The pilot payments for wind developers have been a sticky ~ slimy issue ~ Yesterday the Jefferson County Industrial Development met to vote on the UTEP ~ Jefferson's Leaning Left was there to get a first hand account of what happened. Check out his blog ~ he has the scoop!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
PILOT PAYMENTS
Wind turbines are fairly expensive
The average cost of buying & installing a commercial wind turbine (per internet estimates) is roughly between $2M and $3M each. Then the wind developer and local IDA negotiate a PILOT (Payment In Lieu Of Taxes) "deal" and the wind developer avoids paying his fare share of taxes pays a small fraction of the project's net worth as a result of the IDA PILOT "deal". [1] A PILOT is a payment in lieu of taxes (also sometimes abbreviated "PILT"), made to compensate a local government for some or all of the tax revenue that it loses because of the nature of the ownership or use of a particular piece of real property.[2]
No PILOT has been negotiated for the Cape Vincent project, but the developer's reliance on the Galloo plan to project payments to municipalities is a troubling sign that it will be presumed as the basis for the future talks.[3] There, the terms of the Galloo Island PILOT plan are being used to estimate possible PILOT payments for BP Alternative Energy's 124-megawatt project in a debate over the town's proposal to regulate noise levels. It is a consequence of the JCIDA's failure to follow the intent of the Legislature.[3]
Lowville Local taxing jurisdictions are considering a payment-in-lieu-of-taxes agreement on the proposed 39-turbine Roaring Brook Wind Farm that is expected to pay out between $17 million and $24 million over 20 years. [4]
However, given the recent legal wranglings over the last payment from the existing wind farm here, board members may choose to hold off on approving this deal formally until they have a clearer picture of that situation .[4] "Due to energy market conditions, among other reasons, the Company is not able to make any representations regarding when the project would be constructed and therefore when PILOT payments would actually commence," the proposed term sheet states [4] The terms of the proposed PILOT are similar to an agreement approved recently by the Herkimer County Legislature for Atlantic Wind's 37-turbine Hardscrabble Wind Farm project there .[4] The wind company claimed it should pay only the so-called "fallback amount" since it had been decertified from the Empire Zone program, through which it receives state reimbursement for the payments .[4]
Galloo
The PILOT, which allows the developer to make reduced payments to taxing jurisdictions instead of paying property taxes, was approved along with a sales tax exemption and sale-leaseback agreement, which eliminates mortgage recording taxes. "This has been a very involved, committed, thoughtful process," JCIDA Chief Executive Officer Donald C. Alexander said. "It is one that has always had the best interests of the community at heart." [5] JCIDA attorney W. James Heary said the supplemental payments put in the PILOT give taxing jurisdictions extra revenue when electricity prices give the developer high earnings. "We don't necessarily need to go into the nitty-gritty of their plan," he said. Other board members chimed in and said they don't know the bottom line with several projects .[5] The PILOT for the 252-megawatt project will run 20 years and have base and supplemental payments .[5]
After the PILOT and sale-leaseback agreements were approved, the board unanimously agreed to a moratorium on accepting tax abatement applications from wind power projects until a uniform tax-exempt policy is approved. The board will hold a special meeting this month to discuss the policy .[5] "The economic benefits and earning potential are the company's business," said attorney Justin S. Miller, Harris Beach PLLC, Albany, which has consulted on wind farm PILOTs with the agency .[5]
On the wind farm aspect, the agency had worked for months on developing the uniform policy before Galloo Island Wind Farm's developer pressed for an individual payment-in-lieu-of-taxes agreement. That project's PILOT was different from the standard PILOT laid out in the agency's policy and those changes were approved in February after months of intense pressure
[6] If the wind farm operator ceases operation and doesn't pay the agency the PILOT, the agency returns title to the developer .[6]
The wind PILOT is based on income, not assessed value, anyway, consultant Mark E. Quallen said. "You've got variability around the annual production and you've also got variability around the price," he said. Though the developer may not give a pro forma, he said, the investment costs and revenue stream are easy to figure out .[6]
The Galloo draft policy includes a separate clause for renewable energy PILOTs, which allows for a fixed base payment per megawatt, increasing each year, and supplemental payments based on high electricity prices .[6] Board member John Doldo Jr. said the Galloo Island project wasn't lucrative enough for the taxing jurisdictions. He said the PILOT payments represented less than 14 percent of full taxation. "If you give that much away, there must've been a need to give that much," he said. Mr. Doldo based his numbers on the cost of the project " about $537 million of on-island investment .[6] Only about one mediocre paying job is created for every 10 turbines installed that's hardly job creation. Government watchdog groups say the absence of uniform standards makes the whole PILOT program open to abuse, because each wind company gets to negotiate its own private deal with the IDA. In addition, wind companies that fail to meet their original IDA job creation promises rarely get penalized .[1] New Yorkers in general are beginning to become completely fed up with PILOTs, IDAs, wind farms and seeing their tax dollars squandered by politicians and bureaucrats to offshore ownership. Taxpayers are beginning to revolt against the wind developers, IDAs and local governments and the November 2009 election results underscore this attitude .[1]
Once again the taxpayer is paying higher taxes to support the corrupt wind industry and people say the wind is free. Think about this - 65% of a commercial wind farm is being paid for with your American tax dollars thanks to stimulus money, NYSERDA, PTC (Production Tax Credits), rapid depreciation schedules, PILOTs, etc. while the foreign owner enjoys the profits while raping your community .[1] PILOTs are supposed to make jobs for communities but with wind farms this never happens .[1] PILOTs should be completely repealed and eliminated and taxpayers should demand the full value of tax revenue from the wind project and nothing less
.[1]
1. Beware NY Wind: PILOT Agreements - Corporate Welfare Ad Nauseum
2. PILOT (finance) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
3. Watertown Daily Times Wind PILOT
4. Watertown Daily Times PILOT proposed for new wind farm project
5. Watertown Daily Times JCIDA gives nod to Galloo wind PILOT
6.Watertown Daily Times : JCIDA's tax-exempt policy for wind farms won't include local, county issues
Friday, August 6, 2010
Tuesday, August 3, 2010
Acciona FEIS ~ Complaint Resolution Plan
Complaint resolution plan ~
Excerpts
link to complete complaint resolution document
here
Written complaints shall be directed to SLW and responded to by SLW or their duly authorized representative within 5 calendar days after receipt of any such complaint.
1. If the complaint includes the character or quality of Wind Turbine sound, then any subsequent investigation shall use best practices to evaluate the overall level, tonal, and/ or temporal nature of the wind complaint.
2. Any complaints which cannot be resolved during the initial response shall be subsequently directed to the Town designee, or if there is no Town designee to the Town of Cape Vincent Planning Board for investigation and any such investigation shall be with full cooperation of SLW.
3. If testing is necessary....
4.test results....
5. After the investigation, if the Town of Cape Vincent Planning Board reasonably concludes that operational violations of any applicable permit conditions are shown to be caused by the WMD, SLW shall use reasonable efforts to mitigate such problems.
6. Continued complaints from the same landowner will trigger additional investigation only if the Town determines that nearby Wind Turbine operational characteristics have changed since the first complaint.
~~~~~~~~~~
This means that if Acciona had a special use permit in RE: to noise for its Wind Mill Development (WMD) project in Cape Vincent,
and you had a complaint about wind turbine noise, your complaint would be directed to the Town Planning Board and after an investigation if it is found that there is a noise problem and Acciona is in violation the special use permit then they will use”Reasonable efforts to mitigate such problems" What does that mean?
Do they say if it is found that if we are in violation of our permit we will shut the offending turbine down?
NO!
This document states that they will use what they deem as reasonable efforts to mitigate such problems however they do not define reasonable efforts.
What happens if these reasonable efforts do not solve the problem?
Back to part 6 ~ apparently you are done,
6. Continued complaints from the same landowner will trigger additional investigation only if the Town determines that nearby Wind Turbine operational characteristics have changed since the first complaint
~~~~
but there is the complaint appeal procedure
This how it works
The complainant may appear before a complaint resolution board
This board will consist of three members: an SLW designee, a Town Officer or employee appointed to the position annually, and an independent third party expert.
Note: The decision of the complaint resolution board shall set forth the manner in which the complaint shall be resolved and the reasons why such resolution is appropriate. In making such a decision, the Complaint resolution board shall take into account the terms and conditions of the special use permit and approved site plans, and shall not require any resolution that is inconsistent with such terms. The decision of the complaint Resolution Board shall be final and binding.
Well things could be worse ~~~~
Monday, August 2, 2010
ACCIONA ~ WMD ~ FEIS~ Noise Resolution ~
FEIS SECTION C- 11 ~
ACCIONA”s ~ WMD ~( Wind Mill Development) proposal for Cape Vincent NY
Complaint resolution ~ Acciona has a big foot print they know how to handle pesky people with complaints like noise, here is the process as laid out in Acciona’s proposed WMD for Cape Vincent
This is how Acciona will address complaints about the WMD NOISE~~
1. If the complaint includes the character or quality of the Wind Turbine sound, than any subsequent investigation shall use best practices to evaluate the overall level, tonal, and/or temporal nature of the Wind Turbine sound prompting the complaint.
2. Any complaints which cannot be resolved during the initial response shall be subsequently directed to the Town designee or, if there is no Town designee , to the Town of Cape Vincent Planning Board for investigation, and any such investigation shall be undertaken with full cooperation of ACCIONA ~~~ SLW Read the complete WMD resolution plan below !
Sunday, July 4, 2010
Spain cuts subsidies for wind, thermosolar power | Reuters
MADRID | Fri Jul 2, 2010 4:18pm EDT
July 2 (Reuters) - Spain has agreed with renewable energy associations to cut subsidies which have made the country leading producer of wind and solar power but saddled utilities with billions of euros of debt, the Industry Ministry said on Friday.
The Ministry added in a statement that premiums paid to wind power producers above market prices would be cut by 35 percent in 2013, when a current subsidy scheme expires, while the hours would be reduced for which both wind and thermosolar plants would be eligible to receive premiums. (Reporting by Martin Roberts; Editing by Marguerita Choy)
July 2 (Reuters) - Spain has agreed with renewable energy associations to cut subsidies which have made the country leading producer of wind and solar power but saddled utilities with billions of euros of debt, the Industry Ministry said on Friday.
The Ministry added in a statement that premiums paid to wind power producers above market prices would be cut by 35 percent in 2013, when a current subsidy scheme expires, while the hours would be reduced for which both wind and thermosolar plants would be eligible to receive premiums. (Reporting by Martin Roberts; Editing by Marguerita Choy)
Wednesday, June 30, 2010
Letter from Nina Pierpont MD ~ to Mike Crawley, International Power Canada Inc
Mike Crawley, President
International Power Canada Inc.
105 Commerce Valley Drive West, Suite 410
Markham, Ontario L3T 7W3 Canada
May 7,2010
Dear Mr. Crawley,
I am writing on behalf of XX, Harrow, Ontario. Mrs. X informs me that her home has nine (9) 1.65 MW V2 Vestas wind turbines within 2 km of her home. Three of these are within 1 km. Indeed, all 24 turbines (for this project) are within 5 km.
Mrs. X tells me that she and her neighbor are motion sensitive (see below). She likewise tells me that 3 of the neighbors suffer from migraine disorder. Mrs. X’s son has a history of ear infections. A second cousin, living 1 km away, has documented tinnitus. Two children in the neighborhood have autism-both living within 1 km of the turbines. One young man (27 years old) living within 2 km of the turbines has epileptic seizures.
Mrs. X and her husband are over 50 years of age (see below), and her in-laws (living immediately across the road) are over 80 years old.
With this as background, permit me to speak plainly. To build these turbines next to these people is a reckless and violent act.
The evidence for turbines producing substantial low frequency noise and, worse, infrasound, is no longer in dispute. I quote from one of numerous studies demonstrating this: “Wind turbines and wind farms generate strong infrasonic noise which is characterized by their blade passing harmonics (monochromatic signals)” (Ceranna et al., p. 23). In this instance, the authors are referring to a single 200 kW Vestas V47 at 200 meters-a peashooter compared to the turbines adjacent to Mrs. X’s home.’
Second, the clinical evidence is unambiguous that low frequency noise and infrasound profoundly disturb the body’s organs of balance, motion, and position sense (called “vestibular organs”).2
Third, the case studies performed by me and other medical scientists have demonstrated unequivocally that many people (especially 50 years old and older) living within 2 km of turbines are made seriously ill, often to the point of abandoning their homes.3
Fourth, there is no doubt among otolaryngologists and neuro-otologists who have studied the evidence that wind turbine low frequency noise and infrasound seriously disrupt the body’s vestibular organs, resulting in the constellation of illnesses I have called Wind Turbine
The cure for Wind Turbine Syndrome is simple: Move away from the turbines or shut them off. The prevention of Wind Turbine Syndrome is even simpler: Don’t build these low frequency/infrasound-generating machines within 2 km of people’s homes.
Governments and corporations who violate this principle are guilty of gross clinical harm. Such governments and corporations should be taken before whatever level of court is necessary to stop this outrage.
These are strong words. They are carefully chosen. They are strong because governments and the wind industry stubbornly-l would now add, criminally-refuse to acknowledge that they are deliberately and aggressively harming people. This must stop. The evidence is overwhelming.
Some weeks ago I was contacted by the editor of a leading peer-reviewed American clinical journal to write a special article on Wind Turbine Syndrome. The journal is published both online and in hard copy and aimed primarily at audiologists, otolaryngologists, and neuro-otologists.
I accepted the invitation. The article will be peer-reviewed before publication and should appear online in the next few months. Following that, it will be published in the hard copy edition of the journal. This means, of course, that my research and my findings are being accepted by the clinical medical community. Wind developers may not take this research seriously-but medical experts are.
So is the international community of otolaryngologists and neuro-otologists. My research was presented in March 2010 in a paper at the annual meeting of the Meniere’s Society, in Austria. It was widely praised. The presenter was Professor Alec Salt, PhD, internationally acclaimed neuro-physiologist specializing in inner ear diseases, from the Department of Otolaryngology at the Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, Missouri.
I have interrupted my writing the above journal article to compose this letter to you. The handwriting is on the wall for wind developers and their wholly inadequate setbacks. Legal proceedings have begun in several states and nations. You would be unwise to proceed with installation of these turbines if you are planning on setbacks less than 2 km.
I repeat, <2 br="br" km="km" must="must" setbacks="setbacks" stop.="stop.">
Nina Pierpont, MD (Johns Hopkins), PhD (Population Biology, Princeton)
Fellow of the American Academy of Pediatrics
Former Clinical Assistant Professor of Pediatrics,
College of Physicians & Surgeons,
Columbia University
cc Valerie M Garry, Attorney at Law
1 Lars Ceranna, Gernot Hartmann, and Manfred Henger, “The Inaudible Noise of Wind Turbines,” presented at the lnfrasound Workshop, November 28 – December 02, 2005, Tahiti. Federal Institute for Geosciences and Natural Resources (BGR), Section 83.11. Stilleweg 2, 30655 Hannover, Germany. Download PDF copy here: http://www.kselected.com/?p=7589.
2 For a summary, see Nina Pierpont, “Report for Clinicians,” in Wind Turbine Syndrome: A Reporton a Natural Experiment (Santa Fe, NM: K-Selected Books, 2009), pp. 26-125. Purchase a copy here: http://www.kselected.com/?pane id=4768.
3 Pierpont 2009, pp. 31-33, 127-192.
4 Pierpont 2009, pp. 287-292. See also testimony by F. Owen Black, MD, FACS, found at http://www, kselected.com/?p=4047
International Power Canada Inc.
105 Commerce Valley Drive West, Suite 410
Markham, Ontario L3T 7W3 Canada
May 7,2010
Dear Mr. Crawley,
I am writing on behalf of XX, Harrow, Ontario. Mrs. X informs me that her home has nine (9) 1.65 MW V2 Vestas wind turbines within 2 km of her home. Three of these are within 1 km. Indeed, all 24 turbines (for this project) are within 5 km.
Mrs. X tells me that she and her neighbor are motion sensitive (see below). She likewise tells me that 3 of the neighbors suffer from migraine disorder. Mrs. X’s son has a history of ear infections. A second cousin, living 1 km away, has documented tinnitus. Two children in the neighborhood have autism-both living within 1 km of the turbines. One young man (27 years old) living within 2 km of the turbines has epileptic seizures.
Mrs. X and her husband are over 50 years of age (see below), and her in-laws (living immediately across the road) are over 80 years old.
With this as background, permit me to speak plainly. To build these turbines next to these people is a reckless and violent act.
The evidence for turbines producing substantial low frequency noise and, worse, infrasound, is no longer in dispute. I quote from one of numerous studies demonstrating this: “Wind turbines and wind farms generate strong infrasonic noise which is characterized by their blade passing harmonics (monochromatic signals)” (Ceranna et al., p. 23). In this instance, the authors are referring to a single 200 kW Vestas V47 at 200 meters-a peashooter compared to the turbines adjacent to Mrs. X’s home.’
Second, the clinical evidence is unambiguous that low frequency noise and infrasound profoundly disturb the body’s organs of balance, motion, and position sense (called “vestibular organs”).2
Third, the case studies performed by me and other medical scientists have demonstrated unequivocally that many people (especially 50 years old and older) living within 2 km of turbines are made seriously ill, often to the point of abandoning their homes.3
Fourth, there is no doubt among otolaryngologists and neuro-otologists who have studied the evidence that wind turbine low frequency noise and infrasound seriously disrupt the body’s vestibular organs, resulting in the constellation of illnesses I have called Wind Turbine
The cure for Wind Turbine Syndrome is simple: Move away from the turbines or shut them off. The prevention of Wind Turbine Syndrome is even simpler: Don’t build these low frequency/infrasound-generating machines within 2 km of people’s homes.
Governments and corporations who violate this principle are guilty of gross clinical harm. Such governments and corporations should be taken before whatever level of court is necessary to stop this outrage.
These are strong words. They are carefully chosen. They are strong because governments and the wind industry stubbornly-l would now add, criminally-refuse to acknowledge that they are deliberately and aggressively harming people. This must stop. The evidence is overwhelming.
Some weeks ago I was contacted by the editor of a leading peer-reviewed American clinical journal to write a special article on Wind Turbine Syndrome. The journal is published both online and in hard copy and aimed primarily at audiologists, otolaryngologists, and neuro-otologists.
I accepted the invitation. The article will be peer-reviewed before publication and should appear online in the next few months. Following that, it will be published in the hard copy edition of the journal. This means, of course, that my research and my findings are being accepted by the clinical medical community. Wind developers may not take this research seriously-but medical experts are.
So is the international community of otolaryngologists and neuro-otologists. My research was presented in March 2010 in a paper at the annual meeting of the Meniere’s Society, in Austria. It was widely praised. The presenter was Professor Alec Salt, PhD, internationally acclaimed neuro-physiologist specializing in inner ear diseases, from the Department of Otolaryngology at the Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, Missouri.
I have interrupted my writing the above journal article to compose this letter to you. The handwriting is on the wall for wind developers and their wholly inadequate setbacks. Legal proceedings have begun in several states and nations. You would be unwise to proceed with installation of these turbines if you are planning on setbacks less than 2 km.
I repeat, <2 br="br" km="km" must="must" setbacks="setbacks" stop.="stop.">
Nina Pierpont, MD (Johns Hopkins), PhD (Population Biology, Princeton)
Fellow of the American Academy of Pediatrics
Former Clinical Assistant Professor of Pediatrics,
College of Physicians & Surgeons,
Columbia University
cc Valerie M Garry, Attorney at Law
1 Lars Ceranna, Gernot Hartmann, and Manfred Henger, “The Inaudible Noise of Wind Turbines,” presented at the lnfrasound Workshop, November 28 – December 02, 2005, Tahiti. Federal Institute for Geosciences and Natural Resources (BGR), Section 83.11. Stilleweg 2, 30655 Hannover, Germany. Download PDF copy here: http://www.kselected.com/?p=7589.
2 For a summary, see Nina Pierpont, “Report for Clinicians,” in Wind Turbine Syndrome: A Reporton a Natural Experiment (Santa Fe, NM: K-Selected Books, 2009), pp. 26-125. Purchase a copy here: http://www.kselected.com/?pane id=4768.
3 Pierpont 2009, pp. 31-33, 127-192.
4 Pierpont 2009, pp. 287-292. See also testimony by F. Owen Black, MD, FACS, found at http://www, kselected.com/?p=4047
Wednesday, June 16, 2010
Pilot Payments ~ Easy money ?
PILOT PAYMENTS
Wind turbines are fairly expensive
The average cost of buying & installing a commercial wind turbine (per internet estimates) is roughly between $2M and $3M each. Then the wind developer and local IDA negotiate a PILOT (Payment In Lieu Of Taxes) "deal" and the wind developer avoids paying his fare share of taxes pays a small fraction of the project's net worth as a result of the IDA PILOT "deal". [1] A PILOT is a payment in lieu of taxes (also sometimes abbreviated "PILT"), made to compensate a local government for some or all of the tax revenue that it loses because of the nature of the ownership or use of a particular piece of real property.[2]
No PILOT has been negotiated for the Cape Vincent project, but the developer's reliance on the Galloo plan to project payments to municipalities is a troubling sign that it will be presumed as the basis for the future talks.[3] There, the terms of the Galloo Island PILOT plan are being used to estimate possible PILOT payments for BP Alternative Energy's 124-megawatt project in a debate over the town's proposal to regulate noise levels. It is a consequence of the JCIDA's failure to follow the intent of the Legislature.[3]
Lowville Local taxing jurisdictions are considering a payment-in-lieu-of-taxes agreement on the proposed 39-turbine Roaring Brook Wind Farm that is expected to pay out between $17 million and $24 million over 20 years. [4]
However, given the recent legal wranglings over the last payment from the existing wind farm here, board members may choose to hold off on approving this deal formally until they have a clearer picture of that situation .[4] "Due to energy market conditions, among other reasons, the Company is not able to make any representations regarding when the project would be constructed and therefore when PILOT payments would actually commence," the proposed term sheet states [4] The terms of the proposed PILOT are similar to an agreement approved recently by the Herkimer County Legislature for Atlantic Wind's 37-turbine Hardscrabble Wind Farm project there .[4] The wind company claimed it should pay only the so-called "fallback amount" since it had been decertified from the Empire Zone program, through which it receives state reimbursement for the payments .[4]
Galloo
The PILOT, which allows the developer to make reduced payments to taxing jurisdictions instead of paying property taxes, was approved along with a sales tax exemption and sale-leaseback agreement, which eliminates mortgage recording taxes. "This has been a very involved, committed, thoughtful process," JCIDA Chief Executive Officer Donald C. Alexander said. "It is one that has always had the best interests of the community at heart." [5] JCIDA attorney W. James Heary said the supplemental payments put in the PILOT give taxing jurisdictions extra revenue when electricity prices give the developer high earnings. "We don't necessarily need to go into the nitty-gritty of their plan," he said. Other board members chimed in and said they don't know the bottom line with several projects .[5] The PILOT for the 252-megawatt project will run 20 years and have base and supplemental payments .[5]
After the PILOT and sale-leaseback agreements were approved, the board unanimously agreed to a moratorium on accepting tax abatement applications from wind power projects until a uniform tax-exempt policy is approved. The board will hold a special meeting this month to discuss the policy .[5] "The economic benefits and earning potential are the company's business," said attorney Justin S. Miller, Harris Beach PLLC, Albany, which has consulted on wind farm PILOTs with the agency .[5]
On the wind farm aspect, the agency had worked for months on developing the uniform policy before Galloo Island Wind Farm's developer pressed for an individual payment-in-lieu-of-taxes agreement. That project's PILOT was different from the standard PILOT laid out in the agency's policy and those changes were approved in February after months of intense pressure
[6] If the wind farm operator ceases operation and doesn't pay the agency the PILOT, the agency returns title to the developer .[6]
The wind PILOT is based on income, not assessed value, anyway, consultant Mark E. Quallen said. "You've got variability around the annual production and you've also got variability around the price," he said. Though the developer may not give a pro forma, he said, the investment costs and revenue stream are easy to figure out .[6]
The Galloo draft policy includes a separate clause for renewable energy PILOTs, which allows for a fixed base payment per megawatt, increasing each year, and supplemental payments based on high electricity prices .[6] Board member John Doldo Jr. said the Galloo Island project wasn't lucrative enough for the taxing jurisdictions. He said the PILOT payments represented less than 14 percent of full taxation. "If you give that much away, there must've been a need to give that much," he said. Mr. Doldo based his numbers on the cost of the project " about $537 million of on-island investment .[6] Only about one mediocre paying job is created for every 10 turbines installed that's hardly job creation. Government watchdog groups say the absence of uniform standards makes the whole PILOT program open to abuse, because each wind company gets to negotiate its own private deal with the IDA. In addition, wind companies that fail to meet their original IDA job creation promises rarely get penalized .[1] New Yorkers in general are beginning to become completely fed up with PILOTs, IDAs, wind farms and seeing their tax dollars squandered by politicians and bureaucrats to offshore ownership. Taxpayers are beginning to revolt against the wind developers, IDAs and local governments and the November 2009 election results underscore this attitude .[1]
Once again the taxpayer is paying higher taxes to support the corrupt wind industry and people say the wind is free. Think about this - 65% of a commercial wind farm is being paid for with your American tax dollars thanks to stimulus money, NYSERDA, PTC (Production Tax Credits), rapid depreciation schedules, PILOTs, etc. while the foreign owner enjoys the profits while raping your community .[1] PILOTs are supposed to make jobs for communities but with wind farms this never happens .[1] PILOTs should be completely repealed and eliminated and taxpayers should demand the full value of tax revenue from the wind project and nothing less
.[1]
1. Beware NY Wind: PILOT Agreements - Corporate Welfare Ad Nauseum
2. PILOT (finance) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
3. Watertown Daily Times Wind PILOT
4. Watertown Daily Times PILOT proposed for new wind farm project
5. Watertown Daily Times JCIDA gives nod to Galloo wind PILOT
6.Watertown Daily Times : JCIDA's tax-exempt policy for wind farms won't include local, county issues
Wind turbines are fairly expensive
The average cost of buying & installing a commercial wind turbine (per internet estimates) is roughly between $2M and $3M each. Then the wind developer and local IDA negotiate a PILOT (Payment In Lieu Of Taxes) "deal" and the wind developer avoids paying his fare share of taxes pays a small fraction of the project's net worth as a result of the IDA PILOT "deal". [1] A PILOT is a payment in lieu of taxes (also sometimes abbreviated "PILT"), made to compensate a local government for some or all of the tax revenue that it loses because of the nature of the ownership or use of a particular piece of real property.[2]
No PILOT has been negotiated for the Cape Vincent project, but the developer's reliance on the Galloo plan to project payments to municipalities is a troubling sign that it will be presumed as the basis for the future talks.[3] There, the terms of the Galloo Island PILOT plan are being used to estimate possible PILOT payments for BP Alternative Energy's 124-megawatt project in a debate over the town's proposal to regulate noise levels. It is a consequence of the JCIDA's failure to follow the intent of the Legislature.[3]
Lowville Local taxing jurisdictions are considering a payment-in-lieu-of-taxes agreement on the proposed 39-turbine Roaring Brook Wind Farm that is expected to pay out between $17 million and $24 million over 20 years. [4]
However, given the recent legal wranglings over the last payment from the existing wind farm here, board members may choose to hold off on approving this deal formally until they have a clearer picture of that situation .[4] "Due to energy market conditions, among other reasons, the Company is not able to make any representations regarding when the project would be constructed and therefore when PILOT payments would actually commence," the proposed term sheet states [4] The terms of the proposed PILOT are similar to an agreement approved recently by the Herkimer County Legislature for Atlantic Wind's 37-turbine Hardscrabble Wind Farm project there .[4] The wind company claimed it should pay only the so-called "fallback amount" since it had been decertified from the Empire Zone program, through which it receives state reimbursement for the payments .[4]
Galloo
The PILOT, which allows the developer to make reduced payments to taxing jurisdictions instead of paying property taxes, was approved along with a sales tax exemption and sale-leaseback agreement, which eliminates mortgage recording taxes. "This has been a very involved, committed, thoughtful process," JCIDA Chief Executive Officer Donald C. Alexander said. "It is one that has always had the best interests of the community at heart." [5] JCIDA attorney W. James Heary said the supplemental payments put in the PILOT give taxing jurisdictions extra revenue when electricity prices give the developer high earnings. "We don't necessarily need to go into the nitty-gritty of their plan," he said. Other board members chimed in and said they don't know the bottom line with several projects .[5] The PILOT for the 252-megawatt project will run 20 years and have base and supplemental payments .[5]
After the PILOT and sale-leaseback agreements were approved, the board unanimously agreed to a moratorium on accepting tax abatement applications from wind power projects until a uniform tax-exempt policy is approved. The board will hold a special meeting this month to discuss the policy .[5] "The economic benefits and earning potential are the company's business," said attorney Justin S. Miller, Harris Beach PLLC, Albany, which has consulted on wind farm PILOTs with the agency .[5]
On the wind farm aspect, the agency had worked for months on developing the uniform policy before Galloo Island Wind Farm's developer pressed for an individual payment-in-lieu-of-taxes agreement. That project's PILOT was different from the standard PILOT laid out in the agency's policy and those changes were approved in February after months of intense pressure
[6] If the wind farm operator ceases operation and doesn't pay the agency the PILOT, the agency returns title to the developer .[6]
The wind PILOT is based on income, not assessed value, anyway, consultant Mark E. Quallen said. "You've got variability around the annual production and you've also got variability around the price," he said. Though the developer may not give a pro forma, he said, the investment costs and revenue stream are easy to figure out .[6]
The Galloo draft policy includes a separate clause for renewable energy PILOTs, which allows for a fixed base payment per megawatt, increasing each year, and supplemental payments based on high electricity prices .[6] Board member John Doldo Jr. said the Galloo Island project wasn't lucrative enough for the taxing jurisdictions. He said the PILOT payments represented less than 14 percent of full taxation. "If you give that much away, there must've been a need to give that much," he said. Mr. Doldo based his numbers on the cost of the project " about $537 million of on-island investment .[6] Only about one mediocre paying job is created for every 10 turbines installed that's hardly job creation. Government watchdog groups say the absence of uniform standards makes the whole PILOT program open to abuse, because each wind company gets to negotiate its own private deal with the IDA. In addition, wind companies that fail to meet their original IDA job creation promises rarely get penalized .[1] New Yorkers in general are beginning to become completely fed up with PILOTs, IDAs, wind farms and seeing their tax dollars squandered by politicians and bureaucrats to offshore ownership. Taxpayers are beginning to revolt against the wind developers, IDAs and local governments and the November 2009 election results underscore this attitude .[1]
Once again the taxpayer is paying higher taxes to support the corrupt wind industry and people say the wind is free. Think about this - 65% of a commercial wind farm is being paid for with your American tax dollars thanks to stimulus money, NYSERDA, PTC (Production Tax Credits), rapid depreciation schedules, PILOTs, etc. while the foreign owner enjoys the profits while raping your community .[1] PILOTs are supposed to make jobs for communities but with wind farms this never happens .[1] PILOTs should be completely repealed and eliminated and taxpayers should demand the full value of tax revenue from the wind project and nothing less
.[1]
1. Beware NY Wind: PILOT Agreements - Corporate Welfare Ad Nauseum
2. PILOT (finance) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
3. Watertown Daily Times Wind PILOT
4. Watertown Daily Times PILOT proposed for new wind farm project
5. Watertown Daily Times JCIDA gives nod to Galloo wind PILOT
6.Watertown Daily Times : JCIDA's tax-exempt policy for wind farms won't include local, county issues
Friday, June 11, 2010
JEFFERSON COUNTY ~ THE INDIANA BROWN BAT
JEFFERSON COUNTY ~ THE INDIANA BROWN BAT
AND DEADLY WHITE~NOSE
SYNDROME
Jefferson County is home to the northernmost colony of Indiana brown bats, a federally listed endangered species,
that are undergoing a serious population decline. There are hibernacula in Glen Park, New York approximately 20 miles from Cape Vincent. The Indiana brown bat typically moves between 12 and 40 miles to roost locations.
Acciona’s Indiana bat study reports that Cape Vincent provides summer colony habitat, roosting and foraging areas for the Indiana Brown bat and also it documented that there is a maternity roost location in this same area. This is significant because Indiana bats have strong fidelity to summer colony areas, roosts and foraging habitat (USFWS1999). Radio telemetry studies in NY have shown this to be true for maternity roost locations as well where the Indiana bat forms maternity colonies of 20 to 100 members.
I am concerned that the Cape Vincent Indiana bat studies that, SLW ~ St. Lawrence Wind Power~ commissioned Sanders Environmental to do for their DEIS, are insufficient. The length of time may not be sufficient to determine bat presence because weather conditions change from year to year and this could very well affect bat activity. The Cape Vincent test was conducted in July/August of 2007 but the report is not clear as to how many days were spent in the field and under what conditions.
I also noticed that the report on Indiana Bat Roost Trees and Emergence Counts on bats captured outside Cape Vincent, New York sampling by Sanders Environmental Inc. has a date of July & August, 2007. Upon going over the report prepared for the Horse creek wind farm in neighboring Clayton, New York, I noticed they reported in their study that they trapped their first Indiana bat on June 02, (although a gap in netting activities indicates that bats could have been present in late May) and the last radio telemetry location occurred on August 09. After July 31, capture rates significantly decreased. Depending on when the Cape Vincent studies were done this may have had an effect on the results as well.
Sanders Environmental did not do thermal imaging or use acoustical radar. The Indiana brown bat is difficult to distinguish from the little brown bat therefore additional mist net surveys need to be conducted during the spring and the fall migration to understand the project area number and diversity of bats passing through the project area. These are extraordinary times and they call for extraordinary measures. We have an endangered species mysteriously dying off by the thousands. The Indiana bats have been affected by white nose syndrome, the mysterious ailment that has killed thousands of these bats. White nose syndrome has been identified among Indiana bats wintering in Glen Park. The issue of the white nose syndrome, and the fact that the Indiana bat is already an endangered species requires that we must move with great caution since this could become a critical issue for the Indiana bat’s survival.
SLW ~ St. Lawrence Wind Power~ Acciona~ has the potential to significantly impact the future survival of the Indiana bat because the fragmentation of habitat can have a negative effect on an already dwindling bat population.
Within 3/4 of a mile from the shores of Cape Vincent there already is an operational 86 turbine wind power plant on Wolfe Island, Canada. In Clayton, NY, Horse Creek wind farm is proposing to erect 62 turbines and another 77 turbine project is planned for Galoo Island. BP’s Cape Vincent wind project indicates their number is up to 140 Plus, slated for the area and SLW lists 53 turbines. That is the potential for a total of ~ 86 + 62 + 77 + 140 + 53 = 418 turbines. This means that potentially if all these projects come to fruition there would be 418 wind turbines within a 25 mile radius of the Indiana bat hibernacula in Glen Park, New York. Henderson, New York is also entertaining the idea of a wind farm and if the project that is developed it would only further increase the potential damaging effect on the bat population.
Already diminished in numbers, we are then going to assault this creature by fragmenting its habitat and destroying its foraging ground. Without a more extensive detailed study in Cape Vincent there is no way of knowing how many Indiana bats are actually in the area. In the case of such a sensitive issue studies should be done by an independent company, not one who depends on their lively hood from the wind companies. Another issue to consider is pressure changes that the spinning blades have on the lungs of the bats once the turbines become operational. This will also increase the mortality rate of an already endangered species and could become a critical issue in the future survival of the bat population especially considering the cumulative effects.
Lastly, were the transmission lines routes also included as part of the area being tested? St Lawrence Wind will be irreversibly committing resources to this project, resources that will cause the destruction of habitat, foraging areas and possibly causing irrevocable damage to this federally protected species. Not only do I think that the bat studies are inadequate, but I think, due to the plight of the Indiana bat, and the sensitive nature of the area, these projects are inappropriate for Cape Vincent, and the surrounding areas. To sacrifice so much for so little is obscene. Once lost these are things that can never be returned, gone forever a legacy lost to rusting monuments of greed.
DEC Letter To Tom Rienbeck
RE: State Environmental Quality Review
& Endangered/ Threatened Species
AND DEADLY WHITE~NOSE
SYNDROME
Jefferson County is home to the northernmost colony of Indiana brown bats, a federally listed endangered species,
that are undergoing a serious population decline. There are hibernacula in Glen Park, New York approximately 20 miles from Cape Vincent. The Indiana brown bat typically moves between 12 and 40 miles to roost locations.
Acciona’s Indiana bat study reports that Cape Vincent provides summer colony habitat, roosting and foraging areas for the Indiana Brown bat and also it documented that there is a maternity roost location in this same area. This is significant because Indiana bats have strong fidelity to summer colony areas, roosts and foraging habitat (USFWS1999). Radio telemetry studies in NY have shown this to be true for maternity roost locations as well where the Indiana bat forms maternity colonies of 20 to 100 members.
I am concerned that the Cape Vincent Indiana bat studies that, SLW ~ St. Lawrence Wind Power~ commissioned Sanders Environmental to do for their DEIS, are insufficient. The length of time may not be sufficient to determine bat presence because weather conditions change from year to year and this could very well affect bat activity. The Cape Vincent test was conducted in July/August of 2007 but the report is not clear as to how many days were spent in the field and under what conditions.
I also noticed that the report on Indiana Bat Roost Trees and Emergence Counts on bats captured outside Cape Vincent, New York sampling by Sanders Environmental Inc. has a date of July & August, 2007. Upon going over the report prepared for the Horse creek wind farm in neighboring Clayton, New York, I noticed they reported in their study that they trapped their first Indiana bat on June 02, (although a gap in netting activities indicates that bats could have been present in late May) and the last radio telemetry location occurred on August 09. After July 31, capture rates significantly decreased. Depending on when the Cape Vincent studies were done this may have had an effect on the results as well.
Sanders Environmental did not do thermal imaging or use acoustical radar. The Indiana brown bat is difficult to distinguish from the little brown bat therefore additional mist net surveys need to be conducted during the spring and the fall migration to understand the project area number and diversity of bats passing through the project area. These are extraordinary times and they call for extraordinary measures. We have an endangered species mysteriously dying off by the thousands. The Indiana bats have been affected by white nose syndrome, the mysterious ailment that has killed thousands of these bats. White nose syndrome has been identified among Indiana bats wintering in Glen Park. The issue of the white nose syndrome, and the fact that the Indiana bat is already an endangered species requires that we must move with great caution since this could become a critical issue for the Indiana bat’s survival.
SLW ~ St. Lawrence Wind Power~ Acciona~ has the potential to significantly impact the future survival of the Indiana bat because the fragmentation of habitat can have a negative effect on an already dwindling bat population.
Within 3/4 of a mile from the shores of Cape Vincent there already is an operational 86 turbine wind power plant on Wolfe Island, Canada. In Clayton, NY, Horse Creek wind farm is proposing to erect 62 turbines and another 77 turbine project is planned for Galoo Island. BP’s Cape Vincent wind project indicates their number is up to 140 Plus, slated for the area and SLW lists 53 turbines. That is the potential for a total of ~ 86 + 62 + 77 + 140 + 53 = 418 turbines. This means that potentially if all these projects come to fruition there would be 418 wind turbines within a 25 mile radius of the Indiana bat hibernacula in Glen Park, New York. Henderson, New York is also entertaining the idea of a wind farm and if the project that is developed it would only further increase the potential damaging effect on the bat population.
Already diminished in numbers, we are then going to assault this creature by fragmenting its habitat and destroying its foraging ground. Without a more extensive detailed study in Cape Vincent there is no way of knowing how many Indiana bats are actually in the area. In the case of such a sensitive issue studies should be done by an independent company, not one who depends on their lively hood from the wind companies. Another issue to consider is pressure changes that the spinning blades have on the lungs of the bats once the turbines become operational. This will also increase the mortality rate of an already endangered species and could become a critical issue in the future survival of the bat population especially considering the cumulative effects.
Lastly, were the transmission lines routes also included as part of the area being tested? St Lawrence Wind will be irreversibly committing resources to this project, resources that will cause the destruction of habitat, foraging areas and possibly causing irrevocable damage to this federally protected species. Not only do I think that the bat studies are inadequate, but I think, due to the plight of the Indiana bat, and the sensitive nature of the area, these projects are inappropriate for Cape Vincent, and the surrounding areas. To sacrifice so much for so little is obscene. Once lost these are things that can never be returned, gone forever a legacy lost to rusting monuments of greed.
DEC Letter To Tom Rienbeck
RE: State Environmental Quality Review
& Endangered/ Threatened Species
Sunday, June 6, 2010
THE DEC AND THE APOLLO ALLIANCE "CLIMATE", JOBS AND JUSTICE:
Jefferson's Leaning Left gives us a Birds Eye View into the New York State Department of Conservation Killing Fields .
~~~
I am not into conspiracy theories ,but massive corruption has crossed my mind.
In more than one NYPA press release announcing Kessels GLOW offshore wind project it has included the following statement ~ NYPA is supported by wind power proponents including the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation.~~~
I find it disturbing in light of the fact that Mr. Grannis represents the DEC , that the DEC is a proponent of wind ( what ever that means) that they have named them selves lead agency in the Galloo Island project setting a precedence.
link here to the Watertown Times article
POSSIBLE PRECEDENT: Agency, in ruling, names itself as lead on Galloo Island SEQR
The state Department of Environmental Conservation has declared itself the lead agency for a state environmental quality review of the proposed Galloo Island Wind Project — a ruling that may set a precedent of state review of future turbine projects.
The ruling by DEC Commissioner Alexander B. "Pete" Grannis on Friday afternoon is the first time the state has stepped in to perform a SEQR for a wind project. In the only other case where the commissioner made the lead agency determination, the Steuben County Industrial Development Agency was awarded lead agency status.
Now the subject of the Working families party ,and how this party is not a party and has nothing to do with working families either.
In a post earlier today ( Is the Party over for Darrel Aubertine? ) (This post explains the association between the WFP and the radical socialist organization the Apollo Alliance)
I mentioned Jefferson's Leaning Left and Darrel Aubertine breaking ties with the Working Families Party. This party has close ties with a radical socialist organization
THE APOLLO ALLIANCE
AND THE DEC
"Climate", Jobs and Justice:
Copenhagen Report and Next Steps for Labor and the Environment At the forum, environment, labor and environmental justice leaders who took part in the Copenhagen meetings, as well as other experts, discussed next steps to a meaningful response to the climate crisis.
The event was co-sponsored by the Workforce Development Institute, Albany Law School's Government Law Center, New York State Apollo Alliance and the Albany Law School Environmental Law Society.
These Pod Casts are very dry; however, they are worth listening to. I have recently only begun to understand the scope of the alliances between business and government, and environmental organizations, how they together are shaping policy, this policy has a profound effect on our daily lives. The context of these podcasts will help bring to light the views of these people that are in key positions to change our future.
Keynote speakers were
Pete Grannis, Commissioner, NYS Department of Environmental Conservation
Sean Sweeney, Director, Cornell Global Labor Institute
Cecil Corbin-Mark, Deputy Director, WeAct for Environmental Justice
Additional speakers included:
Mark Watson, Program Manager, Environmental Research, NYSERDAJill Kubit, Assistant Director, Cornell Global Labor Institute
Jared Snyder, Assistant Commissioner for Air Resources, NYS Department of Environmental
Mark Bettinger, Director of Sierra Club's Federal and International Climate Campaign
Ed Murphy, Director, Workforce Development Institute
The event was co-sponsored by the Workforce Development Institute, Albany Law School's Government Law Center, New York State Apollo Alliance and the Albany Law School Environmental Law Society.
Copenhagen1
Copenhagen2
~~~
I am not into conspiracy theories ,but massive corruption has crossed my mind.
In more than one NYPA press release announcing Kessels GLOW offshore wind project it has included the following statement ~ NYPA is supported by wind power proponents including the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation.~~~
I find it disturbing in light of the fact that Mr. Grannis represents the DEC , that the DEC is a proponent of wind ( what ever that means) that they have named them selves lead agency in the Galloo Island project setting a precedence.
link here to the Watertown Times article
POSSIBLE PRECEDENT: Agency, in ruling, names itself as lead on Galloo Island SEQR
The state Department of Environmental Conservation has declared itself the lead agency for a state environmental quality review of the proposed Galloo Island Wind Project — a ruling that may set a precedent of state review of future turbine projects.
The ruling by DEC Commissioner Alexander B. "Pete" Grannis on Friday afternoon is the first time the state has stepped in to perform a SEQR for a wind project. In the only other case where the commissioner made the lead agency determination, the Steuben County Industrial Development Agency was awarded lead agency status.
Now the subject of the Working families party ,and how this party is not a party and has nothing to do with working families either.
In a post earlier today ( Is the Party over for Darrel Aubertine? ) (This post explains the association between the WFP and the radical socialist organization the Apollo Alliance)
I mentioned Jefferson's Leaning Left and Darrel Aubertine breaking ties with the Working Families Party. This party has close ties with a radical socialist organization
THE APOLLO ALLIANCE
AND THE DEC
"Climate", Jobs and Justice:
Copenhagen Report and Next Steps for Labor and the Environment At the forum, environment, labor and environmental justice leaders who took part in the Copenhagen meetings, as well as other experts, discussed next steps to a meaningful response to the climate crisis.
The event was co-sponsored by the Workforce Development Institute, Albany Law School's Government Law Center, New York State Apollo Alliance and the Albany Law School Environmental Law Society.
These Pod Casts are very dry; however, they are worth listening to. I have recently only begun to understand the scope of the alliances between business and government, and environmental organizations, how they together are shaping policy, this policy has a profound effect on our daily lives. The context of these podcasts will help bring to light the views of these people that are in key positions to change our future.
Keynote speakers were
Pete Grannis, Commissioner, NYS Department of Environmental Conservation
Sean Sweeney, Director, Cornell Global Labor Institute
Cecil Corbin-Mark, Deputy Director, WeAct for Environmental Justice
Additional speakers included:
Mark Watson, Program Manager, Environmental Research, NYSERDAJill Kubit, Assistant Director, Cornell Global Labor Institute
Jared Snyder, Assistant Commissioner for Air Resources, NYS Department of Environmental
Mark Bettinger, Director of Sierra Club's Federal and International Climate Campaign
Ed Murphy, Director, Workforce Development Institute
The event was co-sponsored by the Workforce Development Institute, Albany Law School's Government Law Center, New York State Apollo Alliance and the Albany Law School Environmental Law Society.
Copenhagen1
Copenhagen2
Friday, May 28, 2010
Brother, Can You Spare A Dime?
The Wind industry is banking on Barack Obama to come through with another Federal mandate. Otherwise the wind turbine factories that Obama sited as job creators will sit idle.
Essentially the jobs that we would have payed for with our tax dollars will not exist. Do these even qualify as real jobs, if we buy them with subsidies? How much does each of these jobs actually cost?
So much for free enterprise!
Additionally: Right now Oklahoma has pending legislation that would suspend tax incentives for wind energy!
Thursday, May 27, 2010
Tony Hayward ~ BP ~ Billionaire ~ polluter
TONY HAYWARD ~ describes himself in the video below ~ SHALLOW GENERALIST
definition~ someone who knows a lot about not very much but not a lot about much.
In the video below Tony Hayward says that we lost track of the fact that our primary purpose in life is to create value for our share holders, and claims that they had too many people trying to save the world ! I would say that Bp is on a new track of destroying the world.
Mission accomplished Tony!
What an Arrogant Bastard!
Just remember these are the kind of people that you are trusting with our future by allowing them into our community . Just look at Bp's history that speaks for itself , this company has only one goal, creating value for their share holders, this goal often results in disasters created solely for shareholder financial reward. Do you want to be the next news story ripped from the headlines? Below is a quote from the financial times Hayward is already minimizing the impact of Bp's killing of the Gulf of Mexico. Have you seen the destruction from this oil spill ?
Think about the Cape Vincent wind project, Bp is using the communities of Cape Vincent and Lyme as just another means of creating value for BP's share holders!
What will the health impacts be? What will the affect on property values be? The door is closing, soon we will not have a choice, and BP will make the choice for our future! Just as their record shows the other choices that they make , we will be the next on the list of financial disasters.
Tony Hayward, chief executive of BP, "I think the environmental impact of this disaster is likely to have been very, very modest,"
"Tony Hayward we had too many people that were Working to save the world"
definition~ someone who knows a lot about not very much but not a lot about much.
In the video below Tony Hayward says that we lost track of the fact that our primary purpose in life is to create value for our share holders, and claims that they had too many people trying to save the world ! I would say that Bp is on a new track of destroying the world.
Mission accomplished Tony!
What an Arrogant Bastard!
Just remember these are the kind of people that you are trusting with our future by allowing them into our community . Just look at Bp's history that speaks for itself , this company has only one goal, creating value for their share holders, this goal often results in disasters created solely for shareholder financial reward. Do you want to be the next news story ripped from the headlines? Below is a quote from the financial times Hayward is already minimizing the impact of Bp's killing of the Gulf of Mexico. Have you seen the destruction from this oil spill ?
Think about the Cape Vincent wind project, Bp is using the communities of Cape Vincent and Lyme as just another means of creating value for BP's share holders!
What will the health impacts be? What will the affect on property values be? The door is closing, soon we will not have a choice, and BP will make the choice for our future! Just as their record shows the other choices that they make , we will be the next on the list of financial disasters.
Tony Hayward, chief executive of BP, "I think the environmental impact of this disaster is likely to have been very, very modest,"
"Tony Hayward we had too many people that were Working to save the world"
Sunday, May 23, 2010
Friday, May 21, 2010
Supervisors ~ REINBECK & AUBERTINE wanted host agreements for wind farms
Watertown Daily Times Supervisors want host agreements for wind farms
By NANCY MADSEN
TIMES STAFF WRITER
MONDAY, FEBRUARY 11, 2008
Supervisors from towns with wind projects want to see host community agreements in their towns as a part of any tax breaks for wind power developers.
Lyme Supervisor Scott G. Aubertine, who was not able to attend Tuesday night's session, said he wants to do more research into the differences between the two approaches.
But, he said, "It seems that the towns are doing the majority of the work and taking the majority of the grief, so they should be getting the majority of the money."
By NANCY MADSEN
TIMES STAFF WRITER
MONDAY, FEBRUARY 11, 2008
Supervisors from towns with wind projects want to see host community agreements in their towns as a part of any tax breaks for wind power developers.
Lyme Supervisor Scott G. Aubertine, who was not able to attend Tuesday night's session, said he wants to do more research into the differences between the two approaches.
But, he said, "It seems that the towns are doing the majority of the work and taking the majority of the grief, so they should be getting the majority of the money."
Wednesday, May 19, 2010
Clayton industrial wind project ~ HORSE ~ CREEK~
Clayton industrial wind project
Someone sent me this information about the Clayton industrial wind project.
This is a digital enhancement of the industrial wind farm proposed in Clayton NY showing the towers and residents homes.
The red triangles are homes and they are NOT all on this map.
The outer circles of the turbines are the just 1250 ft setbacks (local wind law rule).
The setbacks are NOT from adjacent resident’s property lines but from their homes. The Clayton project impacts not only Clayton residents it also impacts residents in Brownville, Lyme and Orleans along with two State wildlife preserves.
The wind district butts all of these townships.
There are only 26 residents in this wind district who will lease turbines just 26!!!
It is estimated that this project will impact over 2500 plus lives.
It has been PROVEN by acoustic engineers and Iberdola's (the developer) own noise analysis that all these residents will face excessive noise impacts during hours of sleep.
Many residents have 15 plus turbines surrounding their homes within a mile.
This is wrong.
World Health Organization says this is wrong.
The recommendations by our own NYS DEC on noise levels are ignored.
A wind committee consisting of both leasers and non leasers proves the setbacks are wrong. Clayton hired non biased acoustic engineers who proved these setbacks will harm all these residents. Health is a major concern but so is a property value.
Would you buy one of these homes?
To have or have NOT a wind farm is left in the hands of the Town councils.
Wednesday, May 12, 2010
IS FENNER AN EXPERIMENT ~ IN MOTION?
FENNER TURBINE DOWN:
The largest Wind project east of the Mississippi .
Is Fenner just nothing more than experiment in motion?
Is Fenner nothing more than a test of wind pressure and wind torque?
The largest Wind project east of the Mississippi .
Is Fenner just nothing more than experiment in motion?
Is Fenner nothing more than a test of wind pressure and wind torque?
A pressure too great for the concrete base to sustain for a ten year period.
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.
Design of Wind Turbine Foundation Slabs .pdf file
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.
Design of Wind Turbine Foundation Slabs .pdf file
~~~~~
Madison County Courier
By Martha E. Conway
Last December, a GE 1.5 megawatt turbine at the Fenner wind facility in Fenner, New York collapsed. An official report explaining the root cause of the collapse is still pending but news this week shed light on the situation. According to the article, "concrete core samples from the foundations preliminarily showed inconsistent aging and degradation".
Hank Sennott, director of corporate affairs and communications for Enel North America told the Madison County Courier "I don't know of any turbine foundation failures, but we were the first, so there is nothing to go back and research. This project was the largest built east of the Mississippi when we constructed it 10 years ago. There's no history for us to look at."
More...
Safety Measures Implemented to Keep Public out of ‘Collapse Zone’
By Martha E. Conway
Last December, a GE 1.5 megawatt turbine at the Fenner wind facility in Fenner, New York collapsed. An official report explaining the root cause of the collapse is still pending but news this week shed light on the situation. According to the article, "concrete core samples from the foundations preliminarily showed inconsistent aging and degradation".
Hank Sennott, director of corporate affairs and communications for Enel North America told the Madison County Courier "I don't know of any turbine foundation failures, but we were the first, so there is nothing to go back and research. This project was the largest built east of the Mississippi when we constructed it 10 years ago. There's no history for us to look at."
More...
Safety Measures Implemented to Keep Public out of ‘Collapse Zone’
News Video ~
Findings in turbine collapse due next week - YNN, Your News Now
Sunday, May 2, 2010
HOW *TURBINES BECAME UTILITIES IN CAPE VINCENT
April, 2009
Preface
A friend sent me this; it is a good chronological progression of the events that unfolded in Cape Vincent.
These events ultimately led to the wind turbines being designated as utilities. This is the Truth and there is documentation to support it. Additionally the planning board and Town board in Cape Vincent are self serving liars, the planning board of Cape Vincent isn’t even following its own comprehensive plan. A comprehensive plan is a means to promote the health, safety and general welfare of the people in the community and give due consideration to the needs of the people in the region of which the community is a part.
K.M.
THE STORY OF HOW WIND TURBINES BECAME UTILITIES
THE BEGINNING
Nov. 8, 2006 Planning Board meeting:
Planning Board Chairman, Mr.Edsall and the planning board (PB) are asked the critical question that sparks the controversy.
“Is a wind farm an acceptable site plan review use in the agricultural district?”
Is this question asked by Acciona? The minutes aren’t clear.
The Planning board chairman, Mr. Edsall asks his board for a vote on the question. They vote 5-0 yes. (With 3 conflicted votes) Note that the question is NOT are wind turbines a utility.
That is where the confusion starts. The question is about a wind farm being a proper site plan review use. This is a very important point.
The Problem:
There is no discussion on why a wind farm is acceptable as a site plan use in the AG district by the PB. They give NO rational as to why it is allowed or under what category it might fall. There are 12 site plan review uses allowed in the AG district. A wind farm is not listed as a use. Utilities, light industrial, and commercial ARE listed uses, but the planning board never says which use a wind farm is. They just say it is acceptable and move on.
So they must have had some reason in their heads. They never clearly define why wind turbines are allowed and why.Did they think that they are a utility because that is what the wind company told them? And that was what SLW listed on their permit application?
There is also the problem that it is out of the jurisdiction of the PB to make this determination or answer this question.
NY Town Law does not give the PB the power to interpret zoning law.
That is for the Zoning Enforcement Officer Alan Wood, and if there is a question it goes to the Zoning Board of Appeals. So even though everyone blames WPEG, it is the planning board that screwed up 1st.
Dec 2006: VERY IMPORTANT
WPEG challenges the planning board’s decision before the CV Zoning Board of Appeal.
It is critical to understand that… WPEG did not challenge whether turbines are utilities. They only asked for a determination, that if a wind farm is an acceptable site plan review use, which use is it, because wind farms are not listed?
The problem starts here because
SLW AND THEIR LAWYERS SWEEP IN AND SAY…”OH OUR PROJECT IS OK IN THE AG DISTRICT BECAUSE IT IS A UTILITY UNDER YOUR CURRENT ZONING AND UTILITIES DEFINITION”.
WPEG never said a word about utilities…it was SLW who defined turbines as utilities. Then WPEG challenged that as well, saying a wind farm is not a utility as defined by Cape Vincent’s zoning law. This is important…how did WPEG get blamed for turbines being utilities if they were fighting that turbines are not utilities…this makes no sense at all.
It is also very important to note that SLW’s application for a permit, and site plan review that was turned in to the town, also says their wind farm should be considered a utility.
WPEG didn’t write that on their application for them. The important thing is that even if WPEG didn’t challenge the PB decision these projects would have moved forward as utilities ANYHOW because that is what SLW put on their application. If nobody challenged it, it would have moved forward as a utility anyhow.
Now the other thing that is being lied about is they are saying WPEG is at fault for killing the 2006 wind law.
At the end of this post, I have included the minutes of an Aug 2006 meeting where [ Supervisor Reinbeck stated that on behalf of the board, he will request the planning board to adopt our proposed wind tower regulations as a guideline during their site plan review process]. So that is a lie too.
Also at the bottom of this post, is a letter from Richard Edsall: June 14, 2006. We propose that the town board abandon its efforts to amend the current zoning law.
Why does Reinbeck start a wind law committee, spend $20,000 on the law, and spend 5 months on it, when he knows he can’t pass it anyhow because of the conflicts of interest on his board? The answer is because he never wanted a wind law to begin with unless it was very weak and favored the wind company.
The wind law was finished in Jan…it is now almost May.
He is not going to pass a wind law because he and Edsall and the board and the lease holders do not want one.
No matter what they say, they want turbines as utilities so they can put as many of them in as possible and as close to the river and lake as possible!!!! THEY ARE LIARS!!!!
But to do this and create a public diversion they will blame WPEG for all the points above.
You have to have something for cover when you recklessly waste $20,000 of tax payer money.
Unsigned
Preface
A friend sent me this; it is a good chronological progression of the events that unfolded in Cape Vincent.
These events ultimately led to the wind turbines being designated as utilities. This is the Truth and there is documentation to support it. Additionally the planning board and Town board in Cape Vincent are self serving liars, the planning board of Cape Vincent isn’t even following its own comprehensive plan. A comprehensive plan is a means to promote the health, safety and general welfare of the people in the community and give due consideration to the needs of the people in the region of which the community is a part.
K.M.
THE STORY OF HOW WIND TURBINES BECAME UTILITIES
THE BEGINNING
Nov. 8, 2006 Planning Board meeting:
Planning Board Chairman, Mr.Edsall and the planning board (PB) are asked the critical question that sparks the controversy.
“Is a wind farm an acceptable site plan review use in the agricultural district?”
Is this question asked by Acciona? The minutes aren’t clear.
The Planning board chairman, Mr. Edsall asks his board for a vote on the question. They vote 5-0 yes. (With 3 conflicted votes) Note that the question is NOT are wind turbines a utility.
That is where the confusion starts. The question is about a wind farm being a proper site plan review use. This is a very important point.
The Problem:
There is no discussion on why a wind farm is acceptable as a site plan use in the AG district by the PB. They give NO rational as to why it is allowed or under what category it might fall. There are 12 site plan review uses allowed in the AG district. A wind farm is not listed as a use. Utilities, light industrial, and commercial ARE listed uses, but the planning board never says which use a wind farm is. They just say it is acceptable and move on.
So they must have had some reason in their heads. They never clearly define why wind turbines are allowed and why.Did they think that they are a utility because that is what the wind company told them? And that was what SLW listed on their permit application?
There is also the problem that it is out of the jurisdiction of the PB to make this determination or answer this question.
NY Town Law does not give the PB the power to interpret zoning law.
That is for the Zoning Enforcement Officer Alan Wood, and if there is a question it goes to the Zoning Board of Appeals. So even though everyone blames WPEG, it is the planning board that screwed up 1st.
Dec 2006: VERY IMPORTANT
WPEG challenges the planning board’s decision before the CV Zoning Board of Appeal.
It is critical to understand that… WPEG did not challenge whether turbines are utilities. They only asked for a determination, that if a wind farm is an acceptable site plan review use, which use is it, because wind farms are not listed?
The problem starts here because
SLW AND THEIR LAWYERS SWEEP IN AND SAY…”OH OUR PROJECT IS OK IN THE AG DISTRICT BECAUSE IT IS A UTILITY UNDER YOUR CURRENT ZONING AND UTILITIES DEFINITION”.
WPEG never said a word about utilities…it was SLW who defined turbines as utilities. Then WPEG challenged that as well, saying a wind farm is not a utility as defined by Cape Vincent’s zoning law. This is important…how did WPEG get blamed for turbines being utilities if they were fighting that turbines are not utilities…this makes no sense at all.
It is also very important to note that SLW’s application for a permit, and site plan review that was turned in to the town, also says their wind farm should be considered a utility.
WPEG didn’t write that on their application for them. The important thing is that even if WPEG didn’t challenge the PB decision these projects would have moved forward as utilities ANYHOW because that is what SLW put on their application. If nobody challenged it, it would have moved forward as a utility anyhow.
Now the other thing that is being lied about is they are saying WPEG is at fault for killing the 2006 wind law.
At the end of this post, I have included the minutes of an Aug 2006 meeting where [ Supervisor Reinbeck stated that on behalf of the board, he will request the planning board to adopt our proposed wind tower regulations as a guideline during their site plan review process]. So that is a lie too.
Also at the bottom of this post, is a letter from Richard Edsall: June 14, 2006. We propose that the town board abandon its efforts to amend the current zoning law.
Why does Reinbeck start a wind law committee, spend $20,000 on the law, and spend 5 months on it, when he knows he can’t pass it anyhow because of the conflicts of interest on his board? The answer is because he never wanted a wind law to begin with unless it was very weak and favored the wind company.
The wind law was finished in Jan…it is now almost May.
He is not going to pass a wind law because he and Edsall and the board and the lease holders do not want one.
No matter what they say, they want turbines as utilities so they can put as many of them in as possible and as close to the river and lake as possible!!!! THEY ARE LIARS!!!!
But to do this and create a public diversion they will blame WPEG for all the points above.
You have to have something for cover when you recklessly waste $20,000 of tax payer money.
Unsigned
Thursday, April 29, 2010
VISUAL AND SOUND IMPACTS FROM THE WOLFE ISLAND WIND
Presented at: Institutes for Journalism and Natural Resources ~ April 29,2010
Learning Expedition – Wolfe Island, Ontario
VISUAL AND SOUND IMPACTS FROM THE WOLFE ISLAND WIND
PROJECT ON RESIDENTS OF TIBBETTS POINT ROAD, CAPE
VINCENT, NY
PO Box 165
Cape Vincent, NY 13618
SUMMARY
This report outlines the acoustic and visual impacts of the Wolfe Island Wind Project on
residents 2 miles (3.2 km) across the St. Lawrence River along the Tibbetts Point Road, Cape
Vincent. Sound levels measured in January-February 2010, when the wind farm was operating,
were 3 to 4 dBA greater than background sound levels measured in 2008, prior to construction of
the wind farm. A mail-questionnaire was sent to 43 residents of the Tibbetts Point Road to assess
their reaction to noise and visual impacts from the Wolfe Island Wind Project. Twenty-seven
questionnaires were returned for a 63% response rate. Most respondents did not notice wind turbine
noise, but at times, 38% were annoyed by the wind turbine sound. For the level of sound increase
over background levels, respondents were more annoyed than New York DEC noise policy predicted.
Those respondents that heard the turbines described the noise as a low frequency/low pitched sound
that is louder on summer evenings when winds were weak or non-existent. This supports other
research linking annoyance with wind turbine noise and atmospheric stability.
Far more respondents (88%) were annoyed by the change in landscape view than with
noise. Ninety-two percent said these changes were for the worst and the blinking lights at night were
especially disturbing; some comparing them with a commercial airport. Policy makers should know
that visual and acoustic impacts for non-participating, waterfront residents are likely more negative
than they may have initially thought. Furthermore, current NYSDEC noise guidelines may not
adequately predict human response to wind turbine sound levels. (Note respondent comments in
Appendix A)
Commercial wind developers began offering lease agreements to land owners in
Cape Vincent beginning around 2004. Formal application for two commercial wind project
proposals were submitted to town authorities beginning in 2006. The initial projects
proposed nearly 250, four-hundred foot (122m) wind turbines, which would have covered
nearly the entire geographic footprint of the town. Opposition to these projects has been
1Retired Lake Ontario Unit Leader, New York State Department of Environmental Conservation Clifford P. Schneider
widespread and has focused on visual and noise impacts, as well as potential conflicts of
interest for a number of town elected and appointed officials.
In 2009, operations began for the Wolfe Island Wind Project located directly across
the St. Lawrence River from Cape Vincent (Figure 1). The project includes 86, 2.3 MW
wind turbines for a rated capacity of nearly 200 MW. The wind project is located on the
western end of Wolfe Island and is closest, and has greatest visual impact, to Cape Vincent residents living along Tibbetts Point Road (Figure 1). The closest wind turbine is
approximately 1.9 (3.1 km) miles away.
Cape Vincent is a community that has been struggling to find a way to integrate the
proposed commercial electric power production complex into its rural landscape and
tourism-based local economy. To say it has not been easy is to understate the extent of the
problem. The Wolfe Island Wind Project probably did more to help Cape Vincent and
Jefferson County, NY residents understand the potential visual impacts than any of the
visual simulation reports that were submitted with the environmental impact statements for
the two project proposals in Cape Vincent. Although wind turbine noise impacts were
expected to be minimal to non-existent, a number of residents were able to hear the nearest
wind turbine nearly 1.9 miles (3.1 km) away.
Mr. Schneider Presented his report at: Institutes for Journalism and Natural Resources April 29,2010 Learning Expedition – Wolfe Island, Ontario.
To read the complete 27 page report link here
Learning Expedition – Wolfe Island, Ontario
VISUAL AND SOUND IMPACTS FROM THE WOLFE ISLAND WIND
PROJECT ON RESIDENTS OF TIBBETTS POINT ROAD, CAPE
VINCENT, NY
Clifford P.Schneider1
PO Box 165
Cape Vincent, NY 13618
SUMMARY
This report outlines the acoustic and visual impacts of the Wolfe Island Wind Project on
residents 2 miles (3.2 km) across the St. Lawrence River along the Tibbetts Point Road, Cape
Vincent. Sound levels measured in January-February 2010, when the wind farm was operating,
were 3 to 4 dBA greater than background sound levels measured in 2008, prior to construction of
the wind farm. A mail-questionnaire was sent to 43 residents of the Tibbetts Point Road to assess
their reaction to noise and visual impacts from the Wolfe Island Wind Project. Twenty-seven
questionnaires were returned for a 63% response rate. Most respondents did not notice wind turbine
noise, but at times, 38% were annoyed by the wind turbine sound. For the level of sound increase
over background levels, respondents were more annoyed than New York DEC noise policy predicted.
Those respondents that heard the turbines described the noise as a low frequency/low pitched sound
that is louder on summer evenings when winds were weak or non-existent. This supports other
research linking annoyance with wind turbine noise and atmospheric stability.
Far more respondents (88%) were annoyed by the change in landscape view than with
noise. Ninety-two percent said these changes were for the worst and the blinking lights at night were
especially disturbing; some comparing them with a commercial airport. Policy makers should know
that visual and acoustic impacts for non-participating, waterfront residents are likely more negative
than they may have initially thought. Furthermore, current NYSDEC noise guidelines may not
adequately predict human response to wind turbine sound levels. (Note respondent comments in
Appendix A)
Commercial wind developers began offering lease agreements to land owners in
Cape Vincent beginning around 2004. Formal application for two commercial wind project
proposals were submitted to town authorities beginning in 2006. The initial projects
proposed nearly 250, four-hundred foot (122m) wind turbines, which would have covered
nearly the entire geographic footprint of the town. Opposition to these projects has been
1Retired Lake Ontario Unit Leader, New York State Department of Environmental Conservation Clifford P. Schneider
widespread and has focused on visual and noise impacts, as well as potential conflicts of
interest for a number of town elected and appointed officials.
In 2009, operations began for the Wolfe Island Wind Project located directly across
the St. Lawrence River from Cape Vincent (Figure 1). The project includes 86, 2.3 MW
wind turbines for a rated capacity of nearly 200 MW. The wind project is located on the
western end of Wolfe Island and is closest, and has greatest visual impact, to Cape Vincent residents living along Tibbetts Point Road (Figure 1). The closest wind turbine is
approximately 1.9 (3.1 km) miles away.
Cape Vincent is a community that has been struggling to find a way to integrate the
proposed commercial electric power production complex into its rural landscape and
tourism-based local economy. To say it has not been easy is to understate the extent of the
problem. The Wolfe Island Wind Project probably did more to help Cape Vincent and
Jefferson County, NY residents understand the potential visual impacts than any of the
visual simulation reports that were submitted with the environmental impact statements for
the two project proposals in Cape Vincent. Although wind turbine noise impacts were
expected to be minimal to non-existent, a number of residents were able to hear the nearest
wind turbine nearly 1.9 miles (3.1 km) away.
Mr. Schneider Presented his report at: Institutes for Journalism and Natural Resources April 29,2010 Learning Expedition – Wolfe Island, Ontario.
To read the complete 27 page report link here
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)