Darrel Aubertine shares his thoughts...

 June 2009,then Senator Darrel Aubertine ~ refuses to stand  for the Pledge of Allegiance  

   In 2006,  Darrel Aubertine wrote letter to the Cape Vincent town board saying that since he'd missed a recent public hearing, he wanted to share his thoughts on whether two wind conflicted members of the board  need to abstain from voting on the location of wind turbines in Cape Vincent. Aubertine went on to say it was his belief that the board members in question should not abstain because "as elected representatives, we are responsible to make decisions for the benefit of our constituents and community."

  
 The vote in question would have a direct affect on the number of turbines allowed in Acciona’s proposed turbine array plan. Additionally, when Aubertine wrote this letter he had at least 2 wind contracts with Acciona .  


THE LETTER...

Read more about Darrel Aubertine and his wind turbines at this link 

Link below to story in the Syracuse post standard & the
original source of this photo

Syracuse-area lawmakers who are seeking re-election played key roles in 2009 Senate coup

WINTER WEATHER!

This amazing stop motion video of snowfall in Washington, D.C.on 6 Feb 2010, set to White Winter Hymnal.Shared from Andrew Cutraro
,

 

Winter Storm Warning 

 

...WINTER STORM WARNING REMAINS IN EFFECT UNTIL 10 PM EST THIS

EVENING...

* LOCATIONS...THE EASTERN LAKE ONTARIO REGION.

* TIMING...THROUGH LATE THIS EVENING.

* HAZARDS...HEAVY SNOW.

For more info click title link

Lyme has been “ignored,” “marginalized” by state and BP Wind Energy, officials say

By JAEGUN LEE
TIMES STAFF WRITER

THURSDAY, DECEMBER 27, 2012

CHAUMONT — Lyme officials said the town has been “ignored” and “marginalized” by both BP Wind Energy, developer of the proposed Cape Vincent Wind Farm, and the state.

Although there will be no wind turbines in the town under the developer’s latest proposal, BP still would need to run a transmission line connecting the wind farm to a substation in Lyme.

Continue reading via this link 

BP Good neighbor agreements...

This is a re-posting of a post from May 1,2012
I am re-posting this  because I have been getting an inordinate amount of traffic to this post.
~~~~~~~~~~

It is my understanding that by New York State Law , a good neighbor agreement cannot be used to subvert a communities zoning law. If these agreements were to be honored the land owner would essentially be writing their own land use variance.

Below are excerpts from a BP good neighbor agreement also known as an easement.
Additionally at the end of this post, I have added a link to a BP good neighbor agreement contract.

~~~
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

Wind Welfare 8/31 Must Die

Wind Energy Subsidies Must Die
Written By : Dave Blount

Right Wing News
December 26, 2012

8/31/12 Blue Moon Cape Vincent

By watching the “mainstream” media, you could get the impression that the crucial issue of the day is whether the government will be able to raise taxes high enough fast enough to avoid disaster. In reality, Big Government already has too much money if it has even a penny to waste on moonbat insanity like wind energy subsidies:

Since 1992, the federal government has expended almost $24 billion to encourage investment in wind power through direct spending, tax breaks, R&D, loan guarantees and other federal support of electric power.

 The Joint Committee on Taxation estimates that a one-year extension of existing federal subsidies for wind power would cost taxpayers almost $12 billion.
 Continue reading via this link 

Obama’s wind-production tax-credit swindle

Serves big business, hurts the environment

By Kevon Martis and Tauna Christensen

Wednesday, December 26, 2012

The Washington Times 

Regarding the federal deficit, President Obama famously said, “I will not support any plan that puts all the burden for closing our deficit on ordinary Americans [and yet does not ask] the biggest corporations to pay their fair share.” Now, however, Mr. Obama vigorously supports at least one policy that violates that pledge: the federal production tax credit (PTC) for wind energy.

Conceived in 1992 as a means to spur the construction of wind-energy facilities that could compete with monopoly-owned conventional fossil-fuel power plants, this hefty tax credit mostly has benefited the same monopoly: conventional nuclear and fossil-fuel-fired electricity producers.

Continue reading via this link to The Washington Times

 

Christmas photos

Nearing fiscal cliff,wind industry waits

 By Sarah Harris
 with NCPR Player

 Dec 24, 2012 — Uncertainty over the future of production tax credits for wind energy producers has lead to a major industry slowdown. Now, the tax credit's fate is bogged down in Congressional "fiscal cliff" negotiations. For wind energy producers, the looming expiration date for the production tax credits, or PTCs, is getting even closer.

continue reading via this link

Row after claim wind turbine lifespan is just 10 years

By Jody Harrison | The Herald | 20 December 2012 | www.heraldscotland.com ~~

Wind farms are likely to run out of the ability to generate energy after little more than a decade of use – about half of the previously thought lifespan for the turbines.

An Edinburgh University study found that onshore wind farms, instead of lasting for 25 years without a drop in input into the grid, are more likely to reach the end of their lifespan in 10 or 12 years.

Continue reading via this link

Off and running

No matter the intangibles, the pace at which BP is moving this application along is sufficient warning to municipalities that to be a part of the process, you cannot drag your heels. Towns like Cape Vincent and Lyme and Clayton and Hammond, all of which have passed laws regulating commercial wind farm operations, will be bypassed and marginalized if their leaders are not ready to run with the big dogs,

 Perry White, Watertown Daily Times Staff Editor

 It should not have taken Cape Vincent officials long to see that they’d better get their track shoes on if they hope to have any influence on the state’s review of BP’s application for the Cape Vincent Wind Farm.

 Under Article X of Public Service Law, an application for any energy production facility bypasses local regulatory bodies and goes before a state siting board, which must shepherd the application through in 12 months. BP was facing a process at the town level that had little to no chance of being reviewed within a year, but with the passage of Article X, it’s like the company was able to jump in a plane to avoid all the traffic on local roads. What the town now fears is that BP will be in first class while the town struggles back in coach seats. Continue reading via this link

The wind production tax credit still hangs in the fiscal-cliff balance

POSTED AT 12:11 PM ON DECEMBER 21, 2012

 BY ERIKA JOHNSEN ~ Hot Air 

With Congress and the White House currently concentrating their laser-like focus on averting (ornot averting, as the case may be) the fiscal cliff, the fate of various tax extenders is still very much up in the air, including the wind industry’s precious production tax credit (which covers about 30 percent of wind power’s costs — no wonder they’re so keen on keeping it around). The wind lobby is working overtime to convince Congress to pass an extension before the clock runs out on December 31st, but most lawmakers’ concerns are about the bigger fish we still need to fry before the end of the year.

House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) on Tuesday unveiled a “Plan B” approach to avoid most of the looming tax hikes, but it did not address the PTC or other so-called tax extenders. President Obama and Senate Democrats were quick to dismiss the offer.

Continue reading via this link

Wind industry tax credits should die

Go Erie.com ~ Letters to the editor: 

Wind industry tax credits should die 

Penn State Behrend Professor John Paul Rossi promotes the production tax credit, a subsidy for the wind industry, in his recent op-ed column (Erie Times-News, Dec. 8).

I have a different viewpoint. My research shows that production tax credit subsidies add billions of dollars of hidden costs and undermine the reliability of our electric grid. Most of the wind industry’s arguments supporting the PTC represent a case of “rent seeking” by an established industry wanting to maintain profits through a generous subsidy, at taxpayer’s expense.

Dr. Lesser, an economics textbook author, has researched almost four years of electric production in our grid. He found that more than 84 percent of the installed wind turbines failed to produce electricity when electric demand was greatest.

I drive through Somerset County in the summer and see hundreds of motionless turbines that do not deliver any power when there is high demand. The July 2012 heat wave was a perfect example. Dr. Lesser has found that the cost of integrating fluctuating wind power into the grid adds $500 million per year nationwide in costs.

Rossi mentions that Pennsylvania has 910 megawatts of wind capacity. Lesser shows that wind’s median availability is only 25.9 percent in our grid. The 910 MW of installed capacity really equals 235.7 MW of output. Who would want to receive electricity only 25.9 percent of the time? That’s what would happen if our homes were powered by electricity only produced from wind turbines.

Rossi is correct when he states that wind energy creates jobs. Construction jobs are temporary and out-of-state workers fill many of them. Operation/maintenance jobs are permanent, but limited to 3 to 5 full-time employees for many projects.

More than 75 percent of the wind capacity is in just 11 states. Why should taxpayers across the country have to support this industry? The PTC is a handout that distorts markets and allows unfair competition.

Laura Jackson
Bedford Count

Link here to original

Wind farm subsidies called into question by new study

by David Black,  The Journal

Dec 21 2012
“Bluntly, wind turbines, onshore and offshore, still cost too much and wear out far too quickly to offer the developing world a realistic alternative to coal.”

 MASSIVE subsidies for the onshore wind industry have again been called into question by a new study which found that the effective lifespan of turbines is much shorter than has previously been claimed.
 The study – which examined the performance of wind farms in the UK and Denmark – says the economic life of onshore turbines is between 10 and 15 years, not the 20 to 25 projected by the wind industry itself and used for Government energy projections.
  Continue reading via this link

APPARENTLY BUOYS REALLY ARE DESIGNED TO FLOAT!

Is Cape Vincent AG district in the NO Zoning Zone?

 At Thursday’s Town Board meeting Karen Stumph spoke about an issue concerning   the new zoning law, she felt there are problems that the organizers of the committee were not aware of …

   “one of the problems was that the committee was made up primarily of let me use the word – outsiders – – who had no knowledge of the rural community. “Mrs. Stumph said  .

Additionally, she said that the zoning map is deceiving in that much of the land in the outer districts is Agricultural ,she went on to explain that 80% of the River District is  Agricultural, and that 2/3 of the Lake and Recreation area is Agricultural district as well, which again means the township has no authority for land-use in Agricultural Districts, adding that any areas under the Agricultural Districts are immune and or exempt from the town rules and regulations regarding a land-use.

 To support her claim she said that she had spoken with authorities from Cornell Cooperative Extension, the Jefferson County Planning Department and  Agricultural (AG)and markets.

 This sounds credible, however it is not accurate. Farms in some cases are allowed to proceed with farm related activities despite zoning regulations. However the construction of an industrial wind  complex  is not exempt from zoning laws.

Is this a precursor to the road that the pro-wind will be taking? Will they be informing the Public Service Commission that they need not consider the Cape Vincent zoning law because it does not apply to the land slated for BP’s Cape Vincent Wind Farm?

  

Cape Vincent Comments to Public Service Commission RE: BP ~ PIP

  

December 20, 2012

Honorable Jeffrey C. Cohen

Acting Secretary, NYS Board of Electric Power Generation Siting and Environment

3 Empire State Plaza

Albany, NY 12223-1350

Re: Case12-F-0410 Cape Vincent Wind Power

Dear Acting Secretary Cohen:

Regarding the revised Public Involvement Program (PIP) dated Nov. 12, 2012 from BP, there are several areas where the DPS made specific recommendations as to what actions were necessary to make the original PIP plan adequate. The following requests from the DPS were not met in BP's revised PIP, nor did BP provide a written explanation as to why it decided not to incorporate DPS's recommendations.

 We wish to make clear, for the record that BP’s revised PIP is substantially lacking.

From the DPS letter Oct. 17, 2012 “Pursuant to 16 NYCRR 1000.4 (e), Cape Vincent Wind Power, LLC shall within 30 days consider the measures recommended by DPS and, in a final written Public Involvement Program plan filed with the Secretary, shall as to each specific measure either revise the Public Involvement Program plan to incorporate the DPS recommendation, or provide a written explanation as to why it decided not to incorporate the recommendations.”

And

“The PIP should identify a proposed Study Area, and identify any additional stakeholders or

stakeholder groups that are within that broader area. Representatives and residents of adjacent

municipalities (e.g., Town of Clayton; Wolfe Island, Ontario) should be considered as potential

stakeholders based on regional scale impacts of the proposed large-scale wind energy project,

and potential cumulative impacts with existing or proposed wind energy facilities in those

jurisdictions.”

However, Wolfe Island, an existing project, and Clayton, a proposed project, were not included in BP's revised PIP.

The DPS also wrote:

"In addition, we would appreciate it if you could provide DPS with some basic project

information including (a) a map showing the project area including the turbine array limits, and

the location of electric lines, substations, switchyard and interconnection points; and (b) a

description of the changes resulting in the consolidated project including the number and size of

turbines, their location, and the project boundary."

BP ignored this recommendation by DPS in their revised PIP and did not change a single feature of their original map "Exhibit 1- Map of Cape Vincent Wind Farm." BP's map lacks boundaries of the project, setbacks from property lines, location of turbines, a legend of host landowners and adjacent landowners. Locations of electric lines, substations, switchyards, and interconnection points are vague and indeterminable.

In BP’s revised PIP on page 4 there is a chart which describes setbacks distances from non-participating landowners, yet their map does not delineate which properties are non- participating making interpretation of setback distances impossible.

The DPS further writes:

“3. The Plan should provide a preliminary specific (non-generic) identification of: (i) host

landowners; and (ii) adjacent landowners;….”

Again, no such information is included and the recommendations of DPS were ignored.

BP writes in their revised PIP “...has developed a list of stakeholders using the following criteria (a preliminary specific list of stakeholders is attached as Exhibit 3):”

Exhibit 3, however, lacks lists of specific host landowners and adjacent property owners. The Lyme Planning Board is not entirely represented and Clayton and Wolfe Island are not included. In this instance BP has failed to include what they said they would include!

DPS writes:

“1. The Public Involvement Program plan (Plan) should identify: (c) the location of reasonable

alternative sites,…..” BP’s revised PIP has no alternate facility sites proposed, nor did BP provide an explanation as to why they ignored DPS's recommendations.

DPS writes:

“9. The Plan should include a provision that the Applicant will prepare a monthly spread sheet style tracking report identifying public involvement program activities conducted by the

Applicant, summaries of feedback received in such activities, and summaries describing any

actions taken by the Applicant in response to such feedback.”

BP officially began their PIP Sept. 17. To date their website has neither summaries of feedback from the public nor summaries of actions taken by BP in response to feedback. It has been two months and their web-page is blank along with their response to DPS.

DPS writes:

“Identification of goals and methods for specific consultations...d) provide a methodology to

measure the success of the outreach. “

BP responds in their revised PIP:

"...consultation will be deemed successful if information relevant to affected stakeholder or

agency was provided to affected agency or stakeholder,..” In addition to information requested in previous letters to the PSC and BP, the Town of Cape Vincent has requested:

 An accurate map with specifics details

 lists of host landowners and adjacent landowners

 accurate and definitive size of project - 200-285 MW has a 42% variation

 accurate numbers for productivity- not exaggerated by at least 3 times

 acknowledgement that significant adverse environmental, social, financial, and cultural impacts exist

 respect for our Town Comprehensive Plan and our Local Zoning Laws.

 In spite of these requests, BP chose to ignore the Town's requests in much the same manner that they have ignored DPS recommendations for improving their PIP.

There has to be some recognition in the Article 10 process between an applicant's rhetoric and their compliance with the law, rules and the recommendations of the DPS. In BP's Article 10 case they obviously talk better than they walk. Although we view the loss of home rule to be unfair to the interests of our community, we felt the rules that were promulgated by DPS attempted to balance the interests of all the players, us included. However, if BP continues to be unresponsive to these rules, as they have been with their PIP, then we foresee a continued adulteration of the Article 10 process. Governor Cuomo, during the signing of the NY Power Act 2011, stated that “the process will be fair,” and we hope and expect that the Siting Board will uphold the expectation of the governor.

Respectfully yours,

Urban Hirschey – Town Supervisor

Brooks Bradgon – Deputy Supervisor

John Byrne – Town Council

Clifford Schneider – Town Council

Michelle Oswald – Town Council

Richard Macsherry – Planning Board Chairman

Robert S. Brown – Planning Board

Cyril Cullen – Planning Board

Paul Docteur – Planning Board

Hester Chase – Zoning Board