Remarks Delivered To The Assembly Committee On Energy And The Subcommittee On Renewable Eenergy, Examining Policy And Implementation Plans For The RPS Program

We are here today because we are people who could find ourselves living within the boundaries of immense wind factories stretching across hundreds of miles of rural New York State.  We are here today to speak for those citizens across this state who call for regulation of such projects, so that we may preserve our countryside and the peace and tranquility of our lives and the lives of our neighbors.

We, who could well find ourselves living upon an endless sea of 400-500 foot towers, understand the critical need for a coordinated statewide approach to renewable energy projects that deal with appropriate siting and environmental impact.  Now chaos prevails.  There is no single agency with legislative oversight of renewable energy programs in New York State.  

Up until 1995 the state Energy Council (together with the PSC) was responsible for the protection and promotion of the health and safety of the inhabitants of the state who live near energy producing facilities.  Wind energy is a new technology; it was not considered when the Energy Office and the PSC drew up safety regulations.  When the Energy Office was disbanded in 1995 there was no longer an over-arching agency responsible for health and safety issues.  At present, the PSC is itself not empowered to address these issues.

Blade throw, fire, tower collapse, ice shedding, shadow flicker, lightning, vandalism, trespass and noise from wind turbines are all issues of public health and safety.  However, the state health department has no regulations concerning these issues, while the Department of State has determined that wind turbine farms are not regulated under the Uniform Fire Prevention and Building Code.  And SEQR has no teeth to enforce health and safety regulations that don't exist in the first place.  In addition, small rural towns lack the expertise to utilize the SEQR process properly.  In face of monumental challenges posed by projects of monumental scale, communities are unable to protect their environmental and socio-economic resources.

Due to federal and state tax credits, RPS and SBC, accelerated depreciation and relief from property taxes through PILOTs, an irresistible enticement has been created, attracting wind developers to New York State.  In their pitch to potential investors, developers routinely suggest that double-digit returns can be predicted over the 15-year period from a project's inception through the final expiration of its tax exemption.  Wind farms are considered nothing but short-term investments by firms like Goldman Sachs and J. P. Morgan Chase.

Yet NYSERDA accepts and distributes consumption-generated surcharges without legislative authority, without health and safety regulations, and without respect to the viability of those renewable projects it endows.

In order to receive quantifiable benefits from the gift of these tax subsidies, a statewide siting plan should be developed to establish, “Wind Zones” similar to the existing “Empire Zones” for economic development and Brownfield Cleanup Program.  The siting plan would consider the wind potential first, of course, and overlay other criteria such as population density, background noise, cultural and historic resources, etc. to maximize efficiency while minimizing impacts.

Unfettered, wind factories have the potential to forever compromise some of the most beautiful landscapes in America.  A single, discrete turbine might possibly be an object of aesthetic admiration.  But, if they should come to march in the thousands across our hills and ridge tops, no one will then argue that turbines are anything but a blight upon the landscape.  We can now glimpse this frightful vision of the future at Tug Hill.    Yet no state agency is examining the potential effects and cumulative impact of this scenario.

Industrial wind projects are unprecedented in their size and scope. At present, wind installation proposals are evaluated separately by local towns and agencies. These towns simply do not have the experience or sophistication to deal with projects that can encompass more than 30,000 acres of land and include literally hundreds of industrial machines.

In many cases it is an Industrial Development Agency that acts as lead agent for the SEQR process.  Such agencies typically bring to the table very little expertise of their own.  Further they are in large part not answerable to their county legislatures or to the towns themselves.  Their interests and ambitions too often fail to coincide with those local communities whose futures will be so greatly impacted by their decisions.

For example, in Chautaugua County, as cited in the May 12, 2004 response to the RPS comments, concerns had been voiced that NYSERDA executed contracts with three insufficiently vetted developers.  The consequence was $100,000.00 of uncollected debt for environmental studies done by the towns of Westfield and Ripley.

The wind developers routinely brush aside health issues.  They deny that turbines are noisy.  One resident near the Fenner turbines who had initially favored the project had this to say:

                "Unfortunately we were not given all of the facts or we were given
                somewhat twisted information.   We were told that the windmills had been
               redesigned so as not to be noisy but the grinding noise goes on 24 hours a
               day (when they are operating) and at times is far worse than other times.
               On a stormy night the wind howls through our bedroom like a freight train.
               Yes, I know the blades stop when the wind reaches a certain velocity but
               nevertheless they don't magically disappear and the wind continues
               to hit them, greatly increasing the sound that travels over them.  In the
               middle of the summer we cannot enjoy our yard or have the windows open
               because these machines constantly grind and have a negative effect on ones
               nerves.  When at the house I find that my nerves are constantly on edge."

    Another resident says:

               "Well, as I sit in my kitchen and type this on my computer I hear
               the constant hum of the blades, its early November, a brisk day and of
               course the windows are closed so that muffles the sound a little. In the
               summer, with the windows open there is nothing to block out the humming or
               the grinding sound that the turbine makes when it is being turned.  When
               people tell you that the wind towers are virtually noiseless, they haven't
               lived a couple of football fields away from one 24/7."

Typically, a wind factory representative will prospect a small town, informally approach the Town Board with its plan, and then quietly canvas the area, asking people on the ridge tops to sign leases, further pledging them to secrecy.  In almost every case they manage to sign up a member or two of the local governing body, thereby ensuring friendly votes. This was the case in the towns of Cherry Valley, Italy, Palatine Bridge, Prattsburgh, Stark, Warren, Fairfield, Norway, Meredith and Middleburg.

The average citizen is expectedly not well versed in the details of wind factory development and its potential impact on his community. Therefore, the initial source of information most people have is what is given them by the developers themselves.  Local officials, seduced by vague promises of substantial revenue, too quickly ally themselves with the developers

In most cases the majority of landowners and residents are unaware of the projects until quite some time has gone by. In Prattsburgh the SEQR report prepared by the developer alleged that their wind project was announced in 2001, and since property values didn't decrease at that time, they claimed this as evidence that wind turbines would not adversely impact property values.  The Steuben County IDA accepted that finding as true. Yet, outside of the few lessors, the community simply did not know of the project until 2003.

It is exclusively the industry or its trade groups that have conducted studies of the impact of turbines on property values.  The much-publicized REPP report is so structurally flawed, that any independent analysis must conclude it is worthless.

Consequently, town officials, in consort with wind developers, are quick to brush off resident concerns about the environmental impact of wind turbines. A resident of Fenner reports as follows:
   
                    "We have some absolutely gorgeous sunrises and sunsets in Fenner.
                    As the sun slowly rises to the east of our house it usually bathes our
                    bedroom wall with its rays, unfortunately, we now get a strobe effect that
                    can drive you absolutely crazy. It's commonly called the "flicker factor".
                    As the sun shines through the rotors it creates a shadow pattern that you
                    would liken to a strobe light.  Because of the close proximity of 4 of the
                    towers to our house we get this light show at various times of the day as
                    the sun travels from east to west. Most of the time I have to close our
                    shades to prevent this from giving me a migraine"

In Prattsburgh in the summer of 2003, over 400 people signed a petition asking the Town Board to declare a moratorium in order to learn more about wind energy. The response was that "It would cost the wind companies too much money.  If you have any questions just ask the wind developers."  In the Town of Cherry Valley, at a public meeting, the past supervisor dismissed a moratorium petition out of hand - though it was signed by nearly 250 people - by suggesting the wastebasket as an appropriate file.
 
The wind developers typically lead people to believe that turbines will be smaller than what appear in the final proposal.  They tell people, "Your neighbors are signing up so you may as well."  They require that options be signed, suggesting that minds can be changed at a later date, Down the road, the lessor, lacking sophistication and often not seeking an attorney's advice, discovers that he has essentially relinquished control of his land for many years to come.

It should be public officials who look out for the health and safety of residents - this should not be left to the discretion of predatory wind developers.  In Prattsburgh, developers have urged - and sometimes attempted to coerce - lease holders to sign waivers, allowing the developers to put turbines as close as 300 feet from property lines - this is closer than the industry itself recommends.  People sign these waivers because they are assured that nothing will ever happen.

Unlike other parts of the country, in New York, turbines are proposed for heavily wooded areas as well as open fields.   Many installations are proposed for existing residential areas.   We must ask how local rural fire departments are going to deal with fires from lightning strikes or mechanical failures. 

The wind developers tell us that incidents are so rare as to be "statistically insignificant".   In Australia there was a turbine fire last month.  The newspaper reports, "40 firefighters and six trucks rushed to the wind farm to extinguish the blaze but fire hose water couldn't reach the steel generator at the top of the tower. Instead, the firefighters watched as fire destroyed the $3 million turbine which weighs 75 tonnes - and extinguished spot fires ignited by ashes from the turbine blaze."

At the time of the fire, Australia was in the middle of a heat wave and needed the turbines in production in order to meet peak demand.  Yet because of the extreme heat many of the turbines were unable to operate.  Here is a pathetic irony; the heat itself prevented the turbines from being of any use precisely when they were most needed.

The wind companies are using the Renewable Portfolio Standard to rationalize their existence, but they are not making an effort to demonstrate in their SEQR submissions that they will actually reduce emissions.  They are certainly not advertising that in New York.  A recent report prepared for NYSERDA by GE Energy concludes that because inland wind patterns are "out of phase" with actual load patterns the "effective capacity" of inland sites is only 10 percent." At that level of efficiency, it would take eighteen thousand turbines spread out over an absolute minimum one million acres of ridge tops in New York State to satisfy the RPS hope to have 10 percent of Summer Peak Load met through wind power.  

NYSERDA doesn't seem to have ever done the arithmetic.  And it routinely allows wind developers to overstate their case.  In Cherry Valley the developer has allowed that its proposed 20 turbines will provide enough electricity for "up to 43,000 homes."  That is 100 percent efficiency!  The catch here is to watch the words "up to".

At present, if the developer chooses to build a project where wind conditions do not meet the minimum guidance of 7 meters/second set forth in the NYSERDA toolkit no one in state government takes notice.  Someone ought to - not just because public monies are employed, but because the entire point of the RPS is to provide enough renewable energy to effectively reduce emissions. Otherwise, the projects are nothing more than green window dressing.

At the same time, no one is seriously looking at the environmental impact of these projects.  It is the wind companies themselves who assume responsibility for obtaining environmental studies on birds, bats, water, noise, flicker, ice throw, etc.  Shouldn't there be an unbiased government agency supervising all environmental studies affecting wildlife as well as the health and safety of human beings?    (The DEC can make recommendations in reviewing a project proposal, but it has no enforcement authority.) Does anyone seriously think that a wind developer is going to say, "Gee, our project will kill too many bats - we don't want to build here"?  In Prattsburgh the developer missed an important part of the migration season, and then concluded that the turbines wouldn't affect migrating birds.  The IDA accepted that finding.

Wind companies steadfastly maintain that there is no problem with ice throw. A 2003 study concluded that New York has the iciest conditions in the entire country.   But developers in New York State routinely ignore evidence that ice can be thrown over 1600 feet by placing turbines less than 500 feet from roadways.

During a recent windstorm in Searsburg Vermont there was a lightning strike that caused a turbine blade to fall off - the largest piece, weighing 20 pounds - was found 250 feet away from the tower.  The smallest piece was found one thousand feet from the tower.

They also pay no attention to DEC guidelines for noise quality.   The fact that noise patterns cannot be easily modeled, that in the countryside acceptable background noise is far lower than elsewhere, and that problems cannot be addressed retroactively is glossed over.  Acoustic engineers now generally recommend turbines be placed no closer than one mile from residences.  In this state developers typically plan turbines within 800-1200 feet of existing homes, closer if landowners sign waivers.

People in state government have told us repeatedly that SEQR is the mechanism through which the environment, as well as health and safety issues can be properly safeguarded.  But that is simply not true.  In Steuben County the IDA is the lead agent for the Ecogen wind project as well as Windfarm Prattsburgh. SCIDA has approved Ecogen's SEQR and will receive $275,000 when it works out the PILOT program for Ecogen and the same amount for Windfarm Prattsburgh.  If it had rejected the Ecogen SEQR it would of course receive nothing.

During the SEQR process SCIDA has consistently stuck to the letter of the law while ignoring its spirit. For example, last fall they held a six-hour meeting to discuss Ecogen's FGEIS.  This was supposed to be an open meeting, but they changed their usual time and did not place notices in the paper.  They did not break any laws, but neither did they make a true effort to ensure that the public would be present and they were not, since no one knew the meeting was taking place.

The Ecogen FGEIS was over 3000 pages long and the review period was ten days.  For much of that time the document was not available on line.  Individuals and agencies in Albany were told to come into the Steuben County office if they wanted to read it.  Again, SCIDA broke no rules, but they were not adhering to the spirit of SEQR.  And SCIDA need not answer to anyone but itself.

In May 2002, responding to a wind project proposed by Global Winds Harvest, the Cherry Valley-Springfield School Board resolved to opt out of the PILOT program.  They thereby met what was felt to be a fiduciary responsibility to their students and district taxpayers.  As of December 31, 2005 the pertinent section of Real Property Tax Law expired. School districts may now not have that option and previous decisions may be rendered void.  IDAs now have assumed authority to negotiate PILOTs for both school districts and local municipalities.  The Cherry Valley-Springfield School Board was unaware of this change.  Yet, in the summer of 2004, the Otsego County IDA was aware of this change, as was Reunion Power, the newest developer in Cherry Valley.  Reunion Power approached the IDA and requested their involvement as Lead Agency. They also requested that the IDA begin PILOT negotiations. To date, neither the Otsego County IDA, nor Reunion Power have had any transparent discussions with the School District or town officials.  

The Federal Fish and Wildlife Guidance Document and the NY DEC Visual Assessment are just guidance documents. They are not regulatory instruments.  They can be and are ignored by lead agent/project sponsors under SEQR. 

The implementation of the RPS should have included a grace period allowing the DOS to help towns develop long-term strategies prior to the barrage of wind prospecting and development proposals.  The state should have declared a statewide moratorium in order to put regulatory safeguards in effect. To remedy this, hearings like these should be held in several more central locations throughout the affected areas of the state. A comprehensive, statewide visual analysis needs to be produced in order to understand the cumulative impact of tens of thousands of turbines on our landscape.

We need an adequate pre-construction study done at each proposed site before a single turbine is erected. The preliminary 3 year hiatus advised by the US Fish and Wildlife Service should be used everywhere in the state of New York. We need appropriate and enforceable regulations whose mandates are carried out by an authority honestly independent of the wind industry.  And it all needs to be transparent and legislated.

We know that turbine operation is intermittent and unpredictable.   Backup from conventional energy sources must be maintained at all times.  Wind power can never replace our dependence on those sources to any significant degree.     There may be some use for wind as a buffer during periods of peak demand, but the modulation of conventional sources in order to compensate for the vagaries of wind introduces other inefficiencies into electricity production.
  
Wind developers operate in the state of New York with substantial financial assistance from its citizens.  Therefore, they must assure this state that they operate in a fiscally, responsible manner, and that they employ the most rigorous scientific and environmental standards.   They are not doing so. 

The signers of the Darmstadt Manifesto in Germany, opposing what they called a blight of asparagus, referred to the irrevocable loss of their nation's natural heritage.  We must not let this happen to New York State.   We are a state more richly endowed than most in natural beauty.  We must not lose it for all time.  We must heed the concerns mirrored in the proposed legislation co-sponsored by Senator Seward and Assemblyman Magee, as well as those additional concerns raised by Senator Parker in his pending bill.

We need to remind ourselves that social inequities found in rural communities are similar to those of urban areas. The same vulnerability exists everywhere.  Developers and investment bankers study demographics as well as wind patterns.  If there is a common thread that holds together those of us who are before you today, it is our recognition that we are among the vulnerable.  Wind farms will not appear on the hills above Pound Ridge or Saratoga Springs.    If they appear on the hills above our towns, without frank and genuine discussion, without honest equity, we will know the reason why.
 
But we must go one step further in order to fully and properly put in place essential safeguards necessary for the protection of rural communities everywhere in New York State.  We need a moratorium on wind development projects now.