Friday, February 29, 2008

Schumer wary of NYSEG buyout by Jonathan D. Epstein

Sen. Charles E. Schumer on Thursday called on Spanish energy company Iberdrola S.A. to protect 1.5 million Upstate New York ratepayers from spiking energy bills and poor service when it buys the parent of New York State Electric & Gas.

Madrid-based Iberdrola, a global energy provider, agreed last June to pay $8.6 billion in cash to buy Portland, Maine-based Energy East Corp., the parent of NYSEG, which serves suburban and rural portions of Western New York. Energy East also owns Rochester Gas & Electric, and several New England utilities.

The proposal has been approved by federal officials but is still pending before the state Public Service Commission, which is negotiating a settlement with Iberdrola that can still be rejected or altered by the PSC. If approved, the purchase, coming seven years after British utility National Grid PLC bought Niagara Mohawk in 2001, means most customers in Western New York will get their power from a European-owned company.

But that earlier merger has had its problems. Schumer said Niagara Mohawk customers have experienced rate increases and “unpredictable service” since the merger, and said he wants to avoid another “National Grid debacle.” He noted that Iberdrola is paying significantly more than Energy East’s market value, but has offered few guarantees to benefit customers.

The New York Democrat urged Iberdrola to set up a trust fund — formally known as a regulatory deferral account — to offset rate increases in coming years so current customers of RG&E; and Binghamton- based NYSEG don’t face higher monthly utility bills.

He also asked the Spanish company to agree to a “performance assurance plan” that would impose penalties if service quality deteriorates after the merger.

Both requests were included in a letter to the PSC, which also encouraged the agency not to prevent Iberdrola from developing further sources of renewable energy.

The deal would create an energy giant with operations in 14 coun - tries, and would give Iberdrola a strong position from which to expand in the United States.

Schumer wants conditions on Energy East buyout by Claudia Vargas

(February 29, 2008) — While Iberdrola SA continues to negotiate with the state Public Service Commission on the purchase of Energy East Corp., Sen. Charles Schumer is recommending a specific plan for Iberdrola to adopt if the deal goes through.

The New York Democrat said Thursday that takeovers of utilities can often benefit shareholders but hurt ratepayers.

His concern echoed what was said at a PSC public hearing in Rochester last week, when many speakers said they already were pinched by high costs of electricity and natural gas.

Energy East is the parent of Rochester Gas and Electric and New York State Electric and Gas. Iberdrola, based in Bilbao, Spain, has an agreement to acquire Energy East for $4.5 billion but still needs PSC approval.

Schumer said he doesn't want the Iberdrola takeover to have a negative effect on rates and service, which is what he said happened after National Grid of Britain acquired Niagara Mohawk in 2001.

"Their fear comes with good reason," Schumer said about ratepayers' concerns. "National Grid is history we do not want to repeat ... soaring bills and lousy service."

Schumer proposed that Iberdrola set up a trust fund of at least $1 billion that could be tapped to offset rate increases and keep monthly utility bills as low as possible.

He also said he wants Iberdrola to set up a performance assurance plan, which would provide for fines for any service failures.

Additionally, he said he wants the PSC to require that Iberdrola be aggressive with alternative energy development in upstate, especially wind energy, which is a forte of the Spanish company.

Finally, Schumer said he wants Iberdrola to repower RG&E;'s Russell power plant in Greece as a natural gas facility, rather than coal, a commitment RG&E; already has made.

"The PSC must make them, literally, put their money where their mouth is," Schumer said of Iberdrola, adding that he intends to put "a lot of pressure" on the PSC to adopt his recommendations in its current negotiations with the company. Schumer said he sent a formal letter to the PSC outlining his recommendations.

James Denn, a PSC spokesman, said Schumer's letter will be "closely reviewed and considered as proceedings continue. In any public proceeding, any letters that are received are given careful consideration."

Spanish wind developer attempting to take over NYS electricity infrastructure by Calvin Luther Martin

¿Cómo se pronuncia “NYSEG” en español, señor?

Calvin Luther Martin

One of the biggest, most controversial and aggressive foreign wind developers is maneuvering to buy out New York State’s electricity infrastructure. Iberdrola (pronounced “Eye-ber-drola”), a Spanish company, has applied to the NYS Public Service Commission (PSC) for permission to do just this.

The PSC held hearings in major cities throughout NYS recently for public input. (Perhaps they are continuing, I’m not certain.) There was a hearing in Plattsburgh last week, but the PSC announcement and schedule failed to say what the point of the hearing was—merely that there was a hearing. As far as I know, no 0ne from North Country Advocates or any other regional watchdog group attended.

Now we read the attached article in today’s Malone Telegram (2/29/08)—a week too late. (Why didn’t the Telegram announce the purpose of the Plattsburgh PSC hearing two weeks ago? On the other hand, why didn’t we announce it here, in Shame on the Telegram and RiverCityMalone.)

I believe I recall an article circulated by Wayne Miller (was it?) several months ago, noting how shaky Iberdrola’s finances are, and how abysmal its Wall Street credit rating. My impression, at the time, was, “This company is a house of cards.” Let me emphasize, I’m working from memory here, so don’t take my reflections as gospel.

However, it’s worth taking a hard look at Iberdrola’s finances.

Finances aside, Iberdrola’s windplant projects have become the scourge of rural communities. Now we read they may be controlling NYSEG. As if that were not enough trauma for the day, U.S. Senator Schumer declares “any sale should also come with penalties for the company if it fails to meet … an increase in wind power development.”

Hmmm. More windplants in NYS plus a notorious wind developer controlling what used to be NYSEG? Is the PSC really, truly considering giving away the farm to a foreign wind developer?

Am I missing something here? Sure looks to me like the wind developers are trying to take over NYS’s energy infrastructure to further their windplants—and have us reimburse them with higher and higher energy costs. (Did you notice the direction your electric bill took after National Grid, a British Company, bought Niagara Mohawk?)

Let’s have some spirited dialogue on this. Post your thoughts, suggestions, research into Iberdrola, below. (This, after all, is the express purpose of RiverCityMalone.)

Thursday, February 28, 2008

DiNapoli targets IDA reporting practices

The state comptroller's office will start suspending local industrial development agencies that don't report complete and accurate data.

Comptroller Thomas DiNapoli released a study Wednesday showing that many of the state's 116 development agencies are reporting project costs, job estimates and other information that's "inconsistent, incomplete and not independently verified." DiNapoli said his office will revoke an agency's powers to award tax abatements, tax credits and low interest rates to spur job creation and business expansions, if its reports are incomplete.

DiNapoli's audit furthers an ongoing debate over whether to reform industrial development agencies, which are independent public authorities. That question is fueled by two starkly different studies based on data reported by the agencies.

Earlier this month, the New York State Economic Development Council released a report saying that projects backed by the agencies topped job creation projections in 2005 by nearly 60,000 positions.

The report also said 45 percent of projects fell short of job creation targets. Many came up less than 10 jobs shy of those benchmarks.

The council hired the nonprofit Center for Governmental Research Inc. to complete the study to answer criticisms from another nonprofit: Jobs with Justice, a group in Washington, D.C. aligned with labor unions.

Last summer, Jobs with Justice issued its own report on industrial development agencies, using similar data from the comptroller's office. Its study said just 34 percent of promised jobs were actually created.

The audit from DiNapoli's office found many problems, such as industrial development agencies occasionally -- and inappropriately -- revising employment benchmarks from year to year, making it difficult to determine if job creation and retention goals have been met.

"IDAs are supposed to create jobs," DiNapoli said. "When they report on job creation, taxpayers should know that the numbers are right. Given the way IDAs are currently reporting information, there is no way of knowing that. These measures will make IDAs more accountable to the public they serve and establish clear standards that IDAs must follow, or they risk serious consequences."

The comptroller's findings include:

• IDA-supported projects grew by 16 percent between 2003 and 2006, 41 percent of this growth occurred in service-related projects. Manufacturing-related projects declined by 4 percent during this period. By 2006, IDAs were supporting $41 billion in projects, led by the New York City IDA with $14.7 billion in projects.

• In 2006, six IDAs accounted for 40 percent of all projects. Those IDAs include New York City (539 projects), Monroe County (348 projects), Erie County (305 projects), Town of Amherst (127 projects), Suffolk County (115 projects) and Nassau County (101 projects). The average IDA supported $246 million in projects, excluding New York City. Thirty-nine IDAs reported fewer than 10 projects in 2006, with six IDAs reporting only one project.

• IDAs claimed that cumulative employment grew by more than 228,000 jobs in the projects they supported by 2006. However, OSC found that IDAs did little to verify the accuracy of the information reported by individual employers. The annual cost per job created ranged from $0 to $121,818, with an average cost of $4,195.

The audit from DiNapoli's office also raises the idea of a regional structure for the state that could better plan economic development and help keep tabs on industrial development agencies.

U.S. Senate February 29, 2008 Letter by James Hall

February 29, 2008

United States Senate
Washington, DC 20510

RE: Renewable Energy and Energy Conservation Tax Act

Dear Senator:

Cohocton Wind Watch fundamentally opposes federal and state subsidies for industrial wind development. The purpose of this letter is to urge that the Senate reject the Renewable Energy and Energy Conservation Tax Act.

Once again the House of Representatives has passed legislation that will extend tax credits and incentives to the industrial wind industry. This bill extends the production tax credit, now 2 cents a kilowatt hour, for wind for three years. The legislation would also channel $2 billion into clean renewable energy bonds that could be used to finance industrial wind projects.

This kind of misuse of federal tax authority will only facilitate the rapid destruction of the rural American landscape, while causing the cost of electric generation to skyrocket. Consumers will see their electric bills escalate out of control, while foreign LLC developers extend their bogus energy fraud scheme upon the nation.

Industrial wind turbine technology is ill suited to be part of any meaningful energy generation and actually poses a serious risk to the electric grid system. When will federal elected officials examine the history and facts about this industry replete with deception and harmful violations to the environment?

Any portion of the $17 billion in tax credits and other incentives within this bill must not include industrial wind generation. Alternative energy technology must be reliable, sustainable and cost effective. Industrial wind generation fails on meeting this standard.

The Senate needs to stand firm and vote down any House legislation that rewards a predatory industry. Federal representatives should be demanding a full scale criminal investigation into the anti-trust business practices and the corrupt conduct of dishonest developers. A national scandal is in the making and anyone supporting these plots to loot the national treasury, while selling non existent REC credits, will pay a heavy price.

CWW represents the sentiments of dozens of rational citizen environmental groups across many states and regions of America. The public refuses to be sold a bill of goods. Yet the House continues to do the bidding of wind lobbyists and ex Enron executives more interested in tax subsidies than generating useful electricity.

Once again it is up to the Senate to spurn the misuse of public funds that rewards an illicit industry. The propaganda of plunder from the wind industry needs to be blown off.


James Hall for CWW

Wednesday, February 27, 2008

PSC Evidentiary Hearing CASE 07-M-0906 - Joint Petition of Iberdrola, S.A., Energy East


CASE 07-M-0906 - Joint Petition of Iberdrola, S.A., Energy East
Corporation, RGS Energy Group, Inc., Green
Acquisition Capital, Inc., New York State
Electric & Gas Corporation and Rochester Gas and
Electric Corporation for Approval of the
Acquisition of Energy East Corporation by
Iberdrola, S.A.


(Issued February 25, 2008)

TAKE NOTICE that an evidentiary hearing in this proceeding will be held on Monday, March 17, 2008, before Administrative Law Judge Rafael A. Epstein, beginning at 10:00 a.m. in the Public Service Commission’s Albany offices, Three Empire State Plaza, Third Floor Hearing Room, and continuing from day to day as necessary.

The primary purpose of the hearing is to receive and permit cross-examination of all parties' prefiled testimony and exhibits.

This hearing has been postponed from its previously scheduled starting dates of February 25 and 27, 2008, pursuant to arrangements proposed by the petitioners and Staff of the Department of Public Service and approved by the Administrative Law Judge. (This postponement supersedes an earlier proposal, described in a notice issued in this proceeding February 15, 2008, which provided for a postponement only to March 3, 2008.) The purpose of these postponements is to allow the parties time to attempt a negotiated resolution of all pending issues. The parties may seek further postponements which, if approved, would be the subject of additional notices.


Musicians Against Wind Turbines is proud to introduce "TRU GREENE"

The song includes some local politics -- FP&L; is Florida Power & Light, the Company who has targeted us for turbines. Chris Craft and Joe Smith are two of our county commissioners and Anderson is our county manager. It was Chris Craft’s idea that the county not only let FPL put turbines on its own land, but that we give them our public parks as well. That’s why the second chorus says “We don’t want no Chris Craft poking his pupils into people’s public parks …. or private parts” Hilarious!

Tuesday, February 26, 2008

Utility fee increase proposed by BRIAN NEARING

Higher surcharge would boost money available for alternative energy projects in state

ALBANY -- Homeowners and businesses may have to dig a bit deeper to help wean the state from fossil fuels and hasten its alternative energy future.

A fee added to utility bills in 2004 called the Renewable Portfolio Standard should be increased to support solar, wind and other energy projects, according to a report issued Monday by the Renewable Energy Task Force, headed by Lt. Gov. David Paterson.

Currently, the state is short of its goal of getting a quarter of electricity from alternative sources by 2013. It now receives 19 percent of its power that way, primarily from large hydropower plants.

The portfolio fee, projected to raise about $782 million by the time it expires in 2013, isn't large enough to spark enough alternative energy to reach those deadlines, according to the report.

During a Capitol news conference, Paterson said an additional $400 million will be needed from utility customers, bringing the fund to a total of more than $1.1 billion.

In the Capital Region, National Grid residential customers are projected to pay $4.77 a year for the fee, according to the Public Service Commission. If the fee were to be increased along the lines suggested by Paterson, that could rise to about $7.22.

"It's not that much off a customer's bill every month," Paterson said.

Gavin Donohue, president of Independent Power Producers of New York, which represents about 80 companies involved in generating electricity, said the Renewable Portfolio Standard has provided significant investment benefits for but is "just one piece of the picture. ... Maybe it is time for assessment of how the money has been spent so far."

The task force also recommended up to $400 million in state funding for clean technology industries, more state funding for solar and wind energy, expanded "green" work force training and a push to move past corn-based ethanol.


Lieutenant Governor David A. Paterson, Chairman of the State’s Renewable Energy Task Force, today announced 16 Task Force recommendations as part of a roadmap to significantly increase renewable energy generation in New York. These first recommendations include more solar energy production funding the state’s program to get 25 percent of New York's electricity from renewable energy by 2013 and new business incentives targeted to attract renewable energy producers and expand the State’s “green collar” workforce.

(Click to read entire press release)

NOTE what was not reported in the press: "Best moment of the press conference was when the 5-foot tall working model GE wind turbine (plugged into the wall to run) threw a blade to the floor with a loud crash and rotated to a stop just before the press conference began. Lt. Governor and NYSERDA staff rushed across the room, panicked, to diagnose and attempt the fix - they left it unplugged and off for the press conference."

Monday, February 25, 2008

Steuben County Legislature February 25, 2008 Letter by James Hall

February 25, 2008

Steuben County Legislature
3 East Pulteney Square,
Bath, New York 14810

Legislative Representatives,

The purpose of addressing your assembly today is to inform the elected county officials of Steuben County that there is a serious problem with SCIDA. As you are aware, this body appoints the board members of SCIDA. The New York State legislature has in the past provided the authority for IDA’s. Last year a temporary extension for the state’s IDA was passed. That extension expired on January 31, 2008. To the best of our knowledge, the NYS legislator has not voted to reinstate the IDA’s.

Therefore, SCIDA has no lawful authority to meet and conduct their affairs. What is far more disturbing is that SCIDA has done little or nothing to address the harsh criticism that the New York State Comptroller leveled against SCIDA’s internal operation in its audit report of March 28, 2007.

Reports have been made to Cohocton Wind Watch that individuals connected with SCIDA have the appearance of personal financial benefit from decisions made by the SCIDA board. Evidence of such allegations warrants a full scale investigation into the methods and conduct of SCIDA as an organization. These accusations far surpass conflict of interest violations. CWW asks that the Steuben County Legislature recommends to the District Attorney that a grand jury be convened to look into the practices of SCIDA.

Since other counties are presently engaged in similar investigations and state wide authorities are investigating potential criminal conduct, it would be prudent for this assembly to act upon the systemic questionable transactions whereby SCIDA sells public tax exemptions for fees. CWW is prepared to assist any professional investigation and provide documentation that may prove or dispel the cloud of dishonest conduct which has shaken public confidence in SCIDA.

Presented to the Clerk of the Legislature is a DVD of the January 24, 2008 SCIDA meeting. Open Committee law was clearly violated, according to Robert Freeman. This meeting documents Corning employees who are board members voting on tax exemptions that benefit their employer.

The Naples School District is actively considering filing a legal action against SCIDA that will expose the gross violation of their authority. It behooves this legislature to act in the public interest and address the serious misconduct that is the normal pattern of behavior for SCIDA.


James Hall for CWW

Saturday, February 23, 2008

PSC Public Hearing on Iberdrola take over of Energy East February 21, 2008 Letter by Denise Como

Who is watching the watchdogs?

No one was paying attention when London-based National Grid bought Niagara Mohawk. Customer service is nearly non-existent, our electric bills are among the highest in the state – not to mention the nation – and in addition to ridiculous surcharges upon surcharges, we are even charged to mail our billing statements to us. If you dig deep and read the company policies to investors and shareholders, only profits are mentioned, and “feel good” catch-phrases about efficiency, customer service and lower costs. There’s no basis to tie efficiency, customer service and lower costs to reality. National Grid is one of the largest investor-owned utilities in the world – it already owns roughly 6,000 miles of transmission lines in upstate New York, and about 3,000 miles in New England.

Interestingly enough, Iberdrola, based in Spain, uses “feel good” empty words and double-talk that echo National Grid’s. At the end of 2007, Iberdrola was the 4th largest electricity company in the world by market capitalizations – with a net profit of +41.8%. Customer care and satisfaction are not truly addressed. Iberdrola owns power in Scotland, Portugal and Bulgaria. Certain communications regarding investments in energy contain the following: “This press release may not be distributed in the United States, Canada, Japan, or Australia.”

With the proliferation of foreign-based conglomerates taking over our toll roads, our ports and our utilities, we, the American citizens, are losing the ability to make choices about the way we live. Our politicians are selling us out – quite literally. We are losing control of our basic needs, as well as losing control of our own country’s vital interests.

As far as wind energy, with its pastoral-sounding wind “farms,” the name of the game is subsidies. Subsidy payments sends huge profits to the owners and do little else… we, the consumers, are paying the freight. The extra costs involved for wind energy are being passed on to us, while the revenue is sucked up by the suppliers. If subsidies were not part of the “renewables” portfolios (another new catch word), wind energy would disappear.

Energy is vital to our national security, and to hand control of such important commodities to foreign countries, regardless of their present positions as our allies, is not only ludicrous, but dangerous to America.

Denise Como
Starkville NY

PSC Public Hearing on Iberdrola take over of Energy East February 21, 2008 Letter by Sue Brander

Iberdrola's purchase of Energy East is a sellout of the people of New York State. When a multi-national conglomerate takes the electricity grid off-shore, it is beyond the reach of the laws of the State of New York, beyond the reach of the laws of The United States.

Iberdrola is based in Spain. If it is successful in its bid to buy Energy East, the people of our state are without legal protection. The owner of Energy East is beyond the legal protections of the State of New York.

Furthermore, Iberdrola owns many power generation sources in the State of New York. They are the state's largest investor in Wind Energy. When the Distribution Source is also the Energy Source, the multi-national conglomerate has a monopoly. The people are the losers in this equation.

Iberdrola should be required to divest any power generation sources it owns, should it become a distribution source.

"You can fool some of the people some of the time. You can fool some of the people all of the time. But you can't fool all of the people all of the time." --- Abraham Lincoln

Governor Eliot Spitzer has fooled some of the people some of the time. Wind energy produces at ten percent of Nameplate Capacity. Many people know this. I suspect the governor also knows this. The governor is on a mission to convince voters he is the champion of Renewable Energy. Just wait till the voters find out that he can only deliver 10% of nameplate capacity in Renewable Energy -- 10% of what he promised voters.

Governor Spitzer, you have done a great job of fooling some of the people some of the time. But you can't fool all of the people all of the time.

Sue Brander
Van Hornesville NY

Windmill in Denmark explodes

A windmill in Denmark collapsed during a storm in Denmark on Feb 22, 2008. The braking system failed while two technicians worked in the turret at the top. The technicians were able to get out before the collapse. A 19 meter piece of the blade was thrown 20 meters away; Smaller pieces were sent more than 500 meters away.

Friday, February 22, 2008

Aubertine Wind Power

PSC Public Hearing on Iberdrola take over of Energy East February 21, 2008 Letter by James Hall

February 21, 2008

Rafael A. Epstein
Public Statement Hearing
Public Service Commission
3 Empire State Plaza
Albany, New York 12223-1350

RE: IBERDROLA, S.A. acquisition of Energy East

The Honorable Judge Epstein,

Cohocton Wind Watch is a community based citizen organization that currently has three active Article 78 actions in NYS Supreme Court, regarding the UPC Wind Projects in Cohocton, NY. CWW strongly opposes the approval of the IBERDROLA, S.A. acquisition of Energy East.

1) Recently reported by CNBC: “Iberdrola SA has been fined 15.4 mln eur by the Comision Nacional de la Competencia (CNC) for abusing its dominant position in the electricity generation market, the antitrust body said.”
2) The following summary report provides documentation on the Acciona IBERDROLA worldwide wind power monopolization
3) Joint bid pondered for Spain's Iberdrola, reports: “French electricity generator EDF and Spanish construction giant ACS are considering a joint bid for Iberdrola”
4) German utility giant E.ON turns bidding sights on Iberdrola, reports: “The German group, the world's largest utility by sales and the owner of UK energy supplier Powergen, is taking a keen interest in a mooted joint €50.5 billion (£37.6 billion) bid for Iberdrola by its French rival EDF alongside ACS, Spain's largest construction firm, according to industry sources.”
5) In the article, Iberdrola prepares to defend against takeover, it is quoted that: “Iberdrola intends to show investors it can deliver the 11-percent annual earnings and dividend growth promised in October.”

The point of all these reports is that Ibredrola has a history of ant-trust violations, is a central part of a wind development monopoly, is in play for a hostile take over from two separate European groups and has a stated announced policy to deliver an 11% annual earning for investors.

Why is the PSC considering a suspect monopolist foreign company taking control of an essential Northeast utility company?

The Public Service Commission has a prime duty to protect the PUBLIC. Approving a financial scheme to maximize return on capital is not the mission of the PSC. Since electric de-regulation has become the law, the clear and distinct separation between energy generation and distribution has been the norm.

IBERDROLA, S.A. has floated a major European stock offer to create a subsidy to acquire renewable energy acquisitions at the same time when their own company is a target of a hostile takeover. How can the PSC be true to their stated purpose and approve such an ill-conceived purchase of Energy East?

The fact that Iberdrola is part owner of Maple Ridge/Tug Hill wind project and has proposed developments in Hamlin and in other towns in Central NY, illustrates that Iberdrola has every intention to violate the separation of generation - distribution mandate. Homeland security would be severely compromised with an approval of foreign control over an essential infrastructure supplier.

It is a proven fact that wind electric generation is not sustainable at most of the sites presently under consideration for major industrial wind turbine projects. Wind produced electric is substantially more expensive then other methods of generation. The mantra that alternative energy goals must be met for NYS by the siting of wind projects avoids the central issue that sufficient wind patterns do not exist to produce reliable wind electricity throughout the state.

Iberdrola seeks to force this kind of marginal technology, at best, upon every hamlet and hillside in a reprehensible attempt to produce a superior stock holder return on equity. How does the NY consumer benefit from such a plot to defraud the ratepayer? The threats of eminent domain have been heard at every corner of our state. Scores of local groups have been formed to combat this systematic effort to steal the effective use of our land for the enrichment of foreign companies.

The employees of Energy East know all too well what is coming if Iberdrola is approved by the PSC. Many workers have already been notified that their days are numbered. They are utility customers too, and when they are out of work, how will they be able to afford the higher cost of electric and gas being charged because investment bankers need to service excessive debt to finance another corporate raid?

Iberdrola should be denied approval of acquisition of Energy East based upon their anti-trust business practices. Currently law enforcement authorities are investigating numerous utility companies, elected officials and state agencies. The conduct of the Public Service Commission is one of those agencies. Under these circumstances it would be immoral for the PSC to approve this take over. The public wants transparency and protective regulations for the benefit of New York residents. It is crucial that the PSC appreciate the intense opposition against Iberdrola. Don’t force citizen groups to seek relief in court. Do your job and reject the Iberdrola approval. The people of New York are watching!


James Hall for CWW

Brandon bans commercial wind towers - Malone Telegram 2/21/08


WHAM Letter on PSC Public Hearing on Iberdrola take over of Energy East from Donna Farrington

Don Alhart of channel 13 wham news:

I just saw on the internet your coverage of the PSC meeting that took place today at the Rochester Public library. Your report focused on Ellen Rosen, Rochester Business Alliance touting the benefits to the community and the fact that Kodak is supporting this sale. Where is your accurate reporting? Where were the sounds bytes from the intelligent people that voiced the alarming negatives of a takeover by a foreign entity. And Kodak giving their nod to it doesn't say much. Look where they are as a corporation and what has happened to this community because of their lack of vision and poor management.

As for your statement that NY would be sending a negative message to block the takeover "wake up", someone needs to send that message. You glossed over the fact that the energy source for this region is being bought out by a foreign company, Iberdrola. A company that isn't even traded on this country's stock market. A company that has anti trust claims against it. With everything that we have heard about "energy security" in the United States, how can this be considered securing energy...selling out to a Spanish company?

By featuring the people you did, you are supporting giving over our power source to a foreign entity. Your reporting was so watered down and blasé by saying that the only thing people were worried about was rate hikes. Get out there and hear what the concerned public has to say and get a backbone when you report it. If you had attended the meeting and if you really call yourself a news reporter your story would have to be much different. Where is your conscience?

Donna Farrington

Thursday, February 21, 2008

Brandon bans commercial wind towers

The Brandon Town Board has decided, in four-to-one vote, to ban commercial wind turbines in Brandon in a special meeting Wednesday night.

Before the vote during the 8 p.m. Special session, Town Council Ron Goyea made a motion to table the vote on the local law regarding wind energy facilities to allow time to discuss the issue further with Noble Environmental Power.

Lawrence asked if there was a second for the motion. There was silence.Members of the audience complained about the lack of a second for the motion.

Town Supervisor Mike Lawrence, and Town Councilmen Ken Fish, Randy French and Gary Gonia voted to adopt the law as written with Goyea voting against the motion.

The proposed law, drafted by attorney Daniel Spitzer, will limit wind towers to 80 feet in height.
Lawrence said that the law will be sent to Albany to be recorded by the Secretary of State as an official law.

"That particular law allows wind energy facilities to be built to a maximum of 80 feet and would allow them for personal use'" Lawrence said. "So it is a law that allows wind energy, just not on an industrial scale."

In the board's regular meeting at 7 p.p., Lawrence read the State Environmental Quality Review which stated that the environment would not be damaged because nothing was being done.
The town board voted to accept the SEQRA as read.

Three people raised their hands during the regular meeting but were not recognized by the board.

The town council members have had more than a month to consider the proposed law, Lawrence noted.

"It's been on the table of the town council for approximately 40 days," he said.

William Clifford, a Brandon resident, has been campaigning against commercial wind towers for almost four years.

"I'm not fully anti-wind'" Clifford said. "If I could have smaller ones, I would. The commercial ones are too dangerous and health hazardous."

John Quirk, managing director of development at Noble Environmental Power, said he thought the town had ruled against the wishes of the majority of Brandon's residents.

"Naturally we're disappointed," Quirk said. "A very significant economic opportunity for Brandon has passed them by."

Noble Environmental Power had been considering a 65 to 85 megawatt project in the town of Brandon.

Dan Boyd, project development engineer for Noble Environmental Power, said during a previous public hearing that Noble was interested in placing wind turbines only in the southern portion of the town, where there would be sufficient wind to support the project.

Boyd estimated the project would have brought about $400,000 per year paid to the town under the current Franklin County PILOT (Payment in Lieu of Taxes) agreements.

Boyd did not comment at Wednesday's meeting.

It's difficult to understand." Quirk concluded.

Web link:

Wednesday, February 20, 2008

PSC recommended siting for industrial wind turbines

Dear Senators and Assemblymembers,

On Jan 16, 2008, the PSC, commenting on wind turbine projects, stated the protocol for proper siting of the turbines to be the following:

"Staff has developed a practice thatrequires that the developer have no closer than 1.5 height of aturbine near a transmission facility. This is, of course, fairlyobvious so that if the wind is blowing too hard or there's astorm or some damage that may happen from any other event that wemight not foresee and the tower and the turbine come down, itdoes not disrupt the transmission facility which is, of course,critical to the infrastructure for the electrical and gasSystems."

Protection of transmission facilities are critical.

Is the protection of the public health and safety less critical? Should the public roads and property receive any less protection?

Is this not arbitrary and capricious? Is this not the essence of SEQRA's "worse case scenario"??

Yes, we have asked for a Declaratory Ruling of EVERY NYS Agency since 2004!! Who is responsible and who will provide the answer?

The public wants equal protection from the fairly obvious dangers of wind turbines............NOW! No grandfathering!!

Cohocton Wind Watch

Wind, gas firms set eyes on Jasper

Jasper, N.Y. - A place to store gas and hills to harvest wind has suddenly made this town in southern Steuben County an energy hotspot.

The town, according to officials, has attracted the attention of several energy companies that may be ready to drop some major economic development dollars on the community known more for its agriculture.

Jasper town officials learned Friday evening they are going to hear more on a proposed wind turbine project and a natural gas storage facility within the next month.

According to town Supervisor Lucille Kernan, representatives of Invenergy, the same company that is developing a wind power project in Wyoming County, will be at the next town board meeting to discuss a proposed 40-turbine wind project in the town.

“They’re coming to the meeting, but I want to have a special public hearing to get the word out,” Kernan said, adding Invenergy officials were going to attend the meeting Friday but were unable to come.

Kernan said opposition to a wind project seems to be weak, saying she has only heard from one resident who may oppose the development.

According to town Codes Enforcement Officer John Leonard, he and other town officials will meet to hear more about a proposed Wyckoff natural gas storage facility in the town.

“They had to go through all the state and federal stuff, and they did, but they had some problems when they tested the wells last year,” Leonard said.

Tuesday, February 19, 2008

Jasper-Canisteo landowners mulling Invenergy contracts

Jasper, N.Y. -

While more work is performed on wind turbines in Cohocton, two other area projects are gaining ground in efforts to bring more of the generators to Steuben County.

In Jasper, town officials will hear a presentation from Invenergy officials at the March 11 town board meeting.

Todd Mitchell, a local consultant for Invenergy, said the company is interested in Jasper, but very little about the project is carved in stone.

“A lot is up in the air,” he said, adding decisions by the town boards in Jasper and Canisteo, as well as landowners and electric utility companies, will each be defining moments for the project.
“We’re still working with landowners and setting up the groundwork,” he said, adding Invenergy also has been trying to form an agreement with NYSEG for connecting the turbines to the power grid.

“We’re really looking at a total of 40 turbines between Jasper and Canisteo,” Mitchell added, saying the current plan is to build the turbines on Jackson Hill and Marsh Hill north of Jasper, and along the Swale Road northeast of South Canisteo.

According to Mitchell, no environmental studies or impact statements have been filed, and no special use permits have been requested.

“That pretty much comes in one big lump,” he said.

Invenergy has been deriving data from meteorological towers in the area for several years, according to Mitchell.

As far as opposition to the project, Mitchell has not heard much criticism.

“I’m sure there are people in the area with concerns or questions,” he said. “There hasn’t been any vocal opposition to the project so far.”

In Howard, wind developer EverPower Renewables is waiting on a findings statement on a State Environmental Quality Review from the Steuben County Industrial Development Agency, according to EverPower Project Manager Kevin Sheen.

“The key to this is the SEQR,” he said, adding after the findings statement is returned, the company will petition the Howard planning board for construction permits.

The Howard project will include 25 Nordex 2.5-megawatt turbines built along County Route 27 and Turnpike Road. According to Sheen, White Construction, a Clinton, Ind.-based firm will most likely be the contractor on the project. White Construction is the contractor that will begin erecting a wind turbine project in Cambria County, Pa., within the next month or two.

“We’re very pleased with the progress of the project,” Sheen said, adding if permits and legal proceedings do not interfere, pre-construction work could begin by the end of the year.

“More than likely, it’s a 2009 project,” he said.

PSC to hear comments on Energy East-Iberdrola merger tonight

Public Service Commission representatives are soliciting comments on Iberdrola's proposed acquisition of Energy East Corp., the parent of New York State Electric & Gas Corp. and Rochester Gas and Electric.

The Binghamton session is scheduled for 7 p.m. today at the community room of the State Office Building, 44, Hawley St.

While both Iberdrola and Energy East are saying the merger could have major customer benefits, the state regulatory agency is questioning that assessment. Public Service Commission staff said that the merger would not, without modification, benefit customers.

Commission staff also question whether the merger would, as the companies claim, enhance renewable energy investments in the state. It has been commission policy that electric distribution companies divorce themselves from generation, and the proposed merger would mean that both NYSEG and RGE would control more electric generation capacity.

The commission is also asking that additional measures be put in place to protect electric customers from the financial risks of Iberdrola's other businesses.

Regulators in other states where Energy East has operations have already approved the merger. Federal agencies have also signed off on the merger.

Another sticking point in the approval process has developed over the past three weeks. Iberdrola could itself be the subject of acquisition in the coming weeks or months, and New York regulators want to hold off review of the Energy East deal until it knows the final fate of Iberdrola.

Public hearings on proposed energy buyout

BINGHAMTON, N.Y. -- The public will have the chance to comment on the proposed acquisition of NYSEG by a Spanish company.

The New York State Public Service Commission is holding hearings in Binghamton and Ithaca on whether to approve Iberdrola's proposal to acquire Energy East Corporation. That's the parent company of NYSEG and Rochester Gas and Electric.

Tuesday's hearing is at 7 pm in the community room of the Binghamton State Office Building. Wednesday's hearing is scheduled for 1 pm in the Ithaca Town Hall.

If you can't make either hearing, you can comment over the phone by calling 1-800-335-2120.

You can also submit comments on the Public Service Commission's website at

Utility aims to ride new breeze by LARRY RULISON

ALBANY -- Iberdrola SA, the Spanish utility seeking to acquire Energy East Corp. for $4.5 billion, is the largest wind power developer in the world.

And that has been one of the company's biggest selling points as it seeks approval from the state Public Service Commission to acquire Energy East, which has more than 1 million customers in New York, including about 45,000 in the Capital Region through its New York State Electric & Gas subsidiary.

In filings made with the PSC, Iberdrola has argued that the merger would help New York "further the state's renewable energy goals," including its ambitious Renewable Portfolio Standard, which calls for 25 percent of the state's electricity to come from renewable sources by 2013.

Wind farms are expected to play a big part in helping the state reach that goal. There are roughly 400 megawatts of wind power generation capacity in the state right now, with about 1,000 megawatts expected to be operational by the end of the year.

(Click to read entire article)

Letter to the Editor by Carl M. Wahlstrom

Behind the closed doors of SCIDA wind developers and their attorneys have been working on a PILOT (payment in lieu of taxes) scheme to give away your money. SCIDA has passed a PILOT that is prepared to charge about $750-$1000 in the first year on a turbine with an estimated valued of $2 -$3 million dollars. So instead of collecting $50,000+ per turbine (at the rates that you and I have to pay in Prattsburgh) SCIDA thinks that the handful of permanent jobs and the increase in our electric costs are worth this huge tax give away. So instead of contributing millions to support our communities, the developers get to take those millions in increased profits.

While local businesses are paying county taxes on business equipment purchases, it seems SCIDA is allowing wind developers to avoid those taxes as well.

At a recent meeting on the proposed PILOT in Prattsburgh (held mid week at 10am) interested residents were surprised to see that not one voting member of the SCIDA board was in attendance. Although the stated objective of the meeting was a public hearing on the PILOT, the PILOT was not available for review and when Mr. Sherron was asked if there would be a public review when the pilot was complete, his answer was “no”. It appears premature for a PILOT to be negotiated without clear completion of SEQR since transmission routes have not yet been established. SCIDA, as lead agent, is prepared to forgo public comment on the finalized project.

At the same time as properties adjacent to these turbines are decreasing in value your taxes will be increasing to make up the difference. When looking at your tax bill, be comforted in the knowledge that significant contributions should be made by wind developers, but thanks to SCIDA you will pick up the check.

These developers should pay full taxes. All jobs should be given to local workers and businesses unless the developer can prove that there are not able bodied local workers or businesses able to do the jobs.

Since you cannot fire these SCIDA board members since they are appointed by the legislators, make sure you fire the legislators who have allowed them to INCREASE YOUR TAXES by allowing rich, foreign wind developers to avoid paying their fair share in taxes.

Carl M. Wahlstrom
Prattsburgh, New York

PSC Calendar of Hearings on Iberdrola acquistion of Energy


My apologies for the error of posting the wrong date for the PSC Rochester Public Hearing on the CWW site. PLEASE note the correction.

The correct date is Thursday February 21, 2008

PSC Calendar of Hearings on Iberdrola acquisition of Energy East -
Rundell Auditorium 115 South Avenue Rochester, NY
Rochester Public Library Rundell Auditorium
115 South AvenueRochester, NY
Rafael A. Epstein
Public Statement Hearing (Acquisition) THURSDAY
Feb. 21
1:00 p.m.

Monday, February 18, 2008



Electric Industry Terms Important in Understanding Two of the Critically Important Limitations of Electricity from Wind Energy by Glenn R. Schleede


February 17, 2008

Electric Industry Terms Important in Understanding Two of the Critically Important Limitations of Electricity from Wind Energy; specifically:
· First, wind turbines have little or no “capacity value”; i.e., they are unlikely to be producing electricity at the time of peak electricity demand.
· Second, a kilowatt-hour (kWh) of electricity from a wind turbine has less value than a kWh of electricity from a reliable (“dispatchable”) generating unit; i.e., from a unit that can be called upon to produce electricity whenever the electricity is needed.

Wind industry lobbyists and advocates often mislead the public, media and government officials by making false claims and by using terms that may be intended to confuse their listeners.

This brief paper explains a few key terms that are needed to understand the critically important differences between the quality and value of (i) the intermittent, volatile and unreliable electricity from wind turbines and (ii) the reliable and more valuable electricity from generating units that can be called upon to produce electricity whenever it is needed.

1. Generating capacity, which is measured in kilowatts (kW) or megawatts (MW). This is a measure of a generating unit’s ability to produce electricity at an instant in time. This term can be confusing because there are different legitimate measures of generating capacity:

a. Nameplate capacity, which is the capacity rating shown on the nameplate attached to the generator by the manufacturer. ("Rated capacity" is often used synonymously with "nameplate capacity.")

b. Summer capacity and winter capacity, which for many units (e.g., fossil-fueled) are often different from nameplate capacity because the units ability to produce is affected by air temperature.

2. Capacity credit, which is also measured in kW or MW. This is a critically important measure to generating companies and grid managers. This measure indicates the amount of generating capacity that can be counted on to help meet peak electricity demand. There are many reasons why the assigned capacity credit may differ from any of the above measures. Generally, this number is determined empirically; i.e., with a specific test of what the unit can produce (again in kW or MW) under specific test conditions.

a. Wind turbine "capacity credits." In fact, the real capacity value of a wind turbine is the kW or MW of generating capacity that is available at the actual time of peak electricity demand on the electric grid serving the area. The real capacity value of a wind turbine or “wind farm” is generally less than 10% of nameplate capacity and often 0% or slightly above -- simply because, at the time of peak electricity demand, the wind isn’t blowing at a speed that will permit the turbine to produce any or much electricity. Claims of wind turbine capacity value have been exaggerated by wind industry officials and lobbyists, by regulatory agencies, ISOs, RTOs,[1] or other grid manager's arbitrary decisions. Capacity value was also exaggerated in a misleading report produced by GE in March 2005 for the New York State Energy R&D Authority (NYSERDA). That report has been cited by the NY ISO to arbitrarily assign “wind farms” in NY a 10% capacity credit (i.e., 10% of nameplate capacity) during summers and 30% in winters.

b. Capacity credits for normally reliable ("dispatchable") generating units -- i.e., those designed to be available whenever called upon -- may be less than their "nameplate" (or "summer" or "winter") capacity for a variety of reasons. For example, they may have mechanical problems that prevent them from running at full rated capacity but which problems are not serious enough to take them out of service for repair or overhaul. Grid managers often require that generating unit owners/operators report each day (perhaps around noon) how much capacity can be counted on during the next day from each generating unit.

3. Availability. The wind industry often tries to mislead people with this term. Generally, it means that a unit is physically available and has fuel needed to permit it to generate electricity when needed. Or, put another way, it is NOT out of commission ('off line") for maintenance, repair or overhaul. Wind industry spokespersons often misuse this term by ignoring the critical second criterion; i.e. "has the fuel" (wind) needed to permit it to generate electricity. A wind turbine without wind has no real value to electric customers.

4. Generation, which is measured in kilowatt-hours (kWh) or megawatt-hours (MWh). This is an after the fact measure of the amount of electricity produced over some period of time (hour, day, week, month, year, etc.) Most reports by the US Energy Information Administration (EIA) show "net" generation -- which is usually measured at a substation entry point to a transmission line. The term "net" reflects the fact that some of the electricity produced by a generating unit is used BY that generating unit (lights, pumps, scrubbers, precipitators, etc.).

5. Capacity factor, which is measured as a percentage of nameplate capacity. It is an after the fact measure with the percentage determined by dividing the actual (metered) output (in kWh or MWh), divided by the nameplate capacity (in kW or MW) times the number of hours in the period for which the calculation is done (e.g., 8760 for a year).

a. Wind turbine capacity factors. Wind turbines have low capacity factors because they are dependent on wind speed. They start producing a small amount of electricity with a wind speed about 6 or 7 miles per hour (mph), reach “rated” capacity around 31 mph and cut out around 56 mph. Therefore, their output is inherently intermittent, volatile and unreliable. A 1 MW (1,000 kW) wind turbine that produces 2,190,000 kWh of electricity during a year has achieved a capacity factor of 25%. That is 2,190,000 kWh divided by 1,000 kW x 8760 hours; or 2,190,000 divided by 8,760,000 = .25).

b. Dispatchable unit capacity factors. Capacity factors for reliable or “dispatchable” generating units vary widely depending upon (i) the design and intended purpose of the unit (i.e., for baseload, intermediate or peak load service) and (ii) the plans and choices of the operator who is responsible for keeping the electric grid in balance (electricity supply & demand, voltage and frequency).

i. “Baseload” units (often powered by coal or nuclear energy that heat water to produce steam that spins the turbine that produces electricity) are designed to run all or most of the time and often have annual capacity factors in the 70% to 90% range. They tend to take longer to start up and bring to full generating capacity.

ii. “Intermediate load” units are those that can be “ramped” up and down (i.e., output increased or decreased) more quickly than units designed for “baseload” service. Some “intermediate load” units will use steam turbines and some will use gas turbines and some will use both. Often these units will be powered by natural gas and, much less often, oil. Their annual capacity factors vary widely, perhaps from percentages in the teens to percentages in the 50s or 60s

iii. “Peak load” units are those intended for use primarily when electricity demand is at high levels. Generally these units will use gas turbine technology or internal combustion engines, powered by natural gas or oil. They can be started up and shut down quickly. Their annual capacity factors will often be in the range of 3% to 7% because they are intended for use only when electricity demand is high. Hydropower units (falling water turns the turbines) may be used for baseload, intermediate or peak load service – depending on the availability of water in the area. For example, hydropower units provide baseload power in the Pacific Northwest but are used only for peaking service in areas with fewer water resources. Hydropower units are used for “load leveling” (i.e., keeping electricity supply equal to demand) because their output can be controlled instantaneously.

Units powered by biomass (wood, etc.) or geothermal energy are considered “dispatchable” and may also be used in baseload or intermediate service in areas where these energy sources are available.As indicated above, wind turbines are “intermittent” and neither reliable nor dispatchable because they are dependent on wind speed. Solar photovoltaic panels are also intermittent sources of electricity because they are dependent on sunlight.

6. Efficiency. Unfortunately, some in the rapidly growing wind opposition movement (and some in the wind industry) use this term incorrectly; i.e., they use the term "efficiency" when they should be using the term "capacity factor." Efficiency, as that term is used in the electric industry, refers to the relationship between BTU input and kWh output. The result of the calculation is generally referred to as the unit's "heat rate."

Glenn R. Schleede
18220 Turnberry Drive
Round Hill, VA 20141-2574

[1] ISO = Independent System Operator; RTO = Regional Transmission Operator. Both types of organizations are involved in managing an electric grid.

Dr. Nina Pierpont February 16, 2008 Letter on Wind Turbine Syndrome

… if you know anyone in the USA who is having health problems as a result of living near industrial wind turbines, and if this person (or family) is willing to be interviewed by Nina Pierpont, MD, PhD, for her forthcoming article on Wind Turbine Syndrome, please have them contact me at or (518) 651-2019, ASAP.


Calvin Luther Martin
Malone, NY


Sunday, February 17, 2008

Governor Spitzer May 19, 2007 Letter from James Fitzgibbons

James Fitzgibbons
3075 East Valley Rd
Branchport, NY 14418
May 19, 2007

Governor Elliot Spitzer
State Capitol
Albany, NY 12224

Dear Governor Spitzer;

I am writing to you to express my opposition to the siting of land based commercial Wind Turbine Generators (WTGs) and Wind Farms in the Finger Lakes region of New York State and to call for action on the part of New York State’s government that will put a halt to such.

I have served as a member of our town’s planning board sub-committee on Wind Farm Siting (Town of Jerusalem ,Yates County). I stepped down from the committee in March of 2007 to better voice my opposition to this initiative.

From my experience with the sub-committee and much research on the siting of commercial wind farms in Jerusalem, I have changed my position on the issue from one of unbiased toward the concept to that of being strongly opposed to the siting of commercial wind farms (much-less an individual commercial-scale WTG) in the Finger Lakes region of New York State. Besides the visual insult that these extremely large constructions would place on our township, I am highly skeptical of the justifications for these industrial scale electrical power generation facilities as presented by the wind farm developers.

I truly believe that the current practices of leaving the decisions for siting up to local (town) government is wrong. To pit local planning board members (part-time volunteers) and rural residents against the forces of large corporations is improper. A population of well-intended, environmentally concerned citizens and opportunistic local landowners must be seen as easy pickings by the corporate snake-oil salesmen of the wind farm developers.

I would like for the State of New York to take whatever steps are necessary to not only put a halt to the establishment of any commercial wind power generation facility in the Finger Lakes region of New York, but to protect the rest of our beautiful state from this highly inappropriate initiative of allowing such unchecked industrialization. This sense of inappropriateness is amplified when one considers that the Finger Lakes region is marginal at best in wind energy capacity and that significant questions remain unanswered regarding the viability of commercial wind farms without tax breaks and subsidies.

I am also requesting that the state government become more strongly involved in regulating wind farm siting to afford “best “practice” for the protection of New York’s citizens and environment.


James Fitzgibbons

Road remains damaged by DENISE A. RAYMO

MALONE -- Franklin County may forbid developers from using its roads to reach existing and proposed wind farms if delays in road-repair negotiations continue.

Contractors working for Noble Environmental Power drove heavy vehicles and dump trucks on Brainardsville Road to reach wind-farm parks in Clinton County last year, which left cracks and other damage on a highway that had been totally refurbished for $12 million in 2000 and 2001.

Franklin County is seeking about $50,000 as compensation for damage on County Road 24 and was to meet with Noble officials in the fall to tour the road, document the problems and come up with a plan to return the roads to their pre-damaged condition.

Highway Superintendent Gary Lewis told legislators Thursday that Noble Project Manager Dan Boyd now wants to wait until spring to do the assessment.

But with frequent snowplow traffic and continued use by Noble contractors, officials are afraid the damage will be worse and that Noble's compensation won't be calculated fairly and be enough to cover the repair expenses.

Lewis said there was plenty of mild weather where the assessment could have been done, but he couldn't get Boyd to return his calls.

"He's kind of an elusive fella," he said.

That news did not sit well with legislators, who have intended to use these negotiations as an indicator as to how future talks with Noble would go as it plans to build wind-farm projects in eastern Franklin County.

"He should understand the performance on Route 24 will dictate what happens with Burke, Bellmont and Chateaugay, and he might want to keep that in mind when he's talking to us," said Legislator Daniel Crippen (D-Burke).

"They're going to have to get from here to there."

One idea was to give Noble an ultimatum: Either finish the work by May 1 or the county will post the road to a certain tonnage limit, forcing Noble and its contractors to use U.S. Route 11, which is a longer, more expensive travel route.

Drawing on his past business experience, Timothy Burpoe (D-Saranac Lake) said, "You get their attention by hitting them in the pocketbook. Our first mistake was not requiring a bond right away before we start negotiating."

Before Clinton County would even sit at the table to discuss its road-damage compensation with Noble, it demanded and got $400,000 up front.

Lewis was going to contact Boyd to set up a meeting with him and the Public Works and Services Committee to discuss terms.

Who's behind it? - North Texas Wind Resistance Alliance

North Texas Wind Resistance Alliance
Promoting the Truth about Wind Energy

HomeDoes it work? • Who's behind it? • What does it harm?What can we do?ResearchNews

Who's behind it?

Powerful corporate and financial interests

When you understand that wind energy does not work on a “utility-scale”, the next questions are “Why are they doing it?” and ultimately “Who is behind it?”

Simply put, it’s a corporate tax-avoidance scam, put in place by investment banking lobbyists, energy industry lobbyists, and the late Ken Lay and his Enron Wind subsidiary. Through manipulation in Congress and state legislatures, they have created a guaranteed high-return investment program, heavily subsidized by taxpayers and utility ratepayers, to benefit themselves at the expense of the public. They then market this scheme to the victimized public and gullible politicians as an environmentally-friendly "renewable energy" program, and have the "big" environmental groups that they support and sustain join in a chorus of approval.

This shameful tale is not unique. The corporate and financial interests promoting Wind Energy were helped in Congress by a "renewable energy" alliance with corn-state Senators, and their equally fraudulent, heavily-subsidized "ethanol" replacement for gasoline, but that's another story. See Taxpayers for Common Sense and Cornell Scientist Opposes Ethanol.

A little history

The first round of wind energy mal-investment occurred in 1981, with the enactment of financial incentives in Congress and in California. A mad scramble was on to get them built and installed - the Great California Wind Rush. In 1985 the incentives were withdrawn and the industry collapsed. Without the subsidies and incentives, wind energy was then, and is now, totally unworkable. In the interim more than 14,000 wind turbines, small by current standards, had been built, in Altamont Pass north of Livermore, San Gorgonio Pass near Palm Springs, and Tehachapi Pass north of LA. With the withdrawal of incentives, many turbines were quickly abandoned. They still stand today, rusted and broken, their developers long since gone or bankrupted, with no one to take them down. They are an unsightly industrial junk-yard, a horrible blight on the landscape, a monument to failed public policy.

Along comes ENRON

The second round began in the late 1990’s, when the politically connected Ken Lay and the financial engineers figured they could do it again, only on a national scale. They disguised it as an environmentally-friendly “renewable energy” project, and packaged it in with their “electricity deregulation” lobbying and political maneuvering efforts. They got laws passed at both the state and federal levels to (1) permit them to tie onto the grid; (2) require utilities to buy the unreliable and unpredictable electricity under “Renewable Portfolio Standards”; (3) allow them to sell “Renewable Energy Certificates” separate and apart from the electricity; (4) provide them with an inflation-adjusted 10-year “Production Tax Credit” that now equals $.019/kWh; and (5) allow tax write-off of the 20-year project cost using an accelerated 5-year double-declining-balance method (40% per year). The subsidies are costing taxpayers and utility ratepayers more than $1 billion per year.

Enron was touted prior to exposure of its fraud and bankruptcy as “the world’s only fully-integrated wind power company”. But wind energy didn’t die with Enron. It lives on, feeding off the subsidies. General Electric (GE) purchased Enron’s wind turbine manufacturing business, while Florida Power and Light (FPL) and others purchased Enron’s wind farm projects and adopted their business model. All now push for expanded tax credits. They succeeded last year in extending the federal production tax credit to projects starting-up through 2007, and in raising the “renewable energy" purchase requirement in Texas to over 5,000 mega-watts by 2015.

The Shift from Electrical Engineers to Investment Bankers

Electricity Deregulation and the manipulated embrace of Wind Energy have shifted the focus of our power system from "reliability" to "profitability", and shifted the management of our power system from electrical engineers to investment bankers and their lobbyists and politicians.

See "The Revolt of the Engineers", Today's Engineer, and other publications from the experienced, courageous John A. "Jack" Casazza and his Power Engineers Supporting Truth (

Billions have been invested in useless wind turbines, while our national electricity infrastructure has been allowed to deteriorate. How much damage can our economy sustain, as we waste our capital on the wind energy hoax, while destroying the electrical grid that powers our nation?

For a “who’s who” of the wind energy business go to the website of their association, AWEA, and see their Board of Directors, at .

Dr Robyn Phipps testimony before the Joint Commissioners on Moturimu Wind Farm Application New Zealand


Saturday, February 16, 2008

Genesee Planners Endore Turbine Controls

Malone Telegram February 16, 2008 Letter to the Editor by Steve & Kathryn Zaker


… attached is a devastating letter published in today’s (2/16/08) Malone Telegram by Steve & Kathryn Zaker, Brandon, NY. Devastating to the credibility of Noble Environmental Power. Notice the Zakers reference to Burke, NY: it, too, has a non-viable wind resource, according to standard third-party authorities (authorities relied upon both by government agencies and the wind industry itself).

What does this say about Noble Environmental Power? Yesterday’s headline story in the Telegram about Noble projects ruining our county roads and reneging on agreements with the Franklin County Legislature likewise does little to inspire confidence in this strange company about which North Country residents know … nothing.

We know nothing because, best I can tell, there is simply nothing there. All I can find is a couple of cheap trailers in Churubusco (where Noble set up its “headquarters”), another in Brandon, a mailing address, a website, some stationery – and a circus tent of ballooning rhetoric on what an amazing and prominent company Noble is. (I’ve been scrutinizing Noble in its various identities and staff rollovers for the past 3½ years.)

Circus tent indeed. Except it’s not funny. The wind developers have mangled our once cohesive communities.

Yesterday’s Telegram had an equally hard-hitting, fact-filled letter written by Janet Potter (Brandon), likewise showing Noble for what it is (or, more truthfully, what it isn’t). This has been a one-two punch.

In the past week the Telegram has published a series of letters written by pro-turbine people (aka turbine lease-holders) in Burke and Brandon, NY. It has likewise posted a series of letters against the turbines. It’s interesting that the anti-turbine letters use verifiable data and other evidence gathered from bona fide third party sources to argue their case. Whereas pro-turbine letters consist of slogans, wishful thinking, and wind developer hype (most of which appears to be, putting it charitably, less than the unvarnished truth).

Calvin Luther Martin

Friday, February 15, 2008

Senate and Assemby Februrary 15, 2008 Letter by Dr. Alice Sokolow

Dear Senators and Assemblymembers,

On Jan 16, 2008, the PSC, commenting on wind turbine projects, stated the protocol for proper siting of the turbines to be the following:

"Staff has developed a practice that requires that the developer have no closer than 1.5 height of a turbine near a transmission facility. This is, of course, fairly obvious so that if the wind is blowing too hard or there's a storm or some damage that may happen from any other event that we might not foresee and the tower and the turbine come down, it does not disrupt the transmission facility which is, of course, critical to the infrastructure for the electrical and gas Systems."

Protection of transmission facilities are critical.

Is the protection of the public health and safety less critical? Should the public roads and property receive any less protection?

Is this not arbitrary and capricious? Is this not the essence of SEQRA's "worse case scenario"??

Yes, we have asked for a Declaratory Ruling of EVERY NYS Agency since 2004!! Who is responsible and who will provide the answer?

The public wants equal protection from the fairly obvious dangers of wind turbines............NOW! No grandfathering!!

PSC February 15, 2008 Letter by Dr. Alice Sokolow and Judith Hall

Dear NY PSC,

Cohocton Wind Watch (CWW) as an interested active party for Canandaigua Power Partners I and II, was not properly informed of the change in Case number to 07-E-1003 nor has CWW received any information on the request for Lightened Regulation as per:

01/17/2008 07-E-1003 Orders and Opinions Electric
File Size: 34641
View Document Canandaigua Power Partners II, LLC, Order Providing for Lightened Regulation and Approving Financing
View All Documents with this Case Number
View All Documents issued on 01/17/2008

In fact, the last determination CPP and CPP II was filed jointly. At that time, CWW raised additional health and safety concerns and corporate structure concerns that were viewed by the PSC as tardy; arriving the day before the 8/15/07 hearing. The submissions were definitively not tardy by a still active party for the 1/17/08 determination; BUT the Case Number was changed! Why?

8/15/07 of Case # 07-E-0138, CPP and CPP II jointly:

08/16/2007 07-E-0138 Orders and Opinions Electric
File Size: 125879
View Document Canandaigua Power Partners, LLC, Order Granting Certificates of Public Convenience and Necessity, Providing for Lightened Regulation and Approving Financing
View All Documents with this Case Number
View All Documents issued on 08/16/2007

08/15/2007 07-E-0138 Pr07070 Press Releases Electric
File Size: 15310
View Document PSC Issues Certificates for Cohocton Projects - Construction and Operation of Wind Energy Generating Projects in Steuben County
View All Documents with this Case Number
View All Documents issued on 08/15/2007

06/20/2007 07-E-0138 Orders and Opinions Electric
File Size: 12528
View Document Canandaigua Power Partners, LLC, Confirming Order Made in This Proceeding on May 14, 2007
View All Documents with this Case Number
View All Documents issued on 06/20/2007

05/16/2007 07-E-0138 Active Party Lists Electric
File Size: 11072
View Document Petition of Canandaigua Power Partners, LLC for an Original Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity, Approving Financing and a Lightened Regulatory Regime (Active Parties)
View All Documents with this Case Number
View All Documents issued on 05/16/2007

05/14/2007 07-E-0138 Notices Electric
File Size: 18362
View Document Canandaigua Power Partners, LLC, Notice of Evidentiary Hearing
View All Documents with this Case Number
View All Documents issued on 05/14/2007

05/14/2007 07-E-0138 Orders and Opinions Electric
File Size: 29647
View Document Canandaigua Power Partners, LLC, One Commissioner Order by Patricia L. Acampora, Chairwoman, Denying Motion for Expedited Proceeding
View All Documents with this Case Number
View All Documents issued on 05/14/2007

CWW, as an active party, is asking that the Case # 07-E-1003 and Case #07-E-0138 be reopened. CWW would like the documents it supplied in August to be added to both records and cases and any other case numbers applicable that are yet unknown to the public.

Additionally, CWW has new information as to noncompliance of the PSC's requirements by CPP and CPP II.

Ethically, the desire for windfarms in NYS may be interfering with public input and open government:

On Jan 16, 2008 the PSC (page 88), referring to Andy Davis and Steve Blow stated:

"the two of them have basically double-handed, I guess, I can't say single-handed, have worked to do what I just described in terms of working with a process, developing new practices, protocols and ways in which to work with the developers to have these systems come into the department with proper applications, the proper documentation and hence, to get those wind resources on-line as soon as possible."

From page 90:
“The newly approved wind projects are primarily centered in three locations, including the far northern slopes of Clinton and Franklin Counties, the high-rolling terrain of Wyoming County and broad rim shots of Steuben County in the southern tier. The project sites are predominantly rural farmlands and forests with rural centers at the periphery of the project areas.”

The PSC needs to take a much better look at NYS maps. The projects in Steuben and Wyoming Counties are in well-populated agriculture/residential areas. Turbines now tower directly over the hamlet of Atlanta in the Dutch Hill project. It is a fervent hope that the noise analysis done by the developers which have been continually proven inadequate prove to not be a problem as with the UPC Mars Hill, Maine project.

It is amazing to us that abut a 426 foot turbine, that the PSC does not have the same concern for the safety of our children and grandchildren. The PSC have not responded to our request for help regarding the public’s health and safety during the SEQRA process for the proper siting of the turbines. In most areas the distance from a non participating property line or road is much less then the 1.5 times the distance you recommend on page 93.

Page 93
“siting of those turbines. Staff has developed a practice that requires that the developer have no closer than 1.5 height of a turbine near a transmission facility. This is, of course, fairly obvious so that if the wind is blowing too hard or here's a storm or some damage that may happen from any other event that we might not foresee and the tower and the turbine come down, it does not disrupt the transmission facility which is, of course, critical to the infrastructure for the electrical and gas Systems.”

Is public Health and Safety not the PSC fiduciary responsibility? If not, then is it not the PSC who should ask for a Declaratory Ruling which we have asked for from every NYS Agency? The protection of transmission line supercede the public Health and Safety???

Whereas The NY Constitution states:
[Public health]
§3. The protection and promotion of the health of the inhabitants of the state are matters of public concern and provision therefor shall be made by the state and by such of its subdivisions and in such manner, and by such means as the legislature shall from time to time determine. (New. Adopted by Constitutional Convention of 1938 and approved by vote of the people November 8, 1938.) [Care and treatment of persons suffering from mental disorder or defect; visitation of institutions for]

Whereas the State Energy Office, in consultation with the public service commission, shall promulgate rules and regulations to implement this section.

Click here: Consolidated Laws;=13
4. Any owner or operator of a co-generation, small hydro or alternate energy production facility constructed and placed in operation on or after June twenty-sixth, nineteen hundred eighty shall comply with the rules and regulations of the state energy office with respect to matters affecting public health and safety provided, however, that such rules or regulations shall not apply to any such facilities which produce electricity, gas or useful thermal energy for on-site residential use in residential dwellings of four or fewer units. The state energy office, in consultation with the public service commission, shall promulgate rules and regulations to implement this section by January first, nineteen hundred eighty-one.

You have a moral and legal responsibility,

Thursday, February 14, 2008

TOWN OF MEREDITH Local Law of 2008


Be it hereby enacted by the Town Board of the Town of Meredith as follows:
Local Law No. of 2008, entitled “Wind Energy Facilities Law of 2008,” is hereby adopted to read in its entirety as follows:

Local Law No. 4 of 2007, entitled “Wind Energy Facilities,” is hereby repealed and rescinded, and replaced in its entirety by this new Local Law No. of 2008, entitled “Wind Energy Facilities Law of 2008,” which reads in its entirety as follows:


PRESS RELEASE Issued by the Western Catskill Preservation Alliance, Stamford, NY

“For immediate release”

Issued by the Western Catskill Preservation Alliance, Stamford, NY

February 13, 2008

Contact: Ron Karam, President, WCPA,, 201-414-7506
WPCA Withdraws Article 78 Lawsuit

“Best chance for defeating Invenergy”

The Western Catskill Preservation Alliance (WCPA) today announced that they are withdrawing the Article 78 lawsuit filed against the Town of Stamford and Invenergy. “The Article 78 is being withdrawn because it is in the very best interest of the people of Stamford, most of who oppose the Industrial Wind Turbine project.” According to Ron Karam, WCPA President, “The original intent of the lawsuit was to challenge the process in which the town developed Local Law No. 1 of 2007, “Wind Energy Facilities” and to overturn the ordinance. If we were successful in overturning the law, our goal was to work with the town to put in place a stricter ordinance with scientifically based setback requirements that would better protect the landowners.”

The Article 78 lawsuit was filed in the County of Chenango on June 16, 2007, and with arguments heard by Judge Dowd in July, the WCPA was expecting a decision by September 2007. “We were expecting a ruling in favor of the WCPA well before Invenergy submitted its application. This would have allowed the town to revise its ordinance, hopefully with stricter setbacks, before Invenergy would submit its application” according to Karam, “As it turned out, with the elapsed time, Invenergy submitted its application before the court’s ruling and made the mistake of filing an application in which it ignored the setbacks requirements clearly defined in the ordinance. If Invenergy had submitted a compliant application, our decision to withdraw the application might have been different.”

While the WCPA and its supporters would rather have had a “formal” ruling on the lawsuit, the decision to withdraw the Article 78 was an easy one. “With the recent favorable Article 78 rulings against wind development throughout New York State it was highly likely the WCPA would have won the lawsuit. According to the WCPA all indications pointed in that direction. “If we had won the lawsuit and the ordinance was overturned, the Town of Stamford would have been left without an ordinance and without the ability to put a moratorium in place since Invenergy had already submitted its application.” says Karam, “As it stands today, with the current setbacks and the fact that none of the turbines proposed by Invenergy are compliant with Stamford’s law, had we won the Article 78, there would be no governing law. Therefore, the town and the impacted landowners would have no basis to challenge the location of all ten turbines proposed in Stamford. This would have been an untenable situation for Stamford.”

By withdrawing the Article 78, the Stamford wind ordinance will remain unchallenged and therefore, according to the WCPA, none of the proposed turbines can be constructed due to the setback violations. “One of the good things about the Stamford ordinance, which we can thank Supervisor Triolo for, is that section 1.06 prohibits any variance to the setbacks requirements unless both the town and the affected landowners agree to the variance” Karam says, “Since Invenergy completely ignored the town’s requirements by siting the turbines near non-participating residential homes and property boundaries, the decision was easy and gives the WCPA and the landowners the best chance of defeating Invenergy.”

About the WCPA

The Western Catskill Preservation Alliance was formed in 2006 to fight the construction of industrial wind turbines which will have a devastating impact on our rural lands and wilderness. Our members and supporters include working families and retirees, full-time residents and second homeowners, professionals and farmers. Our charter is to preserve and protect the natural beauty of the Catskill Mountains and surrounding areas in the Towns of Stamford, Roxbury and Gilboa from over development, including industrial wind turbine development. To join or donate to the WCPA write to

SCIDA PILOT Amounts for Steuben County Wind Projects


1 $500
2 $1,300
3 $2,600
4 $4,000
5 $5,300
6 $5,459
7 $5,623
8 $5,792
9 $5,966
10 $6,145
11 $6,329
12 $6,519
13 $6,715
14 $6,916
15 $7,123
16 $7,337
17 $7,557
18 $7,784
19 $8,018
20 $8,259

I kid you not. This was the response to a SCIDA FOIL. No contract, no written text of terms, just a table of amounts.

Will be sending out as an email to selective addresses.

James Hall

Wednesday, February 13, 2008

Hearings set on Energy East deal

(February 13, 2008) — Eight months after the deal was unveiled, members of the public will have a chance next week to voice their opinions about Iberdrola SA's proposed $4.5 billion purchase of the parent of Rochester Gas and Electric.

A series of six hearings has been scheduled around the state by the Public Service Commission, whose approval is needed before Iberdrola's purchase of Energy East Corp. can proceed.

The Rochester hearing was set for 1 p.m. Feb. 21 at the Central Library. Other hearings will be in Binghamton, Ithaca, Plattsburgh and Erie and Putnam counties.

New York is the only state where Energy East does business that hasn't cleared the deal. Although groups such as Greater Rochester Enterprise have supported the acquisition, the staff of the Public Service Commission last month took the position that customers of RG&E; and New York State Electric and Gas, also owned by Energy East, wouldn't benefit.

"The commission should require additional measures to protect NYSEG and RG&E; customers from the financial risks of Iberdrola's other businesses, to maintain access to the companies' financial records, and to ensure adequate system reliability and customer service," the PSC staff said.

Iberdrola, which has its headquarters in Bilbao, Spain, is known for its focus on wind energy. In earlier testimony before the PSC, the state Department of Environmental Conservation said that emphasis was important.

"The development of more wind energy is a goal that should be considered when the merger is reviewed," the DEC said.

In addition to the PSC staff's questions about the benefit to consumers, the staff pointed out in recent days that Iberdrola may itself be a takeover target.

Acciona IBERDROLA worldwide wind power monopolization


"The process of consolidation has already begun at the country level, in particular in the more mature wind markets, where major players are emerging as owners of the majority of the assets. In the Spanish market four companies, Iberdrola, Acciona, Endesa and EDP, already control over 70% of operating wind assets, with Iberdrola leading the way with 32% market share at the end of 2006. In 2006, Acciona bought Corporation Eolica Cesa SA, a wind power generator with over 600MW of capacity installed, increasing its market share to just over 18%.

A number of factors are driving the accelerating trend towards first national, then international consolidation of wind asset ownership. The Electricity Supply Industry is being encouraged to build ever larger portfolios of wind assets by environmental and regulatory compliance and rising fuel prices; financial investors are attracted by the potential for IRRs into the 20%s, stable long term cash flows and an abundance of cheap debt finance. Project developers, meanwhile, have in general been happy sellers as they either realize profits or recycle funds into new projects, though some plan to maintain ownership of their projects and graduate to Independent Power Purchase (IPP) status. A powerful driver of consolidation at present is the extreme tightness of supply in the turbine supply industry, which has favored the projects of developers large enough to get a place in suppliers’ order pipelines."



Projects expected to come before the Commission in the future will present some challenges to the proposed locations, potential impacts and recent developments in turbine technology. Turbines sizes are growing. With current use of turbines ranging from 1.5 megawatts to newer designs of about 2.5 megawatts are already proposed to stay in operation.

Proposals in the early stages of development include turbines rated from 3 to 3.6 megawatts ranging in height up to approximately 500 feet more.

Another group of projects being proposed by developers to catch the strong winds along Lake Ontario shoreline in western Jefferson County have raised significant concerns regarding migratory and endangered wildlife species.


Cohocton Town Board member Wayne Hunt announced this week that he is sending a letter to wind company UPC.

Hunt says that the Town of Cohocton will be suing wind company UPC, if the town of Cohocton does not get a proper response from the wind company.

Hunt did not specify why the Cohocton Town Board was interested in suing UPC.

House of Representatives Energy Committee February 13, 2007 CWW Letter by James Hall

February 13, 2008

Honorable Congressman
House Office Building
United States House of Representatives
Washington, DC 20515

RE: Reintroduction of industrial wind credits

Dear Representative:

Cohocton Wind Watch has a national membership of concerned citizens that seek realistic solutions for effective and efficient alternative energy. The original House Stimulus Bill excluded tax credits for industrial wind. This was the correct and appropriate decision. Since the signing of the Stimulus Bill by President Bush, the dreadful news that the Democratic leadership in the House will be seeking to pass a wide-ranging, $17.5 billion renewable energy bill has been reported.

Under the bill, Congress would extend for three years, until Dec. 31, 2011, tax credits for investments in wind-power developments. CWW ardently opposes the inclusion of tax credits to industrial wind projects in any future legislation.

Industrial wind projects provide intermittent power, at best; which requires conventional power stations to operate and remain in service. Most of the electricity from wind turbines is produced at night in cold months, not on hot weekday late afternoons in July and August when electricity demand reaches peak levels.

The inconsistent wind patterns in many of the regions slated for destructive industrial development means that wind projects can only provide negligible useful electricity. Yet, large scale use of wind turbines requires upgrading of the electricity grid, more complex grid management, and operation of additional thermal power stations to protect against power cuts in time of supply failure. These effects increase the cost of electricity supplied by the grid in addition to the capital, maintenance and operating costs of this inefficient technology.

Renewable Energy Certificates (RECs) cannot be justified for an uneconomical wind industry. REC prices should be adjusted based on a project's actual supply of electricity not energy capacity (i.e. time of day, time of year, and location adjustments).

The presence of ex-Enron executives, foreign ownership and questionable business practices has lead to the filing of an Anti-trust complaint, DA criminal probe and an AG investigation into the wind industry in New York State. The pattern of a culture of corruption is at the core of the numerous bribe allegations and political payoffs. This has lead to scores of legal actions in every state where the wind industry has encroached upon residential areas. Inadequate turbine siting places public health and safety at serious risk.

CWW urges you to exclude the industrial wind projects from any future tax credit legislation. We also request that House members hold hearings on the consistent pattern of Anti-trust violations that is systemic within the industry. Cohocton Wind Watch has hundreds of member supporters and a prominent web presence.


James Hall for CWW

IRS Announces Energy Bond Allocations

IR-2008-16, Feb. 8, 2008

WASHINGTON — The Internal Revenue Service today announced 312 projects eligible to be financed with tax-credit bonds under the Clean Renewable Energy Bonds (CREB) program.

The U.S. Treasury Secretary is authorized to distribute volume cap allocations of tax-credit bonds through the CREB program, which was created by the Energy Tax Incentives Act of 2005 and the Tax Relief and Health Care Act of 2006.

In November 2006, the IRS announced the first round of volume cap allocations, which allocated $800 million of volume cap (some of which was subsequently relinquished) to 610 projects. (The announcement was in IR-2006-181 available on the IRS website.) State and local governments as well as electrical cooperatives are able to issue tax-credit bonds under the program.

Internal Revenue Code Section 54 authorizes the allocation of $1.2 billion of tax-credit bond volume cap to fund projects that can generate clean renewable energy. State and local government borrowers are limited to no more than $750 million of the volume cap with the rest going to qualified mutual or cooperative electric companies.

CREB volume cap allocations are awarded on a “smallest-to-largest” project basis. IRS Notices 2007-26 and 2005-98 further explain the program and can also be found on the IRS website.

The IRS has completed the review of applications for $897 million of CREB financing submitted pursuant to Notice 2007-26 and has notified applicants of the results. The second round included 342 applications from 33 states, pertaining to 395 projects. Approximately $477 million of CREB volume cap was available for allocation to qualified issuers.

The deadline for making an application was July 13, 2007. There were 156 proposed projects in California, 57 in Minnesota, 23 in New Jersey, 17 in Washington, 13 in Nebraska, 12 in Montana, 11 in Illinois and 10 in Wisconsin. Applications ranged in size from $15,000 to $38.5 million.

Governmental borrowers submitted applications totaling $728 million to finance 367 projects with an average project size of about $2 million. Governmental borrowers in 28 states will receive $263 million of volume cap allocations ranging from $15,000 to $2.95 million. Approved projects of governmental borrowers include: 138 solar facilities, 88 wind facilities, 41 landfill gas facilities, 12 hydropower facilities, three closed-loop biomass facilities, three trash combustion facilities and one open-loop biomass facility.

Cooperative borrowers submitted applications totaling about $170 million to finance 28 projects with an average project size of about $6.1 million. Cooperative borrowers will receive about $143 million of volume cap allocations for projects in 13 states ranging from $300,000 to $30 million. Approved cooperative projects include: 14 wind facilities, four landfill gas facilities, six hydropower facilities, one solar facility and one open-loop biomass facility.

Disclosure restrictions prohibit releasing taxpayer-specific information without written consent. Notice 2007-26 included a Consent to Public Disclosure Statement. The 310 projects whose applicants signed the consent form can be viewed online.