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”

• 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)

CWW has compiled comprehensive evidence, volumes of empirical data and a paper trail of proof that public officials, developers and their agents and leaseholders have acted collectively to defraud NYS. With this AG announcement of an active investigation, claims and allegations of the industrial wind fraud and wrongdoing will finally be scrutinized by the highest level of law enforcement.

A special thanks goes to District Attorney Derek Champagne of Franklin County who profiles the very best traits of public service and enforcement of the rule of law. New York State has heard the outrage of thousands of exploited residents and scores of courageous community organizations. The diligent efforts, research, and documentation of scores of ordinary people finally bears fruit. Now this evidence will hopefully serve as the basis and proof of illegal conduct. All New Yorkers deserve judicial accountability for corruption and predatory developers.

The penalties of anti-trust transgressions are severe. As the legal system works its way through the inquiry, CWW is confident that the evidence will justify grand juries, indictments, trials and convictions.

Cohocton Wind Watch supports the advancement of rational and economically beneficial alternative energy technology. First Wind/UPC Wind and Noble Environmental Power projects are not able to fulfill those standards. Industrial Wind developers want the public to believe their venture generates meaningful “Green Electricity”. The use of NYSERDA public funds by wind developers places an obligation on them to prove that ample prevailing wind patterns exist at their project sites. Wind developers refuse to release the data from test towers. The implication is clear: Much of the New York State has insufficient wind for these industrial turbines to become a reliable electric generating source.

More important, both companies and their dozens of corporate variants engage in a scheme of deception and duplicity. Remember the lesson of Enron’s lies and criminal activity, which led to disastrous consequences for utility ratepayers. The Industrial Wind Swindle will be exposed in court.

Click here for videos of the testimony. Or watch them in the viewer below. There a total of 18, ranging in length from 2 to 5 minutes. Click here for partial transcripts by Rock County Tax-Payers for a Better Renewable Energy Plan.

Owing to the large attendance, the meeting was held at the town fire hall, which was full to near capacity.

After a recap by First Wind [UPC] on the proposed location and properties involved, residents and owners were allowed three minutes each to voice their opinions.

There is no doubt that the eminent domain issue has fueled a larger controversy than the wind turbine project itself. There were a handful of supporters of the turbines, one of which sold a parcel of land to First Wind for double its appraised value. Other supporters live in the town proper and are not directly affected by the construction or the site of the turbines, and they do not pay the largest share of the property tax base.

The majority of those in attendance were, by far, opposed to the eminent domain issue, evidenced by both by their comments and the outbursts and applause of the crowd. Resident after resident lambasted the board for their willingness to accept First Wind’s request, as speaker after speaker reminded the board that they work for the residents and property owners, not for First Wind. Many land owners, who are not residents and whose land is directly affected by the eminent domain issue, spoke out about the irresponsibility of the board. All were notified by certified mail by UPC regarding the eminent domain meeting on April 22nd, but these letters arrived one day before the meeting — too late to travel and attend.

Many residents accused the board of profiting from the project and not doing enough research to acquire the knowledge of a project of this magnitude. Some even compared it to Rochester’s Fast Ferry project, which is still being paid by the taxpayers of NY. The only board members who had the sense enough to vote No (Mr. Kula and Mr. Shick) until more facts could be brought to the table were outvoted by Supervisor McConnell and board members Stacey Bottoni and Sharon Quigley at last month’s meeting. Residents were not allowed to speak at that meeting.

The Board has to publish its “findings and determinations” within 90 days of the hearing. The determination and findings must set forth:

1. The public use to be served
2. The reason for the location
3. The general effect
4. Other relevant factors

If, as expected, the Board “finds” to condemn the properties, the “condemnees” have 30 days from the “notice of publication” to appeal. People from all across the state have been sending financial and emotional support to help those whose land is threatened. All donations should be sent to Advocates for Prattsburgh Box 221, Prattsburgh NY 14873.

This hearing comes after five years of struggle. Hundreds of people have appealed to the Town Board, the DEC, NYSERDA, the PSC, the Governor, the Comptroller and the Attorney General’s office regarding how this wind project will affect all of our lives, as well as the land and the wildlife. UPC (First Wind) has not been able to secure the easements because most people in this town do not want the project, and it is believed that many of the people who have already signed were bullied into doing so.

It is believed that past members of the Town Board and the present Supervisor and Deputy Supervisor have conflicts of interest that have led them to pave the way for the wind companies. Unlike other towns where their Supervisors and Planning Boards have made attempts to protect the health and safety of the residents, the Prattsburgh Town Board has sat idly by and let the lead agent (SCIDA) ramrod through an environmental impact statement that is inadequate and unacceptable.

Now the Town, after ignoring the safety of its citizens, wants to set a dangerous precedent by condemning land to give to the wind company. A lawsuit is being pursued, but in the meantime, it is believed that the wind company is using the town’s resolution to further bully the eight remaining “holdouts” and other people along their desired route.

Advocates for Prattsburgh is the local citizens’ group that was organized to try to regulate these projects in an objective, sensitive way. We have retained an attorney to try to get the town’s vote set aside, and we are fund raising to help the named residents appeal the condemnations if the town cannot be dissuaded to reverse its decision.

If you have any questions please e-mail emanancyw@empacc.net. Attend the public hearing on May 22 at 7:00 p.m. located at the Prattsburgh Fire Hall, 15 Allis Street, Prattsburgh, NY and/or send comments to the attention of Clerk Pam Kula, Prattsburgh Town Hall, 19 North Main Street, Prattsburgh, New York 14873. Comments must be received by 5:00 p.m. May 27.

Download UPC’s “Underground Line Easement”

Download “Minutes and resolution of special town board meeting, Prattsburgh”

Also see press release: “National Wind Watch warns of eminent domain threat”

New York State has always prided itself on being a Home Rule State. The fact is that citizens can only create the kinds of communities they want to live in 20, 40, & 60 years down the road, if they remain authorized and empowered to make decisions for themselves as to what is best for their communities. We simply can not allow what would be a gross loss of our freedoms, nor the massive land grab of our countryside that is the driving force behind the whole issue. Please write your representatives today and tell them to say NO to Article X and the loss of Home Rule.

February 22, 2008

Dear Town Supervisors, Town Board Members, & Interested Members of the Public,

As you know, Governor Eliot Spitzer, has called for the New York State Legislature to revise and re-establish Article X (10) of the NYS Public Service Law, which would establish a new siting and permitting process for energy facilities in our state. It appears that bills to be introduced in the 2008 legislative session will over-ride current “Home Rule” authority, wherein the State of New York will acquire the authority to supersede municipal planning, zoning, and decision-making regarding the siting of these energy facilities. Therefore, it is imperative that you immediately contact your NYS representatives, and let them know that you vehemently oppose the loss of Home Rule.

Once the New York State budget is finalized, we expect Article X to emerge as a prominent political issue in Albany. To counter the looming threat that our municipality’s right to make decisions for themselves will be stripped away with the passage of Article X, we are strongly encouraging all NYS municipalities to take the following actions:

1.) Protest the threatened loss of Home Rule by contacting your State Senator and Assemblyperson, and demand that they DO NOT SUPPORT Article X legislation which would over-ride Home Rule. ( www.nysl.nysed.gov/ils/legislature/legis.html )

2.) Contact the Association of Towns to notify them of your concerns so that they can represent you in Albany in regards to this issue. ( www.nytowns.org )

3.) Adopt and/or strengthen your local zoning ordinances for utilities, emphasizing local planning jurisdiction.

4.) Most importantly, in order to protect our right to self-governance under Home Rule, adopt legislation that refuses to recognize Constitutional “Rights of Personhood” — which were instituted by our founding fathers and intended solely for individuals who are citizens of these United States, to any & all corporations thinking they can do business in our communities by usurping our right to decide for ourselves. (Community Environmental Legal Defense Fund: www.celdf.org — see ordinances)

The question is: Who gets to decide? New York State has always prided itself on the fact that it is a Home Rule State. Citizens can only create the the kinds of communities they want to live in 20, 40, & 60 years down the road, if they are authorized and empowered to make decisions for themselves regarding what’s best for their communities. To allow NYS representatives, who were elected to protect and serve us, to suddenly strip away Home Rule, thus enabling this immense land grab, is a blatant continuation of a downward spiral of rights removal.

Please — do not delay! Contact Governor Spitzer, Senate Majority Leader Bruno, Senate Energy Chairman Wright, and all your elected representatives, and let them know we simply refuse to have our right of Home Rule stripped away!

Sincerely,

New York State Coalition of Concerned Citizens

Examples of effective legislation already adopted in New York & other U.S. townships, that were specifically designed to safeguard their communities’ rural heritage, safety, quality of life, and right to maintain local control can be viewed at: www.wind-watch.org/category/ordinances/ and www.celdf.org (see ordinances).

This document was kindly brought to my attention by our town supervisor, Howard Maneely. I called the Commission office in Albany and had a long discussion with one of the staffers. It turns out the Commission (chaired by State Senator George H. Winner, Jr.) is very interested in hearing from all parties and individuals throughout the state, not just town supervisors, describing their experience with wind energy projects coming to town.

I urge you to look over the attached request for information by the Commission, and urge you to fill out the attached 2-page form and submit it by the February 20th deadline.

Let me emphasize: Ignore the fact that the questionnaire is directed to town officers; I was told by a Commission staffer that they’re interested in hearing from anyone who has experienced the wind developer onslaught. (”Onslaught” being my word, but it conveyed the tone of the woman I spoke to. Yes, I got the sense that the Commission is clued in to the bullying and outrageous ways of the wind developers.)

Keep in mind that Article 10 is a double-edged sword: on the one hand, we may have more intelligent, educated, and informed people making decisions for siting wind farms; on the other, the people sitting on the Article 10 “decision panel” might be puppets for the wind energy industry. (Don’t forget that in Congress, there are 4 health insurance lobbyists for every member of Congress. How many wind developer lobbyists do you imagine there will be for every member of the Article 10 “decision panel”?) And what about towns like mine, Malone, which have banned industrial wind? Will the Article 10 panel overturn our ordinance?

These are thorny questions. But we fight one battle at a time. Right now it’s a free-for-all, featuring rampant corruption and other conflicts of interest among town board members and the wind developers. I believe the Commission truly wants to address this free-for-all. It is possible, after all, to craft a suitable Article 10 for the state — one that does not deprive towns like Malone of their wish to keep out industrial wind.

Feel free to circulate the attached questionnaire. Remember the deadline for submission: February 20th.

Download “Impact of Article 10 Siting on NYS Local Governments in Rural Counties”