owner Beacon Power files for bankruptcy Follow this company .as another U.S. government-backed alternative energy company now seeking protection from creditors.



Continue reading Here

minutes

At last nights Republican fundraiser a resident of Cape Vincent was inquiring about the Village of Cape Vincent minutes .


The minutes of the Village Board Meetings from 11/14 2005 to 7/26/2011 are available on the Internet at this link

Sunday, October 30, 2011

Mackinac Center: Green energy rules and subsidies fizzle as job creators


Mackinaw City Michigan Giant Turbines just outside Mackinaw city
Mackinac Center: Green energy rules and subsidies fizzle as job creators Detroit Free Press freep.com

The national unemployment rate remains stubbornly above 9%, and Michigan's unemployment rate remains in double digits. Some in the political class, both in Washington and Lansing, tell us the way out of this economic malaise is to embrace the vision of green energy and its promise of new jobs. Unfortunately, this is wishful thinking.

The green energy jobs bubble is deflating rapidly and turning red as taxpayers are saddled with excessive new debt fueled by government's attempt to pick winners and losers in the energy markets. The poster child is Solyndra, a manufacturer of solar power products that squandered more than $500 million of taxpayer money before closing its doors.

Government officials have been busy centrally planning our energy future by using CAFE standards to mandate the types of vehicles we drive, dictating the types of light bulbs we can use, and attempting to regulate coal-fired power plants -- which provide about 60% of the nation's electricity -- out of existence through EPA administrative fiat.

Government officials have also handed out billions of taxpayer dollars in subsidies, loan guarantees and tax incentives to industries du jour, like solar panels, windmills, ethanol and "green" automobiles.

Government intrusion has not delivered the promised jobs. The U.S. Labor Department's Office of Inspector General recently reported that the federal government spent $162.8 million to "train and prepare individuals for careers in green jobs." Only 8,035 Americans found jobs, according to the report, and "only 1,336 were still in the job after six months."

Government attempts to create green jobs in Europe have proved to be just as expensive and actually resulted in a net loss of jobs in Spain, a country with 20% unemployment.

While government officials have been planning our energy future, the private sector has been busy creating a revolution in the oil and gas industry. Two of the most important developments are the extraction of extensive deposits of natural gas in the U.S. through the use of hydraulic fracturing and horizontal drilling technologies, and the development of huge supplies of oil derived from oil sands in Canada.

It is estimated that there is enough recoverable natural gas in the U.S. to provide the nation's energy needs for the remainder of the century. Construction of a pipeline running from Canada to American refineries would reduce the amount of oil imported from the Middle East.

Many environmentalists oppose developing these new energy resources, claiming they pose an unacceptable threat to the environment. These claims hide the fact that they recognize the development of oil and gas undercuts the rationale for more costly alternative energy sources.

Policymakers who champion alternative energy through government mandates and lavish tax subsidies are ignoring economic realities. Their agenda will actually harm the development of alternative energy in the long run.

We did not leave the Stone Age because we ran out of rocks. We won't leave the age of carbon-based energy because we ran out of oil and gas. Rather, we will organically transition to new energy sources when supply and demand makes oil and gas production more expensive than alternative forms of energy. No amount of government intervention can suspend economic laws.

Federal and state government policy should encourage the responsible development of oil and gas resources in North America -- which will create thousands of good-paying jobs -- while at the same time allowing private research into new alternative energy technology that will provide the bridge to America's energy future.

Russ Harding is senior environmental policy analyst at the Mackinac Center for Public Policy.

Cape Vincent

Republican Fundraiser a Great Success!

The republican fundraiser tonight at Aubrey’s Inn ,Cape Vincent was a great success. The turnout was fantastic and it provided the opportunity to renew old acquaintances (and make new ones).
It was just a great evening for people to get together and talk about Cape Vincent’s very bright future.


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


I could not say it better than this reader, so I won't.

Cape Lady said...
Yes indeed, it was a terrific evening. We were visited by candidates outside of Cape Vincent. We had candidates running for Judicial, Congressional, District Attorney and more. Cape Republicans are on the move, building momentum, making new friends and expanding their influence on the elective process.

Thanks to all for attending, contributing, sharing and supporting a true grass roots Party.

Not to be forgotten, was the praise and thanks to Kathy and Rick for all the time, research and informative postings.

Vote Row B, no write ins, keep your ballot clean and counted.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~



The Team that will work for you providing a brighter future for Cape Vincent.

TEAM ~ Hirschey Byrne & Schneider
A Team who will
Provide:
GOOD JUDGEMENT
OPENNESS
SMART LEADERSHIP





a team that will represent our community. A unified non-conflicted team that represents open ethical government .

Republican congressman pushes for an end to all energy tax credits

Republican congressman pushes for an end to all energy tax credits Texas on the Potomac a Chron.com blog


A Republican congressman from Kansas plans to introduce a bill this week to end all tax credits for the energy sector, saying he believes it’s time for conventional and alternative sources alike to show their worth without government help.

Rep. Mike Pompeo, R-Kan., told lawmakers in a letter last week that his bill would save the U.S. government up to $90 billion over 10 years in what he says is spending that distorts the market. He pointed to the ongoing scandal over the Energy Department’s $535 million loan guarantee to the now-bankrupt Fremont, Calif., solar-panel maker Solyndra LLC.

“The Solyndra scandal has demonstrated the danger of government interference in energy markets,” he wrote, calling his bill “a reasonable approach to ending the decades-long practice of trying to pick winners and losers.”

Among the credits the bill would end are the renewable electricity production tax credit, which rewards companies for each kilowatt-hour of generating capacity they install from sources such as wind, biomass, geothermal, landfill-gas, municipal-waste or hydroelectric. Credits for plug-in electric and fuel-cell vehicles and alternative fuels would also end.

The bill would also end credits for enhanced oil recovery and technologies that reduce emissions from coal.

Pompeo wrote that his bill would preserve “general deductions available to multiple industries.”

But his legislation is sure to face resistance. Democrats, who control the Senate, have sought to target tax breaks for oil-and-gas companies but may be hesitant to end federal support for alternative sources, which they say can help address pollution and climate change.

The American Wind Energy Association, a wind-power trade group in Washington, has issued a statement blasting Pompeo’s bill.

“Representative Pompeo seems to misunderstand how a key federal tax incentive has built a thriving American wind manufacturing sector and tens of thousands of American jobs,” CEO Denise Bode said in a statement, referring to the production tax credit for wind electricity, which will expire after
Dec. 31, 2012, without action from Congress.
Bob Deans, associate director of communications for the environmental group Natural Resources Defense Council, has criticized Republicans for using the Solyndra scandal to target all clean energy: “We should learn the lessons of Solyndra, to be sure, but then move forward — because, as China and our other global competitors have grasped all too well, solar energy, wind, and other emerging technologies hold the promise and potential to help power the world into the 21st century.”

Pompeo also said his bill would be revenue-neutral by including a corporate tax rate reduction that corresponds to the money his bill saves.

The bill isn’t meant to raise money for the government, Pompeo said, “but rather to correct decades of taxpayer funded handouts to industries more than capable of thriving in the open market.”


A list of tax credits his bill will target, according to the letter:

•Plug-in electric and fuel cell vehicles
•Alternative fuel and alternative fuel mixtures
•Cellulosic Biofuel Producer Credit
•Alternative fuel infrastructure
•Production Tax Credit for electricity produced from renewable sources, including wind, biomass, and hydropower
•Investment Tax Credit for equipment powered by solar, fuel cells, geothermal or other specified renewable sources
•Enhanced oil recovery credit, and credit for producing oil and gas from marginal wells
•Advanced Nuclear Power Generation Credit
•Clean coal investment credits

Friday, October 28, 2011

Acciona Wind Lease Easement Clauses



In the past, I have written about the wind lease loyalty clauses and the potential implications for our conflicted Municipal officers.

However, the signing of the loyalty clauses by our Municipal officers is not the only thing in the wind lease that may have potential implications for our community.

The wind lease agreements also contain what are called easements.

The following is from a lease easement that was entered in to by Harvey White and Acciona.

Acciona has a couple of interesting easements in their lease agreements.

Windpower Facility Effects Easement. AND the Waiver of Setback and Setback Easement.

The Windpower Facility Effects Easement
.

ii) Windpower Facility Effects Easement...Grantor hereby grants Grantee a perpetual easement (the “Windpower Facility Effects Easement “)

[A perpetual easement is that type of easement, which is to last without any limitation of time. It is a right, which a person has on the property of another person, which to an extent is permanent. ]

for any audio, visual, view, light , noise, vibration, air turbulence, wake, electromagnetic or other effect of any kind or nature whatsoever resulting , directly or indirectly from the construction instillation, maintenance or operation of Wind Power Facilities in the vicinity of the property; to generate and maintain audible noise levels on and above Property wherever originating at any or all times of day or night; and to cast shadows and reflect glare onto the property, whether intermittent(flicker) or constant , from Windpower Facilities wherever located, and agrees not to bring any complaint , suit or action or intervene in any investigation or inquiry by any person or entity with respect thereto.Regarding the laundry list of wind turbine issues above the leaseholder has agreed never to bring any complaint, suit or action or intervene in any investigation or inquiry.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
By signing this, would our conflicted municipal officers be at odds with Acciona’s Community Relations and Complaint Resolution Plan?
~~~~~~
Would conflicted Municipal Officers be able to support citizens if they were to have an issue with any of the effects caused by wind turbines ?
~~~~~~
Waiver of Setback and Setback Easement
(iii) Waiver of Setback and Setback Easement. Grantor hereby grants Grantee a perpetual easement (the “Setback Easement”) pursuant to which Grantor consents to Grantee is siting of Windpower Facilities at any location upon property near the Property and by which, to the fullest extent applicable and permitted by law, this means that
Grantor waives enforcement of any and all setback requirements related to the siting of Windpower facilities upon property in the
Vicinity of the Property
, including Setback Requirements applicable to the Windpower Facilities from lot lines, residents and other improvements, consents to setbacks for the Windpower Facilities being less than required by such Setback Requirement and agrees not to bring any complaint, suit or action or intervene in any investigation or inquiry by any person or entity with respect thereto.
Grantor agrees to use commercially reasonable efforts to assist , cooperate and participate in any proceeding and petition prepared by grantee in connection with any modification or variance to an existing siting or Setback Requirement. Further, if so requested by Grantee, Grantor shall, without demanding additional consideration therefor,
(i) Execute (and if appropriate cause to be acknowledged) any setback waiver, setback elimination or other document or instrument reasonably requested by Grantee in connection therewith.

Without limiting the generality of the foregoing, this agreement shall be deemed a “setback agreement”
For the purposes of the Town of Cape Vincent Wind energy facility law.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Would these lease clauses have implications for conflicted Municipal officers establishing and/or enforcement of a wind law?
By signing lease agreements with these types of easements, would our conflicted Municipal officers be required to put the Best interests of Acciona over those of the community? Would Our Municipal officers be unable to vote in favor of a protective sound study or a moratorium or even a Property Protection Plan?

Latest Federal Guidelines Fail to Make Wind Power Bird-Smart, Break Federal Laws, and Rely on Unlikely Voluntary Compliance

Golden Eagle
USFWS
MEDIA RELEASE
American Bird Conservancy
Washington, D.C., September 20, 2011) The Department of the Interior (DOI) has released a revised, third version of its voluntary wind development siting and operational guidelines that fails to ensure
that bird deaths at wind farms are minimized, says American Bird Conservancy, the nation’s leading bird conservation organization.
Furthermore, the public has been given only ten days to comment. The final opportunity for the public to discuss these guidelines with DOI will be at a federal advisory committee meeting today and tomorrow.

“ABC is very much pro wind energy. America has the potential to create a truly green energy source that does not unduly harm birds, but the Department of the Interior is squandering the opportunity to be ‘smart from the start’,” said Kelly Fuller, Wind Campaign Coordinator for American Bird Conservancy (ABC), the nation’s leading bird conservation organization. “The latest draft of the wind guidelines is not only voluntary, making industry compliance unlikely, but also offers assurances that wind companies won’t be prosecuted for illegally killing federally protected birds such as Bald and Golden Eagles. These guidelines set a dangerous precedent for other energy industries to seek the same freedom to break America’s wildlife protection laws without repercussions,” said Fuller.

“Astonishingly, the current draft of the guidelines allows wind power companies to unilaterally determine whether they are in compliance with the ’guidelines’ and, on that basis, to immunize themselves from any prosecution under federal wildlife protection statutes regardless of how many eagles, hawks, warblers, or other protected species they wind up taking. This would be unfathomable as applied to any other energy sector or, for that matter, any other regulatory sphere. This goes way beyond merely being bad policy; it is a flagrant violation of the protective schemes adopted in the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act,” said Eric Glitzenstein, a Founding Partner at Meyer, Glitzenstein & Crystal, a Washington, D.C. based public-interest law firm.

One wind power development area in California is already estimated to have killed over 2,000 eagles in what would appear to be significant violations of the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act. Yet not a single wind energy company has been prosecuted or even charged, and meaningful operational changes have only been implemented in recent years following legal action taken not by the federal government, but by environmental groups.

This version of the wind industry guidelines was issued on September 13, 2011. The Department of the Interior will accept comments on the proposal until September 23, 2011.

“Giving a mere ten days to look over this 130-page package makes it almost impossible for the public to provide a meaningful response,” Fuller said.

Recommendations on wind energy were developed over a two-year period by an industry-dominated, 22-member Federal Advisory Committee and forwarded to the Secretary of the Interior in March 2010. Over the next year, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service biologists made a series of changes to those recommendations to improve protection for birds. Those revised guidelines were then published for public comment in February 2011. An overwhelming number of the comments called for the guidelines to be strengthened, not weakened. The guidelines also underwent scientific peer review.

"Right now we have a chance to get wind power right from the start - with little added costs. But if we push these voluntary guidelines forward without making them bird-smart to protect the environment, it may be our children who may ultimately regret our hasty decisions," said Fuller.

A second set of proposed guidelines was then issued by DOI on July 12, 2011, but rather than strengthening the initial draft, it removed many key bird protection elements, reversing recommendations from professional DOI wildlife staff and adding unrealistic wind project approval deadlines that ABC concludes would lead to “rubber-stamping” of wind development.

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service estimated that in 2009, the wind industry was killing about 440,000 birds per year, yet has ignored its own estimate. With the Federal Government targeting a 12-fold increase in wind generated electricity by the year 2030, annual bird mortality is expected to increase into the millions absent meaningful changes in the industry. Species of conservation concern appear to be particularly at risk including the Golden Eagle, Greater Sage-Grouse and the endangered Whooping Crane.

More than 60 groups and over 20,000 individuals organized by ABC have called for mandatory standards and bird-smart principles in the siting and operation of wind farms. The coalition represents a broad cross-section of respected national and local groups, as well as scientists, bird lovers, conservationists, and other concerned citizens.
#

American Bird Conservancy (ABC) is a 501(c)(3) not-for-profit membership organization whose mission is to conserve native birds and their habitats throughout the Americas. ABC acts by safeguarding the rarest species, conserving and restoring habitats, and reducing threats, while building capacity in the bird conservation movement.

Thursday, October 27, 2011

Remember Soundgate? Hessler Email to Acciona's Gunderman ~ Wishful thinking

Because there were concerns early on among local citizens that the developers noise report was misleading, the Wind Power Ethics Group (WPEG) contracted Schomer and associates to conduct an independent background sound survey of Cape Vincent.

Dr.Schomer is chair of the International Organization for Standardization working group on environmental noise and chair of the American National Standards committee on noise and holds other leadership roles in noise measurement. His findings identified "tricks" used by Hessler to arrive at pre-determined conclusions.

In Schomer's summary he explains how Hessler permitted summertime insect noise to contaminate the sound surveys to show background noise levels as high as 45-50 dB(A). In fact, Schomer's own survey showed noise levels in Cape Vincent to have an overall level of 30 dB (arithmetic average using A-weighted L90 levels). This included day, evening and night sound levels.

Dr.Schomer found that Hessler's study for the Cape Vincent Wind Power Facilities appears to have selected the noisiest sites, the noisiest time of year, and the noisiest positions at each measurement site.
Collectively, these choices resulted in a substantial overestimate of the a-weighted ambient sound level, 45-50 db.
Consequently, Dr.Schomer’s report had the potential to cause big problems for Acciona, and British Petroleum if it were not discredited.

Previously the Town of Cape Vincent had commissioned Cavanaugh Tocci and Associates to analyze the noise study by the wind developers. The Cavanaugh Tocci report was critical of the current flawed sound study as well ; and subsequently the report was suppressed.
This was discovered with the legal release of FOILED documents by Supervisor Hirschey . Because the information that was released pertaining to Cape Vincent’s sound study would be damaging to Acciona ,Acciona's project manager Tim Conboy led a charge at the Town Board meeting to discredit Supivisor Hirschey by accusing him of releasing the engineering documents illegally.

The email below is from David Hessler ~ [Hessler and Associates ]the Acoustical Consultants hired by Acciona to conduct the noise studies for Acciona's St. lawrence Wind project to Blayne Gunderman ~[Environmental Permitting Manager for Acciona energia]

This email is part of the engineering correspondence concerning Acciona's flawed sound study. That was legally released through a FOIL request.


Kris Dimmick
From: Mathes, Todd
Sent: Monday October 26, 2009 1:35 PM
To: Kris Dimmick
Subject: FW: FW: St. Lawrence Wind
From: David Hessler
Sent: Monday, October 26, 2009 1:14 PM
To: Gunderman, Blayne
Cc: Zedick, Pete; Mathis, Todd
Subject: Re: St. Lawrence Wind
Blayne,
I just tried several times to call Schomer to get to the bottom of this, but he’s not there.
This is what I know-
When we first were made aware of the Schomer study in July I wrote a letter to Paul explaining the circumstances surrounding the summer test and summarizing some of the results of the winter test, which he had not known about. The gist of the letter was to ask that he make a serious effort to retract his criticisms, which were overly harsh, totally undeserved and apparently written with the express intent tell his client, the Industrial Wind Action Group, what they wanted to hear.
Some time prior to this in the late spring , my father , George Hessler ( the other half of the company) was asked by Paul to chair a session a the Noise- Con 2009 conference in Ottawa in late August . At that conference, the two of them talked face to face about the Cape Vincent situation. During that discussion, my father was told that Paul now understood the background circumstances and no longer objected to our study principally because the levels he measured during his own wintertime survey were comparable to and in some cases even higher than we got. Amicable relations resorted, my father was told that Paul was going to immediately write a letter to Cavanaugh Tocci essentially retracting his objections. We had no reason to doubt he was going to do that. However, we have never received a copy as we had requested.
As an additional note, our work on the BP project largely ended with the submittal of the summer and winter background test reports and we did not prepare an impact assessment for the project, but rather an assessment was written without our knowledge by the general environmental consultant (ERM) basing the impact on, I believe, the summer background levels because they were much more favorable to the project. Evidently, it was this DEIS assessment that rankled the anti- wind people and prompted them to hire Schomer to do an “independent” field survey
David
Gunderman, Blayne wrote:
Can you help here?
Blayne
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


I was at the Ottawa INCE conference when David Hessler's father George was lobbying Dr. Paul Schomer to recant his criticism of Hessler Associates BP study. In fact, George Hessler was the chair of the section when I presented my paper on background sound levels in Cape Vincent.
I am very familiar with the issue and the circumstances outlined in this post. Hessler's complaint was Schomer's report was "overly harsh, totally undeserved and apparently written with the express intent tell his client, the Industrial Wind Action Group, what they wanted to hear." On the contrary, Hessler was upset because someone of impeccable professional standards, Dr. Schomer, exposed his questionable, unprofessional study for BP.
Hessler can complain all he wants, but in the end he was the one who recanted his summer study.
Schomer stood by his report and its conclusions, and he stands by them today.


Clif Schneider




--------------Original Message------------------
From: Mathes, Todd
Sent: Monday, October 26, 2009 11:57 AM
To: Zedick, Pete
Cc Cogen, Richard; K. Dimmick; Gunderman Blayne




View Schomer Report -->here

Monday, October 24, 2011

Wind Energy Sector to Collapse in 2013?


Written by Gloria Gonzalez
The US wind energy sector is continuing to recover from the credit crunch with turbine installations on the rise in 2011, according to the American Wind Energy Association (AWEA), but future growth could be undermined by an uncertain federal policy environment.

The wind industry installed 2.2GW of generating capacity in the US during the first half of 2011, up 72% from the 1.3GW installed during the same time in 2010, according to AWEA. In the second quarter of 2011, 1GW of capacity was installed, an increase of 46% from the 709MW in the second quarter of last year.

Continue reading Via this link Source: Environmental-Finance 

Press Release ~ Alliant Energy Announces Expected Losses From Non-Regulated Business --

MADISON, Wis., Oct. 24, 2011 /PRNewswire/ -- Alliant Energy Corporation (NYSE: LNT) (the "Company") today announced that it expects to record losses of approximately $0.09 per share in the third quarter of 2011 relating to its RMT, Inc. (RMT) business within non-regulated operations. The losses are largely due to issues RMT is experiencing with one of its solar subcontractors. Schedule delays, abandonment of work by the original subcontractor, and the need to hire another subcontractor to complete the project work have resulted in significant additional costs for RMT. RMT has filed a lawsuit against the subcontractor; however Alliant Energy is currently unable to predict the outcome of this lawsuit and thus, RMT has not recognized any potential benefits from the recovery of damages.

The Company currently believes that these unanticipated losses will not cause the Company's consolidated earnings to fall outside of the 2011 consolidated earnings guidance range issued in December 2010 and updated in May 2011.

Alliant Energy Corporation is the parent company of two public utility companies - Interstate Power and Light Company and Wisconsin Power and Light Company - and of Alliant Energy Resources, LLC, the parent company of Alliant Energy's non-regulated operations. Alliant Energy is an energy-services provider with subsidiaries serving approximately 1 million electric and 413,000 natural gas customers. Providing its customers in the Midwest with regulated electricity and natural gas service is the Company's primary focus. Alliant Energy, headquartered in Madison, Wis., is a Fortune 1000 company traded on the New York Stock Exchange under the symbol LNT. For more information, visit the Company's Web site at http://www.alliantenergy.com/index.htm.

This press release includes forward-looking statements. These forward-looking statements can be identified as such because the statements include words such as "expects," "approximately," "believes" or other words of similar import. Similarly, statements that describe future performance, plans or strategies are forward-looking statements. Such forward looking statements are subject to certain risks and uncertainties that could cause actual results to differ materially from those expressed in, or implied by, such statements. Actual results could be materially affected by the following factors, among others; project execution for RMT, Inc.; the ability of RMT to mitigate losses due to subcontractor problems; RMT's ability to successfully pursue claims against its subcontractor; RMT's ability to complete projects in a timely manner, IPL's and WPL's ability to obtain adequate and timely rate relief to allow for, among other things, the recovery of operating costs, fuel costs, transmission costs, deferred expenditures, capital expenditures, and remaining costs related to generating units that may be permanently closed, the earning of reasonable rates of return, and the payments to their parent of expected levels of dividends, the state of the economy, weather conditions, and other factors discussed in more detail in the Company's filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission, including Item 1A – Risk Factors of the Company's Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2010 . These factors should be considered when evaluating the forward-looking statements and undue reliance should not be placed on such statements. The forward-looking statements included herein are made as of the date hereof and Alliant Energy undertakes no obligation to update publicly such statements to reflect subsequent events or circumstances.


SOURCE
Alliant Energy Corporation


http://www.alliantenergy.com/

Thursday, October 20, 2011

Engineering correspondence request


ENGINEERING CORRESPONDENCE REQUEST HISTORY
--- On Fri, 4/3/09, Clif Schneider wrote:
From: Clif Schneider Subject: Cape Vincent Sound Studies CorrespondenceTo: "Kris Dimmick" Cc: "Tom Rienbeck" , "Gregory C."Date: Friday, April 3, 2009, 11:59 AMHi Kris,I spoke with Supervisor Rhienbeck this morning regarding my request for materialrelated to wind developer sound studies in Cape Vincent and the recent draft wind law.Supervisor Rhienbeck has agreed to let me see copies of the material, but he alsorequested that you send copies to him as well. Apparently he has not seen all of thedocuments associated with the noise and sound issues.My mailing address:Clif SchneiderPO Box 165Cape Vincent, NY 13618 (I presume you have Supervisor Rhienbeck's address)Specifically, I would like copies of all the correspondence between you and your soundconsultant, Cavanaugh Tocci, Inc. This would include sound issues as it related to bothwind projects and the drafting of the wind law.I would also like to see any technical correspondence related to sound between you andthe CV Planning Board. I am interested in any reviews, comments, correspondence, oremails related to the technical issue of wind turbine sound.Thank you for your help and assistance.
Regards,
Clif Schneider



gtocci@cavtocci.comTuesday, April 21, 2009 2:15 PM
From: Clif Schneider [mailto:cpschneid@yahoo.com]
Sent: Tuesday, April 21, 2009 2:15 PMTo: Gregory C. TocciSubject: Reviews and recommendations for Cape Vincent

Hello Greg,I am currently beginning my review of the St. Lawrence Wind Farm supplemental DEIS. I have spoken with Todd Mathes, attorney representing the Town of Cape Vincent,regarding having access to any reviews or sound reports and recommendations to theTown regarding a wind law. Mathes told me I would have to FOIL for any internal documents and further added he would consider privileged material anything your company prepared for the Town's engineering consultant or the Planning Board. I mentioned I already had a copy your first review of the BP sound study by Hessler, but would like to see other material.I mentioned to him I would be contacting you, not to request copies of the material you prepared, but rather just to understand the extent of material you prepared for the Town.I have the copies of the following material you prepared for the Towns of Cape Vincent and Clayton: 1) Jan. 30, 2008 review of BP's DEIS for Cape Vincent, 2) March 14, 2008 draft wind ordinance for the Town of Clayton, and 3) April 25, 2008 review of the Clayton Wind farm noise study.Mathes also provided me with a summary of what occurred with sound and other issuesleading up to the acceptance of the SDEIS. I saw a number of unresolved issues that were presented in a memo from Kris Dimmick. However, in another memo provided byMathes he shows what changes were made, but the substantive issues Kris (and Iassume your company, too) highlighted were not addressed to my satisfaction. I doubt if your were totally satisfied as well.My question: Aside from the material I have from your company outlined above, arethere other reviews/reports that I should go to lengths to acquire, or do thosedocuments I note above provide your major points of concern?I don't want to put you in an uncomfortable position, I just don't want to waste timegoing after some of the additional reviews and recommendations your company hasmade, if there isn't much more there than what I currently have.As I mentioned, I've told Mathes that I'd contact you, not to request the reports, but tohave a better understanding of what reports are "out there." I also said I've beensupportive of the advice you and Bernier & Carr have provided the Town and all I want

Wednesday, October 19, 2011

Wind Turbine Woes~ Update of Roger Alexander's Wild Turbine

Alexander turbine 2009


A reader provided the video ,photos and details regarding the recent incident of Roger Alexander's wild wind turbine.

Additionally this reader sent an email to The Chinese manufacturer of Alexander's turbine . As of yet they have not received a response from the manufacturer or one of their mid-west dealers.
The reader that provided me with this information did say that they think that they have established that Alexander's turbine was out of control on Monday.
~~~~~
By looking at the pictures provided below of Roger Alexander’s Personal Wind Turbine It is reasonable to conclude that Mr. Alexander’s 92-foot wind turbine was out of control.

The first picture of Mr. Alexander's turbine was taken in 2009.
Note in the first image a cable that attaches from the vane on the left through a guide or two and then to the top of the generator. This is for the operation of the furling mechanism that limits and governs overspeed of the rotor.

July 7 2009


In the second image (Alexander's Turbine taken 19, OCT 11) you will plainly see the cable is no longer there. It is gone!

oct 19 2011


In the third image, which is a cropped section of the previous image, you can see over on the left the end of a frayed wire. It is obvious and shows that the wire parted and therefore the turbine was not functioning properly.

19,oct 2011 frayed wire


Additionally,the video of Mr. Alexander’s turbine taken Monday October 17, 2011 shows that the furling mechanism was not working because the rotor was not moving out of the wind during gusty conditions, the rotor just stayed straight into the wind.
Bottom line is the generator is broken and it should not be run again in its current condition.

Today the turbine is no longer operating.
Thankfully, no one was injured.

Short video of Roger Alexander's noisy turbine


Longer video of Roger Alexander's noisy turbine

A Happy little Accident

Blog Visitors 10,19,2011
When I write for my blog I attempt to be accurate and to provide documentation for the information that I post however, I've made more than my share of typos and mistakes in my writing over the years.
None of these typos have garnered much attention.
Recently I noticed that new visitors were coming to my blog by the hundreds. The referring link took me to a blog named (Watts up with that?)

I found a story about bat deaths this post-combined information from a couple of stories about bat deaths at wind farms. One of those story’s was a post that I wrote in April of 2011, pointing out the bat mortality rate on Wolfe Island and that Acciona’s St. Lawrence Wind Power project has the potential to significantly impact the future survival of the Indiana bat and all bat species existing in Cape Vincent. Additionally, I wrote that the agricultural industry is poised for huge financial losses and NY State Agricultural Commissioner Darrel Aubertine may contribute to these losses.
Darrel Aubertine’s land is slated for transmission lines to facilitate St. Lawrence winds 53 turbine project. The portion of Aubertine’s land that is slated for transmission lines is perilously close to the Indiana Bat habitat areas...

Aubertine’s answer to the potential development “Who are you to tell me what I can do with my land"?

The bat kills on Wolfe Island have been estimated at approx. 1720 bat kills per year a large number of bats are dying at wind turbines in the United States. The number of bat deaths is higher than any fatality rates seen in this species in the past.
This is significant bats play an important role in providing pest-control services that save the U.S. agriculture industry over $3 billion per year.
Bat populations are declining due to fatalities associated with White-Nose Syndrome and wind turbines, which could lead to significant economic losses on U.S. farms.
White nose syndrome is a deadly mysterious disease that has killed more than a million hibernating bats across the Northeastern U.S. since 2006.
I have been writing about the bat and bird mortality rates on Wolfe Island since the turbines were erected and no one seemed to be concerned.

Until yesterday...

What changed? Why did people suddenly sit up and take notice? What is an acceptable number of bat deaths before people pay attention? Apparently not 1720 bat deaths per year. However, I made a typo and I wrote 1720 bat deaths (per turbine) per year. Two words and people started flocking to my blog to read about Wolfe Islands bat death rate and the potential development of Darrel Aubertine’s land in bat country.
The number of fatalities makes no difference, even if the estimated deaths were significantly less than the reported 1720 the recorded deaths have a huge margin of error and may even be significantly larger than the reported 1720. The bat mortality rates are serious and if people do not sit up and take notice the implications will be devastating...

Link here to the website ~Watts up with that~
Holy Irony Batman! by Anthony Watts

Tuesday, October 18, 2011

COAX Goes to Albany

COAX Coalition on Article X

October 12, 2011 in Albany, NY on the Capitol steps, COAX addressed statewide media personnel on the perils of Article X as yet another tax which the state can levy. The Renewable Energy Standards, Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative, FERC’s Order No. 1000 and Article X are all converging in a perfect storm to drive up commodity costs of wholesale electricity through the collection of various taxes imposed on ratepayers. The increase in energy costs will also only serve to drive business away from New York State, which Governor Cuomo claims is “Open for Business”.

The ill-conceived government control of energy siting and technologies hasn’t proven to work at the Federal level, nor is it expected to work at the State level. Article X will prove to be too costly for New Yorkers due to subsidies and Industrial Development Authority tax breaks. Governor Cuomo’s re-enactment of Article X equates to taxation without representation.

Sincerely,
Robert E. Aliasso, Jr. – Member COAX

COAX website

Monday, October 17, 2011

DUCK & COVER Another spinorama?

UPDATE:5:20 pm
NEW VIDEO ~ PLUS I have just been informed by a reliable source that the Turbine is out of control ~ The brake cable is broken...




Many months ago, I posted this story About Roger D. Alexander and his 92-foot personal wind machine.
Sometime in May of 2009 Planning Board Chair Richard Edsall stated at Planning Board meeting that there might be wind turbine zoning soon and if you want, a personal wind turbine now is the time to go for it before there is a wind law in Cape Vincent.
That is exactly what Roger Alexander did. Mr. Alexander’s neighbor Mary Grogan disputed with the town's zoning board over his wind turbine, which she believes is too close to her property.
"I want it down," said Mary C. Grogan, a seasonal town resident who lives next to Roger D. Alexander.
Ms. Grogan, County Route 7, said the turbine is too close to her residence and she is worried the turbine will affect her son, who has cerebral palsy.
Ms. Grogan said she was not given an opportunity to protest the turbine because the town's Zoning Board of Appeals did not hold a site plan review for the structure.
The town's zoning officer, Alan Wood, said the turbine did not require a site plan review because it was considered a utility and an accessory structure. Turbines are classified as utilities under the town's zoning law.
However, Ms. Grogan said, if the turbine is considered an accessory structure, it should not be taller than the 35 feet allowed under the town's zoning law.

This is just a one example of the convoluted idiocy that is part of Cape Vincent’s Culture of Corruption. However today this turbine tale may have taken a new twist. I got a call this afternoon from a reader telling me that Mr. Alexander’s turbine is spinning wildly out of control. I was told that it looks like it is going to explode and it is rattling and banging .
If it disintegrates, it will be a fitting end to this sorry saga provided no one is injured.
Video of Alexanders Noisy turbine



Link here to watch a longer video of The Alexander Turbine Gone Wild

Link here to read about this Turbine Tale from the lone Ranger...

Daniel Foley CEO of Acciona Energy North America Says...

"The solution is to build it where your welcome."


Residents Welcoming Acciona to Cape Vincent,NY



I have used excerpts from a transcript of a CNBC video interview with Daniel Foley CEO of Acciona Energy North America for the post below.
This interview was taped during the week of the annual renewable energy technology conference that was held in Washington DC over the week of September 19, 2011.

link here to watch the video and/or read the complete written transcript of the CNBC video interview.
~~~~~
CNBC Reporter A: "most people that I know don’t want it in their back yard, even if they want to reap the benefits of having that wind farm, what are your solutions there, what do you propose to those folks that sort of want to have their cake and eat it too".

Foley : “Well, I think that there are folks that don’t want it in their back yard but, there are plenty of folks in Oklahoma and Kansas and North Dakota that use their land to make money and a wind farm it’s really a windfall, it’s a cash crop for these folks, ah , we do pay the farmers we do pay the local community in taxes ya know in , in the days where school districts are really struggling for money this is a huge windfall for the community and it, it , like I said in places like Oklahoma were welcome there ,we, we find very little opposition and so I think that the solution is to build it where your welcome". "Build it where folks use their land to make money and, and, welcome you into the community.”


CNBC Reporter B: "How many sites have you got up and running at the moment where you haven’t received a subsidy to build them ?"

Foley : “Ah well I think that the ah production tax credit is , is , utilized in the US and so all of our wind farms have been, have utilized that , that tax credit on a go forward basis ah we will not ,on a go forward basis without the subsidy.” “In the new technology which will be commercialized in, in, ah ready for commercial operation 2014, 2015 ah those subsidies won’t be needed the levelized costs of the ah, wind has come down to the point where those subsidies won’t be needed.” “For the time being for 2013, 2014, if we do not continue the PT C it will destroy are ah, supply chain and we will go limping into a period of time when were needed.” “If you look, ah there is there’s reports out there that say that there’s going to be substantial turn down in coal and ah nuke plants.” “ In coal we’re hearing between 40,000 and 100,000 megawatts of turn down and what we’d like to do is , is go in to the period where were going to need to replace some of those coal plants with a strong supply chain and without that subsidy.” “Um, in 2012 and 2013, were gonna limp into the, to, to a period where the nation really needs us to ah, supplement the infrastructure.”
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Foley predicts our energy future as one that will be dependent upon the success of their wind technology development. To say that we must support Acciona’s technological development with subsides because we may need these technologies in the future is ridiculous. When the wind industry collapses, will he then say we need to subsidize Acciona because it is too large to fail, because the economic implications would devastate our economy?


Acciona, is a company that prides itself on being an international company, which develops and manages activities focused on contributing to social welfare and sustainable development.


However the reality is that Acciona cannot sustain their development of industrial wind projects without subsidies…


Nearly 35% of Acciona’s wind energy instillations are built outside of Spain.
The only reason that Acciona’s St. Lawrence wind project has been able to progress to the point that it has in our community is that it has been sustained by corruption. Acciona came into our community like thieves in the night signing up select municipal officers to wind leases and creating conflicts of interests. These municipal officers have played a key role in moving Acciona’s project along.


A tiny percentage of our population has been driving the wind developments in Cape Vincent. The majority of the residents of Cape Vincent do not want our community to be industrialized by noisy Wind Turbines.
Additionally, the results of a wind turbine survey in the neighboring town of Lyme were recently tabulated. The results were clear that Wind development is not wanted anywhere in Lyme. The Lyme Town Council recognizes that Wind development is not wanted in their community and subsequently extended their wind development moratorium. However, Acciona’s project manager Timothy Q. Conboy appears to be unable to comprehend the concept of respecting citizens’ rights ,as he weighed in with the following statements "Lyme has had ample opportunity to enact a local law," he said. "Extending the moratorium is fundamentally unfair to project sponsors and those who wish to see wind power."



Foley said built it where you’re welcome.
~
Mr. Foley how soon
Will Acciona be leaving Cape Vincent?

Sunday, October 16, 2011

Family sues wind farm, alleging health damage -

Family sues wind farm, alleging health damage - CTV News

CTVNews.ca Staff

Date: Sun. Oct. 16 2011 10:26 PM ET

A rural family in southwestern Ontario has launched a lawsuit against a nearby wind farm, claiming the turbines are damaging their health. They are demanding the farm be shut down.

Lisa and Michel Michaud, and their two adult children, say they have no intention of moving away from their home and want an injunction to shut down the Kent Breeze wind farm, developed by a Suncor Energy Services unit.


 . Read More plus video here

The Comprehensive Plan

~

A Commentary by

Dave LaMora

Donna Essegian made several valid points in her comments to the Town board Thursday night. Its true for several years now our local government has either ignored or tried to manipulate our Zoning Law regarding wind development. . Its also true that many communities are either adopting or updating their Comprehensive Plans and Zoning Laws to address Industrial and individual scale wind development.

I spoke with Donna after the meeting because I wanted to share with her what I consider an important distinction in one of her observations. At one point she stated that our Comprehensive Plan was outdated and needed to be revisited and updated. While it is true our Plan,which was adopted in 2003,contains this recommendation ,"Every five years after adoption of this Plan,the Town Board and Village Board will form a committee to review and update this plan", it does Not mean that the Plan is outdated or invalid.

In the early spring of this year Planning Board Chairman Edsall made a similar observation,following a question regarding the Comp. Plan stating that " you'd probably find that plan has no authority now because it is out of date". I doubted the validity of this claim, so I did some research. According to a senior Jefferson County Planner who assisted Cape Vincent in the initial adoption of our Plan, and the Chairman of the Jefferson County Planning dept., until such time that a Comp. Plan is amended or revised,the stated vision and long range goals that serve as guidelines for all zoning criteria, are as valid as the day they were adopted. I decided to go one step further and referred to the New York Dept. of State,and received the same response. Each of these officials advised that we should revisit the plan as recommended,but it is not imperative or even suggested that we should revise it unless the community dictates so.
For my part,as I read the Comp. Plan and the accompanying purpose clause of our Zoning Law, I can't see any reason to revise the vision and long range goals expressed in these documents. They clearly define and set out to preserve what I value most about Cape Vincent ,the small town rural atmosphere,incredible scenic views, and unique environment and wildlife. The authors of both these documents(including many of our current community leaders) clearly intended to preserve property values and provide for the beneficial use of one's land providing it creates no negative impact to one's neighbors and fellow residents. Neither economic hardship nor potential financial gain for a certain faction,should be the measure by which we define or alter our entire communities future.

I commend Donna and agree with her assertion that we should follow the recommendations included in this Plan and revisit it. Any update in my mind should only be to reassert with conviction the original vision and goals established in 2003. It would be beneficial however to amend our zoning law to include a provision that prohibits industrial scale wind development ,which is obviously incompatible with the goals and vision expressed in the Comp. Plan, and also one that regulates the siting of individual scale wind power to protect the interests of nearby residents.

If Cape Vincent eventually has to deal with an Article X siting board in regards to industrial wind development, my sense is that it would appear much more convincing to have adopted and enforced a policy that is compatible with our Comprehensive Plan, rather than allow a regulated degree of development that is contrary to that Plan,and creates negative impacts that cannot be mitigated , only compensated or reimbursed for. This would present ,in my opinion, an attitude that we have no conviction in our stated goals and vision for our community, and would make it much harder to make a good faith argument to protect our valued resources.

David LaMora

Cape Vincent

Link here to read Cape Vincent's Comprehensive plan

Link here to read Cape Vincent's Zoning law

Thursday, October 13, 2011

If You Repeat A Lie Enough Times …

At tonight’s Town Board meeting Margaret Pond spoke, she said that she was a lifelong resident and that she had been attending every Town Board and planning board meeting since 2005 coincidentally 2005 is when the secret wind campaign began to emerge .

Margaret Pond told the Board that Clif Schneider was responsible for there not being a zoning law in Cape Vincent that had provisions to regulate wind development she stated that in 2006 while Mr. Schneider was on the town board he voted to discontinue the zoning amendment process to regulate industrial wind.

At the end of the meeting, Mr. Schneider was allowed to set his voting record straight.
Ms. Pond’s fellow green shirt Harvey White had used this same ploy to discredit Clif Schneider in 2007 in a letter to the Editor to the Watertown Times.

Harvey White wrote,
“Actually, Supervisor Thomas Rienbeck and other councilmen voted to implement zoning, but Councilman Cliff Schneider voted no, and stopped the zoning from going into effect.”[sic]

What is interesting about this is that the vote that Harvey was referring to actually went like this Supervisor Reinbeck resolved to, “Discontinue the process of amending the Town of Cape Vincent Zoning Law to regulate wind towers.”
Mr. Schneider sent the Town Board Minutes to the Watertown Times and they wrote a retraction/correction.

As reported in the Watertown Times

CANDIDATE'S VOTE CORRECTED
A letter Wednesday from Harvey White, Cape Vincent, misrepresented town Councilman Clifford Schneider's vote on a zoning law for wind towers. According to minutes of the Aug. 28, 2006, board meeting, Mr. Schneider voted against a motion "to discontinue amending the town of Cape Vincent zoning law to regulate wind.
~~~~~~
What is even more interesting here is the fact that in order to discredit his opponent he used the actions of his good friend Thomas Reinbeck.


To look at the minutes that reflect the vote click here

Link here to read Harvey White's letter of October 31, 2007 and Watertown Times retraction.

Scott Aubertine The Saga continues

Video Report

Lyme Supervisor Scott Aubertine continues to express his blatantly divisive views.

  Transcript of Video

 Lyme Supervisor Scott Aubertine is dismissing the results of the latest wind power survey in his town saying it's too heavily weighted with seasonal residents' opinions.

 The town has just received the results of a third survey and just like the other two, most residents voiced their opinions against wind turbines in Lyme. The argument now is, who gets a say in town issues: everyone who pays taxes or just year-round residents?
 "I don't believe they should have a say in the establishment of the laws and town policies that rest of use who live hear year-round should have to live under," Aubertine said Aubertine is going to meet with the firm in charge of the survey again to see if the data proves permanent residents, not part-timers, do not want turbines.
 Pitting seasonal against permanent residents has angered some. "I was a little bit offended by it," said Dan Villa, a member of the town council. "I live out on Point Peninsula. I'm a year-rounder. I pay taxes and I feel anyone who pays taxes in the town of Lyme should have an equal vote, whether they're there three months or six months or 12 months," Villa said.

 Many in the town have raised concerns about the look and the sound of the structures. Others have concerns about the environmental impacts. "Each individual turbine, what they claim to do is reduce CO2 emissions. I think they create more CO2 emissions," said Anne Harris, also a member of the town council. Some on the council see this as a dead issue, with the next step to pass a law banning turbines. Aubertine, however, isn't done collecting information, so this may be only the latest battle in a long war. Source channel 7 news

Lyme Poised to Ban Industrial Wind Turbines

The Lyme Town Council is poised to adopt changes to the town’s comprehensive plan
These changes are geared toward restricting industrial wind development
and are based on the results of the recent wind development survey, which showed 64 percent of the 1,621 respondents opposed turbines while 35 percent supported them.

The proposed changes will be drafted by the Planning Board and are scheduled to be completed by November 9, 2011 this deadline was spurred by Councilman Warren A. Johnson, whose term expires at the end of the year.
“I would like to get a plan moving so I can vote on it before I leave office,” he said.
Supervisor Scott G. Aubertine continues to argue against a ban, saying a portion of the responses, those from seasonal residents, should be excluded.
“Unless seasonal residents claim their summer residence as their primary residence or vote here, I do not think they should have an equal say in the polices and rules that the year-round residents have to live under,” he said Wednesday night. “Legally, you can claim voting rights in one jurisdiction.
If you choose to move your registration here, fine, but you can lose exemptions back home.”
Aubertine continues to use the scare tactic of losing the star exemption as a sledge hammer to prevent residents from voting where they stand to lose the most .

Jefferson’s Leaning Left has posted detailed information about the Star exemption link here to read it.

Recently Scott Aubertine posted an open letter to the community on his website
Aubertine’s letter was a testament to his bigotry. Supervisor Aubertine believes that certain people are entitled because it is their birthright. Additionally, he believes that his friends deserve privileged status.

Read Supervisor Aubertine's letter here at this link.

After Aubertine posted his letter, the Town Council received letters from the community admonishing Aubertine . Wednesday night Shirley Ann Parker, Point Salubrious, spoke about Supervisor Aubertine’s conduct.
“I wonder if he was elected to represent all the people of Lyme or just a select few plus himself,” she said. “If the summer people are so insignificant, perhaps we should just pay taxes for those months.”
Mr. Aubertine said he would look at the results with Mr. Carr.
“We will be reviewing the wind survey results of the primary residents,” Mr. Aubertine said. “I will abide by those desires.”
“I disagree with your philosophy,” Mr. Johnson said. “All taxpayers are equal. I don’t want to see this government go back to a ‘good ol’ boy’ government.”
Councilman Daniel J. Villa said he had talked with Mr. Carr about the results.
“735 surveys were attributed to year-round residents and 60 percent were ‘no’s,’” Mr. Villa said. “The results were the same.”


Source Watertown Daily Times(WDT) news article by Nancy Madsen.
To read full WDT article link here

Wednesday, October 12, 2011

Grossly Incommunicado

This post is a series of letters between Whiteman Osterman and Hanna lawyer Michael Sterthous , British Petroleum’s project manager Peter Gross and Planning Board member Richard MacSherry.

At last nights Planning Board(PB) meeting PB co -Chair Richard MacSherry spoke about this series of letters
Additionally, Mr. MacSherry stated that as of yet he has not received a response to his letter, from BP's Project Peter Gross

Letter number one ,is from Whiteman Osterman and Hanna (WOH) to BP lawyer John S. Harris, Esq.Regarding the BP wind project in Cape Vincent.

Michael G. Sterthous from Whiteman Osterman and Hanna advised Bp that the Cape Vincent’s Planning Board review of their project is “ongoing”.
Comments on the status of the completeness of the SDEIS will be delivered to BP Wind Energy‘s technical consultants over the coming months and ultimately lead to iteration of the document.

The planning board’s technical consultants have already issued a letter to BP Wind Energy advising it that the noise analysis presented in the SDEIS should be conformed to the noise analysis presented by St. Lawrence Windpower, LLC as part of its most recent submissions to the Planning Board.
Since an iteration of the current version of the SDEIS is expected, the planning Board has cancelled next week’s meeting…
It may be helpful for BP Wind Energy’s representative to schedule a time to present the project and the reports and analysis contained in the SDEIS to the Planning Board, as many members are new to the board.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Sterthous assured BP that things are going along smoothly. However,it was right around this time that Todd Mathis was removed from the Cape Vincent project additionally BP’s senior project manager Jim Madden left the scene as well.

The SDEIS was submitted to the planning board Feb. 10, 2011 however, it has not been formally accepted by the board. In late February of 2011, BP’s former senior project manager Madden said in a newspaper interview that he expected the SDEIS to be accepted by the end of March. Then a public comment period would begin followed by a hearing.
However, the Cape Vincent Town Planning Board meeting scheduled for March 23, 2011 was canceled. Planning Board members were to consider the supplemental draft environmental impact statement for British Petroleum's Cape Vincent industrial wind complex.
Additionally, By July 6, 2011 the Planning Board had lost its quorum with the abrupt resignation of three members — board Chairman Richard J. Edsall, Patrick W. McCarthy and Thomas K. Rienbeck. Leaving two remaining Planning Board members Karen Bourcy and Richard MacSherry.

July 13, 2011 Cyril C. "Butch" Cullen, past chairman of the town Planning Board, stepped in as co-chairman of the board.
These events put BP's proposed project in wind limbo.



~~~~~~~~~~~~
Letter number two, is from British Petroleum’s project manager Peter Gross to planning Board member Richard MacSherry.
This letter explains to Mr. MacSherry that they are anxiously awaiting the anticipated comments from the Planning Board on their Cape Wind SDEIS.
Additionally, Gross states that BP would like to advance their project in a timely efficient manner.
Gross also requested that the Planning Board schedule a review of the SDEIS with the Planning Board and asks for a schedule ( deadline?) for the submission of any further comments so BP can receive a determination from the Planning Board that the doc is complete as soon as reasonably possible.
~~~~~~
In other words, we have waited long enough hurry up with your positive determination.

The third and final letter in this series, is a letter from Planning Board member Richard MacSherry to Mr. Peter Gross Project manager Bp Wind Energy. Mr. MacSherry informs Mr. Gross that he has no knowledge of any dialogue that Mr. Edsall could have possibly had with Whiteman Osterman and Hanna, which would have led them to indicate that any review was active and that comments regarding the SDEIS would be forthcoming under any time frame.
Additionally, Mr. MacSherry states that the primary obstacles are the time it will take to fill the Planning Board vacancies and a reasonable period for all members to become familiar with BP draft and supplemental EIS documents.And an opportunity for the Planning Board to meet with our consultants to share and compare our findings
I cannot speculate as to when all of the above-mentioned matters will be concluded; I will commit only to keeping you informed as to our progress.

1 Lyme Letter to CV PB abt FEIS

August 17, 2010
Town of Cape Vincent Planning Board
Town Office Building
1964 NYS Rte. 12E
Cape Vincent, NY 13618
St. Lawrence Windpower FEIS



To: Chairman Richard Edsall and members, Karen Bourcy, Thomas Ingersoll, Andrew Binsley, and George Mingle:
The Lyme Planning Board is an involved agency participating in the SEQRA process for the above captioned project. In spite of our standing, our board was not presented with a copy of the FEIS as an involved agency and consequently we have had to undertake a rushed, review of the FEIS. We understand the FEIS will be submitted to you on August 18 for your acceptance in accordance with your function as Lead Agency for the SEQR process.



In our review of the document titled “FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT, PROPOSED ST. LAWRENCE WINDPOWER PROJECT, TOWNS OF CAPE VINCENT & LYME, JEFFERSON COUNTY, NEW YORK,” we find that, in several important respects, it fails to satisfy the requirements of NYS DEC in an adequate manner and we recommend that it should not, therefore, be accepted by you in your function as Lead Agency.



Some of the many failures to follow the DEC requirements are as follows:
There is no description of the need for and benefits from the proposed development as is required by NYS DEC. This would require extensive discussion and analyses demonstrating by what means the highly variable and unpredictable power generated from the proposed wind facility will materially reduce the use of fossil fuels or the emissions generated by the operation of the electrical grid.
Further, there is no investigation or verification that the transmission of the power to be generated by this project and the adjacent proposed BP wind project can be effectively transmitted to areas of the state requiring such power through the Chaumont sub-station.



The sound study presented is clearly an attempt to subvert the intent of the DEC noise requirements. The background noise levels are grossly overstated and SLW consultant Hessler has chosen to ignore the comments of Cavanaugh Tocci Associates, Dr. Paul Carr, Mr. Clif Schneider and others on this very point. A recent article by Nancy Madsen in the Watertown Daily Times also revealed this shortcoming in the study .



The town of Cape Vincent’s consulting engineers, including an acoustic expert, stands firm in their recommendation that SLW/Acciona's estimate of background noise is elevated. As a consequence, the proposed setbacks between turbines and non-participating properties are far too close. Therefore, on this basis alone, the Planning Board should reject this FEIS and require SLW to comply with the recommendations of the town's engineering consultants, e.g., Bernier Carr Associates and Cavanaugh Tocci Associates.
DEC recommends that noise be permitted to increase not more than 6 dB beyond established background levels. In addition to inflating the background levels, Hessler treats the 6 dB, not as an upper limit to sound increases, but seems to use it as a target design value, which will be actually exceeded under a number of operating conditions. This practice added to the overstatement of the nighttime background noise levels will result in residents being exposed to intrusive and annoying noise levels.
Hessler’s selection of 42 dB as an appropriate sound level for adjacent residences will result in intolerable noise levels for many residences. Measurements of background noise performed locally indicate background sound levels of about 25 dB at night when people need to sleep. If the resultant limit were 6, dB higher it would result in a maximum permitted sound level of 31 dB. This limit should be observed at the property lines of non-participating residents and property owners, not at the residence as SLW proposes. This level is significantly more tolerable than the 42 dB proposed by SLW at (most) residences and therefore will affect the number of turbines and the placement of those turbines.
It is apparent that Hessler/SLW look upon the DEC guidelines not as a way to protect residents from intrusive and annoying sound levels, but simply use it as a means to justify the highest possible design sound levels to increase the number of turbines to be located within the project boundaries.
SLW relies on the widely discredited Hoen report to support its contention that property values will not be affected, while ignoring the simple fact, observed by local real estate brokers, that virtually everything in Cape Vincent is currently for sale and nothing can be sold because of the threat of wind development.
The entire issue of damage to birds and bats by wind turbines needs to be re-evaluated in view of the disturbing statistics that have recently emerged from monitoring the damage done by the turbines on neighboring Wolfe Island.
Lyme’s own wind survey indicated that 80 % of respondents wanted the transmission lines to be buried. This possibility is not mentioned or evaluated in the FEIS even though the bulk of the transmission line will lie in the Town of Lyme.
The mitigation measures (renovation of two community vaults in Three Mile Bay Cemetery and vegetative screening) proposed to compensate the Town of Lyme for the intrusion of the transmission line are meaningless and trivial.
Lastly, it would seem reasonable that if the chief law enforcement office in the state is investigating wind development and municipal officials in Cape Vincent that any progress in the SEQR process should be halted until completion of the AG's investigation and reporting. There may well be findings that will have a profound effect on the outcome of Acciona's project proposal.
These are just a sampling of the inadequacies of the FEIS, which should be rejected on August 18, as failing to meet the intent of the DEC requirements.



For the Town of Lyme Planning Board,
Albert H. Bowers III

1 Cavanaugh Tocci Findings CV ~ DEIS ~ Sound ~ Errors $ Omissions ~

Cavanaugh Tocci Had a few issues with Hessler’s sound study to point out just one in particular
Hessler omitted sound levels from position 4 from their average because they decided that the sounds at this location were “anomalous” in other words they deviated from what is normal- since they “…are consistently lower than all other locations.

” The text continues…”The reason for this “anomalous” behavior is not clear, but may be associated to lack of vehicle noise on seldom used Fox Creek Road, relative lack of insect noise,” or the fact that the monitor was not particularly close to any trees and was exposed to less wind –induced noise.” The last quote is an explanation of why sound levels at position 4 are quiet, not an argument for eliminating it from the average.
Data collected at position 4 should be included in the average. The fact that it is quieter at this location than all others, in our opinion is not sufficient reason for excluding it from the average,
If a location is consistently quiet maybe it is just quiet!!

Link here to read Cavanaugh Tocci's Findings based on their review of Hessler's methods RE: CV DEIS

1 Letter Documents Edsall Was Involved in Retaining Cavanaugh & Tocci for Sound Consulting Services

This letter provides the documentation that Cavanaugh Tocci Were Hired based on conversations between Richard Edsall and Kris D. Dimmick, PE Vice President of Municipal Engineering
Bernier Carr Group~

October 1, 2007 Kris Dimmick of Bernier, Carr & Associates writes to Planning Board Chairman Edsall informing him that based on prior conversations they have engaged an unbiased acoustical sub-consultant to assist the Town Planning Board in the evaluation of the potential impacts regarding sound of the proposed wind farms in the town of Cape Vincent. This sub – consultant is Cavanaugh & Tocci, Inc., of Sudbury Massachusetts.

The Cape Vincent Planning Board Did willfully disregard the recommendations of their own consultant.

Tuesday, October 11, 2011

DOE and FERC Joint Public Statement on Back Stop Siting | Department of Energy

DOE and FERC Joint Public Statement on Back Stop Siting | Department of Energy

October 11, 2011

Washington, D.C. – U.S. Energy Secretary Steven Chu announced today his decision that the Department of Energy will work more closely with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) in reviewing proposed electric transmission projects under section 216 of the Federal Power Act (FPA), as an alternative to delegating additional authority to FERC.

Chu said, “This nation promptly needs to build the electric grid of the 21st century to compete in the global economy. Enhanced cooperation between DOE and FERC is the best way to help achieve this goal. I look forward to working with Chairman Wellinghoff as we take steps to ease congestion and increase reliability while modernizing the grid."

Secretary Chu and Chairman Wellinghoff announced that DOE and FERC will be working together to prepare drafts of the following:

(1) Transmission congestion studies mandated by Congress;

(2) Supplements to those congestion studies based on, among other things, the transmission plans prepared pursuant to Orders 890 and 1000; and

(3) The environmental analyses for any proposed National Interest Electric Transmission Corridors (National Corridors).

In addition to collaborating with FERC, DOE recognizes that it can execute its § 216(a) powers better, faster, with more transparency, and more effectively. Consequently, among other things, DOE will be doing the following:

•Begin immediately to identify targeted areas of congestion based on the evaluation of existing information and on comments submitted by stakeholders;
•Identify narrower areas of congestion than the broad areas previously studied; and
•Solicit statements of interest from transmission developers while considering what National Corridors to designate.

DOE, FERC, and other federal agencies have been considering whether it might be appropriate for Secretary Chu to delegate his powers under FPA § 216(a) to FERC in order to efficiently expedite consideration of transmission project proposals under the limited backstop siting powers authorized by that section. In July and August, the proposal was presented to stakeholder groups to solicit comments. In addition to oral comments, 61 written comments were submitted. The comments can be found at http://www.congestion09.anl.gov/delegation/index.cfm. Secretary Chu carefully considered these comments in deciding not to delegate his authority to FERC.