letters from the people concerning article 10

8/2/2019 Letters From the People Concerning Article 10

1/27

Jack Palminteri

May ,20 2012Hon. Jaclyn BrillingSecretaryNew York State Public Service Commission

Three Empire State PlazaAlbany, New York 12223Dear Secretary Brilling:

I would like to inform you of the many concerns that I and many others have regardingthe Article X regulations as they apply to local governments and the people they havesworn to protect.

The town that I live in, Cherry Valley NY, has been targeted by two wind developers

three times in the last ten years. On both of these occasions the projects wereopposed by a majority of the people and the projects were turned down.Over the last six years the town has passed a wind law in order to protect the healthand safety of it's residents and a comprehensive plan that ensures that the rural life-style that we now enjoy will not be compromised .A land use law and a road use lawwere also passed during the last two years reflecting the will of the people. The windlaw was crafted by our planning board with the advice of an environmental engineeringfirm and contains reasonable guidelines regarding setbacks and noise levels.

Article X states that local laws will be respected as long as they are not "Unduly

burdensome." What does that mean,?unduly burdensome for the developer who stand to make tens of millions of taxpayer

dollars from these projects?

If the siting board will be charged with making these decisions then they ought to befree of political pressure from ambitious politicians and the corrosive influence of thewind lobby. If they are not then the whole process will reek with the stench ofcorruption and be nothing more than a kangaroo court.This will leave adversely impacted homeowners no place to turn except the legal

system.

Local laws must be respected , they represent the will of the people and are consistentwith the NY State constitution. Article IX of that document ,requires deference to thelevel of government closest to the people. Article X seems to be in direct conflict withstate law and you can be sure that if push comes to shove it will be challenged.


2/27

It is imperative that the siting board members be vetted and to have them disclose anypotential conflicts of interest. They also should make public all meetings betweenthemselves and any lobbyists representing a proposed project .

In addition to the intervenor fund all developers must be required to issue buy outagreements to all homeowners within a three mile radius of any industrial wind facility.If

there are no health or safety risks the wind company has nothing to worry about . Thisgives the non- participating homeowners a layer of much needed protection and isimportant because there are no moral, legal or ethical precepts that I know of thatrequires anyone to assume these risks so that corporations and theirlease holders can make a profit.

Page 2

Another concern that I have is that the times and locations of the comment periods

have not been defined.Given the fact that most people work, it is imperative that allhearings be held in the evenings or on weekends in the targeted communities so thateveryone has a chance to be heard.To do otherwise is to effectively exclude the people who have the most at stake andwill be perceived as part of a strategy to push these projects through as quickly andeasily as possible regardless of the consequences . As far as the developers and theboard members go, this may be an inconvenience to them but it is part of their jobsand must be done to maximize public involvement.With great power comes great responsibility and also entails great liability.

The people in this state have a right to be safe in their homes and to enjoy a quality oflife that they have right now. To assume that Albany bureaucrats and energy companysalesmen that know and care nothing about local towns will have our best interest atheart is both nave and dangerous and will rightly be perceived as a way to pushforward questionable projects without having to bother with all of the safety and healthissues that these corporations deny exist.Setback and noise levels standards must be established based on independentscientific criteria and not on the biased opinions of those who stand to gain the most.To do otherwise is an inexcusable of act of negligence.

Jack Palminteri

Cherry Valley


3/27

(Brooks Bragdon)

Hon. Jaclyn A. Brilling May 29, 2012Secretary, New York State Public Service CommissionThree Empire State Plaza

Albany, New York 12223-1350Re: Case 12-F-0036 In the Matter of the Rules and Regulations of the Board onElectric Generation Siting and the Environment.

Dear Secretary Brilling:

I am a member of the Town Board in Cape Vincent and support the Boards comment;herewith I am entering a comment as a private citizen only.

- I am concerned that the PSC should recognize the uniqueness of the eachcommunity and respect existing Comprehensive Plans and Zoning Laws.

In Cape Vincent our community lies on the St Lawrence River and Lake Ontario andhas world class views. In addition Cape Vincent is an historic community with aregistered Historic District and some 35 properties on the NYS Historic PreservationOffice list of historic homes. The balance of historic preservation assets and scenicassets is essential to the community and also lies behind our tax assessment base.The scenic and historic assets of the community are specifically protected in ourzoning law and comprehensive plan.

I ask that the Article X Board defer to local regulations unless a high burden of proof ismet that the local regulations are not reasonable and are unduly burdensome. In thecase of Cape Vincent, our law is reasonable and fact based and I ask that it berespected. I urge the PSC to under no circumstances weaken the application of localrule.I was assured as an Article X stakeholder that local rule would not be lessened as theregulations were reviewed. I propose that this is an all important point of principle.- I ask that the PSC add regulations dealing with acoustics that fully address lowfrequency sound and sleep deprivation. I understand that the currently proposed rulesare inadequate in this regard.

Sincerely,

Brooks BragdonCape Vincent NY 1361


4/27

Douglas Whitfield

I'm writing this on behalf of myself and several dozen neighbors who are dismayed atArticle 10 for its unconstitutional effect on Home Rule.

Our town recently elected a new town council and supervisor in an overwhelming

statement of opposition to an industrial Wind Turbine facility in our community.

Our board has approved a "ban law" affecting industrial scale wind turbines, with theoverwhelming support of our town's citizens. Now Article 10 threatens to disregard theopposition expressed by our citizens and elected town officials.

We as citizens do not support the incentives for wind development which create a MINUS160% Effect Tax Rate for developers. This outrageous use of our tax dollars encouragesindustrial development of an ineffective so-called green technology; wind turbine electric

generation.

Please support the constitutionality of Home Rule. Our Town of Litchfield relies on ourstate representatives to uphold Home Rule and guarantee our constitutional right todetermine what kind of industrial development is appropriate in our town.

Sincerely,

Douglas Whitfield


5/27

Richard Charles Wiley, Sr.Acciona Energia and Bp have targeted the Town of Cape Vincent, NY with a 140 turbines.Acciona sold their interest to Bp.

Cape Vincent is located on Lake Ontario and the St. Lawrence River. The majority of the

tax base is valuable seasonal property which lies along the shores of the Lake and River.

The Seaway Trail that runs through the town is one of New York State's most braggedabout and financially supported scenic byways.

Cape Vincent is still under-developed as a tourist region and has more available vacantland and tourism potential than any single town on the St. Lawrence River.

During the early years of the local industrial wind siting process, the Chairman of theTown of Cape Vincent planning board and another member were listed by the winddevelopers as having a financial interest in and were being paid by British Petroleum andAcciona.

During the early years of the local siting process by Acciona Energia and British Petroleumthree members (A majority) of the Cape Vincent Town Board were listed by the winddevelopers as having a financial interest in and were being paid by Bp and Acciona.

As a result of these conflicts of interest and complaints to the New York State AttorneyGeneral, the Attorney General, Andrew Cuomo,

launched a formal investigation of certain Town of Cape Vincent public officials and theirconduct regarding industrial wind matters.

Richard Charles Wiley, Sr.


6/27

Sidney L. Manes

I am responding to Iberdrola requests to change Article 10 Regulations. It is myunderstanding that Home Rule for Local governments is written as a Bill of Rights and issacred and may only be changed by a constitutional amendment. I have heard commentsthat there is Big letter Home Rules and Little letter Home Rules and see this as newinterpretation by the Governor who wants to control energy alternatives as he sees fit.That subtle interpretation is false. It is clear that Local Governments are in the bestposition to know what its citizens want and it is Local Governments who are the primaryoverseers of the health, safety and welfare of its residents. A watered down Home Rulegiving the State control of what is best for local residents flies in the face of goodgovernment. Local Governments who follow the adopted rules and regulations ofpermitting and following zoning regulations and the building codes and transportationcontrols should be the first line of defense for local residents. NYSDEC can and shouldcontrol the environmental concerns with local government and citizen input and thereshould be no leeway or state control to bypass local regulations. In my opinion, Article 10should and will be declared unconstitutional and Iberdrola request should be denied.Regulations should not be made easier but more difficult when safety and health andwelfare of the public is at stake. I would also urge that Iberdrola be compelled to set asidea pool of money so that Local Governments can afford to hire lawyers to present their siderather than spending town money to defend what is an outrageous position of wateringdown local controls. .

Thank you

Sidney L. Manes

Bousquet Holstein PLLC


7/27

Judy E. Tubolino

I am extremely concerned that Article X takes away "Home Rule". I live in a smallcommunity in upstate New York where an industrial wind facility was proposed. OurTown Board selected residents to sit on a committee to study the impacts to health andsafety of residents. I was a one of those residents. Shortly after our committee submittedour findings and recommendations, the Board selected more residents to study theeconomics of having a wind facility in our town. We now have a Local Law which protectsthe residents. This law is a result of years of research. I am concerned that the group ofpeople in Albany who will be responsible for determining approvals for these facilities willnot take into consideration the Local Laws that have been adopted by many towns here inupstate New York. I will say that after the many years of educating myself, I don't believethat wind power is the answer to our energy problems. Wind is inefficient and expensiveand there are other sources of energy production that should be investigated for our area.

Judy E. Tubolino

Tubolino Road


8/27

Richard Slowinski

please stop putting wind turbines so close to homes we will be leaving our home as soonas we can afford it. the research is available just read it you are killing people whithinfrasound. sleeping in our home is next to imposiable most nites. we have talked for thelast three years to any and evryone.Stop subsidizing the wind indrstry until you have safesetbacks. do your research many of us have. we are feeling very sick most of the timesleep disturbance can and will kill you Hold the wind companys responsible for thieractions and you will find they wont go foward. if you need any info or documentation ihave all you need three years worth

Thank you

Richard Slowinski

Varysburg New York 14167


9/27

Suzann Cornell

In the matter of rules and regulations of the Board on Electric Generation Siting andEnvironment, contained in 16 NYCRR, Chapter X, of Major Electric Generating Facilitiesplease consider a few facts regarding the placement of wind turbine in the Town of Lyme.As reported in the Watertown Daily Times on April 19, 2012 the Town of Lyme 's boardunanimously voted "to extend its moratorium on wind-power projects by another sixmonths." The first moratorium was passed in October of 2007 and every six months theyhave consistently extended wind moratoriums. The Town Supervisor is quoted as sayinghe is waiting to see what our neighboring town of Cape Vincent is going to do. The LymePlanning Board made revisions to it's Comprehensive Plan to include a "survey" of allthings, to reflect the wishes of the few that returned their surveys and the surveysreturned indicated most were opposed to industrial wind development anywhere withinthe Town.This survey was clearly not conducted as a viable or scientific survey as it waspoorly designed and asked leading questions. In July of 2011 the Town of Lyme puttogether a Wind Economics Committee to study the of the impacts of wind turbines couldhave on the Town. The report was presented to the Board and two members of thatcommittee refuted the report; strongly disagreeing with the published findings as verymisleading on property values and economic impacts. They cited the risks andrecommendations were neither supported by facts nor by the experiences of the townswith wind farms in upstate New York. These comments are only a few issues that arerepresentative of how the Town of Lyme Board is trying to "Zone Out " industrial turbines

Please take this information into consideration while you are considering the regulationfor article X.

Thank You,

Suzann Cornell


10/27

Robert Bollinger

Dear Secretary Brilling,I am writing to suggest that project review place high priority on compliance with local

comprehensive plans and zoning laws, as they may direct where, if anywhere, a windturbine project or other electric generating facility may be located. Until such time as windenergy no longer requires government subsidies to be economically viable, we do not seethese projects as essential to meeting the power needs of the State. They are experimentswith long lives, yet their placement on the landscape dramatic ally alters the host andadjoining communities to the detriment of those communities.

The current political rush to back these sustainable energy projects may prove to be notwell placed (in fact, there is a growing body of evidence to refute both the sustainable

claims for wind power and its economic advantages); and in the meantime under theproposed regulations, we will have sacrificed the rural character and scenic beauty oftown after town in our rush to jump on this industrys bandwagon.Please support home rule in New York State.

Thank you for your time.Sincerely,Robert BollingerStamford, NY


11/27

Jane WelshJane Welsh P.C

I write as a practicing attorney and a resident of the Town of Madison. Horizon/EDPRenewables has applied to the Town Planning Board for a special permit to construct a 36turbine project in the Town of Madison. Each turbine, a type never yet used in the U.S.,will be 492 feet tall. Madison is the home of the first Wind Farm in NYS -- Madison WindFarm. Horizon/EDP now owns this small 7 turbine project (328 feet tall turbines) locatedin a relatively unpopulated area on farmland whose owners live there and chose to livewith the turbines. The Town of Madison has no zoning or land use laws. Its Town officialsare ill-equipped, professionally or by experience, to either approve or disapprove aproject of such scope and magnitude. Horizon/EDP has "threatened" to opt into theArticle 10 process if the Town does not approve the entire project. I have reviewed theproposed regulations and, while they are certainly far more rigorous than the Town's localprocess, these regulations will not necessarily protect those affected. In situations wherelocal laws are inadequate (indeed, the Town adopted setback requirements suggested bythe industry), the regulations should clearly recognize the principle, applicable state-wide,that a heavy industrial use such as this does not belong in populated residential areas. Inour case, if this project is approved, over 150 homes will lie within 3,000 feet of a huge

industrial machine. What assurances do we have that members of the Siting Board willseriously consider the character and nature of the community when making theirdecisions? This is a thriving, growing community. Colgate University is only 4 miles awayfrom the proposed project. What due diligence will the Siting Board be required toundertake to verify or question the assertions of the developer? Horizon/EDP submitteda DGEIS, not even site-specific, that is riddled with misinformation and deliberatelymisleading statements, not the least of which is its characterization of the project area aslargely rural and vacant. Their maps are a travesty. If the State wants control over this

process, then it should strengthen the law and the regulations to guard the public againstsuch blatant abuse of process. An example -- Horizon/EDP stampeded the Town intoaccepting the DGEIS because it needed to show progress by March ! or lose its place in theNYSIO line. The Town was unaware of this motive. The consultant who advised the Townhas major ties to the industry. If the State wants to take over the process of siting theseever-growing projects, the regulations that govern its actions, must be stringently writtenand strictly applied. The needs of those who live here should be given equal weight to the


12/27


13/27

Michael Massoud

Honorable Jaclyn A. Brilling

Secretary New York State

Public Service Commission

Comments to the New York Board on Electric Generation Siting and the Environment

Case 12-F-0036In the Matter of the Rules and Regulations of the Board on Electric

Generation Siting and the Environment contained in 16 NYCRR, Chapter X, Certification of

Major Electric Generating Facilities

Dear Secretary Brilling,

As a resident of New York State for the past 50+ years, it troubles me to see thedirection the State is proceeding in regards to the adoption of Article X and the

"fast tracking" of certain energy projects. Especially as it relates to wind power,

it is a threat to home rule which is a guarantee under the State's constitution and has

been in effect for the past 100+ years. Under certain circumstances where the benefit to

all affected citizens is clear, this might be allowable.

Wind energy is not scientifically supported and therefore has no business being

considered for such an exclusion from our constitution.

It is critical to the well being and the future of our great State that the rights of localgovernments and the citizens represented by suchare not compromised by such an

approach to our energy needs. Indeed, in these times of tremendous economic stress

it is absurd to waste millions of our hard earned tax dollars on the unworthy projects

proposed by the wind industry.

I fully support the need for a well thought out, comprehensive energy plan for our state

and our country, but I fear that taking the ultimate decision making power away from the

very citizens who will be paying for these projects is a grave mistake. These same

citizens have spent many thousands of hours researching the benefits and costs to theircommunities of these projects, and are quite capable of deciding what is in the best

interests of their community.

Please consider those who will be affected most when you formulate your final

recommendation.

Michael Massoud


14/27

Dale Connor

May 29, 2012


Secretary

New York State Public Service Commission

Three Empire Plaza

Albany, New York 12223-1350


The following comments are being submitted for consideration by the New York Board on

Electric Generation Siting and the Environment Case 12-F-0036, in the Matter of the Rules and

Regulations of the Board on Electric Generation and Environment contained in 16 NYCRR,

Chapter X, Certification of Major Electric Generating Facilities.

Decommissioning of Wind Turbines:

Decommissioning is often either ignored or taken lightly when developing parameters for a

future Wind Farm, but it is crucial to a successful project, as demonstrated by the hundreds of

abandoned Turbines in the State of California.

The first step in development by a large Wind Corporation is always the same; form an LLC to

build and operate the project. The sole purpose of these LLC companies is to insulate the

wealthy parent firm from any and all litigation. This becomes critically important as the wind

farm ages and nears its useful end (usually about 20 years).

Decommissioning costs are generally covered by a bond which typically costs about 2% of the

assured value per year. As these LLCs have no assets beyond the now old wind turbines, it

becomes cost effective for the LLC to dissolve when nearing the end of the projects useful

life without paying the premium to renew the bond. To protect the local community, there

must always be a 12 month bond coverage overlap, or a cash escrow account, to cover

projected decommissioning costs.

Dale Connor


15/27

Marshall D. HollanderRegulationsFriday, May 25, 2012TO: Hon. Jaclyn A. Brilling, Secretary,

NY State Public Service Commission

RE: Proposed Article X Regulations

First I want to express my disappointment with the passage of the Power NY Act 2011,and the provisions of article x. It removes the time honored and honorable tradition-andlegal protections- of home rule. This has been a proud aspect of town government inNY State, and of particular significance to the great number of rural townships in thestate.

This is not the time or place to debate the virtues of a law that has already beenpassed and signed, but to offer comments on how it will function, and suggestions ofhow it can better serve state residents.

Perhaps, if certain guidelines are used as fundamental, and in some areas unalterablestandards, good will come out of this. As we know the impact of certain power relatedprojects-wind farms, power plants-though located in one township, which may allowsuch activities-can have more of an effect on a neighboring one, which has alreadypassed local laws banning, or regulating such projects.For example, a town, or several towns in an area may disallow gigantic industrial wind

turbines, but if just one township permits a project it can have huge impact on a largerarea which has already found such development inappropriate for their town(s). Withthe current size of turbines (nearly 500 ft. and even taller anticipated), and with thenumber and scale of such projects, it must be viewed as a regional issue, andappropriate standards and regulations should be enforced by the board to ensure thewell being of the region. Thus a large power generation facility should also be subjectto certain basic siting standards-gauging the appropriateness and impact onneighboring towns and municipalities.

In my area of central NY-the route 20 corridor and Mohawk Valley, a free -for -all haserupted in recent years over wind turbine projects. Even though more and moreevidence is coming to light that this from of power is inefficient unreliable, not helpingthe environment and costly, the state has persisted in making it part of the overallstrategy for electrical production.This is misguided in my opinion, and a waste of resources, but if this is to continuecertain basic standards of siting must be developed and applied throughout the state.Although numerous townships have enacted their own laws banning or severelyregulating them, this home rule protection is now thrown into question with article x,


16/27

and its 25 Mg provision. And as I already mentioned, because of the size of these newturbines, they impact neighboring towns, and even whole regions as much asindividual townships. The new siting board should keep this in mind when dealing withwind farms in general.Of course, if the belief is that wind turbines are so useful, and worth the exorbitantmoney they receive through subsidies, and tax credits, the question should be asked

as to why they are not sited closer to where the power is needed? Upstate NY has asurplus of power, so why are these wind farms located here at all? Looking at a windmap of the state, it is clear that other than off shore, in both the coastal and the GreatLakes regions, NY State is not especially good for wind, whether upstate or down. Yet,they are never put where they are needed, instead more power will be lost over lengthytransmission lines, and probably even more, or upgraded transmission lines will beneeded for these wind facilities. The impression of your rural citizens are that they arenot sited "downstate" because there is enough political clout to stop them, and insteadthe rural areas are victimized by predatory wind companies. (which I will add, in my

experience are all foreign owned-walking off with US tax dollars. Why not regulatethat?)The new board also needs to consider the impact these large scale wind facilities,indeed even smaller ones, will have on an entire region. Is it in the state's best interestto despoil some of the most scenic, and often the most popular tourist areas withindustrial facilities which will impact that important component of the state's economy? would suggest that the guidelines you develop should keep that in mind. Putting asidetheir ultimate usefulness, and the fact that they may well be outmoded in a relativelyshort period of time, is this what we want to do to the natural beauty, and recreationalpotential of more and more areas of the state? With 500 ft. turbines visible as much a

40 miles from their locations, the impact is devastating to what had been nearly pristinecountryside.

Therefore, I have a few specific suggestions which I earnestly ask the board toconsider in formulating their policy under the provisions of the new law.

Local laws should be considered above all in evaluating the potential locations ofenergy projects. After all, these represent the wishes, needs, and concerns of thepeople who will be most affected, and local government is closest to the people.

Much of upstate NY is rural-not unpopulated. This should be kept in mind whensiting any generating facility conventional or the newer technologies. What mightappear as endless empty space to a city or urban dweller-in most areas- of NY, ismore settled with residences than it might appear. Just because its rural and has openspace does not mean that many houses nearer than it first appears, will not beimpacted.


17/27

Wind turbine projects should have a NY State standard regarding proximity toresidences-not what is convenient for the developer. These set backs should provideprotection for non-participating residents. Many on land sites in Europe alreadyhave a3000 ft. set back-at least that, or as much as a mile would be sensible (one mile isrecommended by the WorldHealth Organization) .There are too many documentedimpacts-sound, shadow flicker, low frequency vibrations, ice throw too leave

unregulated this huge impact on the lives and health of those who are forced to livenear them.

Independently verifiable noise standards for wind turbine projects should becreated and enforced in our state. This should not be left up to the wind company, andtheir hired experts. The cost of reputable independentsound experts should be theresponsibility of the wind developer. If 35dba is an acceptable measurement for soundin rural areas, than the turbines should not exceed that-and if they do they mustameliorate the situation, or cease operation. (The problem appears to be that the

turbines cannot run that quietly and the companies know it. They routinely exceedevenagreed upon higher levels-of 40 and 45dba. The state must demand accountabilityfrom the developers on this issue)

Wind companies make the claim that these projects do not impact property values-or later lower the assessed value of a community. It is common sense that they do,and a little research into already built projects in our state show this to be true. Goingforward the state should make it part of these projects that real property valueguarantees are provided and funded. If wind companies for purposes of promotion

continue tor rely on skewed and outdated studies in their assertion

that values are unaffected, then they should have money available if this proves not tobe the case. Buy outs of home owners at fair market value who choose not to live nearthese turbines projects should be offered-as is already done in other countries.

The board must consider and regulate these factors, and others, in grantingpermission for energy projects to proceed. Streamlining a process may have its value,but it is better to be cautious, and thorough. A project pushed through to meet the

agendas of developers, is not in the interest of the people of the state, or the local areaimpacted by a project. What is done in haste-without sufficient safeguards-can result inan unfortunate decision that people will be forced to live with fordecades.Thanks for giving me the opportunity to offer these comments on the proposed article xregulations.

Marshall D Hollander


18/27

May 28, 2012

Valerie Johnson, PhD.

Robert Pandina, Ph.D.

Chippewa Bay, NY 13623

Hon. Jaclyn A. Brilling, Secretary

New York State Public Service Commission

Three Empire State Plaza

Albany, New York 12223-1350

RE: Proposed Article X Regulations and Proposed Rulemaking


We appreciate the opportunity to comment on the Article X Draft Regulations currently under

review by the NY State Public Service Commission. As a point of introduction, my husband and

I are faculty members at Rutgers University in New Jersey, but plan to soon retire to our family

home in Chippewa Bay, St. Lawrence County, New York. We write as both citizens and as

researchers and scientists, who believe that valid and reliable scientific evidence should guide

public policy.

As residents and homeowners on the beautiful St. Lawrence River, we have several concerns

about the impending power of Article X Regulations to site large industrial turbines at their

discretion. We live in a town that recently spent the good part of 18 months collecting data on

all aspects of industrial wind (including its intended and unintended consequences), and

subsequently devised a wind law that was passed, both 9-1 in committee and by the majority

of the town board. This law was reviewed and approved at the county level as well, and is a

model for health, safety and economic protection of community members.

We assume that you have received many letters commenting upon all aspects of the proposed

Article X Regulations, and we share concerns with fellow residents about municipal home rule,

property values, health and safety, construction and decommission of structures, among

others. We would like to add that we have a more regional concern about the environmental

impact of wind turbine siting on the St. Lawrence River Valley and the significantly scenic

Thousand Islands area.


19/27

Visual impact, soil disruption and environmental contamination are concerns of course, but

just as alarming, yet understudied, is the bird and bat mortality. In Canada and the United

States, wind turbines are believed to kill an estimated 450,000 bats each year. While bird kills

at wind farms get more publicity, bat deaths appear to outpace them. These data are widely

distributed through a variety of peer reviewed journals and public media. While the specific

reasons for these deaths have been

speculated upon, migration path, low visibility weather conditions, and artificial light sources

appear to be candidates. We believe that birds/bat mortality is not adequately addressed in

the proposed regulations. In addition, recent studies have shown that this problem is a

significant economic concern, especially in agricultural areas. The DEC recommends bird and

bat studies take a minimum of one year of pre-construction studies for all proposed wind

energy projects (http://www.dec.ny.gov/docs/wildlife.pdf /finwindguide.pdf ). We believe that

each application for energy development should include a multi-seasonal study of bird/batpopulations and an economic impact analysis of the expected bird/bat kills.

For those studies to be reduced to less than a year would result in the Siting Board operating

on insufficient information. We recommend companies should have to perform, at the

minimum, one year of studies. Seasonal variation and weather patterns make any study of

birds, bats, and wild life of less than one year substandard.

Thank you for the opportunity to offer comments and we trust that final regulations keep thehealth and well being of New York residents in mind.

Valerie Johnson, PhD.Robert Pandina, Ph.D


20/27

Carol Frigault

May 25, 2012


Secretary

NY State Public Service Commission

Three Empire Plaza

Albany, N.Y. 12212-1350

Re: Case 12-F-0036

In the matter of rules and regulations for Article X

Dear Secretary Brilling,

I am submitting my comments regarding the proposed Article X regulations, pertaining to wind

energy facilities. I have done a considerable amount of research on wind turbines, since

October of 2011, regarding the key issues you are establishing regulations on. I am not going

to give you the mountain of data regarding the inefficiency and intermittency of this

unsuitable technology, I will just focus on the issues the board is reviewing.

Noise is the key issue with these turbines and the harmful effects they have on the people that

live near them, when strict noise guidelines are not followed. The NYS DEC has set limits on

recommend noise for all industries to not exceed 6 dba of the ambient noise levels of the area.

In quiet rural areas, it is not uncommon for it to be extremely quiet, and any noise over 35 dba

is going to annoy or harm the residents living near them from quiet enjoyment of their

property. Hessler Associates Inc. ( a company used by the wind developers) determined from

their studies as well, that in a quiet rural area, if the noise did not exceed 35 dba then there

were no complaints. Please do not allow them to exceed these levels, especially at night when

the noise is most bothersome, a strict limit of no greater than 35 dba should be implemented.

The turbines that are being installed today are made taller, at 500 ft. to better capture the

wind, and they are creating even more audible noise than previous smaller turbines. Since

there is not a valid predicting model to measure sound from these heights, the models were

designed to measure sound at no higher than 100 feet from the ground. The complaints from

people living near these turbines, all around the world need to be taken seriously. Strict limits

also need to be placed on the C-weighted sound which is the low frequency and the G-weighted, which is the infrasound as well.

Applying appropriate setbacks can minimize many of the complaints from noise. The World

Health Organization recommends 1.25 miles or 2 km to minimize the noise from these gigantic

structures. This setback should be from the property line of a non-participating property


21/27

owner, so they could develop their property as they wish, otherwise their property rights are

being violated.

Because of adverse implications of living near wind turbines, the value of ones property is

decreased. The Department of Energy study the wind industry touts as not having a negative

effect on property value, uses a 10 mile radius of property sold, near a project site. When

licensed real estate appraisers (unlike the DOE study) look at the impact on the property value

of homes within a 0-3 miles radius, there can be as much as a 40 % loss in value. It is morally

wrong to devalue our citizens property for the profit of a developer. Therefore, the developer

should be required to guarantee the assessed value of all properties, for up to 5 years from

when a project begins generating power. This would give the residents ample time to see if

they can tolerate the new environmental impacts of visual pollution, noise and the shadow

flicker. It is only right to insist that the developer guarantee the residents within several miles

the value of their home, and if the developer really believes there will be no negative impact

to property values, then they are not risking anything. Let them put their money where their

mouth is.

Decommissioning is another extremely important area to get right. The developers want to

reduce the estimated cost of decommissioning by the value of the scrap metal. This is a shady

way for the developer to keep their cost down. An A rated bond from a NY State admitted

carrier should be posted for the entire cost of the decommissioning, and the developer can

keep the cost of the scrap metal once all expenses are paid. The towns should not be in the

position of removing a 500 foot tower, cutting it to the proper lengths, to maximize, the

continually fluctuating price of scrap metal. No turbine has ever been taken down in the U.S.

and there are plenty of turbines that are no longer operating. Instead, they stand rusting and

leaching oils, and other fluids into the ground. One reason may be because there is an

inadequate amount of money set aside to cover the entire cost. For the project that was

proposed for Richfield Springs, NY. Ridgeline Energy, LLC., proposed setting aside $3,370 per

492 ft. turbine, for the cost of decommissioning, and the town could have the scrap metal

value to off set the cost. An independent engineer compiled a conservative estimate of over 1

million dollars to remove these six turbines and the substation. An A rated bond needs to be

insisted on for the full value of the decommissioning, or 100% of the decommissioning costplaced in an interest bearing account for the benefit of the town. This ensures the taxpayers

and the environment do not pay the steep price, while the developer walks away with tax

incentivized profits. The cost of erecting the 18 MW project for Richfield Springs was

estimated at $40 million, and the developer would like you to believe that setting aside a total

of $40,000 is adequate.


22/27

The wind developers are asking you to allow them to keep confidential the raw data collected

from the metrological towers, as well as the cost of the projects. They claim this is competitive

information, and I would agree if 100% of their own money was being used for these projects,

but since they are heavily reliant on taxpayers money and incentives, do not allow them to

claim confidentially, when they are using public money. Without the generous incentives this

industry has been receiving for the last 30 years the entire industry would not exist. So if

making this information public makes them more competitive as an industry, then after 30

years it is about time.

Finally, the most disturbing area of this draft is that local town laws can be usurped, by this

regulation. Towns and Cities that actually need the power can come up with a plan that will

work for the benefit of its own community. I am afraid that rural areas are going to be

exploited, to benefit residents downstate, who do not want to deal with the ramifications of a

facility near them. These power generating facilities should be placed where they are needed,

so environmental impacts and transmission lines can be minimized.

Respectfully,

Carol Frigault

Richfield Springs, NY 13439


23/27

Michael Herzog

There should be a distinction made between nameplate capacity and effective capacitywhen considering the balance between local concerns and overall benefits to state energyconsumers. This is especially of concern with wind generation, where the effectivecapacity is often only 10-20 percent of the nameplate capacity. The statewide benefits ofsuch facilities are significantly less than those of facilities such as gas, nuclear, and hydrohaving the same nameplate capacity but effective capacities in the 90-95 percent range.Likewise, the local effects of a facility covering thousands of acres are much greater thanthose of a point-source generating facility. These considerations should take precedenceover the state s arbitrary renewable portfolio standard.

Likewise, proximity to the end users of the energy should also be considered. The nearer aproposed project is to the consumers of its output (generally, cities), the greater should beits priority in siting approval. This will increase transmission efficiency, as well as place alesser burden on the state s already heavily used transmission infrastructure. Withwind as an example, near-shore and offshore facilities along the coast make far moresense than wind farms scattered among rural upstate communities. Coastal winds are alsomore reliable than interior winds, resulting in appreciably larger effective capacities for

those facilities.

Michael Herzog


24/27

Kathryn A. Hludzenski

May, 25, 2012Honorable Jaclyn A. Brilling, Secretary

New York State Board on Electric Generation Siting and the Environment

Three Empire State Plaza

Albany, NY 12212-1350

Re: Case 12-F-0036 - In the Matter of the Rules and Regulations of the Board on Electric

Generation Siting and the Environment.


The best way to identify myself is to say I live in the community of Cape Vincent, New Yorkfor the past six years two proposed wind energy projects have dominated and divided ourcommunity like no other issue.

The community of Cape Vincent had home rule usurped by a corrupt Town Government

acting as agents for wind developers in return for financial gains through the signing ofwind leases.

The community rallied and brought democracy to Cape Vincent through the ballot box.Consequently, Cape Vincent is in the process of updating its zoning law.

Article 10 was established to provide uniform standards in siting of electrical generatingfacilities. As such this law must protect the health and welfare of the citizens of New YorkState.

My concern is with is with what I consider to be the single most important issueconcerning the siting of wind energy facilities ,the effect of low frequency noise on humansWind turbines and wind farms generate strong infrasonic noise which is characterized bytheir blade passing harmonics (monochromatic signals).

Article 10 does not define clear standards to protect people from low frequency noise,leaving it to the developers discretion.


25/27

The data concerning Low frequency noise emitted from wind turbines is not based onquackery it has been scientifically proven that low frequency noise is harmful to humans A- C weighted standard should be employed to determine low frequency noise. C -weighting follows the frequency sensitivity of the human ear at very high noise levels. TheC-weighting scale is quite flat, and therefore includes much more of the low-frequency

range of sounds than the A and B scales. Additionally, predicting low frequency noiseusing a C- weighted standard is not expensive or difficult.

Cape Vincent's soon to be adopted zoning law employs a C- weighting scale to assess lowfrequency noise, to protect the health and welfare of our community.

Moreover, to protect the health and welfare of all communities developers should berequired to use C- weighted standards to assess low frequency noise.

I thank you for the opportunity to comment about this most important matter.

Sincerely,

Kathryn A. Hludzenski

Cape Vincent, New York


26/27

Judith Hall

It is with extreme dissappointment I submit these limited additional comments. Onceagain the New York State Public Service Commission that is taxed with the oversight andprotection of the public and ratepayers of the state choses to make life easier for utilitydevelopers and puts the burden on municipalities and impacted residents with littleknowledge or experience in these matters.

First and foremost there needs to be oversight that addresses RELIABLE, SAFE electricfacilities siting that is produced close to WHERE IT IS NEEDED. Wind data frommeterological towers should be made public and required for a minimum of two yearsprior to an application.

The time constraints are weighted in favor of the developer. No small town in upstate,where most of the new projects are sited can understand and hire experts to address theconcerns or the impact on their residents in a few days. There needs to be an educatedcitizen panel approved and ready to help educate, and provide assistance with findingexperts to address their local issues.

There need to be minimum setbacks for all new projects based on science andmanufacturers reccommendations stated in Article X. Local laws should not be deemed"unreasonable" unless they are under the state minimum requirement. Industrialmachines and dangerous pipelines should not be sited a few hundred feet from residences

Noise should be fully addressed as well as constant stray voltage measurement in projectsites. Setbacks from wind turbines need to be at least the hard hat or safety areas forworkers. Liability insurance for non participating abutting landowners and propertyvalue assurance needs to be addressed. Health and safety issues, as well as environmentalimpact need to be addressed prior to construction, not post construction when it isalready too late. The Board needs to address specifically the ramifications of noise limitsbeing exceeded and penalties that protect those residents being impacted.

While developers get PILOTS and grant money, all phases of production information and

electric usage is confidential, ratepayers and taxpayers who fund them are hit with veryexpensive net metering costs if they try to "go green". Natural gas is also not available tothose who live in the actual areas impacted by the drilling and wells.

Judith Hall

Cohocton Wind Watch


27/27

letters from the people concerning article 10

Documents