BP's Tatics in Cape Vincent Ny

Monday, April 30, 2012

AWEA ~Continues to push for wind welfare credit

By Matt Sanctis, Staff Writer
Springfield News Sun

April 30, 2012 by Matt Sanctis in Springfield News-Sun

Experts say without the extension, 37,000 wind workers will be laid off

URBANA - A wind advocacy group is pushing members of the U.S. House of Representatives to extend the Production Tax Credit, arguing thousands of wind energy jobs could disappear if the credit is allowed to expire Dec. 31.

Critics believe the credit is unnecessary, largely benefits investors and owners, and argued state mandates are the real incentive that has led to much of the industry's recent growth.


Sunday, April 29, 2012

The Best Laid Plans of Mice and Men

Cartoon Compliments of windtoons

The Comprehensive Plan is a guide or blueprint for the physical development of an area or region over a specified period of time.

Cape Vincent's Comprehensive Plan provides that for the area of the Town where the industrial wind projects are proposed, it clearly states the uses to be discourages are "Location of towers, prisons or utility facilities where there [sic] impact would have a negative impact on scenic vistas and tourism assets" while at the same time, the uses to be encouraged are Agriculture development that has minimum impact on important resources ,such as scenic natural vistas, working landscapes and tourism assets.[1]

The current zoning law's stated purpose is, among other things, to encourage the development of land for its most appropriate use within the town, and to conserve and protect the rural, agricultural, and scenic resources of the town,[2]
specifically the intent of the Agricultural residential district is to promote all types of development in the interior portions of the town, in a manner that provides the rural character and promotes active farming operations.[2]
Industrial wind development does neither. However, the interpretation that the only legally defensible position is that they are not permitted under the comprehensive plan may not hold

[1]Link here to read Cape Vincent Town Village ~ Comprehensive Plan 2003

[2] link here to read Town of Cape Vincent Zoning Law

Truth from Texas with Robert Bryce ~ Wind Wise radio ~Sun. April 29, 7pm ET

Internet Wind Energy Talk — Every Sunday Evening 7pm ET

Robert Bryce will be joining us to talk about IWT. His writing has appeared in dozens of publications including the Wall Street Journal, New York Times, National Review, Washington Post, American Conservative, The Nation, Counterpunch, and The Guardian. His first book, Pipe Dreams: Greed, Ego, and the Death of Enron, received rave reviews and was named one of the best non-fiction books of 2002 by Publishers Weekly. His second book, Cronies: Oil, the Bushes, and the Rise of Texas, America’s Superstate, was published in 2004. His third book, Gusher of Lies: The Dangerous Delusions of “Energy Independence,” published in March 2008, was favorably reviewed by more than 20 media outlets. A review of Gusher by William Grimes of the New York Times said that Bryce “reveals himself in the end as something of a visionary and perhaps even a revolutionary.” Read the first chapter here.

Link here to listen to Wind Wise Radio

Saturday, April 28, 2012

Viva La Resistance

When I began writing this post, I noticed that this would be post number four thousand for this blog.
That started me thinking about the beginning of my blogging adventures. Moreover, how far our community has come since this wind mess began.
From time to time, I get emails thanking me for what I do.
To say that I have had a little help from my friends is an understatement.
I am proud to belong to a diverse group of resistors that care deeply for their community and are determined to make it a better place.
These people give me inspiration, information and support.
We have journeyed together down a difficult path and continue to do so.

If I could say one positive thing about Cape Vincent being targeted by big wind, it would be the fellowship that has formed in our community. So many people have pulled together to accomplish the seemingly impossible in Cape Vincent. We have the success of the election, followed by a moratorium, which has allowed breathing room for our zoning law committee, enabling them to develop protective zoning for all residents of our community.

Cape Vincent is beginning to evolve in a positive way through the efforts and hard work of these dedicated people.
I just want to say I am thankful for  each and everyone one of you for your part in this effort, because of you Cape Vincent has a bright future on the horizon.

Friday, April 27, 2012




Recently , I have been accused of being in collaboration with the Hirschey administration,based upon my actions, or lack thereof regarding reporting about the zoning law re-write committee meetings .
My husband is on the zoning law re-write committee, therefore, it is inappropriate for me to write about it .

ESAT (Enough said about that )

However ,I will make an exception.

When able I have been attending the committee meetings and I do have
AWTTW (A word to the wise) for the committee.

The use of acronyms in the new zoning law is a little confusing .
For example when discussing wind turbines they use acronyms to describe wind energy systems and facilities for zoning purposes.
Some examples of these are:

WECS Wind energy Conversion System

SWECS Small Wind Energy Conversion System

WEF Wind Energy Facility.

I have been considering reporting the committee to the AAAAA
(American Association Against Acronym Abuse)
Requesting that they ban acronyms from Cape Vincent’s zoning law committee meetings
thus creating an AFZ ( Acronym Free Zone)

However, there is a simpler solution to take the confusion out of the acronyms used for wind turbines in the new zoning law .

They could simply replace all these confusing turbine acronyms with just one.



Local opposition to fracking will be considered, DEC chief says

ALBANY -- The head of the New York Department of Environmental Conservation signaled Thursday that a community's support or opposition to hydraulic fracturing will be considered if the gas-extraction process is ultimately allowed.

DEC Commissioner Joe Martens said local land-use rules will "continue to be a consideration" in the permitting process for gas drilling. So far, 95 municipalities in New York have issued a ban or moratorium on hydrofracking, according to New Yorkers Against Fracking.

Link here for more about this story

Link here to Interactive map: NY communities that have a fracking moratorium or fracking ban

Brown county board of health is requesting emergency state aid for families suffering around industrial wind turbines.

On January 10, 2012, the Brown County Wisconsin Board of Health adopted a resolution requesting emergency state aid for families suffering around industrial wind turbines.

THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Brown County Board of Health formally requests temporary emergency financial relocation assistance from the State of Wisconsin for those Brown County families that are suffering adverse health effects and undue hardships caused by the irresponsible placement of industrial wind turbines around their homes and property.
The State of Wisconsin emergency financial assistance is requested until the conditions that have caused these undue hardships are studied and resolved, allowing these families to once
again return safely to their homes and property.
British petroleum’s service stations offer a program titled Fueling Communities program, which provides local organizations with money to promote health, education, youth, food or housing.
BP Wind energy could follow suit and provide funds to alleviate our community’s health problems caused by their turbines.
They could put Marion Trieste to work as Turbine Triage coordinator for victims of wind.

Link here to read Brown County resolution and supportive doc.

Thursday, April 26, 2012

BP Taking the Path of Least Resistance

Cape Vincent Wind Farm's new project manager is tweaking the layout as “compromise” to please critics who seek to kill the project.

Since when did BP ever care about pleasing anyone but themselves?

Mr. Gross is said to have left BP to “pursue an opportunity at another company” This statement coupled with his comment that he is not sure which “landowners are getting the shaft” has fueled speculation that he may have been fired , clearing the way for BP to bring in Chandler, their wonder boy. This latest move may very well be a desperate attempt to hammer their plan through.

This past February a Watertown Times reporter asked Gross if BP was considering Article 10 ,Gross said BP would submit an application to the state to consider under Article 10 if the town of Cape Vincent adopts a stricter set of zoning laws on wind development.

This is nothing more than a scare tactic .
After years of pushing our community around with the help of our wind conflicted board members , BP has suddenly adopted the nice guy approach.

What their actions reveal is that they are taking the path of least resistance , they prefer to strong arm our community rather than gamble on dealing with the state.

If Article 10 were a good thing for their project, they would be using it.

Source Watertown Daily Times link here

Announcing the digital release of the documentary Windfall.

Announcing the digital release of Laura Israel's Extrordinary documentary Windfall.
This critically-acclaimed film exposes the dark side of wind energy development and it's potential for highly profitable financial scams.

Directed by: Laura Israel
Runtime: 1 hour 23 minutes
Release year: 2012

Wind power... It's green... It's good... It reduces our dependency on foreign oil. But does it? Or, is it merely a highly profitable financial scam for the many wind energy developers looking to erect industrial wind turbines in a town near you? Windfall explores these extremely controversial questions and gives us a new perspective on a hot topic issue.
Windfall Trailer (2012). When a group of townspeople discover the impacts that a 400-foot high windmill could bring to their community
More info, trailer and clips here

link here to purchase Windfall on Amazon

Oswego County a step closer to officially denouncing offshore wind farms

Oswego - The County Legislature’s Economic Development and Planning Committee voted unanimously Tuesday to send resolutions to the full Legislature against offshore wind farms and plans to change the way water levels on Lake Ontario and the St. Lawrence River are regulated.

While the issue of offshore wind farms generated just a few minutes of condemnation from legislators — mostly over environmental concerns and the fact that there is no potential to collect sales tax — discussion over water levels was lengthier.
More from KEN STURTZ
Contributing Writer The Palladium Times

Wednesday, April 25, 2012

Gross leaving Cape Vincent

BP bringing in New Project manager

BP Project manager, Peter Gross was first introduced to our community at the June 8, 2011 planning board meeting. Now like his predecessor he is leaving for greener pastures.
Gross told a Watertown Times reporter Wednesday he is leaving BP to “pursue an opportunity at another company” but that the wind farm project will move ahead with Richard F. Chandler.
Is British Petroleum sending in the big guns to whip our community into shape?
Mr. Chandler, the wind farm’s new project manager, has been involved in a number of large-scale, commercial solar-photovoltaic projects and has most recently completed the 31-megawatt Long Island Solar Farm as the director of development at BP Solar.
This is an attempt by BP to rebrand themselves as the good guys, announcing that they are rethinking the placement and number of turbines for the approximately 200-megawatt project. BP wants to show critics that it is “willing to compromise” in the project by “re-optimizing” the layout. Mr. Gross said BP is not sure which “landowners are getting the shaft” but that the company is devoting “a lot of time and attention to create the best layout.” BP has devoted a lot of time and attention making sure the whole community gets the shaft !

Their wind project will forever scar our community destroying property values slaughtering birds and re-defining our community’s peaceful scenic community into a wind wasteland.
Mr. Gross has hinted that BP would submit an application to the state to consider under Article X if the town of Cape Vincent adopts a stricter set of zoning laws on wind development, saying in February that the merger of the two wind projects was structured “in a manner that preserves all of our permitting options.”
This is my message to BP’s new project manager, welcome to Cape Vincent now leave and take your monster turbines with you!

Link here forMore from the Watertown Times

BP running out of Gas

Mercurial Magazine is reporting that in Connecticut, British Petroleum (BP) gas stations have covered up their logos and are selling unbranded gasoline. According to letters posted at the Brookfield Four Corners BP and the Danbury Main Street BP, the stations' supplier, Green Valley Oil, has not been delivering full gasoline deliveries as per their contract with the BP stations, and these stations are joining 80 other dealers in switching suppliers. The letters state that the stations are "purchasing unbranded gasoline that meets or exceeds all Federal and State specifications for octane ratings" until a new distributor is contracted.

WORCESTER — The pumps are bone dry at area BP gas stations all through Central Massachusetts and BP can thank Getty Petroleum Marketing for filing Chapter 11, which appears to be the catalyst for the empty tanks.
The Worcester Telegram's website provides details about Green Valley's problems: The article cites a 2009 deal that BP entered with Green Valley Oil, an East Providence, Rhode Island-based company, that effected a rebranding of 235 gas stations throughout New England from Getty and Lukoil to BP.

Tuesday, April 24, 2012

**Water District #2 Insiders on the Outside

The following post has been pieced together from information obtained through a FOIL request and the Jefferson County Tax database.

According to the water district agreement for Water District #2, there are three official users
Donny Mason Parcel Tax ID # 40.00-1-43
Wesley Bourcy Tax ID # 49.00-1-11.3
Darrel Aubertine Tax ID # 50.00-1-16

The DANC Regional water line runs through and/ or parallel to these parcels allowing them to directly hook into the DANC line. (See map below)

These users or owners are billed for their water on a monthly basis accordingly, Donny Mason gets a water bill, Wesley Bourcy gets a water bill, however, Darrel Aubertine does not get a water bill.
The water bill for Darrel’s land is addressed to Terry Aubertine’s Hell Street address.

Additionally, the bill is not for parcel # 50.00-1-16, the vacant lot in water district #2, owned by Darrel Aubertine .
The actual service location is listed as 3244 Hell Street ; this is the farm that once belonged to Paul Aubertine, Darrel Aubertine’s father. The Tax maps show that it now belongs to Darrel Aubertine. The parcel number(40.00-1-17) listed in the water service contract was not a Typo; this water service location is completely outside of the Boundaries of District #2.

The question is.

Is Darrel Aubertine inside out, outside in, or just plain upside down?

Jefferson County tax information

SWIS: 222889 Tax ID: 40.00-1-17
Darrel J Aubertine 32554 Hell St
Cape Vincent NY 13618
Margaret S Aubertine 32554 Hell St
Cape Vincent NY 13618
Water Supply: None ***
The dark Black line on the map below is the DANC Regional water line & the green star is the property out side the district that is billed as a service location in the district.

Fourth Coast INC. Clayton NY will begin their Review of Water District number 2

Fourth Coast INC. Clayton NY will begin their Review of Water District number 2 April 24, 2012
They will be reviewing Water District number two serving properties along the DANC Regional water line.
There review will include the following
  • Inventory of current users and water use, and identification of charges from the original district formation.
  • Review of assigned equivalent dwelling units relative to current usage and properties that have derived benefit;

  • Inventory of town and privately owned infrastructure in the district;

  • Review of original district boundaries, and recommendations for changes;
    Review of current water use ordinance as it relates to the district.

The approximate time for completion of the review is 2-4 weeks. Fees will be charged on an hourly basis, not to exceed 2,000.

District number 2 includes only three users:
Donald J. Mason, a former town council member, Wesley A. Bourcy and a Hell Street property owned by Darrel J. Aubertine and his wife, Margaret.

Will Fourth Coast find answers as to why Darrel Aubertine’s Hell street property included in Water district number two ~ is described in the Jefferson County tax data base as vacant land with no water?

Map of District #2

Monday, April 23, 2012

Wind Energy has killed more Americans than Nuclear Power

By Lachlan Markay
March 17, 2011
Do the benefits of nuclear energy outweigh its potential dangers to human life?
The dangers of nuclear power, while serious, need to be put in perspective.

To that end, here's an interesting fact you won't be hearing from the mainstream press: wind energy has killed more Americans than nuclear energy. You read that right.

According to the Caithness Windfarm Information Forum, there were 35 fatalities associated with wind turbines in the United States from 1970 through 2010.
Nuclear energy, by contrast, did not kill a single American in that time.
The meltdown at Three Mile Island in 1979 did not kill or injure anyone, since the power plant's cement containment apparatus did its job - the safety measures put in place were effective.
Apparently the safety measures associated with wind energy are not adequate to prevent loss of life. more here
Building offshore wind plants can be as deadly an occupation as land based wind construction.
It was reported by the online edition of Focus Magazine Sunday that a total of three men, including a Polish worker and a Swedish diver have already lost their lives whilst working on offshore wind farms 120 kilometres off the East Frisian coast near Emden.

Both workers drowned while working on the Bard Offshore wind farm.

Sunday, April 22, 2012



Gary King took the privilege of the floor at last Thursdays Town board meeting to read a letter on behalf of EX planning Board Chair Richard Edsall.

Apparently, Mr. Edsall is peeved because his personal wind turbine permit was revoked.

Edsall has had turbine dreams for years, having signed a wind contract with Greenlight energy (BP) in 2005. In the beginning, Edsall made the statement that the wind projects may take up to 6 months to become a reality. Unfortunately, for Edsall his dreams of becoming a Turbine Tycoon have been blown away. It has been over six years and no turbines for Edsall.

Now that Mr. Edsall is no longer in a position of power, he has resorted to being an annoyance working overtime to stir the pot.
In August off 2011, Edsall approached the Zoning Board of appeals, requesting an interpretation on the classification of commercial and agricultural property for a feedlot, slaughterhouse, and meat processing plant. Were Edsalls Slaughterhouse ambitions a ploy to cause angst among residents? His next move was the personal wind turbine plot.

Mr. Edsall was granted a personal wind turbine permit December 7, 2011 by outgoing Zoning enforcement officer Alan Wood. Not only did Wood issue this permit to Dick Edsall but as a last parting shot, just two days before the new ZEO took his oath of office, Alan Wood issued a personal wind turbine permit to Marty Mason as well. Alan Wood issued these permits knowing that the newly elected Town Board had every intention of instituting a wind development moratorium based on community support.
The newly elected board was not aware of Mr. Edsalls permit, after it was discovered in a review of town records, a letter was sent by Supervisor Hirschey informing Mr. Edsall that the Town would be issuing a moratorium in the near future, advising him that his permit had been revoked.
After Mr. Edsall received this letter, he applied for an additional personal wind turbine permit for land he owns on Burnt Rock road. Edsalls permit states that it is an accessory structure ~ X agricultural use. However, Mr. Edsall does not have a structure on this land.
Additionally, Edsall does not appear to be utilizing this piece of land for an agricultural purpose, unless he is referring to spreading manure.

In February when Dick Edsall came before the Zoning Board of appeals to dispute the revocation of his personal turbine permit, he became irate and threatened to put a dump or junkyard on Stony Point road.

In Edsalls letter , he accused the Town Board of ruling by bullying and intimidation.
Our current Town Board does not rule the community they serve our community.

However, as history demonstrates EX Planning Board Chair Dick Edsall did rule with an iron fist, he is a master of demoralization, intimidation and Bullying and these may be his good qualities…

Saturday, April 21, 2012

Powering up America’s Waterways

Energy Department Report Finds Major Potential to Increase Clean Hydroelectric Power

A new report released by the Energy Department analyzes the potential to generate clean hydroelectric energy at existing dams across the United States. Harnessing the tremendous power of the nation’s waterways could help increase the supply of clean energy for American families and businesses.
The report, titled An Assessment of Energy Potential at Non-Powered Dams in the United States, analyzes more than 54,000 specific sites that could be developed to generate power. The results indicate that, if fully developed, the nation’s non-powered dams could provide enough energy to power over four million households.
Thousands of dams across the country are not currently equipped to produce power. This report finds that if fully developed, these existing dams could provide an electrical generating capacity of more than 12 gigawatts (GW). This amounts to increasing existing U.S. conventional hydropower capacity by roughly 15%.

Link here to read this report

Maine's largest wind developer handed a defeat

10:24 AM
From the Kennebec Journal

BANGOR — Maine's largest wind energy developer has been handed a defeat in its proposal for wind turbines on Bowers Mountain, but hopes to return with a scaled-back proposal.
The Land Use Regulation Commission voted 5-0 Friday to reject First Wind's proposed 27-turbine project.More...

Additional background information about this story can be found at this link to the Maine Sun Journal

Friday, April 20, 2012

Proposed budget would exempt renewable energy systems from Ontario endangered species act

The proposed Ontario budget (Bill 55) includes an amendment to the Endangered Species Act. The purpose of the amendment is to exempt renewable energy systems from prohibitions in sections 9(1) and 10(1) of the Endangered Species Act. Sections 9(1) and 10(1) are key sections of the Endangered Species Act as this is where the Act explicitly prohibits the killing, harming and harassing of Ontario species at risk and prohibits damaging and destroying their habitat.

Industrial wind turbine companies currently need to apply to the Ministry of Natural Resources for a permit under the Ontario Species Act if endangered species, threatened species and species of special concern are likely to be killed, harmed and harassed during the construction and operation of the wind energy project and if their habitat will be damaged or destroyed.

Report finds renewables will cost Ontario households an extra $285 million annually for electricity

The Fraser institute an independent non-partisan research and educational organization based in Canada. Released a report April 20 2012 that exposes the high cost Ontario’s energy policy.
This report finds that Ontario households will pay an extra $285 million annually for electricity.
Below is a portion of the findings of this report and links to the Fraser institute website.
When business and industrial electrical customers are included, the total additional costs for Ontario electricity users could hit $18 billion over 20 years.

More from the Frasier Institute

Link here to read the Fraser report

Wednesday, April 18, 2012

Conditional ~ Leverage

May 2002 New York Wind (NYW) contacted Cape Vincent Planning Board Chair Richard Edsall informing him that NYW  (Acciona) had entered into an agreement with Frank and Mary Giaquinto to conduct temporary wind measurement experiments on their property just east Of Constance Rd. for a period of 3 to 18 months .
Minutes from the planning board meeting of June 12, 2002 indicate that that the planning board discussed N YW's proposed wind study project.
It was tentatively decided that a temporary permit could be issued with a guarantee that the apparatus used for this study be completely removed at the end of 18 months. This 18 month period would begin on the date the approval letter from the planning board was issued it also noted that this would be a one-time educational project approval.
June 17, 2002, Eric Miller N Y W sent a letter to Mary and Frank Giaquinto informing them that he had spoken with planning Board Chair Mr. Edsall about the town permitting requirements for the met tower and per the Planning Board's request NYW sent Mr. Edsall a signed notarized letter guaranteeing that the tower meets setback requirements and will be removed within 18 months. Additionally,Edsall asked that the Gianquinto's review the letter and provide notarized signatures indicating that they were aware of the guarantees made by N Y W .

October 12 2005,  Cape Vincent Planning Board Chair Edsall wrote a letter to his wife Virginia Edsall informing her that the Town of Cape Vincent Planning Board had determined at the October 12, 2005 meeting that a personal wind test tower may be placed on property located on Burnt Rock Road belonging to Mr. Frank Warner. Mrs. Edsalls father.

The board also determined that no permit shall be required to proceed with the placement of the wind test tower. under the condition that the Wormers except responsibility for the removal of the test tower after two years, if Greenlight energy does not do so.

Both of these test towers were granted conditional approval .
The met tower on Constance road was allowed to be erected with a guarantee that it would be removed in 18 months and the Burnt Rock Road tower was granted a permit with the understanding that it was to be removed by Greenlight Energy(BP) or the land owner after two years.

why are these towers sitll standing?

Related documents below

Cape Vincent ~Water District #2


I have been investigating the water districts in Cape Vincent and one thing that I have learned is that the more I investigate the more questions I have.
In the beginning water district two was created in order to serve farms off Wilson and Favret roads and Hell Street that could not expand because of inadequate water supplies.
The contract for water district number 2 lists the original property owners involved and the parcel numbers, they are
Donald Mason tax map number ~40.00-1-43
Donald Votra tax map number~ 49.00-1-9
Town of Cape Vincent tax map number ~ 49.00-1-13
Paul and Hazel Aubertine tax map number~ 50.00 -1-16 ~ 32150-hell street.
In 1999, an additional user was added Wesley Bourcy Tax map number ~ 49.00-1-11.3
Additionally the property that was listed as belonging to Paul & Hazel Aubertine now belongs to Agricultural Commissioner Darrel Aubertine and his wife Margaret.
There has been a lot of speculation and controversy about the Water districts in Cape Vincent The law governing water district number two is very light in comparison to the other water districts for example according to the tax maps Agricultural Commissioner Darrel Aubertine’s residence located at 6716 Favret Rd. appears to be in water district number three.
The law governing district number three is much stricter applying penalties and fines for things such as the opening of a water hydrant by an unauthorized person or attempts to bypass a meter to obtain water from the district without proper payment will result in prosecution under the penal laws of New York State.

It has been established that district number two has users outside the defined boundaries of the district ,district two has no rules or regulations in their law governing these outside users however it is a different story for District number 3.

District #3 has the following rules governing outside users .
A district is not obligated to provide service to any outside users . Where the service is provided to outside users, it shall be provided only if the outside user agrees to sign a contract to pay for such water with the Town in a form acceptable to the Town Board and Town Attorney. Fees to be charged to outside users for the use of water shall be in an amount at least equal to that charged to users within the District plus a reasonable profit to be agreed upon in writing pursuant to contract.
Going back to the beginning of district number two
As it turned out the Town of Cape Vincent never hooked in to water district number two nor did Donald Votra , that leaves two farms that water district two was created to serve Donald Mason and Darrel Aubertine.
However the strange thing about Aubertine’s land in Water district number two is the land in question is located on the other side of Hell ~ 32150-Hell Street 50.00-1-16 this land is listed in the Jefferson County tax data base as vacant land with no water .

Very curious, don’t you think?


Below is a map of water district number two I pieced together using the Jefferson County Tax database.

Monday, April 16, 2012

Wind turbine firm sued by investors for fraud

Posted: Apr 11, 2012

By Denise DePaolo

CHEYENNE, Wyo. (AP) - Federal prosecutors say three people bilked $3.7 million from investors by claiming to develop wind farms in Wyoming and South Dakota. The projects never were built.

A federal indictment filed in Cheyenne says phone solicitors made cold calls to investors nationwide, telling them the wind farms were being built by a private firm and the U.S. government.


How the EPA aims to kill coal

WASHINGTON -- A case can be made, upon reviewing the full sweep of President Barack Obama's first term, that the Administration's top priority has not been health care, the Iranian nuclear program or economic recovery. It has been, instead, the U.S. coal industry's ruination.

Last week, the Environmental Protection Agency proposed a regulation with the innocuous title "Standards of Performance for Greenhouse Gas Emissions for New Stationary Sources: Electric Utility Generating Units," setting a carbon dioxide emissions limit that coal plants cannot meet, now or in the foreseeable future. According to Serra Club Executive Director Michael Brune, the proposed rule would make it "nearly impossible to build a new coal plant." The American Public Power Association agrees, stating the proposal will "kill coal going forward." continue reading ~ West Virginia's Legal Journal

Rubinstein is a partner in Dinsmore & Shohl's Washington, D.C. office. He previously served as the U.S. Chamber of Commerce Senior Counsel for environment, technology and regulatory affairs.

Sunday, April 15, 2012

The Insane Myth of ‘Renewable’ Energy

The nonsense from green energy lobbyists is nothing short of crazy talk. Why is Congress, or anyone else, buying it?

Today's post was written by John Droz,Jr.

John Droz, Jr. is a Physicist who has also been an environmental activist for some 25 years. Mr. Droz’s website is dedicated to educating citizens to educating citizens about the basics of industrial wind power, a highly complex technical matter. [A major belief of Mr. Droz is the KISS (Keep It Simple) philosophy, and his writings attempt to incorporate that principle.]

“Renewable” electrical energy sources are not even remotely equivalent to conventional energy sources, and this is perhaps the most important reality of energy to understand.
Green lobbyists go to great lengths to disguise this. Everything they propagate is based on an “equivalency” between “renewables” and conventional power sources that does not exist in the real world. Even generally objective sources, like the Energy Information Administration (EIA), seriously err when they show levelized cost charts that have wind energy and nuclear power in contiguous columns.

The first problem encountered is the term “renewables.” This word is treated like it is a scientific definition and a homogeneous group of energy sources. This is lobbyist sleight of hand, as neither is true. The definition is very subjective, and there are extraordinary differences between various “renewables.” (See here and here.)

The next hurdle is getting our heads around the fundamental difference between a “renewable” like wind energy, and nuclear power. Let’s look at two types of transportation (a parallel energy sector), using concepts we are all familiar with.

Take a business that repeatedly needs to get 50,000 pounds of goods from New York City to Denver in two days, and cost is quite important. (In the electricity business, this translates to satisfying a demand (load) through dispatchable energy, reliably and economically.)

So who do we subcontract this job to? A good option is to put this merchandise on an 18-wheeler and send it on its way. Will it always get there 100% of the time without fail? No, flukes do happen. However, if this experiment was repeated 100 times, the truck would arrive well over 90% of the time, on schedule and within budget. This is equivalent to using a conventional energy source, like nuclear power.

Now let’s introduce green into the equation, arbitrarily adding the requirement that no fossil fuel can be used: our options are now severely restricted. The parallel choice to using wind energy is to send the merchandise with golf carts (battery powered so no fossil fuel will be consumed during transport). How many golf carts will it take to dependably replicate the performance of one Mack truck?

Let’s say a golf cart can carry 500 pounds (two golfers with sticks). Transporting 50,000 pounds would require 100 golf carts, and as ludicrous as this option sounds, this is essentially the message wind lobbyists want you to buy: approximately 100 golf carts (wind turbines) will do the job of one 18-wheeler (conventional source: e.g., a coal facility).

They want you to blink and move on. Do not look behind the curtain!

But wait! Can the golf carts really get there in two days? Of course not. The lobbyist answer? Add more vehicles: use 1000 carts!

Does this “solution” really solve anything? No, but it further confuses politicians not used to critical thinking. What it also does is ensure more profit for the cart industry — which is the only concern of the the lobbyists.

What if the load is a hundred 500-pound pianos? Even though (on paper) a golf cart can carry 500 pounds, can a golf cart transport a piano across the country?

The lobbyists’ answer: disassemble it.

What about the cost of the golf cart option compared to the truck? Just to begin with, you’re hiring 100-plus drivers vs. one — so I think you know the answer, right?

And what else will be needed to support this ”alternative” source of transportation? A lot: like battery recharging stations throughout the country. And who will pay for that? Duh.

And what is the source of the electricity used to charge the cart batteries? Mostly fossil fuels. Oops.

After the business says a resounding no to the golf cart option, the promoters come back with another appeal: just send part of the load with them. But try as they might, the owners don’t see sending any part of their merchandise on golf carts making sense, from reliability, economic, or environmental perspectives. Can you?

In the face of this evidence, the lobbyists and their academic co-conspirators distractingly wave their hands:

Don’t worry about these details. Increase our subsidy and we’ll do a better job. Give us a huge subsidy and we’ll do a great job. Everything will make more sense mañana.

This isn’t how science works!

Before paying them to run this route, these promoters should tell us exactly how many golf carts it will take, and then prove it by actually running this route dozens of times. We would then have real-world evidence of the reliability and cost of their proposal.

This is exactly what we have not done with wind energy. We have skipped right over the proof stage.

It gets worse. The golf cart lobbyists turn to politicians, trying to convince them that businesses have been “resistive” to their product, so they need a law mandating that 20% of all goods from New York City to Denver go the golf cart route!

The claimed benefit of all of this? Economic recovery. There will be lots of new jobs in the golf cart business! What about the economic loss due to the higher shipping cost or the slower, much less dependable transportation?

Don’t worry about it. Come back mañana.

This is the insane path we are now on.

Link here to John Droz's website

(For in depth analyses link here to read John,Droz's EnergyPresentation)

Saturday, April 14, 2012

Couple Blows Away Wind farm

Ashburton couple blows windfarm away
By Sue Newman,
Ashburton guardian
10 April 2012 ~~

A Kiwi couple have done what the Aussies couldn’t – fought a corporate energy generator and won.

Bernie and Angela Molloy left Ashburton in 2007 to start a new life in the Australian state of Victoria. They found that new life in Naroghid, near Cobden, buying a 420 milking cow farm.

Friday, April 13, 2012

Pain in the Pipe

Cape Vincent will be conducting an audit survey to determine how many private connections have been made and whether there are health sanitation issues.

People that receive water from a district but are outside the boundaries of the district are called outside users.
At the special board meeting Thursday Town Attorney Mark Gebo said
“There are geographic boundaries to this district. The problem is that we have users who are drawing water through this district that are not within the geographic boundaries,” “Generally speaking, the regulatory agencies, when I’ve had to deal with them on these issues, don’t like the concept of outside users.

If you are going to add somebody to the district, that’s fine. But expand the geographic boundary and bring them in.”
This may not be as easy as it sounds, the town may have to completely re- do all of the infrastructure and connect them at the curb.

Without re-doing the infrastructure It would be difficult for the Town of Cape Vincent to include these users in the district . How can they take responsibility for a system that runs through a private parcel they have no jurisdiction over.

Theoretically if the land owner receiving the water through a public water connection decides that they no longer want to furnish water to their neighbor(s) they have no obligation to continue the water service to the outside user .
Additionally , if the property changes hands the new owner does not have an obligation to let the water flow from their connection to serve others. I can't see the Town taking on this can of worms.

Bottom line
Why didn't they just do it the right way?

If they had expanded the district openly other people that were not in the know may have had the opportunity to get municipal water as well. Now we have a situation that needs to be dealt with .

Water District #2 Any instillations, repairs or modifications will be done by the Town of Cape Vincent

The law governing Water District number two was amended in 1999

District financial arrangements
A. New ~ (1999)
the cost of instillation, connection meter pit and/or vault with meter, inlet and outlet curb stop will be borne by the parcel owner for which it is being installed.
A. Old ~(1997)
the cost of instillation, connection meter pit and/or vault with meter, inlet and outlet curb stop will be borne by the parcels for which the water district has been created.

C. Old ~ (1997)
Since all capital charges for the improvements connections, meter pits inlet and outlet curb stops will be borne by the respective property owners of the district, the annual cost to the district users includes the cost of water from the regional transmission line plus an administrative charge as follows
Cost of water (estimated)…………2.50/1000 gallons
Admin charge …………………………….10.00 per month

C. New ~1999
Since all capital charges for the improvements connections, meter pits inlet and outlet curb stops will be borne by the respective property owners of the district, the annual cost to district users includes the current cost of water from the Regional Transmission line plus the current capital charges per unit, plus an administration charge of 10.00 per month .

D. Old~ (1997)
All of the above connections, including meter pits, meter, inlet and outlet curb stops, shall be owned & installed by the water district.

D. NEW ~ (1999)
all of the above connections, including meter pits, meter inlet and outlet and curb stops, shall be owned by the district.
Any instillations, repairs or modifications will be done by the Town of Cape Vincent employees and the cost of such will be borne by the respective parcel owner.

Cape Vincent ~ Water Districts ~ Watershed Moment #2

Equivalent dwelling units (EDU’s) were defined by Supervisor Hirschey at yesterday’s board meeting.
Officially, one equivalent dwelling unit equals the use of 200 gallons of water per day or less. Using over 200 gallons per day would be more than one EDU.

However, it is my understanding that the Town is free to use their own discretion in determining the number of EDU’s for each parcel of land in a district.
The assignment of EDU’s is important. Higher water usage incurs higher operation and maintenance costs. Applying EDU’s is an important factor in distributing the costs of water in an equitable manner.

Water districts five, four, & three have similar capital arrangements in the laws governing their districts they all use EDU’s and a flat charge per unit based on the number of units. Each unit is addressed as one EDU.
Additionally the water district law for # 1 & #4 cover RV & mobile home parks.
Recreational Vehicle Parks are calculated using the number of available RV sites times’ one third to equal the number of EDU is to be charged.
Mobile home Parks are calculated by using the number of mobile home sites times 60% to equal the number of EDU’s.

The law for District # 4 includes Restaurants / Taverns they are calculated using the number of available seats times 15 GPD/ (gallons per day) seat divided by 200 GPD/EDU equals the number of EDU has to be charged.

Additionally, A flat charge based on the EDU will be charged at each billing period. The Operation & maintenance O&M water rate and/or flat charge may be adjusted by the Town board if deemed necessary.
Water district # 1 also has a flat charge per unit billed to users however they do not use the words equivalent dwelling unit they use the words living unit or livable dwelling unit a livable dwelling or in a multi –unit building each rental unit shall be considered a living unit . For purposes of a mobile home park, a living unit shall be considered a mobile home actually on the site, but shall not include a vacant site within the park.
District #1 The remaining portions of the debt service not covered by a flat charge shall be appropriated on a benefit assessment based upon a rate per 1,000.00 of assessed value on all property in the Water District, which amount shall be set annually at the Town’s budget hearing.
Additionally districts number one, three, four &five state that the number of units shall be determined each year as of the taxable status date, March 1. That number shall be used to calculate the initial connection fee and the annual flat charge. This flat charge shall be billed to the property owner.
How many EDU's is a Dairy farm considered? the connection fees in the law for dairy farms and homes are the same are the EDU's the same as well?

At the special Meeting Mickey Orvis asked Supervisor Hirschey if everyone in district #3 paid the same rate, Supervisor Hirschey replied yes. Hirschey mentioned that a parcel without a residence would be half an EDU etc...

The following are connection fees from water district #1 not water charges

Water district two does not discuss EDU’s or flat rates nor do they cover connection fees or Operation & Maintenance fees .Their financial structure includes the annual cost to district users the current cost of water from the Regional Transmission line plus the current capital charges per user unit, plus an administrative charge of 10.00 per month

Wednesday, April 11, 2012

Water District #2

The Cape Vincent Town Board will hold a meeting and work session today April 12, 2010 at 4 pm at the Town Office Building. The meeting will be to review a quotation from Fourth Coast regarding a review of water district #2 and any other business that may come before the Board, and the work session is being held to allow the Board to prepare for the Regular Town Board meeting scheduled for April 19, 2012 at 6pm.
I have been doing some research concerning Cape Vincent's water districts.

I foiled the rules & regulations /contracts and amendments a for all water districts in Cape Vincent .
One thing that I have noticed in comparing these documents is that not all districts are created equal . It is not what it says in the Rules and Regulations for Districts one, three, four, & five but what it doesn't say in District number two's Rules and Regulations .
From their inception Water Districts one,three,four & five have all contained a clause included in their Rules and Regulations titled penalties.

However, water district number two has no such clause. Below is a copy of the clause missing from district two's water service contract.

Penalties for Offenses

A. The opening of a water hydrant by an unauthorized person or evidence that attempts in the made to bypassing meter or in any manner obtain water from the district without proper payment will result in prosecution under the penal laws of New York State.

B. A violation of these regulations may result in the termination of water service to the violator. All violations of these regulations shall be brought to the attention of the town board for disposition.

C. A person found to be in violation of these regulations shall be guilty of a violation and shall be subject to a fine not to exceed ($250.00) per offense. Each week of continued violation shall constitute a separate offense.

D. Where appropriate the district may seek injunctive relief in a court of competent jurisdiction for enforcement of any provision of these regulations.

Does the fact that this penalty clause is not included in District two's Rules & Regs mean that it is acceptable for people in water district #2 to open a water hydrant , bypass a meter and obtain water in any manner from the district without proper payment?

Article 10 ~ A Critical Responsibility

The consequences of the newly passed Power act of New York are unknown.
This new law will regulate Power plant siting statewide. Our lawmakers have a moral responsibility to protect the citizens of New York State to ensure that the siting of new power generating facilities do not harm the public. Unfortunately, the New York State Legislature is
“One of the most corrupt and the most dysfunctional in the nation with a blatant disregard of right and wrong.” Our state legislators cannot regulate their own moral behavior how can they reasonably be expected to regulate safe power plant siting.

The State is concerned over the safety of Hydro – Fracking while they push a wind development agenda without any concerned about the consequences that this agenda will have on its citizens.

Industrial Wind energy development is not a benign process; Wind power has fallen under a Green umbrella mischaracterized as the perfect embodiment of green energy giving it a free pass. Wind power is unreliable, expensive and highly subsidized does not matter to our legislators. The distorted perception that wind power is the panacea of all energy may reduce the permitting processes into nothing more than a routine formality.

As industrial wind development spreads across the globe, so do the health issues caused from living in close proximity to industrial wind developments. With the passing of the Power Act of New York, the days of plausible deniability are over for our legislators they must be held accountable for their actions.
Our representatives have forgotten about the citizens that they were elected to serve. We have been cut out of the democratic process by aggressive wind development promoted by our Government.
Will the State of New York look into the possible health implications concerning wind turbine siting and human health?

I am not aware of any safety assessment by The New York State Department of Health concerning Industrial wind and human health .
However below is a copy of a letter written by the New York state Department of Health November 7, 2008 giving their non- opinion, opinion concerning Wind Turbines and human health...

We are reviewing current scientific literature and other information addressing possible human health effects associated with wind turbine noise. And we will continue to monitor and review the scientific literature addressing this issue.

Tuesday, April 10, 2012


I FOIL many documents for research purposes. Recently I found it necessary to contact Bob Freeman Executive Director of the State of New York Department of State Committee on Open Government for clarification of an issue that I ran into concerning a recent FOIL request I submitted to the Town of Cape Vincent. Mr. Freeman was very helpful, during the course of our conversation Foiling Foils came up. Mr. Freeman informed me that anyone could FOIL, my FOILS.











Monday, April 9, 2012

Great lakes Wind Opposition "part deux,"

New York States new article 10 regulations have taken away home rule with the intent of streamlining power plant siting. This coupled with Obama’s Great Lakes Wind Memorandum Of Understanding (MOU), developed to streamline what they call the efficient and responsible development of offshore wind resources in the Great Lakes, may further diminish our rights when it comes to wind development in the Great Lakes.
In the face of fierce opposition, New York Power Authority recently ended their Great lakes Off Shore Wind (GLOW) initiative. Shoreline and inland residents alike protested the offshore turbines. Subsequently elected officials in six of the eight counties along the Lake Ontario and Lake Erie shoreline voted to oppose the idea.
According to Brian Amaral of the Watertown Daily times, The Jefferson County Legislature will be voting on a resolution opposing wind turbines in the Eastern Basin of Lake Ontario Tuesday at the County Development committee meeting.

Sunday, April 8, 2012

My Life with Industrial Wind

We keep hearing from the wind conflicted about how wonderful wind development will be , but is living near an industrial wind complex all it's cracked up to be? What is it like to be surrounded by turbines 24hours a day seven days a week?
Jessica lives in the Town of Sheldon located in Wyoming County, New York. Her home is surrounded by Invenergy’s High Sheldon wind energy facility with 75 1.5 MW GE SLE turbines. The total installed capacity for the facility is 112.5 megawatts. The towers stand 397 feet in height, spanning from tower base to blade tip. Jessica describes in her own words how wind development has changed her life.

Wind turbines are fast growing in population due to the demand for clean energy in the United States. The American public needs to understand the harsh impact wind turbines have on residents living near wind farms. Proper education, research, and reading first hand accounts can educate future wind turbine target towns. A first hand account pertaining to life near a wind farm can increase overall awareness.
My name is Jessica. I am 27 years-old and live in Sheldon, NY. My husband and I bought our dream home and horse farm in the summer of 2006. We married on the property. The home was perfect and we looked forward to raising a family. My career in healthcare is high stress and is constant chaos. Although I love my career, I did enjoy returning home to peace and quiet. Tranquil days and nights are no longer an option.
My husband and I learned of wind turbines only months after purchasing our house. We did not worry at the time because wind turbine talk only seemed to be rumors and we believed no solid plan was in place. We were wrong.
Summer of 2008 was the initial construction phase. Increased traffic began with heavy equipment, endless stone trucks, and cement trucks. Once stone and cement were in place, the large tractor trailers passed by with bases and blades. The construction traffic began in the early A.M. and continued through dusk. Continuous daytime noise on the road and in the nearby once quiet fields became exhausting.
Over the last few weeks, existing turbines are beginning to come online. The turbines are spinning day and night. The negative effects of the wind turbines vary depending on the time of day and the speed of wind. During the day if the wind is low, a “swishing” noise is heard from the three turbines located within 1.5 miles to the west. If the wind is stronger, the “swishing” becomes louder and is accompanied by a jet engine type “roar”. At times the noise disturbance can be heard in the house with the windows closed. The noise can become so loud it is no longer enjoyable outside. I do not even enjoy riding my horses for any length of time.
The loud noise causes added stress and anxiety resulting in tension headaches, nausea, and dizziness. At night the view of many blinking red lights can be seen from two sides of the house. The lights often catch my attention even when I am focused on other tasks. The newest addition is the presence of shadow flicker. In the evening during sun set, a flicker of light can be seen in my bedroom, computer room, living room, and family room. I am unable rest, read books, or even watch television during this time. The shadow flicker creates headaches and eye pain. I am unable to remain in those rooms (the majority of the house) during shadow flicker hours.
People often will pull over in front of my house and stick their heads out the window. I am sure they do not hear the full effect. I invite anyone to come to my house during a strong wind period and just sit in my yard. Only then will one feel the full effect.
Our dream home has been taken away from us and we had no power to say no. A feeling of hopelessness continues to consume me. I now pay a mortgage on a “damaged” house. We do not have the option of turning the noise off when noise becomes a nuisance. Our neighbors have taken different sides, and the entire town is divided. Trust in our small town is destroyed by greed and inconsideration for one’s neighbors. Please listen to my plea to research wind turbines and talk to others. Remember, wind turbine companies pay many families to say wind farms are wonderful. Listen to the stories of uncompensated residents located near wind turbines.

Link here to story in scribd format

Energy Department Prepares to Approve More Green Loans

Energy Department prepares to approve more green loans

By Andrew Restuccia - 04/05/12

The Energy Department said Thursday it expects to begin tentatively approving new taxpayer-backed loans for renewable energy projects in the coming months.

The announcement comes about seven months after Solyndra, the California solar firm that received a $535 million loan guarantee from the administration in 2009, went bankrupt, setting off a firestorm in Washington.


Saturday, April 7, 2012

Couple loses property assessment challenge

By Paul Schliesmann The Whig-Standard
April 7, 2012
Ed and Gail Kenney are calling it a setback, not a defeat.
The Wolfe Island couple learned this week that the potentially precedent-setting challenge to their home property assessment — based on the proximity of wind turbines — was unsuccessful.
“We’re quite emotional about this,” said Gail Kenney. “We feel that common sense has not prevailed in this issue. The ordinary person should be able to go to a tribunal without being opposed by these major law firms.”


McCann Appraisal LLC June 20 2011 Review of Cape Vincent Committee EIR Link Here

Wolfe Island Noise study here
Link here to Whig Standard story ~Wolfe Islanders challenge tax assessments 3/29/10

Link here to read more from the Whig Standard ~ Wolfe Islanders claim Turbines devalue homes 5/5/2011

Link here Whig Standard story ~ Ontario assessment appeal based on nearby wind farm could blow across Canada.10/5/2011

Link here to Whig standard story ~Couple makes final plea 10/07/2011

Tonight Wind Wise Radio Presents

Direct Impact: Talking with victims of IWT.

Internet Wind Energy Talk — Every Sunday Evening 7pm ET

Sunday's Wind Wise radio is titled ~ Direct Impact: Talking with victims of IWT. Neil Anderson, Barb Ashbee, Richard Braithwaite and Gerry Meyer – Sun. April 8th, 7pm ET.
Below are a few brief examples of their experiences with Industrial Wind Turbines

 You can access this broadcast through the widget on the sidebar of this blog .
Or follow this link

Join in the show!
Call in your questions and comments for our guest(s).Dial in Number


Notice of Article 10 Siting Board Meeting

To: Article 10 Stakeholder Participants and ListServe Subscribers

The Siting Board met last week to initiation the process of promulgating
regulations to implement Article 10, and yesterday issued a number of
documents that you can access at the Siting Board website:

The text of the proposed regulations is attached to two of the documents:
the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and the Memorandum and Resolution. The
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking gives the instructions and deadlines for
submitting comments. The Memorandum and Resolution provides a considerable
discussion and analysis of the stakeholder recommendations and the
rationale and objectives behind the regulations.

Another more formal notice of proposed rulemaking with additional
information will be published in the State Register on April 11, 2012.
[See: http://www.dos.state.ny.us/info/register.htm]

You may begin submitting your written comments at any time. Comments will
be accepted until May 29, 2012. Those proposing a different balance among
the competing considerations are strongly encouraged to file comments by
April 25, 2012.

Persons wishing to receive email notification whenever comments are filed
and entered into the case record should create a DMM account and subscribe
as soon as possible to the service list for the case by following the
on-line instructions to “Subscribe to Service List” found on the screen
page for Case 12-F-0036.

Party status in this kind of a case does not mean much, and you do not need
to be a party to the case to submit comments, but if you desire party
status, you must register as a party.

Please contact me if I can be of assistance.

We appreciate your continued participation.

Assistant Counsel & Managing Attorney
New York State Department of Public Service
Three Empire State Plaza
Albany, New York 12223
Tel: (518) 486-2653
Fax: (518) 473-7081
March 23, 2012 -
New York State Board on Electric Generation
Siting and the Environment

Link here to watch Video of meeting

Link here to read transcript from March 23, meeting

DRAFT REGULATIONS have been issued for public comment link here to comment

Friday, April 6, 2012

BP's Wind Turbine


In 2011, a string of fortuitous events began to unfold creating setbacks of British Petroleum’s Cape Vincent wind Complex.

February 9, 2011: The first in a series of setbacks, the cancellation of the Planning Board meeting. BP was poised to submit their SDEIS at this meeting. Anxious to continue, they submitted their SDEIS behind closed doors. By chance, the document was discovered on display at the Lime Library, even though it had not been formally accepted.

March 16 ,2012: Michael G. Sterthous, from Whiteman Osterman and Hanna, (WOH) sent a letter to BP reassuring them that the Cape Vincent’s Planning Board review of their project was “ongoing” and that 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.

March 22, 2011: Jim Madden, BP’s project developer, left Bp for an “opportunity” with a smaller company. Madden had been with the Cape Vincent wind project from its inception under Greenlight Energy. At the same time, Todd Mathis departed from Whiteman Osterman & Hanna leaving questions concerning lack of documentation for expenditures from the Developers escrow accounts.

March 23, 2011: The PB meeting was cancelled. Planning Board members were to consider the supplemental draft environmental impact statement for British Petroleum's Cape Vincent industrial wind complex at this meeting.

June 8, 2011: At the Planning Board meeting Dick Macsherry introduced BP’s new project manager, Peter Gross, to the community. This was the first meeting that Voters for Wind (VFW) attended without wearing their green shirts. It was at this meeting that Mr. Gross mentioned that BP might be using larger 3-megawatt turbines, thus requiring a smaller number of turbines in the array plan. Additionally, Richard Edsall recused himself before Mr. Gross was introduced, leaving the building never to return as planning Board Chair.

June 30, 2011: Edsall abruptly resigned without explanation taking with him any records of the Planning Board’s activity in regard to BP’s project. Shortly thereafter planning board members McCarthy and Reinbeck followed suit submitting their resignations. Leaving the Planning Board without a quorum.

August 2, 2011: BP’s Project manager Peter Gross wrote a letter to Planning Board Richard Macsherry informing him that a letter sent to BP in March invited them to review the SDEIS with the Planning Board. BP wind is eager to receive comments and welcomes the opportunity to advance the SEQRA process in a timely and efficient manner, so that BP Wind can receive a completeness determination from the Planning Board as soon as reasonably possible.

August 8, 2011: Richard Macsherry sent a reply to BP’s new project manager informing him “I have 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 period.” Mr. Macsherry further explained that the needed to fill the vacancies on the board would cause further delays. BP’s DEIS & EIS

November 8, 2011: (Election Day) Cape Vincent’s November election proved to be a referendum on wind development.

November 8,2011:
Anxious to get BP’s project moving before a possible moratorium, Michael Sterthous, of Whiteman Osterman & Hanna sent an email to Planning Board chair Dick Macsherry informing him that he and Kris Dimmick Bernier & Carr had been in contact about the status of BP’s SDGEIS and based on that call it appears that the consultants should be in a position to meet a January schedule for providing the planning Board with comments as to completeness.

January 11, 2012:
the Planning Board passed a resolution to make a recommendation to the Cape Vincent Town board that the Town of Cape Vincent sever all ties with the law firm Whiteman Osterman and Hanna.

January 17, 2012: work began reviewing and updating Cape Vincent’s Zoning Law and Comprehensive plan.

January 19, 2012: At the Town Board meeting, the Town Board took the recommendations of the Planning Board and voted to terminate the relationship with Whiteman Osterman & Hanna. This action further delayed BP's project.

January 26, 2012: Supervisor Urban Hirschey sent a letter to WHO informing them that they have taken the Planning Board’s recommendation.

February 7, 2012: the head of the Jefferson County industrial development agency, Donald C. Alexander told town supervisors that his agency will not force payment – in- lieu – of – taxes agreements on any municipality.

February 7, 2012: was set for a public hearing and special meeting with respect to a seven-month moratorium on wind generation facilities
A vote was taken on the resolution.
Supervisor Hirschey yes,
Brooks Bragdon yes,
Clif Schneider yes,
John Byrne yes
Miki Orvis no
Resolution number 10 passed.

March 29, 2012: In a 51 to 47 vote the senate shot down an extension for soon-to-expire tax incentives for renewable power projects.

April 04, 2012: at the zoning law review committee meeting Planning Board Chair Richard Macsherry said something to the effect that once the new zoning law is complete that Peter Gross will be given a copy and then the decision that they make will be a business decision based upon what is allowed within the constraints of the new zoning law period.


Asia Pulse
March 12, 2012
China will accelerate the use of new-energy sources such as nuclear energy and put an end to blind expansion in industries such as solar energy and wind power in 2012, Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao says in a government report published on March 5.

China will instead develop nuclear power in 2012, actively develop hydroelectric power, tackle key problems more quickly in the exploration and development of shale gas, and increase the share of new energy and renewable energy in total energy consumption.

More here from Electric Light & Power

Thursday, April 5, 2012

*Guidelines for
Selecting Wind Turbine Site

Based on a paper presented at NOISE-CON 08, Institute of Noise Control Engineering, Dearborn, MI, July 2008. George W. Kamperman, Kamperman Associates, Inc., Wisconsin Dells, Wisconsin Richard R. James, E-Coustic Solutions, Okemos, Michigan

Link here to document Simple guidelines for siting wind turbines to prevent health risks
This article reviews a number of wind turbine sites with known health problems and sound studies conducted by consultants for governments, the wind turbine owner, or the local residents.
The purpose is determine if a set of simple guidelines using dBA and dBC sound levels can serve as “safe” siting guidelines. Findings of the review and recommendations for sound limits are presented,Followed by a discussion of how the proposed limits would have affected existing sites where people have demonstrated pathologies apparently related to wind turbine sound.

US Wind Development~ Blowing South of the Border

With the US wind market contracting, and the uncertainties in terms of PTC extension, it's forced wind developers that have primarily been focused on the US during the last five years to start looking at the Latin American markets to hedge their bets and take advantage of higher pricing," Dino Barajas, a partner at law firm Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld, told BNamericas.
Last week marked the fourth time in 2012 that the Senate has voted not to extend the PTC.

The possibility of the PTC drying up could divert a torrent of investment into neighboring Latin America, which is just starting to harness its own wind potentia.

Power Engineering~ US Wind Generators Looking South as PTC expiration looms

Wednesday, April 4, 2012

Half-mile from the nearest Wind turbine ~Noise outside home = 87 decibels inside home = 63.6 decibels

PSC staff recommends investigation of wind farm noise complaint

Rick Steelhammer, Staff writer
Charleston Gazette (West Virginia)
April 3, 2012

The state Public Service Commission staff has recommended rejecting a request by the operators of a Mineral County wind farm to dismiss a homeowner's complaint about excessive wind turbine noise.
Instead, the PSC should continue looking into noise and other issues involving Pinnacle Wind's 23-turbine Green Mountain operation near Keyser, according to a joint staff memo filed last week.

Cash Strapped: Suzlon selling windfarms

Just two months before Suzlon Energy’s repayment period for its first tranche of first foreign currency convertible bonds worth Rs 1,500 crore comes due, the wind turbine maker today said it plans to sell a bulk of its wind energy assets for Rs 200 crore.

Reacting tot he news, the stock dipped 2 percent at Rs 25.20 on the BSE.

In a press release to BSE, Suzlon Group, said it has sold a block of its wind farms, most of which are located in Tamil Nadu for $40 million. The deal is expected to be completed by Mid-May, after the due diligence and required approvals.

More from First Post investing

Galloo ~ Upstate NY Power Corp ~ Abandons under water power line in favor of a Transmission line Through Hounsfield

Upstate Power Corp addresses the Transmission line in the following letter
Honorable Kevin Casutto
Administrative Law Judge
NYS Department of Pub Jic Service

April 4, 2012

Dear Judge Casutto:
This letter serves as the Company's April S, 2012 update on the above-referenced matter,
The Company has concluded that there are no reasonable prospects for a Power Purchase
Agreement or other revenue proposition sufficient to allow the Project to proceed with the all
underwater route,
However, changes in the economic clirnate for wind energy in New York State may
present an opportunity for the Company to now secure an interconnection point at the Coffeen
Street Station and route the transmission line through the Town of Hounsfield to Coffeen Street.
This would require cooperation of other third parties in the queue, and the Company is in
discussions with those parties.
The Company is also pursuing a recently issued RFP for a PP A program from the
Department of Defense, which may allow the Company to sell to Fort Drum.

The Company will be pursuing these options through the rest of the second quarter, with
the goal of a definitive answer on this alternative by that time.
cc: Active Parties List
mas L. Hagner, President

Document below