The letter from the Horizon Wind official contains false and misleading claims. Contrary to assertions in that letter:

1. More wind turbines will NOT reduce US or NY dependence on imported oil.

According to official US Energy Information Administration (EIA) data for 2007, (a) only 1.2% of the electricity generated in the US was produced from oil, and (b) only 5.35% of the electricity produced in New York was produced from oil. The Horizon official’s claim of 14% for NY is FALSE.

He is also wrong in claiming that wind could replace oil-fired electric generation in NY. Having previously worked for the NY PSC and NYSERDA, the writer must know that the reliability of NY electric service depends on the electric grid being kept in balance at all times (supply & demand, frequency, and voltage). He should also know that electricity being generated from oil in NY cannot be replaced by electricity from wind turbines for three key reasons: (i) most of that electricity is generated by large oil burning generating units in the NYC-Long Island area, (ii) until replaced by other reliable generating capacity, those units must be run to meet electricity demand and maintain grid voltage in the NYC-LI area, and (iii) most of the other oil-fired electric generation in NY comes from units that are used only when necessary to meet peak electricity demand.

2. Wind turbines cannot be counted on to produce electricity at the time of peak electricity demand — which usually occurs on hot weekday late afternoons in July and August — because wind speeds at the time of peak demand are not adequate to produce much, if any, electricity from wind turbines.

That’s why wind turbines have little or no real “capacity value” — as that term is used in the electric industry. The Horizon official’s comparison of wind turbines to “peaking units” appears designed to mislead readers. “Peaking units” are designed to run (i.e., produce electricity) when needed to meet peak electricity demand. Unlike wind turbines, they can be relied on to produce electricity when it is needed – not just when the wind is blowing within the right speed range.

3. Claims of local and state economic benefit from “wind farms” are typically exaggerated by the wind industry and its lobbyists, and they are exaggerated in the letter published in the Batavia Daily News.

First, very few of the jobs during “wind farm” construction are filled by local workers. Instead, most jobs (often as many as 80%) are filled by specialized workers brought in from other areas. These workers often live and pay taxes elsewhere and probably go home on many weekends. Jobs that are filled locally during the construction period (perhaps 6 – 9 months) may include transit-mix drivers, laborers, and some heavy equipment operators. Few permanent jobs are created and many of these will be filled by technicians brought in temporarily for maintenance work.

Second, the overwhelming share of the capital cost of a “wind farm” is for turbines, blades, towers electronics, cables, etc. that are manufactured elsewhere (often imported from other countries). Very little money is spent locally for supplies and services and even with these local purchases only the local value added portion (not the whole cost) provides local economic benefit.

Third, any income received by landowners has local economic benefit only if that money is spent or saved locally. Money received by absentee landowners or that is spent or invested elsewhere doesn’t help the local economy.

Fourth, there is no longer any serious doubt that the key reason why “wind farms” are being constructed is due to the extraordinary generous federal and state tax breaks and subsidies available to “wind farm” owners – not because of environmental or energy benefits. Because of the tax breaks, companies owning “wind farms” are able to avoid paying millions of dollars in federal and state corporate income tax – and, in NY, they may also avoiding paying any property tax. Tax burden avoided by “wind farm” owners is shifted to ordinary taxpayers who do not enjoy such tax shelters.

Fifth, if the “wind farm” owner is a foreign company – as in the case of Horizon Wind – most profits (paid for out of NY electric customers’ monthly bills) probably flow out of NY and out of the US.

For more than a decade, the wind industry and other wind advocates have been greatly overstating the environmental, energy and economic benefits of wind energy and understating or ignoring the adverse environmental, economic, scenic and property value impacts. They have misled the public, media, and government officials. The letter from the Horizon Wind official is a perfect example.

Glenn R. Schleede

August 17, 2008

[i] According to its web site, Horizon Wind Energy is owned by the Portuguese firm, Energias de Portugal (EDP), which purchased the company from Goldman Sachs in 2007. Prior to its purchase by Goldman Sachs in 2005, the company was known as Zilkha Renewable Energy.

Download “False Claims by Horizon Wind Energy”

On October 6, 2007, more than 1,500 French citizens, members of national federations and local associations, came from all over France along with local elected officials to demonstrate against unjustified and scandalous industrial wind. Received by the minister of the environment, a delegation presented their demands.

Despite its promises, the state has still not kept its commitments.

One year later, in contempt of the most elementary democracy, the demented program instigated by the industrial wind lobby risks being voted on:

The law proposed by the Grenelle de l’environnement to Parliament in October 2008 equals a check from taxpayers of 2.5 billion euros/year for 25,000 MW of wind energy, more than 10,000 to 15,000 giant wind turbines erected throughout France.

It is to denounce that planning error, which imperils the economy as well as the natural and cultural heritage of the French people, that the Collectif du 4 octobre will demonstrate in Paris at the ministries.

• Iberdrola, the Spanish company that wishes to acquire Energy East and its electric and gas distribution subsidiaries is insisting that it will “walk away from” the deal if it is not permitted to build “wind farms” in New York.
• High-powered New York political, business, labor and media leaders (including Governor Paterson and Senator Schumer) are working to get members of the NY State Public Utility Commission (NYS PSC) to overturn the PSC Staff’s recommendation and the Administrative Law Judge’s conclusion that Iberdrola should not be permitted to own both electric generating capacity (including “wind farms”) and electric distribution companies in NY.
• These NY “leaders” are striving in favor of Iberdrola despite the demonstrable negative impacts that Iberdrola’s proposal would have on New York’s taxpayers, electric customers, and state economy.

This brief paper:

• Provides details on the financial reason that apparently underlies Iberdrola’s insistence on the right to own “wind farms” in NY. That is, huge tax breaks available for “wind farms” could permit Iberdrola to sharply reduce or eliminate liability for paying federal or state tax income tax on profits from Energy East Companies’ electricity and gas distribution operations.
• Speculates about the reasons why NY “leaders” are working so hard on behalf of Iberdrola — and against the interests of NY taxpayers and electric customers — and the state’s economy.

Why is Iberdrola insisting on the right to build “wind farms” in New York?

Clearly, Iberdrola is taking advantage of popular wisdom about wind energy, and working to give the company a “green” image. However, it is a virtual certainty that huge federal and state tax breaks and subsidies for wind energy explain the company’s threat to “walk away” from the Energy East acquisition if it cannot own “wind farms.”

Specifically, a $2 billion investment in “wind farms” in New York would permit Iberdrola’s Energy East to avoid paying most if not all of the federal and New York state corporate income tax that would otherwise be due on the profits from Energy East-owned electricity and gas distribution companies operating in New York. Profits from Energy East’s New York operations (paid for by NY electric and gas customers) would flow out of New York.

When considering the huge tax breaks detailed below, keep in mind that, according to Energy East’s 2007 Annual Report, the total amount of all income taxes — federal and all states in which Energy East operates — paid in 2007 was $114,058,000.

What is startling and disappointing is that NY political leaders — particularly Governor Paterson and Senator Schumer — apparently do not understand and/or do not care that:

• Federal and state government tax breaks and subsidies have made it so lucrative for organizations to “invest” in “wind farms” to avoid paying taxes that would otherwise be due.
• Tax burden that would be avoided by companies such as Iberdrola’s Energy East would be shifted to ordinary taxpayers who do not have access to such tax shelters. (That is, a large transfer of wealth, exacerbated by higher costs of electricity for electric customers.)

Key Tax Breaks and Subsidies for proposed Iberdrola “wind farms”

Wind industry lobbyists have been enormously successful in getting federal and state politicians to enact generous tax breaks and subsidies. Specifically, consider the financial benefits to Iberdrola’s Energy East of only the following five tax breaks and subsidies if the company were to own “wind farms” with a total capital investment of $2 billion.

For simplicity and to be conservative, the following example assumes (i) a cost of $2,000 per kilowatt (kW) of turbine capacity so that Iberdrola’s $2 billion would finance 1,000 MW of wind turbine capacity, and (ii) that all the capacity would be added in a single year. Actually, Iberdrola’s public statements assume a lower cost per kW and, quite likely, the proposed investment would occur over 3 or 4 years but that doesn’t change the key facts.

1. Federal Production Tax Credit for electricity from wind (PTC). First, Iberdrola would receive the federal wind PTC, currently $0.02 per kilowatt-hour (kWh) for electricity produced during the 1st 10 years of operation. Congress is expected to extend this tax shelter beyond its current December 31, 2008, expiration date. By itself, this tax credit would reduce Iberdrola’s federal income tax liability over 10 years by $525,600,000, [7] effectively shifting that amount of tax burden to taxpayers who don’t enjoy such tax shelters.

2. Accelerated Depreciation. Second, a $2 billion “wind farm” would qualify for the exceedingly generous 5-year, double declining balance accelerated depreciation for federal income tax purposes. [8] Assuming that $2 billion is the full cost of Iberdrola-owned “wind farms,” the following amounts would be deducted from Iberdrola’s otherwise taxable income and further reduce Iberdrola’s federal income tax liability …

a. Prompt recovery of Iberdrola’s equity investment. The example above, conservatively assumes that the entire “wind farm” capital investment would be equity, rather than debt. If the equity investment was only half the capital cost and the remainder borrowed, (i.e., $1 billion), the table above shows that Iberdrola would recover through depreciation deductions all of its equity investment in less than 2 years and in just over 1 year if the project(s) begin operation late in the first tax year. With no remaining equity investment, Iberdrola’s return on equity would be infinite.

b. A large interest-free loan. The depreciation deduction continues even though all equity has been recovered. Thus, Iberdrola would, in effect, be receiving an interest free loan, courtesy of US taxpayers for an amount equal to the debt financing.

If Iberdrola were unable to use all the tax deductions — which may be the case, schemes are available to “sell” tax credits to other firms that have tax liabilities that they wish to avoid.

3. Avoiding New York Corporate Franchise Taxes. Tax breaks for “wind farms” are not limited to those provided by the federal government. New York State also allows a corporation to take advantage of 5-year double declining balance accelerated depreciation deductions from otherwise taxable New York income. Therefore, Iberdrola would be able to take deductions like those shown above when calculating its New York corporate tax liability. …

4. Subsidy Payments from NYSERDA to “Wind Farm” Owners. Under rules issued by the NYS Public Service Commission (NYS PSC), customers of New York’s investor owned utilities are assessed a charge (added to monthly electric bills) that provides the funds used by NYSERDA to provide subsidies to producers of electricity from “renewable” energy. In April 2007, NYS PSC and NYSERDA announced selection of 9 proposed “wind farms” owned by three companies to receive payments from NYSERDA over 10 years. The awards averaged $15 per megawatt-hour (MWh) of electric produced — which is equal to $0.015 cents per kWh. The awards are said to purchase the “environmental attributes” of the wind-generated electricity.

If Iberdrola’s proposed “wind farms” were to receive similar NYSERDA subsidies, the potential income, based on the conservative assumptions outlined earlier, would be $39,420,000 per year and $394,420,000 over 10 years.

5. New York’s Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS). In addition to the above tax breaks and subsidies, New York has virtually assured big profits for “wind farm” owners by requiring that a growing percentage of the electricity sold in New York must come from “renewable” energy, which, in New York is expected to be mostly from wind. By dictating that a large portion of electricity must be produced from “renewable” energy, owners of facilities that produce electricity from wind and other “renewables” are likely to be able to demand higher prices for their electricity than would be paid under normal market conditions. The higher costs of electricity from renewables that electric distribution companies are forced to pay are passed along to electric customers in their monthly bills — along with the PSC’s “surcharge.”

6. Other Tax Breaks and Subsidies. “Wind Farms” enjoy a variety of other federal and state financial, market and regulatory subsidies. For example, in New York, “wind farms” are eligible for exemption from property taxes.

Why are NY political, business, labor and media leaders urging the NYS PSC to override the PSC Staff’s recommendations and the Administrative Law Judge’s Decision?

The list of political, business, labor and media officials that have publicly urged the members of the NYS PSC to override its staff and ALJ Rafael Epstein includes NY Governor David Paterson; US Senator Charles Schumer; NY State Senators Joe Bruno, James Alesi and George Maziarz, NY Assemblyman Joseph Morelle, Kenneth Adams, president and CEO of the Business Council of New York State, and Brian McMahon, executive director of the New York State Economic Development Council; leaders of Business organizations such as the Rochester Business Alliance, and officials of the Greater Rochester Enterprise; and NY newspaper editorial writers (e.g., Schenectady NY Daily Gazette); New York State Laborers’ Union.

When considering the serious implications of Iberdrola’s insistence on a right to own “wind farms,” the truly puzzling question is:

Why are New York “leaders” favoring the interests of Spain-based Iberdrola over the interests of New York’s taxpayers, electric customers, and economy?

Sadly, the most likely answers to the puzzling question do not reflect favorably on NY leaders who are working on behalf of Iberdrola. To illustrate, perhaps the answers are that:

1. Leaders really don’t understand the extent or implication of available tax breaks and subsidies. Those who follow the workings of federal and state governments now recognize that political leaders often do not understand the implications of the policies, tax breaks and subsidies that they enact. Apparently this is true for New York’s leaders in the case of the huge tax breaks and subsidies that wind industry lobbyists and other wind energy advocates have pushed through the federal and state legislatures and regulatory bodies.

2. Leaders have been misled by false and misleading claims about wind energy. For more than a decade the wind industry and other wind energy advocates have greatly overstated the environmental, energy and economic benefits of wind energy, and greatly under stated the adverse environmental, economic, scenic and property value impacts. Clearly, the public, media and government officials have been misled about wind energy.

Only during the last 3 or 4 years have the facts about wind energy been uncovered. The media has only begun to understand and report these facts. Unfortunately, there is always a delay before the facts begin to penetrate the thinking and actions of legislators and other government officials so it is not unusual for political leaders to continue taking positions that are not in the public interest, and harmful to a state’s taxpayers, consumers and economy long after the negative effects have been identified.

3. Campaign contributions, advertising revenue, and member dues for business associations are taking precedence over the interests of ordinary taxpayers and electric customers. Clearly, the wind industry has enormous financial capability to pay for intensive lobbying of federal, state and local officials, providing campaign contributions, paying for advertising in “friendly” newspapers, and paying dues to associations that lobby on behalf of wind industry interests. Also, it appears that some “environmental” advocacy groups receive substantial contributions from organizations in the wind industry and work to promote wind industry interests. It would be truly surprising if these factors did NOT explain the positions taken by some NY political and business leaders in the Iberdrola situation.

4. Exaggerated claims of economic benefits and jobs from “wind farms” are being believed. Wind industry officials and other advocates (including some New York State and federal agencies) often exaggerate the local and state economic benefits and jobs that would result from “wind farms.” Exaggerated claims are often the result of failure to recognize or acknowledge that:

• a. The overwhelming share of capital costs of a “wind farm” are for turbines, blades and other equipment that is produced elsewhere, often outside the US, thus providing no local or state economic benefits.
• b. Few of the jobs during “wind farm” construction are filled from local sources. Instead, some 80% of the jobs (particularly the higher paying ones) are often filled by workers brought in temporarily. Also, failure to recognize (i) that “wind farm” construction time is only a few months, and (ii) the “imported” workers probably pay taxes in their home states, not in the state where the “wind farm” is located.
• c. Few of the materials and supplies for “wind farms” are purchased locally and, for those purchased locally, only the local”value added” locally will contribute local economic benefit — not the total price of the materials or supplies as wind advocates assume.
• d. Economic benefit from rental payments received by land owners are tiny compared to the higher costs of electricity that are borne by electric customers. Higher electric bills — including the portion added by the NYS PSC to pay for NYSERDA subsidies to “wind farm” owners mean that electric customers have less money to spend locally; e.g., for food, shelter, clothing, health care, education, recreation and other things that help the local economy.

5. Leaders still do not understand that wind turbines cannot provide the reliable generating capacity that is needed in New York to satisfy growing in peak electricity demand or replace older generating units. Because wind turbines produce electricity only when the wind is blowing within certain speed ranges (start up around 6 mph, reach rated capacity around 32 mph, and cut out around 56 mph), the electricity they produce is inherently intermittent, volatile and unreliable. Furthermore, wind turbines are most likely to produce electricity at night in colder months, not on hot weekday late afternoons in July and August when electricity demand reaches peak levels.
Experience in New York, California and Texas, for example, demonstrate that wind turbines may produce well under 10% and often 0% of their rated capacity when electricity demand is at its peak. Therefore, areas experiencing peak demand growth or needing to replace older generating plants will have to add reliable (”dispatchable”) generating capacity whether or not “wind farms” are built. In fact, wind turbines have little or no real capacity value.

6. Leaders do not understand the full, true costs of wind energy and believe, incorrectly, that wind energy is environmentally benign. Wind energy advocates greatly understate the true costs of electricity from wind energy. Typically they ignore the huge cost of tax breaks and subsidies (only a few have been mentioned above), the need to provide back-up generating capacity because electricity from wind is intermittent, volatile and unreliable, or the adverse environmental, economic, scenic and property value impacts. Evidence of these adverse effects continues to mount (e.g., bird and bat kills, habitat destruction, noise) and is even finding its way into the news media. Claims of environmental benefits are overstated.

Conclusion

The people of New York — particularly the taxpayers and electric customers who are already overburdened with high taxes and high electric bills — do not deserve to pay more while “wind farm” owners avoid taxation, add to electric bills or impair the environment. Those who would be forced to live with “wind farms” do not deserve to have scenic vistas or their property values impaired.

New York political, business, labor, and media leaders need to be more responsive to the people of New York and the state’s economy than to the desires of Spain-based Iberdrola.

Glenn R. Schleede (former New Yorker)
18220 Turnberry Drive
Round Hill, VA 20141-2574
540-338-9958

Download “NY Leaders wrongly support Iberdrola over NY Taxpayers & Electric Customers” (includes more figures and referenced footnotes)

Listen to “Top 5 reasons for industrial wind”

March 25, 2008

Eight Reasons Why Renewable Tax Credits Should Not Be Extended

1. The original purposes of tax credits for wind energy — i.e., to encourage technology development and commercialization, gain a foothold in energy markets, and be more competitive with older, established energy sources — have been more than satisfied:

1. Wind turbines, blades and towers are now produced by multiple commercial suppliers.
2. Thousands of turbines have been installed and more have been ordered.
3. The prices of traditional energy sources for electric generation — natural gas, coal, oil, uranium — have increased dramatically since tax credits were first adopted.

2. Other existing federal tax breaks are huge. For example, most “wind farm” equipment is eligible for 5-year 200% declining balance depreciation for tax purposes — which already permitted recovery of 52% of the capital investment in the first 2 tax years and nearly 3/4th in the first 3 tax years.

The recently enacted 50% 1st year “bonus” depreciation allowance further accelerates the recovery of capital costs for “wind farms”; i.e., 60% in the 1st tax year and an additional 16% in the 2nd tax year.

In either case, a “wind farm” owner has all his equity back in 18 months or less!

3. Numerous other federal and state tax breaks and subsidies are now available for renewable energy.

4. Tax breaks — not environmental or energy benefits — have become THE principal reason for building “wind farms.”

5. Excessive tax breaks and subsidies for wind energy are:

• Transferring millions of dollars annually from the pockets of ordinary taxpayers and electric customers to a few large corporations (many foreign owned) that own “wind farms.”
• Misdirecting billions in capital investment dollars to energy projects (”wind farms”) that produce very little electricity. The electricity is intermittent, volatile, unreliable, and most likely to be produce at night and in winter — not on hot late afternoons in July and August when electricity is needed. Because the output from wind turbines is unreliable, they cannot be counted on at the time of peak demand. They are not a substitute for adding reliable generating capacity to meet growing electricity demand or replace old generating units.

6. Claims of job growth and other economic benefits from investments in renewable energy have been grossly overstated. Results being reported are being driven by unrealistic assumptions, not facts.

7. Claims of environmental benefits have been grossly overstated and adverse environmental, ecological, economic, scenic and property value impacts have been ignored by the wind industry.

8. Tax breaks and subsidies for renewables further exacerbate the federal deficit situation.

Glenn R. Schleede, 18220 Turnberry Drive, Round Hill, VA 20141-2574. 540-338-9958

I have discovered that I cannot go anywhere near them or even go past them to get to a destination. Life is planning a route around the monsters so I can travel pain free and not go as white as a sheet and dizzy. The visual impact is frightening to say the least as I start to go dizzy. Not very good if you’re driving. Seeing as I live in the middle of the beautiful hills How am I supposed to go shopping. The situation all over the world has got so seriously alarming it is unbelievable. There are so many of us suffering and what is being done about it? Very little. The powers that be need to stand up and take notice. How are they going to find the money for health care when we all start dropping like flies. The hospitals are over stretched as it is.

The wind companies say they create jobs. They’re right. They do. BUT we have to pay for those extra jobs they create: Doctors, Opticians, etc. Is there no end to this madness.

A very upset traveller,

Yvonne Sheehan.

Now each morning when I awake, I pray and then ask myself, “What have I done?”

I am involved with the BlueSky/Greenfield wind turbine project in N.E. Fond du Lac County. I am also a successful farmer who cherishes his land. My father taught me how to farm, to be a steward of my fields, and by doing so, produce far better crop production. As I view this year’s crops, my eyes feast on a most bountiful supply of corn and soybeans. And then my eyes focus again on the trenches and road scars leading to the turbine foundations. What have I done?

In 2003, the wind energy company made their first contacts with us. A $2,000 “incentive” started the process of winning us over, a few of us at a time. The city salesmen would throw out their nets, like fishermen trawling for fish. Their incentive “gift” first lured some of us in. Then the salesmen would leave and let us talk with other farmers. When the corporate salesmen returned, there would be more of us ready to sign up; farmers had heard about the money to be made. Perhaps because we were successful farmers, we were the leaders and their best salesmen.

Sometime in 2004 or 2005, we signed $4,000 turbine contracts allowing them to “lease” our land for their needs. Our leases favored the company, but what did we know back then? Nobody knew what we were doing. Nobody realized all the changes that would occur, over which we would have no control. How often my friends and I have made that statement: What have I done?!

I watched stakes being driven in the fields and men using GPS monitors to place markers here and there. When the cats and graders started tearing 22-foot-wide roads into my fields, the physical changes started to impact not only me and my family, but, unfortunately, also my dear friends and neighbors. Later, a 4-foot-deep by 2-foot-wide trench was started diagonally across my field. A field already divided by their road was now being divided again by the cables running to a substation. It was now making one large field into 4 smaller irregularly shaped plots. Other turbine hosts also complained about their fields being subdivided or multiple cable trenches requiring more of their land. Roads were cut in using anywhere from 1,000 feet to over half a mile of land to connect the locations. We soon realized that the company places roads and trenches where they will benefit the company most, not the landowner. One neighbor’s access road is right next to some of his outbuildings. Another’s is right next to his fence line.

At a wind company dinner presented for the farmers hosting the turbines, we were repeatedly told — nicely and indirectly — to stay away from the company work sites once they start. I watched as my friends faces showed the same concern I had, but none of us spoke out. Months later, when I approached a crew putting in lines where they promised me they definitely would not go, a representative told me I could not be there. He insisted that I leave. The line went in. The company had the right. I had signed the lease.

Grumbling started almost immediately after we agreed to 2% yearly increases on our 30-year lease contracts. Some felt we should have held out for 10%. What farmer would lock in the price of corn over the next 5 years, yet alone lock one in at 2% yearly for 30 years? Then rumors emerged that other farmers had received higher yearly rates, so now contracts varied. The fast-talking city sales folk had successfully delivered their plan. Without regard for our land, we were allowing them to come in and spoil it. All of the rocks we labored so hard to pick in our youth were replaced in a few hours by miles of roads packed hard with 10 inches of large breaker rock. Costly tiling that we installed to improve drainage had now been cut into pieces by company trenching machines.

Each night, a security team rides down our roads checking the foundation sites. They are checking for vandals and thieves. Once, when I had ventured with guests to show them foundation work, security stopped us and asked me, standing on my own property, what I was doing there. What have I done?

Now, at social functions, we can clearly see the huge division this has created among community members. Suddenly, there are strong-sided discussions and heated words between friends and, yes, between relatives about wind turbines. Perhaps this is a greater consequence than the harm caused to my land — life is short, and friendships are precious.

I tried, as did some of the other farmers, to get out of our contracts, but we had signed a binding contract. If you are considering placing wind turbines on your property, I strongly recommend that you please reconsider. Study the issues. Think of all the harm to your land, and, in the future, to your children’s land, versus the benefits from allowing companies to lease your land for turbines.

WHAT HAVE I DONE?

PLEASE DO NOT DO WHAT I HAVE DONE!

We were promised three years ago by Jim Sharon, Steuben County IDA that this would be a project that would use local labor. Lawrence Mott from UPC actually told me a couple of weeks ago that Jim told him to contact me about the labor, of course that went down the drain. We are extremely upset & plan some job actions against UPC & Mortenson. In the past Mortenson has used local people all across the country but in Cohocton & Prattsburgh they feel like they can run rampant & do as they please!

Mike Altonberg
September 17, 2007

Proposals from state minister [Jean-Louis] Borloo incite me yet more to join the October 6 demonstration in Paris. There is no more time for playing around.

We must shout out our dissent. Each of us must take this responsibility.

Attachments:

A21. Response of the state minister of ecology and sustainable development and planning, published in the August 30, 2007, Official Journal of the Senate, page 1537.

“In this respect, wind energy is favored for attaining the objectives that France has set. In effect, among all renewable energy producers of electricity, wind energy presents the most potential for development and the interests of lowering costs in the short term. In fact, the decree of July 7, 2006, concerning multi-year investments in electricity production aims to add 12.5 GW and 17 GW of wind power by 2010 and 2015, respectively.”

Thanks to Marie Hèléne Legrand (www.ventdauvergne.free.fr) for sending us this information.

A20. Real estate agents are not happy when “NO WIND TURBINES” posters are found near land they want to sell for building cottages close to a wind energy project in the area outside of Caen.

A23. The cost of wind energy, by an active member of Basse Normandie Environnement (Environment of Lower Normandy) and the Fédération Environnement Durable (Federation for a Sustainable Environment).

A19. Short history of the distances from residences to wind turbines, by the president of Mouvement Franch Comté (Franch County Movement).

A14. A Trojan horse in the ecologist camp.

In wishing you good reading
Make us part of your reflections

Hervé Texier
Basse Normandie Environnement
Fédération Environnement Durable

[] [] []

Les propos du ministre d’état Borloo m’incite encore plus à aller manifester le 6 octobre à Paris. Il n’est plus temps de s’amuser.

Il faut clamer notre désaccord. Que chacun prenne ses responsabilités

A21. Réponse du Ministre d’État, ministre de l’écologie, du développement et de l’aménagement durables, publiée dans le JO Sénat du 30/08/2007 — page 1537

“A cet égard, l’éolien fait partie des filières à privilégier pour atteindre les objectifs que la France s’est fixés. En effet, parmi toutes les énergies renouvelables productrices d’électricité, l’énergie éolienne est celle qui présente le plus grand potentiel de développement et des perspectives intéressantes de baisse des coûts à court terme. De fait, l’arrêté du 7 juillet 2006 relatif à la programmation pluriannuelle des investissements de production d’électricité vise pour l’éolien l’installation de puissances supplémentaires d’ici à 2010 et 2015 à hauteur respectivement de 12,5 GW et de 17 GW.”

Merci à Marie Hélène. Legrand (www.ventdauvergne.free.fr) de nous transmettre cette information

A20. Les sociétés immobilières ne sont pas contentes quand des pancartes “NON AUX EOLIENNES” se trouvent à proximité des terrains qu’ils veulent vendre pour y bâtir une zone pavillonnaire tout près d’un projet éolien en zone péri-urbaine de Caen

A23. Le coût de l’éolien par un membre actif de Basse Normandie Environnement et de la FED

A19. Petite historique des distances des habitations aux éoliennes par le président de l’association Mouvement Franche Comté

A14. Un cheval de Troie dans le camp des écologistes

En vous souhaitant bonne lecture
Faites nous part de vos réflexions

Hervé Texier
Basse Normandie Environnement
Fédération Environnement Durable