Updates

April 29, 2012

Hon. Jaclyn A. Brilling, Secretary
New York State Public Service Commission
Three Empire State Plaza Albany, New York 12223

RE: Proposed Article X Regulations and Proposed Rulemaking

Dear Secretary Brilling

This is a brief comment about windmills and their siting. My wife and I own property in Cohocton, NY where an industrial wind facility with 50 turbines was installed 3 years ago after extensive local discussion and in spite of very intelligent arguments to the contrary.

We were promised that the facility would be beautiful, quiet, and benefit the community with significant tax savings. Unfortunately, none of these promises is true. The windmills can be seen for over 10 miles around, are profoundly unsightly, and mar what was for generations a very scenic part of New York State. Every acre of our property, which was a very quiet and serene place to dwell on, is now overrun night and day by the intrusive noise of windmills, an aggravating noise that sounds like jet airplanes at an airport that never quite land or fly away. Our taxes haven’t improved a bit. We don’t even have access to information that would indicate that the Cohocton Wind installation is generating electrical power at a level that would justify its existence.

We sincerely hope that the New York State Public Service Commission will begin to recognize before it’s too late that the entire impetus for the establishment of industrial wind facilities in New York is based entirely on raw profit-making motives that are supported by extravagantly fraudulent claims. Please allow New York citizens to retain a measure of Self Rule in this volatile area of development or send the wind developers packing entirely.

Sincerely yours,

Bill and Susan Morehouse

Labels: Cohocton, Disadvantages, Freedom, Money, New York, Noise, Process

Labels: Money

Michael Townsend doubts viability of offshore wind farms

New York Power Authority board chairman Michael Townsend questioned Monday whether the authority's offshore wind farm proposal should go forward.

"From my perspective, I don't think that project is very viable at this time, politically or economically," said Townsend, a lawyer with the Perinton-based law firm Harris Beach.

The authority, an independent arm of state government, has been reviewing five private-sector proposals to erect wind turbines in state waters of lakes Ontario or Erie. Officials are supposed to announce a decision by June.

Townsend, appointed to the board in 2004 by former Gov. George Pataki, does not expect to be reappointed when his term expires later this month.

He noted that authority President Richard Kessel, a champion of the offshore idea, had said offshore turbines would not be built where they're not wanted. County lawmakers in seven of the nine shoreline counties, including Monroe, have voted to express opposition to the plan for aesthetic, environmental and other reasons. "We're not being welcomed," Townsend said.

He also said the project might be financially burdensome. Kessel had said the authority would support an offshore wind farm by signing a long-term power purchase agreement on terms favorable to its private development.

But Townsend said the authority, which generates or purchases electricity for hundreds of business, government and other customers, might be "spread too thin" financially to sign an expensive agreement. That's especially true, he said, if the authority finalizes a costly purchase agreement to support construction of a huge transmission line under the Hudson River to carry power to New York City.

He said that "unofficially, other board members agree" that offshore wind may be too expensive. Gov. Andrew Cuomo, who supported the offshore concept during his gubernatorial campaign as long as it was financially feasible, is "the big X factor," said Townsend, who pointed out that offshore projects elsewhere in the Great Lakes have been axed or frozen.

Connie Cullen, a spokeswoman for the authority, said Monday that "while we greatly respect the opinions of our trustees, NYPA hasn't yet completed its review of the bids for the ... initiative. We hope to present the full results of the review to our trustees in the next couple of months."

Townsend said the common wisdom is that John S. Dyson will replace him as chairman. Dyson chaired the authority during the Hugh Carey and Mario Cuomo administrations, and he was named to the board again by Andrew Cuomo earlier this year.

Townsend said he had nothing to say to rumors that Kessel, authority president since October 2008, could be leaving. Cullen said Kessel had no plans to resign.

Written by Steve Orr, Rochester Democrat & Chronicle staff writer.

Labels: Money, New York, Process

Plans for offshore wind farms sputter

As New York Power Authority officials near a decision point for their Great Lakes offshore wind-farm plans, they find themselves almost alone in their pursuit: Nearly all the other freshwater offshore wind projects in North America have stalled or died.

Lake Ontario, Lake Erie and the other three Great Lakes are among the windiest spots in the eastern half of the continent, and in recent years wind-energy developers publicized proposals for a dozen or more large wind farms for the lakes' waters.

Today, none of those large-scale proposals are active, a circumstance that in some cases is attributed to fierce public opposition. Two months ago the Canadian province of Ontario, which had been promoting wind energy and considering development of roughly 1,000 turbines in lakes Erie and Ontario, terminated or suspended all offshore projects.

Only one small pilot project, in the waters of Lake Erie near Cleveland, is moving forward.

The sudden declaration of an offshore wind moratorium in Ontario was "a huge blow to offshore development in not only Canada but in the U.S. as well," said Alan Isselhard, an outspoken opponent of the power authority's plan.

"But I don't feel NYPA will be intimidated ... by what's happened anywhere else," said Isselhard, who lives on the Lake Ontario shoreline in Wayne County. "They have unlimited public money at their disposal to go forward."

Indeed, the authority — an independent arm of state government based in Westchester County — is pressing ahead eagerly, hoping to be the first offshore wind project in the Great Lakes. At an offshore wind conference in Henrietta on Wednesday, authority spokesman Louis Paonessa said NYPA was "very close" to announcing a way forward.

Since last June, authority officials have been reviewing five private-sector proposals for offshore wind farms in the New York waters of Lake Erie or Lake Ontario. Though officials have refused to release any details about the proposals, each of them likely calls for construction of dozens of huge electricity-generating turbines a few miles off shore.

Click here to read the entire Rochester Democrat & Chronicle article by staff writer Steve Orr.

Labels: Money, New York, Process

Some families in the vicinity of Ione, Ore., have complained to the county planning commission that noise from the Willow Creek Wind Farm, which borders their homes, exceeds allowed levels.

IONE, Ore. — Residents of the remote high-desert hills near here have had an unusual visitor recently, a fixer working out the kinks in clean energy.

Patricia Pilz of Caithness Energy, a big company from New York that is helping make this part of Eastern Oregon one of the fastest-growing wind power regions in the country, is making a tempting offer: sign a waiver saying you will not complain about excessive noise from the turning turbines — the whoosh, whoosh, whoosh of the future, advocates say — and she will cut you a check for $5,000.

“Shall we call it hush money?” said one longtime farmer, George Griffith, 84. “It was about as easy as easy money can get.”

Mr. Griffith happily accepted the check, but not everyone is taking the money. Even out here — where the recession has steepened the steady decline of the rural economy, where people have long supported the massive dams that harness the Columbia River for hydroelectric power, where Oregon has invested hundreds of millions of dollars in tax incentives to cultivate alternative energy — pockets of resistance are rising with the windmills on the river banks.

Residents in small towns are fighting proposed projects, raising concerns about threats to birds and big game, as well as about the way the giant towers and their blinking lights spoil some of the West’s most alluring views.

Here, just west of where the Columbia bends north into Washington, some people are fighting turbines that are already up and running. In a region where people often have to holler to be heard over the roar of the wind across the barren hills, they say it is the windmills that make too much noise.

“The only thing we have going for us is the Oregon state noise ordinance,” said Mike Eaton, an opponent of the turbines.

Oregon is one of a growing number of places that have drafted specific regulations restricting noise from wind turbines. The Oregon law allows for noise to exceed what is considered an area’s ambient noise level by only a certain amount. But what those ambient levels are is sometimes disputed, as is how and where they should be measured.

And while state law limits turbine noise, the state office that once enforced industrial noise laws, housed within the Department of Environmental Quality, was disbanded in 1991, long before wind power became a state priority.

Click here to read the full New York Times article by William Yardley.

Labels: Money

Wind firm backed by Golisano shuts after prices fall

Empire State Wind Energy LLC, the company backed by billionaire and Paychex Inc. founder Thomas Golisano, has ceased operations because its leaders believe the venture will not be profitable.

David Still, a partner and investor in Empire State Wind Energy, said this week the company is "mothballing," or postponing, the project indefinitely. The main reason is the significant drop in wholesale electricity prices.

"The company is not proceeding with anything at this point," Still said, adding the chances of resuming down the road do not look good either. "If we do see a resurgence in wholesale prices, we could proceed with the project, but economically, it just doesn't work for us now."

The Oneida-based firm has been looking to develop wind farms in the area since it began in 2006. The company has said it would build only projects acceptable to host communities and return most of its profits through taxes, payments in lieu of taxes and fixed-cost energy sales.

The New York Independent System Operator this year reported the state's average wholesale electric energy price for 2009 was the lowest in 10 years.

NYISO operates New York's bulk electricity grid and administers the state's wholesale electricity markets.

The average annual price of wholesale electric energy in the state was $48.63 a megawatt-hour in 2009. The average was below the previous low of $49.90 a MWH set in 2002 and 49 percent below the 2008 average of $95.31, NYISO reported.

The declining wholesale electricity energy prices in 2009 were largely attributable to reduced power consumption and reductions in the cost of natural gas, NYISO said.

Click here to read Andrea Deckert's whole article.

Labels: Disadvantages, Money

Huffing and puffing over wind power

Did the federal government, as some have said, give millions of dollars in stimulus funds to a non-producing wind farm in the Southern Tier town of Cohocton? Not exactly.

Cohocton Wind is a 50-turbine project with a total 125-megawatt generation capacity - the potential to power 50,000 homes, say officials with First Wind, Cohocton Wind's parent company. In September, the project was awarded $74.6 million in federal stimulus funds from the US Departments of Energy and Treasury - part of a large block of funding meant to encourage renewable energy development nationwide.

That grant's come under protest, however, by Congress member Eric Massa, who wrote the president to ask that the funding be revoked.

"We should not be rewarding anything, let alone cash grants, to companies like this that have abused the public trust and created such a toxic atmosphere in our region on the topic of wind power," Massa wrote.

The project's been plagued by controversy, including lawsuits and an attorney general's office investigation into First Wind and other wind power development companies. Since the project came online in January, it's been dogged by questions about what it's actually producing electricity-wise - lately that's been one of the most persistent issues. Massa made the claim in his letter, which he sent in September, that the project wasn't producing any power, information he said he received from the organization that operates New York's power grid.

"Nobody knows what they produce or what they don't produce," Massa said in an interview last week. "They demand the privacy of a private corporation and the subsidies of a public utility."

But John Lamontagne, a First Wind spokesperson, says the turbines produced 133,370 megawatt hours of electricity from when they came online in January, to the end of September. That's enough energy to power 1,200 homes with average monthly electricity consumption...

Click here to read the entire City Newspaper article by Jeremy Moule.

Labels: Legal Issues, Money, New York

Hold on wind project proposed

by Bob Clark, Hornell Evening Tribune

Hartsville, NY - With little news from developers and fears of low returns on revenue, the Town of Hartsville might hold off on allowing anyone to build a wind farm until the details get ironed out.

The Hartsville town board voted 3-2 at Wednesday night’s meeting to consider a law placing a moratorium on wind turbine development. Town Supervisor Steve Dombert proposed the idea following a discussion on revenue benefits for the town and how they would compare to other municipalities.

Under the current Payment in Lieu of Taxes formulas, the town would receive between $52,000 and $180,000, Dombert said. “I’m really underwhelmed,” he said.

While the Town of Cohocton has received more than a million dollars in two years from a community host agreement, Dombert said recent court action by parties involved in the PILOT programs at other wind turbine locations may rule the community host agreement concept void.

He said he recently talked to representatives with E.ON, the company planning to build between 33 and 46 turbines in the town, “but I’m not feeling I’m getting a lot of encouragement on their end.”

The length of the moratorium would be between six months to a year, he said, adding it would give the town time to figure out its options and negotiate any necessary deals with the Canisteo-Greenwood Central School District.

Dombert added he feels the Steuben County Industrial Development Agency, which has the task of negotiating PILOT agreements, is not looking out for the town’s best interest. “They’re not negotiating anything at all,” he said.

Labels: Money, New York, Process

Dear Folks,

We just learned this weekend that First Wind is indefinitely postponing the Prattsburgh project. We have also heard from a reliable source that they are also refusing to pay the legal bills for the Town of Prattsburgh that they said they would pay. In addition, we believe the company owes the town money for other things (roads or something) that they have not paid.

We think it will be very hard for a court to allow the town of Prattsburgh to condemn property for a company that is indefinitely postponing the project and which OWES THE TOWN MONEY. And if the condemnations are disallowed, that will be disturbing for Ecogen, since we believe that the Ecogen project was counting on a precedent being set so that they could also ask the town to condemn land.

And speaking of Ecogen, there is reason to believe that their partner (and major financer) Babcock and Brown, is almost bankrupt. A recent look at the financial pages showed that their stock fell from $35 over a year ago to TWENTY FIVE CENTS. We are presently looking into this.

It's not over yet, but this news is VERY exciting.

We are very grateful to those of you who have not allowed yourself to be bullied by the companies -- those of you who have stood firm when pressed to sign leases and have chased off the wind company surveyors when they trespassed on your property. Because of all the letters written, meetings attended and attention to detail that has been paid, the wind companies have not been able to railroad through their projects.

If the condemnees had not chosen to appeal, First Wind could have possessed that land four months ago, and we might have had a very different scenario than the one we have now. Thank you to everyone who has supported the condemnees; thank you to those who have answered our most recent appeal for funds; and for those of you who want to help the condemnees with the final bill [see below], please send your checks to Advocates for Prattsburgh, Box 221, Prattsburgh, NY 14873.

Regards,
Ruth

Labels: Legal Issues, Money, Process

Dear Friends,

We have very good news in the battle against the property condemnations to benefit First Wind, condemnations triggered by a Town Board decision in which Prattsburgh Town Supervisor Harold McConnell cast the tie-breaking vote. Last week, in a document submitted to the judge, attorneys for windfarm developer First Wind revealed that Harold McConnell actually had more to do with their real estate transaction than previously admitted. Harold wrote the purchase offer, he reviewed the counter offer, and he interacted with the listing agency – an extent and level of involvement not disclosed in his affidavit for the court. Mary Perham used the word "perjury" in the article she wrote for the Corning Leader on Sunday.

First Wind appears to be sacrificing Supervisor McConnell to protect themselves, and their document makes our case for conflict-of-interest much stronger.

We are waiting for the judge to rule, however, there is a good chance she will refer this case to the Appellate Court for the hearing December 10. The court would then rule on the conflict-of-interest at the same time it considers the appeal by Prattsburgh landowners whose land was condemned by the Town as a result of Harold's tie-breaking vote. And while our case is strong – and getting stronger – this court case is an enormous expense, and Advocates for Prattsburgh needs your help.

If you have any doubts what is in store for us if we don't fight for our rights, just see what these wind turbines look like in Cohocton, especially up close. And the BIG issues are not their overwhelming visual dominance, but whether those of us near them will be able to live in our homes, and – let's face it – the personal financial impact. For most of us, the value of our homes and our property represents much of our life savings. What will happen if your property is devalued or becomes unsellable, or you can't get an equity loan to help pay your bills?

What about the NOISE? Last week, one Cohocton resident 4000 feet from a wind turbine said it sounded like a freight train. Is THIS what we want? And the potentially severe negative impact which peppering the Town with wind turbines would have on our local economy and our taxes is coming at the worst possible time.

Please contribute to the legal battle against eminent domain, and to throw out Harold McConnell's tainted vote to condemn the land of Prattsburgh property owners. We have worked tirelessly for nearly six years to hold the windfarm developers and state and local agencies accountable for the health and safety and environmental integrity of our area, and at this critical juncture, AFP needs your help. We need $5000 to pay legal expenses through December 10, when the court will decide. By every indication, we have a very strong case, and your contribution of $50, $500 or any amount will make all the difference.

So please, do what you can and send donations to Advocates for Prattsburgh, Box 221, Prattsburgh NY 14873. It is the donations of concerned citizens like you which make this fight possible. Thank you, for all of us in Prattsburgh.

Sincerely for Advocates for Prattsburgh

Al Wordingham
Arnold Palmer
Ruthe Matilsky
Terry Matilsky
Al Muscianese
John Servo

Labels: Legal Issues, Money

US Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis said, “We can have democracy in this country or we can have great wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can’t have both.”

Slim Pickens was a cowboy and actor, but a slim picking is not the adjectival phrase for T. Boone Pickens and his wealth. One of his books is titled. “The First Billion is the Hardest: Reflections on the Life of Comebacks and America’s Energy Future.” He is busily making the second and likely the third billion much easier. His plan uses the combination of wind power with energy sufficiency and independence for the US.

Initially, his advertisements put wind power front and center. In doing so, he put on the cloak of green, a phrase I co-opted from Elaine Dewar’s wonderful book of the same name. I’ve used the phrase to describe what many politicians feel forced to do. They understand the real science of climate change, but dare not appear opposed to protecting the environment.

Pickens uses wind power as his cloak of green to buy credibility and time to make natural gas the primary power for vehicles and develop nuclear and coal sources. He throws in other alternative energies as a lining to the cloak. I’ve advocated natural gas for vehicles and nuclear and coal for electricity for many years. Oil will serve the petrochemical industry and produce aviation fuels. Reduced demand for oil means that even current reserves will last for a very long time.

So what concerns me about Pickens' proposals? Initially it was the wind power proposal, which clearly demonstrates his lack of understanding of the severe limitations of that energy. More recently, it is the advertisement of a natural gas company spokesperson talking about his “good friend” Mr. Pickens. I am not opposed to capitalism or profit; however, I am opposed to achieving the latter with deception. Mr. Pickens folksy manner and financial success are used to convince people wind power can provide 20% of US energy. He appears on television programs selling his proposal to a public and political leaders desperate for solutions.

Pickens’ facade of being knowledgeable with a clear solution is quickly dispelled with a few facts about wind power. Like all alternate energies it is not a panacea. He needs to spend his money on accurate cost benefit analyses of all alternate energies. He should urge government to do the same thing before he takes a penny of the massive government subsidies that are seriously distorting analysis of alternative energies.

Click here to read the complete article by Dr. Tim Ball in this week's Canada Free Press.

Labels: Disadvantages, Money, Process

Not in my valley, say Italy residents

Members of the Italy Town Board listen to people speak during
a public hearing to rezone land to allow windmills in the town on Saturday.

Nearly 70 concerned residents and neighbors spoke out about potential rezoning for wind turbines in the Italy Valley at a public hearing Saturday. The discussion continued a forum that began at a meeting last week in which emotional residents protested the proposed changes, which would allow developer Ecogen LLC to move forward with plans for wind turbines in two areas in the southern portion of the town.

About two-thirds of the speakers on Saturday opposed wind development, said Town Board member Malcolm MacKenzie. Of those, many surmised that developers are not concerned about the best interest of the residents.

Click here to read the entire Messenger Post article.

Labels: Legal Issues, Money, New York, Process

Why are New York Political and Business Leaders putting the interests of Spain-based Iberdrola ahead of the interests of New York’s taxpayers and electric customers? New York’s taxpayers and electric customers are facing a serious threat:

• 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, researched and written by Glenn R. Shleede:

• 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.

Labels: Disadvantages, Money, New York

SCIDA refuses to alter windfarm agreement

5/16/08, Bath, N.Y. - A disagreement over the terms of a tax deal for a windfarm development in Prattsburgh will apparently have to be settled in court.

The Steuben County Industrial Development Agency refused to change the terms of a payment-in-lieu-of-taxes agreement Thursday for a 36-turbine project by First Wind, formerly known as UPC.

Attorneys for the Prattsburgh and Naples school districts requested a renegotiation claiming the company should be paying hundreds of thousands of dollars more in taxes.

The tax agreement involves First Wind paying a fixed amount of taxes to the school districts, the town of Prattsburgh and the county over a 20-year period.

SCIDA approved the tax agreement Thursday and attorneys for the school districts said they will follow through with a court challenge. The two sides argued their cases in court in late April, prior to the final agreement being approved. Supreme Court Judge Peter Bradstreet presided over the hearing and a decision is pending.

Click here to read Mary Perham's entire article in The Corning Leader. For those who are new to the controversy, background articles by Mary are linked below:
4/4/08 - Schools sue over wind farm payments
5/3/08 - Schools await windfarm decision
5/9/08 - Opponents demand investigation into wind farms

Labels: Legal Issues, Money, New York, Process

The Wayland-Cohocton School Board needs to hear from you. Attend the Wayland-Cohocton Central School District Budget Hearing in the LGI Auditorium at WCCS in Wayland on Tuesday, May 13th from 7–9 pm.

This public hearing is important because your real estate tax bill is facing a dramatic increase this coming year. Meanwhile, UPC/First Wind refuses to pay their fair share to the WCCS. The PILOT (Payment In Lieu Of Taxes) arranged by SCIDA is a pittance compared to the $2,000,000 plus a year in school taxes that would be assessed on the real value of the development if the owners of the industrial wind factory in Cohocton were to pay based on their assessment and current tax rate, like the rest of us folks.

And who are the owners of this privileged project? That’s a well-kept secret, but you can be pretty sure that the real equity owners are the super-rich who invest in these projects as tax shelters, not residents of rural upstate New York.

The Town of Naples and the Town of Prattsburgh have filed legal actions against SCIDA PILOTS and are now in court. These school districts stand to reap big dividends. But the Wayland-Cohocton School Board has refused to file its own suit so far. You, the hard pressed taxpayer, will be told to pay a large tax increase this coming year, but UPC/First Wind will get a huge tax exemption that will last for twenty years. Some school board members may even have vested family benefit putting their profit above your interest.

Attend the public hearing on May 13th and demand that the Wayland-Cohocton School Board file a legal action on all of our behalf. If Naples and Prattsburgh School Boards are fighting for their property owners, our Board should do the same. If they refuse to respond to the fiscal welfare of taxpayers, send a loud and clear message and VOTE DOWN the proposed WCCS Budget at the annual school budget vote to be held in the LGI Auditorium on Tuesday, May 20th. Polls open at 10 am and close at 8 pm. Thank you for getting the word out to your friends!

Labels: Cohocton, Money

Innovative Dairy Attracts International Visitors

Lancaster Farming ran an article this week extolling the virtues of Paul Walcott's farm in Cohocton, noting that “windmills and a rotary dairy parlor set [his] farm apart.”

Long known locally as “the King of Lent Hill”, Paul was an early advocate of wind power in Cohocton and, according to the article, has 13 or just over 25% of UPC Wind's 50 Cohocton turbines on his property. At an annual leasehold rate of somewhere in the vicinity of $3,000 to $10,000 apiece (the terms are confidential because the industrial wind developer is a private corporation), Paul stands to make anywhere from $40,000 to upwards of $100,000 a year just for “hosting” the turbines on his land.

What effect will this financial windfall have on a the future of farmers like Paul? Lancaster Farming reports: “Depending on the size of the windmill and how much wind blows, Wolcott points out that a small dairy operation might be able to lease its land to a wind farm and retire on the profits. However, it isn’t quite the same for a large operation. 'It’s an additional source of income, but it won’t save our farm if we don’t do a good job with the dairy,' said Wolcott.”

Money apparently isn't the only motivator, however. Saving the country from dependence on foreign oil is also: “I think it’s obvious to most people that we need to do something about energy in this country and it seems like it’s better than sending our money to the Middle East for oil,” the article quotes Wolcott as saying.

The article goes on to note that there are those who disagree: “However, there still remains a minority of people who are against the wind farm. Wolcott believes even with sound science and facts to back up the process, it remains an emotional issue with some.”

Unfortunately, the “sound science and facts” Paul has been relying on to are deeply flawed, and the “emotional issue with some” that he points out may grow as Cohocton residents begin to cope with the total industrial desecration of their once scenic and tranquil hills that Paul's industrial installation has brought.

For one thing, the intermittent and unreliable electrical power that onshore wind turbines provide (estimated to be 10-25% of their rated capacity), will do absolutely nothing to diminish our reliance on foreign oil, whether it be from the controversial Middle East or elsewhere, because of one simple fact: less than 3% of the electricity generated in the U.S. comes from petroleum and most of that is from waste disposal. And the specious argument that it will cut down our emission of CO2 is even more debatable.

What is incontrovertible, however, is that the turbines Paul so eagerly invited into Cohocton have destroyed the natural beauty of Lent Hill Farm's “1,850 acres of rolling hills overlooking the countryside below" as well as it's boast that the surrounding area remains "free from development and urban pressure.”

Labels: Cohocton, Money

Click here to take our tax survey.

Labels: Cohocton, Money

For our exhortation does not come from error or impurity or by way of deceit; but just as we have been approved by UPC to be entrusted with the gospel of wind power, so we speak, not as pleasing the NIMBYs, but UPC who examines our hearts.

For we never came with flattering speech, as you know, nor with a pretext for greed (UPC is our witness!) nor did we seek glory from men, either from you or from others, even though as apostles of wind power we might have asserted our authority. But we proved to be gentle among you, as a nursing mother tenderly cares for her own children. Having so fond an affection for you, we were well-pleased to impart to you not only the gospel of wind power but also our own lives, because you had become very dear to us.

For you recall, brethren, our labor and hardship, how working night and day so as not to be a burden to any of you, we proclaimed to you the gospel of wind power. You are witnesses, and so is UPC, how devoutly and uprightly and blamelessly we behaved toward you believers; just as you know how we were exhorting and encouraging and imploring each one of you as a father would his own children, so that you would walk in a manner worthy of UPC who calls you to share in the glorious green of its kingdom.

For this reason we also constantly give thanks that when you received the word of UPC which you heard from us, you accepted it not as the word of men, but for what it really is, the Word of Green itself, which also performs its work in you who believe. For you, brethren, became imitators of the YES groups of UPC that are in Maine and Hawaii, for you also endured the same sufferings at the hands of your own countrymen.

Excerpted from Chris Swartley's Letter to the Cohoctonians (as adapted from 1 Thessalonians 2)

Labels: Money, Process, Smile

An Inconvenient Segment: NBC Sees Green

One global warming angle that we cover in chapter one of "An Inconvenient Book" is how so many of the climate change cheerleaders that you see in the media are anything but independent. They love to talk about how the oil companies fund studies to distort the truth - but the reality is that conflict of interest works both ways - and it's always most dangerous when it's hidden from you.

For example, if you watched NBC last week, you probably saw their "Green is Universal" promotion. They changed their logo, their website, and even the plots of their sitcoms, by corporate mandate - all to bring awareness to issues like climate change. Wow, what stewards of the Earth they are.

Unfortunately, it's what NBC didn't tell you that's far more important: They are a subsidiary of General Electric; General ELECTRIC. That's important for two reasons: First, GE has a bigger lobbying budget than the three largest U.S. oil companies. COMBINED. But more importantly, GE owns major environmental businesses, like GE Energy, which has made big bets on things like wind power and clean energy technologies - and they stand to make boatloads of cash if Congress passes all sorts of environmental legislation, and you "go green."

Imagine the uproar if ABC did a week-long series called "War With Iran," complete with Islamic Extremists competing on Dancing With the Stars. But only later did you find out that ABC is actually owned by Raytheon, one of the Pentagon's largest weapons suppliers. You think the New York Times might cover that story?

This is one of the worst manipulations of the public trust that I have ever seen. In fact, I believe it's damn near criminal and someone should look into their license. NBC and GE have used the public airwaves against us, and they've done it all for the one type of green they really care about: money.

Glenn Beck (talk-radio host of The Real America)

Labels: Money, Process

Labels: Cohocton, Money