Good Neighbor / Bad Neighbor

  Yesterday I posted a Good Neighbor recruitment letter today's post covers what is in the Good Neighbor agreements.

Below are excerpts from a BP good neighbor agreement also known as an easement following the excerpts is a BP good neighbor agreement contract.

Would you sign a contract like this? This Good neighbor contract makes for very bad neighbors.
~~~

Good Neighbor

Although Grantee (BP)adheres to generally recognized wind industry practices and applies commercially reasonable measures to minimize effects of its wind farm activities on neighboring properties, will acknowledges the grantee's wind power facilities may still impact the owner's property. Owner has agreed to grant certain rights and easements to accommodate any impact that Grantee's (BP’s) wind power facilities they have on owners property.

This clause is an acknowledgement disclosure, the landowner acknowledges that they are aware that there are impacts and they are giving informed consent.

Wind farm operations easement.
Owner grants Grantee (BP) an exclusive easement in, on, over, across and through owners property, for the purpose of allowing any audio, visual, view, light, noise, vibration, shadow flicker, air turbulence, wake, ice, electromagnetic, electric and radio interference, ice throw or other, whether created hazards, or other effect of any kind whatsoever resulting, directly or indirectly from any construction, development, repair, maintenance, replacement, or operation of grantee's wind power facilities or other of grantee's activities on wind farm.

This clause allows broad unlimited surface and subsurface property uses.

Noise waiver.
Owner grants Grantee and easement for the right and privileges to generate and maintain audible noise levels in excess of 50 dBA(L 90) on and above the noise easement property at any times of the day or night(" noise easement"). The "noise easement property" shall mean owners property, except those portions within a two hundred (200) – foot radius circle (or lesser distance with owner's prior consent). Centered on the inside of each presently existing, occupied residents on the owner's property. If noise levels produced by the turbines exceed 50 dBA (L90), as measured within (200) feet (or lesser agreed distance) from inside of a presently existing, occupied residents on owners property by an independent, professional applying commonly accepted measurement instruments and standards, grantee shall reduce the noise levels produced by the turbines to 50 dBA (L 90) at two hundred (200) feet (or lesser agreed distance) from the residence. Said noise easement shall further permit the grantee to generate and maintain audible noise levels, emitting from grantee's wind turbines installed on property adjacent to owner’s property, up to 55 dBA at the property boundaries.

This noise waiver allows Grantee (BP) to maintain audible noise levels day and night exceeding 50 dBA (L90). Noise may affect wildlife, as well as other landowners and the quiet enjoyment of the Owner’s Property.)
Owner understands and acknowledges that by ordinance, and otherwise, Jefferson County and other governmental entities may now and in the future require, unless waived, certain setbacks of wind turbine generators from property boundaries based on their noise levels. Owner for itself and it's successors and assigns, as owner of the property, waives any and all claims that it may now or hereafter have against Grantee or against Jefferson County, New York, in connection with noise levels that may be generated on owners property by the wind farm.

Setback waiver
Grantee(BP) or any affiliate of Grantee (BP) owns, leases or holds an easement in other land concerning or contiguous to the owner's property and has installed or constructed or desires to install construct wind power facilities such adjacent land at or near, the boundary with owners property, owner hereby waives any and all setbacks and setback requirements, whether now or hereafter imposed by applicable law, or by any person or entity, including, without limitation, any setback requirements described in current or future zoning ordinances. In Jefferson County, New York, or in any governmental entitlement or permit heretofore or hereafter issued to Grantee (BP) or such affiliate provided, however, Grantee (BP) agrees that no generating unit shall be located closer than 500 feet from owner’s property line or 1200 feet from any occupied residence on the property, such measurements to be calculated from the center point- of the generating unit.

Upon Grantee (BP) or an affiliates request, owner shall at no additional cost to Grantee (BP)execute(and if appropriate cause to be acknowledged) any setback waiver, setback elimination or other document or instrument reasonably requested by Grantee(BP), its members, or lenders, Jefferson County real estate of New York or any applicable governmental authorities in connection there were, – return the same for any applicable governmental authorities in connection there with – return the same thereto within 10 days after such request, and – provide such public support as Grantee(BP) may reasonably request in connection with any related zoning variance or other government applications by grantee(BP).

This clause seemingly overrides without limitation, any setback requirements described in current or future zoning ordinances of Jefferson County.

Additionally the Owner agrees to execute a setback waiver as requested by BP or their lenders. and the owner will publicly support BP's request.

Link here to read entire Good Neighbor agreement

Vitter, Alexander Demand a Clear Migratory Bird Policy from Justice Department Question why traditional energy producers are punished for killing birds, while wind energy can apply for permits to kill bald eagles

PRESS RELEASE

Link to original

 January 30, 2013 

Today Senator David Vitter (R-La.), the top Republican of the Committee on Environment and Public Works, and Senator Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.) asked Attorney General Eric Holder to clarify the Department of Justice's (DOJ) policy for choosing who has violated the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, after observing an apparent bias toward pursuing cases involving oil and gas producers, and not wind energy producers.

"It appears the Justice Department is hand-picking which migratory bird mortality cases to pursue with an obvious preference of going after oil and gas producers," said Vitter. "For example, while three oil and gas companies are facing fines for killing birds, a wind energy company is applying for permits to kill up to fifteen bald eagles. We obviously don't want to see any indiscriminate killing of birds from any sort of energy production, yet the Justice Department's ridiculous inconsistencies begs questioning and clarity."

For example, DOJ penalized three oil and gas production companies for the incidental killing of migratory birds, while ignoring migratory bird deaths that have occurred as a result of wind energy production. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service estimated annual bird mortality from wind energy production to be approximately 440,000 in its fiscal year 2013 budget justification.

The letter shines a light on a recent event in which Federal officials have allowed a wind energy farm in southeastern Minnesota to apply for a permit to allow for the death of bald eagles, which has the potential to kill between eight and fifteen bald eagles each year.

  Click here to watch Senator Vitter speak on the Floor

Vitter and Alexander are still awaiting answers from the Interior Department on their request for an economic and environmental analysis of offshore wind farms. In a November 2012 letter, the Senators ask for an analysis of the impact offshore wind turbines will have on birds. The text of their letter today to Attorney General Holder is below.

January 30, 2012

Attorney General Eric Holder
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530

Dear Attorney General Holder,

We write today seeking clarification of the Department of Justice's policy for prosecuting alleged violations of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA). As you know, the MBTA is a criminal statute that makes it unlawful to "kill" or "take" a migratory bird, nest, or egg, except as permitted under the statute. We are concerned by what seems to be a trend of the Department pursuing MBTA enforcement actions against oil and gas companies for conduct that is otherwise overlooked when it is undertaken by renewable energy companies. Fair and consistent application of federal enforcement authority is fundamental to equal justice under the law as well as to the President's and Congress' call for an "all of the above" energy policy that pursues all forms of energy production.

On one hand, the Department of Justice chose to prosecute three oil and gas production companies for the incidental killing of migratory birds in North Dakota. In those cases, the companies were charged with the incidental killing of four mallards, one northern pintail, one red-necked duck, and a say's phoebe. By determining that the MBTA "only covers conduct directed against wildlife," a Court rejected your Department's claim that these producers had violated the MBTA.

The Court noted, and we agree, that "it is highly unlikely that Congress ever intended to impose criminal liability on acts or omissions of persons involved in lawful commercial activity, which may indirectly cause the death of birds protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act." Furthermore, the Judge reasoned that, if the Department's interpretation of the MBTA was adopted, "then many everyday activities [would] become unlawful- and subject to criminal sanctions- when they cause the death of pigeons, starlings, and other common birds. For example, ordinary land uses which may cause bird deaths include cutting brush and trees, and planting and harvesting crops. In addition, many ordinary activities such as driving a vehicle, owning a building with windows, or owning a cat, inevitably cause bird deaths."

On the other hand, you have not prosecuted a single wind producer for migratory bird deaths that occur as a result of wind energy production. The US Fish and Wildlife Service's fiscal year 2013 budget justification estimated annual bird mortality from wind energy production at approximately 440,000. This number suggests that a significant number of birds, some of which have additional protections under the Endangered Species Act, are harmed by wind turbines on wind farms.

We were recently made aware that Federal officials have decided to allow a wind energy farm in southeastern Minnesota to apply for a permit to allow for the death of bald eagles, who are obviously the symbol of the United States. If allowed to proceed, the project has the potential to kill between eight and fifteen bald eagles each year. We find it absurd that the Department of Justice, in conjunction with the Fish and Wildlife Service, could reasonably conclude that three oil and gas operators should face prosecution for the incidental killing of seven birds at the same time it considers permits to kill between eight and fifteen bald eagles. This does not pass the common-sense test, and suggests the Administration is hostile towards traditional energy production.

We do not condone the indiscriminate killing of birds from any sort of energy production. Nor do we believe the Department should target businesses because of the type of energy being produced. To that end, we seek to understand why your Department has chosen to selectively prosecute oil and gas producers at the same time the Administration considers granting permits that will result in the killing of bald eagles. In order to help us better understand and analyze your policy, please provide us with answers to the following questions:

1. In the past four years, how many criminal prosecutions has the Department undertaken against oil and gas producers who have allegedly violated the MBTA? Of those prosecutions, how many prosecutions involved a felony for a knowing MBTA violation and how many prosecutions have involved a misdemeanor prosecution?

2. In the past four years, how many criminal prosecutions has the Department undertaken against wind energy producers who have allegedly violated the MBTA? Of those prosecutions, how many prosecutions involved a felony for a knowing MBTA violation and how many prosecutions have involved a misdemeanor prosecution?

3. Last year, Stacey Mitchell, Chief of the Environmental Crimes Section, stated at a public conference that the Department brings prosecutions based on the willingness of a company to cooperate as opposed to the number of birds that are killed. Please provide us with any guidelines the Department considers when making the determination to prosecute an energy producer under the MBTA. Do your guidelines or any policy directives distinguish between oil and gas producers and wind energy producers?

4. Please explain the apparent targeting of oil and gas producers for violations under the MBTA. Do you believe it is inconsistent to prosecute energy producers for the deaths of seven animals among three producers at the same time the Administration condones an energy project that plans to kill between eight and fifteen bald eagles each year?

We hope that you will provide us a prompt response so that we can understand the Department's decision-making processes on this important issue. Should you have any questions, please feel free to contact us.

Sincerely,

David Vitter

Lamar Alexander
Ranking Member United States Senate
U.S. Senate EPW Committee

CC: Secretary Ken Salazar, Department of the Interior

BP Good neighbor recruitment letter.

 What is a good neighbor agreement?

A device used by wind developers that allows them to take advantage of people that live near industrial wind plants.

Developers buy the rights of people living in close proximity to turbines for a small payment. By signing a good neighbor contract you agree to accept the noise, shadow flicker or any other issue that may degrade the quality of your life.

BP’s good-neighbor agreement requires residents to accept the noise (for an annual payment of up to $1,500), additionally if the developer requests that a noise easement on the land be recorded with the county clerk this creates a burden on the land for all subsequent buyers. If a landowner finds the noise is intolerable, it will be difficult to sell and move.

Below is a transcript of a BP Good neighbor recruitment letter. For the protection of the landowner, I have removed the name.

The original is at the end of this post

December 11, 2007

Cape Vincent, NY 13618

Dear Mr.

As you may be aware, BP alternative energy has been working to develop a wind farm. The agricultural district of Cape Vincent. Over the past 2 years, we've worked with landowners; county and state officials’ preliminary technical studies are currently concluding detailed environmental studies as part of the New York State environmental quality review (SEQR) process. While there has been a lot of recent activity, we are still at least 18 months from construction of the proposed project and have not yet applied for the required town, county and state permits.

At this time, we are contacting landowners whose property is within our site area to discuss whether they would be interested in participating in our project through good neighbor agreement. Our good neighbor agreement provides income to landowners whose house or property is near a wind turbine. In return, the landowners would agree to waive the standard setbacks adopted by the town of Cape Vincent.

The town recently adopted guidelines that require us to set turbines back at least 1,250 feet from the dwellings in at least 1,000 feet from property lines of any non-– participating landowner. The good neighbor agreement would allow us to place turbines as close as 750 feet from residences or 400 feet from property lines, whichever is most restrictive. By agreeing to these reduced setbacks, you would receive a signing payment of $500 in annual payments of up to $1,500 per year during the operational life of the project.

The good neighbor agreements are completely voluntary, so if you want us to use setbacks in the town guidelines. Then we will abide by those restrictions. If you are interested in learning more about our project and the good neighbor agreements, then please call us at 866 – 359 – 8807 to request an informational package. I hope that you will consider participating in our wind project.

Regards,
Jim Madden.
Business developer

Wind Power: What is it we are trying to save?

 Luke Dale-Harris questions whether our concern over climate change is actually driving us to invest in renewable technologies that negatively impact the very natural wonders we are aiming to preserve....

 [Ecologist ]

Al Gore : ‘There’s a lot of opportunity in this crisis’

  Former Vice President and climate crusader Al Gore appeared on the Late Show with David Letterman during the January 29 broadcast.

Letterman sounded pessimistic about the future of the planet, declaring, "With the drought coming on, we are nothing but screwed."

Gore urged Letterman not to despair about Gore-bull warming and energy issues: 'You sound hopeless Dave. There's a lot of opportunity in this crisis."

Scientists may have received millions in duplicate funding

 Virginia Tech scientists use text-mining software to find cases of duplicate funding

Big Data computation at the Virginia Bioinformatics Institute at Virginia Tech reveals that over the past two decades funding agencies may have awarded millions and possibly billions of dollars to scientists who submitted the same grant request multiple times — and accepted duplicate funding. [WUWT]

what goes around comes around

Recently this letter appeared in the Thousand Islands Sun.It is good to see that it has been posted in the Watertown Times as well.

~~~

BP’s public involvement

 “Four hostile newspapers are more to be feared than a thousand bayonets.” — Napoleon Bonaparte

 Part of the Article X control siting wind energy projects is the Public Involvement Program. PIP is a written plan for engaging, interacting with and informing the community about the wind proposal. In Cape Vincent, British Petroleum has written what they consider their PIP. While that PIP is weak and vague, it seems there is another more powerful public involvement program quietly afoot.

BP wind leaseholders and members of Voters For Wind, a group BP claims credit for assisting to form, filed a lawsuit last summer that seeks to subdue and quiet our local blogs’ voices. While our community bloggers have stood firm and continued to convey information and documents into the public domain, there seems to be little doubt that the intention is to intimidate and shut these sources of information down as Article X proceeds. [WaterTown Times]

Transcript of Richard Chandler's Q & A Session following BP's Intervenor Funding Workshop.

Last Wednesday BP held an Intervenor fund informational session   after which there was a Question and Answer session. Below is a transcript of the portion of the meeting where BP Project Director fielded questions. 

 I appreciate everyone coming out especially on a cold night to come and hear about the project and the Intervenor funding. John did an excellent job of providing that overview.  It seemed like there was good Q and A after that.  I want to spend a little bit of time after that to yah know, if there are any questions about the project I’m happy to field them now. I just want to open the floor to that.

 Chandler: Yes…

 Don Metzger: Mr. . . . Chandler for your preliminary scoping document, I would hope that you would have in there what you – – first of all , I appreciate what the town did yesterday presenting you with some of the items they wanted to see addressed in the preliminary scoping document , and one of the things they mentioned was stray voltage,  and ah—I want to re- emphasize that stray voltage  and sometimes dirty electricity is a very insidious menace towards humans and animals and I think that the  town and the citizens of the town and BP should be taking a zero tolerance towards stray voltage . I ,I just think that, that, that’s an intolerable thing and if it’s a well-run operation and all, theoretically there should be zero stray voltage but , if there is some stray voltage I think you need to address it in your preliminary scoping document as to how you intend to immediately address that and get back to zero stray voltage .

The other item is ah, before you were even born sir, I say this with respect, before you were even born we had AM reception here in the Cape, FM reception in the Cape and over the air reception in the Cape and it is a fact that when you put all the towers up as proposed and they’re 500 footers, the sweep area in the sky of each blade array will be over 2 acres.  I forget the exact math; I did it one time a few years ago.  I think it was something like 2.3 acres per sweep area, so we’ve literally got hundreds of acres of sky being swept, so our TV signal, our FM signal and our AM signal and our cars, homes, offices, schools and so on, will suffer some.  The signals will suffer some attenuation, some deflection, some degradation and I hope that you will have in your preliminary scoping document how that will be addressed because that will be an issue.  I, I can guarantee it.  When you have … We’ve seen it in other projects and this project will be even bigger than the ones that are to the west of us and to the south of us, as far as height in the sky and sweep area, and finally, sir ah, actually Mr. Harris covered it...

Thank you Mr. Harris.

Chandler: great appreciate the feedback, any other questions… yes…

Audience member #1: I just heard him say that the FM reception and TV reception is gonna be a problem. Is it gonna be a problem?

Chandler: were going to have an entire exhibit within the article 10 processes that'll look at telecommunication impacts so I'll have to take a closer look at that.

Audience member #1: You don't know from past projects?

Chandler: You have to take a closer look at what the technology that we’re using here and its layout here and inaudible the town. So that is something we study for the process.

Audience member #1: So what you're telling me is that you don't know what to expect.

Chandler: I'm telling you it needs to be studied.

Audience member #1: Okay

Chandler: Yes.

Audience member #2: The windmills they’re in Canada now, Wolf Island.  For years a lot of people come down on my street and tell me how the vibrations are screwing up their pacemakers, how they can hear these noises.  Is there any way you can set up a station on the river on the US side to measure the risk?   There is a distance, we know exactly how far these windmills are away.

Chandler: I don't think we’ve seen any credible scientific evidence for that being a real concern.

 Audience member #2: They're complaining about it, can we set up some kind of a measuring station to measure what's coming from Wolf Island?

Chandler: I don't think we'll be doing that as part of this project, no.

Audience member #2: You're making a mistake, people are complaining about it.

Chandler: I appreciate the feedback sir; I just don't think we see that as a genuine adverse environmental health impact for the project.

Chandler: Yes.

Jim Millington: Yesterday, I think you alluded to the fact that there's a possibility that the towers here would be 500 foot high. 

Chandler: Somewhere between ‘inaudible’ 4 and 500 feet.

Jim Millington: Do you have other wind farms that are using those tall towers now?

Chandler: We have other projects that have turbines between 4 and 500 feet tall, comparable in size.

Jim Millington: Are you gonna be able to present some—when I say pictures, I mean an idea of what those are gonna look like for the people in the community, when you look at the impacts and present the impacts of your project.

Chandler: Yeah, so we’ll have entire “inaudible” dedicated to visual impacts in the application.  They’re not dis-similar from turbines you see on Wolfe Island so, they’re not…

Jim Millington: To me it appears as though they’re rather huge looking.  I mean 500 feet is a long way up and I just wanted to point out, I think the people are owed a good representation of how they will look.

Chandler: I agree with that statement and we will have visual simulations that will give you a better feel for that.

Jim Millington: Good, thank you. 

Chandler: Sure.

Chandler: You have a question sir?

Ed Hludzenski: When you do your studies—they’re talking about the AM, FM and maybe even cell phones and your studies indicate there’s no problem – and if the project goes and all of a sudden there is a problem because there was a flaw in the study, something was over looked or for whatever reason, how do you mitigate that?

How do you solve it? I mean they're going to be there.

Chandler: We have…

Ed Hludzenski: Now we got a problem.

Chandler: It's hard to answer what we would do if something were to happen.

Ed Hludzenski: It's never happened?

Chandler: Not to my knowledge but… (Shaking head no)

Ed Hludzenski: Okay.

Audience member #4: It's in my contract if anything like that ever happens they will take care of. The people I know up Lowville had problems; they came in and took care of all the problems.

Chandler: That may be. Any other questions, feedback?

Chandler: Yes.

Audience member #5: It says, on the notice of availability of the funding, an ad will be published by the applicant and it says the notice issued by the presiding examiner.  How can they expect to see these notices?  Will they be in the legal notices in the paper? Will the municipalities be contacted, how will they find out?

Chandler: There is an- inaudible.

John Harris: I can ah, so um, a couple ways. One you could just um, we have an e-mail list sir, so you go on to the Cape Vincent wind farm website and sign up to get e-mail.  Essentially any public notice that may go out, um, that would be step one. Number two, we’re gonna publish the ad.  We’re required to publish an ad when we are filing the preliminary scoping statement, um, that will be an ad published similar to a, ah, town legal notice, public meeting notice.  The presiding examiner will also issue that, and the 30 day notice that I talked about before.  That 30 day notice will go to anyone who's registered on the DPS website. We will also make it known when, if, something like that goes out.  We’ll send it out on the e-mail lists that we have.  So I think those would be the…

Audience member #5: If you're not on the website though, how else would they be notified?

Harris: Um well, we’re gonna notify, we’ll notify the town, um, when we file the preliminary scoping statement we will notify, um, all the affected municipalities, we’ll notify state legislators, we have a…

Audience member #5: By sending a letter or something?

John Harris: Yes, so there will be ‘inaudible’ we’ll notify as many people as we can.  We’ll reach out to the local media and before you leave tonight just give us your information, we’ll make sure you get notice of it okay.

Chandler: If we have you listed as a contact you will receive such notice. – – Any other questions, comments, feedback?

Cliff Schneider: I got a question.  Yesterday I asked you whether BP was involved in any lawsuits with the town of Lyme and I asked you whether you were involved in lawsuits here with some bloggers here in Cape Vincent and I failed to get an answer and I was wondering, if maybe, after some time and consideration whether you have an answer to that question right now.  Have you been involved, has BP been involved and has Trieste Associates been involved also in the lawsuits in Lyme in Cape Vincent?

Chandler: I’ll turn that over to John; I think we did provide a response.

Cliff Schneider: I went back and I looked at the video.  It seems as though you didn't respond to that.

John Harris: We’re not gonna respond. I think couple things.  One, it's our understanding that neither BP nor Marion Trieste has been involved in any lawsuits or organizing lawsuits or supporting lawsuits, either in the town of Lyme or ‘inaudible’ locally.  You referred to another lawsuit yesterday.  I did ask the town's attorney if he could get me some information on what those lawsuits are and you know we'd be happy to revisit if there's some… if we’re missing something, you know, we’ll certainly get back to you.

Cliff Schneider: So, you're saying right now, unequivocally that you haven’t been involved in any way ---Trieste Associates and working through Voters for Wind. You haven’t been involved in any way.

 Marion Trieste: I can speak for myself too.  I have not had anything to do with any lawsuits in this vicinity.   

Cliff Schneider: You haven’t advised voters for wind?  I mean because it has been quite obvious that you have been, you…

Marion Trieste: That's all I have to say about this matter.  I’m gonna end it now. No.

Cliff Schneider: I think the other thing, as a community it's an important question and I appreciate the answer.

Chandler: Are there any other questions.

Audience member #6: This is more for John. Here the money coming in from the state there, is that a tax-exempt, grant type of thing?

John Harris: This is money that actually the applicant has to pay as part of an application, so when filing of the preliminary scoping statement BP will write a check for close to $100,000 and with the filing of the application again they're gonna submit the application with a check.

Audience member #6: So the intervenors have to be responsible for paying taxes on...

John Harris: um…

Audience member #6 : Because that's income.

Harris: I don't believe it's… I'm not gonna um… Chuckling, it's possible…

Chandler: Any other questions comments feedback… Okay, well again, appreciate your coming out thank you very much.

Trieste: Thank you everyone, it was really great...

BIO OIL ~ Touted as a promising way for farmers to enhance energy security

Tom Avril, Inquirer Staff Writer 
January 29, 2013,
 Pour a few handfuls of chopped-up corn stalks or switchgrass into a hopper. Heat rapidly. Funnel the resulting mixture through an intricate network of metal pipes and canisters.
Out the other end - drip, drip - comes a thick brown liquid that looks an awful lot like oil.

 Called bio oil, it is not quite the same as what comes out of a well. But it is close enough that government scientists think the process, called fast pyrolysis, is a promising way for farmers to enhance energy security.[Philly .com]

What "sustainability" means for the North Country

by Sarah Harris

NCPR

Excerpts  

The North Country Sustainability Plan was unveiled last week. The plan tackles energy, land use, transportation and water and waste management across seven counties.

The plan's authors found that 94 percent of energy generated in the North Country comes from renewable sources, like hydropower and wind. But the region only consumes 31 percent of that energy – the rest gets exported.

The sustainability plan also makes the case for increased biomass fuel in the region.

[North Country Public Radio]

The Turbine my Friend is Blowin' In The Wind...

Bradworthy, North Devon

A 35-meter(114.83 foot) Wind turbine collapses during high winds [This is Devon]

The Town of Cape Vincent sends a list of Issues they expect to be included in BP's Scoping Statement

Entire letter including recommendations

Town of Cape Vincent Letter to the PSC 1-29-13 by pandorasboxofrocks

A letter to the Public Service Commission Concerning BP's Cape Vincent Wind Complex

The Economist once described wind farms as `a new way to rape the
countryside¿ and as  `lavatory brushes in the air¿.   A more generous
description of the visual impact they have  has been described as
¿industrial-sized blots on the landscape¿.

While some economic benefits of wind farms are acknowledged, measured
against the visual impact they have on a tourist-oriented region ¿
such as Cape Vincent and the Thousand Islands area, add up to major
negatives.

The vocal proponents of wind farms are naturally, the economic
beneficiaries, especially, the wind farm developers.  In their
rhetoric, this will provide jobs, money, and so many other benefits to
community.  Poppycock!  This is all self-interest gibberish.
What else can they say?  Will they say that we will build these
monster sites, which will destroy your scenic beauty, your economy
based on tourism and your way of life?  I don¿t think so.  For them,
it is all good!

This is where adult, intelligent, and informed common-sense should
come in.   Do you want blight on your landscape, your economy based on
tourism diminished, your quality of life debased, and your scenic
beauty destroyed?  Once lost, they can never be regained.

So, before the `propaganda¿ overwhelms common sense, all should think
about what and how much you will lose for ever, in contrast to what
you will gain for the short-term.

The North Country Sustainability Plan is now ready for public input.

A HOMEGROWN SUSTAINABILITY PLAN

NORTH COUNTRY SUSTAINABLE GROWTH PLAN UNVEILED!

ATTENTION North Country residents:

The North Country Sustainability Plan is now ready for public input.

Click here to download a copy of the Plan

Members of the seven county North Country Consortium - consisting of Clinton, Franklin, Essex, Hamilton, St. Lawrence, Jefferson and Lewis counties - and project consultants Adirondack North Country Association (ANCA) and Ecology & Environment (E&E) are in the process of finalizing a draft of the Sustainability Plan, based on the collaborative involvement of hundreds of people across the region.

We are looking for feedback on the Plan: To maintain document control with multiple reviewers, we ask that you copy and paste any changes into the attached spreadsheet so we can track and respond to all feedback. Click here for a project suggestion form.

Email  suggested changes and project ideas through Feb. 1 to: jperry@adirondack.org

The Plan was unveiled during a meeting on Wednesday, January 23rd, at The Wild Center in Tupper Lake.Those who were unable to attend can click here to download a copy of the presentation.

Link here to original Source Adirondack North Country Association

North Country Sustainability Draft Plan (PDF 8,695 kb)

CGC Public Meeting Presentation (PDF 5,791 kb)

Blog Comment issues

 I have been technical  issues with blog comments 
 Instead of the normal type of word verification the window reads:  reCAPTCHA challenge image.
To make a comment simply hit the refresh button at the right side of the verification box and the normal verification  words should appear.

Thanks

The Universal Language of Wind Developers

Wind turbine ‘bully boys’ anger
A GREEN energy firm has been accused of ‘bully boy’ tactics in trying to head off opposition to a windfarm [The Star]  

Correction

■ Due to a reporter’s error, an article in Sunday’s Times mischaracterized how many Article X ad hoc committee candidates Cape Vincent Supervisor Urban C. Hirschey is considering finding from the town Lyme. Mr. Hirschey said in an email Monday that if they had any, it would not be more than one. [Watertown Times]

Save the River’s annual Winter Conference is Saturday

By JAEGUN LEE

TUESDAY, JANUARY 29, 2013

CLAYTON — Environmental experts, activists and educators with various backgrounds will speak Saturday at Save the River’s annual Winter Weekend Conference at the Clayton Opera House, 405 Riverside Drive.

D. Lee Willbanks, executive director of the Clayton nonprofit group, said the conference does not have a keynote speaker and instead will focus on a variety of topics concerning the upper St. Lawrence River, from Cape Vincent to Massena. [Watertown Times]

An unexpected consequence of wind energy

 We had only ever envisaged this as a protection against power cuts – but the experience of this morning has thrown up a different problem.No one else in the area had any power failures and Scottish Hydro had had none reported to it, so the problem was site specific.

[Argyll news]

Wind farms 'an Irish solution to British problem'

Opposition to wind farms in Britain is “the real reason” behind the plan to locate more than 2,000 turbines in the midlands, with the power they produce being exported across the Irish Sea, according to opponents. 

 Andrew Duncan, spokesman for the Lakelands Wind Information Group in Co Westmeath, said the British government “appears to be delighted that Irish people seem less aware of the noise and visual pollution associated with wind turbines [and] don’t actually understand the scale of them”.

[Irish Times]

Groups fighting nuclear energy and advocating industrial wind and solar are not environmentalists!

Rod Adams · January 8, 2013 ·

I’m mad as hell and I don’t want to take it any more. Groups that fight any and all use of nuclear energy and also spend time advocating for the increased use of massive, industrial scale energy collectors on undeveloped, virgin land should NEVER be called “environmental groups”. I am not saying that the groups are full of bad people, I am saying that the “environmental” label is contradicted by the facts.

People who care about the natural environment should seek ways of living that use less material and create less of a footprint on that environment. If they still love humanity and love his creations, they should also want to provide sufficient energy to do the work that allows more people to live with a light footprint.[ATOMIC INSIGHTES]

Obama Ties Green Energy to Jobs in Second Term

 One of the things the president has talked about is ... at a minimum, we should have a level playing field" for renewable energy,.

President Barack Obama will renew his push to spur investment in renewable energy projects that create jobs as a key part of his second-term strategy for tackling climate change, a top White House policy adviser said on Thursday.

This time around, though, Obama won't have the $90 billion in economic stimulus funds that his administration earlier pumped into clean energy and "green jobs" projects.[Fox Business]

SCENIC VIEW OF WOLF ISLAND

BP Contributions to Federal Candidates ~

BP is considered a Heavy Hitter

NATIONAL DONOR PROFILE

About Heavy Hitters

Heavy Hitters are the 140 biggest overall donors to federal elections since the 1990 election cycle, as compiled by the Center for Responsive Politics. 

House 
Total to Democrats: $42,500
Total to Republicans: $91,500 

 Senate 
Total to Democrats: $16,500 
Total to Republicans: $54,500

FOREIGN PARENT COMPANY: BP PLC 
COUNTRY OF ORIGIN: UK 
Official PAC Name:
BP CORPORATION NORTH AMERICA INC. 
POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE 
Location: HOUSTON, TX 77079 
Industry: Oil & Gas; Major 
(multinational) oil & gas producers 
Treasurer: JOHNSON, BRUCE C.
 FEC Committee ID: C00060103 

To read   a summary of  2012 BP PAC data link here

To read  the list of recipients and how much they received link here

(Look up actual documents filed at the FEC)

American Wind Energy Association

House 
Total to Democrats: $72,068
Total to Republicans: $73,000

 Senate 
Total to Democrats: $102,692
Total to Republicans: $45,468


To read  the list of recipients and how much they received link here


Original Source ~ Open Secretes .Org