BP's Tatics in Cape Vincent Ny

Thursday, May 31, 2012

In an appeal to the Public Service Commission BP expresses concern about local zoning laws.

UPDATE 2:52 PM / 6/1/2012

In a comment letter to the Public Service Commission, Richard F. Chandler Director of Development for BP’s Cape Vincent Wind Project wrote the following concerning Local laws ~any override of local laws should be provided by the Siting Board early in the process. Also, once a project has met the standards for project approval, the local community should bear the burden of proof to demonstrate why the more restrictive requirements are appropriate rather than the applicant demonstrating why they are not appropriate. Finally, to the extent that a recently commissioned wind project in New York meets community standards, such projects should be used as a guide by the Siting Board rather than having the Siting Board assume that any local law is reasonable unless refuted by an applicant.
BP realizes that Zoning laws are a stumbling block for their project development consequently; BP wind energy had wind lease holders sign what they call Good Neighbor Agreements.
 BP crafted these agreements in order to subvert our communities zoning law. These agreements are nothing more than land use variances; BP has no authority to write land use variances.
Additionally, Chandler wrote: BP Wind Energy has already been engaged with the local community for years on the Cape Vincent Wind Farm project and such work should not be ignored.

Cape Vincent is in the process of developing an updated zoning law Past efforts to update our zoning laws have been thwarted by BP.

BP came to Cape Vincent, like a thief in the night;
their plan was to steal Cape Vincent’s future by secretly signing, land owners & Board members to wind contracts with loyalty clauses. One of BP's first moves was to sign Planning Board Chair Richard Edsall to wind contracts thereafter using him as a tool to do their bidding.

As land owners signed away their wind rights they were signing away Cape Vincent’s hope for a prosperous future. These contracts would seal Cape Vincent’s fate by turning our tiny community into an industrial wasteland and destroying any hope for economic prosperity.
There would be great economic gain but, ultimately only for BP.

Yes, Mr. Chandler BP Wind energy has been engaged with the local community for years and such work should not be ignored…

 UPDATE~ Additional info~
By now we all know about the insidious cooperation clause that has
been exposed in wind lease agreements, here are links to both
Acciona and BP lease agreements which show nearly identical language.
The agreements require lease holders to assist and fully cooperate with the wind companies getting their projects approved. This isn't a big deal for a regular green-shirted lease holder, but it is a
VERY BIG DEAL if the lease holder happens to also be a town official.

Link here to read entire BP Good Neighbor agreement

**  link here to BP Comments to Public Service Commission Re: Article 10

BP's ~ New Math ~ 200 +85 = 190

When Bp acquired Acciona’s assets in the CV wind farm Bp’s Peter Gross wrote to CV supervisor Hirschey, “we anticipate that an expanded CV wind farm could produce approximately 200 megawatts (MW) requiring BP to invest in excess of 300 million.”
In a letter to the Public Service Commission, Richard F. Chandler Director of Development for BP’s Cape Vincent Wind Project wrote, “with the acquisition of the neighboring St. Lawrence Wind Farm project in February 2012, the Cape Vincent Wind Farm now can reach upwards of approximately 285 MW in size.”
This would this would mean 190 (1.5 MG ) turbines, add to that the 86 turbines on Wolfe Island.
 (As the crow fly’s Wolfe Island is approximately one mile from the shores of Cape Vincent)  This equates to 276 turbines turning the thousand Islands into ~
“The biggest windmill complex east of Mississippi, far bigger than Maple Ridge.”

The cumulative effects would be devastating for the thousand Islands.

Military wants to limit wind development


214 Total Radars
-83 impacted by Wind Turbines
-39% of
Radars impacted

 May 2012,
California San Diego’s East County)
Radar concerns have already axed a half dozen wind projects near Barstow after the Department of Defense raised concerns. Wind developers have been conducting testing in hopes of building up to 15 industrial wind facilities on public properties owned by the U.S. Bureau of Land Management, but adoption of a proposed “adverse impact zone” could kill those plans.
The military hasn’t officially adopted an “adverse impact zone” — a reference to interference with military activities — described by Navy sustainability official Tony Parisi during the recent meeting.
To help map the zone, a laboratory at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology is validating military tests of how wind turbines affect radar, Parisi said in a telephone interview. The matter has been discussed at the highest levels of the Navy and the Department of Defense, and a final decision is expected this summer, he said.
The military likely would oppose all wind projects in such a zone, he said.
The military’s concern could be a significant obstacle to wind energy development in Southern California’s deserts, said Nancy Rader, executive director of the California Wind Energy Association, who heard Parisi’s presentation April 25 at the Ontario Convention Center. The meeting was organized by California energy officials as part of a multiple-agency process to plan for renewable energy development in the desert that minimizes harm to wildlife habitat and other natural resources.
Military priorities tend to trump other land-use interests, she said
Radar issues and wind turbines are not a new concern.
Back in September of 2011 there is an article in Master resource by Lisa Linnowes; Ms. Linowes is an expert on the impacts of industrial-scale wind energy development on the natural environment, communities, and the regional grid systems. A conservation and land use advocate with over 20 years of executive business experience, Ms. Linowes has held high-profile elected and volunteer positions in community planning, land negotiation, and education outreach.
Wind Energy and Radar: A National Security Issue — MasterResource
by Lisa Linowes
September 26, 2011

Military leaders are under pressure to not disrupt White House green energy policies even while green energy technology is disrupting our navigation aids and impairing U.S. national security.

Washington has a track record of muzzling military testimony to protect its pet policies and political friends. Last week, Air Force Gen. William Shelton admitted he was pressured by the administration to change his testimony regarding LightSquared’s network and its adverse impact on military space-based navigation systems. We applaud Shelton for not bowing to the pressure.

But the military has not been honest about the effect wind turbine technology has on our national radar systems.

The fact is that our air space has been made less safe by turbines and our national security compromised because of a reckless policy of siting wind towers within 50-miles of radar installations. Military radar experts in the field know the damage that’s been done. But with the debate surrounding energy policy dominated by politics and money, the military has bowed to the pressure.

Read the complete article written by Lisa Linnowes at Master resource ~link here

March 15,2012
The Watertown Times printed an article titled
That is a question the federal government may have to tackle if the Department of Homeland Security does as Sen. Charles E. Schumer, D-N.Y., has asked, and deploys military-grade radar along the U.S.-Canadian border to nab low-flying aircraft. The Defense Department has warned that wind turbines interfere with radar and has opposed their placement near military installations.
Turbines' effect on radar has not been a big issue along the St. Lawrence River and Lake Ontario, where developers have eyed a number of locations for wind farms. That could change if DHS deploys the more sophisticated radar — something Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano strongly hinted last week could happen.
Additionally, this same Watertown Times article includes quotes by Jim Madden Bp's former project manager in regard to what he thought about RADAR DEPLOYMENT and the possibility that Turbines may produce false detection readings on U.S.-Canada border .
"It's certainly something we study," said Madden.
Mr. Madden said the issue has not surfaced at Bp's 86 turbine project proposed for Cape Vincent, and he was not familiar with DHS's possible plans for radar. Adjustments in radar software often can fix the problem, he said, depending on the type used.
Report to the Congressional Defense Committees the Effect of Windmill Farms on Military readiness link ~ here ~

Military tests conducted between 2002 and 2005 by the U. S. Air force and the United Kingdom Ministry of Defense found that wind turbines located within the line of sight of military radar can adversely affect its ability to track aircraft and other aerial objects.
These findings virtually stopped the development of wind energy facilities across the country.

The FAA halted work on about a dozen land-based wind farm projects that were within the line of sight of any military radar. The Sierra Club sued the Pentagon in June of 2006, for failing to complete the report within the mandated time period. In an attempt to force the release of the Department of Defense Report two Democratic Senators from Illinois, Richard (Dick) Durbin and Barack Obama, blocked a Senate vote on a Defense Department nominee Robert L. Wilkie and they announced that they would block the nomination of Andrew Steinberg to be Assistant Secretary for Aviation and International Affairs until the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) issued a conclusive determination as to whether the operation of wind farms under construction in the Midwest will interfere with radar systems.~~~
Without this certainty, potential investors will fear that their resources could be lost.
The Sierra club published a post on their website
stating that the DOD released their report in response to their lawsuit. Claiming that the result of the DOD's report was "vindication of the Club's position , that windmill construction should move forward". We now seem to be back where we started with the radar issue back on the horizon. This is a matter of public safety not an issue that needs to be expedited by political arm twisting or by court room theatrical maneuvers by wind lobbyists.

Thursday, September 7, 2006

This is the press release from Illinois Senator Dick Durbin and Barack Obama

This is the press release that was on Senator Durbin's website

This is the press release from Senator Durbin's website

Master Resource ~ Wind Energy and Radar: A National Security Issue

Watertown Times ~ Can Windfarms Aid Criminals?

Sierra Club website
East county magazine
Link to original  source from Press Enterprise

Wednesday, May 30, 2012

Bp ~ Comments to Public Service Commission Re: Article 10

In New York, Cape Vincent Wind Power, LLC, a wholly-owned subsidiary of BP Wind Energy, is developing the Cape Vincent Wind Farm project in Jefferson County. With the acquisition of the neighboring St. Lawrence Wind Farm project in February 2012, theCape Vincent Wind Farm now can reach upwards of approximately 285 MW in size.Given its long-standing and substantial investment in this project, BP Wind Energy is seeking an Article 10 process that will facilitate its development and construction.Toward this end, below we offer comments that we hope the Siting Board will considerin finalizing the implementing regulations for Article 10.
B. Local laws
Any override of local laws should be provided by the Siting Board early in the process.Also, once a project has met the standards for project approval, the local community should bear the burden of proof to demonstrate why the more restrictive requirements areappropriate rather than the applicant demonstrating why they are not appropriate. Finally,to the extent that a recently commissioned wind project in New York meets communitystandards, such projects should be used as a guide by the Siting Board rather than havingthe Siting Board assume that any local law is reasonable unless refuted by an applicant

BP Comments Re: Article 10

Brooks Bragdon comments to the PSC

as a private citizen only.

Hon. Jaclyn A. Brilling May 29, 2012
Secretary, New York State Public Service Commission
Three Empire State Plaza
Albany, New York 12223-1350
Re: Case 12-F-0036 – In the Matter of the Rules and Regulations of the Board on Electric Generation Siting and the Environment.

Dear Secretary Brilling:
I am a member of the Town Board in Cape Vincent and support the Board’s comment; herewith I am entering a - I am concerned that the PSC should recognize the uniqueness of the each community and respect existing Comprehensive Plans and Zoning Laws.
In Cape Vincent our community lies on the St Lawrence River and Lake Ontario and has world class views. In addition Cape Vincent is an historic community with a registered Historic District and some 35 properties on the NYS Historic Preservation Office list of historic homes. The balance of historic preservation assets and scenic assets is essential to the community and also lies behind our tax assessment base. The scenic and historic assets of the community are specifically protected in our zoning law and comprehensive plan.
I ask that the Article X Board defer to local regulations unless a high burden of proof is met that the local regulations are not reasonable and are unduly burdensome. In the case of Cape Vincent, our law is reasonable and fact based and I ask that it be respected. I urge the PSC to under no circumstances weaken the application of local rule.
I was assured as an Article X stakeholder that local rule would not be lessened as the regulations were reviewed. I propose that this is an all important point of principle.
- I ask that the PSC add regulations dealing with acoustics that fully address low frequency sound and sleep deprivation. I understand that the currently proposed rules are inadequate in this regard.
Brooks Bragdon
PO Box 695
Cape Vincent NY 13618


Tuesday, May 29, 2012

How can Wind development be justified by New York State?

Article 10 the Power act of New York will regulate Power plant siting statewide.
 Article 10 states that Local laws are taken into consideration however, if they are considered unreasonably burdensome in view of the existing technology or the needs of or costs to ratepayers whether located inside or outside of such municipality.The board shall provide the municipality an opportunity to present evidence in support of such ordinance, law, resolution, regulation or other local action issued thereunder.

If the needs and costs to rate payers are so important to New York State that they may supersede local laws, then why is New York State delaying approval of the processes necessary to access Marcellus Shale natural gas?
New York politicians and regulators are denying the state the economic growth that other states are seeing. This short-sighted stalling on approving shale gas drilling is hurting the state’s economy, depriving workers of jobs, and reducing the tax revenue local governments desperately need.

In Pennsylvania, natural gas drilling brought in $3.5 billion in 2011. In West Virginia, that number was $1.2 billion. Meanwhile in New York our tax dollars are being pushed down a rat hole by a whirlwind of bad economic and environmental decisions promoting wind power, an unreliable form of energy that costs three times as much as electricity generated by coal and gas fired power stations.
Additionally the environmental devastation from industrial wind is something that we may never recover from. How can the rampant slaughter of birds and bats at the blades of wind turbines be justified if we have technology available to produce electricity without these environmental consequences?

Energy Citizens

Patricia Ritchie ~ Comment Letter to the Public Service Commission

May 29,2012

Honorable Jaclyn A. Brilling, Secretary
NYS Board on Electric Generation Siting and the Environment
Three Empire State Plaza
Albany, NY 122 12 – 1350

Dear Secretary Brilling:
I am pleased to offer the following comments for filing to be included in the record as part of the public comment period on the proposed regulations regarding the siding of electric generating plants in New York State. While the proposed implementing regulations issued by the Department of Public Service (DPS) under the new Article 10 law allow for more input by the affected localities, I want to express my strong belief that regulations, once finalized, do more than just consider the implementation of local laws.

I voted against the reinstatement of article acts as drafted last year because I felt local government should be able to have a significant say in the siding of power generation plants in their communities. While developers have the ability under the new law to request the Siting Board rule that a local law is unduly burdensome, I would hope that the board take into consideration all comments provided by the host community.

The issue is critically important in relation to the siting of wind turbines. Localities must be able to be a key participant in the siting process and allowed to take into consideration the myriad of issues that wind turbines can present such as aesthetics, tourism, military deployments/maneuvers, and the negative impact on the local economy.

Specifically, it is important that the statute which provides a standard for “overriding” local laws, and the proposed regulations which narrowly interpret that standard, provide local governments with greater standing during the approval process. The fact that the proposed regulations contain three different tests in order to qualify for a local law override, and the siting law does not, is a step in the right direction. However, it is critical that the needs and desires of the local communities play an integral role in the approval process.

With respect to the proposed regulations which allow wind turbines to be moved within 500 feet of their originally identified location, I believe this distance threshold should be drastically reduced. The public needs assurance that if a project is approved, it will be located close to where it is proposed to be.

Finally, I support provisions in the proposed regulations which provide for quasi-judicial review whereby a party can force a hearing by showing that issue is “material and relevant.” It is paramount that these provisions are not deluded or eliminated so that all issues may be addressed prior to the siding and construction of electric generation facilities.

Thank you for your consideration.

Public Briefing Session

Tuesday, June 5, 6:00 PM
at Cape Vincent's Rec Park

Committees will introduce drafts of the revised:

Town & Village Comprehensive Plan
Town Zoning Law

President of Ebbing Acoustics~Comment Letter to NYS Public Service Commission

Re: Article 10

Dear Secretary Brilling,
I am Charles Ebbing, President of Ebbing Acoustics, and am actively involved as an Acoustical Consultant on Noise and Vibration Issues associated with Industrial Wind Turbines and from the HVAC (Heating, Ventilation, and Air-Conditioning) Industry.
I worked from 1967 to 1999 for Carrier Corp, in the Research Division as Technical Leader in Acoustics, as Product Manager, and as the Carrier Corporate Noise Control Consultant.
After retiring from Carrier, as an Adjunct Professor, I taught Graduate Noise Control Courses at RPI and at Syracuse University associated with Building Mechanical Noise, Noise Control in Buildings, and the Use of Noise Criteria in the design of occupied spaces.

The Industrial Wind Industry continues to assert that Low Frequency Noise need not be evaluated for Industrial Wind Turbines and that dBA provides the information needed to access the noise impact on the adjacent community.
They also contend that Low Frequency Noise from Industrial Turbines is not a major problem, and thus dBC noise measurements it should not be required in the final Article X Guidelines.
They also assert that collecting dBC Noise data imposes an unrealistic burden on the Industrial Wind Industry.
I challenge the technical basis for these positions based on my personal Research and Experience as Acoustical Engineer specializing in these areas.
should not be required in the final Article X the technical basis for these positions based on my personal Research and as Acoustical Engineer specializing in these areas.

I am the lead author of the Book, “Application of Manufacturers’ Sound Data” that resulted from ASHRAE Research Project RP-786, Oct 1, 1998 (WWW.ASHRAE.ORG). The book has an extensive discussion of the use of RC Criterion to evaluate the expected low frequency noise level in occupied spaces and determine the required noise reductions to meet the Noise Goals established for Occupied Spaces in Buildings.
It is important to realize that industrial wind turbines are basically electrical generators turned by very, very large turbine blades. Noise is produced by the air flow and air turbulence over the turbine blade.
The noise producing mechanisms for HVAC fans are quite similar except that the fans are much smaller in Building Air Conditioning Systems and are driven by electrical motors and produce much less Low Frequency Noise.
Fan Noise is produced by the air flow and air turbulence over the fan blade that is induced by the fan blade rotation.
The Spectrum of the noise produced by Turbines and that produced by HVAC Fans both produce more Low Frequency Noise than Mid or High Frequency Noise.
In operation, the fan blades and the turbine blades both generate broad band and tonal noise which increases at low frequencies and decreases at the higher frequencies.
Wind Turbines produce increased Low Frequency Noise when the air flow entering the Turbine Blades deviates from Laminar Flow. The Wind Industry rates the noise from their units striving for the most laminar flow entering the turbine blades.
Similarly fans produce increased noise with highly turbulent inlet conditions or poorly designed ductwork in the fans discharge.
My field experience with HVAC Units that produced unacceptable time varying low frequency Rumble was because of the excessive time modulation of the noise in the 63, 31.5, and 16 Hz bands.
The characteristics of the wind turbine sound emissions are similar to those of problematic HVAC systems

My field experience is that tenants of new office buildings with Rumble from HVAC systems were unable to “tune out” the amplitude modulated low frequencies and wanted to return to their old offices to get away from the noise.
It was only when we able to reduce the Low Frequency Noise Radiation in the first three Octave Bands, to that indicated by the ASHRAE RC curves, that the occupants were satisfied.

The Low Frequency noise source ratings of the Turbines are needed to estimate the low frequency impact in the Homes of Occupants of interest. This impact cannot be determined from just considering the dBA noise levels of the Turbines. The literature shows that the dBA high frequency noise reduction of homes is significant, whereas low frequency noise reduction coupled with amplification from resonance of homes vary but on average the expected dBC reduction is close to zero.
Based on my experience the is no way to evaluate or anticipate Low Frequency Noise LFN Problems from Wind Turbines unless a proper study is conducted and that cannot be done if the focus is only on dBA.

Further, the types of symptoms that are being reported from people with long term exposure to Low Frequency Noise in their homes from Industrial Wind Turbines are similar to the reactions, I witnessed from many LFN exposed knowledge workers inside of occupied spaces which were generated by Buildings HVAC fans.

The Wind Turbine Applicants should provide the information needed to evaluate the noise impact on the adjacent community. The largest impact, in my opinion is inside the Occupants Homes. They cannot estimate this without knowing a rational estimate of the expected dBC outside their homes.
The Industrial Wind Industry should disclose both source dBA and dBC Sound Power Ratings of their turbines and document estimates of the expected noise levels at the Property Lines of the Residents both in dBA and dBC so that it is possible to evaluate both the expected dBA and dBC inside the residences’ home. Low frequency noise problems cannot be anticipated or prevented from dBA data.
Data collection of both dBC and dBA as well as octave or 1/3 Octave band is not considered difficult and burdensome by the HVAC industry. Why should the Wind Industry claim that that it is too difficult and burdensome for them, when they use the same high quality acoustical instrumentation that the HVAC Industry uses to collect the noise rating of their machinery?
The HVAC Industry has acknowledged that Low Frequency Noise Rating data from Rooftop Units and Central Station Fan Units are important to achieve acceptable Room Noise Levels. To do this the HVAC Industry looked to its Technical Society ASHRAE to set these recommendations.
It is apparent that the Wind Industry has not chosen to recognize that the HVAC Industry has effectively dealt with the low frequency noise problems of its industry since the mid 80’s.
Below is an ASHRAE listing of the research projects

The Wind Turbine Applicants should provide the information needed to evaluate the noise impact on the adjacent community.The largest impact, in my opinion is inside the Occupants Homes. This cannot be estimated without knowing a rational estimate of the expected dBC outside their homes.
The Industrial Wind Industry should disclose as a minimum , both source dBA and dBC Sound Power Ratings of their turbines and document estimates of the expected noise levels at the Property Lines of the Residents both in dBA and dBC so that it is possible to evaluate both the expected dBA and dBC inside the residences’ home.
Low frequency noise problems cannot be evaluated or anticipated from dBA data.
The HVAC Industry has acknowledged that Low Frequency Noise Rating data from Rooftop Units and Central Station Fan Units are important to achieve acceptable Room Noise Levels. To do this the HVAC Industry looked to its Technical Society ASHRAE to set these recommendations.
The ASHRAE Research that follows should not be ignored in setting Article X noise standards for evaluation of the expected noise from Wind Farms.

[Note: I am having difficulty with the way these charts display on my blog~ I am working on it!]

SHRAE Research

Charles Ebbing
President Ebbing Acoustics
LaFargeville, NY

Cape Vincent, NY~ is an extremely important bird/raptor migration area...

Not long ago Nature Canada reported that the Wolfe Island wind complex has a turbine kill rate for birds and bats seven times the industry average in Canada primarily because it is located in the wrong spot.

Wolfe Island wind has been operational since April of 2009, avian and bat mortality rates have been available since May of 2010.
Nevertheless, Acciona/ British Petroleum*chose to use data from Maple Ridge Wind farm some 40 miles away to calculate projected avian and bat mortality rates for their St. Lawrence wind complex.
However, there is more to this story the letter below points out a disturbing disparity between the proposed wind turbines in Cape Vincent and an earlier wind project proposed in the same migratory flyway (wrong spot) as Cape Vincent.


February 15, 2011
Mr. Stephen Tomasik - Project Manager
Major Projects Management Section
Division of Environmental Permits
NYS Department of Environmental Conservation
625 Broadway - 4th Floor
Albany, New York 12233-1750

Dear Steve:

We want to supplement comments regarding the St. Lawrence Wind Project Article 11application we sent you earlier (January 13, 2011). We were recently given a copy of NYSDEC's comments on the Chautauqua Wind Farm Project Proposal dated December 31, 2004 (see attached). We were impressed with the rigor of this review, conclusions and recommendations.
We also want to point out some points that were made in DEC's review that we believe have relevance to the situation here in Cape Vincent with
Acciona's Article 11 application.

In the overview DEC notes the Avian Risk Assessment (ARA) by Chautauqua “suffers from several fundamental flaws;” one of which is related to using “inappropriately derived” information from other studies (p.1). This is basically the same argument we made in our previous letter. To make projections of potential losses without considering avian mortality data from a wind farm in the immediate vicinity and time frame is also a fundamental flaw. The DEC made that point in 2004 and you need to make that point again in 2011.

In its review of the Chautauqua Wind Project, DEC touted the value of the Cape Vincent area as a migratory flyway: “The eastern and southern shore of Lake Ontario and eastern shore of Lake Erie are documented and well recognized migratory pathways, which are important within Eastern North America on a regional scale, particularly during spring migration as birds move north (p.2).” We know this opinion has not changed, but it should be stated clearly and forcefully. The importance of this flyway requires the Department to take a strong position to ensure the flyway has adequate protections. We cannot see how this can be done without first examining the complete 3-year study of avian mortality from the Wolfe Island Wind Project. If the mortality estimates for year-one in their study are lowest, then the Department may regret not having waited until the post-operational avian mortality study is completed.

In the summary comments DEC highlights the facts that the Chautauqua area “is an extremely important bird/raptor migration area,” as is the Cape Vincent area, and adds that Bald Eagles can be expected to use the project area. Again, similar to the situation we have here. Lastly, in our previous letter we argued for a cumulative assessment of wind turbine impacts for our region based on a reasonable projected turbine build-out.The same point was made in 2004 by the DEC, “The cumulative impact of all of these projects would need to be taken into consideration to truly measure “biological significance” on our bird populations (p.27).” Regardless of how it may be justified, we believe it is professionally irresponsible to not consider potential cumulative impacts from future commercial wind developments along the eastern shore of Lake Ontario.

Thank you again for the opportunity to comment and we hope you agree that waiting for the completion of the Wolfe Island studies is the appropriate position for the Department on Acciona's Article 11 application.

Sincerely yours,

Thomas E. Brown – NYCDEC Retired Regional Director
Clifford Schneider – NYSDEC Retired Lake Ontario Unit Leader

Kenneth Kogut – Region 6 Natural Resources Supervisor

Link here to read DEC Letter_ Avian Turbine Risk Assessment Chautauqua 12-31-0

*Note: February 10, 2012, it was announced that British Petroleum purchased Acciona's interests in the St. Lawrence Industrial wind complex. To date nothing has changed concerning the configuration of these projects.

Additionally, British Petroleum and Acciona used the same Avian and Bat studies for their wind projects.

Sunday, May 27, 2012

COAX ~ Coalition on Article X Comments to the PSC

Hon. Jaclyn A. Brilling
Secretary, New York State Public Service Commission
Three Empire State Plaza
Albany, New York 12223-1350

VIA First Class Mail and Email (Secretary@dps.ny.gov)

Comments to the New York Board on Electric Generation Siting and the Environment
Case 12-F-0036 – In the Matter of the Rules and Regulations of the Board on Electric Generation Siting and the Environment contained in 16 NYCRR, Chapter X, Certification of Major Electric Generating Facilities

Dear Secretary Brilling:

Enclosed for filing are the comments of Coalition on Article X (“COAX”), regarding the draft regulations of Article 10 of the Public Service Law.

COAX is a statewide grassroots coalition, which connects municipalities on a unified position to keep “Home Rule” strong, in force and as intended by the New York State Constitution since 1894. We have connected dozens of towns and counties throughout New York State to submit Resolutions that oppose the loss of any “Home Rule.”

In a thorough review by New York State taxpayers, we have collected and assembled comments of the draft regulations as they relate to siting of energy facilities. The New York State Public Service Commission is employed by and for NYS taxpayers and ratepayers, as per stated in the PSC website's posted Mission Statement, "to ensure safe, secure, and reliable access to electric... services for New York State’s residential and business consumers, at just and reasonable rates." We also stress that justice and reason be applied to the regulations of Article 10, especially in the following areas of the draft regulations: Local Laws and Ordinances, Noise and Vibration, Decommissioning, Socioeconomic/Property Value Guarantee and Public Comment Period.

We thank you for the opportunity to express our concerns and offer comments to protect and preserve Home Rule throughout New York State.

Robert E. Aliasso, Jr. – Member COAX

Loading Wind Turbine on the Ferry - 05/26/12 - Kingston, Ontario, Canada

I do not have any information about this turbine .
However, last, January Windstream Wolfe Island Shoals Inc. said it has signed a binding agreement with Siemens AG (SIE) to supply as many as 130 turbines for a 300-megawatt offshore wind power project on Lake Ontario.

The turbine blades will be manufactured at Siemens’ factory in Tillsonburg, Ontario, the company said in a statement on CNW today.

Windstream Wolf Island Orders up to 130 Siemens Wind Turbines.

Mega33Buzz's channel

She Wrote the Book ~ Indoctrination 101

The Grassroots organization Voters for wind did not begin by accident or divine intervention, but was the result of a well-organized, phony grassroots effort.

In 2007 British Petroleum hired Marion Trieste to do "outreach work" part of Marion Trieste's work involved helping to launch the "grassroots" organization Voters For Wind (VFW). Designed to quell community opposition to their project.

Marion Trieste community organizer and wind facilitator continues to market her strategy to developers.

On her website Trieste explains in her words. ~
The cost of failure due to public opposition is why organizing local community supporters is so important. Developers with the foresight to make public outreach a top priority find it well worth the investment. Trieste Associates is uniquely positioned to help companies prepare project developers to build their support base and protect the proposed development from costly delays due to public opposition.

Trieste Associates believes in taking a grassroots, public education approach to this unfortunate public controversy that has delayed or prevented many proposed wind developments. We believe individuals, when armed with the facts about wind power technology, and site-specific benefits, will understand its value and withdraw their opposition. Our outreach campaigns are designed to inform local decision-makers, identify project champions, and tap into the silent majority of community supporters. Our work is cost-effective, personal, and non-confrontational.

Now Trieste is offering a manual and training services designed as a how to guide for developers.
Orchestrated grass roots organizations have the potential to alter an entire culture or community however, approached incorrectly; it will turn on those who seek to exploit it. Unfortunately for Trieste this is exactly what happened in Cape Vincent and Lyme.
Marion Trieste was hired by British Petroleum to make all the bad anti - windies go away. She formed Voters for Wind ~ a fake grassroots organization to give the illusion that the communities embraced BP’s industrial wind project. But the plan back fired exposing the deceptive methods used by British Petroleum to push their project on unsuspecting communities.

Saturday, May 26, 2012

A letter to the Public Service Commission~


Acciona Energia and Bp have targeted the Town of Cape Vincent, NY with a 140 turbines. Acciona sold their interest to Bp.

Cape Vincent is located on Lake Ontario and the St. Lawrence River. The majority of the tax base is valuable seasonal property which lies along the shores of the Lake and River.

The Seaway Trail that runs through the town is one of New York State's most bragged about and financially supported scenic byways.
Cape Vincent is still under-developed as a tourist region and has more available vacant land and tourism potential than any single town on the St. Lawrence River.

During the early years of the local industrial wind siting process, the Chairman of the Town of Cape Vincent planning board and another member were listed by the wind developers as having a financial interest in and were being paid by British Petroleum and Acciona.

During the early years of the local siting process by Acciona Energia and British Petroleum, three members (A majority) of the Cape Vincent Town Board were listed by the wind developers as having a financial interest in and were being paid by Bp and Acciona.

As a result of these conflicts of interest and complaints to the New York State Attorney General, the Attorney General, Andrew Cuomo,
launched a formal investigation of certain Town of Cape Vincent public officials and their conduct regarding industrial wind matters.

That AG investigation is still open and no reports have been announced.

The New York State Attorney General, Eric Schneiderman, is well aware of the corruption complaints in Cape Vincent regarding industrial wind matters. In fact, he was in Watertown, NY when the industrial wind lease holding Cape Vincent town board members
passed an illegal and unconstitutional voter identification law designed to prevent certain Cape Vincent registered residents from voting against them in the election.

At a Jefferson County Community College forum State Assembly Member Kevin Cahill told the audience that one of the reasons for Art. X siting was because some wind targeted towns were corrupted by wind development and at a disadvantage

Cape Vincent was one of them. We were at a disadvantage for many years while wind lease holding public officials were giving away the town in return for their leases and good neighbor agreements.

Through a lot of hard work and effort of the Cape Vincent citizens, we removed the corruption the old fashioned way by hitting the bricks, registering voters and using the election process to eliminate the corruption. But we were left behind in the normal process of progress and the blatant industrial wind corruption prevented us from keeping up with our zoning laws and other development that took advantage of our Lake Ontario and St. Lawrence River potential.

Because of nearly ten years of industrial wind conflicts and corruption, the Citizens of Cape Vincent were denied the right to local rule in the matter of developing zoning laws that protect the health and welfare of all the citizens of Cape Vincent. The industrial wind corrupted government blocked every effort to protect town citizens from industrial wind turbine impacts by agreeing with every wish of the industrial wind developers. The corruption allowed local rule to be replaced by corporate rule in industrial wind siting matters.

It is very important that Article X siting boards take into consideration past industrial wind corruption in towns like Cape Vincent before they overrule local zoning.

Furthermore, all siting considerations done under the influence of industrial wind corruption in towns like Cape Vincent should be ruled null and void by the siting boards out of respect for the citizens of the towns who were victims of the corruption.

In fact, it would be unwise to allow industrial wind developers who were attempting to site turbines at the time of the corruption to even apply for siting in those towns.

Richard Charles Wiley, Sr.

Thursday, May 24, 2012

Veterans groups protest plan for wind farms off Normandy

Vets groups protest plan for wind farms off Normandy

By Dan Blottenberger
Published: May 20, 2011

Earlier this year, French President Nicolas Sarkozy announced a plan to build five wind farms off the western coast of France, one of them off the Normandy beaches of Juno and Omaha, stormed by Allied troops on D-Day.

Work is to start in 2015. The 525-foot turbines are to be erected about seven miles from the coast.


Stars & Stripes

Wednesday, May 23, 2012

Wind power is a Hot topic in Iowa

A wind turbine near Grafton caught fire Tuesday afternoon.
Reports of a loud bang, followed by huge flames and strong smoke, streaming from a wind turbine at the Barton II wind farm, which is owned by Iberdrola Renewables.
Thursday 121 miles away from the site of this turbine fire, President Obama will ramp up his call for extension of the production tax credit at the Iowa production facilities of a politically connected wind turbine manufacturer with ties to his administration.
The appearance could serve to reinforce perceptions of cronyism in the administration’s “green jobs” push.

At the manufacturing facilities of TPI Composites, Obama will tout the need for continued federal “investment” in wind energy, according to the Des Moines Register.TPI has some notable connections to the White House through Element Partners, one of its key investors.

One of Element’s operating partners is former Pennsylvania governor and Democratic National Committee chairman Ed Rendell. Rendell endorsed Obama during the 2008 campaign – though he has yet to do so in this cycle – and made numerous campaign appearances on his behalf.

During his tenure as governor, Rendell appointed Kathleen McGinty as Secretary of the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection. McGinty is also an operating partner at Element.

TPI Composites got $9 million from a $2.3 billion package of Energy Department tax credits for green energy manufacturers, but it is just one of a number of Element Partners investments to receive federal support.
Renewable energy companies NRG Energy, TAS Energy, Petra Solar, Wind Tower Systems, and EdeniQ have all received both financial support from the federal government in some form and investment from Element Partners.
Political connections have been near-constant among the recipients of federal money for green energy projects under Obama. Ironically, he has chosen to tout the effort at a site that reinforces that objection.

Globe Gazette

Wind turbine Fire
Wind turbine catches fire near Bolan
The Foundry
Obama to Tout Green Energy at Politically Connected Wind Company
by Lachlan Markay

Holy Tornado ~Versus Turbine ~ Incredible Video

This incredible video posted on YouTube May, 20 2012
Duquoin Kansas ,tornado hits wind Complex
by Holy Tornado 84

Wind Energy Leaders lobbying For Wind Welfare

by the American Wind Energy Association (AWEA)

WASHINGTON – Two Cabinet secretaries met with 14 leaders of the U.S. wind manufacturing, construction, and development sectors at the White House today, advancing a bipartisan effort to extend the wind energy Production Tax Credit before Congress recesses for the summer

Today’s meeting(May 22,2012) was attended by White House energy adviser Heather Zichal, Energy Secretary Steven Chu, Interior Secretary Ken Salazar, and Deputy Director of the National Economic Council Brian Deese

Source: Clean Technica

Tuesday, May 22, 2012

ACE ~ NY Comment's to the DPS

Local governments should not be allowed to enact or amend laws as obstacles to development...

Yesterday I published a post concerning the incestuous relationship between the American Wind Energy Association (AWEA) the Alliance for Clean Energy (ACE NY)and the Cuomo administration.

As you may know,the NYS Department of Public Service has issued proposed regulations for the new Power Plant Siting Law, Article X /Power NY Act.
The public comment period is open (until 5/29/12).

Carol Murphy (Ace NY) has submitted a comment letter to the Department of Public Service
I have posted a portion of their 16 page letter below.
While ace New York continues to believe that a number of the exhibits include overly detailed, cumbersome and unnecessary requirements . All really detailed requirements will unsustainably increase the burden on applicants, constrain the decision-making ability of the siting board, and cause the state to lose investment and lose ground in meeting clean energy and economic development goals and the building of a vibrant clean energy economy.
Necessary Revisions
A. Criteria for Override of Local Laws
an essential component of article 10 is the ability of the developer to request that the siting board rule on a local law is unduly burdensome, which allows the developer to proceed in compliance with requirements set by article 10 itself and the board rather than the locality, for the particular requirement in question. Ace New York appreciates the need to consider the concerns of local communities and include opportunities for their participation in the siting process, but believes it is in the best interest of all New Yorkers for the board to retain its statutory discretion on this matter rather than allow overly restrictive implementing regulations to determine the factors that the board can consider.
The newly enacted statute provides an established standard for" overriding" local laws this is very similar to that which was in effect under the previous article X legislation and for which siting board president exists. Under article 10, the siting board" may elect not to apply" any local law that is" unreasonably burdensome interview of the existing technology or the needs of or cost to the ratepayers." However, the proposed regulations interpret that standard using narrower language that changes its nature and limits the board statutory authority and discretion. Article 10 legislation establishes standards for project approval; once those standards are met there should be a low threshold for showing the local laws, which impose additional requirements, are" unreasonably burdensome" and the burden should fall on the community to show the more restrictive requirements are well-founded (for example, a community with air-quality violations could have grounds on which to argue against a new emitting power plant). The law allows an application to argue that a local law is unduly burdensome and also allows the Board broad authority to grant the request. However, the proposed regulations adopt a much narrower approach and flip the burden of proof such that local standards, as opposed to the law of article 10, are the assumed threshold for compliance even if the proposed project meets the standards of article 10, the regulations as proposed would only allow for an override if the applicant could show it could not make project changes for narrowly drawn reasons.
The proposed regulations contain three different tests in order to qualify for a local law override, and none are in the law its self. It is the siting board's responsibility to permit projects that meet the needs of the state of New York. In doing so, it must be prepared to work for the benefit of the state as a whole. The law provides the board with the authority to do so well considering the needs and desires of local communities. However, the decision is ultimately for the board to make and its statutory authority should not be undermined and predetermined by limited – and unfounded – regulations that include tests not identified in the law. In addition, New York has newer operating generation where local laws have accommodated these plants while meeting community standards; the board should use these as a guideline and the implementing regulations, therefore, should not preempt the board's authority to do so by automatically presuming any local law is reasonable unless shown by the applicant to be otherwise. Finally, the regulations should ensure that applications need only consider local laws in existence at the time of the application. Local governments should not be allowed to enact or amend laws as obstacles to development after an application is filed.

The entire ACE-NY letter to the Department of Public service can be read at this link

Monday, May 21, 2012


Photo credit~ Stolen From Jefferson's Leaning Left

The American Wind Energy Association (AWEA) partners with a network of regional organizations to promote the growth of the wind industry at the local, state, and regional level around the country.
These organizations include a diverse set of key local stakeholders including not only wind industry companies but also often environmental advocates, representatives of the solar industry and other renewable industries, and other parties. AWEA is a member of each of these organizations to promote national, regional and local coordination and collaboration.

One of the American Wind energy Association’s partners is ACE NY the Alliance for Clean Energy New York.

When the Alliance for Clean Energy of New York president, Carol Murphy, visited some St. Lawrence and Jefferson County towns to meet with local people she likely didn’t mention that her Albany based organization is a “Regional Partner” of the American Wind Energy Assoc. (AWEA).
She would prefer that you think that her association is a broadly based interest group devoted to clean (or cleaner) energy development of various kinds – dedicated to reducing air pollution and slowing climate change. There is, in fact, no interest of the Alliance for Clean Energy of New York (ACENY) that goes beyond Big Wind.
ACENY gives a little lip service to solar now and then, but there is no utility scale solar in New York. Utility scale wind is what they are all about and that is who keeps the association funded and running. ACENY is not about clean hydroelectric, or clean nuclear, or clean river current or tidal power and they are certainly not about cleaner natural gas. ACENY is a Big Wind lobbying group – nothing more.

When you think of ACENY just think of the New York State branch of the AWEA. That is essentially what it is. Instead of ACENY, just substitute in your mind a more accurate acronym: NYASSSLOW – New York Association for Skimming Subsidies and Suppressing Local Opposition to Wind.

Now consider this, Carol Murphy the executive director of the Alliance for Clean Energy was named as a member of Governor Andrew M. Cuomo's Energy and Environment Transition Committee.
The transition team advised Cuomo on potential candidates to fill energy and environmental leadership positions in his administration.
“Building on the energy and environmental proposals set forth in Gov.-elect Cuomo’s campaign platform, the Empire State can and will become a national leader in the new green economy,” Murphy said.

Link here to read complete list of AWEA Regional Partners

ACE NY Carol Murphy

AWEA Board of Directors ( reads like a Who's Who of Wind developers)

Is It Time to Follow Spain’s lead concerning renewables.

Obama has employed an aggressive renewable energy policy; his energy goals include becoming energy independent through the development of alternative energy.
On at least eight occasions, President Obama has stated we should follow Spain’s example, massively subsidizing wind, solar, and other expensive types of electricity production.

If Rumors blowing around Spain are true it is time for us to follow their example.
Word on the street is that a new package of reforms is being crafted by the Spanish Government and this would include Retroactive cuts to Renewable Subsidies.

Amid widespread rumours that the government is considering new cuts, Acciona’s chief corporate development and investor relations officer Juan Muro Lara admitted that there is currently “no visibility and no discussion” over support frameworks for renewables in Spain.

RECHARGE ~ The Global Source for Renewable Energy news

IER Institute for Energy Research

Gamesa sells U.S. assets & mothballs Spanish turbine factory

In March Gamesa Corporacion Tecnologica SA, Spain's largest wind turbine
manufacturer, agreed to sell wind power projects in the United States to Algonquin Power & Utilities Corp. of Canada for $888 million. more...

Meanwhile in Spain~
Gamesa mothballs Spanish turbine factory

Wind turbine manufacturer Gamesa has mothballed its Medina del Campo nacelle assembly plant in Spain's Castilla y Leon autonomous region.

The Spanish company has obtained authorisation from the government to lay-off 74 workers at the plant, although it says it will negotiate to place 50% of these at other factories.

The permit, known as an ERE, allows companies to lay-off or suspend workers if they can show compelling economic reasons. More about Spain & renewables...

Cuomo announces $15M to help energy companies

12:00 PM, May. 20, 2012 |

Written by
Associated Press

The state is providing $15 million to that will help companies develop high-technology energy products and jobs.

Gov. Andrew Cuomo says the money will be divided among three companies statewide. The state is inviting universities, scientist and research organizations to partner with businesses to move breakthroughs in laboratories to market.

The money will be used to accelerate the sale of innovations and attract private sector investment.

The recipients will be chosen soon.

Rochester D&C

Article X~ Is Public Health & Safety

Considered Over Burdensome?

For the past six years two proposed wind energy projects have dominated and divided our community like no other issue.
The community of Cape Vincent had home rule usurped by a corrupt Town Government acting as agents for wind developers in return for financial gains through the signing of wind leases.

However, an amazing thing happened in Cape Vincent last fall.
The community rallied and brought democracy to Cape Vincent through the ballot box. Cape Vincent has struggled for years to write a zoning law that would ensure our community adequate protection for siting Wind energy facilities.
As a result of this historic election the newly elected Town Board enacted a wind development moratorium allowing us to have breathing room to develop a protective zoning law.

Article X was enacted taking away the home rule that we fought so hard to gain
At the last Town Board meeting the Town Board passed a resolution to submit a comment letter to the Department of Public Service concerning Article X one of the points their letter highlights is low frequency noise and the disparity between A- weighted and C- weighted noise measurements . [1]
A major public health issue concerning siting of a wind energy complex is the effect of low frequency noise. “Wind turbines and wind farms generate strong infrasonic noise which is characterized by their blade passing harmonics (monochromatic signals)” [2]
Article x does not define clear standards to protect people from low frequency noise, leaving it to the developers discretion.
Additionally the town board’s letter also reiterated its support of “home rule.”[2]
“We much prefer that our laws, which focus on health, safety and protection, are earnestly considered before they might be supplanted by the Siting Board,” the letter says.
Cape Vincent’s town board argues that its local laws should be presumed to be “reasonable, necessary and reflective of community standards” and that it should be up to the applicant to “justify any request to dismiss a local law.” And if a project is “forced on a community” by the state under Article X, town officials want the PSC to “assume responsibility for assessing compliance, resolving complaints.”[2]
Article X requires that Local laws are taken into consideration however, if they are considered unreasonably burdensome in view of the existing technology or the needs of or costs to ratepayers whether located inside or outside of such municipality. The board shall provide the municipality an opportunity to present evidence in support of such ordinance, law, resolution, regulation or other local action issued thereunder. [3]The words unreasonably burdensome are ambiguous what exactly do they mean?
The consequences of the newly passed Power act of New York (Article X) 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.
Moreover, the state has a responsibility to recognize and establish clearly defined standards including c- weighted sound emissions.
The fact that the science exists concerning the harmful effects of low frequency noise and Article X does not address this issue is an egregious omission.
The language in Article X leaves many questions.
Will the concern over rate payer’s rights trump human rights?
If existing turbine technology is noisy, does this mean that a law requiring c- weighted predictors is considered over burdensome?
Will Governor Cuomo’s green agenda become more important than the health and welfare of the citizens of New York State?

[1]The Watertown Daily Times.
Cape Vincent officials urge tougher wind turbine noise standards

[2] (Ceranna et al., p. 23).

[3] Article X

Follows the frequency sensitivity of the human ear at very high noise levels. The C-weighting scale is quite flat, and therefore includes much more of the low-frequency range of sounds than the A and B scales

Saturday, May 19, 2012

The first annual Escape to the Cape was a great success.

Shelly Higgins ~Assemblywoman Addie J. Russell~ Michelle Bouchard

Organized by Assemblywoman Addie J Russell, Town of Cape Vincent and Cape Vincent Chamber of Commerce.
Rediscovering your back yard is an initiative to promote our local economy.
68% of every dollar spent at a locally-owned business stays in our local economy. And when you purchase from a local artisan, craftsmen or antique shop, you are investing in high-quality products that are often one of a kind.

By buying local or choosing a local business when planning a wedding registry, shower or special event, you can have a positive impact on the North Country's economy.

Escape to the Cape was a a fun family event.
Photos from the first annual escape to the Cape

Friday, May 18, 2012

Edsall's ~ Turbine Trials & Tribulations

Below is a transcript of the privilege of the Floor from Thursday nights Town Board meeting
Richard Edsall was the only one that addressed the board.

I'LL BE QUICK AND SHORT, um… despite a phone call from you, I have received no letter or correspondence, on my letter that was submitted
to the town board on 4/ 19/12/.
Third time we been around asking the same question .
So what this indicates to me, because we are beyond the date that I gave, beyond the date that you said, I would receive such correspondence,then I must be correct in my assumption that my permit is indeed valid and I can move ahead with my project, if I should so decide.
That's all I have to say. Have a great evening.

Supervisor Hirschey:
I might comment.

I would listen to your, comment.

Supervisor Hirschey :
You have heard from me, from this point of view.

You gave me a phone call and we just couldn't meet up. And then you said I would receive a letter by Wednesday.

Supervisor Hirschey:
And you will, if you come to the office we will talk about it and I will discuss the whole thing with you, I'm not going to discuss it here.

Um… with all fairness ,without offending anyone all right. Unilaterally, you cannot act on your own in this matter and if we put three people in the room the bloggers will beat us all up having an illegal meeting, um… I, I would consider a meeting with at least one other board member there, but I will not meet, there's no point in you and I just meeting because we will agree to everything and then nothing will happen.

Supervisor Hirschey:

But we can’t have three um…

Supervisor Hirschey:
My guess, I'll find a volunteer here, one on the board to sit with me.

All right.

Supervisor Hirschey:
And you may bring a representative.

Right now I'm not bringing anybody because I basically, in an effort to kind of put this thing to bed for the benefit of everybody.
I gave the town of Cape Vincent an out when I gave you that letter; you chose not to take it because you, you could've said.
I Gave You Two Ways To Get Around this , the first one is, and I stick with this, YOU DON'T LEGALLY HAVE THE RIGHT TO CANCEL A PERMIT as Town Supervisor there was no town board action taken, so you can't even fall back on that.
Now I would think that the representative from the County planning Board would've jumped on that, you just don't have that legal right.
It should have gone ,all right - to the Zoning Enforcement Officer, then if you weren't happy it should've gone to the zoning board of appeals hearing.
Because you, I have the right to be heard in court, this is a court.
You’re unilaterally deciding, deciding that I don't have this right, you can't do it okay.
The issue is not whether or not I go, the issue is are you guys going to follow town law,and if you're not gonna do it.
The bigger question comes up in my mind, if I were to go get a permit to put up a pole barn on the Valley Road and it's a legitimate permit or a log cabin or a house, do I have to wait, how long do I have to wait, before I'm sure I can start construction ,to be sure that somebody that doesn't like me is gonna come to you and convince you to send me a letter saying that permit is no good.
The issue is not do this, or not do this. I personally don't care what, not to be told that if I have a legal right to do something not to do it, without having some recourse and there's a section of town law that gives me the recourse and the Challenger.
If you not to follow the law, then I don't follow the law and will all go to court and waste everybody's money ,all right the second thing is I gave you guys an out, saying that I'm really willing to compromise on this .
You can say you're right and I'm wrong if you can show me ,then I'll say I made a mistake and I’ll back off it ,or you can say you're wrong and you're sorry and I'll back off it, but if you don't say anything you got a problem .
People have sometimes said that I get a little hot headed, that’s not true, I just get a little louder.

Supervisor Hirschey:
I’ll be in the office tomorrow.

Unfortunately, I have to be in Utica tomorrow, but I will call ah in all fairness to everybody who, my schedule gets booked out pretty far, I will call and set up something in a couple weeks, it's the best I can do.

Supervisor Hirschey:

And I’ll give you enough advance notice.

Supervisor Hirschey:
All right.

But I just want to make it clear were not fighting over the turbine I really don't care, I got a Lotta land I can put it on, why Mr. Hludzenski would let me put it up next to him, nobody really cares well I won't I got a lot of land don't worry about it. All right but you're gonna follow the law.

Supervisor Hirschey:
I understand.

Do any of the other board members have a question for me I'm here this is the time, put out the open.

Supervisor Hirschey:
No, any other speakers.
Thank you, Okay.

Video of Edsall /POTF

Points to Ponder from Over Yonder

From the May 9 edition of the Thousand Island Sun

Recently Jeanne Thompson wrote about summer people in her Cape Vincent News column
I keep hearing about all the newcomers/ summer residents who have moved into Cape Vincent and are trying to change everything that has remained stagnant for many years.
I would hate to think that if I moved to a new town that I would not be welcomed nor would I have a right to express an opinion or to vote.
This is a democracy and as far as I know we all have a right to express ourselves and to be respected for those opinions. If you agree with them or not.
A lot of the old family names that are still here in our town are now people who have been able to retire so they , too can go where it is warm in the winter. Aren’t these people now considered summer people?

Whence wind comes, Whither wind blows, will wind welfare Wither, before it snows?

By Nick Juliano, E&E reporter •
Posted: Thursday, May 17, 2012

When House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) said yesterday that he wants a vote before the election aimed at avoiding the “largest tax increase in American history” looming at year’s end, he did not point to wind energy developers who would see higher costs without an extension of their prized temporary tax break.

Nonetheless, backers of the proposal are seeing brighter prospects that companies that rely on the expiring production tax credit, or PTC, may not have to wait until the eleventh hour for a reprieve. Lawmakers and industry lobbyists see a growing interest in the House and Senate tax-writing committees to get a PTC bill to the floor before November, and some point to the uptick in activity from conservative PTC opponents as a sign that the move to extend the credit is gaining some steam.

“I have been cautiously optimistic that one way or another we’ve got at least a 50 percent chance of passing the PTC before the election,” Rep. Earl Blumenauer (D-Ore.) told E&E Daily yesterday. “It has broad bipartisan support; the business community is focusing on the consequence we’re already seeing, a dramatic dropdown in economic activity. And I think almost everybody thinks that it’s ultimately going to be extended.”

Blumenauer, a member of the House Ways and Means Committee, said there is “significant interest” among his fellow tax-writers to get a PTC extension to the floor quickly, but he cautioned that the path for such legislation remains unclear because of other pending business such as the transportation bill and election-year politicking.

“I think people are cautious because you have to separate the real work from the stuff that people have to go through for political measures,” he said. “But I’m optimistic that something will happen. It should happen.”

Blumenauer and Rep. Dave Reichert (R-Wash.) have introduced a bill to extend the PTC through 2016 that has garnered 99 co-sponsors from both parties.

“I think at some point people would like to show a little progress before the election,” Blumenauer added. Extending the PTC “would seem like a no-brainer. … Show some bipartisan progress and we can do something.”

Several wind industry lobbyists, who were granted anonymity to speak candidly, said yesterday they also sensed growing interest on Ways and Means and the Senate Finance Committee to act on a PTC extension before November but cautioned that it was too soon to say whether those efforts ultimately would be successful.

Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa), one of the PTC’s strongest proponents among House conservatives, said he saw growing support for the credit to be extended, judging by the increase in opposition from opponents of the measure.

“I do think that we’re picking up some momentum for the wind production tax credit. Part of my measure is because some of the others are starting to push back a little bit harder than they otherwise would, so they can see we’re picking up some momentum,” King said in a brief interview yesterday.

The conservative editorial page of The Wall Street Journal has run several recent items targeting the PTC and other renewable incentives, while anti-tax activist Grover Norquist, the president of Americans for Tax Reform, last week lent his support to a competing bill that would eliminate the PTC and several other energy tax breaks.

In his speech yesterday, Boehner cautioned that “any sudden tax hike would hurt our economy” and pledged that the House would vote before the election on a bill to prevent tax hikes while creating a mechanism to ensure Congress tackles “broad-based reform” next year (E&ENews PM, May 15).

It remains unclear where temporary tax extenders like the PTC will fit into the plan Boehner has outlined, which was seen primarily as a call for an early vote to extend the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts for all earners. However, industry backers say the logic Boehner laid out in his speech should easily apply to their tax treatment, as well, because a higher tax bill would cost the industry jobs and damage its contribution to the broader economy.

The American Wind Energy Association says 37,000 jobs will be lost this year if the PTC is not extended immediately.

Beyond the economic argument for an immediate extension, the combination of a short-term PTC extension that could fit into Boehner’s tax package and an eventual phaseout is one that has gained favor among many Republican backers of the credit, as well as the chairman of a key House subcommittee overseeing temporary extenders (E&E Daily, April 27).

“What we really need is an extension of the production tax credit and coupled with that extension an agreement that we’ll come back at the end of that period of time with a plan to phase the credits down,” King said. “And who can say no to all of that?”

Source : Governors wind energy coalition

Homeowners sue town over ban on yard signs against wind turbines

TOWN OF MORRISON, WI (WTAQ) - A pair of homeowners are suing their Town of Morrison because they can’t express their opposition to wind farm development in the town. James and Barbara Vanden Boogart and Jon and Lori Morehouse are filing a federal lawsuit claiming the ban is unconstitutional. The lawsuit seeks repeal the ordinance, compensatory and punitive damages.
President and general counsel Rick Esenberg is with the Wisconsin Institute for Law and Liberty who represent the defendants and says this didn’t happen overnight. Over the last two years, the homeowners have tried to get the town to change its ordinance. “They had been informed by a number of sources that they don’t have a legal right to do this, nevertheless they continued to do it saying literally someone should sue us, so we did.” Esenberg said. The homeowners claim the ordinance is being used to stifle opposition to wind turbine development in the town. Town officials have not had a chance to look at the lawsuit, and won’t comment until they do.

News talk WTAQ.com

Tresidder kicks off Campaign Against Ritchie

St. Lawrence County native, Oswego County Legislator Amy Tresidder kicked off her campaign for the 48th Senate District seat Thursday.

Tresidder said that over the past year and a half Republican Senator Patty Ritchie has turned her back on her constituents. With several key votes and missed opportunities.

“Obviously, I don’t think she’s done that great a job, or I wouldn’t be running against her,” Mrs. Tresidder, said.
There are those that agree with Tresidder’s assessment especially after a recent story in the Watertown Times by Brian Amaral, reporting that Ritchie came out in support of legislation that attempts to block a proposed $2.2 billion transmission line to bring clean hydroelectric power from Quebec to New York City.
This move was justified by using the fear tactic that the power line will result in job losses for New Yorkers.
However, Ritchie was quoted as saying the line would hinder wind- power development. Ritchie’s support of this legislation is not in the best interest of New York State but does support the interests of wind lobbyists.

Reportedly Senator Ritchie’s people spoke to Rick Wiley of Jefferson Leaning Left regarding her support of this legislation and promised supporters further clarification.
Meanwhile as speculation flies, we anxiously await for Ritchie to shed light on this move.
Stories from the Watertown Times
by reporter Brian Amaral
& The Oswego County Democrat

Amy Tresidder, Oswego County legislator, launches bid against Sen. Ritchie

Senators try to prevent Quebec transmission line~~


Developer defends Quebec to New York City line

The Oswego Democrat

Cape Vincent ~ Town Board meeting report

Cape Vincent ~
Regular Town Board Meeting, Recreation Park

Thursday, May 17, 2012, 06:00pm

Town Board Meeting
May 17, 2012

Present: Supervisor Urban Hirschey, Councilman Brooks Bragdon, Councilman Mickey Orvis, Councilman Clif Schneider, Councilman John Byrne,
Attorney Mark Gebo and approximately 28 residents.

Supervisor Hirschey opened the meeting with the Pledge of Allegiance at 6pm.
Richard Edsall was the only speaker during the privilege of the floor. His topic of choice was
The status of his personal wind turbine permit.
Edsall stated that despite a phone call and no letter or correspondence he said that he must be correct in his assumption that his personal turbine permit is still valid and he will proceed on that notion .In response Supervisor Hirschey told him to come to his office ad they could discuss it there. Edsall said he would consider meeting with Hirschey if another board member was present. (To keep the record straight).
Edsall explained that he was not interested in his personal wind turbine that he was only concerned about people’s rights. He also stated that Supervisor Hirschey had no legal right to cancel his permit, stating if you are not going to follow the law that neither was he however he was willing to give the town an out telling Hirschey that he would back off if he would say I’m wrong and I am sorry
Additionally he stated that he could put his turbine up next to Mr. Hludzenski’s land but he has other places he can put it...


County Legislator Michael Docteur spoke about two bills introduced in memory of Mark Davis, the emergency medical technician who was shot to death while responding to a call for help in Cape Vincent on January 30, 2009. Bill # 4717A, introduced by Patty Ritchie and Bill 7824A, introduced by Addie Russell, that would Make Killing Emergency Responders 1st Degree Murder.
Mr. Docteur explained that the bills are stalled in the assembly, and have been pulled because of language that needed to be changed before they are re- introduced. Supervisor Hirschey asked if a resolution by the board in support of this law would be helpful Legislator Docteur said it would and he happened to have one prepared if the board chose to act on it.
During the Highway report Danny Hubbard said that the Highway department had an abundance of money for equipment, and asked if some of it could be allocated for a sand/ salt barn. A discussion ensued and Town Attorney, Mark Gebo said that he would research the issue.

During the water / Rec park report Dave Croft mentioned that they would soon be going door to door handing out water quality reports. Additionally Dave Croft spoke about the Escape to the Cape event that is being held this Saturday, May 19, 2012
10 AM to 4 PM
Recreation Park, Cape Vincent.
A Rediscovering your Backyard Event for Local New York and Ontario businesses to exhibit products and services.

Organized by Assemblywoman Addie J Russell,
Town of Cape Vincent and Cape Vincent Chamber of Commerce
To benefit The Community Library and Riverside Preschool
Councilman Clif Schneider gave the school report noting that it was remarkable that 72% of the electorate passed the 19.6 million $ budget additionally he noted that three people were elected to the school board Eric Swenson , Jolene Radley & Brian Lantier.
Councilman Schneider also reported on the ZBA activity, he mentioned that there had been a request to re-do a boat house roof and an area variance request that was withdrawn after a neighbor complained. Additionally there were other issues that would be decided by the ZBA in June such as variances for decks, garages & multiple dwellings on a single parcel. The ZBA also will be updating their bylaws.

John Byrne reported on the Village board meeting.
Monday the ground breaking for the new sewage treatment plant took place. Additionally the Linger Longer billboard is scheduled to be ready June 1.

Kristy Kennedy reported on the CVLDC.
They are working on their 501C3 status to become a non - profit agency.
The CVLDC has identified future goals
Here are just a few
Maintain and increase business & bring in new business.
[Assisting Metal craft with a direct access grant to help with construction and growth. And a grant for Deerlick /Cape Winery, for public water, they have a well but it cannot be used for public purposes.]
Restore the waterfront
[Complete the Club street restoration a copy of the revitalization plan is on display at the library. The next step for this project is to obtain construction dollars (grants).]
Additionally, there is a plan in the works for a picnic pavilion and a changing and restroom facility at East End Park.
Assist the school district with financial short falls
[Bringing in more families. . . There is a plan to hold a community wide open house event June 10, from 12:00 PM to 3:00 PM anyone with a home for sale in Cape Vincent is encouraged to participate. ]
Increase tourism.
[The Video promoting Cape Vincent will be available on DVD]
Improvements to water and sewer systems
Jeff Call gave a report on the French Festival. (July 14th & 15th)
Things are progressing nicely some of the things planned for this year’s French Fest.
After the traditional French Fest parade the crowd will be entertained by Fred and the Ed’s followed by the largest fireworks display in Jefferson County. However the parade alone will cost from 13,000 to 15,000 dollars. Volunteers and donations are needed.
Supervisor Comments
Supervisor Hirschey spoke about the clinic and noted that the Carthage hospital was having financial difficulties and they are losing money on it but “we are going to keep it open.”
Additionally, Supervisor Hirschey reported that the SACC program would continue. However they needed to keep the number of participants at 10 or more to keep it viable.
A new group has taken over the Tibbett’s point Hostel they plan to put money into improving the interior and the town will be taking care of the exterior.


Resolutions #26
Board of assessor appointment terms
1. Michelle Oswald 9/30/2016
2. Andy Norris 9/30/12
3. Kirk Grant 9/30/15
Motion carried
Resolution #27
Work place violence
As required by New York State Law the town will hold workplace violence educational training sessions.
Motion carried
Resolution #28
PSC letter regarding article X discussion
Mickey Orvis said that he would be abstaining because he said “I have not been included”
Brooks Bragdon said he was sorry Mickey felt that way. Additionally, Councilman Bragdon suggested adding a sentence mentioning the uniqueness of the area and historic preservation.
And the need for all financial requirements to be met before a project is allowed to proceed.
Motion passed as amended (Orvis abstained)
At this point Donny Mason Spoke up asking "why Mickey wasn't involved?"
Supervisor Hirschey responded that he had sent the letter out for comment.
Next Janet Radley spoke up asking does this represent the community.
Supervisor Hirschey stated that the letter was from the board.
Water District handheld update
Motion carried
Resolution #30
Business Automation Service contract
An office wide service upgrade
Mickey asked if this could wait, Supervisor Hirschey said no and gave an example as to why. There is no backup for the water district info and they do not have a file server (no computer backups)
Motion carried
Resolution #31
A resolution to support Marks law
Motion carried