Article

Taxpayers left twisting in the wind? Not if PSC can help it.

The state Public Service Commission recently said that before industrial wind projects could be approved that they had to: 1. Prove that their electricity was not just going to replace an existing source of renewable (i.e. low CO2) energy, and, 2. Verify that available transmission capability was sufficient to carry their anticipated new power. Wow. My first reaction was, "You mean to say that these things haven't been being formally checked out all along?" The admission of that is simply astounding.

A few days ago, there was a most revealing article in the Albany Times Union, and it affects all state residents.

Let's see if I have this right.

The state Public Service Commission recently said that before industrial wind projects could be approved that they had to: 1. Prove that their electricity was not just going to replace an existing source of renewable (i.e. low CO2) energy, and, 2. Verify that available transmission capability was sufficient to carry their anticipated new power.

Wow. My first reaction was, "You mean to say that these things haven't been being formally checked out all along?" The admission of that is simply astounding.

Then I see from the story that the big multi-national wind companies have objected to these "conditions" as being too expensive. Additionally, they expressed great concern that if the results of these analyses turned out to be negative, that this information could be used against them as a basis to turn down a project. Imagine that!

So, in other words, state taxpayers and ratepayers should simply fund the developers' lucrative projects even though they may well be providing zero environmental benefit... more [truncated due to possible copyright]  

A few days ago, there was a most revealing article in the Albany Times Union, and it affects all state residents.

Let's see if I have this right.

The state Public Service Commission recently said that before industrial wind projects could be approved that they had to: 1. Prove that their electricity was not just going to replace an existing source of renewable (i.e. low CO2) energy, and, 2. Verify that available transmission capability was sufficient to carry their anticipated new power.

Wow. My first reaction was, "You mean to say that these things haven't been being formally checked out all along?" The admission of that is simply astounding.

Then I see from the story that the big multi-national wind companies have objected to these "conditions" as being too expensive. Additionally, they expressed great concern that if the results of these analyses turned out to be negative, that this information could be used against them as a basis to turn down a project. Imagine that!

So, in other words, state taxpayers and ratepayers should simply fund the developers' lucrative projects even though they may well be providing zero environmental benefit (replacing hydro), and may not be able to have their power go into the state grid?

That should make it quite clear to anyone paying attention as to what their motivation is - and it is not about benefiting state residents, the environment or the electricity situation.

And then, to top it off, a purported "environmental" representative - Carol Murphy, executive director of the Alliance for Clean Energy New York - was asked for her take on all this.

She says that the PSC's required checks are: "ridiculous, they're not helpful at all. They send a very, very bad message. What they tell people to do is try to avoid the PSC." She went on to say that the alliance might sue the PSC on this matter. Looking at the alliance's mission statement (www.aceny.org/about/mission-statement.cfm), it makes bold proclamations about their organization being all about benefiting New York state economically and reducing air pollution.

Sounds like their public relations people may not be in communication with their executive director. Why would they object to making sure that renewable (low CO2) energy was really being saved and that the power being paid for was really going to the grid?

Oh, yes, I get it now. They are really wind energy lobbyists, and those good words about their "mission" are just a sleight-of-hand show to rope in the gullible public to support their self-serving lobbying efforts. It's good that this situation has given us an opportunity to see their real spots!

So kudos to the PSC for finally asking for some extremely reasonable information. Hopefully this will be the start for them asking for even more worthwhile data, and more are definitely needed. (See www.northnet.org/brvmug/WindPower/NYSERDA_Questions.pdf for some examples.)

Raspberries for the wind industry for not accepting their corporate responsibilities.

Disdain for blatant lobbyists like ACE-NY, whose more appropriate acronym should be JOKER-NY.


Source: http://www.uticaod.com/gues...

NOV 4 2009
http://www.windaction.org/posts/22960-taxpayers-left-twisting-in-the-wind-not-if-psc-can-help-it
back to top