[Colby and Leventhall and the audience of this webinar need to hear from the people they say don't exist about the symptoms they say aren't real.]

Please join us Thursday February 11th at 11am EST for a discussion of the myths and facts behind wind turbine syndrome and how scientific research is used to both support and deny the claims made.

Attendees will hear experts in sound impacts discuss:

• The science of sound;
• Overview of wind turbine syndrome;
• Published research on sound impacts and how it is used to both support and deny claims of wind turbine syndrome;
• How the “nocebo” effect plays a role (A nocebo response occurs when the suggestion of a negative effect of an action leads to an actual negative outcome)

Who should attend?

• Landowners
• Local and state government officials
• Wind developers
• Renewable energy advocates

Format: There will be approximately 30 minutes of presentations followed by Q&A.

Speakers:

• W. David Colby, M.D.: Chatham-Kent Medical Officer of Health (Acting); Associate Professor, Schulich School of Medicine & Dentistry, University of Western Ontario
• Geoff Leventhall, Ph.D.: Consultant in Noise Vibration and Acoustics, UK

Connection Instructions:
You will need an internet connection and a phone line to participate in this webinar. Simply copy the link below into your web browser to connect – you do not need to pre-register. In order to hear the audio, you will need to call into one of the phone numbers below.

Audio Access: Toll Free: 877-951-7311; Toll: 203-607-0666; Participant Passcode: 9348502

Web Access: https://www.mymeetings.com/nc/join.php?i=P W1627857&p=9348502&t=c or: https://www.mymeetings.com/nc/join/, Conference number PW1627857, Audience passcode 9348502

Questions or issues with connecting to the webinar? Please contact Sue Hinnen at NREL (Susan.Hinnen@nrel.gov).

Questions or comments about the webinar topic, speakers, or the Great Lakes Regional Wind Energy Institute? Please contact Christina Mills at Windustry (Christina@windustry.org) or visit http://www.windustry.org/GLRWEI

The Government has published a draft set of National Policy Statements concerned with various large infrastructure projects. Of these, No.3 is concerned with Renewable Energy including onshore wind farms.

http://data.energynpsconsultation.decc.gov.uk/documents/npss/EN-3.pdf

This section on onshore wind farms includes a number of points which we would consider to be undesirable or plain wrong:

• There is a section on “proximity to dwellings” which mentions “appropriate distances” but does not give any specific details of what might be appropriate.
• It claims that a wind farm of 25 years’ life (with an option to “repower”) is not to be considered permanent!
• It says that “there will always be significant landscape and visual effects” without saying that the wind farm should not be built if these are unacceptable.
• It states that ETSU-R-97 should be used for noise assessments without pointing out its multiple defects.
• it states that shadow flicker should be considered for a turbine within 10 rotor diameters of a house: I have not seen any justification for this distance.
• etc etc

There is a real opportunity to make your voice heard by making your points and comments. There is a deadline of February 22nd, so please act quickly.

http://www.nationalpolicystatements.org.uk/page2.html
https://www.energynpsconsultation.decc.gov.uk/home/responding/

Spread the word to as many people as possible for them to put in comments, to try to get the Policy Statement changed? We need to all make our voices heard, irrelevant of the timescales involved.

Thanks in advance.

Financial Risks

A recent article in the Oregonian describes just how bad things can get when making revenue forecasts related to wind projects.

“State officials deliberately underestimated the cost of Gov. Ted Kulongoski’s plan to lure green energy companies to Oregon with big taxpayer subsidies, resulting in a program that cost 40 times more than unsuspecting lawmakers were told — The incentives are now under intense scrutiny at the Oregon Department of Energy, which is scrambling to curb their skyrocketing costs.” (Oregonian article: State low-balled cost of green tax breaks. October 31, 2009)

In light of this shocking revelation, and given the complexity of making accurate forecasts for any business (let alone the highly complex business of industrial wind-generated electricity), what assurances do the people of Hood River County have that revenue forecasts for the proposed Middle Mountain wind project are reliable?

Perhaps even more troubling is the fact that as of the date of this writing, Hood River County has yet to develop a comprehensive business plan for its proposed wind-farm project. This further begs the question of the reliability of their current revenue forecast. How is it that the County can forecast revenues of $10-million over the next 20 years if there is no comprehensive business plan to support the revenue forecast?

Environmental Risks

Few studies have been done in the U.S. to determine the true effect of industrial wind turbines on migrating birds and other animals. However, countries with greater experience with wind power, such as Denmark and Germany, are beginning to recognize the negative consequences on the environment, and are starting to curtail their wind-energy expansion plans.

Even in the U.S., stewards of the environment are demanding certain constraints. For instance, the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service says that wind turbines should not be erected near wetlands, on mountain ridges, near shorelines, or in other known wildlife concentration areas, or where fog or low clouds are common during spring and fall migrations.

Regardless of these warning signals, the county is planning to put six gigantic turbines on a ridge of Middle Mountain, in an area where elk regularly concentrate, where migratory birds fly over, and where both fog and low clouds are common during the spring and fall migrations.

And what will the effect of these gigantic turbines be on our orchards? Bees pollinate 90% of the fruit in Hood River valley. No one has yet studied the effects of windmills on bee populations, so it’s impossible to know exactly what the impact might be. But if the wind turbines go up, perhaps Hood River orchardists will be in the enviable (or not so enviable) position of being the first to find out.

Scenic Risks

The county claims that there is little if any scenic risk because their plans are to construct only six turbines on Middle Mountain.

The reality is we’re really not talking about just six turbines. We’re talking about potentially hundreds of wind turbines on our east hills. Consider, for instance, the fact that SDS lumber —now not just a lumber company any longer, but also a developer of wind farms—owns 1,500 acres in the east hills.

Can there be any doubt that once the county takes the first step toward peppering our landscape with wind turbines that others such as SDS will follow? In fact, the County is already gearing up for this eventuality, as the topic “Dealing with other potential Wind Projects in HR County —Ordinance or CUO?” is a key topic on the Commissioner’s January 10, 2010 Goals Session agenda.

And what about the zoning issue? The Middle Mountain project is planned for an area zoned Primary Forest (F-2). The regulation governing that zoning states: “The purpose of the Primary Forest (F-2) is to assure the continuous growing and harvesting of trees.”

The county plans to circumvent this zoning restriction by appealing to the State of Oregon’s Department of Energy BETC (Business Energy Tax Credit) program, the very same arm of our State government which is now scrambling to curb their skyrocketing costs mentioned earlier.

One would think that it was the county’s job to enforce our zoning regulations. But it seems that in this case, that’s not the case.

Meanwhile, in its sixth annual survey of “destination stewardship,” released in November of 2009, National Geographic rated Hood River as one of the top ten scenic areas in the world, on a par with the Bavarian Alps. The survey results stated that Hood River deserved its rating not just because it was “The U.S.A.’s Rhineland,” but also because of the incredible job it was doing of protecting its views.

Do we really want to risk this amazing distinction awarded by National Geographic —and the tourism dollars that come with it—by constructing wind turbines that will destroy the very same views we have come to be known for worldwide?

Health Risks

How much of a health risk does a wind farm present? The county says there are essentially no health risks.

However, any semi-conscious person alive today would say that the disturbing thump, thump, thump of the blades as they turn could result in some serious psychological problems for people living in areas where the sound can be heard. And it’s a fact that sound travels further in remote areas, especially in areas where there are hills and valleys where sounds echo, and where other sounds are not present.

So, how many people would actually be disturbed by the incessant sound of the blades turning? And how many people would be disturbed by the blinking of the night lights in the sky? And how many people would be disturbed by the “flicker effect” of the windmills?

The county gives no credence to any of these concerns. But, an article dated March 27, 2009 in The Oregonian had this to say:

“Dozens of wind turbines west of Boardman are so noisy, nearby homeowners say they’re keeping them awake at night and even making them ill.

‘It’s not healthy for us,’ Dan Williams said of the 240-foot tall turbines he can see from his hilltop home. ‘It’s like a freight train that’s not coming or going.’”

So Who Benefits?

In the end, who really benefits from these “community based” industrial wind-farm projects?

• The companies and individuals receiving tax credits benefit.
• The industrial giants who are making their fortunes constructing the wind farms benefit.
• The lawyers who will be hired to sue or defend claims will benefit.

And who are the biggest losers?

• We the people of Hood River County are the biggest losers. We risk our scenery, we risk our environment, we risk our health, and we risk our financial futures.

Ask Questions & Get the Facts

Please — ask questions and get the facts.

Don’t assume that because these giant wind turbines are supposedly green, that they are. And, please don’t assume that Hood River County can benefit financially, because as of yet, there is no solid business plan that says we can. Letting wind turbines into Hood River County may be something you will regret for the rest of your life.

As a start, let your County Commissioners know that you have questions and concerns. Also, check out the websites and articles listed below:

• National Wind Watch: http://www.wind-watch.org/
• A Problem With Wind Power: http://www.aweo.org/
• Scenic Org: http://www.scenic.org/wind/
• Save Our Scenic Area (Whistling Ridge, WA): http://www.saveourscenicarea.org/contacts.htm
• Whistling Ridge article: http://www.saveourscenicarea.org/documents/Columbian_Article_-_August_23,_2009[1].pdf

Want to Know More?

A number of individuals and groups have come together privately to discuss these matters. Some of us feel it’s time we organized a more formal group to educate ourselves and the rest of the community about what’s going on and what’s at risk.

If this issue is important to you, and if you want to know more, please let us know.

For now, and until we can put the formal group together, please let us know of your interest by sending an email to Pat Case (patcase@gorge.net) or to Nilsa Zeman (nilsaz@centurylink.net).

Thank you for being concerned.

Download original document: “Wind Turbines in Hood River, Oregon – Get the Facts”

Upstate NY Power Corporation has applied for a PILOT as of October 5, 2009. The requested a decision not later than December 31, 2009 to allow their project financing to be completed. They also stated that they are under a strict deadline to allow their construction to start and reach a certain percentage completion, to qualify for 30% Federal subsidies from the Stimulus Fund.

The application has not provided sufficient details about their financial strength, and actually refuses to provide an SEC 10-K financial statement for the public to view.

The PILOT will strip US$54,000,000 from the tax rolls, as compared to full taxation. Additionally, the developer will receive nearly US$150,000,000 in federal direct cash subsidy, with an additional US$150,000,000 plus NYS and Federal subsidies in the form of tax credits. The developer is “rewarding” American Manufacturing Unions by investing US$200,000,000 in foreign manufacturing. They plan to create approximately US$15,000,000 in construction payroll (10 foreign jobs created for each American union worker employed).

The developer is an LLC formed under the NYS Transportation Laws, as a single purpose company. Their principal is a single person. The developer has agreements with other LLC and LP companies to provide construction management and technology. Dun and Bradstreet Risk Management reports do not provide adequate scores to loan US$54,000,000 of County taxpayer’s money.

Jefferson County is at great risk with the current PILOT proposal in the manner it is being rushed through our Board of Legislators. The Chairman has bypassed the jurisdictional committee normally tasked with all other PILOTs.

The PILOT lacks certainty required in a normal, well constructed business agreement, such as but not limited to:

1. County Road Use Agreement for Construction Damages.
2. Project Labor Agreement
3. Decommissioning Bonds to protect County taxpayers
4. Guarantee to the number, type and pay of jobs to be created and sustained for long-term operation
5. Guarantee of short-term constructions jobs to be created and sustained from Jefferson County trades

Petition:
We, the undersigned ask the Jefferson County Board of Legislators to VOTE AGAINST the Enabling Resolution, which would allow the UPSTATE NY POWER CORPORATION PILOT to proceed.

Furthermore, the jurisdictional committee (Finance and Rules Committee), shall first review this, and any further PILOT applications, prior to the full Board voting on the Enabling Resolution.

preservethegoldencrescent.com

Submitted by Julie Hauserman of Appleton Wiske

Deadline to sign up by: 16 April 2010

http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/ETSU-R97Failings/

ETSU-R-97 is woefully out of date for measuring noise generated by current wind turbines & not fit for purpose and any wind turbine development planned or proposed using ETSU-R-97 should be cancelled immediately.

ETSU-R-97 is:

• 12 years out of date based on smaller turbines (15-30 metres) versus today’s 125 – 130 metre turbines and 2 ++ megawatts installed capacity!!
• did not conduct an independent study
• did not fulfil promise to update the findings in 1999
• quotes WHO which they used to calculate night time noise levels written THIRTY years ago
• is more appropriate for measuring noisy urban locations than for quiet rural locations where many onshore turbines are planned.
• is the only guideline that suggests a higher noise level at night!
• does not specify maximum noise permitted!!!!!
• does not account noisy wind shear associated with current tall turbines.
• ignores WHO Guidelines for Community Noise 1999
• does not protect our communities from unbearable noise pollution
• ignores Parliament enacting the Human Rights Act 1998

The Condor will never fly free in Southern California because a gauntlet of prop wind turbine farms that is planned for the north and northwestern western slopes of the Antelope Valley. Prop Wind turbines are hell on birds of prey. Over the years tens of thousands of birds of prey have been killed at wind farms in California including several thousand Turkey Vultures. Several dozen captive bred Condors that were released to the Southern California region are missing and unaccounted for. The most likely reason for the missing condors is the Tehachapi pass Wind farm where 5000 prop wind turbines have been spinning in condor habitat.

What lies ahead for the Condor in Kern County is mainly bad news. A new Condor Killing wind farm is now being constructed just 1-1/2 miles from critical condor habitat. It is called the PDV Wind Project. A few miles away another new wind farm, the Alta Oak wind project is in front of the same planning department in Kern County that approved the PDV Wind farm. It too will kill free flying Condors. Several more undisclosed prop wind farms are also being planned for the southern slopes Tehachapi Mountains on land owned by Tejon Ranch Company. It couldn’t get any worse for the Condor because nothing is more detrimental to birds of prey than the 200 mph blades of a spinning prop turbine. The devastation caused by Prop wind turbines to birds of prey has been covered up for decades by the wind industry.

The latest invasion of Prop turbines have come from the southern slopes of the mountainous terrain surrounding Tejon Ranch. Tejon Ranch is sitting right in the middle of the California condor’s primary habitat. The winds and updrafts there also provide a flyway for condors that travel between the Coastal and Sierra Nevada Mountain ranges. Unfortunately for the Condor, Tejon Ranch is also sitting on one of the very best wind resource areas in California . The area has 2-3 times the wind speed and is more than 20 times the size of Altamont Pass. Wall Street is going to cash in and nothing will stop them. Not even the Condor.

The Tejon Ranch Company, on the New York Stock Exchange as “TRC” own 270,000 acres of prime condor habitat. Some of their major stockholders are heavily invested in wind energy and they have big plans. First they want to build a resort community called Tejon Mountain Village in the heart of Condor Critical Habitat. They also hope to secure a blanket “incidental take” permit from the USFWS. The Tejon Ranch Corporation (TRC) is requesting a permit for the “incidental take” (killing) of the California Condor on all the lands included within the boundaries of the Tejon Ranch owned by TRC. This would release the TRC from any liability for killing the California Condor. The incidental take permit is their ticket for the further development of Tejon Ranch. TRC is looking ahead so they can build new prop turbine wind farms on the slopes leading into the Antelope Valley . The have asked for the federal take permit because TRC is very aware that Condors will be killed on Tejon ranch and they will not be able to conceal it.

If an incidental take permit is given to Tejon Ranch it will represent a new era of corruption for America, an era where nothing detrimental to the environment will stand in the way of big business. It will also continue the mockery of our legal system where laws are continually changed for the benefit of the wealthy.

The first condors that will die on Tejon Ranch from prop turbines will probably be from the new PDV Wind Farm. Tejon Ranch owns some of the land in this project and Prop turbines will be soon spinning on the ranch. Tejon Ranch has entered into the Prop wind turbine wind business and few are aware of it.

The PDV wind farm was approved with a fraudulent Environmental Impact Report (EIR) and virtually no opposition from the resource groups and agencies entrusted to look out for the condor. In the Draft EIR I found the following statement ““the habitat assessment of the project site revealed a lack of suitable habitat for the California condor. Therefore the project would not lead to significant impacts on the California condor.” The PDV Wind project sits next to federally designated Condor Critical Habitat. There is a resident population of game animals living in the the upper elevations of the PDV wind project and is just a short glide down the slopes of the Tehachapi Mountains . The fact is mule deer live on this land and are a source of food for the Condor. Mule deer, which are a food source for condors were not even mentioned as living on the habitat. Tejon Ranch even owns some of the land in the approved PDV Wind Project and they sell big game trophy hunts (deer, elk, pigs and turkeys) every year to hunters looking for an easy kill. They also sell big game trophy hunts (deer, elk, pigs and turkeys) every year to hunters looking for an easy kill on Tejon Ranch.

In the Final PDV EIR I found this statement in reference to the Condor “no foraging habitat exists on the PdV project site”. A look at the Google image provided will show the same habitat type as in the federally designated Condor Critical Habitat which sits nearby on Tejon Ranch. It will also show the placement of wind turbines in Condor’s habitat and habitat very suitable for mule deer.

In the Final EIR for the PDV Wind Project I found these statements in reference to Turkey Vultures and condors in association with the dangers of prop turbines.

“Scientific literature also suggests that diurnal vultures, such as the California condor, are not at substantial risk for collisions with wind turbines.”

In addition, data on comparable species, such as turkey vultures, indicate that they skillfully avoid turbines. As turbines are in an area with high visibility, condors could be expected to be able to avoid collisions with wind turbines at the project site. These statements are not only false but are fraudulent as well. The scientific community is very aware that each year thousands of vultures of every type are slaughtered by prop wind turbines. The numbers of dead vultures worldwide indicates that these slow flying gliders are not at all able to “skillfully” avoid the 200 mph tip speed of the prop wind turbine. (See the image provided).

In the PDV Wind Project EIR there was no mention of the federally designated Condor Critical Habitat is located right next to the project. Instead it is stated that the “Closest occurrences (Condor) to the proposed project site are: 9.48 miles away at Tejon Ranch.” This is a very deceptive statement because the free flying Condors historically used the PDV Wind Project site to forage. Another deceptive from the PDV EIR stated “based upon the last 20 years of radio-telemetry observations of California Condors, movements into the Antelope Valley would be a rare event.”

The recent USFWS GPS tracking data illustrates the location of the condors in association with feeding stations or carcass dump sites. The data merely represents the concentration of captive bred condors staying near the feeding stations on Tejon ranch. This does not represent the range of free flying condors. It represents the movements of captive bred released individuals that have not learned to forage on their own. Without the feeding stations the Condor would be regularly soaring all over the Tehachapi Mountains and slopes of the Antelope Valley hunting for carcasses.

Now that Prop wind farms have invaded their habitat, any free flying Condor has a very good chance of dying at a wind farm in the Tehachapi Mountains. In Spain, the number one cause death for the Griffon Vulture is the prop wind turbine where 1000-2000 Griffon Vultures perish each year.

There has been a wind industry cover-up of bird mortality that has been going on for over 20 years. Some do not believe it. I do, and everyone else should also, especially when they become aware of the deception and false statements used in the permitting process. A corporation that would produce a fraudulent EIR to conceal the extreme danger to the California Condor from the construction of prop turbines in their habitat, would never be honest about the number of dead eagles, falcons, owls, vultures and condors.

Bob Stine, president and CEO of Tejon Ranch Company recently made the following statement “We have no intention of carving up the ranch and selling it in pieces.” Mr Stein is talking out of both sides of his mouth. Of course he would never want to sell off prime wind resource land that will potentially bring the TRC billions in future revenues. On the other hand building Tejon Mountain Village in federally designated Condor critical habitat and developing the 70,000 centennial project on TRC property will obviously carve up this huge block of land into pieces.

Kern County could easily secure the fate of the condor with a well informed look ahead at the impacts of wind development. Kern County should also demand a comparative study that looks into alternative wind turbine designs. More efficient wind turbine designs that do not kill birds and bats do exist. One of them is a vertical shaft turbine that is about to come on line in Sullivan County New York.

It is time to forget the sleazy good old boy network of Wall Street and do this for the California condor, the White tailed kite, the endangered Swainson’s Hawk, and all the other birds of prey that are destined to perish in your wind farms.

Jim Wiegand

(click images to see larger size)

more …

Thank you so much for signing Save Tejon Ranch’s sign-on letter to the Governor Schwarzenegger ! This coming Monday October 5, 2009, the Kern County Board of Supervisors will consider approving or denying the Tejon Mountain Village Project, in the heart of California condor habitat that is critical for the condor’s survival. Through the Center for Biological Diversity, we have pulled together an action alert that you and others can use to send email letters to the Kern County supervisors. You can also modify the letter to personalize it. Please feel free to share it far and wide.

If you have continued interest in Saving Tejon Ranch from urban sprawl development, please take a moment in support of conserving the wild heart of California – Tejon Ranch – and click on the following link:

http://salsa.democracyinaction.org/o/2167/t/5243/p/dia/action/public/?action_KEY=1519

Thanks!

Ileene Anderson
Biologist/Public Lands Desert Director
Center for Biological Diversity
PMB 447
8033 Sunset Boulevard
Los Angeles , CA 90046
(323) 654-5943
www.biologicaldiversity.org

“Our good fortune will only last as long as our natural resources” — Will Rogers

Des éoliennes industrielles vont dénaturer ce site classé au patrimoine mondial de l’Unesco.

Visibles à 20km, ces éoliennes culmineraient à 250 m sur les crêtes des rivages qui bordent la baie.

La pollution visuelle d’un des sites les plus visités au monde, par une cinquantaine d’aérogénérateurs tournant et émettant des flashes, confirme l’envahissement systématique de tout le territoire par des projets éoliens qui dégradent les sites culturels du patrimoine, les lieux de mémoire, les paysages et les zones naturelles protégées.

L’éolien industriel, n’est ni viable économiquement, ni vivable, ni équitable et il n’apporte aucun bénéfice pour l’environnement.

Les Fédérations organisatrices de cette marche demandent à Monsieur le Président de la République de surseoir au programme éolien français dans le cadre du Développement des Energies Renouvelables.

Fédération Environnement Durable:
J.L. Butré

Contact Presse:
Basse Normandie Environnement (BNE) : 06 89 58 70 27
Fédération Bretonne pour l’Environnement (FBE) : 06 32 00 05 14
Fédération Nationale des Associations de Sauvegarde des Sites et Ensembles Monumentaux (FNASSEM) : 06 07 21 88 64
Plateforme européenne contre l’éolien industriel (EPAW) : +33 680 99 38 08
Fédération Environnement Durable (FED): 06 80 99 38 08

Communiqué de Presse : Paris le 22 septembre 2009

Le bureau de la FED qui s’est réuni le 18 juillet 2009 à Paris a pris la décision solennelle de lancer une action pour refuser qu`un des plus beaux paysages du monde soit sacrifié.

Le Mont Saint Michel est l’exemple des ravages faits par les aérogénérateurs géants sur la France et sur l’Europe.

Les associations de la FED et notamment l’association « Turbulences prés du Mt St Michel » d’Argouges (Manche) ont révèle publiquement ce scandale aux informations de TF1 du dimanche 20 juillet.

Un site web spécial SOS MONT-SAINT-MICHEL a été créé: sos-montsaintmichel.info

Une manifestation de protestation est en cours d’organisation par la FED.

Il s’agira d’une MARCHE.

La date du samedi 26 septembre 2009 est retenue.

La notion de « MARCHE » est liée à l’idée de pèlerins et des sentiers de randonnée qui mènent au Mt St Michel.

La page principale pourra être diffusée et relayée par tous les sites web qui souhaiteront soutenir cette action pacifique.

Les informations sur l’évolution de cette initiative seront fournies régulièrement sur ce site.

La FED fait appel à l’ensemble des associations de protection du patrimoine et des paysages de la France pour soutenir cette action avant qu’il ne soit trop tard.

La date du 26 septembre est située 8 jours après la journée du patrimoine.

Une affiche « SOS-Mont-Saint-Michel » sera proposée aux différents sites visités.

In keeping with the legislative resolution adopted at our Annual Meeting and Training School [see below], the Association of Towns ha been working to preserve and strengthen local government’s role in the siting of major electric generating facilities. Specifically, we have called upon Gov. David Paterson, the Legislature and state agencies to develop new laws and regulations that will preserve local authority over the siting of Wind Energy Facilities (WEFs)

Why Wind?

Due to their large number and sizable spacing requirements, WEFs have a different impact on the community than traditional electric generating facilities. For example, typical facilities such as natural gas, cal or nuclear would likely be located in an industrial zone, whereas WEFs cross residential property, highways, farmland, mountain tops and ridgelines and can be seen for miles. The siting of a large-scale wind farm dramatically changes the entire landscape of a community for at least a generation and not without controversy. Many people who live with large-scale wind turbines in their communities are concerned with noise; interruption of radio, emergency, cell phone and broadcast signals; shadow flickering; altered viewsheds; flashing red aviation lights; decreased property values and other unique issues not present with more traditional facilities.

Background

The siting of power generation facilities was historically subject ot state and local permitting authorities. in 1972, in furtherance of the goal of low-cost power and economic competitiveness, the state streamlined the review and permitting process for electric generating facilities over 50 megawatts. This new process was contained in Article VIII of the Public Service Law. In 1992, Article VIII was expanded and replaced by a new permitting process which, among other things, increased the applicability threshold from 50 to 80 megawatts. The new siting policy, contained in Article X of the Public Service Law, was amended in 1999 and eventually expired on Dec. 31, 2002. Since its expiration, the siting of electric generating facilities is again subject to the state and local permitting process. Although the state has reviewed several legislative initiatives to renew the Article X permitting process, to date no agreements have been reached.

Recent Developments

In the 2009 legislative session, three separate bills have been introduced to renew Article X (A2082, A8696 and S2084). While the three bills are similar in substance, the threshold generating capacity, which is used to determine whether an electric generation facility is required to comply with the provisions of Article X, is different in each bill. Although a high threshold may exclude some smaller WEFs, none of the bills expressly exempt them from coverage. Grouping WEFs with typical electric generating facilities fails to recognize the unique impacts of WEFs on local communities.

In a meeting between Association of Towns staff members and Assemblyman Kevin Cahill, Chairman of the Assembly Energy Committee and the sponsor of one of the Article X bills (A8696), the assemblyman questioned why impacts of WEFs are unique in comparison to other forms of electric generating facilities. While he was receptive to our input, hearing from local government officials about the unique impacts in their community would be more persuasive.

If your town has been impacted by the siting of WEFs, we urge you to reach out to your local representatives, as well as the chairmen of the Senate and Assembly Energy Committees to impress upon them why WEFs should be expressly excluded from any Article X siting policy. The resurgence of Article X legislation is a call to action for all local officials to protect our home rule powers and retain the authority to site WEFs through local siting procedures.

Since the old Article X expired on Dec. 31, 2002, local governments have been processing wind energy facility applications under their locally adopted land use codes in a timely and open manner. Towns, as the closest form of government to the people, are uniquely situated to afford New Yorkers a voice in the siting of windmills. Many towns have undergone considerable time and absorbed considerable expenses to develop and implement wind mill siting policies and would, therefore, like to continue to shape their local landscapes in accordance with local policy.

If you need assistance reaching out to your local representatives, please contact Association Staff at (518) 465-7933. Copies of the proposed Article X bills can be found on the New York State Assembly Web site http://assembly.state.ny.us/leg/ or by contacting the Association.

Contacts:

Assemblyman Kevin Cahill
Chair, Committee on Energy
LOB 713
Albany, NY 12248
518-455-4436
cahillk@assembly.state.ny.us

Sen. Darrel Aubertine
Chair, Energy and Telecommunications Committee
903 Legislative Office Building
Albany, NY 12247
518-455-2761
aubertin@senate.state.ny.us

2009 Legislative Resolution, as Reported by the Resolutions Committee of the Association of Towns

Resolution No. 6

Preserve and strengthen local government’s role in the siting of energy generation facilities

Whereas, the New York State Public Service Commission (PSC) adopted a new renewable energy policy which includes wind energy facilities (WEFs) on September 22, 2004 that requires 25 percent of the State’s electricity to be supplied from renewable energy sources by 2013; and

Whereas, the proper regulation of the siting and installation of WEFs is necessary for the purpose of protecting the health, safety and welfare of neighboring property owners and the general public; and

Whereas, local governments have successfully developed, implemented and administered local WEF siting laws and policies with the input and guidance of local taxpayers, residents, business and agricultural representatives, environmentalists, energy generators, planners and lawyers; and

Whereas, Article X of the Public Service Law (PSL), which set forth the siting procedure to construct and operate major power generation facilities with a capacity of 80 megawatts or more expired December 31, 2002, thereby requiring electric generating project developers to undergo local zoning review and environmental review pursuant to the State Environmental Quality Review Act (Article 8 of the Environmental Conservation Law); noW therefore be it

Resolved, that the Association of Towns calls upon the Governor, State Legislature and State Agencies to develop new laws and regulations that will preserve local authority over the siting of WEFs and that will provide local government officials from a host municipality with a seat on the New York State Board on Electric Generation Siting and the Environment (Siting Board).

The governor and legislature are moving quickly to pass a bill to promote industrial wind development in every community within the Commonwealth. It targets the Berkshires and Highlands of western Massachusetts, and the coastal areas.

The legislation, titled the Wind Energy Siting Reform Act, will remove local zoning control and veto power over onshore wind power plants of 2 megawatts (MW) or more. This means that anyone who wants to construct a single 2 MW wind turbine or 100 wind turbines could be permitted to do so regardless of local bylaws. Associated roads and transmission lines on private and public property will also be exempt from local zoning.

Under this Act, the power to permit industrial wind turbines will shift from local zoning boards to the state Energy Facilities Siting Board, which has never turned down a power plant application, according to records in its online database.

This Act will also open constitutionally protected public lands to industrial wind development. These include state forests, reservations, and parks.

If enacted, this Act will have disastrous consequences for our regional economies, which depend upon tourists, second-home owners, and residents who choose these places for their scenic beauty, rural nature, and cultural character. Our communities will be hostage to every wind developer who wants to blanket our mountains and coastlines with massive turbines. In a few years, under the governor’s goal to build nearly 2000 MW of wind turbines in the next 11 years, we could see more skyscrapers on our scenic areas than in all the cities of New England.

This Act is an outrageous power grab by the state, and the only chance we have of stopping it is by bringing huge numbers of citizens together in strong opposition.

Please sign our petition at www.greenberkshires.org

Just as important, please forward this email to everyone you know who might be alarmed by this power grab by the state.

If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me by email or phone, 413 528-9363.

We must act quickly! Please sign the petition now. Thank you.

Eleanor Tillinghast
Green Berkshires, Inc.

Click here to download the new language of the “Wind Energy Siting Reform Act”.