Wolfe Island Wind Plant Still Harming Birds in Important Bird Area

Nature Canada Blog: Wolfe Island Wind Plant Still Harming Birds in Important Bird Area
Tuesday, February 15, 2011
Wolfe Island Wind Plant Still Harming Birds in Important Bird Area

Posted by Ted Cheskey
Last May, I blogged about a report that described how birds and bats have been affected by the TransAlta wind plant on Wolfe Island, a globally significant Important Bird Area in southern Ontario known for its waterfowl, raptors and swallows. I called the numbers of birds and bats being killed by TransAlta’s turbines “shockingly high,” indeed the highest recorded in Canada and one of the highest in North America.

However, since the report only studied a six month period, TransAlta’s spokespeople argued that it was premature to reach conclusions so soon, especially when comparing the Wolfe Island deaths to yearly casualty rates for other wind plants. Besides, TransAlta reasoned, the results appeared to be within the thresholds of acceptable limits set by provincial and federal government regulators.

Then last month, Stantec Consulting, the firm that produced the original report, released its report on the second half of the year: January 1, 2010 to July 1, 2010. And the results for birds are troubling. (I’ll write about bats in a future post.) Though casualty numbers for birds did not skyrocket in the second sixth month period, a time that included the spring migration, they still were high enough to make the Wolfe Island wind plant the most deadly for birds in Canada.

The 13.4 birds per turbine casualty rate is about 7 times the industry average in Canada according to Canadian Wind Energy Association (CANWEA) but below the so-called “adaptive management” threshold for TransAlta facility, as set by various government agencies. That level is 11.7 birds per MW which translates to 21 birds per turbine, which just happens to be the highest level ever recorded at any wind facility in North America (Buffalo Mountain, Tennessee). Using the highest level recorded as the threshold before which any mitigation is even considered seems a bit dubious to say the least.

Estimated and actual numbers of birds killed, proportioned by the species actually found, over the entire 12 month period, paints a disturbing picture:
Tree Swallow 218 (calculation based on 31 corpses)
Purple Martin 49 (calculation based on 7 corpses)
Bobolink 73 (calculation based on 9 corpses)
Wilson’s Snipe 50 (calculation based on 7 corpses)
Red-tailed Hawk 10 (actual count)

It is important to note that the calculated numbers are arrived at using Stantec’s formula to calculate total casualty rates. A sample of turbines are visited either weekly or twice a week and a search for bird corpses on the ground beneath the blades is conducted. As the method is not intended as a comprehensive search, determining the casualty rate requires taking in factors like the ability of the search team to find carcasses, the percentage of the area searched and the rate of predation between searches. The 31 Tree Swallow corpses, in other words, represent about 15% of the calculated number of tree swallows killed, based on Stantec’s calculations and field testing.

While the report and the research behind it appear to be quite solid, the authors contend that the casualty rates are quite sustainable and will not have any effect on the species populations. They do this by contrasting the kill numbers from the turbines with the estimated Ontario population of the most affected species – Tree Swallow, numbering about 400,000 and Bobolink, about 800,000. (They do not do this for Red-tailed Hawk, which in fact may not meet their sustainability criteria). They also contrasted the numbers with estimates of birds killed by other human activities or artifices such as tall buildings, vehicles, cell towers, and pets.

While this argument has gained considerable traction among some in the wind industry and even the scientific community, it fails to consider that the turbines at Wolfe Island are killing different species than the tall buildings, cats and cars. Tree Swallow, Purple Martin, Red-tailed Hawk, Turkey Vulture and Bobolink rarely if ever show up on lists of casualties from tall buildings, and are unlikely victims of cats, with the possible exception of the Bobolink. And vehicle collisions, well – while this is a legitimate concern, Turkey Vultures have arguably had a net benefit from the carnage caused by vehicles.

But it is some of these very species – the ones most likely to be harmed by Wolfe Island’s turbines – that are already experiencing declines.

Take swallows, for example. Most species of swallow have declined significantly in Canada over the past 20 years. Adding additional threats to already stressed populations is not prudent. According to trend data on this species from Breeding Bird Survey routes in Ontario, the Tree Swallow has declined by about 6% annually over the past 20 years, a cumulative decline of almost 80%! In other words, the current estimated population of 400,000, was 2 million only 20 years ago. Bobolink, recently added to COSEWIC’s list of threatened species, declined 4.1% over the same period. We should not trivialize the impact of removing dozens, or hundreds of individuals from a population of species that are clearly in trouble.

In the meantime, good documentation of the impacts is essential. While TransAlta had to deliver these studies – they were a condition of the wind project’s approval – the company and Stantec should be recognized for doing good work. Once one takes the spin out of the document, the data and the methodologies are solid. The quality of the monitoring appears to be high, and some weaknesses, such as a potential bias to undercount the number of raptor fatalities, are recognized in the report.

With regard to birds of prey, even if they were not undercounted, the number of casualties is excessively high at .27 per turbine. This was the highest recorded rate for raptor kills outside of California. The victims included:

10 Red-tailed Hawks,
1 Northern Harrier,
1 Osprey,
2 American Kestrel,
1 Merlin
8 Turkey Vulture

This number crossed the “notification threshold” for the project, meaning that the CWS and MNR were notified about the high rates. The report states that TransAlta and MNR have initiated discussions regarding “adaptive management” in response to the raptor deaths. We look forward to hearing what the response might be.

With the plant already in operation, the only option now is to mitigate the risk to wildlife perhaps by slowing down the blades of the turbines at hazardous moments of the year, or turning them off. However, unless the numbers of casualties increase even further in the next two years, it is unclear how far the threshold must be exceeded and how often, before mitigation is implemented. It is reported in the document that four notifications were made by the company to the government for raptors alone, yet none appears to have led to mitigation.

As I write this, several wind farms are being proposed around the eastern end of Lake Ontario, the most worrying being Gilead’s Ostrander Point wind farm. Ostrander Point is an area that is arguably even more significant for birds than Wolfe Island, because of its specific geography. Ironically, the land on which the Gilead project is being proposed is owned by the Province of Ontario – a Crown forest block. Opposition to turbines in agricultural areas appears to have persuaded government officials to meet their renewable energy agenda by prioritizing "crown lands" as locations for wind energy plants. While this might be appropriate and acceptable for some properties, when a wind plant is located in an area of great significance to wildlife, as is the case with Ostrander Point, so-called green energy ceases to be green at all. The Ontario government needs to think more carefully about where they allow wind turbines. It is not too late for the Province to design a policy that promotes green energy and also protects key biodiversity sites including Important Bird Areas. Otherwise, as more of these facilities are built in bad places, wind energy will become a significant contributor to the declines of several species that are already in trouble, and the Green Energy Act will be recognized and remembered for all of the wrong reasons.
Posted by Ted Cheskey

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

White Nose Syndrome & Wind Turbines ~ Killing Bats

White nose syndrome is becoming an epidemic.

Nationwide, white-nose syndrome has wiped out an estimated 1 million bats since it was initially seen in a New York cave in 2006. Since then, it’s been identified in 14 states and two Canadian provinces and is moving westward. Bats play a crucial role in controlling crop and forest pests, the loss of so many bats will affect our agricultural economy and forest economy.
Their appetite for bugs has major implications for agriculture not only in New York State but nationwide.
“Bats are the primary predators of nighttime insects,” including moths and beetles that damage corn and other commodity crops. With fewer bats, we have more insects, which mean it is necessary to use more pesticides.
The Indiana bat – classified by the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service as endangered. Are legally protected they are not immune from white nose syndrome this disease could have a devastating effect upon the survival of this species. White nose syndrome is a fungus it attacks cave-dwelling bats while they hibernate. The fungus grows on the animals’ ears, wings and nose. It is believed that the fungus wakes them or keeps them awake. As a result, infected bats use more of their stored body fat and starve to death. Additionally to further devastate the bat population the growing popularity of wind turbines and wind farms also poses problems for bats, especially when they’re migrating.
Tree-roosting species, like the Indiana bat, are also in jeopardy when the large dead trees they roost in are removed and their habitat is disturbed in other ways, such as clearing for transmission line routes to accommodate wind turbines .
Serious threats to bats come from wind turbines and habitat destruction. When a species is eradicated from the planet it is an irreversible problem.

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

After watching the injured bat rescue video below, I was thinking ~ I wonder if when the post construction bird & bat mortality monitoring carcass searches are being conducted ,if they ever find injured bats at the bases of wind turbines ? What if they find an injured Indiana Brown Bat, what is the protocol? Do they kill them? Do they ignore them because they are not dead? Or do they rescue them?
This would apply to any species ,but I am particularly curious about any endangered species that they find that are injured and not dead.
Out of all of the post construction Bird and bat mortality reports that I have read I have never read of one injured bird or bat no survivors taken ....


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The Video below ~ HOUDINI'S STORY ~
Houdini is a Leisler female bat (Nyctalus leisleri) found near a wind turbine with an external fracture on her right wing.







US FISH & WILDLIFE CURRENT White Nose Syndrome News >here

Trillium CEO Questions Ontario's Offshore Decision

Wind Developer Speaks Out On Project Cancellation Offshore Wind Wire

by Angela Beniwal on Tuesday 22 February 2011
North American Windpower

John Kourtoff, Trillium's CEO, says there are no environmental issues with wind projects that are located 10 km out.

"We're directly on bedrock - there's no sediment or silt issue or water quality issue," he says.

But the MOE cited a lack of scientific studies regarding offshore wind development in freshwater when justifying the decision.



more here

Holy Cracking Concrete!

Nova Scotia Power's wind farm on Nuttby Mountain, north of Truro, reported in January that at least 5 of 22 wind turbines were found to have cracked foundations
Now the problem is more extensive, the foundations of at least 19 of the 22 wind turbines installed this past summer at Nuttby Mountain, have cracked
Each of the Wind Turbines at Nuttby Mountain sits on a huge base, and it takes a full day just to pour the concrete. The concrete is made from a waste product from coal burning.
Each turbine foundation contains about 40 tonnes of fly ash that was incorporated into the concrete mixture.
During construction last July at the $120-million wind farm, concrete was not vibrated down to the steel base of the towers.
The repairs involve injecting an epoxy-like sealant into the 400-tonne concrete pads to stabilize the concrete. More -->here<--

---

Ticking Turbine Time bombs~ waiting to collapse?

OR NOT WAITING?








November , 2010 Ynn reported that Work on the Hardscrabble Wind Farm Project FAIRFIELD, NY in Herkimer County hit a snag
Atlantic wind is behind the project a subsidiary of the Spanish company Iberdrola .
Ynn Reported that Iberdrola took core samples and found that their structures were not up to standards. They had to take down some towers and bases as a safety precaution.

link here to video and story
~~~~
Concrete problems with Wind turbines foundations are nothing new.
~~~~
Fenner wind owned by ENEL North America was the largest the wind complex east of the Mississippi when it was built 10 years ago. Fenner had a turbine collapse in December of 2009.

Concrete issues with turbine foundations apparently are becoming a common problem.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
In December of 2009 Hank Sennott, director of corporate affairs and communications for Enel North America is quoted in an interview~
by Martha E. Conway a reporter for the Madison County Courier ~
It was discovered that concrete core samples from the foundations preliminarily showed inconsistent aging and degradation".
“Some of the samples looked like they were poured yesterday,” Sennott said. “Others… Didn’t”

According to Sennott the samples of five or six foundations led to the decision to test all 19 in the project. He said the company is in the home stretch of collecting data and a report is expected soon.
~~~~~~
It took 10 years for the turbine foundation to fail at fenner this prompted them to take the core samples otherwise they may not have tested the concrete. How many other wind complexes are out there with concrete like this?

Are there more Ticking Turbine time bombs waiting to collapse?
~~~~~~~~~~~
Did the developers of Fenner's wind turbine system, actually pre - determined the wind turbine reaction forces in conjunction with the wind pressure forces on the towers, and the turbine blades themselves to withstand the overturning moments developed, that are being resisted by the soil or rock material that is, part of the anchorage resisting system, as required by New York’s Construction codes?
One issue with wind turbines is that they actually try to unscrew them selves from the ground, due to wind pressure forces. The anchorage systems and subsurfaces are critical factors in wind turbine design.




The latest on the Fenner Collapse as reported ~
By JENNIFER BOGDAN

Observer-Dispatch
Posted Jan 06, 2010
FENNER — No unusual conditions were recorded in the internal computer of a 200-foot-tall turbine prior to its collapse at Fenner Wind Farm, .

Hank Sennott, a spokesman for Enel North America, the company that operates the wind farm, said analysis of data found in the turbine's computer showed:

-- The turbine had been operating normally before it crashed.

-- The blades did not strike the turbine's tower.

-- The rotational speed of the blades was “reasonable” at the time of its collapse.

Those findings suggest that the accident did not occur under the same circumstances that caused another turbine to crash in March 2009 at the Noble Altona Windpark in Northern New York, Sennott said.

The crashes in Altona and Fenner both followed power outages and involved turbines manufactured by General Electric. However, Noble Enviornmental Power, the company that operates the Altona operation, said its turbine spun out of control due to a wiring anomaly.

“It's not that situation at all,” Sennott said, who declined to discuss any other possible causes until an investigation is complete, which likely won't be until the end of January.

link--> here<-- to a story I did on the Fenner Collapes 5/12/ 2010 Titled is fenner an Expirement in motion?


The PSC Altona Turbine Collapse end of Investigation Report 10/18/ 2010 can be viewed--->here<--

Design of Wind Turbine Foundation Slabs .pdf file


Daily Mail Reporter
14th April 2010

Hundreds of Britain's offshore wind turbines could be sinking into the sea because of a design flaw.
It is believed the concrete used to fix some turbines to their steel foundation can wear away, causing the power generators to drop a few inches.
The fault was first discovered at the Egmond aan Zee wind farm in the Netherlands and affects those with single cylinder foundations. Offshore farms are notoriously expensive, and large firms including BP and Royal Dutch Shell have pulled out of the sector.
Sinking turbines could cost British wind farms £50million Mail Online link -->here<-- to story

ACCIONA~ Corruption/Clean Energy Plays Dirty in Oaxaca ~ Mexico.

Another familiar name in the news. Lucky for us our Ex - Supervisor, Reinbeck used his Keen NE-GO-TI-A-TING skills and was able to broker that deal where we are getting the new fence around the cemetery and the paint job on the Light house or is that a snow job we are getting?

Mar 23 2009
Zach Dyer
Generating enough electricity to power a small city while offsetting several hundred thousand tons of carbon emissions sounds like an ideal source of eco-friendly energy. But tell that to the residents of La Ventosa in Oaxaca, Mexico.

The government and private developers promised locals that the relentless winds that whip this part of southern Mexico would be an economic boon for the town. And now, the $550 million project is converting more than 6,000 acres of local campesino and indigenous lands into Latin America's largest wind farm.


link here--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Zach Dyer is a NACLA Research Associate.

T.I. board appoints man to complete Edsall's term

T.I. board appoints man to complete Edsall's term
Watertown times article link here

WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 12, 2011
It was reported in the Watertown Daily Times in January that Cindy Edsall had resigned for personal reasons as a member of the Thousand Islands Central school District School Board of Education . Thus leaving the position open until May 17, when her term was due to expire. Today the times is reporting that the Thousand Islands Central School District Board of Education has appointed Brian J. Lantier to serve the remainder of Mrs. Edsalls term Mr. Lantier has been a member of the Guardino Elementary Parent –Teacher Organization for the past 6 years, and plans on pursuing election to the post in May.

DEC Region 6 Director ~Judy Drabicki ~ Once called For a Wind Moritorium in Cape vincent

Cape Vincent Group Seeks Moratorium On Wind Farms

June 14, 2006 in WWNY-TV Watertown

A group of residents has hired an attorney in connection with proposals to build a wind farm in the town of Cape Vincent. Wind Power Ethics Group, made up of approximately 30 people, wants a moratorium on development of commercial wind power facilities.

The group hired Dexter attorney Judy Drabicki, who drafted a letter asking the town board to make no decisions on wind farm projects for six months.

Drabicki said the town needs to carefully examine the potential harm posed by wind facilities.

"You need to look at the view shed. You need to create computer generated images. You need to study the birds, study the traffic, not just click off boxes on a form," said Drabicki.

The attorney said a State Environmental Quality Review (SEQR) is necessary before the town allows wind farm development.

Meanwhile, the town council is working on drafting zoning ordinances. It has been accepting letters from residents about the proposed wind farm projects.

The council will meet Thursday to discuss the issue.

"The SEQR is part of our process of changing any zoning law, which the town board will address all those issues. Link unavailable

Harvey White Writes a Letter to The Thousand Islands Sun

SCHUMER: CLOSE EXAMINATION REVEALS ENERGY EAST TRYING TO PULL A FAST ONE ON ITS CUSTOMERS -

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: February 11, 2009

SCHUMER: CLOSE EXAMINATION REVEALS ENERGY EAST TRYING TO PULL A FAST ONE ON ITS CUSTOMERS - SENATOR URGES NY PSC TO SWIFTLY REJECT COMPANY'S RATEHIKE REQUEST


Schumer: Energy East Is Violating Its Deal With NYS - Company Trying to Fast-Track A Steep Rate Hike Four Months After Deal Despite Merger's Stipulation That They Must Wait 13 Months

As Part of Rochester Gas and Electric and NYSEG Purchase, Schumer Pushed Iberdrola To Increase Reserve Funds In Order to Stave Off Rate Hikes

In Letter, Senator Says Energy East's Recent Actions and Statements Raise Serious Questions About Their Pledges To Invest in Capital Projects, Keep Rates Low



U.S. Senator Charles E. Schumer today wrote to the Public Service Commission asking them to reject Energy East's request to raise gas and electric rates on nearly 1.5 million New York ratepayers. In a letter, Schumer outlined a host of reasons for the PSC to dismiss their request, contending that it violated several of the terms established by the PSC in approving Iberdrola's purchase of the utility and also made questionable claims in an attempt to justify the rate increase.

“This rate hike application reeks of profit mongering by a company that promised not to do just this as a condition of the approval of its merger. Just as New Yorkers are struggling to make ends meet, Energy East is trying to pull a fast one on its customers. The PSC should reject this application without any hesitation,” U.S. Senator Charles E. Schumer said.

Iberdrola, a Spanish utility company, recently purchased Energy East, which is the parent company of NYSEG and RG&E, serving over 1.5 million ratepayers, spanning communities across Western NY, the Finger Lakes Region, the Southern Tier and Hudson Valley, the Capital Region and North Country.

During the regulatory approval process, Iberdrola committed to setting aside a $275 million pool of funds -- or Positive Benefits Adjustments (PBA) -- to keep customer rates low. At the time, Schumer said he would only support a deal containing provisions that would keep customer rates low. The final deal stipulated that a rate hike increase could not be requested for 13 months after the merger and that the $275 million Positive Benefits Adjustments be used to reduce rates or offset costs of the merger. Today, Schumer asked the PSC to determine whether the company was planning on using the $275 million in PBAs to offset the proposed rate hike, and if not, to determine how the company intended to use that fund.

All tolled, Energy East is looking to gain $227 million from New York ratepayers per year through increased charges. This would be done by requesting increases in electric and gas rates for both NYSEG and RGE. Specifically, NYSEG has requested a 9.9% increase in residential electricity transmission rates and an 8.8% increase in residential natural gas transmission rates. These rate hikes would mean the average customer’s electric bill would increase by $8.80 a month, while the average gas bill would increase by $12.20 a month. Similarly, RGE is requesting an 11.9% increase in electricity transmission rates and a 7.4% natural gas transmission rate hike. This translates to an average $8.80 and $7.80 a month increase in monthly bills respectively.

Schumer's letter to the PSC argues that the company is barred from requesting a rate increase until the Fall-Winter of 2009 at the earliest. The PSC’s order authorizing the purchase of the NYSEG and RGE stated that in order to protect ratepayers, and possibly pass along synergy savings to them, the earliest the next rate-case could be filed was “30 days following the first anniversary of the acquisition,” or 13 months. The commission did allow that a request could be filed earlier, but only if they could demonstrate that their “financial performance…would fall to levels that would jeopardize safe and reliable service.”

In his letter today, Schumer contends that the company has not made that case, pointing out that the companies’ initial proposals state that the rate increase would assist them in “potentially” enacting an $800 million capital investment plan and aiding low-income consumers, among other things. But nowhere has NYSEG or Energy East RGE made the case that this rate increase is necessary to continue supplying power to paying customers. The only other argument that Iberdrola offers for this rate hike is that the rate increase will be used to fund low-income energy assistance. However, assistance to low-income customers is already provided through federal funds via the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP).

Furthermore, Schumer said the PSC should reject the Energy East’s application to fast-track their request for a rate increase to five months instead of eleven months. Schumer said expediting the review would not allow ratepayers, municipalities and consumer protection organizations enough time to respond to the proposal. "It's bad enough that the utility wants to balance their books on the backs of customers, but trying to ram these cost increases through quickly it simply unacceptable," Schumer said.

Schumer also wrote that the “several of the arguments used by the utility to justify the merger appear dubious at best.” Schumer said that his research showed that the company’s claim they do not have adequate credit ratings and access to lending facilities did not hold water. Schumer said that both companies have investment grade credit ratings that have not changed since the merger was completed. Schumer noted that a recent Standard and Poor’s report singled out Energy East for their strong credit rating. Moreover, Iberdrola used their “A-" credit rating as a major justification for the purchase.

Finally, Schumer also said thatthe PSC needs to get answers on capital commitments made by the utility as part of the merger. Also, with the company recently stating that they planned to cut their capital projects budget by half, Schumer urged the PSC to find out if they planned of living up to their promise of investing $200 million in renewable energy projects over the next two years.

Schumer long pushed for a fair deal that will benefit Upstate New York by boosting jobs, delivering clean, renewable energy and keeping customer rates low and service levels high. Schumer said today he would continue to fight to ensure this deal stays fair and keeps customer rates low.

Below is a full copy of the letter:

Jaclycn Brilling
New York State Public Service Commission
Secretary
Albany, NY

Dear Ms. Brilling,

I write to ask that the Public Service Commission (PSC) immediately dismiss New York State Electric and Gas (NYSEG) and Rochester Gas and Electric’s (RGE) petition to raise the residential electric and gas rates of New York State consumers. Iberdrola’s purchase of these two companies contained an agreement that the utilities would not increase rates for a period of 13 months. At a time when there is unprecedented economic strain on New York’s economy, balancing these company’s books on the backs of consumer violates both the spirit and the letter of their agreement with the PSC.

The rate increases proposed by NYSEG and RGE are both significant and burdensome. All tolled, the company is looking to gain $227 million from New York ratepayers per year. This would be done by requesting increases in electric and gas rates for both NYSEG and RGE.

Specifically, NYSEG has requested a 9.9% increase in residential electricity rates and an 8.8% increase in residential natural gas rates. These rate hikes would mean the average customer’s electric bill would increase by $8.80 a month, while the average gas bill would increase by $12.20 a month. Similarly, RGE is requesting an 11.9% increase in electricity rates and a 7.4% gas rate hike. This translates to an average $8.80 and $7.80 a month increase in monthly bills respectively.

Despite these proposals, the PSC’s order authorizing the purchase of the NYSEG and RGE by Iberdrola clearly stated that in order to protect ratepayers and possibly pass along synergy savings to them, the earliest the next rate-case could be filed was “30 days following the first anniversary of the acquisition,” or 13 months. The commission did allow that a request could be filed earlier, but only if they could demonstrate that their “financial performance…would fall to levels that would jeopardize safe and reliable service.”

It is my understanding that the commission’s was clear in limiting any request to extraordinary circumstances, where denial of the rate increase would imperil the survival of the utility and prevents the delivery of power to rate-paying customers. The companies’ initial proposals state that the rate increase would assist them in “potentially” enacting an $800 million capital investment plan and aiding low-income consumers, among other things. But nowhere has NYSEG or Energy East RGE made the case that this rate increase is necessary to continue supplying power to paying customers.

It is troubling that the utilities proceeded well in advance of their 13 month agreement to request this rate hike. As such, NYSEG and RGE’s petition fails to meet the threshold for consideration by the PSC, and should be swiftly rejected.

Iberdrola argues that this rate increase is necessary because of Energy East’s BBB bond rating. But, Energy East’s bond rating is the same as it was Iberdrola consummated its purchase, it is unclear how the Energy East’s bond rating can be used to support a rate increase. The only other argument that Iberdrola offers for this rate hike is that the rate increase will be used to fund low-income energy assistance. However, assistance to low-income customers is already provided through federal funds via the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP). Further, I note that a recent Standard and Poor’s report indicates relative strength in electric utility credit and even singled out Energy East for having stable investment grade credit rating. What’s more, throughout the acquisition process, Iberdrola repeatedly cited their strong credit as a reason for approving the deal. Their credit rating now stands at a very healthy A-. To now argue that the companies credit ratings justify a rate increase simply strains credulity.

While the petition should not even be considered based on previous agreements, there are several other important factors that the PSC should weigh in assessing this request. As shown below, I find it very troubling that Energy East is trying to expedite this request and may not even be living up to other conditions of the acquisition.

First, I am troubled that Energy East has made clear they intend to request the Commission to expedite their request for a rate increase and approve the order by July 1st, 2009. Rate cases generally take 11 months to complete, giving all interested parties the time to perform the necessary due diligence and review. The utilities’ petition that this massive spike in rates be granted less than 5 month would deny ratepayers and intervening parties such as municipalities and consumer protection organizations the ability to cogently respond to this proposal. An expedited review should be denied.

Second, even if the Commission finds that higher rates are justified, the Commission should make it clear that this increase in rates must first come out of the $275 million positive benefit adjustment (PBA) fund Energy East and Iberdrola set up, as part of the acquisition agreement, to “either reduce rates or moderate requested rate increases.” NYSEG and RGE’s rate increase would yield them $225 million annually, which could shield NYSEG and RGE ratepayers for over a year, if the Commission should deem these rate increases to be justified. as part of the order that allowed the merger to proceed, Energy East and RGE agreed to set aside a fund for consumers that would offset rate increases. The acquisition of these utilities NYSEG and RGE called for $275 million in positive benefit adjustments (PBA) intended to “either reduce rates or moderate requested rate increases.” I believe the commission and other parties must determine how, if at all, the $275 million in PBAs will be utilized here.

Third, according to correspondence between the PSC and Energy East, I am troubled by the utilities recent decision to significantly reduce capital spending targets in 2009. When the PSC signed the final order approving Iberdrola’s acquisition of NYSEG and Energy East in December of last year, it was contingent on the company investing $200 million in renewable projects over the next two years. The PSC must continue their queries as to what specific projects will be downsized and/or eliminated and ensure that they live up to their capital commitments as outlined in the order.

Fourth, several of the arguments used by the utility to justify the merger appear dubious at best. Among them, I believe that the commission should focus on the claim that the utilities do not have adequate credit ratings and access to lending facilities as a justification for raising rates. It is important to note that both companies have investment grade credit ratings of BBB that have not changed since the merger was completed.

A recent Standard and Poor’s report, indicates relative strength in electric utility credit and even singled out Energy East for having stable investment grade credit rating. What’s more, throughout the acquisition process, Iberdrola repeatedly cited their strong credit as a reason for approving the deal. Their credit rating now stands at a very healthy A-. To now argue that the companies credit ratings justify a rate increase simply strains credulity.

New York State law calls for there to be a “public benefit” to justify a utility merger.

In approving this merger, I believe the PSC achieved this threshold through striking the a balance in protecting consumers and encouraging the development of renewable energy. The strength of this order, however, is only as effective as its implementation. I believe this goal can still be achieved, but only if erroneous requests such as this rate increase are rejected. Thank you for your consideration of this matter.

Sincerely,


Charles E. Schumer

Iberdrola ~ Just How Good is Their Word ? Can They Be Trusted?

It wasn't that long ago when Iberdrola was involved in the Energy East merger~

Federal and New York Officials Reward Spain’s Iberdrola at the Expense of U.S. Taxpayers, Job Seekers, and Electric Customers
by Glenn Schleede
March 1, 2010 ~

Consider, for example, the connections between:

Spain-based Iberdrola’s recent announcement that its net profit had doubled, and
Actions affecting Iberdrola during the last few months by members of the New York State Public Service Commission (NYS PSC), NY Senator Charles Schumer, US Energy Secretary Steven Chu, and US Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner.

read more -->here<-- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Senator Schumer:


"The Future is over my shoulder"


When foreign wind companies are allowed to destroy our communities where is our future?
Why aren't our politicians protecting us ? 




  Senator Schumer said that the acquisition of Energy East by Iberdrola was Ok in his book if a couple of things were done. One condition was if Iberdrola were to put a large part of their profit from this deal into a pool to keep the rates down.
 Another condition was that Iberdrola would not only produce wind energy in NY , but the manufacturing component would be based in New York state as well , thus creating thousands of new jobs. Senator Schumer also stated that he would be watching this deal like a hawk to see that rates stay down, and he said the same thing about creating and manufacturing for wind . 
As you can see from the articles below Iberdrola has done neither
~~~ IBERDROLA Company presents wind farm plan
tags:Jimmy Lawton JOHNSON NEWSPAPERS 

MONDAY, FEBRUARY 15, 2010 According to representatives from Iberdrola at a recent Town Council meeting, plans call for the installation of 75 towers that are approximately 66 feet taller than the windmills at Maple Ridge Wind Farm in Lewis County.

 In the Video above Senator Schumer described this as a win situation and I am afraid he is right. Unfortunately it is win-win for Iberdrola and Lose-Lose for the rate payers and New York State. 

Iberdrola seems to have a game plan and it does not include keeping its promises. 

Apparently they are planning new money generating projects and these cost big bucks to build. Ultimately we are the ones who pay for these projects. So there you have it, we will sacrifice for their new money generating scheme in Hammond.
 What will be the next condition that is violated by a wind company? 
Will we continue to let the fox guard the hen house until there is nothing left of our state?

Wind Power Does Not Equal Job Power By JONATHAN KARL Feb. 9, 2010 Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., called the flow of money to foreign companies an outrage, because the stimulus, he said, was intended to create jobs inside the United States.
 "This is one of those stories in Washington that when you tell people five miles outside the Beltway, or anywhere else in America, they cannot believe it," Schumer told ABC News, "It makes people lose faith in government, and it frankly infuriates me."

 Several of the large European turbine manufacturers had limited manufacturing facilities in the United States, but there was nothing in the stimulus plan that required that the turbines, or any other equipment needed for the wind farms, be made here, said Rogers. There are strict "Buy America" provisions in the Recovery Act, but this Green Energy Stimulus initiative turned the existing tax credits into cash grants, bypassing the "Buy America" provision. Iberdrola, one of the largest operators of renewable energy worldwide, is based in Spain and has received the most U.S. stimulus dollars -- $577 million.
 It buys some of its turbines from another Spanish manufacturer, Gamesa, which has a U.S. connection. Gamesa has two facilities to manufacture turbine blades in Pennsylvania, but the company said the market forced it to temporarily lay off nearly 100 workers.

  click here for full article ~~~~ Where are those thousands of jobs?

Schumer: Energy East Is Violating Its Deal With NYS WBNG-TV: 
U.S. Senator Charles E. Schumer today wrote to the Public Service Commission asking them to reject Energy East's request to raise gas and electric rates on nearly 1.5 million New York ratepayers.
In his letter, Schumer outlined a host of reasons for the PSC to dismiss their request, contending that it violated several of the terms established by the PSC in approving Iberdrola's purchase of the utility and also made questionable claims in an attempt to justify the rate increase.
 “This rate hike application reeks of profit mongering by a company that promised not to do just this as a condition of the approval of its merger. Just as New Yorkers are struggling to make ends meet, Energy East is trying to pull a fast one on its customers. The PSC should reject this application without any hesitation,” U.S. Senator Charles E. Schumer said. Iberdrola, a Spanish utility company, recently purchased Energy East, which is the parent company of NYSEG and RG&E, serving over 1.5 million ratepayers, spanning communities across Western NY, the Finger Lakes Region, the Southern Tier and Hudson Valley, the Capital Region and North Country. During the regulatory approval process, Iberdrola committed to setting aside a $275 million pool of funds -- or Positive Benefits Adjustments (PBA) -- to keep customer rates low.
 At the time, Schumer said he would only support a deal containing provisions that would keep customer rates low. The final deal stipulated that a rate hike increase could not be requested for 13 months after the merger and that the $275 million Positive Benefits Adjustments be used to reduce rates or offset costs of the merger. Today, Schumer asked the PSC to determine whether the company was planning on using the $275 million in PBAs to offset the proposed rate hike, and if not, to determine how the company intended to use that fund. All tolled, Energy East is looking to gain $227 million from New York ratepayers per year through increased charges.
 to read the full story click link --> here<--

Harvey White Editorial

5/10/2009
Editorial Watertown Daily Times
link unavailable

There have been recent letters in this newspaper from Cape Vincent's anti-wind group, mostly seasonal residents, who want you to believe that Cape Vincent is run by irresponsible elected officials.

Even though our elected officials have put a lot of effort into following the correct legal procedures and respectfully addressing the concerns of the community, the anti-wind group continues to disrespectfully drag their names through the mud.

There's no real need for me to show how the anti-wind group's assessment of our local officials is totally wrong. I know most Cape residents either ignore the anti-wind group's letters or read them to see how low the group will stoop.


Sometimes you have to laugh at how ignorant the self-righteous anti-wind group is.

In a recent letter, the group claims that the town board votes on the Environmental Impact Statement, when most people know the town board doesn't even vote on the EIS. And yet they claim the town supervisor doesn't know what he's doing.

And enough with the conflicts-of-interest accusations. First, it's not illegal for a board member to be related to someone with a wind lease.
Second, any board member
with such a relation consistently and ethically recused themselves from votingThird, the voters of Cape Vincent have clearly shown they don't care about conflicts of interest by repeatedly electing the candidates with supposed "conflicts of interest
The anti-wind group is just getting bitter because they haven't made the wind projects go away. They've tried lawsuits. They've tried campaigning to get anti-wind people into elected positions. They've tried malicious attack ads.

They've even tried sneaking video cameras into board meetings, putting the videos online and disrespectfully making fun of the board members. To their disappointment, all the money they've spent has not stopped our local officials from performing their duties efficiently, wisely and responsibly.

Don't let these anti-wind rants tarnish your view of Cape Vincent. When you visit Cape Vincent this summer, as long as you avoid the handful of anti-wind folks, you'll see that most Cape Vincent residents are friendly, respectful and rational people.

"Windfall" audio interview with director Laura Israel & cartoonist Lynda Barry

Director Laura Israel and cartoonist Lynda Barry talk about the controversy over wind turbines.

Israel directed “Windfall,” a revealing look at wind energy that tells the story of residents of Meredith, NY, who are divided when companies want to build wind turbines in the traditional dairy farm community.

“Windfall” Lynda Barry is researching a book on homes near turbines.


This film will be showing at the Clayton Opera

House Saturday March 5. I have posted the first comment left on the WNYC website in response to the airing of this interview

link -->here <--- The Leonard Lopate Show ~ Webpage to read more...

Arline L. Bronzaft, Ph.D. from Manhattan, New York I spoke at the first international symposium on the health effects of wind turbine energy in Picton, Ontario two weeks ago. I was asked to speak because of my research and writings on the adverse effects of noise on children. I was very impressed by the information provided at the symposium. Last week I saw Windfall which similarly addressed the health impacts of wind turbines on nearby residents. Before we move further in employing this apparently attractive alternative energy source, we must research the potential harm of wind turbines. We cannot simply state that turbines have "no effects on nearby residents," especially when reports to the contrary are growing. Additionally, I would like to alert New Yorkers that there is legislation in the City Council that will encourage placing wind turbines on the roofs of buildings in our city. Here we should similarly demand that the requisite research be done to determine potential harm from noise, especially low frequency sound. There is sufficient research linking noise to adverse health effects and diminished quality of life and these findings should serve as a warning that we need to do research on this "new" source of noise.