BP's Tatics in Cape Vincent Ny

Thursday, October 31, 2013


Kathleen Burgess September 18, 2013
Secretary to the Siting Board

Re: Matter Master: 12-02056/12-F-0410
Application of Cape Vincent Wind Power, LLC, for a Certificate of Environmental Compatibility and Public Need to Construct an Approximately 200-285 Megawatt Wind Electric Generating Facility in the Town of Cape Vincent, New York.

Dear Secretary Burgess,

Please accept this letter from me and post it with the other public comments that have been submitted in connection with the referenced matter. I understand it is longer than the hundreds of other comments that have been submitted to date. However, I sincerely believe I present here a set of facts and observations that should have a direct bearing on the resolution of the matter and staff judgment about the application process that is pending.
One year ago this week, on September 17, 2012,  British Petroleum (BP) took its first step in applying for an Article 10 review process by submitting a Public Information Plan  for its Cape Vincent Wind Farm project to the Department of Public Service staff .
 Introduction:  On August 4, 2011 The New York Power Act (Article 10) was signed into law by Governor Cuomo, re-authorizing the state to oversee and regulate the siting of new and updated electric energy generating facilities, stripping the decision making process away from local communities.
Governor Cuomo acknowledged there would be controversy associated with siting issues, but that both sides in any siting controversy would be heard in a “fair process.”  From the standpoint of a small town like Cape Vincent, New York, that has been the subject of major wind power siting designs for almost a full decade by a corporate giant coupled with the loss of control over the decision making process to a distant state Siting Board, a fair process now becomes a vital issue of survival for that community.
When Governor Cuomo and certain members of the Legislature expressed the need for Article 10, one of the major factors cited was the need to bring the entire siting process out into the
open and above board.  Too often, wind developers had been operating in a clandestine fashion, recruiting local public officials to become their leaseholders and, in full effect, their local agents. Obvious ethical compromises created by these arrangements were of no apparent concern to the developers, not least of which in this respect was BP in Cape Vincent.

This kind of corporate behavior no doubt led the United States Environmental Protection Agency to recently characterize BP as a corporation that "lacks business integrity (New York Times, Nov. 15, 2012). Furthermore, this type of behavior by a company currently seeking an Article 10 project approval should be exposed and brought to light before a decision is rendered by the Siting Board – or even before an application is considered sufficiently complete to put before the Siting Board.
Bad conduct should matter. We would certainly hope that the Article 10 process is not indifferent to persistent ethical lapses by an applicant.

BP's agents and allegiances:  What is apparent is that BP sought to distance the company from any direct involvement in public outreach and community discourse, particularly activities that might have had a secretive or otherwise negative tone or association.  To do this BP employed a community outreach consulting company, Trieste Associates that in turn created, nurtured and supported a community activist group taking the name Voters for Wind (VFW). It was no coincidence, of course, that VFW was comprised of many BP leaseholders or others who had a financial stake in the BP project coming to fruition. By any measure, VFW membership includes a very small minority of Cape Vincent residents. It is anything but a “grass roots” organization.

The Article 10 application process requires BP to engage the community through a Public Involvement Plan (PIP).  BP in its revised PIP describes their relationship with Trieste Associates and VFW this way:
In 2007, BP retained the services of Trieste Associates and the company’s team of public outreach experts to assist with planning events to educate and engage the public. As part of this effort, BP assisted a group of local wind power supporters in the Towns of Cape Vincent and Lyme to form a group known as Voters for Wind.” 
BP is acknowledging a direct link to VFW as well as the thinly buffered relationship through Trieste Associates.

BP's Agent Trieste Associates:  Marion Trieste is the principal and founder of Trieste Associates. She provided a remarkable insight into her role and activities in a July 2, 2009 Wind Powering America Webinar. In the webinar Trieste describes forming Green Energy Outreach Services (GEOS) to
help our clients in the national and international wind business to promote these types of projects all over the northeast.”  She talked about her association with VFW in Cape Vincent and BP.
And this group here decided to call themselves (voter) for wind to let it be known --they actually established themselves two years ago.  And I worked with them with a BP wind power project here.  BP was - is the developer that I'm - I've been working with there.” 
Trieste makes the case as to why BP needs to remain below the radar screen in the public eye:
I always tell these developers (BP), you know, you're there to help but pretty much stay away because, you know, we don't want to be contaminated by, you know, people thinking that they're just being used by the wind developers.” 
Trieste outlines why her program is vital to the interests of developers like BP:

We can have Barack Obama”, we can have all of our politicians talking about using more renewable energy but when you start putting these, you know, turbines, large turbines in people's view sheds, it's a totally different story.” 
She continues:
So every little locality, every little town has their own ability to make or break a wind farm by creating an ordinance, wind power - wind development ordinance that's going to allow a wind farm in or say no.” 
Trieste is recognizing the importance of local politics and local governance, and more specifically local zoning laws, to the overall success and outcome of BP's project plans.  In what could be interpreted as subtle understatement she concludes:

So we really need to get our local politics, our public opinion leaders educated on this. What makes sense and what it is that's really to their advantage in their community. And the best way to do this is again through constituents. They're the ones who are going to reelect them.” 
Educating politicians in this context could include petitions and lawsuits as well as pamphlets and brochures.

BP's Front Group Voters for Wind:  From all indications VFW was created solely for the purpose of implementing BP's agenda.  Their efforts included political, public relations and, in all likelihood, measures to chill unwanted public discourse and political speech though legal intimidation.
Trieste's webinar depicts some of the details about the function and activities of Cape Vincent VFW:
So we usually have folks prepared with t-shirts or hats and that can really stand out in the crowd. So the town board elected officials, whatever, can look out in the audience and they can see oh wow, I've got a lot of supporters out here.” 

This reference may have been suggesting those town officials who had lease agreements and were also members of VFW.  One of Trieste's prominent outreach tools are petitions. In her words:
When you have the silent majority that aren't speaking out, you put a petition together and promote your wind project to your town board members as, you know, before they're having, you know, very important critical votes on allowing projects to take place or wind ordinances being developed.” 
The advocacy for the use of petitions by Trieste can be seen in the history of actions of VFW; they carried and promoted a number of petitions.

BP's Lease agreements with their binding “cooperation clauses”:   The single most common characteristic among VFW members is their wind lease agreements.  Wind companies infiltrated (the correct word given the secretive nature of it) Cape Vincent beginning in 2004 signing landowners to wind lease agreements prior to any notification or public awareness of these activities. In particular, developers appeared to target sitting local officials, both elected and appointed. These contracts were complicated legal instruments that many landowners signed without the review and counsel of any personal attorneys. 

Aside from the usual language and contractual requirements there is a remarkable clause, particularly for a local elected official, that requires the cooperation and assistance of the land owner to expedite the wind developer’s agenda.  Section 8.4 Requirements of Governmental Agencies: Cooperation  states that landowners “shall assist and fully cooperate” with BP in securing permits, approvals, environmental impact reviews and essentially anything else required by BP to get local approvals.  All of this assistance provided to BP will be “at no out-of-pocket expense to the Owner.”  It was an astonishing indifference to basic ethical standards for BP to seek a contractual obligation from local officials to put their company ahead of the people the officials were sworn to serve.

Reading down through Section 8.4 the language is even more compromising regarding general assistance:
In connection with any applications for such approvals, (Land) Owner agrees at Grantee's (BP) request to support such application (at no out-of-pocket expense to Owner) at any administrative, judicial or legislative level.”   
BP's wind lease agreement appears to be a binding contract that requires  landowners to  assist them in any way BP determines is necessary and that the cost of such assistance shall not be borne by landowners, but will be shouldered by BP alone. 

It should need no emphasis to appreciate what BP may have intended in contractually obligating loyalty, i.e., binding leaseholders to assist BP.  This requirement to “assist and fully cooperate”, even extending to public officials is shocking.   

Voters for Wind's Vice President Munk’s Testimonial:  In a testimonial that appeared on the VFW website, [Exhibit 4], Dawn Munk, Vice-President of VFW states:

With Marion Trieste at our side, this small group (VFW) developed a mission statement, elected officers, developed by-laws, and began the task of reaching out to others.”  “We have organized letter writing campaigns and carried petitions and our group now has four committees regarding very specific areas of concentration.”  “The staff at GEOS (Trieste affiliate) is with us every step of the way, providing us with information, suggestions and technical and moral support.” 
Munk's testimonial demonstrated that Trieste Associates/GEOS were the guiding force for VFW and it further suggests that nothing of any importance would be set in motion by VFW without the advice, consent and full support of Trieste and BP.

Lawsuit against the Town of Lyme:  On May 6, 2008 the Town of Lyme adopted a wind law that was judged to be too restrictive to the interests of VFW, Trieste Associates and BP.  Then on July 6, 2008 ten plaintiffs, all members of VFW, filed a lawsuit In Jefferson County Court to force the Town of Lyme to rescind their newly adopted wind law.

Public hearing on Lyme's wind law prior to adoption:  In the process leading up to the adoption of a wind law by the Town Council, Lyme officials set dates for two public hearings. The first one was scheduled for Saturday January 5, 2008 at the Chaumont fire hall in Lyme. On the night prior to the hearing VFW organized a meeting to prepare and outline their strategy for the public hearing.  The meeting was attended by a reporter from the Watertown Daily Times who filed a report in the Saturday edition – the morning before the first public hearing.  The article begins:

About 30 members of Voters for Wind gathered at the fire hall Friday night to organize the opinions they will share at the town public hearing today...”  The article goes on to describe VFW activities, e.g., monthly meetings, and their concern for setbacks for wind turbines and limits to turbine noise levels.  Marion Trieste attended and was quoted in the Times article as saying,
The ordinance calls for turbines to be set back 4,500 feet, or more than five-sixths of a mile, from the lake, which, combined with other setbacks, would leave virtually no space in Lyme for turbines.  This is the most restrictive ordinance that I've ever seen in the state.” 
At the Town of Lyme hearing the following day VFW members parroted Trieste's charge the night before [Exhibit 6].  “The proposed setbacks are three times the setbacks of any other wind project in the state,” said Dawn Munk (Vice President of VFW).  Guy Gosier complained:

This is not legal and none of the town's business. These surveys were passed out with Town Board approval? Why are the people of this town being shoved aside to meet the demands of a certain few people?” 
The surveys Gosier was referring to sought the public's attitude toward industrial wind development in the Town of Lyme.  Larry Comins then added:

The town's informal survey was not a legal way of determining results for a yes or no opinion on the wind tower project.” 
These three commenters were members of VFW and were also among the ten plaintiffs in a lawsuit that was filed against the Town of Lyme on July 6, 2008.

Lawsuit filed against the Town of Lyme:  In a report filed by WWNY TV 7 on July 11, 2008 the news broadcast stated that a lawsuit was filed by ten members of VFW against the Town of Lyme because they adopted a wind law that was “too restrictive and does not adequately allow for the orderly development of wind energy facilities.” The news report further stated, “Members of Voters for Wind say developers can’t work within those constraints.” 

In addition the news report stated, “In the lawsuit, Voters for Wind says the board failed to recognize their protest petition.  The group says because a petition was presented, the town board needed to have a 75 percent majority vote to pass the zoning ordinance.”  The lawsuit therefore complained not only about restrictions on wind development in the newly adopted law, but also on the alleged failure of the Town of Lyme board to properly consider their petition of landowners. 

 On August 15, 2008 Supreme Court Justice Hugh Gilbert ruled that,” The Lyme Town Council acted "arbitrarily and capriciously" when it rejected 10 property owners' petition protesting the adoption of a local law regulating the siting of wind turbines.”  The law adopted on May 6, 2008 was struck not on the basis of the restrictions to industrial wind development, but because of the improper handling of the petition by the Lyme Town Council.  While the complaint itself did not describe any affiliation between the ten plaintiffs and VFW, the news reporting frequently mentioned VFW and the lawsuit.

Trieste Associates highlights the lawsuit against the Town of Lyme as an achievement :    After reading the WindWise Education Curriculum supported by the New York State Energy Research and Development Authority some may consider Trieste’s statements as confirmation of Trieste/BP's involvement in guiding the legal action in the Town of Lyme.  In this Education Curriculum a case study is provided by Trieste Associates. The case study notes:

Community opposition can delay or prevent the installation of a wind farm. Trieste is hired to educate and engage the community where controversial wind projects are being proposed.”  “For example, Trieste Associates has helped citizens organize groups such as Voters for Wind in New York that educates the public about the benefits of renewable energy resources. Voters for Wind filed and won a law suit against the elected officials who voted to prohibit a wind farm in the Town of Lyme, New York.” 

Regardless of Trieste/BP's denials about their involvement in the Lyme lawsuit, the content of this NYSERDA sponsored document should be considered carefully.  

Article 10 Process – what's said and what's not said:  To reiterate, Governor Cuomo's message regarding Article 10 legislation claimed that it would result in a “fair process.”  Apparently unfazed by the governor’s words, fairness would not appear to be a top concern to BP.  It should be noted here that BP was recently described by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency as a corporation that “lacks business integrity.” 

What BP considers fair undoubtedly was included in their slim and cursory Public Involvement Plan (PIP) that was submitted to the New York State Department of Public Service, as part of their Article 10 pre-application process . Those listed outreach activities included: open houses, the use of local project offices, public education events, local advertisements, project newsletters, informational publications, and attending Town Board meetings. 

In Exhibit 2 of their PIP, BP reached back in time outlining the history of the outreach in Cape Vincent during the State Environmental Quality Review (SEQRA) process, again noting the clean, ethical public relations accomplishments.  It was those so called “accomplishments” (among others) that were fashioned by the kinds of ethical abuses that led then Attorney General Cuomo to try to hold wind developers in New York to greater public scrutiny. That effort was only marginally successful.

The Article 10 process also provides an online forum for stakeholder input, comments and recommendations regarding various siting projects. At present there are more than 320 comments from the general public, mostly opposing BP's project proposal. Presumably, these comments will be used in some way to gauge public sentiment. The majority of pro-project commentary, however, comes from unidentified BP leaseholders [they do not identify themselves as leaseholders], who are being paid by BP and who are contractually bound to assist and fully cooperate with BP to get their project approved.

A fair public information process should distinguish support and comment from the general public from those being paid by BP to support their project under the guise of general public support. A headline "Paid Advertisement" should be required to accompany any of BP's leaseholder commentary so that state siting officials will know and understand this is the applicant speaking through their front group and contractually obligated leaseholders, and not the general public.
Noticeably absent from BP’s PIP filing was any reference to using lawsuits, although the Lyme lawsuit was highlighted as an achievement by Trieste in the NYSERDA supported WindWise Education Curriculum.   BP has no qualms pretending that its relationship to Voters for Wind and Trieste Associates is no more than incidental and inconsequential.

Remarkably, BP feels free to pick and choose on a whim as to what is relevant and when.

Conclusion:  Cape Vincent is currently engaged in a fight to protect its future.  The threat comes in the form of an enormous industrial wind project that would cover the town from corner to corner, and a project that is wholly incompatible with the town and village's Comprehensive Plan.
Drawn into this struggle is the neighboring Town of Lyme, through which new electric transmission infrastructure would be required. Not only Cape Vincent and Lyme would be affected by the proposed project. There would be significant adverse visual, sound, economic and environmental impacts for miles around in all directions.  Several communities that make up much of the famed Thousand Islands Region and the people who live there and visitors alike would share the effects, directly and indirectly.

At risk could be citizens' health and safety, the value of their homes, and the small town atmosphere residents have valued throughout the town's history.  The greatest immediate risk, however, is two-fold: Cape Vincent's loss of local control, and the threat posed by British Petroleum, a company whose less than stellar record and reputation on the global stage is being mirrored by its conduct here in New York's North Country.  

The loss of local control will only be compounded if the Public Service Commission fails to ensure that the rules governing the Article 10 process are applied fairly, much as Governor Cuomo outlined and promised.  

Standing in stark contrast to a fair process, is the corporate history of BP in the U.S.  They have pleaded guilty to a number of felonies, lying to Congress being one. In a remarkable precedent BP has also been denied access to Federal leases as, a consequence of their recent actions.   The Environmental Protection Agency described BP's corporate behavior best, saying that BP was “lacking business integrity.”

BP's history in Cape Vincent is no better.  BP's lease agreements provided a means to pay town officials for their cooperation and in their PIP.  BP has acknowledged a direct link to Voters for Wind as well as the thinly buffered relationship through Trieste Associates. It was Voters for Wind that filed complaints to remove perfectly reasonable and prudent local laws and to block public discourse.

BP, incredulously, continues to assert that they have the support of the community for their project.  They simply do not. They choose to define the community, for their purposes, as the small minority of town resident and non-resident landowners who have signed lease agreements with them.

And what cannot be overlooked in considering these matters, is that BP never would have gained any developer toehold in the community were it not for the fact that they compromised former town government officials with financial inducements, and by binding those officials to unethical contractual promises. Having tainted the process so thoroughly, BP dismisses their own past actions as if they left no mark on the town at all. The level of mistrust and resentment they have generated by their actions will take generations to heal. And yet, they would presume to go forward with a "fresh" approach to developing their project as if their hands were perfectly clean. 

The history of the callous approach taken by BP in this development effort, has come to impress upon many St. Lawrence River area regional and municipal leaders, and opened their eyes fully to BP's abuses. These leaders who are involved in shaping the political, commercial and cultural life of our region, have come to reject BP as a welcome and valuable economic development partner.

Also, there are steadily decreasing numbers of those who reside in Cape Vincent and the surrounding area who may have thought they had a general understanding of the various tensions at work here.  There has been a steadily increasing number who understand how BP has worked many angles behind the scenes to manipulate, compromise, and intimidate the common good of the community.

By their past actions in Cape Vincent BP has demonstrated they are unfit to do business in our community. Cape Vincent deserves better treatment.

We are collectively holding our breath, and have been for a long time, for the message to sink in with BP that their development efforts here are unwelcome by the vast majority of residents. They should leave here to allow the town and the region to recover from nine years and counting of astonishingly arrogant corporate abuse.  We have had enough of BP's brand of public outreach and it is time for them to stop; it is time for them to go!

Thank you for your consideration of the content
Kathryn Muschell
Cape Vincent, NY



Politically Motivated Unsubstantiated Accusations made by Harvey White

This letter to the Editor is from the Watertown Times.
 Harvey White far left ~ in Green Shirt
The three current Cape Vincent Town Board members running for re-election should be embarrassed to show their faces in public after they were elected to the Town Board on an ethics platform. With this information becoming public, we now know how a local blogger was able to be so privy to inside Town Board information before it was made available to the citizens of Cape Vincent.
Also, the term “quorum” should be explained to them since they think it is OK to have secret meetings at board members houses or bar rooms whenever they feel like it. Not too ethical either.
Harvey J. White
Cape Vincent

Wednesday, October 30, 2013

Advertencia a los compradores... Buyer Beware

 Recently BP announced that they are selling the Cape Vincent Wind farm project.
BP is pursuing this project through the Article 10 process. The big question is will the buyer have to start from scratch? Is the project transferable under the Article 10 rules or are the new owners required to start from square one?
I have looked at the law and the only thing I was able to find was the transfer of a certificate not a transfer of a  project prior to the issuance of a certificate.

Below is the section in the law pertaining to the transfer of a certificate.

1000.17 Transfer of a Certificate
(a) A certificate may only be transferred to a person who agrees to comply with the terms, limitations, or conditions contained therein and in every subsequent Order issued thereunder. A change in the ownership of a certificate holder without a transfer of the responsibility to comply with the terms, limitations, and conditions contained in the certificate is not a transfer of the certificate that requires approval pursuant to this section; however, the certificate holder shall file written notice of any such change of ownership with the Secretary within 7 days of such change and a verified statement that the change will not adversely affect the ability of the certificate holder to comply with such terms, limitations, or conditions.
(b) A certificate holder seeking the transfer of a certificate shall file with the Secretary an electronic copy and ten paper copies of a petition for approval of the transfer of the certificate, together with the accompanying documents described in this subdivision. The certificate holder shall contemporaneously serve four paper copies of the petition and accompanying documents on DEC at its central office and three paper copies on each affected DEC regional office and two paper copies each on the commissioner of health, the chair of the New York State Energy Research and Development Authority, and the commissioner of economic development. The petition shall:
(1) state the reasons supporting the transfer;
(2) show that the transferee is qualified to carry out the provisions of the certificate and any Orders issued thereunder;
(3) be verified by all parties to the proposed transfer;
(4) if required by the Chairperson, be accompanied by a copy of any proposed transfer agreement;
(5) be accompanied by an affidavit of service of a copy of the petition on each of the parties to the certification proceeding; and
(6) be accompanied by an affidavit of publication of a notice concerning the petition and service of such notice on all property owners that have executed agreements to convey property rights to the applicant and all other persons, municipalities or agencies entitled by law to be given notice of, or to be served with a copy of, any application to construct a major electric generating facility, which notice shall:
(i) briefly describe the proposed transfer and state the reasons therefor;
(ii) give the name, address, telephone number and E-mail address of an employee or representative of the petitioner from whom further information, including a copy of the petition, may be obtained; and
(iii) state that any comments on the petition must be received by the Secretary no later than 30 days after the date on which the notice was given.
(c) If no party to the proceeding opposes such petition within the time for filing comments, the Chairperson, after consultation with the other

APPENDIX -39- members of the Permanent Board, shall have exclusive jurisdiction without further notice to grant or deny the petition, grant the petition upon such terms and conditions as deemed appropriate, or conduct such further investigation as deemed necessary.

(d) If a party to the proceeding opposes such petition within the time for filing comments, the Board, or the Permanent Board after the Board’s jurisdiction has ceased, shall have jurisdiction without further notice to grant or deny the petition, grant the petition upon such terms and conditions as it deems appropriate, or conduct such further investigation as it deems necessary.


BP Wind Energy Seeking To Sell Development Portfolio By Year-End

Although the company halted plans to sell its wind energy business in July, BP is still actively seeking to divest its entire U.S. development portfolio by year-end. In fact, the company recently submitted a notice to the New York Public Service Commission about its plans, including the potential sale of its 285 MW Cape Vincent wind project. Continue...

Tuesday, October 29, 2013

BP Is Abandoning The Article 10 Process For Their Proposed Cape Vincent Wind Farm

BP is abandoning the Article 10 process, they said as much in their most recent letter to the Public Service Commission .

In his letter to the PSC, BP Director of Business Development  Richard Chandler stated that all decisions and actions including the stipulation phase regarding the Article 10 process will be handled by the new owner of the project. He also added that   “we continue to advance the project during the divestment process .”

BP has been involved in the stipulation phase of the Article 10, Process since May 21, 2013 this is a period where the applicant works with stake holders to reach agreement on issues of common concern. 
Realistically how can they possibly be advancing the project if they have disengaged from the stipulation process, which is the current phase of the Article 10 process.

BP notifies Public Service Commission of pending sale of Cape wind project

CAPE VINCENT — BP officially has notified the state Public Service Commission of its plan to sell off “in-development” wind assets, including the Cape Vincent Wind Project. 
“BP Wind Energy is actively seeking to divest its entire development portfolio to potential buyers that have the strategy and resources to continue to develop these projects. The portfolio includes Cape Vincent Wind Power LLC and the Cape Vincent wind project, and we currently anticipate that the sale transactions will close by year-end,” project manager Richard Chandler wrote in a letter Friday to the PSC.Continue...

 Redefining a Molehill

It seems like all issues in the town of Cape Vincent are now processed through a single filter: how one views the proposed BP wind development.
The latest example of this was demonstrated when some people began calling for Clifford P. Schneider to resign as a member of the Cape Vincent Town Council. Mr. Schneider cited personal reasons in moving out of Cape Vincent and into Sackets Harbor. He said he fully intends to return to Cape Vincent after a few months. Continue..

Monday, October 28, 2013

The High Cost of Hosting Wind Turbines

Landowners need to be concerned about their exposure to liability that may result from the placement of wind turbines and related structures and equipment on their property.
Personal and farm liability policies likely will not cover incidents that occur related to construction and operation of a wind energy project

 Access roads – access roads are a necessary component of a wind development project. Making sure the natural flow of water is not impeded by road construction is important.

 Construction. – Construction activity could include damaged overhead and underground power lines and communication cables, tile lines natural drains, road services and neighboring property.

 Ice shedding – ice falling from tower or blades may be a hazard to humans or animals and may cause damage to structures or vehicles below.

Blade drop/throw – blades may become damaged because of structural failure or imbalance. Blades or parts of blades may fall and cause damage below.

Shadow flicker – the shadow effect of moving turbine blades may cause health issues.

Fire – a fire or electrical short could occur in the generator, transformer or lines. Fire could cause damage to cropland, grasping land or dwellings.

Stray voltage – stray voltage may be a concern for humans and animals.

Electromagnetic magnetic fields – electromagnetic fields may cause interference with electrical devices. These fields may have long-term health effects on humans or animals.

Lightning strikes – high towers are of concern because they may attract lightning. Lightning strikes could affect humans, farm animals, wildlife and man-made structures. They also could create a risk of crop or prairie fires.

Communications – turbines may generate electromagnetic noise or physically obstruct signals.

 Microwave and radar stations – towers may obstruct .2 point signals of telecommunications and whether transmissions.

 TV and radio signals – interference may occur with TV and radio signals. Police/fire/ambulance radio signals – public safety signals could be disrupted.

Bird kill  – bird casualties are a reality of wind power development. The endangered species act, migratory Bird Treaty act and bald and Golden Eagle protection act may be factors in tower placement.

Water – Water pollution is a consideration during the construction phase. Air – air pollution may occur during construction excavation by producing air dashboard elements. This situation is usually temporary.

Below is a copy of a letter notifying a land owner that if a wind turbine is erected on their property that their insurance policy will be cancelled.

Threat of legal action against wind farm hosts

An anti-wind farm resident of Collector says he will sue his neighbours should they become turbine hosts as part of a proposed wind farm in the small community north of Canberra.  Continue...

BP's PIP Tracking Report For CVWF

Link here to read BP's CVWF updated PIP Tracking report

"Are two proposed wind farms in Aroostook County a positive development for the state?"

 The question asks:  "Are two proposed wind farms in Aroostook County a positive development for the state?"  After reading all the pro-wind slant in the article, people will be inclined to say Yes.  We know better!  Let the MST know by voting NO!!!

Cast your vote today!


Cuomo targeted over fracking opposition

State GOP Chairman Ed Cox plans...

Jefferson County Board of Elections to hold extended hours for absentee voting

The Jefferson County Board of Elections will be holding extended office hours for residents voting by absentee ballot in the general election. Continue...

Big Wind's Dirty Little Secret: Toxic Lakes and Radioactive Waste

The wind industry promotes itself as better for the environment than traditional energy

sources such as coal and natural gas. For example, the industry claims that wind energy 

reduces carbon dioxide emissions that contribute to global warming.But there are many 

ways to skin a cat. Continue...

Sunday, October 27, 2013

Allegany Wind Farm project dropped

EverPower Holdings will not file a permit extension to develop the Allegany Wind Farm project, which called for 29 turbines to be built on the hills above Chipmonk Road. The company blamed backing out on delays in the embattled project’s progress and turbine costs that have risen by millions of dollars in the intervening years. Continue...


Wind Power Costs in U.S. Are Six Times Higher Than Claimed

Many U.S. special interests are misrepresenting wind power costs, including the wind industry, environmental groups, utility monopolies, independent system operators, educational and research institutions, and even federal and state governments. Continue...

Snowden: NSA keeps record of every telephone call in the United States

"Today, no telephone in America makes a call without leaving a record with the NSA. Today, no Internet transaction enters or leaves America without passing through the NSA's hands," Snowden said in a statement Thursday.


Cape town officials ask PSC staff to visit Thousand Islands region

CAPE VINCENT — Town officials invited state Public Service Commission staff to visit the region where BP wants to build a 124-turbine wind farm. Continue...

Saturday, October 26, 2013

Blowing the wind farm

for a few turbines more

Recently news has been leaked that BP is planning to exit Cape Vincent. 
 At one time many of the wind lease holders thought that wind turbines in Cape Vincent were a done deal, and they were unwilling to compromise.

June 15, 2006 a public hearing was scheduled for a proposed wind turbine project boundary that would begin 1,000 feet from the established river district boundary.  This would have put the first wind turbine no closer than 2,600 feet from the river side of Route 12E.

However by the time the hearing rolled around two councilmen had changed their minds about the setbacks causing a deadlock.  Supervisor Thomas K Rhinebeck and Councilman Mickey W. Orvis proposed a revised boundary that would site turbines as close as 1600 feet from the center line of 12 E.

Had these two councilmen made a small compromise and stuck with the agreed upon setbacks, in all likelihood we would have wind turbines in Cape Vincent.

Critics calling for Cape councilman’s resignation

CAPE VINCENT — Critics of the town government are calling for Councilman Clifford P. Schneider’s resignation over his recent move to Sackets Harbor. Continue...

Friday, October 25, 2013

Website Analyzes the Wind Farm Debate


Hello, and welcome to our website!  Our goal is to provide a wealth of information and sources that discuss the issues concerning wind energy.  We chose the St. Lawrence and Cape Vincent Wind Farms as models for our discussion.  The St. Lawrence and Cape Vincent Wind Farms are located (as the name suggests) in Cape Vincent, Jefferson County, New York.  We settled on this choice because we believe the St. Lawrence and Cape Vincent Wind Farm provides a clear example of current wind energy developments.  Furthermore, it is an issue that is local to the North Country community. Continue...

GO Transit wind turbine producing 91% less power than expected

A wind turbine pilot project at a GO station in Mississauga, built for $620,000, 

is producing 91 per cent less electricity than originally projected. Continue...

Thursday, October 24, 2013

Municipalities to garner less property taxes from farmers in 2014

Municipalities with swaths of farmland have grown used to raking in more property taxes from farmers each year, but they won’t benefit as much starting in 2014.  Continue...

BP plc’s “underweight” Rating Reaffirmed at Barclays (BP)

Barclays reissued their underweight rating on shares of BP plc (LON:BP) in a research note released on Monday morning,StockRatingsNetwork.com reports. They currently have a GBX 485 ($7.84) target price on the stock.Continue...

Wednesday, October 23, 2013

The Great American Wind Power Fraud

In July the Fairhaven, Massachusetts Board of Health voted to shut down the town’s two wind turbines at night between 7 p.m. and 7 a.m. after dozens of residents had filed more than 400 complaints. Testing had demonstrated that the turbines exceeded state noise regulations and those specified in their operating permits. Continue...

The Town of Cape Vincent writes to the Public Services Commission ~ Come on up and take it all in

Dudley claims Gulf has bounced back despite dolphin deaths

BP’s chief executive Bob Dudley recently boasted in an interview, “The Gulf has bounced back really well. And I’d like to think that we played a big role.”

The more than 900 bottlenose dolphins that have died since the spill might indicate otherwise. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration is still investigating the ongoing wave of dolphin deaths and the agency has explicitly stated that it is considering the oil spill as a potential cause. -  Continue...

Tax Credit for Wind Could Lapse

 Dec. 31 is a curious date for Texas wind energy producers.
That’s when transmission services providers expect to energize the last power lines builtunder the state’s $7 billion Competitive Renewable Energy Zone, or CREZ, initiative — the long-running effort to connect windy .

DANC floats idea for nature trails connecting Lyme, Cape Vincent and Clayton

CHAUMONT — The Development Authority of the North Country is floating the idea for two nature trails that would connect the village to the neighboring towns of Cape Vincent and Clayton.

Tuesday, October 22, 2013

State contributes $500,000 to Fort Drum’s land-buffer program

Military leadership on post has been concerned about wind turbines’ potential interference with radars and helicopters. Wind turbines have been proposed in the Copenhagen area.

FORT DRUM — A buffer for the post from outside encroachment could grow by 65 percent by the end of this year, thanks to an infusion of $500,000 from the state on top of millions of federal dollars already allocated.

Oversight Hearing on Wind PTC

 The House Oversight and Government Reform Subcommittee on Energy Policy, chaired by Rep. James Lankford, R-Okla., convened for a hearing entitled, “Oversight of the Wind Energy Production Tax Credit.”
The hearing  was convened to examine whether the Production Tax Credit (PTC) is still necessary to support the wind energy industry. Over the last decade, wind energy consumption has increased dramatically, growing by 1,082% between 2003 and 2012. The latest PTC extension passed in January 2013 significantly expanded eligibility standards for the costly tax credit. Previously, in order to be eligible for the PTC, wind facilities had to be producing energy; now, a facility must simply “begin construction” to qualify. The tax credit, which is overseen by the Internal Revenue Service, is set to expire in January 2014 unless Congress passes another extension.

Energy Citizens telephone town hall meeting

Join us for an important Energy Citizens telephone town hall meeting to get the facts on important energy issues that affect our economy, our jobs and our energy security. 

Here are the details:

  • Date: Thursday, October 24th
  • Time: 4:30 PM EDT
Register Today!
We will have energy experts from the American Petroleum Institute on hand to give us the latest information on the Keystone XL Pipeline, the Renewable Fuel Standard, and potential tax increases on the energy industry and then answer questions from callers like you.

Your participation is important. We look forward to talking to you this Thursday!

Thank you,
The Energy Citizens Team

Wind Turbine Syndrome' Blamed for Mysterious Symptoms in Cape Cod Town

Sue Hobart, a bridal florist from Massachusetts, couldn't understand why she suddenly developed headaches, ringing in her ears, insomnia and dizziness to the point of falling "flat on my face" in the driveway.
"I thought I was just getting older and tired," said the 57-year-old from Falmouth.

Iberdrola back on track with Clayton wind project

CLAYTON — Iberdrola Renewables will pursue the Horse Creek Wind Farm project, but could deviate from its latest plan.
Breaking its monthslong silence since January, the developer of the proposed wind project in Clayton told town officials it is modifying its proposal in response to “poor economic conditions, coupled with regulatory uncertainty.” Continue...

Letter from IBERDROLA to Town of Clayton

Monday, October 21, 2013

Cape officials seek PSC intervention as BP clams up pending sale of wind projects

CAPE VINCENT — The community has been left in the dark as BP Wind Energy looks to sell all of its “in-development” wind assets, including the proposed Cape Vincent Wind Farm, according to town officials. Continue...

TOCV Letter to the Public Service Commission

Thursday, October 17, 2013

Statoil offshore wind project collapses

On Tuesday, Norwegian energy company Statoil announced that it has cancelled its offshore wind power plans for Maine and will pull its resources from the state after Governor Paul LePage’s successful campaign to change the regulatory framework for the company’s development project. Continue...

European wind farm dismantled and not replaced for first time

The Daily Mail reports:
It is a sight that will cheer campaigners across the land.
After blighting the Yorkshire Dales for more than two decades, four giant turbines have been removed from the stunning landscape – the first ever windfarm in Britain to be scrapped. Continue...

Times to launch video news by partnering with Steve Weed Productions

Videos that feature political debates, municipal meetings, high school sporting events and breaking news will be launched next month by the Watertown Daily Times, thanks to a partnership with Steve Weed Productions. Continue...

Consultant hired to develop Chaumont River revitalization plan; first public workshop to be held this winter

Clayton, Lyme and Orleans have hired community planners with Ingalls Planning & Design, Fairport, to help them formulate a revitalization strategy for the Chaumont River corridor over the next couple of years. Continue...

Wednesday, October 16, 2013

Cape Vincent's Voter Fraud Fiasco

  It is vital that the residents of Cape Vincent understand how important the upcoming election is.

Prior to the 2011, election a petition was circulated around town to stop what was referred to as voter fraud. 
Harold L. Wiley, a lifelong Cape Vincent resident, and chairman of the local Democratic Party submitted  a  petition to the Town Board August 11, 2011 urging a voter driver’s license requirement.  

 "We believe it is unethical to carry out a voter drive to manipulate the outcome of coming elections." Mr. Wiley said.
"In my opinion, it's voter fraud, Mr. Wiley said of the registration drive. "I used to know everybody in Cape Vincent. But among those 250 voters, I'd be suprised if I knew more than 10 people.

The petition Harold Wiley presented to the board read as follows:

 It is our firm belief that unethical if not illegal voting methods were implemented which
pre-determined the outcome of the local elections held in Cape Vincent, New York in 2009 and that those same methods are being utilized once again in order to manipulate the outcome of the upcoming November elections.
Therefore, we the undersigned concerned residents of Cape Vincent, New York respectfully request that the Town Board of the Town of Cape Vincent, New York takes action to resolve this issue.

After the petition was submitted to the board Town Councilman Donny Mason introduced a resolution to restrict voting to those registered voters that met certain ID requirements.

"I can’t believe anybody would be against not taking care of voter fraud if it's happening. " "Everybody ought to be in favor of non voter fraud" Mr. Mason said

 The resolution read as follows:
WHEREAS: The Town Board of the Town of Cape Vincent herein takes the following action to address and resolve this issue. NOW THEREFORE
BE IT RESOLVED that before voting in person in a Town of Cape Vincent election, voters must first show a current New York State driver’s license with a Cape Vincent address to prove residency."

Please take the time to watch these important videos 

In video below H.Wiley presents his   * In video below D. Mason proposes
voter fraud petition to the TOCVTB   *   voter fraud resolution


Link here to original