Cohocton Wind Watch: January 2007
Cohocton Wind Watch is a community citizen organization dedicated to preserve the public safety, property values, economic viability, environmental integrity and quality of life in Cohocton, NY and in surrounding townships. Neighbors committed to public service in order to achieve a reasonable vision for a Finger Lakes region worthy of future generations.

READ about the FIRST WIND Connection to the Obama Administration

Industrial Wind and the Wall Street Cap and Trade Fraud


Wednesday, January 31, 2007

Mars Hill residents voice concerns over wind tower noise by Rachel Rice

Wendy and Perrin Todd knew what would happen to their view of Mars Hill Mountain when crews starting erecting wind towers near their backyard.

They braced themselves when their home, newly built on the north side of the mountain, shook because of the blasting.

But what shocked them — and what they said this week they should not be expected to live with — is the noise.

"They turned on tower Number 9, and almost immediately it made enough noise that it was like, ‘Oh my gosh, that can’t be right,’" Wendy Todd said.

"It all depends on the wind speed and direction, but the best way to describe it is you step outside and look up thinking there’s an airplane. It’s like a high-range jet, high-low roar, but with the windmills, there’s a sort of on and off ‘phfoop ... phfoop ... phfoop’ noise."

That’s one "phfoop" or more every two seconds as the turbine’s three blades rotate from 10 to 22 revolutions per minute. It’s loud enough, Todd said, that she can hold her cell phone outside her home and the person on the other end of the call can clearly hear the sound.

Even though tower No. 9 has been shut down in the wake of noise complaints, several local residents who live close to the mountain said they’re worried about what they’ll hear when all 28 wind turbines start rotating sometime in mid-February. Currently 16 turbines are in operation.

The Mars Hill Wind Farm is the biggest wind power operation to come to New England. From its inception, company officials said noise from the towers would not be an issue.

Evergreen Wind Power LLC of Bangor, a subsidiary of UPC Wind Management, has spent four years and about $85 million on the project, which is expected to generate an estimated 42 megawatts of electricity annually or enough to supply about 45,000 Maine homes at full capacity. A public relations official for the company said Thursday that he could not disclose where the power is being sold.

"That is competitively sensitive information that we are not at liberty to share," Ric Tyler said in an e-mail. Other written questions the Bangor Daily News submitted to the company, including about the noise issue, could not be answered by Thursday evening, according to Tyler.

Since the project began last spring, there have been local concerns about how construction is driving away wildlife and the way the towers are changing the face of the mountain, but up until now, there wasn’t much anxiety about noise.

A town official confirmed that the "noise issue" came up a few weeks ago when the wind turbines first started powering up. An official with the Department of Environmental Protection said that the regional office has received half a dozen formal complaints about noises connected to the project.

Living under the towers

On Monday, the sun was glistening off the sleek, metal towers lining the ridge above Mountain Road. Inside Merle and Carol Cowperthwaite’s home, a few local residents gathered to talk about the turbines and their concerns.

The Cowperthwaites, the Todds and Wendy Todd’s parents, Wallace and Ella Boyd, pointed out that they haven’t heard wildlife — owls, bears and coyotes — like they used to. And then there’s the brook that ripples down the mountain.

"If you take Number 9 and multiply it, we worry that we won’t be able to hear that [brook] anymore," Wendy Todd said.

Carol Cowperthwaite pointed out that people who live near the mountain, especially along Mountain Road, do so because they like the solitude, they crave the peace and quiet.

"One night, I kept wondering why the furnace wouldn’t shut off and then I realized it wasn’t that, it was the windmills outside," Merle Cowperthwaite said. He feels particularly pessimistic about the wind turbines.

"The only thing we’ve got going for us is we’re getting older and that means we’re getting deafer," he said.

The couples agreed that the noises they’ve heard so far go beyond annoyance or frustration.

"Our sleep patterns have already been interrupted," Perrin Todd said. "And that’s with only a few [turbines] running. We assume our sleep patterns would worsen once all of them are up and running."

When local residents first heard the noises from the wind towers, they called up company officials wanting to know whether this was part of the testing phase or if it was how the turbines would always sound. They soon learned that a sound level analysis conducted by Resource Systems Engineering Inc. in 2003 indicated that the sound level at dozens of residences around the mountain had the potential to exceed limits set by the DEP.

Properties in the analysis were listed as either protected residential locations or quiet areas under DEP guidelines. In protected residential locations, the "hearing response of the human ear" to sounds cannot exceed 60 decibels during the day and 50 at night. In quiet areas, the restriction drops to 55 decibels during the day and 45 at night.

RSE officials predicted that with a proposed 35 turbines running at 95 percent of their capacity, 44 properties would hear sound levels above 45 decibels and 18 of them would hear levels above 55 decibels.

Some of that information was included in the Mars Hill Wind Farm permit application, which was submitted by the company and the town of Mars Hill to the DEP. An appendix on noise analysis by RSE Inc., stated that, "the wind turbines only operate when the wind is blowing, and any noise they generate is often masked by the background noise caused by the wind."

It points out that sounds from the project "may exceed noise standards at some of the dwellings located to the north of the project," but that turbine locations in those areas will be used only if more detailed analysis shows that noise standards will be met or if easements or leases are acquired by potentially affected properties.

The Todds, the Boyds and the Cowperthwaites say no one has approached them about easements or leases and, as far as they know, no one has approached any of their neighbors about them, either.

They also said that none of their neighbors knew anything about the sound analysis or the information on noise in the permit application, though they later learned that both have been available to the public for months at the Mars Hill Town Office.

Officials did not respond to inquiries about efforts the company made to ensure nearby residents knew about the noise levels from the turbines or whether the company will be doing anything to address those concerns now.

Last week, about 15 residents around the mountain gathered to discuss the documents and what they wanted to do about it. They decided to bring their concerns to the Mars Hill Town Council and get some answers to their questions. A request by Perrin Todd to address council members about the noise from the wind farm is the first item on the council’s Jan. 29 agenda.
More questions than answers

Mars Hill Town Manager Ray Mersereau said Thursday that he doesn’t have many answers to give about the noise issue. He confirmed that Evergreen told the town that the turbines would make hardly any noise, and that’s what he’s experienced when he’s stood directly under the towers.

Mersereau also confirmed that town officials had to sign off on the permit application for the wind farm, but that he doesn’t know whether officials saw the noise information included.
"I don’t know if they saw it, but it was in the permit," Mersereau said. "Not everyone, including myself, read every part of the permit."

He pointed out, though, that town approval for the project was contingent on the company’s ability to meet state and federal environmental permit requirements, including noise standards under Maine law. He said the company will be required to keep the wind farm within Maine noise standards.

"If they’re not meeting the noise level requirements in the permit, is the company doing something to modify that? The DEP believed the company would be able to meet noise level requirements by permit," Mersereau said. "If they’re not meeting them, some sort of enforcement action will have to be taken."

Mersereau said there’s no way to know whether the company is meeting the permit requirements until sound level measurements are taken. That effort is under way now, both by contractors for the company and by the DEP.

Nick Archer, regional director for the DEP, said Thursday from his office in Presque Isle that a complaint investigation is under way.

"We’ll be working with the company and those with complaints to go over the standards for noise that have to be met, and where they have to be met," Archer said.

The work will take place over the next few months, he said.

"If they’re operating within the parameters of the permit, that’s as far as it will go, but we’re a long way from there yet," Archer said. "If they’re not, then the power company will have the opportunity to bring the issue into compliance. It’s the same way we deal with every complaint we receive."

While local residents await the measurement results, they’re very aware that the day is quickly approaching when all the turbines will be rotating.

"We have nothing against alternate forms of energy, but when it’s at the expense of residential living, people need to be aware of the facts," Perrin Todd said. "It has to be put in a location where it’s not so intrusive on people’s lives and dreams."

Tuesday, January 30, 2007

Evaluation of Environmental Shadow Flicker Analysis for “Dutch Hill Wind Power Project” by Rick Bolton

UPC and Goldman

--~-- UPC Wind --~--
Mr. Keel joins UPC from GE Energy Financial Services (EFS) where he led financial ... Country Energy Pipeline, and assets held by Goldman Sachs - Cogentrix. ...

Kirby Mountain: UPC Wind misinforms
UPC Wind Partners is a subsidiary of UPC Group, which is based in Italy. ... Goldman Sachs wants out of wind biz? A question about renewable energy ...

Kirby Mountain: Goldman Sachs wants out of wind biz?
Goldman Sachs wants to sell Horizon Wind Energy, which it bought last year (then ... Vermont legislators want to dump renewable energy · UPC's continuing ...

Madison Dearborn Partners > Principals
Prior to joining MDP, Mr. Alsikafi was with Goldman, Sachs & Co. in the financial ... L.L.C. (d.b.a. Boise Cascade), and UPC Wind Management, LLC. ..

SEARCH Enter the first few letters of the lastname OR company name ...

SEARCH Enter the first few letters of the lastname OR company name ...

TO: SCPPA Board of Directors FROM: Bill D. Carnahan SUBJECT ...
UPC Wind Corridor Project, and has been selected as the underwriter, ... Goldman Sachs: CMS Strategy. • Citigroup: Tax and Yield Curve Risk Management ...

US/Canada Wind Power Markets and Strategies 2005-2010 - Market ...
4.4.8 Horizon Wind Energy/Goldman Sachs 4.4.9 Eurus Energy ... Airtricity - Catamount Energy - UPC Wind - Cape Wind LLC - Major Wind Developer Strategy ...

Euromoney Energy Events
How are wind farms being financed? Where is the boom in financing ... GE Energy Financial Services; Goldman Sachs; Good Energies; Horizon Wind Energy, LLC; ...;=627129&ISS=21780

Howard town board members fear full disclosure by Art Giacalone ESQ 1/26/07

Bill Hatch, Bob Palmer and Lowell Smith are Howard town board mem­bers who voted in February 2006 to adopt a wind energy facilities law authorizing the town board to approve WEF permits for industrial-scale wind turbines. Standards and setbacks contained in the law are so weak that Howard Wind LLC and Everpower will be able to construct 492-foot tall turbines without meaningfully protecting town residents.

Hatch, Palmer and Smith are also landowners who will earn large annual revenues from wind turbines on their private properties if Howard Wind's pending application is approved. A letter from Everpower tells prospective "participating landowners" that they could expect pay­ments of between $14,000 and $18,000 per year for each wind turbine. The typi­cal agreement lasts between 15 to 30 years.

In November 2006, state Supreme Court told the three elected officials to fully dis­close their "financial rela­tionship" with Howard Wind, including the extent to which they "will financially bene­fit" from the approval of the pending application. They have failed to make the dis­closures, and have adopted a new strategy. On February 14,2007, they intend to amend Howard's existing WEF law to transfer the power to grant WEF permits to the town Planning Board. There's a problem, however. The same town board mem­bers who have so much to gain financially if Howard Wind's proposed project is approved are the ones who hand-select the Planning Board members.

The public deserves full disclosure, not self-serving officials intent on "having their cake and eating it too."

Monday, January 29, 2007

What Is Truly Wrong With Cohocton by James Hall

Remarks as published in the National Wind Watch.

Sunday, January 28, 2007

Wind Turbines and Conflicts of Interest Meeting

The League of Woman Voters of Orleans County is sponsoring a presentation called - Better Government: Avoiding Conflicts of Interest on February 8, 2007 at the Large Group Instruction Room at the Albion High School at 7:00pm, this event is free.

The article mentions that as wind companies target land in Orleans County, including property owned by officials on planning boards and other local government officials, a conflict of interest may arise for those officials in reviewing the projects. It states that "Local officials may also face other conflicts of interest when they vote on projects that may directly or indiregtly benefit themselves or their families"

James Magavern, a senior partner from Magavern, Magavern and Grimm in Buffalo, NY will be the guest speaker. He concentrates in the areas of health, corporate, state and local government law.


Cohocton Deserves Honest Government by Judith Hall

The crisis of confidence in the Zigenfus administration has reached a boiling point. Their management of town government is incompetent and an insult to every law-abiding citizen. Protecting our town is a sacred and profound duty.

Mr. Hunt’s integrity has been challenged for ethical violations. Why won’t the Town Board fulfill their duty and have the Ethics Committee investigate the charges? Curt Helf the code enforcement officer was told to issue stop work orders on legally issued building permits. There was no legal basis for this Zigenfus order. Mr. Helf was terminated for following NYS building code laws. Is this the level of ethics for any public official?

Remember that James Sherron of SCIDA has provided a copy of the PILOT scheme, which has $500.00 per MW being shared by the Town, the School District and the County. That translates into a mere $9,000 to the Town from the UPC Phase I project for the first year.

Does this sound like the Zigenfus administration is practicing sound government? They have cost the Town money by ignoring NY State as well as local zoning laws.

Cohocton needs a choice for new leadership and an administration that practices common sense economic development. When did you last have a choice when voting for the Town Council? This November will be different.

Republicans, Democrats and Independents are welcome and encouraged to support and become involved with a team of your neighbors who will put an end to the deception and selective cronyism that is the root cause of Cohocton’s distressed divide. Cohocton has gone backwards. In order to achieve a prosperous future we all must have an open government and sound business practices that represent ALL of our residents.

This coming November, Cohocton voters will be able to decide if Jack, Wayne and Milt are deserving of your trust. Come to the next Town Board meeting Feb 20, 2007 and voice your input to your town officials. The Zigenfus rule that bans comments from the floor is just the latest disgrace coming out of a town administration that fears the public and competition at the ballot box.

What Is Truly Wrong With Cohocton by James Hall

The 1/19/07 Public Hearing on the SDEIS Phase I and the DEIS Phase II of the UPC project was clear evidence why Cohocton has been in systemic decay for decades. The Cohocton Planning Board has demonstrated that it is but a rubber stamp for the UPC developer. Allowing a UPC “dog and pony show” to take up the limited time for citizen comments during a public hearing is unconscionable. Any reasonable person knows that if there really are two separate projects, two distinct and independent public hearings would be appropriate.

The factual, scientific, rational and common sense arguments against the ill sited industrial wind project were not refuted. The best the Old Regime could muster is a demand that the opponents of UPC should move out of town. This typifies the core issue why Cohocton has been a failed community. Bully and drive out the well-informed, prosperous and experienced so that certain families can maintain their blood line strangle hold on Cohocton. Just how well have they done in the past and how are they doing now?

The greed of the UPC leaseholder is on a scale only surpassed by their gullibility for buying into a golden goose fairy tale. Do you really think you are going to see turbine construction this year! Will you be planting this spring or when will you receive those UPC lease payments that were promised? The clipper turbines aren’t even being manufactured yet and Clipper has a five year contract that covers all maintenance. How many Cohocton workers will be employed by the manufacturer?

By now all residents should understand that there will be no free or reduced electric bills coming from a UPC project. Check you bill, NYSEC is now charging you to subsidize the wind developers (the RPS monthly charge on your bill). So why approve this interdependent project? To benefit the financial interests of growers who no longer want to farm? Or for officials who seem interested in only one particular enterprise?

The Town Board approved a bond of $50,000 to borrow money for anticipated legal actions. Why not just comply with SEQR and observe state regulations by providing set backs that will protect public safety? If a project was designed and incorporated these safeguards, you would not need local taxpayers to bear the burden of that Albany law firm.

Fear is a typical tactic used to silence good citizens who are apathetic or accustomed to allowing a select few to run the town. Their time has passed and a new dawn is on the horizon. What is at stake is not just the siting of industrial wind turbines but the sacred principle of democratic participation in crucial community decisions. No longer will their political corruption be subjected upon the majority of property owners. The Town of Cohocton needs a real choice and it will have one in the next election.

The chairman of the Cohocton Planning Board has admitted when challenged that he is “just doing what he is told!” That mindset is unacceptable. The ethical course is to fulfill their sworn duties in a fair, rational and objective manner. That means obeying NYS codes and dismissing legal counsel that perverts the basic protections provided within the law. Any member of government that is unable or unwilling to adhere to this standard does not deserve community support and should resign.

Those of moral character know in their heart that the UPC project will not bring prosperity to our town. At its core - it has always been a bad business deal. New leadership, balanced benefits, hard work and practical business initiatives that create a genuine future for our children and grandchildren should be the proper goal for everyone. The voice of opportunity cries out, oppose the wicked ways of the Town Board or be resigned to a life of servitude in a UPC company town.

Saturday, January 27, 2007

Mars Hill residents voice concerns over wind tower noise by Rachel Rice

When local residents first heard the noises from the wind towers, they called up company officials wanting to know whether this was part of the testing phase or if it was how the turbines would always sound. They soon learned that a sound level analysis conducted by Resource Systems Engineering Inc. in 2003 indicated that the sound level at dozens of residences around the mountain had the potential to exceed limits set by the DEP.

“If they’re not meeting the noise level requirements in the permit, is the company doing something to modify that? The DEP believed the company would be able to meet noise level requirements by permit,” Mersereau said. “If they’re not meeting them, some sort of enforcement action will have to be taken.”

(click on this link for the entire article)

Friday, January 26, 2007

Enfield wind farm project is a fraud at fundamental level by Paul Sheridan

There is an adage, “The road to hell is paved with good intentions.” Indeed, when the subject is complex and esoteric, the common person needs to be on guard. Self-proclaimed proponents of energy and the environment have a notorious history of taking advantage of our good intentions. A contemporary example for the Ithaca community is the ludicrous proposal of John Rancich to deface the Finger Lakes landscape with windmills under the guise of “sustainable energy.”

Rancich has offered to do you a favor you don't recall asking for. The esoteric reality is that the proposal is a fraud at fundamental levels, and so fundamentals are what he will publicly avoid like the plague! Let's take a look at just a few.

(click on link for the entire article)

Wednesday, January 24, 2007

LURC rejects Redington wind farm by Donna M. Perry

FARMINGTON–The Maine Land Use Regulation Commission voted, 6-1 against rezoning 1,004 mountaintop acres in northern Franklin County for a 30-turbine wind-energy project today.

Only commissioner Stephen Wight, of Newry, supported the rezoning request.

The commission's staff had previously recommended the rezoning be approved.

The proposed $130-million wind farm was to be built on the ridges of Redington Pond Range and Black Nubble mountains in Redington Township, about 4 miles west of Sugarloaf/USA in Carrabassett Valley.

Members of Maine's environmental community have said the power project is not necessary and would damage forever a pristine stretch of Maine mountains. They have also argue the view from the Appalachian Trail would be damaged for hikers and the project could damage the habitats of endangered species of birds and aniimals.

Those opposed to the project have also argued the LURC staff recommendation to approve the rezoning was illegal.

They say the proposal failed to demonstrate that it would create no “undue, adverse impacts” and that it is not consistent with LURC’s comprehensive land use plan.

Supporters of the project said it would have provided a long-overdue means to generate non-polluting power and would have been a boon for the local economy.

NYISO New Generation Project Report

The attached document shows over 4000mw of wind proposed in upstate New York behind highly constrained interfaces. According to the GE-NYSERDA report, the maximum wind capacity that could be placed in upstate NY is 2800 mw before wind would negatively impact nuclear and hydro production and degrade reliability of the system. We believe you have a good case to show how an unconstrained RPS is resulting in too many renewables which produce off-peak, off-season, and far from load. This is leading to consequences that could have, and should have, been addressed before reaching this point.

One point to bear in mind: the NYSERDA report stated that onshore wind would have an effective capacity of around 9%, i.e. of the 4000mw of installed capacity, you can reasonably rely on 9% to meet peak demand or 360mw.


Worried about the winds of change


Daily Messenger article By AMY CAVAUER

People with varied interests and concerns learned about the pros and cons of the renewable energy source.

Revised versions of the noise analyses for DEIS UPC Phase II by Rick Bolton

Revised versions of the noise analyses for SDEIS UPC Phase I by Rick Bolton

Tuesday, January 23, 2007

UPC's continuing misinformation

Your editor contributed to a report on Wednesday by Pat Bradley of New York Public Radio station WAMC. She was covering the third revision of UPC's plan to erect 16 420-ft 2.5-MW wind turbines on mountain ridges overlooking historic and peaceful rural communities in remote northeast Vermont. Their moving of 2 turbines across a town line seemed to have been times to overshadow a more dramatic development in one of those affected communities. The town of Barton voted 120-0 (yes: zero) Tuesday night to oppose the project.

In the demand for sacrifice from these communities, for utterly changing their character for very much the worse, one asks "what are we weighing here? It's very clear that wind energy is just not going to make any significant contribution to replacing fossil fuels or reducing greenhouse gas emissions."

Matt Kearns, hired flack for UPC (backed by private equity firms Madison Dearborn Partners of Chicago and D.E. Shaw of New York), calls that statement "one of disingenuous arguments regarding wind power. One of the issues that we hear is that wind power will not provide an offset to other forms of energy generation or that somehow this won't produce a benefit in terms of the use of some other fuels. Y'know, any green electrons that you add to the grid it means that there's less need to bring on other units that are fossil fuel based."

Then where are the numbers showing a reduction of fossil fuel use due to wind power on the grid? The disingenuous argument is Kearns's, because it claims a result for which it has no data. The evidence (see, e.g., the graph from the International Energy Association of Denmark's fuel use for electricity generation from 1971 to 2003 at National Wind Watch) is clear that large-scale wind has negligible, if any, effect on other sources. This is probably because, although their electricity generation may be displaced, they either must continue burning fuel (less efficiently, i.e., less cleanly) on standby or burn more fuel (again, less efficiently) in more frequent ramping up and down or switching on and off.

Besides, in Vermont almost no electricity comes from fossil fuels.

tags: wind power, wind energy, wind farms, environment, environmentalism, Vermont

Is this the official UPC Leaseholder position towards anyone who opposes their wind project?

Not disclosed at the Cohocton Public Hearing is that this speaker is a family member of a UPC leaseholder who is scheduled to have sited an industrial wind turbine. Judge for yourself if this attitude is beneficial to the best interests of Cohocton?

(click on this link to watch the video)

Sunday, January 21, 2007

In regards to Dutch Hill Wind Project/Cohocton Wind Project by Karl Palmiter

January 19,2007

To: Cohocton Planning Board & Cohocton Town Board

Cohocton Local Law II has focused all attention on satisfying the wishes of developers UPC/Canandaigua Power Partners I/Canandaigua Power Partners II what ever name the same developer is calling itself at this time.

- Setbacks are much less than manufactures recommend.

- No wording in DEIS/SDEIS/Local Law to compensate neighboring property owners for LOSS of:

- Property value

- Damage to water wells

- Or pollution to water wells

- Damage to foundations

You have left that all to the discretion of the developer!

-No notification to neighboring residents to possible intent to blast.

-No Specific provisions or safeguards to the spreading of manure or fertilizer near the turbines.

-No specified amount of power produced by a turbine within a years time or the turbine should be completely removed, concrete and all.

All of this should be covered in the DEIS and SEIS of both Dutch and Cohocton Wind Projects

As elected and appointed people for the town of Cohocton, the Law for wind turbines was written for developers and leaseholders NOT the whole community of Cohocton.

The secrecy of UPC and Elected and Appointed representatives is:

These turbines have an electric motor in them that is used to turn those blades when the wind isn’t blowing and or is light. The developer will tell you that it is only used as inertia to get them started. (Meaning taking power from the grid, not adding to the grid) The fact is they are remote controlled and are used to give the impression that they are producing power, when in fact they are using power from the GRID at no cost to them, the cost is added to your electric bill, you are paying for the illusion that the wind turbines are producing power. According to Dr. Eugene Kalwa, PHD in electrical engineering this is called cooking the books or FRAUD!

In Response to Cohocton Wind Project SEIS by Bonnie Palmiter

January 19, 2007

TO: Cohocton Planning Board/Cohocton Town Board

-No valid, signed, completed application for this project, by either the developer nor code enforcement officer = Incomplete.

- No cap on # of turbines allowed, is there a Phase III = Incomplete.

-No wind data from UPC/CPPII/CPPI on the meteorological towers as stated in the original DEIS = Incomplete.

-Proposed project in CWP SEIS states that CPP (Canandaigua Power Partners) and a couple times refers to CPPII, then changes to UPC so who is the developer of this project?????

-Cohocton is now infringing on the visual ascetic’s of Naples, Prattsburgh, and from Wallace to Wayland, Howard and Avoca.

SEIS, CWP states while the 2 projects of Dutch Hill Project and CWP are balanced across the 2 ridgelines, there presence changes the character of the rolling agricultural landscape. 1 of the 3 panel members felt the turbines altered the rural character of the view. The organized patterns and spacing helped soften their impact or the landscape, trying to make them fit where they shouldn’t be.

-Several times the SEIS states turbines dominate the view, and # of turbines changes the rural character of the view, and they appear out of context.

-Where is the data from UPC/ CPPI/CPPII on the meteorological towers?

-A ceiling or total # of industrial wind turbines needs to be incorporated within agricultural ordinances and SEIS still doesn’t have this.

SEIS own statements: adverse affect or aesthetic quality of the view.
Substation: strong contrast with land use, land form.

Incomplete SEIS: Specific housing of office and the look of the maintenance building.

In conclusion with all the different names of the developer in these SEIS one would have to assume that we don’t know who the actual developer is. INCOMPLETE/INACCURATE

In Response to Dutch Hill Wind Project DEIS by Bonnie Palmiter

January 19, 2007

TO: Cohocton Planning Board/Cohocton Town Board
Why are we having one meeting tonight on two different projects when the data is incomplete?

-Incomplete application for this project, no signatures from either the developer or code enforcement officer.

-Canandaigua Power Partners II subsidiary of UPC/CPP, where are their NY State licenses to do business in our community?

-Traffic 144 trucks needed for Dutch hill total of 468 trips and 648 trips for Cohocton Project totaling 1116 trips for both projects, this will be a lot of traffic on our roads and yet there is no specific written language that the road repairs won’t be done at the tax payers’ expense. -There are no regulations put forward on the CPPII/UPC/CPP. Again with all these developers in the DEIS/SDEIS.

- No written language to either the Dutch Hill project or Cohocton Wind Project stating the number of workers that will hired within our town, one has to assume that the 29 jobs they state will come with these projects will be from out of State with there qualifications on wind turbines.

-With the DEIS stating approximately 5 full time employees are expected to reside locally and could translate into a few houses being owned, one has to again assume they will not be people from our community.

-Work on these two projects states 7.5 months and in another section 9 months, with no workers expected to relocate, so how will this help our community putting their own people to work as they have stated to the public all along.

-DEIS Dutch hill Project states 22 jobs will come from after project is completed, maintenance on these turbines will keep 22 people busy, again not stating locals, with 36 turbines this would pretty much mean 1.5 people working on turbines, does this add up?

No where in the DEIS for Dutch Hill Project or SDEIS for Cohocton Wind Project have I seen where the developer has been honest with this community about Generators being used as motors mainly for boosting the visual productivity ( time of rotations) of these turbines. Let me ask you with all these turbines through out the States why are we still with an Energy shortage, well it deepens because the windmills consume electricity instead of producing it.

Every citizen is being bilked of a few dollars a month in the form of a huge tax break and heavy subsidies to these developers. The wind turbine mafia is keeping our community from being sovereign and our own elected officials from protecting us, instead they have allowed a powerful international mafia with its own hidden agenda to come in and rape our town.

Saturday, January 20, 2007

Response to SDEIS for Phase One and DEIS for Phase II by Robert C. Strasburg II January 19, 2007

Supplemental DEIS for Phase I


My response to the environmental impact relative to Phase I is one of utter protest. Because we have tried to attain copies of the Bagdon Environmental Impact Report done for the Town and have been illegally denied access to this report, I am left without the data to make an accurate analysis of this projects environmental impact and you will be held responsible for such illegal activity in the courts.


My response to the SDEIS is again protest. The developer has not provided your constituents with credible information relative to even a proposed estimate of income potential from tax revenue in any fashion; therefore to comment with anything other than protest would be ignorant on my part.

Property Value:

The developer has not provided any unbiased credible studies on this subject and the only comment I have is again, protest due to lack of information.


In my opinion, the Town Board is currently demonstrating malfeasance for failing to oversee the enforcement of our current zoning laws. Given that fines are long since due from UPC for illegal activity relative to the installation of their test tower on Pine Hill, and an obvious unwillingness on your [part to discipline the developer by pursuing these fines for wrong behavior, you the Town Board are demonstrating that you are not at a mature governmental level worthy to be entrusted with the responsibility of such a project in our Town. If you are unwilling to enforce our current laws, what would make us think you will have any interest in controlling this developer and deterring any other illegal activity they intend?

You as a Town Board have lied to us from the start of this project. I have recorded on DVD at various Town meetings where you repeatedly have promised answers to written question and in fact stated that we would probably have them by December of 2006. When do you think it would be appropriate to provide these answers? After these towers are up? We should have had these answers before the last public hearing.

My commitment to each of you tonight is to do all I can to defeat your upcoming election this November. Your government related behavior is not worthy of your office.


Robert C. Strasburg II

Public Hearing remarks on SDEIS UPC Phase I and DEIS UPC Phase II by Judith Hall

The first comment I would like to make is to refer to the NYS dept of State entity information I just gave you. Please note that CPP 2 came into being DECEMBER 22, 2006. You received the DEIS and accepted it in November of 2006. Once again the law s of NY State are ignored by UPC, with the blessing of Cohocton.

Number two. Local Law # 2 of 2006, was voted on and filed with the State of NY on November 30, 2006. Yet the supplemental to the DEIS and phase 2 Dutch Hill DEIS were already completed by this date. I guess they already knew the outcome of the law that YOU the planning board were still looking at. Oh that’s right you actually made some good recommendations to the Town Board, but they were sent back to you and you backed down on protecting the citizens of Cohocton and changed them. They didn’t work with the already newly proposed projects for UPC. I keep using that name UPC!! I guess I should say CPP. Which begs me to ask, besides not really existing until 12/22/06, why is Cohocton not mentioned on the UPC website? Prattsburgh is there, Sheffield is there, Mars Hill is there, why not Cohocton? Why is there not a CPP website?

Are there any employees from CPP in the room? Where are the certificates of workmen’s comp insurance required with the building applications in the name of CPP one or two? Where are the signatures on the applications?

The supplemental DEIS is rampant with incomplete and currently proposed, still aren’t sures, not yet determined, CPP will decide, anticipated, tentative plan is, the current planned configuration. They are still working on the transportation plan, there is no decision yet on the staging area. All reports from consultants state they will need to be updated once the plan is finalized. The wetland and archaeology are impacted by all of these areas. How can you as the LEAD AGENCY take the required SEQR hard look, when you have NO idea what the final project really looks like? Everything is not decided at the site plan stage, it is looked at by the SEQR process.

The SDEIS states construction will begin April of 2007, and end Dec of 2007. Yet Clipper, manufacturer of the turbines has published reports the turbines will not even be manufactured until 2008. The UPC Steel Wind project in Lackawana, near Buffalo has suffered a delay because, are you ready for this TOO MUCH WIND!!! They couldn’t complete construction because of too much wind. Good wind company. Their project in Mars Hill Maine has also suffered a few snafus. It should have been completed some time ago. Today as per the Town Clerk in Mars Hill, 4 turbines are up, they sometimes run, a few more are under construction. There is however a noise problem, HUGE, the government agencies are involved with UPC trying to find the cause of the problem. These are 1.5 MW. 28 were supposed to be going last year. Gee, we sure do get conflicting stories from the Towners and leaseholders about the great track record of UPC.

Some of my favorite quotes from the SDEIS are:

The red flashing lights on the tops of the turbines will be mitigated by distance from the turbines. That work well for me, my bedroom window is 1500 feet from one of those flashing red lights.

Also on page 16 it states that 88 per cent of the visual impact will be screened by vegetation. I guess that is those 500 feet Christmas trees on our property that so disturbs Gerald Moore.

Continued on page 16, my favorite page, because the farmers will be receiving the extra income it will help maintain the community character, you decide what that means for yourself. I have heard several of the farmers can’t help but brag, they will never plant again once they get their money rolling in.

So far this project has not complied with local, county or state regulations. The document we are commenting on tonight is totally INCOMPLETE and INADEQUATE to address the environmental issues this project creates.

Cohocton Planning Board - Lead Agency - Part I by James Hall

RE: Public Hearing SDEIS UPC Phase I – January 19, 2007

No response was provided by the Cohocton Planning Board to the DEIS opposition documents for UPC Phase I. This project has been fundamentally changed from 82 MW and increased to 90 MW with the switch to 2.5 MW Clipper turbines from the 2.0 MW units. With different site locations from that in the DEIS it is evident that Phase I has become a different project. The data and studies in the SDEIS are incomplete and its conclusions are specious. Since the Clipper units are only in a testing stage, no reliable data regarding the noise, ice throw, shadow flicker are available. It would be malfeasance to approve a project the size of this UPC project using never before installed experimental industrial turbines.

The acknowledgement in the SDEIS Appendage G page i that a potential of 61 turbine sites and two substations locations were evaluated, proves that Phase I is a moving target and that it has become a totally different development. Manufacturers safety specifications for adequate protective setbacks from public roads are being disregarded. The liability insurance implication from willfully ignoring these setbacks will endanger the financial integrity of the Town of Cohocton.

The SDEIS does not address or mitigate these basic threats that come directly from an ill-conceived industrial project. UPC has a service contract with the manufacturer for servicing these units, so the promise of local employment is nothing but a hoax. UPC’s refusal to provide wind data that proves that Cohocton has sufficient wind to make their project economically sound is the most telling evidence that this development is a fraud.

The visual impact map in the SDEIS has been increased to 10 miles, but no mentioned that the 420’ towers will be seen from distances as far as forty miles away. Add the Dutch Hill Phase II along with the Prattsburgh UPC and Ecogen projects, and you will have as many as 229 turbines. Tug Hill has 160 1.5 MW units. So what you have in Cohocton/Prattsburgh regional development a single massive and coordinated project much larger than Tug Hill. Maple Ridge is rated for 240 MW, but the wind farm produced a paltry 0-30 MW, or 0-12.5% of capacity.

Since that development is already up for sale, only a fool would believe that UPC is here for the long haul. Without a cash escrow decommission fund, the leaseholders and the Town of Cohocton will bear the brunt of the costs when reality sinks in that the wind project is a failure.

The SDEIS is still relying on generic studies and seldom is site specific. How can conclusions of no harm be accepted when the turbines for this UPC project are untested and the results are unknown? Is this the kind of unstable future you want for this town? Reject the entire UPC industrialization of Cohocton.


James Hall

Cohocton Planning Board - Lead Agency - Part II by James Hall

RE: Public Hearing Dutch Hill DEIS UPC Phase II - January 19, 2007

Dutch Hill UPC Phase II project is an integrated development that relies on the same proposed 25,000 industrial maintenance and office buildings. The facade that it is a separate stand alone and distinct project is not credible. This DEIS report attempts to look at aspects in the Phase I project not from the context of mitigating segmentation but from the admission that both developments share many of the same support facilities. The lumping of public hearings for both projects in the same meeting clearly links the need for approving both Phase I and Phase II so that construction could start at the same time. If these were really two different and distinct developments, why are both being planned for a coordinated construction at the same time?

Since UPC has ordered 52 Clipper 2.5 MW turbines, slated for Cohocton, in the same purchase order contract, it is clear that the intent is to build both Phase I and Phase II simultaneously. This fact violates the purpose of SEQR and perpetuates a fraud that Dutch Hill is a separate project.

The siting for Dutch Hill turbines will grossly impact the motorist traveling on I 390. The hypnotic effect from blade strobing presents a severe public safety hazard. Set backs are totally inadequate from this major trucking route.

The limited one- way access onto Dutch Hill prevents emergency vehicles from acceptable fire protection entry. The visual affront of industrial turbines negatively impacts the Towns of Wayland and Naples that do not allow such projects. The cumulative overkill of Phase I and II taken together alongside the 53 UPC Prattsburgh and the 99 Ecogen Prattsburgh turbines, creates the largest wind industrial complex east of the Mississippi River.

The proposed Clipper 2.5 MW for Dutch Hill will not be constructed until December of 2008 and have never been used and certified for a wind project. This glaring failure of empirical evidence on the actual real world performance of this industrial turbine needs to available BEFORE these units should be approved for the Dutch Hill project.

Manufactures set back standards for much small units are greater than the proposed distances for the Clipper 2.5 MW turbines in the Dutch Hill project. The DEIS set backs from all public roads need to be dramatically increased to provide protection from ice throw danger. The public health and safety is consistently ignored in the Dutch Hill DEIS as in the low frequency noise hazard, which is totally unprotected in the proposal.


James Hall

SDEIS, Directory L, Property Value by Don E Sandford

Evaluating Impacts of Wind Power Projects On Local Property Value
by Cushman & Wakefield, Inc., November 15, 2006

After reading this report prepared for UPC Wind Management,LLC, consisting of twenty-seven pages, which consisted of approximately eight pages of highlighting their professional qualifications, known project maps or their reference material cited, nothing factual was said in the remaining pages to change my opinion that residential property directly impacted by wind turbine placement will lower property values substantially, inversely to the quality of life issues effected. In fact the very first sentence of this report was really all that had to be said, for it was an obvious disclaimer, which read: “This analysis addresses the POTENTIAL(In other words we could be wrong) property value impact the proposed Cohocton Wind Power Project may have on a rural residential area encompassing approximately seven thousand acres in the vicinity of the Town of Cohocton at the northwest corner of Steuben County, New York”.Also the report states that”analysis of changes in local real estate values, attributable to the proposed project, is more limited because of the relatively recent date of the Cohocton Wind Power Project announcement.

Therefore we have relied, by; analogy, on the observed real estate experience at the more mature wind farms in New York State.” It is also obvious from their statement on page 20 that particular homeowners, “The handful of premium-priced executive or second homes located in the project area or view shed, which would derive such a premium,in part, for their views may be impacted. However such impact will not necessarily diminish property values; the local economy and national housing market will have a superseding influence, ”I’m sure your reckless at best, conclusion must be very reassuring to these home owners. A great deal of emphasis was given to a report by a college student Ben Hoen. P.Barton DeLacy, who signed this report for Cushman & Wakefield, states “The most significant new information since my last visit to southwest New York, is the publication of a Bard College Masters Candidate thesis , studying the impacts of wind turbines on property values in Madison County, New York at Fenner.” This report has as its premise, property sales & no declining value near turbine sites. However, George Sterzinger ,a prominent energy authority does not agree for he writes in Industrial Wind Action Group/Impacts of Windmill Visibility report, page 6, omissions render the results of the report extremely weak, if not entirely misleading. Sterzinger stated “66% of the homes sampled in the 5 mile radius could not see the windfarm at all.In effect, the study makes the erroneous assumption that all properties in the 5-mile radii can see the windfarm, when many houses views in fact are obstructed by geological features, trees, and other houses. ”Sales that are not arms-length(divorce, sales between family , estate sales”) are included.

By doing so, the report includes transactions that do not represent the agreement between a willing buyer and a willing seller, a requirement for accurate analysis.” Contrast this to page 8 of the P. Barton DeLacy report where he states that “It should be noted that NONE of Hoen’s sales were closer than ¾ of a mile, but his emphasis on actual sales rather than mere preferences is powerful”. The editor of “Industrial Wind Action Group” states:”There are two recurring themes in this study 1.) the results are applicable only to Fenner and (2) much more research is needed.” Most importantly it seems to me was to know sales inside of 4000 ft or ¾ of a mile, for this would be very relevant for Cohocton. Those are the ones that would presumably be the most impacted by noise, strobe lights and shadow flicker.

What would the reason be for leaving this crucial information out? The Hoen report once again has error. I for one refuse to accept this college student’s thesis and conclusions as valid and was misleading by Cushman & Wakefield to do so. Remember, our town board and UPC would have us believe 1500 ft. from a residence to a turbine is good enough and our quality of life or property value would not be adversely effected. This report does not consider at all the additional real estate sale values existing in the 2500 ft. which would be inhabited and owned by The Town of Cohocton taxpayers up to 1500 ft. by law to turbine sites. That Hoen study goes no closer than 4000 ft is dramatic and makes this report useless in its relationship to Cohocton land values and local law #2 comparisons. Please recall that the property devaluation bond proposal was dismissed by The Cohocton Town Board to be part of local law #2 as being too vague. I continue to believe it is the missing necessary amendment that was needed for the confidence and assurance of people and needs to be in place for the financial protection of residences and property, impacted by improper turbine placement and believe it was knowingly and intentionally ignored by our town board because known looming monetary repercussions were likely exist in the future against UPC and the town. I found it very shortsighted and certainly obvious by Cushman & Wakefield that no direct quotes or interviews were part of their report which should have include but not limited to, bankers, real estate agents and appraisors, thereby establishing a baseline and better understanding from their input and concerns from these professional people who know first hand local real estate issues as they presently, realistically, exist being impacted by the known introduction of wind turbines in our area. Mr. David Domm, Cohocton Town Assessor was interviewed however. But I was glad to learn from the report they were familiar with the general area, that the Cohocton Village has expanded its ball field and I can now go to the nearest Walmart located 12 miles west in Dansville. The point being, saying it in a report doesn’t necessarily make it so.

Was the agency of Cushman & Wakefield, Portland Oregon, by the writing of this report independently selected and/or paid for by The Town of Cohocton or UPC? Since official reports often reveal months or years later, important information not included in a report but if know at the time would have changed a decision or made a difference is a fact that should not be overlooked. Ladies & gentlemen, with a substantial investment in my home and property hanging in the balance, and quality of life change immenient, this is not a game we are playing involving a college kid’s thesis. The Cohocton Town Board by its actions/inactions and secrecy and stonewalling over the past months do not have my confidence or trust to be fair and impartial in their decision making to protect my interest at all. It’s my opinion they consider us in the impacted turbine areas expendable for their success with its preconceived plan with UPC and so to goes my respect. The entire truth someday will be known to all. This property value report is merely a necessary, self serving tool for The Cohocton Town Board and UPC to promote their agenda.

Friday, January 19, 2007

Steuben Greens lead charge against local wind farms: Host session in Hornell for critics of proposed area projects by JEN CARPENTER

HORNELL - The idea of wind farm development locally isn't a popular one. At least at the corner of Main and Hakes.

Steuben Greens hosted a panel discussion on wind issues Thursday night, with a number of the speakers saying wind power wasn't worth it.

Brad Jones, a lifelong environmentalist who lives on a conservation project, spoke of the promises of wind energy. He explained that a typical wind farm has 50 wind turbines, each spread out over 4-6 acres of land, and each turbine approximately 400-feet tall.

Jones said UPC Wind, a company that develops wind farms, promises the institution of wind farms will mean a reduction of energy costs, no dependence on foreign oil, reduction of carbon monoxide gas and global warming and production of clean, abundant and renewable energy.

He noted, however, only 3 percent of electricity comes from oil, and only some of that from foreign oil. He also said wind energy is not reliable, as a wind turbine requires steady 27 mph winds.

Jones also is concerned with storage capacity, because there is no place to store the power not used right away. He also said wind turbines are not always safe, because you have to take into account poor weather conditions and noise.

“Wind turbines are not good neighbors,” Jones said.

Barry Mille of Hinsdale worked on a wind farm in California for nearly 30 years. He said it is easy for a wind turbine to malfunction, and blades to fly off or gear boxes to malfunction. This could pose a serious safety risk.

Jones said also it is estimated a wind farm has the capability to kill between 50,000 and 250,000 birds, bats and raptors in one year. He added there have been reports of 22 new bald eagles in the area this year.

Jones estimates the 20-year economic impact of a wind farm to cost a loss of $141 million. He said more energy isn't needed upstate, but rather downstate, if at all. He also said that Europeans are getting rid of their wind farms.

“We're too stupid, we're too ignorant,” he said. “That's why they (UPC Wind) are here.”

Steve Trude, Cohocton Wind Watch president, spoke about the financial effects of wind developments. He said in our electric bills, we already pay for wind developments through an RPS, or renewables, charge.

Trude said one of the main reasons for building wind farms is to combat global warming, but he also said the polar ice caps are not just melting on Earth, but on Mars as well.

“This is a human issue, it's a moral issue,” said James Hall, of Cohocton Wind Watch, who gave an update of lawsuits.

He said the decision makers must be held responsible, and the rational approach is to use the courts. He is calling for a statewide investigation of wind farm companies.

“What in the world are we doing destroying our natural resources to produce electricity that will never be used?” he said.

Hall said this is all a political pay-off, and if wind turbines were such a benefit, they would be taxed at full value. He said where wind farms are placed could prevent property owners from being able to build on their own land.

“It's our lives, it's our future, it's our children's legacy,” he said.

Valerie Gardner and Jack Ossont, from Democracy NY, a not-for-profit corporation to encourage community education, talked about how a community can assert itself. They said wind farms are an issue of who gets to decide what happens in their community, and they noted corporations are trying to use the 14th Amendment, meant to protect minorities, to protect themselves.

Ossont and Gardner urged everyone to make a difference at the local level. Ossont said a town acting out forces a corporation to respond.

“The only place we have any power left is at the local level,” Ossont said.

There will be a public hearing regarding wind farms held from 7-9 p.m. tonight at the Cohocton Elementary School, 30 Maples Ave. in Cohocton.

Thursday, January 18, 2007

Important reminder to attend the Public Hearings on the UPC Phase I Pine Hill/Lent Hill SDEIS and the UPC Phase II Dutch Hill DEIS

Sign up at the door to speak for both Public Hearings and submit your written remarks and request a receipt.

Important reminder to attend the Public Hearings on the UPC Phase I Pine Hill/Lent Hill SDEIS and the UPC Phase II Dutch Hill DEIS.

Friday, January 19, 2007 starting 7:00 PM until 9:00 PM at the Cohocton Elementary School 30 Maples Avenue, Cohocton, NY.

Tuesday, January 16, 2007

UPC Phase III Cohocton Project - To Be Or Not To Be ???

Twenty five (25 additional 2.5 MW turbines = 62.5 MW) using letters a through y added to the 36 MW turbines = 90 MW for Phase I.

Click on above link and view page 5 of the Archaeology Report. Do you really believe these turbines are cancelled? Ask the landowners for these sites if they are being told they will be getting their industrial turbines!

Michael Lessar and Marcia Sammons letter

January 15, 2007

Planning Board
c/o Sandra Riley
Town of Cohocton
15 South Main St.
Cohocton, NY 14826

Dear Planning Board:

This is to advise you of our unhappiness to hear you are pushing two public meetings together to support the two planned projects of the wind turbines. Why is it that the public is treated this way? From the get-go, this entire "project" has been kept under wraps which has drawn nothing by suspicion by many. In case you are questioning why people living outside North Cohocton would even care, it is because we live in the area. We did own a cabin on Pine Hill in North Cohocton which was ultimately sold over the summer of 2006. When we had put it up for sale, we had no idea that the wind turbines were a reality in that area; it was after things were well in motion with our accepting an offer that UPC sent a letter to us. We never read anything in the local papers, only to find out later the only information that was initially available was in a Hornell paper. Why a Hornell paper? Ultimately, we lost the sale, with the closing date set, and the potential buyers getting "cold feet" about the talk of the wind turbines, and pulling out two days before the closing. We ended up selling it about four months later, sustaining a loss of $25,000.

It seems like this entire "project" has been determined to be the best thing for the community by UPC as well as you, the Planning Board, and some of the residents of Cohocton. Never mind that many people are asking very thoughtful and intelligent questions regarding the environmental repercussions, concerns of what will happen to the landscape, how this will affect the future of real estate, tourism, and health issues. Why is it that communities such as Phelps and Perry have granted their residents moratoriums so that the projects can be investigated in an thorough and intelligent way? Why is that Cohocton refuses to offer a moratorium to its residents? I am sure you have heard of the saying, "something stinks in Denmark" - we think that quote could also be, "something stinks in Cohocton." We ask that you as the Planning Board of Cohocton wake up and do the right thing. Why are you people in such a hurry to push this forward?

Sincerely yours,

Michael G. Lessar
Marcia M. Sammons

cc: David Miller, Esq. - 11 North Main St., Naples, NY 14512
Richard Lippes, Esq. - 1260 Delaware Ave., Buffalo, NY 14209
Eliot Spitzer, Governor - State Capitol, Albany, NY 12224

Monday, January 15, 2007


Saturday, January 13, 2007

Public Hearing on SDEIS Pine Hill/Lent Hill AND Dutch Hill DEIS

IMPORTANT Public Hearing on SDEIS Phase I Pine Hill/Lent Hill. Also a Public Hearing on the Dutch Hill DEIS, Phase II. Both on the same night.

A big turn out is needed.

Voice your opposition to this UPC project, place your written objections in the record.

Friday - January 19, 2006
7:00 PM to 9:00 PM
Wayland-Cohocton Elementary School
Address: 30 Park Avenue,
Cohocton, NY

Electricity Output from the Maple Ridge Windplant, 2006

Tug Hill (Lewis County), New York Electric production by Richard Bolton


Maple Ridge has a nameplate capacity factor of 240 MW, but from the graph we see that for 40% of the quarter [July, August, September 2006] (1883 hrs), the wind farm produced a paltry 0-30 MW, or 0-12.5% of nameplate capacity. At no time did the output sustain full 240 MW. Indeed, the output was only above half the rated output 15% of the time. Bear in mind that this graph is based on transaction information.

It’s hard to escape the conclusion that Maple Ridge is a very pathetic energy producer, at least for the 3Q06 [third quarter of 2006] examined, when compared with any other industrial scale plant (hydro or thermal). Recall that 3Q06 [July, August, September 2006] saw record demand for electrical energy in NY due to the hot summer weather that year." - Calvin Luther Martin

Wednesday, January 10, 2007



Reuben Goldberg (1883-1970) was an American cartoonist famous for conceiving very complicated and impractical machines that accomplish little or nothing. The term “Rube Goldberg” has passed into the lexicon as shorthand for describing such machinery and their products and services. Contemporary industrial wind turbines epitomize this concept. Physically, they are taller than many skyscrapers, with 300-foot rotors that move nearly 200 miles per hour at their tips. They are usually placed in a phalanx numbering five to eight per mile, which, if erected on forested ridge tops, also require the clearcutting of at least four acres per turbine, with another 35-65 acres needed for infrastructure support. Functionally, they produce little energy relative to demand and what little they do produce is incompatible with the standards of reliability and cost characteristic of our electricity system. Moreover, wind plants are unable either to mitigate the need for additional conventional power generation in the face of increased demand or to reliably augment power during times of peak demand. Ironically, as more wind installations are added, almost equal conventional power generation must also be brought on line. Crucially important, wind technology, because of the inherently random variations of the wind, will not reduce meaningful levels of greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide produced from fossil-fueled generation, which is its raison d’etre.

To understand the limitations of wind technology, one should know how energy use enables complex modern society and, especially, how energy in the form of electricity is produced and transmitted to hundreds of millions of people on demand. Enormous energies are required to support the way Americans choose to live and work. Industrial modes of transportation and heating/air conditioning technologies have made it possible for large numbers of people to live in regions historically limited to only the hardiest of souls, such as the swamplands of Florida and the ice of Alaska, while newer communication technologies have encouraged widespread development not only for residential suburbanites but commerce and industry as well. The majority of our energy use involves heating and transportation. Demand for electricity accounts for about 39 % of all energy use, even though electricity accounts for 30% of the energy used for heating. (1) We increase both our demand for energy and for electricity at a rate of approximately 2% each year, nearly doubling our consumption every 30 years, as we did from 1970 through 2000.

Electricity is the cleanest and most important form of industrial energy; its supply continuity is essential to enable and protect a vast range of services we often take for granted—modern hospitals, traffic controls, information storage and retrieval, entertainment, food storage, to name only a few. As the British engineer, David White, has written, “It is a truism that electrical power supply at a competitive cost underpins the world’s economies….”


Unlike the municipal water supply, electricity at industrial levels cannot be stored in reservoirs. It must be used immediately. Above all, it must be reliable, accommodating demand instantaneously, while its costs, ideally, should be affordable to all. Over the last hundred years, large regional networks known as electricity “grids” have evolved to collect, rhythmically organize, and dispatch a mixture of power sources, considering, among other things, expectations of demand levels, availability, predictability, cost, exactly balancing forecasted supply with demand at all times and transmitting power over a range of distances to a variety of users within their respective regions. In the United States., the North American Electric Reliability Council, working with its regional reliability councils, develops and monitors the reliability standards each grid’s power line owners and operators usually follow, taking into account scheduled and reasonably expected unscheduled outages while also accommodating “contingencies”—the unexpected failure or outage of a system component such as a generator, transmission line, circuit breaker, switch or other electrical element.

Although the mix of power fuels varies among grids in the United States, on the whole fossil fuels account for 70.7% of the nation’s electricity generation (coal 51.4%, natural gas 16.3% and oil 3%) with the balance coming from nuclear power (20.7%) and renewable sources (8.5%, of which 84% is hydropower).

Collectively, along with biomass, geothermal, and a few other fuels, these are known as “conventional generation.” Except for hydro, they are also called “thermal generation.”

Except for hydro, they are also called “thermal generation.” The conventional fuels heat water (or gas) to create steam that drives turbine rotors around an electro-magnetic motor. In the case of hydro, the turbines are driven by water either falling on or moving past turbine rotors. Conventional generation has a proven ability over many years to produce reliably and continuously at industrial scales. Nuclear and large coal plants, along with certain hydro facilities, are best at providing a base level of supply upon which other levels of supply can be built. Smaller conventional generators are often highly responsive to commands and can be dispatched to cover a range of tactical, even immediate, needs. In fact, this quality of “dispatchability” is highly prized by grid operators.


In grid parlance, the term “capacity” is used as a measure of firm generation and transmission capability—that is, how reliable a power source is for meeting various levels of demand in timely fashion. Each power plant is engineered to produce a specified amount of electricity over a year’s time, a concept known as its “rated or installed capacity” (also known as “nameplate” capacity). However, because of equipment damage, routine maintenance, machine or human error, etc, no machine works at full power all the time. The energy community has developed a concept known as a “capacity factor” to project the average amount of production a machine will yield in a specified amount of time; this is expressed as a fraction of rated/installed capacity. Grid system operators also use a concept known variously as “capacity credit” or “effective.

The Overlooked Environmental Cost of a Wind Generation Portfolio to Serve the Need for Power by Lincoln Wolverton and Raymond Bliven

Electricity Output from the Maple Ridge (Tug Hill) Windplant, 2006

Tuesday, January 09, 2007

Local Activists to Discuss Impacts of Wind Developments in Hornell

January 9, 2007. Hornell. To help the public understand more about the impacts wind developments will have on our local economies in Steuben County, the Steuben Greens have organized a panel discussion on wind issues with five local activists on Thursday, January 18, 2007 at 7:00 pm. The program will be held at 198 Main St. in Hornell.

Brad Jones from Naples will speak on his research into the promises of wind power. Steve Trude and James Hall from Cohocton will update us on the efforts of their group, Cohocton Wind Watch, to get more accountability in the DEIS process. Valerie Gardner and Jack Ossont from Yates County will discuss how their group, Democracy NY, works with local communities who want to reclaim decisionmaking powers.

“The Steuben Greens and almost everyone we’ve met in the county support the development of renewable energy sources, including wind energy,” said Joe Duffy from Hornell, chair of the Steuben Greens. “But we want to see it done in a way that is good for the environment and makes sense economically. This is most likely to happen when the decisions are made democratically by local communities. We have organized this program to give people a chance to discuss better ways to develop wind energy.”

“Communities in Steuben County are finding that the impact industrial wind developments will have on our local economies is more complicated than the rosy picture outlined by wind developers,” said Brad Jones. Currently, there are nine proposed wind farms in Steuben and Yates counties with a total of 519 wind turbines. Together, these projects will comprise the largest wind farm east of the Mississippi.”

“I am not a member of any advocacy group,” Jones said recently. “My wife Linda and I are lifelong environmentalists who are blessed to live at our conservation project adjacent to the state’s Hi Tor property. I have conducted extensive research and analysis of the wind energy developments proposed for our area in the belief that informed citizens who understand all sides of important issues will make decisions that are in the best interests of their families and their communities. I have been disappointed to discover that in nearly every case the benefits of wind energy are exaggerated while the actual risks and costs are overlooked or understated."

"The economics at the core of these projects are government subsidies,” said James Hall from Cohocton Wind Watch. “The fact that our region does not have consistently sufficient wind velocity to make wind generation projects economically viable is being concealed from the public and from our government officials. Wind developers should be required to show that the prevailing wind patterns are sufficient before approval of a project is granted."

"One of my fundamental objections to the wind development proposals being touted in our area by out-of-state corporate LLC shell companies is their 95% retention of cash flow revenue,” Hall added. “The insufficient revenue sharing provided in the PILOT (payment in lieu of taxes) programs being offered will cause bankruptcies in our local townships as overall revenues are reduced and real estate devaluations for individual property owners as their taxes increase."

"The problem is compounded by the proposal to create Empire Zones and exempt developers from paying full industrial tax assessment rates,” said Steve Trude, President of Cohocton Wind Watch. “We have crunched the numbers, and this scheme gives wind developers a free ride at the expense of average citizens."

“Look at the facts these citizens have gathered,” said Valerie Gardner, “and then look at who gets to make the decisions about the wind developments. The citizens of the communities where the projects are located should be the ones deciding, not the unelected directors and officers of out-of-state wind development corporations.” Gardner is an attorney in private practice in Penn Yan and a long term Board Member and Co-Chairperson of the Citizens Environmental Coalition. She currently serves on the coordinating committee of Democracy NY, a not-for-profit corporation founded to encourage community education through rights based organizing. Her husband, Jack Ossont is the volunteer coordinator of Democracy NY. Ossont has been an activist for over 30 years and has served in several elected and appointed political positions including county legislator, national convention delegate and political county chairperson.

Gardner and Ossont’s group organizes weekend sessions called Democracy Schools in our region. The schools were founded by historian Richard Grossman from the Program on Corporations, Law and Democracy (POCLAD) and attorney Thomas Linzey from the Community Environmental Defense Fund (CELDF). Democracy Schools educate citizens on the evolution of undemocratic structures in our society. Grossman and Linzey have worked with over 100 townships in Pennsylvania and elsewhere in configuring local laws to permit citizens to determine health, safety and welfare issues in their communities.

The meeting is free and open to the public. There will be time for discussion following the presentations.

For more information:

Steuben Greens,
Democracy School,
Cohocton Wind Watch,

Monday, January 08, 2007

The "Promises" of Wind Energy, plus the really "inconvenient truth" by Brad Jones

Sunday, January 07, 2007

Berry’s Mountain neighbors battle over road

A neighbor’s use of a little-known Pennsylvania law is wreaking havoc with Janet Greene and Randy Wolfe.

The Halifax Twp. couple live in the woods on Berry’s Mountain in northern Dauphin County. Their neighbor, Glenn R. Noblit, is demanding the right to build a private road across their land. Late last year, he sued the couple and their lawyer, Joel M. Wiest of Sunbury, for $105,000 for standing in his way.

“He wants to run a 50-foot [wide] road just behind the house,” said Greene, 50, citing Noblit’s original petition to have the private road built. “I’m not afraid of him, but I’m afraid of his actions. He thinks he can come and do whatever he wants on this property.”

(click above link to read more)

Opponents of proposed wind farm projects in the town of Prattsburgh will have their day in court by Mary Perham

January 6, 2007 The Leader

Opponents of proposed wind farm projects in the town of Prattsburgh will have their day in court.

The state Appellate Court recently ruled against a motion to dismiss a lawsuit against the Steuben County Industrial Development Agency by the Advocates for Prattsburgh.

The Advocates allege SCIDA did not adequately review environmental information provided by wind farm developer EcoGen before the board gave the review its final approval late last year.

SCIDA’s approval gave EcoGen the go-ahead - with restrictions - to build 53 wind turbines in Prattsburgh. But the board said every site considered for one of EcoGen’s 400-foot high turbines must meet the same environmental guidelines as the review.

Advocates charge the final study was not adequately reviewed by SCIDA, which had the responsibility of making sure the project met state environmental standards.

SCIDA’s consultant on the environmental studies was Richard venVertloh, an engineer for LaBella Associates, in Rochester.

Allegations by the Prattsburgh group include that EcoGen provided incorrect data and that there was insufficient information on specific groundwater supplies and wells. Also, an analysis on the impact of property values was inconclusive, the group claims.

Advocates attorney Glenn Pezzulla said SCIDA should have required more exact information, such as what properties were used to determine the average effect of turbines on property values.

“Are we looking at property five miles away or next door?” he asked. “Define the area.”

Another issue that required greater scrutiny by SCIDA was EcoGen’s finding that a proposed wind farm in Prattsburgh would not have a cumulative effect with another proposed farm in the neighboring town of Cohocton.

SCIDA moved to dismiss the legal action because EcoGen was not named in the lawsuit.

The motion was first dismissed in early October by state Supreme Court Justice Harold Galloway, who is presiding over the case.

Galloway’s decision was upheld by the Appellate Court last week.

The action by the Appellate Court clears the way for Galloway’s ruling, although there’s no way to know when the ruling will be made, Pezzulo said.

“I’m not in the least bit surprised it’s taking a while,” he said. “There were voluminous papers, including an exhibit 3,000 pages long.”

Galloway’s rejection of the original dismissal motion should not be seen as an
indication of how the judge will rule, Pezzulo said.

James Sherron, SCIDA executive director said the board is now waiting for the judge’s decision.

“We’ve heard it’s not going to take that long, but it’s been quite a while already,” Sherron said.

Wind farm development in the county has been the source of controversy since they were first proposed in the town of Prattsburgh in 2002.

Supporters claim the 400- foot high turbines provide an essential source of renewable energy and local revenue.

Opponents charge the turbines do not generate significant amounts of electricity and threaten people and the environment.

The Prattsburgh lawsuit is one of three current legal actions filed by opponents of proposed wind farms in the county. Recently, new lawsuits have been filed against the towns of Howard and Cohocton.

Friday, January 05, 2007

Steuben Greens public information meeting - MEDIA RELEASE

Impact of Industrial Wind Developments on Local Economies and Taxes

January 8, 2007. Hornell. Local activists are finding out the impact industrial wind developments will have on our local economies is different than the rosy picture outlined in the wind developers environmental impact statements. The EIS filings made pursuant to the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act are required to weigh the economic benefit of a project against its environmental impact, but the EIS filings being made by wind developers in our area do not explain how economic benefit will be obtained from the projects.

Some local residents are trying to fill this gap. The public has an opportunity to learn about their findings Thursday, January 18, 2007, at a public meeting in Hornell organized by the Steuben Greens. Brad Jones of Italy group and Steve Trude and James Hall from Cohocton Wind Watch will speak about the impact of wind developments on our local economies and taxes at the meeting, which will be held at 198 Main St. in Hornell at 7:00 pm.

The meeting is free and open to the public.

For more information about the Steuben Greens, visit

For More Information: Rachel Treichler, 607-569-2114,
or contact Steve Trude, James Hall and Brad Jones directly.

Congress has extended through 2008 the 1.9 cents per kilowatt hour subsidy

For you information below are the members of congress who voted against
extension. A very interesting mix, including some of the most radical,
liberal, and conservative members of congress.

Senate Nays: 9

>Sen. Jim Bunning (R-KY-)
Sen. Conrad Burns (R-MT-)
Sen. Richard Burr (R-NC-)
Sen. Tom Coburn (R-OK-)
Sen. Russ Feingold (D-WI-)
Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC-)
Sen. Judd Gregg (R-NH-)
Sen. John Sununu (R-NH-)
Sen. George Voinovich (R-OH-)

House Nays: 45

Rep. Robert Andrews (D-NJ-1)
Rep. Tammy Baldwin (D-WI-2)
Rep. Robert Brady (D-PA-1)
Rep. Lois Capps (D-CA-23)
Rep. John Conyers (D-MI-14)
Rep. Jim Davis (D-FL-11)
Rep. Sam Farr (D-CA-17)
Rep. Bob Filner (D-CA-51)
Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA-4)
Rep. Raul Grijalva (D-AZ-7)
Rep. Luis Gutierrez (D-IL-4)
Rep. Jane Harman (D-CA-36)
Rep. Alcee Hastings (D-FL-23)
Rep. Maurice Hinchey (D-NY-22)
Rep. Rush Holt (D-NJ-12)
Rep. Jesse Jackson (D-IL-2)
Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-OH-10)
Rep. Barbara Lee (D-CA-9)
Rep. Stephen Lynch (D-MA-9)
Rep. Edward Markey (D-MA-7)
Rep. James McGovern (D-MA-3)
Rep. Cynthia McKinney (D-GA-4)
Rep. Kendrick Meek (D-FL-17)
Gwen Moore (D-WI-4)
Rep. Grace Napolitano (D-CA-38)
Rep. John Olver (D-MA-1)
Rep. Frank Pallone (D-NJ-6)
Rep. Ed Pastor (D-AZ-4)
Rep. Donald Payne (D-NJ-10)
Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL-18)
Rep. Lucille Roybal-Allard (D-CA-34)
Rep. Linda Sanchez (D-CA-39)
Rep. Bernard Sanders (I-VT-AL)
Rep. Janice Schakowsky (D-IL-9)
Rep. Mike Simpson (R-ID-2)
Rep. Fortney Stark (D-CA-13)
Rep. John Tierney (D-MA-6)
Rep. Peter Visclosky (D-IN-1)
Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-FL-20)
Rep. Maxine Waters (D-CA-35)
Rep. Henry Waxman (D-CA-30)
Rep. Robert Wexler (D-FL-19)
Rep. Edward Whitfield (R-KY-1)
Rep. Lynn Woolsey (D-CA-6)

Next big test of power to seize property? by Warren Richey

Bart Didden wanted to put a CVS pharmacy on his property in Port Chester, N.Y. He even obtained approvals from the local planning board.

But because a portion of the CVS site was in a blighted redevelopment zone, Mr. Didden was told that planning board approval wasn't enough. He'd have to reach an understanding with a private company that had been selected by Port Chester officials to control all construction inside the renewal zone.

The developer, Gregg Wasser of G&S; Port Chester, told Didden he'd have to pay $800,000 or give G&S; a 50 percent stake in the CVS business. If Didden refused, Mr. Wasser said, he would have Port Chester condemn and seize his property and instead of a CVS he'd put a Walgreens drugstore on the site.

Didden refused. The next day, the Village of Port Chester began legal proceedings to seize Didden's land by eminent domain.

(click above link to read entire article)


Steuben County - The Planning Board of the Town of Cohocton, as lead agency, has accepted a Draft Environmental Impact Statement on the proposed Cohocton Wind Power Project. A public hearing on the Draft EIS will be held on January 19, 2007 at 7:00 p.m. at the Wayland-Cohocton Elementary School, 30 Park Avenue, Cohocton, New York. Public comments will be accepted until February 1, 2007. The action involves Site Plan and Special Use Permit approval and all the permits and approvals necessary to construct and operate a wind-powered generating facility consisting of up to thirty-six (36) turbines with a capacity of up to ninety (90) megawatts, a 115 kV overhead transmission line, interconnect substation, collection substation, operations and maintenance building, electrical collection system, gravel access roads and necessary public road improvements, and up to three meteorological towers, on approximately 5,700 acres of private lands. The project is located in the Town of Cohocton, County of Steuben, State of New York. The turbines are proposed to be located primarily along Pine Hill and Lent Hill northeast of the Village of Cohocton. The transmission line will be located through the Cohocton River Valley south of the turbine area.

Wednesday, January 03, 2007

Dutch Hill Wind Turbines - Video

The view of industrial wind turbines on Dutch Hill, Cohocton, NY if the UPC project is built. Only a small section of the sixteen 2.5 MW 423 feet high towers.

Thirty-six more slated for the Pine Hill/Lent Hill section.

Article 78 against Windmill Local Law #2 court calendar update

Original hearing date of January 16, 2007 has been postponed.

New tentative calendar dates:

January 1, 2007 Town Board of Cohocton answer to Article 78 filing.
February 22, 2007 CWW attorney Richard Lippes response to Cohocton.
March 15, 2007 Whiteman, Osterman & Hanna response to Lippes answer.
March 12, 2007 Lippes reply to Cohocton response.
April 3, 2007 Supreme Court hearing Bath, NY – Marianne Furfure judge.

View looking west-northwest from Kirkwood - Lent Hill Road, Town of Cohocton, NY

Cumulative Simulation - Dutch Hill Wind Farm and Cohocton Wind Power Project

Check out Figure 23 : Viewpoint 195
View looking west-northwest from Kirkwood - Lent Hill Road, Town of Cohocton, NY

UPC Dutch Hill Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement

UPC Dutch Hill DEIS pdf file


Tuesday, January 02, 2007

Express your outrage and opposition - Write To Governor Eliot Spitzer

Eliot Spitzer
State Capitol
Albany, NY 12224


To Email The Governor:
Click here to email the Governor.
Responses may be sent via the U.S. Mail.

For Information on Legislation:
Please access the New York State Legislative
Session Information page at

Spitzer today released an overview of the upstate NY revitalization agenda for the new administration. It is all worth reviewing, but note section 9 on Energy, with significant implications for both wind energy siting and power line construction.

9. Energy

The administration will revamp low-cost power programs and look to expand generating capacity throughout the state. In addition, it will make a concerted effort to increase the number of wind turbines sited in upstate New York and other renewable technologies.



Tuesday , January 2, 2007

Contact: Christine Anderson


Click on link to submit your SEC complaint on the
First Wind Holdings Inc. IPO public offering

TEN Reasons
Why the SEC should not allow First Wind to be listed on NASDAQ

First Wind Holdings Inc. 12/22/09 SEC S1/A IPO Filing

First Wind Holdings Inc. 7/31/08 SEC S1 IPO Filing

May 14, 2010 addition to the First Wind Holdings Inc. SEC S1A IPO Filing

August 18, 2010 amendment 7 to the First Wind Holdings Inc. SEC S1A IPO Filing

October 13, 2010 Filing update to the First Wind Holdings Inc. SEC S1A IPO Filing

New October 25, 2010 Filing update to the First Wind Holdings Inc. SEC S1A IPO Filing

after Wall Street no confidence in company

Send email request to join - RIWT Facebook Groupsplus

RIWT is open to the public

Risks of Industrial Wind Turbines is a group of citizens and organizations dedicated to preserve the public safety, property values, economic viability, environmental integrity and quality of life of residents and future generations.