Wind energy is not a local issue. Small towns and schools don't have the high-priced lawyers and experts to evaluate a project or fight on their behalf when payment in lieu of taxes agreements are inked. Nor do they have jurisdiction on projects that might be just over the town or district line. Before New York began its push for renewable energy, it should have funded objective research into the proper siting of wind towers. Surely somewhere between 1,000 feet and 1 1/2 miles is a setback that most people and wind energy companies can live with. ...State lawmakers manage to issue a press release on every headline of the day, from sex offender registries to a proposal for a gas-tax holiday. They are strangely silent on the gradual, haphazard implementation of wind utilities across the state. The time of leadership has come and nearly gone.

The foreign-owned companies that are rushing to put 406-foot industrial wind turbines in our beautiful Thousand Islands area are not thinking about our safety or welfare or even about helping the environment. They just want to line their pockets with your tax dollars. The industrial wind turbines are subsidized with your federal and state taxes as well as surcharges collected from your electric bill. They will not reduce our nation's dependence on foreign oil since we do not use much oil to make electricity. ...The towns of Clayton and Orleans said that it's OK to put a 406-foot industrial wind turbine 500 feet from your property line or 1,250 feet from your home. That is too close for our health and safety.

I took a run this weekend over to Ellenburg and Clinton, N.Y., to see 121 wind turbines at work. These are the 400-foot behemoths installed over the fall and winter by Noble Environmental Power. They're the first of nearly 400 towers planned for this windy stretch of scrub and farmland just south of the Canadian border. We've been arguing about wind energy in Vermont for more than five years now. ... Only two conclusions were inescapable: First, a wind project undoubtedly transforms the landscape, for better or worse. Second, seeing a wind "farm" at work won't settle the argument over "better or worse."

The state Department of Environmental Conservation made the right decision in naming itself the lead agency on the Galloo Island Wind Project. Upstate NY Power Corp.'s plan to build 77 turbines on the mainly undeveloped island will have a major environmental impact on the immediate area. But the wind towers, transmission line and infrastructure will affect the region as well. ...This sets an important precedent for other wind power projects being considered in the region and state. The DEC is most qualified to conduct such reviews. It has the expertise and financial resources to take an independent look at the local, regional and statewide implications of such ventures.

There are mornings when I step outside in my Greece housing tract and all is calm and tranquil. But when I arrive at Ontario Beach, the wind is literally howling in off the lake. And that, in a nutshell, is why many birders are uneasy, to say the least, about energy-generating wind turbines. The lakeshore is one of the very best places to look for birds because it is a key migration corridor for everything from geese to hawks to songbirds. But it is also one of the most promising places for wind turbines because of the unobstructed onshore breezes. And so the big question: If turbines are built along the lakeshore, how many of those migrating birds will collide with them and be killed?

While we're sure the PDC has spear-headed many worthwhile ideas for Perry over the years, the immediate gratification mentality being displayed by the PDC in their pursuit of the quick buck in the case of wind is astoundingly short-sighted. The wind industry themselves says the life of a project may be 20 years. What then? ...A Bliss man recently told us that promises of reduced taxes for the area are also blown way out of proportion, as he's saving a whopping $54 a year compared to last year. ...What's really at stake here - that you simply can not put a price tag on - is peoples' quality of life! Sorry fellas, but our quality of life is NOT FOR SALE AT ANY PRICE! As environmentalist Jon Boone said, "Perhaps people would be willing to sacrifice their quality of life on the altar of 'green' energy if it actually worked as they claim."

As you now know from my last report, it appears likely that a final decision on Hamlin’s much debated wind turbine regulation law will come later this month. For nearly two years this clash of neighbors, farmers, and town leaders, has swirled about this Lake Ontario community. ...While it’s not addressed much in public, I’ve been told by some that an overly restrictive wind turbine law could open up the board to a lawsuit from farmers and landowners who feel their right to do what they want with their own land is being prohibited. At the same time, a large number of concerned neighbors could consider legal action if they feel this local law doesn’t take into account their concerns about property values and quality of life.

In his March 27 letter to this paper, Paul Mason chastises Cape Vincent anti-wind residents and taxpayers as rumor-mongers and blames them for the divide in the community. He essentially says we are uninformed. That is a generalized argument all its own. But he is correct on one score. There is one thing, I must admit, we do not know for sure and I can't get an answer to at the St. Lawrence Wind Farm office. Perhaps he'd like to help us all out and give us the answer. Of all the members of the Planning Board, and/or any other board for that matter, how many members stand to profit from the wind farm? How much? Their families? How about state Sen. Darrel Aubertine?

I read the letter from by Paul C. Mason, Cape Vincent, "Uninformed Cape wind foes spread rumors." I may not have visited the office of the St. Lawrence Wind Farm, but I have attended their informational meetings and presentation of their Draft Environmental Impact Statement to the Cape Vincent Planning Board (which was incomplete) as well as the meetings held by BP and the presentation of their DEIS, which was also incomplete. ...When townspeople started to question how many, how big and where they were going to be placed, that is when everything got ugly. So now we are a town divided. Whose fault is that? Maybe it was the way it was done when they sneak behind closed doors. Maybe because it is a subject that divides families and friends. You cannot blame anyone who asks questions of these companies, after all the people who signed away the rights to their land for 20 to 30 years have lost their rights to question anything or anyone. So that leaves me. I still have all of my rights, and I intend to use them.

Tanton explained, "Capacity factor and kilowatt hours are not pertinent ... the ONLY measure that is for this application ("How many homes...") is Capacity CREDIT, also sometimes referred to as capacity value. Capacity Credit is the percentage of nameplate capacity (applies to all types, not just wind) that can be counted on every, and any hour of the year. It is most important during 'peak' hours, which can be summer or winter depending on the region." Tanton emphasized, "Capacity Credit is a statistically determined number, but for most wind facilities is between 0% and 10%. In essence, industrial wind turbines - regardless of how many, power NO HOMES at all because it is not there when it's needed (just like a fair-weather friend). There is a vast difference between power and energy."

What do wind developers look for in a county and its township before putting their cross hairs on them? ...I think they scope out elected officials to see if they have any moral or ethical values, using a proverb like "they will fall for anything, because they stand for nothing." They found Herkimer County. They came in under the cover of darkness, behind closed doors and found their scarecrows. A scarecrow is a landowner who signs a contract to have industrial wind turbine erected on their land for money, but they must sign a contract that says they cannot bring a suit against the developers due to any nuisances (ill-effects, though the developer says there are none) the turbines cause them or their family.

High costs aren't the only problem facing New Yorkers. They also must worry whether the lights will stay on. Recently, the state's power-grid operator predicted looming shortages unless the state builds more power plants over the next decade to meet rising demand. That's no easy feat. With the 2003 expiration of Article X of the Public Service Law, which streamlined the permitting process for building large power plants, it now can take more than five years for a proposed plant to get built. Consequently, few investors are lining up to build the plants New York needs. The Spitzer administration favored an extension of Article X but with a green twist. The law, Spitzer said, must exclude nuclear and coal-fired plants. Such provisions may please environmental groups, but it won't do anything to help add the 2,750 megawatts needed to maintain the reliability of the New York grid by 2017.

Jack A. Nasca, chief of DEC's energy projects and management division of environmental projects, made a persuasive case for his agency taking the lead. He noted in a letter to his boss, Alexander B. "Pete" Grannis, that the "anticipated impacts" of the wind farm are "primarily of statewide and/or regional significance as opposed to local significance." The project will require installing an underwater transmission line along with other construction activity, which will mean heavy boat traffic to and from the island, and could disrupt fish spawning and bird populations with long-term ramifications ..."The impacts from the loss of a unique habitat of regional importance and the potential for impact to resident and migratory bird and bat species of statewide importance will remain for the operational life of the project," Mr. Nasca wrote. Terns on the state list of threatened species nest on the island, which is also near other important bird habitat.

Having read several different industrial wind energy landowner contracts, I really have to hand it to wind developers. In exchange for a few thousand dollars, the wind company can preempt landowners' rights to: extract sand and gravel from their property, develop mineral rights on their property, allow hunting, build additional outbuildings or plant trees, etc. If, in the sole discretion of the wind developer, such activities would interfere with or alter the flow of wind currents over the property, or interfere in any way with the building or operation of the wind project. ...Yes, I really have to hand it to these wind developers, and if you have signed one of these leases, you probably already have.

During the past year, several towns in the region have grappled with the issue of wind power, but none perhaps more contentiously than Meredith in Delaware County. Regardless of how you stand on wind power, Meredith has become a great example of townspeople with the legal right to control their fate actually exercising their democratic powers to take charge of their lives. A year ago, Meredith planners were working on an ordinance to regulate industrial wind turbines. After their work was completed, the town board made changes to their proposal, held hearings and passed a law many thought too lenient to wind-power developers. So, in July, when it was time to file to run for town offices in the November election, the planning chairman and others who opposed the town board's action decided to use the ballot box to get the power to rescind the ordinance they opposed.

I continue to be amazed, and alarmed, by decisions being made in regard to industrial wind installations without the foreign-owned developers first being required to provide proof of all of their claims. It has always been my understanding that good common sense business practices dictate that responsible persons first demand proof of claims being made before jumping into business with anyone, and then seek competitive bids in order to assure the absolute best service, goods, and financial agreement possible for the person, community, and/or entire region entering into these business deals. To date, neither has happened in the case of industrial wind energy development in Western New York. Sadly, what we are left with is the looming industrialization of our countrysides, the apparent indifference as to whether wind actually does what it claims or not, and many other unanswered questions.

There are so many other questions out there that need national answers. Are biofuels in general really worth the cost to the environment and the economy? Does wind power cut it when you compare the rising cost of oil with the construction costs of a large scale wind farm? Can we make more effective use of photovoltaics, lowering the price and producing solar energy in bulk for the grid? And, how much do we need to spend on energy efficiency to make it really effective without blowing a gaping hole in our gas and electric bills? This nation will be better served if our candidates spend more time proposing the development of a national Green Energy Agenda. Simply saying you're Green doesn't make it so.

A proposed wind farm with 77 turbines on Galloo Island has brought to the fore an often overlooked discussion of the need for new transmission lines to get the power from the turbines into the electrical grid for distribution to homes and businesses. ...The location of wind farms contributes to the problem. They are commonly sited in remote or more rural regions where winds are stronger. Doing so can create regional confrontations since the communities being asked to bear the brunt of the lines often do not directly benefit from power being sent into other areas or even out of state.

Eminent domain could be used for turbine placement and total number of units, all in the name of feasibility and "the public good." Local laws, no matter how restrictive, will be irrelevant once eminent domain is unleashed. All three levels of government seem unable to deal with the issue fairly. The state is bent on producing 25 percent green energy at any cost, not protecting rural citizens' safety and individual rights. The county cares only about the money, how much they get and who controls it without any responsibility for health, quality of life and property rights of all taxpayers. Local governments (some) try, but are no match for billion-dollar companies promising thousands of dollars to landowners as fast as they can. Seduced by money that's lavished on them, some officials and landowners ignore problems while trying to railroad through projects before anyone knows what's happening.

"While renewable energy technologies can be more expensive than conventional sources in the first instance, the environmental, economic growth and public health benefits from their use justify the public investment," the Paterson report states flat-out. I would argue that this statement should be viewed as a working hypothesis, and doesn't deserve yet to be considered a proven fact. How expensive is too expensive? Which conventional sources? Some are far more polluting than others, for example. That quote from the report shows us the zeal of the alternative energies movement. With that zeal comes a touch of arrogance, because if you read through the Paterson report recommendations, there are thinly veiled justifications for running roughshod over local zoning and the opinions of those who actually have to live with solar panels, wind turbines or whatever. "The greater good" argument is just beneath the surface, and that makes me very nervous.