[ exact phrase in "" • results by date ]

[ Google-powered • results by relevance ]


Subscribe to RSS feed

Add NWW headlines to your site (click here)

Sign up for daily updates

Keep Wind Watch online and independent!

Donate $10

Donate $5

Selected Documents

All Documents

Research Links


Press Releases


Publications & Products

Photos & Graphics


Allied Groups

News Watch Home

Honest critiques: Wind project opponents reflect sentiments in the community  

Credit:  Watertown Daily Times | October 16, 2017 | www.watertowndailytimes.com ~~

During a legal process known as voir dire, lawyers seek to select just the right individuals to serve on a jury.

Prosecutors and defense attorneys ask prospective jurors questions about themselves. The lawyers are looking for warning signs that members of a jury pool may not benefit their goals in a trial.

In broad terms, this is an attempt by the opposing sides to craft a jury more favorable to their purpose. This give and take is designed to produce a set of jurors with a fairly balanced approach to the legal issue at stake.

Representatives of energy companies in the north country have taken it upon themselves to conduct their own voir dire.

Parties involved in the state’s Article 10 process may challenge the qualifications of members of siting boards created to review proposed wind projects. Obviously, they’d like to gain an upper hand by knocking off people who don’t share their vision of a wind project’s merits.

Avangrid Renewables tried to have Potsdam resident Gary P. Snell removed as an ad hoc member of the Electric Generation Siting and the Environment for the North Ridge Wind Energy Project. Mr. Snell chairs Concerned Citizens for Rural Preservation, which opposes the Avangrid’s proposed wind project in Parishville and Hopkinton.

Declaring he has a conflict of interest, officials at Avangrid first insisted that Mr. Snell be rejected from the Siting Board. The board has no authority to take such action, and Mr. Snell declined to recuse himself.

Avangrid then filed a motion with the state Department of Public Service to have the matter reviewed. The agency ruled that Mr. Snell may remain a member.

Now, apparently, it’s Apex Clean Energy’s turn to try to shape the narrative. Representatives believe that Clifford P. Schneider doesn’t qualify for party status in the review process for the company’s proposed Galloo Island wind project.

“Receiving party status allows agencies, municipalities and individuals to apply for intervenor funding to retain counsel and experts to help conduct analyses, present testimonies and evidence to the Board on Electric Generation Siting and the Environment and to cross-examine testimonies and evidence from other parties, according to Article 10,” according to a story published Oct. 4 by the Watertown Daily Times.

Mr. Schneider is a retired biologist with the state Department of Environmental Conservation. He has criticized Apex’s research on how wind turbines constructed on Galloo Island would affect bat and bird populations.

Apex claims that since Mr. Schneider lives on Wellesley Island, more than 30 miles from the project site in Hounsfield, the wind turbines would have little effect on him. In addition, his scientific background did not involve bats or birds.

Mr. Schneider persuasively countered Apex’s charges. Since Jefferson County has submitted recommendations for ad hoc members to this Siting Board, and given that he is a Jefferson County resident, he lives in an affected municipality. He also said his experience as a biologist can be applied to bats and birds as well as fish.

He’s correct on both points. Wind turbines on Galloo Island would extend their economic and environmental impact beyond arbitrary borders.

And saying Mr. Schneider as a biologist couldn’t speak authoritatively on the wind project’s effect on bats and birds is silly. That’s like suggesting a brain surgeon would never be able to figure out why being stabbed in the chest could pose hazards to a person’s heart.

These individuals reflect how many people in the north country view the proposed wind projects. Their inclusion in the review process is vital, and they should continue along this path.

Source:  Watertown Daily Times | October 16, 2017 | www.watertowndailytimes.com

This article is the work of the source indicated. Any opinions expressed in it are not necessarily those of National Wind Watch.

The copyright of this article resides with the author or publisher indicated. As part of its noncommercial effort to present the environmental, social, scientific, and economic issues of large-scale wind power development to a global audience seeking such information, National Wind Watch endeavors to observe “fair use” as provided for in section 107 of U.S. Copyright Law and similar “fair dealing” provisions of the copyright laws of other nations. Send requests to excerpt, general inquiries, and comments via e-mail.

Wind Watch relies entirely
on User Funding
Donate $5 PayPal Donate


News Watch Home

Get the Facts Follow Wind Watch on Twitter

Wind Watch on Facebook


© National Wind Watch, Inc.
Use of copyrighted material adheres to Fair Use.
"Wind Watch" is a registered trademark.



Wind Watch on Facebook

Follow Wind Watch on Twitter

National Wind Watch