BP's Tatics in Cape Vincent Ny

Saturday, August 22, 2015


Next Texas Energy Boom: Solar

Companies are spending $1 billion on new projects to harvest electricity from the sun.


FORT STOCKTON, Texas—A new energy boom is taking shape in the oil fields of west Texas, but it’s not what you think. It’s solar. Continue reading via this link to the Wall Street Journal

Thursday, August 20, 2015


Bellmont/Chateaugay/ Wind Turbines will be over 500 feet tall


The eight to 10 towers planned for the town of Bellmont will be in excess of 500 feet tall, although New York state law limits such structures to 400 feet. Continue reading via this link to the Watertown Daily Times

Friday, August 14, 2015

The environmental impact of wind power is worse than expected.  

The financial, humanitarian and environmental price of decarbonizing the energy supply is proving much steeper than expected. Continue reading via this link to the WSJ


NYSERDA proposes to allow utilities to own wind and solar farms.


New York state banned utility-owned generation back in the 1990s as part of the deregulation of the state's energy markets. But in a report submitted to regulators in June, the state's energy development agency, NYSERDA, says utility-owned wind or solar farms could be used as a new device to help the state reach its ambitious renewable energy goals. The state wants 50 percent of its wholesale electric supply to come from renewable energy sources by 2030, which would mean doubling its clean energy output within 15 years. Continue via this link to Albany Times Union

Wednesday, August 12, 2015

Debra Shearwater et.al. v FWS and AWEA: Eagle 30-year take permit decision



In this very critical decision by the US District Court of Northern District of California (Judge Lucy H. Koh), the 30-year take permits for bald and golden eagles established by the US Fish and Wildlife Service have been set aside and remanded back to the Service. An excerpt of the ruling is provided below. Link here to read original via WIND ACTION.ORG

NEPA Conclusion (Excerpt from Ruling)

In light of the foregoing, the Court concludes that FWS has failed to show an adequate basis in the record for deciding not to prepare an EIS—much less an EA—prior to increasing the maximum duration for programmatic eagle take permits by sixfold. See Klamath Siskiyou Wildlands Ctr., 468 F.3d at 562 (“[N]ot only did [the agency] fail to conduct an EIS . . . , it did not even conduct an EA.”). While promoting renewable energy projects may well be a “worthy goal, it is no substitute for the [agency’s] obligations to comply with NEPA and to conduct a studied review and response to concerns about the environmental implications of major agency action.” Kraayenbrink, 632 F.3d at 492. Accordingly, the Court holds that FWS violated NEPA’s procedural requirements and that the Final 30-Year Rule must therefore be set aside and remanded to FWS for further consideration.

Tuesday, August 11, 2015

Hudson North Country Wind 1,LLC



Pursuant to the rules of the New York State Board on Electric Generation Siting and the Environment (“Siting Board”), Hudson North Country Wind 1,LLC (Hudson Energy Development) submitted an application under Article 10 to construct a major electric generating facility on Galloo Island,NY.


Hudson Energy Development has submitted their application under the name Hudson North Country Wind 1,LLC.
Does the 1 in their title have any significance?? Are they planning a phase 2 for Galloo?


All documents submitted to the Public Service Commission for the latest Hounsfield Industrial wind complex can be found at this link


Monday, August 10, 2015

Tidal energy : Is this the future for marine power?


Turbines designed in the UK aim to harness tidal energy to produce cheaper electricity − without endangering marine life

A British company has announced plans for an array of unique marine turbines that can operate in shallower and slower-moving water than current designs. - continue reading at this link

Friday, August 7, 2015


UPDATE!!!!
GALLOO ISLAND WIND ~

WHAT IS THE NYSDEC HIDING?

Update: August 07/2015
3:47 PM
The New York State Department of Environmental Conservation has acknowledged they have received my request for documents regarding the Industrial wind project on Galloo Island,N.Y. t
See email below post.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Pursuant to the rules of the New York State Board on Electric Generation Siting and the Environment (“Siting Board”), Hudson North Country Wind 1,LLC (Hudson Energy Development) submitted an application under Article 10 to construct a major electric generating facility on Galloo Island,NY.
Hudson’s Public Involvement Program (PIP) under the Article 10 process identifies New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) as a “Host Landowner.” They also define a host landowner as “...landowners with whom the Applicant has entered into a lease, easement or purchase option agreement.”

This tells me that NYSDEC is an integral part of the project.

I submitted a FOIL request to NYSDEC Thursday July 30th via email inquiring about their involvement in the Galloo Island Industrial Wind project.

Under the FOIL law an agency has 5 business days to grant or deny access in whole or in part to a request.Today is day number 6.

The NYSDEC’s failure to respond is considered a denial under the law.

My next option is to appeal within 30 days of this denial. If they fail to respond to my appeal in 10 business days I can then file an article 78.

In their PIP Hudson Energy failed to provide any details of their host agreement with NYSDEC, and now NYSDEC has refused to explain their involvement as well.

This speaks volumes for the so called open and fair Article 10 process, and Hudson Energy’s PIP.



What is the NYSDEC and Hudson Energy hiding?
Foil Request
 .

NYSDEC ~ ACKNOWLEDGEMENT of FOIL REQUEST 



 Related links ~



Thursday, August 6, 2015

The 575 foot tall turbines proposed for Galloo Island are considerably taller than those on Wolfe Island, Canada, which are visible over 15 miles


Honorable Kathleen H. Burgess
Secretary of the Commission

New York State Public Service Commission
Empire State Plaza
Agency Building 3
Albany, NY 12223-1350
July 27, 2015


RE: Galloo Island Wind Project, Hounsfield, New York

Dear Ms. Burgess:
I am apart time resident of Chippewa Bay NY. I am writing to voice my objection to the
wind energy  project Hudson North Country Wind 1, LLC (Hudson Energy Development) has
proposed for Galloo Island, PSC Case 15-F-0327. These 575 foot tall turbines are
considerably taller than those on Wolfe Island, Canada, which are visible over 15 miles
away. The shorter turbines on Wolfe Island dominate the night sky over 15 miles away from
most of the town s views.

If you consult the Thousand Islands Regional Assessment Final Report (funded by the NY
Department of State) at scenic1000islands.com  you will find the scenic resources that exist
along lake Ontario which would be affected by Hudson Energy Development's proposed
development’s proposed project.

Early traditions set a high standard for the safeguarding and overseeing the aesthetic  character of the landscape that has continued to return dividends over the years. New York State has long recognized
 the importance of scenic resources.

The New York State Legislature enacted New York State (NYS) Executive Law 42 to "achieve a balance between economic development and preservation that will permit the beneficial use of coastal resources while preventing the loss of living marine resources and wildlife diminution of open space areas or public access to the waterfront, shoreline erosion impairment of scenic beauty, or permanent damage to ecological systems." (Article 42 s law. I, The  laws Policy #24 encourages included scenic guarding character of scenic areas key coastal and discourages resource protected the by modification or destruction of geological forms, vegetation and structures that contribute to the scenic quality of these areas.

The blending of nature and culture in this region is unique and can be a guiding force as the region takes steps to promote and manage its scenic landscapes In the future. Today people live, visit, and invest in our area, in part, because of the spectacular scenery. Tourism in our region is an important part of our quality of life and of our economy. If scenic views are impaired, if large towers and tall buildings are built in inappropriate places, if wildlife habitat is damaged and the environment is degraded, the region's tourist-based economy and property values will suffer.

I respectfully ask that you oppose the wind energy project on Galloo Island proposed by Hudson Energy Development.  

Sincerely,
Robert J. Pandina, Ph.D.
Chippewa Bay,NY





Link here to make a comment concerning the Galloo Island project

Wednesday, August 5, 2015

 I am a property owner in Hounsfield. 

I am adamantly opposed to the Galloo Island Wind Farm. 

To the committee deciding on this application: I am a property owner in Hounsfield. I am adamantly opposed to the Galloo Island Wind Farm.


I would like to add my comments to those of others regarding the proposed Galloo Island Wind Farm. It has already been noted that although this project is physically located in the Town of Hounsfield, and therefore they will enjoy any "benefits", it is the Town of Henderson that will suffer the adverse impact.


First, let's examine the supposed benefits:


Lower Energy Costs? This is well proven as unlikely or a fantasy. The cost of Wind generated power is much higher than other forms of power. And certainly lower costs won't be enjoyed locally.


Lower Taxes? Maybe, at least for a few in Hounsfield. But as a property owner there, I don't expect much of significance to come of this. (Sorry, Mr. Scee, your claim that "everyone in your town supports this wind project", is far from accurate. I'd love to see your data. Some of us are stridently opposed.) Even if there are tax benefits for the Town, the amount, duration and costs don't justify it.


Job Creation? One hundred twenty temporary jobs, likely most from out of the area. Eight "permanent" jobs. Wow. Please consider the net job impact...not just these handful of permanent jobs...but also the jobs lost due to the damage to tourism. Tourists are flighty...they'll go other places where the natural beauty hasn't been spoiled with an industrial development in the middle of our beautiful scenery.


For those of us with a direct view to the west of Stony and Galloo (I reside on Stony Point), the impact would be shocking. Some years ago, "National Geographic" listed sunsets on the eastern end of Lake Ontario in the top five in the world. For nearly 60 years, every roll of film we shot included at least a few attempts to capture this beauty for ourselves.


I hate to think that is all the future generations will have...a few photos in some old albums to see that natural beauty as they look out across the water at silhouetted wind towers chopping up the light from the sun. For them, if this progresses, their memories will be of irritating flashing beacons on these towers, instead of breath-taking sunsets. Silence of winter's mornings will be replaced by screeching of motorized bearings and pulsing of blades.


I still remember the awe my now-deceased brother expressed the summer he saw a rare "green flash" sunset. This is one of the rarest events experienced anywhere; sometimes you hear of this from Australia. But we can see them here. Why spoil this?


And, in twenty years time...what will a decommissioned wind farm look like?


Twenty years may seem like a long time, but is it?


And if you consider all energy costs in manufacturing, transporting, constructing and maintaining the components of this wind farm is there really a beneficial net gain in energy savings (carbon footprint)? What if you add in the real costs of the damage to the land by clearing and preparing the building site. Everyone should understand that once disturbed, the land will never be the same! From the influx of disturbance plants (most of us call them weeds and invasives) to the changes in wildlife habitat, what is done, cannot be undone.


My family has had a continuous presence in this area since shortly after the Revolutionary War. We have been at or near our present location since the early 1920's. It was the raw beauty of this land that drew the early settlers here, and it is STILL that which draws us back. We have paid dearly over the years to hold on to what we have, and I'd truly hate to lose it. The beauty and peace of our natural setting is a precious thing to have taken from us for the relatively short term benefit for a few individuals.


And yes, we would also lose our peace. As anyone who remembers the foghorn on Galloo can tell you, sound travels over water in a very different manner than over land. Conversations from fisherman are easily overheard (Note to fishermen...when the wind is quiet, we can hear you easily...so be careful what you say). The drone of a Laker in the distance...even if not visible..can be heard passing out front. We fear the sound of these turbines will be travel similarly, at great distances without geometric losses. It's as if the layers of the atmosphere keep the sound waves low and along the surface of the water under certain conditions.


Even my 99 year old father can hear the sounds of motors or generators running on Stony Island under certain conditions (this is about 4 miles away). These generators are tiny relative to the nacelles on an Industrial Wind Turbine.


Environmental noise pollution is a topic of study unto itself and I desperately do not want to be an unwilling participant in a long-term study of adverse health effects caused by these huge towers.


I could go on also about the conflict between a potential wind farm and the re-introduction of the Bald Eagle to our area (we have nesting pairs here on Stony Point) as well as the dangers to migratory birds and others. but I'll leave that to the experts (who already have submitted comments).


I would like to conclude by thanking you for allowing me to have a say and asking that you reach a decision that will allow my father and me to enjoy what time we have left in the beauty and peace of what makes the Golden Crescent region truly golden.


PS for those of us who remember the repeated, and failed, efforts to run a power cable from Stony Point to Stony Island...all I can say is good luck with the much longer run to Oswego. Ice and waves makes for lots of abrasion.

Sincerely, Karen Tiano

Monday, August 3, 2015


Is The NYSDEC In Bed With Bill Moore?

Kathleen Burgess

Secretary to the Siting Board

Re:Matter Master:15-01278/15F0327

Dear Secretary Burgess,

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.”

Pursuant to the rules of the New York State Board on Electric Generation Siting and the Environment (“Siting Board”), Hudson North Country Wind 1,LLC (Hudson Energy Development)submitted an application under Article 10 to construct a major electric generating facility on Galloo Island.

Hudson Energy notes in their Public Involvement Program (PIP) (p.4) "Other important factors that increase the potential to develop a wind power project in the Study Area include land  control and host communities,and previous environmental  approvals (New York State Department of Environmental Conservation(NYSDEC) Hounsfield Wind Final Environmental Impact Statement(FEIS)and permit)."

NYSDEC acted as lead agency in the State Environmental Quality Review Act(“SEQRA”)for the prior Hounsfield Wind Farm project proposal and they ultimately endorsed the project in the Hounsfield FEIS.

The studies associated with the now defunct Hounsfield Wind proposal for Galloo Island are important information sources related to the island's geography,plant and animal life, visual impacts, and many other aspects to developing the island for wind energy production.

These studies were all available on-line at NYS DEC's website until a few months ago when they suddenly vanished. NYSDEC  removed all references to the Hounsfield Wind project at the very time Galloo was announced as a new revived wind project site by Hudson Energy.

Exhibit #5 of Hudson Energy’s PIP identifies NYSDEC as a “Host Landowner.” Additionally, their PIP clearly defines a host landowner as “...landowners with whom the Applicant has entered into a lease, easement or purchase option agreement (p.9).” This tells me that NYSDEC is an integral part of the project.  

NYSDEC's removal of the Hounsfield FEIS and related studies does not reflect the spirit of a law enacted to ensure an
open and fair process. Is the removal of these Galloo Island studies in any way related to Hudson Energy’s host agreement with the NYSDEC?

The next phase of the application is preliminary scoping of the environmental impacts and the Hounsfield studies will be vitally important in scoping impacts not only to the public but to the PSC as well. NYSDEC has to re-instate these documents, not Hudson Energy. Accepting these documents from the developer would be entirely inappropriate.

How can the NYSDEC commissioner sit on the Article 10 siting board while his agency is a partner with Hudson in its Galloo application before the board, and how can he justify removing important public information we could all use in examining the Galloo Island project impacts.

The fact remains that Hudson Energy has publicly stated in their PIP that they have a host agreement with NYSDEC. Hudson Energy has access to the Hounsfield FEIS, NYSDEC has access to the FEIS, but the public does not.

I respectfully request the PSC investigate the host agreement between Hudson Energy and NYSDEC and why those studies were removed before proceeding with the Article 10 process. I further request that Hounsfield studies be re-instated on NYS DEC's website in their entirety.

Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,

Kathryn Muschell
Wellesley Island,NY

Galloo Island Wind ~ It was only by accident that most of us became aware of this original project


March 11, 2015
To: Don Alexander
Re: Galloo Island (Again!)

I read with much interest the Monday front page news article on the supposed support for a revived Galloo Island industrial wind project.

Please do not assume you can speak to how the population of Henderson might feel about this project. I will not speak for other Henderson Harbor residents, but I will make it known to you and the rest of the JCIDA board that as a water front tax payer and resident of Henderson Harbor I am totally opposed to this project and will do what ever is necessary to see that it never comes to fruition.

First, the thought of flashing red lights in the sky 6 or 7 miles from my home is my recurring nightmare. Twenty four miles away on Wolfe Island, admittedly on a clear night, I can see the tower lights. Higher towers, only 6 or 7 miles away will be clearly and obtrusively visible. From Route 3, during the day, the towers on Wolfe Island are clearly visible and give every appearance of an industrial facility.

Second, Galloo Island in its current natural state is home for much wildlife and migrating wildlife. Eagles have been increasingly sighted here along the Henderson shoreline. They are a protected species. No doubt the blades of industrial wind towers are killing many flying species and nobody seems to care. But I do and I know of several organizations that care very much even if our federal government and state government apparently doesn't.

Third, Galloo Island in its current natural state is part of the natural island formation located in the early entrance ways to the St. Lawrence River. The thought Galloo Island would become an industrial site sickens me.

Wolfe Island used to be a beautiful island. I, like many others, enjoyed the trip across the land to take the ferry to Kingston. Wolfe Island is now an industrial zone.

Fourth, I am totally opposed to any concept of discouraging public discussion of the Galloo Island project at any stage of the project. Keeping folks up to date as appropriate through e-mails is completely unacceptable.

Keep in mind the experience the last time around with the then proposed Galloo Island project. It was only by a query from a nearby friend that I and other Henderson Harbor residents discovered what was underway, totally unknown to most residents. Secret contracts had already been negotiated with certain selected landowners who would profit by having the transmission towers built on their land, most had no idea of the

transmission lines that would cross over their property and certainly most residents had no idea what so ever about the visible impact of an industrial wind facility on Galloo Island.

OK, an underwater cable is less obtrusive, but the visual impact is still very much there and has a dramatic impact on future lake front property values and our recreation based economy

DEC documentation on the project mysteriously disappeared from our local library, was never made visible at our town hall and at that time the town official who was supposed to keep Henderson residents informed totally failed in performing that task.

It was only by accident that most of us became aware of this original project. We will not tolerate that ever happening again.

I recall very well the exchange you and I had at the Henderson Town Board. You incorrectly assumed it would be great for Henderson.

After the discovery about what was going on it was clear that many of our residents were totally opposed.

Even though the prior Galloo Island project never came to fruition, those of us involved in the opposition have remained in touch and aware of the economic facts associated with industrial wind. I won’t go into all the details, but suffice it to say that industrial wind power, without massive government subsidies is not economically viable.

The whole concept of a PILOT, at least as I understand it, is that temporary tax relief is granted because the project brings permanent jobs to the community. Permanent jobs with wind towers is a political farce. You know it and so does everyone else that ever looked at it. If in doubt look at Wolfe Island.

And finally, just to be sure I am clear on this point, your entire concept of keeping us informed as you or JCIDA sees appropriate is totally unacceptable given the secrecy with which other wind projects have been slipped into a community. Wolfe Island is a perfect example of government over reach. Local folks, other than those that might profit by the towers knew zip until the towers started appearing. I have personally visited a totally distressed Wolfe Island resident on this issue.

In Henderson, the entire original Galloo Island project proposal was introduced under the radar, by design. I know that for a fact. I was deeply involved from the very beginning and will join the opposition again.

If you wish to discuss any of these points with me in detail, please call me at XXX-XXXX or e-mail me

I am dead set against this project and will continue to be so.

Bob Ashodian