The McGuinty govt. of Ontario has gone all the way in an attempt to save the planet by introducing the “Green Homes Plan”
In order to be truly Green, no manufactured building materials will be allowed in new homes.
Here are just a couple of the new models that will be available soon.
This home will be of interest to the first time home buyer or those looking to downsize after retirement.
Below is a new complex and will be of special interest to those with a busy lifestyle. Besides all the other benefits of living in a MUD HUT you can see the community clothes drying facilities in the center courtyard.
Thank you Mr. McGuinty and Mr. Smitherman for your help in making Ontario a “Green Province” we can be all proud of.
Sorry if we questioned your vision. Some thought you were an idiot.
Well, you proved us wrong!
In only a couple of weeks our new Green Homes will be powered intermittently by Majestic wind turbines and we will have light and electricity………………sometimes.
Response to my letter to the editorial board of the Toronto Star. If you live in the Rural Ontario you count for nothing.
Dear Mr. Stephens:
The “community” I am referring to is the Star’s community of readers.
Given that the Star is considered “the voice of the GTA” this would be
the community of readers in Toronto and the Greater Toronto area.
Certainly, many people in many communities would disagree with the views
put forward in this editorial opinion (as will any editorial). That is
their prerogative, as it is yours.
I will not be taking any further action on this editorial; nor will I be
providing you will “verification’ of the research done by the Star’s
editorial board as that is certainly not our practise.
I think the arguments put forward in the editorial speak for themselves
and it is beyond the scope of my role to question the conclusions drawn
in Star editorials.
As I told you, an editorial is an opinion based on the editorial board’s
interpretation of the facts at hand. While you may hold another opinion
I see no value in our debating these facts. I am not going to change
your mind about this issue and the Star’s editorial board is not likely
to reverse its position on this issue at this point in time.
I would like you to verify the research done and the content of the
“This editorial view was arrived at after much research, thought and
debate by members of the Star’s editorial board, a group of six
journalists, under the direction of Editorial Page Editor Ian Urquhart,
who are charged with the responsibility of determining and expressing
the Star’s position on important matters affecting our community.
Because editorials represent the institutional voice of the newspaper,
they are never signed by the individuals who write them”.
I would also like someone to explain who’s community the article is
I know many people, in many communities who would strongly disagree with
the position of the editorial board of the Toronto Star, including the
senior policy adviser for the Ministry of Energy and the ex-CEO of the
I have invited the Provincial govt. to go through the information on my
site and point out any inaccuracies. To date, even though they are on my
site daily, they have never questioned or requested any changes.
I therefore request that your editorial staff go through my site as
I want to know how they came to their conclusions.
The editorial board must be able to justify their position or it could
be considered propaganda.
|1.||a person involved in producing or spreading propaganda.|
|2.||a member or agent of a propaganda.|
SAVE THE PLANET-CUT LESS TREES-
CANCEL YOUR SUBSCRIPTION TODAY!
After three years of effort, a $300 million wind farm that would have brought green power to Ontario has been cancelled. This is the latest casualty of a provincial planning process that just isn’t up to the task of ensuring that the best interests of all Ontarians prevail.
I guess the people forced from their homes and those living in misery because of wind turbines, don’t count in Ms. Gillespie’s Ontario.(added)
The province wants the clean energy that comes from projects like wind turbines. So much so that Energy Minister George Smitherman sent a $60 billion plan on how to meet the province’s electricity needs for the next two decades back to the drawing board to get more renewable energy and conservation into the mix.
According to the senior policy adviser I talked to – 10 billion spent on a real electrical system, would have provided Ontario with cost effective, clean, affordable electricity. He says we are dealing with politics. Try running your home or business on politics. At least 50 billion will be unnecessarily wasted ,causing your electric bill to skyrocket, and driving business from the province.(added)
Yet time and time again wind farms and other environmentally worthy projects run into the wall that is Ontario’s outdated, drawn-out planning process. Some manage to make it through. The wind farm planned for a township near Goderich didn’t.
The delays in getting through the process are difficult enough – often amounting to millions of wasted dollars – but the real problem comes when someone, and there’s always someone, wants to oppose the project. The NIMBYists are able to use the myriad planning steps – rezoning, official plan amendment, council approval, provincial environmental assessment and the spectre of an appeal to the Ontario Municipal Board – as weapons in their fight.
As a spokesperson for the doomed Goderich wind farm said: “We’re a very conservative province, so it’s difficult to put anything anywhere.”
It’s not just wind farms the NIMBYists fight. They also oppose traditional generating stations. That forces Ontario to buy expensive – and often dirty – power from elsewhere.
And they fight urban “intensification” in the form of highrise buildings, which help curb sprawl.
In some European jurisdictions, municipalities are given the right to say where wind turbines can’t go. But they also have to say where they can go. In Ontario, it’s simply too easy to say no and hope to delay the project long enough that the developers give up and decide to give it a try in someone else’s backyard.
According to a councilor involved in the Kingsbridge ll wind farm, he was told that any setback over 450 meters would not be tolerated. He was told to pass the setback or the township would be taken to the OMB and that the township would lose, costing the township $100,000. This, dispite the fact Kingsbridge l at 450 meters had already caused major problems for people living in the shadows of the turbines.(added)
The energy minister is right to call for more renewable energy. Now the provincial government must make sure its planning processes support that goal, even if it means someone may have to gaze upon a windmill from the living room window.
Because reality and truth no longer matter to the Toronto Star, I ask that you show your disapproval by boycotting the paper. Until they understand their duty to the public (seek and print the truth) they do not deserve your support. I will be making a formal complaint to
Bureau of Accuracy/Public Editor
You can contact the Star’s Bureau of Accuracy and Public Editor by email at email@example.com; by phone at 416-869-4949; or by fax at 416-869-4322
To cancel your subscription or to let the Star know how you feel -(added)Customer Service (including subscription inquiries, delivery issues, billing inquiries, vacation stops or other customer service inquiries or complaints)
Phone: 416-367-4500 or 1-800-268-9213
Windmills vs. Nimbyism (another take on the article above)
Posted on October 20, 2008 by essexcountywind
|Federal Green Party Candidate,Says – Sor|
|Safe setbacks: How far should wind turbi|
|The Problems With On-Grid Wind Power|
|Wind turbine noise affects health|
|Wind Turbine Noise Video – Suncor Wind F|
|The Dangers of Wind Power|
|Exploding VESTA Wind Turbine in Denmark|
|Before You Sign a Wind Turbine Contract|
|Al Gore: Global warming responsible for|
Let’s start with what one manufacturer considers to be safe for its workers. The safety regulations for the Vestas V90, with a 300-ft rotor span and a total height of 410 feet, tell operators and technicians to stay 1,300 feet from an operating turbine — over 3 times its total height — unless absolutely necessary.
That already is a much greater distance than many regulations currently require as a minimum distance between wind turbines and homes, and it is concerned only with safety, not with noise or visual intrusion.
In February 2008, a 10-year-old Vestas turbine with a total height of less than 200 feet broke apart in a storm. Large pieces of the blades flew as far as 500 meters (1,640 feet).
The Fuhrländer turbine planned for Barrington, R.I., is 328 feet tall with a rotor diameter of 77 meters, or just over 250 feet (sweeping more than an acre of vertical air space). According to one news report, the manufacturer recommends a setback of 1,500 feet, over 4.5 times the total height. In Wisconsin, where towns can regulate utility zoning for health and safety concerns, ordinances generally specify a setback of one-half mile (2,640 ft) to residences and workplaces.
But that may just be enough to protect the turbines from each other, not to adequately protect the peace and health of neighbors.
When part of an array, turbines should be at least 10 rotor diameters apart to avoid turbulence from each other. In the case of the proposed 77-meter rotor span in Barrington, that would be 770 meters, or 2,525 feet. For the Gamesa G87, that’s 2,850 feet; for the Vestas V90, 2,950 feet — well over half a mile.
Jane and Julian Davis, whose home is 930 m (3,050 ft) from the Deeping St. Nicholas wind energy facility in England, have been forced by the noise to rent another place in which to sleep. In July 2008 they were granted a 14% council tax reduction in recognition of their loss. It appears in this case that the combination of several turbines creates a manifold greater disturbance.
Since the human ear (not to mention the sensory systems of other animals or the internal organs of bats, which, it is now emerging, are crushed by the air pressure) is more sensitive than a giant industrial machine, doubling that would be a reasonable precaution (at least for the human neighbors — it still doesn’t help wildlife).
Sound experts Rick James and George Kamperman recommend a 1 km (3,280 ft) distance in rural areas.
Both the French Academy of Medicine and the U.K. Noise Association recommend a minimum of one mile (or 1.5 km) between giant wind turbines and homes. Trempealeau County in Wisconsin implemented such a setback. National Wind Watch likewise advocates a minimum one-mile setback.
More at Kirby Mountain
Editor: I have been
writing and posting about the wind fraud for two years. It’s time for govt. of all stripes to come clean. What’s behind the wind industry?
Read the Green Agenda.
‘In Rural New York, Windmills Can Bring Whiff of Corruption’);
‘The wind industry has arrived in force in upstate New York, but some residents say the companies have brought with them an epidemic of corruption and intimidation.’);
You are allowing wind turbines to be placed as close as 350 meters from homes.
This blatant disregard for people and their property must stop immediately.
No more excuses. Your office, and the office of the MOE, has all the information needed to fully understand the negative impacts of placing wind turbines too close to people and their homes.
The guidelines for wind turbines in Ontario border on criminal. (knowingly putting health at risk and causing loss of equity)
Dr. Ian Gemmill, Kingston’s medical officer of health said, “that though there are concerns about low-level noise, appearance and stress caused by the turbines, research has suggested that those effects don’t cause long-term health impacts after people are no longer living near wind farms“. (If a person has to move to have good health – health risk
Who is going to purchase the property – loss of equity.
Dr. Gemmill should have added stray voltage – a very real problem and health risk to both people and animals)italic added.
The reality is this.
Nowhere in the world has wind energy ever replaced, or caused the closure, of a fossil fuel plant.
Whether or not the coal plants in Ont. ever close, wind energy will not be the main contributing factor of any such closure.
Wind energy does not do a credible job of reducing emissions. If it did, the papers would be full of stories to that affect, they aren’t.
The main purpose of wind energy is to create carbon credits (e8).
Keeping the lights on and cutting emissions, is how wind energy is promoted in Ont. Neither is a credible statement.
At noon today the 472 MW’s of wind energy were producing – a not very
impressive 32 MW’s. I almost felt compelled to turn off my air conditioner. But then, it’s not my job to ensure we have power when needed, it’s yours, Mr. Premier. 8pm – 29 MWs
Premier McGuinty, if you think this post is harsh, it’s meant to be.
I visited with some more of your “wind farm” victims today.
They have been run out of their homes and had their lives turned upside down. WHY?
I also met with some of your “soon to be victims”.
How many more have to suffer Mr. McGuinty?
Poll Results- Is the Govt. being honest about wind energy (this blog)
Mr. McGuinty, the citizens and industry in this province require and deserve, a cost effective, stable electrical system.
Build it, or call an election.
Premier McGuinty, if you believe your energy plan will stand up to public scrutiny, lets have a televised debate.
You bring your experts and I’ll bring mine.
I have a feeling the public will have a very different view of wind energy after a good healthy debate, or after reading the article below.
Premier McGuinty, give me a call and lets get on with the televised debate. It’s time the public understands the reality of wind energy in Ontario.
It’s also time they came to grips with the global warming scam. 50 years later – we’re still waiting.
Note: I have invited the Ont. Govt., on several occasions, to check this blog for accuracy and to contact me if they disagree with, or question, the information contained on this blog. Even though the Ont. Govt. visits this site often, “site tracker” and I send them information, I have never had the Govt. question or challenge any information concerning wind energy posted here.
The judgement by the Lincolnshire Valuation Tribunal said it was apparent from the evidence submitted that the construction of the wind farm 930 metres away from the appeal dwelling had a significant detrimental effect on the appellants’ quiet enjoyment of their property.
“The tribunal found that the nuisance caused by the wind farm was real and not imagined and it would have an effect on the sale price of the appeal dwelling” said the judgement.
Now estate agents have acknowledged that the house, worth £170,000 before the wind farm was built in 2006, is now so severely blighted that no one is likely buy it.
Mr Lang said that the ruling is effectively an official admission that wind farms have a negative effect on house prices, and he said that the “victims” have had to rent a house five miles away where they go to sleep.
“It means many families in Scotland living in the shadow of giant turbines could see thousands wiped off the value of their homes as the Government pushes ahead with plans to build thousands more onshore wind turbines over the next decade to meet ambitious green targets.
“Jane Davis came up in September last year and gave a moving presentation in Auchtermuchty village hall on the subject of the intrusive, damaging and unpredictable noise from wind turbines.
“Since then she has been continuing in her own campaign and supporting others in the quest to have a safe buffer zone between wind turbines and dwellings.
“Scottish Planning Policy 6 sets out a distance of two kilometres from a village, but ignores the substantial number of dwellings that could be in that zone but not in a village.
“The effect on property prices is obvious and people should not be selectively economically disadvantaged in this way. There are about 30 properties within one kilometre of the EnergieKontor site near Ceres” said Mr Lang.
I want to personally thank all those who have fought the fight since the beginning. Without the dedication of those people, against extreme odds, there would be no chance of stopping the degradation of rural Ontario, or any other rural area. Wind farms are all about power. Not electrical power – but the power of Govt. and Corporations over the population.
The wind industry is a typical example of what democracy, removed, looks like.
Never forget – Democracy is not a right. If you want to live in a democratic country you must demand and defend it.
The media as whole is closed to you and me. It has become a mere tool, used to push govt. and corporate agendas, with no regard for the public.
The time has come for every citizen to wake up and become a participant in their democracy.
You need to make demands on your govt. and the media. Change only comes from pressure.
It is time we all proved our worth as citizens and apply the pressure required. You, own your country.
It does not belong to the govt. or the corporations.
It belongs to you and your children. Take the opportunity to prove to yourself and your children that you intend to live in a true democracy.
What other choice do you really have. Roll up your democratic sleeves and get to work.
Write your govt. and demand changes. Even more important, write your local and national media outlets and tell them in no uncertain terms that you intend to boycott them until they start reporting the truth.
Every wind farm in Ontario has had negative affects on the people and their property.
By Online Monday, July 28, 2008
By: Dr. Brian L. Horejsi, Dr. Barrie K. Gilbert, George Wuerthner
People are barking up the wrong tree by promoting, or succumbing to,
wind turbine construction regardless of where it is proposed and how
many there might be. Many North Americans are infected with tunnel
vision and erroneously appear to believe that turbine generated energy
is somehow linked to reversing the growth in and impact of Green House
Gas (GHG) emissions.
There exists NO evidence anywhere that Turbine energy is
substituting for or displacing fossil fuel dependence, nor is there any
evidence that it is in any material way slowing the rate of GHG
emission growth. Turbine energy is a non factor in the never ending
growth agenda of the fossil fuel industry, and it is not a factor in
the agenda of governments promoting growth in and dependence on oil and gas consumption. There can be no better example than North America of the failure of turbine energy to slow growth in anything.
People have been hoodwinked into promoting wind turbine energy as
some sort of Nirvana all while human population growth and per capita
energy consumption continue to spiral upward. Turbine energy generation
is fueling growth in human population and energy consumption and growth
in a false “economy”. It is NOT doing the opposite.
Matching the folly of the energy replacement misunderstanding is denial by governments and promoters of the ecological impacts and health effects of turbines; the ugly reality is that they are a serious addition to the industrialization of quiet rural landscapes that people have long valued for quality of life, retirement, and recreation.
The list of environmental costs imposed on wildlife and people are
now being recognized; they are far from meaningless, but they have been
trivialized by turbine promoters and politicians that have systematically tilted the deck sharply in the developers favor.
Environmental costs have been systematically ignored by a political and
regulatory system that has corrupted individual and societal freedom
and environmental integrity by relegating these values to some distant
offshoot of economic growth. These costs, and those who stand by them,
are treated with contempt; how dare they influence the decision to
grant some landowner a chance to make a buck by carving your backyard
and your space into fragments with giant chopping machines?
Wind turbines are an assault on human well being and act to degrade
the human “gestalt”. Promotion of wind turbine energy is a case of
serious misjudgment by those who fraudulently use green wash to promote
their commercial aspirations.
Buried deep within the human genome is an innate recognition and
suspicion of monsters – large objects – looming on the horizon. Wind
turbines are todays versions of a threatening monster, jammed down the
throats of neighbors and localities. 30% of the human cortex occupies
itself with processing visual information, far more than any other
sense, and nothing delivers a more intrusive and intense visual picture
than the tower and blades of wind turbines. Turbines erode freedom of
the human mind hour after hour, night after day, virtually forever,
like a cell phone ringing incessantly and yet no one is able to turn it
off. To many people this intrusion into their physical and physiological space is an insidious form of torment. The mental effect is analogous to the physical effects of a heavy smoker sitting next to you essentially for life!
We do not subscribe to the managerial / market approach to democracy
or conservation with its deeply entrenched bias against human values
such as an unadulterated horizon. This largely corporate view denigrates the value of freedom of the human spirit – the very pedestal upon which human dignity, character and strength are built.
In an honest and fair regulatory and political environment, local
citizens and communities would bury turbine projects long before they
get to the serious implementation stage. Once again, however, citizens
are being forced to try and employ the very tools that degrade our
quality of life and humiliate us as mere pawns of some corporate
created market economy. That being the case, it occurs to us that wind
turbines wearing eternally on the human psyche, constituting a “taking”
by corporate promoters and biased government collaborators; a taking
that damages the well being of all residents. We asked ourselves if
$1000 payment per person would compensate for the damages imposed on
the ever day life of hundreds and thousands of affected citizens? Not
even close. Perhaps then, $3000, or $8000? Would that kind of money
make up for the forced collapse of part of your quality of life, your
loss of right to space, loss of privacy, loss of political power, curbs
on your freedom, and the mental and physical costs imposed on you by
stress associated with constant angst, irritation and distraction? For
some, we suspect yes would be the answer. For others, like those who
have lost a child to negligent corporate behavior, been strangled
slowly by nicotine, or been poisoned by toxic emissions or effluent, no
amount of money can compensate for the deprivation and harm they have
and will suffer. Regardless of the compensatory damages you might place
on that part of your life lost because of turbine industrialization,
should you not be compensated for this taking?
The commercial private sector is forcing itself into your life, and
that constitutes a taking of your rights, benefits and well being. We
propose that each person impacted by a turbine receive, as a starting
point for negotiations, $3000 annually, to be paid by the developer for
the loss of private and citizen rights, a very large portion of which
includes peace and satisfaction, a critical part of your state of mind.
We all know that is a significant part of personal, social and democratic well being. The concept is simple; if the developer and some uncaring land owners want to destroy your rights and those of other citizens, inflicting on you suffering and mental distress, the good old “free” enterprise system developers and local governments love to hide behind, comes into play; they pay to destroy part of your life. There has to be pain and resistance in the system for those who knowingly exploit the public and individual vulnerability, a now institutionalized vulnerability which commercial and private sector interests worked hard to establish.
The recent proliferation of wind turbine farms is just one more case
of the serious aggression and destruction that reflects the continuing
expansion of an extremist private property and commercialism agenda.
This socially, legally and politically defective agenda and process is being exploited by corporations, some local residents, and local governments. Ladies and gentlemen, this is not freedom and it is not democracy; it is vandalism and oppression in the name of commercialism.
As citizens we have the right, and we say the obligation, and we must
marshal the courage, to reject wind turbine invasions as a corruption
of our well being that is cached “in our spirit rather than in our wallet”.
Dr. Brian L. Horejsi
Behavioral scientist and citizen advocate for democratic process
Box 84006, PO Market Mall
Calgary, Alberta, T3A 5C4
Dr. Barrie K. Gilbert
Wildlife Ecologist and conservation activist
Wolfe Island, Ontario KOH 2HO
Ecologist and writer.
POB 719, Richmond,
28 July 2008
Dalton McGuinty, Premier of Ontario
Sir: The reason you said we need to erect wind turbines in Ontario ,was because of the need to reduce CO2, in order to fight global warming.
According to Anthony Cary- High Commissioner for the United Kingdom you are incorrect in your assessment of the situation.
Apr. 25th 2007- Anthony Cary- High Commissioner for the United Kingdom stated at a Club of Rome (Canada ) meeting. “There is no direct link between CO2 emission and climate change”.
Are you telling the citizens of Ontario the truth, or are you pushing the Green Agenda. After all,it was the Club of Rome that said “We came up with the idea of global warming”
One thing for sure, your office continues to show absolute disrespect for the health and property values of the people of Ontario.
Do the right thing – and in the process gain some respect for yourself and your office.
Put a moratorium on wind turbine construction until a proper health study has been done and reviewed by an independent panel.
Otherwise, people might think you’re putting the desires of both, the Club of Rome and the UN ahead of the citizens of Ontario.
That might be looked upon as a dereliction of your duties Mr. Premier.
By Nigel Bunyan and Martin Beckford
Thousands of homeowners may see the value of their properties plummet after a court ruled that living near a wind farm decreases house prices.
In a landmark case, Jane Davis was told she will get a discount on her council tax because her £170,000 home had been rendered worthless by a turbine 1,000 yards away.
|Estate agents have said no one is likely to buy the Jones’s house, which was worth £170,000 before the wind farm was built|
The ruling is effectively an official admission that wind farms, which are accused of spoiling countryside views and producing a deafening roar, have a negative effect on house prices.
It means many other families living in the shadow of the giant turbines could see thousands wiped off the value of their homes, as the Government pushes ahead with plans to build 7,000 more wind farms over the next decade to meet ambitious green targets.
Campaigners also fear ministers want to remove the legal right to complain about noise nuisance, condemning those who live near wind farms to years of blight and reducing the opportunity for them to resist expansion plans.
Mrs Davis, who launched a nationwide campaign after her own home was rendered worthless by the deafening roar of a wind farm, claims ministers are tabling an amended to the Planning Act which will remove eight crucial words that previously offered at least some protection to householders
“For people living near wind farms, both now and in the future, it will be a disaster,” she said.
“There are many, many people living in Middle England who have worked hard all their lives and yet will see the values of their homes suddenly diminish.
“This isn’t about Nimbyism, but the rights of ordinary people to live a normal life.”
Mrs Davis, 52, a retired nurse, lives 1,017 (930m) from a wind farm at Deeping St Nicholas, Lincolnshire. Her husband, Julian, 43, originally bought the property from the county council and the couple had planned to extend it.
But the noise generated by the turbines is so severe, particularly when certain winds make all the blades rotate in unison, that it left the Davises unable to sleep. They currently live in a rented house a few miles away.
“It’s just like the effect you get in a car when the sun roof is open or a window at the back is open. In a car you can do something about it. But if it’s in your house and is coming from a giant turbine a few yards away, you can do nothing,” said Mrs Davis.
Local estate agents have acknowledged that the house, worth £170,000 before the wind farm was built in 2006, is now so severely blighted that no one is likely buy it.
Earlier this week the Davises won a landmark victory that reduced their council tax banding.
Although financially the difference is minimal, the reduction was granted on the basis that their home had been blighted by noise “on the balance of probability”.
Furthermore, the couple secured the ruling in the absence of a statutory noise nuisance – a fact that brought dismay to wind farm operators.
But Mrs Davis now fears the imminent change in legislation will turn the advantage back to the wind farm lobby, which is planning to build 4,000 turbines across the countryside – double the current number – and increase the number of those offshore from 150 to 3,000 by 2020.
The Evans Town Board has delayed discussion on three wind energy
laws that would regulate both commercial and noncommercial facilities.
Board members will pick up discussion when they meet again Aug. 20. The board held public hearings on the laws Wednesday night.
Although the board received communications from the town Planning Board
indicating strong support of the proposed laws, two residents voiced
concerns over their language.
William Henry of Pontiac Road asked the town to review the proposals, . . .
According to Tod Nash, operations manager for the Maple Ridge
Wind Farm, shaft bearings for “only a select few [windmills] upon
inspection,” will be needed in the coming months. Nash told the Journal
the project will be “hopefully done by winter.” Nash said that the
maintenance was not routine, but a warranty situation.
Massachusetts-based First Wind, formerly known as UPC Wind, is
the subject of allegations of wrongdoing in New York, along with a
Connecticut-based Noble Environmental Power LLC, according to the New
York Attorney General’s Office.
First Wind is the firm behind the wind farm proposal in Sheffield.
N.Y. Attorney General Andrew M. Cuomo alleges there have been improper
dealings with public officials as well as anti-competitive practices.
Subpoenas were served on First Wind, based in Newton, Mass., and the . . .
Two wind power companies developing windmill projects in
Western New York — including Steel Winds on the old Bethlehem Steel
plant site in Lackawanna — are under investigation by State Attorney
General Andrew M. Cuomo for possible improper dealings with local
Subpoenas were served Tuesday on First Wind, the lead developer of
Steel Winds, which is also developing larger, rural “wind farms” in
Steuben, Chautauqua, Genesee and Wyoming counties; and Noble
Environmental Power, . . .
Noble Environmental Power LLC and a second wind-energy firm are
under investigation by the state Attorney General’s Office for
“improper dealings with public officials and anti-competitive
“We’ve had a number of complaints from counties all over the state,
from Franklin all the way over to Erie,” said John Milgrim, spokesman
for Attorney General Andrew Cuomo.
Franklin County District Attorney Derek Champagne was among “DAs from
eight counties, public officials and citizens” who bombarded Albany
with complaints . . .
“The law needs to be more specific,” was the general sentiment
at the standing-room -only public hearing in Spafford where concerned
residents, television cameras and others gathered Thursday to comment
on the proposed wind turbine regulations.
Town supervisor Webb Stevens opened the meeting by saying the proposed
regulations were for personal use only, as there are four pending
applications for the construction of personal turbines and the planning
board has no regulations to guide them. He . . .
Allegations of Improper Dealings with Public Officials and Anti-Competitive Practices
Subpoenas Served on First Wind/UPC Wind and Noble Environmental Power, LLC
ALBANY, NY (July 15, 2008) — Attorney General Andrew M. Cuomo announced
today the launching of an investigation into two companies developing
and operating wind farms across New York state amid allegations of
improper dealings with public officials and anti-competitive practices.
Wind farms are clusters of large electricity-generating turbines powered by wind and connected to the electric . . .
The state attorney general is launching an investigation aimed
at two out-of-state companies developing wind farms in Lackawanna and
across New York.
The probe, announced Tuesday, comes amid allegations of improper dealings with public officials and anti-competitive practices.
Investigators have served subpoenas on Newton, Mass.,-based First Wind
and Essex, Conn.,-based Noble Environmental Power LLC. First Wind built
the Steel Winds project along Lake Erie in the city of Lackawanna and
has wind farms in development in . . .
A consumer advice report in the July 7 News was headlined: “With
new wind, solar projects, why are electric rates rising?” The
Associated Press writer notes correctly that electric power from coal
is still less expensive than from wind and solar. But he should have
added that so is power from most other major conventional sources he
mentions, and those sources provide power on demand, when it is needed,
not just when the wind blows.
Land-based . . .
The Town of Malone is closing four roads to most truck traffic,
claiming the pavement can’t take the daily punishment, and people are
The impacted highways are Porter Road, Goodman Road, Thomas Hill Road and River Road.
A public hearing will be held Wednesday at 5:15 p.m. in the Town
Offices at the Malone-Dufort Airport, giving residents and business
owners a chance to tell the Town Council what they think of the idea of
limiting . . .