<^Q 1670 N Wayneportrd T (J >'VS 0\00 Macedon, NY 14502 July 2

-.TOn.EHUflNN U51B474M21) 14:47 07/02/04 EST Pg 1-

•

TOMEHMANN /^ f^ (^^(\\<^Q 1670 N WayneportRd T (j >'VS 0\00 Macedon, NY 14502

July 2, 2004

Commissioners New York State Public Service Commission 3 Empire State Plaza Albany, NY 12223

Dear Commissioners :

I am writing to caution the Commission against taking any action that will further increase electric rates for business in New York State. Business rates in this state are 47 percent above the national average already. New York's rate of job creation lags far behind our competitors. The last thing you should do is make this situation worse.

Advocates claim this plan would probably increase rates by very little, if at all. But if that is the case, there is no reason the commission can't try using voluntary measures - rather than mandatory purchase quotas - to meet the goal of 25 percent renewable power. Sound incentives are already bringing more and more renewable power on line. Go with what works. Don't add to the cost of doing business and drive more jobs from our state.

Sincerely,

TOM EHMANN c^rn-e^ 021 a/Kg

Elaine Lynch To: Pamela Conroy/Exec/NYSDPS@NYSDPS cc: ^ 07/06/2004 09:08 AM Subject: RPS Web Comments

Forwarded by Elaine Lynch/Exec/NYSDPS on 07/06/2004 09:09 AM •

/Cim_' Rose Hamm To: Eleanor Stein/OHADR/NYSDPS@NYSDPS1 Michele Hacker/OSec/NYSDPS@NYSDPS •07/06/2004 08:03 AM cc: Subject: RPS Web Comments

Rose Hamm Utility Consumer Program Specialist Office of Retail Market Development 518-474-1571 [email protected] — Forwarded by Rose Hamm/OCEA/NYSDPS on 07/06/2004 08:02 AM

"Cynthia Cole" To: "Jeffrey M Peterson" , "Rose Hamm" , "Patricia Roger" net.net> , "YATES COUNTY PLANNING BOARD" , , "Mark 07/02/2004 10:41 AM Assini" , "L Stewart" Please respond to , "Margaret Crawford" "Cynthia Cole" , "Hockford" , "Silver" , "JL Hairie" , "Hogan" , "Susan Johns" , "Simon" , "Will" , "Tarr" , "Doug May" , "Saul Rigberg" , "Judge Eleanor Stein" , "Laura Pearce" , "Richard Brodsky" , "Charles Rangel" , "Clyde Forbes" , "Rick F. Rebedow" , "John Hicks" , "Christina Palmero" , "BARBAFIA MURPHY' , "Bruce Penrod" , "Sierra Club" , "Steuben Greens" , "Englebright, Assemblyman Steve" , "Assemblyman Robin Schiminger" , "Rochester Regional Group of the Sierra Club" , "LaBella Associates P.C." , "Rudyard Edick" , "Paul Tonko" , "Tim Sullivan" , , "James Sherron" , , , "Tom Collins NYSERDA" , "John St. Cross NYSERDA" , "Bob Callender NYSERDA" , "NY State" , "Jillian Liner" . "Peter Henner Law" , "Senator R. Kuhl" , "Brian Kolb" , "Peter Keane" , , "Howard" , "Greg Heffner" , "Lucille George" , "David Gardner" , "Mr. Kerry Fitzpatrick" , "Adele Ferranti" , "Peggy Coleman" , "J. Cole" , , "Amy" , "James Baccalles" cc: Subject: Empire Zones-NO MORE free ridel

Original Message From: Cynthia Cole To: James Baccalles ; Senator R. Kuhl Sent: Friday, July 02, 2004 10:30 AM Subject: Empire Zones-no more free ride!

Dear Senator Kuhl & Assemblyman Baccalles,

The Empire Zones are being misused, abused and are a drain on tax dollars. NY doesn't need more corporate welfare, it needs a balanced budget, reasonable health care programs. It does not need but has overpriced, overwrought, mismanaged and out of control programs that have made NY's Medicaid/Health programs a Mecca for the needy from other states - adding to the burden.AND we need reliable funding for our schools - it is obscene that our school districts must pass budgets on time legally - when ALBANY and our incumbents CAN'T seem to do it. Shame on all of you. The Empire ZONE monies can be put to much better use than giving free rides to corporations that should be able to do their own clean-up and if they are quality corporation, managed well with a good future - they shouldn't need so many handouts from ALBANY - who in turn ABUSES IT'S OVERBURDENED TAXPAYERS!

What will bring business to the state is a sane tax structure that encourages our skilled workers a future and hope of settling within the state. GREAT companies are built and held by QUALITY employees. NY is just attracting welfare corporations and welfare recipients who come here for a free ride on our backs. Our ambitious and educated young adults are seeking futures in other states - our skilled workers are leaving. What kind of business is going to be attracted to NY when skilled, ambitious labor is slim pickings? Only the ones who need ALBANY'S CORPOFRATE WELFARE! Empire Zones had their chance - ALBANY & the state agencies BLEW IT! Set up a totally new program for QUALIFIED companies and ENFORCE the guidlines, and needed spending.

Please, stop this insanity! You must know how this program is being abused. Start new. Enforce honesty and integrity in your agencies- and in yourselves! PLEASE! Sincerely,

Richard & Cynthia Cole Prattsburgh, NY Forwarded by Rose Hamm/OCEA/NYSDPS on 07/06/2004 08:02 AM —-

"Cynthia Cole" To: "Erich Bachmeyer" , "Tom Hagner" net.net> cc: SubJect: This is a 900d one- AK RR * ENERGY PULSE "*ln Search of a u nu-iizuw ui .iz KM National Energy Strategy Please respond to "Cynthia Cole"

Hello, I greatly appreciated the receipt of this article today, however disturbing was the contents to those of us concerned about oil and coal use. This is some seriously UN-politically correct reasoning BUT has the content of science and economics and elements of truth many will prefer to stay in denial of- and many will hope is not true. Read the article and follow up for yourselves. Truth is truth, science is science and wishful thinking is still wishful thinking. Alas. Dreams may still change our future - reality still needs to be dealt with - now. Coal plants need strict enforcement (not enfarcement) of guidelines to insure minimal harmful emissions. Renewable energy looks more and more best designed for use as individuals and small communities and businesses. Of course, if we do that, we will be reducing the need for traditional coal and oil. That would be a good thing. Our views about renewable energy does not have to have a blanket application covering individual in statewide or national. The benefits change depending on the application. If you would like to reproduce this article on your web pages, I see link provided at end of article for instructions. Regards, Cynthia

Original Message From: Angela Kelly To: Angela Kelly Sent: Saturday, July 03, 2004 7:18 AM Subject: AK RR * ENERGY PULSE ***In Search of a National Energy Strategy

RR Energy Pulse

In Search of a National Energy Strategy - Why Cold, Hard Scientific Realities Will Always Trump Warm, Fuzzy Political Ideals

6.30.04

Richard Barker, President & CEO, Quad Resources, Inc. http://www.enerqyDulse.net/centers/article/article displav.cfm?a id=769

Seldom do screwball ideas proliferate in greater numbers than when warm, fuzzy political ideals challenge the cold, hard logic of science. And if you think the Indiana Pi Bill is a quaint but isolated anecdote from a bygone era, think again. Today's politicians are still at it, many of the proposals for a national energy policy being prime examples.

An effective national energy strategy should have as its goals: Ensuring a safe, reliable and economical energy supply now and into the future; Reducing the potential impact of forces beyond our control, and; Striking the right balance between social, economic and political concerns.

Scientific Realities The science of energy is called thermodynamics. Like other physical sciences, its laws are fixed and unchangeable. This is cold, hard reality. What does thermodynamics tell us about energy?

First, it tells us that the total amount of energy in the universe is fixed. The First Law of Thermodynamics, also known as the Law of Conservation of Energy, says it this way: Energy can be neither created nor destroyed. Period. In other words, you can't get something for nothing.

Immediately we see that thermodynamics Is at odds with politics, whose practitioners often spend enormous amounts of time and money convincing voters that they can indeed get something for nothing. Thermodynamics, then, is politically incorrect.

(And so, in fact, are all the natural and scientific laws. They work exactly the same way for everyone. They can't be bent to favor select social classes or special interests. They can't be changed by legislation or redistributed from each according to his ability or to each according to his need. Science follows it own rules, regardless of how fair or unfair we think those rules are.)

Although we speak of energy production and consumption, the First Law reminds us that energy cannot actually be produced, only changed from one form to another. When we consume energy, no energy is ever really used up or lost, just changed. But changed in what way?

So if the First Law tells us that we can't get something for nothing, the Second Law tells us that we can't even break even. No matter how efficient a process is, energy's capacity for doing work is always irreversibly lost, which is why it is impossible to build a perpetual motion machine.

Energy Sources All energy on this planet comes from the sun. All energy sources on the earth are either direct or stored solar energy. Fossil fuels were once living plants and animals which absorbed and stored solar energy. Nuclear fuel is also a form of stored solar or stellar energy. And, of course, water power, wind power, biomass and other energy sources all derive their energy from the sun.

All are, in effect, either: (1) Solar batteries in which energy from the sun was stored at some time in the past, or; (2) The result of direct and continual solar emission.

The U.S demand for electrical capacity alone is growing by about 35,000 MW per year. Let's look at how some of the more popular energy policy proposals will address this growth.

Renewable Energy Renewables are the darlings of the so-called green energy movement because they do not consume conventional fuels, do not deplete natural resources and have few or no emissions. They include solar, wind, tidal, hydroelectric and geothermal, as well as various types of "biomass" power production. Renewables are quite politically correct.

But why? In spite of the ostensible advantages, they have significant disadvantages, including high capacity and production costs and, perhaps surprisingly, dire environmental consequences.

Let's start with solar, which converts direct sunlight to electricity by either photovoltaic action or interaction with a heat transfer medium. While sunlight is absolutely free, the cost of capturing and converting it is not. Solar capacity costs about $10,000 /kW of installed capacity, and production costs average about 2.1 cents/kWh.

But suppose, in spite of these drawbacks, we decide to meet just 20 percent of the present growth in demand with solar capacity. Within 10 years, we will have covered about 2,200 square miles of land with solar facilities, the equivalent of almost one third of the State of New Jersey, irreparably altering landscapes and devastating plant and wildlife habitat in the process.

An equivalent amount of wind turbine capacity would cost only about $3,000/kW, with production costs of about 1.2 cents/kWh, but would require the construction of about 5,500 square miles of wind turbine farms. The Sierra Club calls wind turbines "Cuisinarts of the Air" because of the large numbers of birds they slice and dice. Many erstwhile supporters of wind power, after witnessing its blight on the landscape, have lost their enthusiasm for this politically correct option.

Biomass would use living plants or animal wastes for fuel or the manufacture of fuel. Living organisms absorb and store the sun's energy, which biomass seeks to recover. But going back to our solar battery analogy, we note that while fossil fuels are very highly-charged batteries, biomass is not. Fossil fuels are dense, highly concentrated forms of biomaterials which, pound-for-pound, hold 8 to 40 times as much stored energy as their living counterparts.

In order to truly renew our biomass supply, we will have to constantly replant and harvest the raw materials. Hundreds of millions of acres of land will be needed for fuel-i-culture, and millions of tons of fertilizers, pesticides and other chemicals will be needed to ensure good crop yields. Although perhaps politically correct, this is potentially an environmental disaster.

The main beneficiaries of biomass are those who will receive federal subsidies for growing the fuel. Looking to biomass to save our environment is like looking to amputation to lose weight.

While renewables may well have a place in the energy economy, they are by no means the answer to a secure energy future. And so far, we have addressed only 20 percent of our present electrical demand growth. Where will we get the remaining 80 percent?

In order to extract elemental hydrogen from water, we have to expend energy to break the molecular bonds between the hydrogen and oxygen atoms. So hydrogen, unlike other "solar batteries", does not come pre-charged; we have to charge it before we can use it. When we discharge that battery, the reaction is reversed and the hydrogen becomes water again. But the Second Law tells us that we can never break even on the transaction; we will always get back less energy than we had to put into it. While hydrogen may have its uses as a method for storing energy, it can by no means be considered an energy source.

Conservation Like it or not, conservation is simply not an energy source. Energy growth and economic growth go hand-in-hand. Without energy growth, the economy will stagnate and decline. This is not to imply that we shouldn't conserve where reasonable measures can be instituted to make our stored energy reserves last longer, but conservation is no more a source of energy than holding one's breath is a source of oxygen.

So where do we look for the energy we need now and into the future? Which of our available "solar batteries" hold the most stored energy? Which can supply the most energy at the least cost and with the least environmental harm?

Rather looking elsewhere for energy, why not concentrate on making those "solar batteries", those abundant resources we already have, more acceptable?

Coal The United States has been called "the Saudi Arabia of Coal," because it has among the most abundant coal reserves on the planet. At their present rate of use, these reserves will last for centuries.

But coal is politically incorrect. Though cheap and abundant, it has been labeled dirty and environmentally unacceptable. We are told that coal-fired plants "spew", not emit, smoke and fumes responsible for acid rain, ozone destruction, greenhouse gases and declining public health.

But the realties of coal are far removed from the politically correct myths. Coal is being burned more cleanly and efficiently than ever. Drive past any modern coal-fired power plant and you will rarely see smoke because almost 100 percent of it has been removed from the flue gas. Emissions of nitrous oxides, sulfur dioxide and other undesirable compounds, are, on a per-kWh basis, lower than ever and still falling.

Production costs for coal-fired power plants are about only 1.8 cents/kWh, and space requirements are a fraction of those of renewable processes. And most coal-fired plants are havens for fish, birds and other wildlife. Coal alone could supply all our energy needs for hundreds of years. But because we have deemed It to be politically incorrect, we ignore the easiest solution. Money wasted on unworkable renewable energy projects would be far better spent on clean coal research projects.

Nuclear in spite of its political incorrectness, nuclear energy has the lowest production costs of any energy source (about 1.68 cents/kWh), produces no emissions or so-called greenhouse gases, requires very little land and has almost no environmental impact.

But what about nuclear wastes? "Nuclear waste" is a politically-charged term which lumps together all forms of nuclear plant materials, from disposable paper coveralls which have little or no contamination, to highly radioactive spent fuel. If we concentrate on spent fuel alone, we find that the total volume of spent fuel produced in the U.S. during the entire nuclear power age would easily fit into a typical 5,000 square-foot office building.

There are, in fact, simple solutions to the spent fuel question. Spent fuel can reprocessed to separate the remaining fuel from other undesirable products, and then remanufactured into new fuel rods. This process can be repeated over and over until the spent fuel is eventually used up. France reprocesses spent fuel but, during the Carter administration, the U.S. decided that it would not allow reprocessing. So, the spent fuel will eventually have to be entombed in vast artificial underground caverns and monitored forever. Go figure.

But what about safety? What about Three Mile Island and Chernobyl? First, nuclear power is among the safest of industries. All U.S. plants employ safe Commercial Light Water Reactors, not the graphite reactor of Chernobyl. Unlike the former Soviet Union, which housed unshielded reactors in pole barns, the U.S. encloses its reactors in shielded containment structures which preclude a Chernobyl-like incident. And because of this containment. Three Mile Island was an economic disaster for its owners, but had little or no environmental or health consequence.

Dependence on Foreign Oil Our energy security is threatened because our primary source of energy for transportation can be manipulated by foreign powers whose intentions toward us are not always benign. We can drill in the ANWR and tap low-yield domestic oil wells, but eventually domestic oil sources will be depleted long before foreign sources. How do we address the issue? There are several possibilities. The U.S. has the technology infrastructure to permit almost all non-production work to be performed away from a central office. As more and more American companies accept the idea of telecommuting, our dependence on oil will decrease. A change from five eight-hour workdays to four ten-hour days alone can cut fuel use and emissions by almost 20 percent.

Vehicles powered either partially or wholly by electricity, generated safely, inexpensively, cleanly and in great abundance at coal and nuclear power plants, can also go a long way toward reducing our oil dependence. Such vehicles already exist and, while not yet perfected, are worth continued development. Hybrid vehicles, which use both gasoline and electricity, are now available in the general market. They are still a little more expensive than conventional vehicles, but should eventually compete with conventional vehicles.

Energy Security Should Be a Simple Matter Energy security is within easy reach, but we have shunned the obvious solutions and embraced unworkable schemes in our pursuit of political ideals. Instead of spending time, effort and money finding ways to make our abundant, available and inexpensive resources more politically acceptable, we have rejected these resources hands down to concentrate on far more expensive, less certain resources. How foolish and unfortunate.

Mankind can triumph over the harsh realities of science only by understanding them and learning how to use them, not by trying to change them. If we refuse to understand the science and do the math, we are destined to live out our lives babbling scientific-sounding nonsense and throwing away billions of dollars on fools' errands while watching our economy decline.

In the end, when crisis finally forces us to face reality, we will find that science has trumped political ideals, but we will have paid an enormous price for learning the obvious: You can't fool Mother Nature.

From: Elaine Lynch/ExM^IYSDPS

Forwarded by Elaine Lynch/Exec/NYSDPS on 07/12/2004 08:48 AM -—

To: Eleanor Stein/OHADR/NYSDPS@NYSDPS1 r!ose Michele Hacker/OSec/NYSDPS@NYSDPS Hamm cc. Subject: Web Comment Case 03-E-0188 07/12/2004 08:37 AM

Rose Hamm Utility Consumer Program Specialist Office of Retail Market Development 518-474-1571 [email protected] -— Forwarded by Rose Hamm/OCEA/NYSDPS on 07/12/2004 08:36 AM

••r th- r •• To: "Richard & Cynthia Cole" Cynthia Cole ' ^ Subject: Fw: Check out Buffalo 07/10/2004 09:32 AM News - Meeting wind resistance Please respond to "Cynthia Cole"

Click here: Buffalo News - Meeting wind resistance http://www.buffalonews.eom/editorial/200407Q8/1017289.asp FOCUS: ENERGY Meeting wind resistance

Turbine projects in WNY are at a standstill due to concerns over risk to birds

By ELMER PLOETZ News Southtowns Bureau 7/8/2004

^N Click to view larger picture

https://albmail.dps.state.ny.us/albmaiVogc/pdavis.nsf7($Inbox)/A906B2A7D9B9D3CF852... 7/12/2004 Page 2 of 7

Harry Scull Jr./Buffalo News ^\ Click to view larger picture

Sharon Cantil on/Buffalo News A debate among environmentalists like Claire Quadri, left, on wind power's threat to birds is among the reasons that there aren't more windmills, such as these in Wyoming County. Two years after New York announced $100 million in private investment in wind power, the total production for projects in the Sardinia and Westfield-Ripley areas has been nothing but hot air.

The only operating turbines in Western New York are the 10 towers that started operating in Wethersfield in Wyoming County in 2000.

The reasons behind this brand of wind resistance range from the usual - the slow pace of government action - to the unusual - an internal fight among environmentalists.

https://albmail.dps.state.ny.us/albmail/ogc/pdavis.ns£'($Inbox)/A906B2A7D9B9D3CF852... 7/12/2004 Page 3 of 7

^Fis one pits those who see wind power^^ a way to produce clean energy against those who see it as a threat to wildlife, specifically birds and birds of prey.

On a clear day, if you're lucky, you might see one of the bald eagles that nest in the Westfield area soaring over the ridge overlooking the Lake Erie shoreline. Or you might not.

There are two nests of bald eagles within 5 to 10 miles of the proposed project. The whereabouts of their nests aren't general knowledge for fear of interference by people.

Phil Riedesel has lived on that ridge all his life, and he says he has never seen them.

"I've seen virtually every kind of raptor that has passed over the ridge, but I've never seen a bald eagle over my farm," he said. "That doesn't mean they're not there, but it means they're so high you can't see them with the naked eye."

Center of debate

While data shows bald eagles have been spotted circling as low as 150 feet off the ground, it's the raptors, nonetheless, who are at the center of the debate over wind turbines there.

Claire Quadri, an environmental consultant, and the leaders of the Ripley Hawk Watch have spearheaded the charge to slow down Jasper Energy's project there. Jasper wants to build a 34-turbine, 50-megawatt wind farm through its Chautauqua Windpower subsidiary.

Given the environmental sensitivity of the area related to its location on a major raptor migration path, they say methods recommended by the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service call for a two-year avian study as part of environmental review.

https://albmail.dps.state.ny.us/albmail/ogc/pdavis.ns£'($Inbox)/A906B2A7D9B9D3CF852... 7/12/2004 Page 4 of7

^Response, Jasper has assembled whaw^ claims is the most comprehensive avian risk assessment yet for a wind project in New York State. The study results, Jasper says, show that risk to birds is "biologically insignificant" and poses little threat to the bald eagles. In its report, Jasper placed the mortality risk for birds passing through the "project exposure area" in the vertical airspace of the spinning turbine blades at 1 in 10,000.

Quadri said it was too soon to tell how well the study, assembled from studies by three consulting companies (including one that's a partner in the project), measured the actual dangers to the avian traffic. "During their presentation, they kept throwing around numbers," said Quadri, with Chautauqua County Citizens for Responsible Wind Power. "But if the numbers they're talking about are large enough, even a small percentage would be a significant number."

The final decision on the fate of turbine projects in New York falls largely into the hands of the towns where they will be located. Towns have to apply State Environmental Quality Review Act standards to decide how to handle projects.

According to Quadri, that's a problem. Some projects can have an effect beyond the town where they are located - on the whole Great Lakes bird migration flyway, for example. And in towns where there is no zoning, the town's control is small.

Wind developers also can avoid dealing with county, state or federal regulators if they stay away from what the agencies regulate - waterways, wetlands, power lines.

Meanwhile, the wind industry in New York is in a holding pattern because of both environmental and legislative concerns.

A federal investigation into the effects of https://albmail.dps.state.ny.us/albmail/ogc/pdavis.nsf/($Inbox)/A906B2A7D9B9D3CF852... 7/12/2004 Page 5 of 7

d turbines on Indiana bats, an endangered species, has temporarily halted many projects, according to P.J. Saliterman of Zilkha Renewable Energy, the developer of the 34-turbine, Sardinia project.

Production tax credits

In addition, Congress has yet to renew production tax credits for wind energy that put wind on a level playing field with oil- and coal- fired electricity.

"Right now the whole wind energy industry is in a complete standstill because production tax credits have expired and Congress hasn't renewed them," said Jasper's Paladino. "Nobody is building anything right now because they're afraid of what will happen with the PTCs. The delays impacted a lot of projects."

One of the largest projects on hold is Zilkha's 300-megawatt Flat Rock project in Lewis County in the Adirondacks, a 187- turbine project that would be the biggest in the Eastern United States.

Also on hold is a 310-megawatt wind farm in Iowa, planned by MidAmerican Energy, according to published reports. MidAmerican is a unit of Berkshire Hathaway, owner of The Buffalo News.

Zilkha's Sardinia project is on hold while that town rewrites its zoning codes to deal with wind turbines. There's no question wind is big business. While it may seem small potatoes next to the $500 million cost of building a new coal-fired power plant, the two Western New York wind projects are pegged at costing $50 million each.

The state also has agreed to buy at least half of the electricity from the Westfield project.

But wind also is physically big. Instead of a https://albmail.dps.state.ny.us/albmail/ogc/pdavis.nsf/($Inbox)/A906B2A7D9B9D3CF852... 7/12/2004 Page 6 of 7

^Rmmoth smoke-belching plant, it ^^ produces electricity using 280-foot high towers - 70 feet higher than the Wethersfield turbines - with blades that can be as long as 130 feet. D Riedesel, the Westfield farmer, says he's a green energy advocate.

"A farmer Is someone who uses the natural resources at hand to produce food, fiber and energy," said Riedesel, who has a degree in natural resources management from Cornell University.

In Riedesel's case, he's also likely to be the biggest financial beneficiary of the Westfield wind project since his properties are expected to house as many as eight turbines.

Trust is a major factor in the wind turbine industry today. It's still new enough that people haven't had time to gauge its effects. The history of the industry has been somewhat shaky.

California experience

One of the earliest major wind installations in the United State, in Alameda County, Calif., has been estimated to kill 1,000 birds a year, including many golden eagles. Developers says improvements in turbines since have reduced kills.

Developers tend to build sites, then sell them to different owners than the towns have dealt with.

York Energy, the company that got the original New York State Energy Development Authority grant for the Chautauqua project, went bankrupt. Jasper is a spin-off, owned by York's creditors and former management.

e-mail: eploetzticp.buffnews. com

https://albmail.dps.state.ny.us/albmail/ogc/pdavis.nsf/($Inbox)/A906B2A7D9B9D3CF852... 7/12/2004 Page 7 of 7

https://albmail.dps.state.ny.us/albmail/ogc/pdavis.nsf/($Inbox)/A906B2A7D9B9D3CF852... 7/12/2004 lilOUiS.Guzzetta (151M74M21) 10:25 07/12/M EST Pg I-

July 12, 2004

Louis Guzzetta 112 Harrington Rd Greene, NY 13778

Commissioners New York State Public Service Commission 3 Empire State Plaza Albany, NY 12223

Dear Commissioners :

Respectfully yours,

Louis Guzzetta i:Paul.Martuscello (151M74M21) 10:57 07/12/04 EST Pg 1-

July 12, 2004

Paul Martuscello 344 Daniel Zeriker Dr Horseheads. NY 14845

Commissioners New York State Public Service Commission 3 Empire State Plaza Albany. NY 12223

Dear Commissioners :

Advocates claim this plan would probably increase rates by very little, if at all. But if that is the case, there ia no reason the commission can't try using voluntary measures - rattier than mandatory purchase quotas - to meet the goal of 25 percent renewable power. Sound incentives are already bringing more and more renewable power on line. Go with what works. Don't add to the cost, of doing business and drive more jobs from our state.

Sincerely,

Paul Martuscello i:Lee.Deflaiicis (151M71M21) 22:08 07/11/04 EST Pg 1-

CHMM

Lee DeAmicis 8291 Odyssey Dr Manlius, NY 13104

July 11,2004

Commissioners New York State Public Service Commission 3 Empire State Plaza Albany, NY 12223

Dear Commissioners ;

I am writing to caution the Commission against taking any action that, will further increase electric rates for business in New York State. Business rates in this state are 47 percent, above the national average already. New York's rate of job creation lags far behind our competitors. The last thing you should do is make this situation worse.

Business fears that, the "renewable portfolio standard" now before the PSC will create a seller's market, that will drive prices still higher - perhaps much higher. And companies like mine, M&T Bank, are alarmed that, industrial and commercial users might, pay even more than their fair share of any increase.

Advocates claim this plan would probably increase rates by very little, if at all. But if that is the case, there is no reason the commission can't, try using voluntary measures - rather than mandatory purchase quotas - to meet the goal of 25 percent renewable power. Sound incentives are already bringing more and more renewable power on line. Go with what, works. Don't, add to the cost, of doing business and drive more jobs from our state.

Respectfully yours,

Lee DeAmicis :John.Vasteno (15184740421) 23:10 07/11/04 EST Pg 1-

John Vasteno 4900 Technology Park Blvd Auburn, NY 13021

July 11, 2004

Commissioners New York State Public Service Commission 3 Empire State Plaza Albany, NY 12223

Dear Commissioners :

Advocates claim this plan would probably increase rates by very little, if at all. But if that is the case, there is no reason the commission can't try using voluntary measures - rather than mandatory purchase quotas - to meet the goal of 25 percent renewable power. Sound incentives are already bringing more and more renewable power on line. Go with what works. Don't add to the cost of.doing business and.drive more jobs from our state.

Yours truly,

John Vasteno :Patricia.Jordan (15I8474M21) 11:19 07/I0/CM EST Pg 1-

July 10, 2004

Patricia Jordan 2808 Hoxie Gorge Rd Marathon, NY 13803

Commissioners New York State Public Service Commission 3 Empire State Plaza Albany, NY 12223

Dear Commissioners :

Yours truly,

Patricia Jordan i:Joseph.RUSSO (1518W0421) 22;50 07/09/M EST Pg 1-

Joseph Russo 877 Lancaster Ave Syracuse, NY 13210

July 9, 2004

Commissioners New York State Public Service Commission 3 Empire State Plaza Albany, NY 12223

Dear Commissioners :

1 am writing to caution the Commission against taking any action that will further increase electric rates for business in New York State. Business rates in this state are 47 percent above the national average already. New York's rate of job creation lags far behind our competitors. The last thing you should do is make this situation worse.

Advocates claim this plan would probably increase rates by very little, if at all. But if that is the case, there is no reason the commission can't try using voluntary measures - rather than mandatory purchase quotas -to meet the goal of 25 percent renewable power. Sound incentives are already bringing more and more renewable power on line. Go with what works. Don't add to the cost of doing business and drive more jobs from our state.

Respectfully yours,

Joseph Russo :Carol.Olin (15184746421) 13:33 67/89/04 EST Pg 1-

July 9, 2004

Carol Olin PO Box 367 New Berlin, NY 13411

Commissioners New York State Public Service Commission 3 Empire State Plaza Albany, NY 12223

Dear Commissioners :

Best regards.

Carol Olin :Donald.Mestcott (I518474M21) 13:29 07/09/04 EST Pg 1- ^^ ^ 03E-m

July 9, 2004

Donald Westcott PO Box 68 Sherburne, NY 13460

Commissioners New York State Public Service Commission 3 Empire State Plaza Albany, NY 12223

Dear Commissioners :

Sincerely,

Donald Westcott :Linda.Cog5hall (151817W21) 13:23 07/09/04 EST Pg 1-

July 9, 2004

Linda Cogshall 6067 State Highway 12 Norwich, NY 13815

Commissioners New York State Public Service Commission 3 Empire State Plaza Albany, NY 12223

Dear Commissioners :

Advocates claim this plan would probably increase rates by very little, if at all. But if that is the case, there is no reason the commission can't try using voluntary measures - rather than mandatory purchase quotas -to meet the goal of 25 percent renewable power. Sound incentives are already bringing more and more renewable power on line. Go with what works. Don't add to the cost of doing business and drive more jobs from our state.

Respectfully yours,

Linda Cogshall :iDark.thonipson (15184740421) 11:22 07/09/04 EST Pg 1-

mark thompson 101 Old Cove Rd Liverpool, NY 13090

July 9, 2004

Commissioners New York State Public Service Commission 3 Empire State Plaza Albany, NY 12223

Dear Commissioners :

Best regards,

mark thompson Michael.Wheeler (1518W0421) 11:21 07/09/M E8T Pg I- C^^f #?-£- 6/,

Michael Wheeler 5049 Kasson Rd Syracuse, NY 13215

July 9, 2004

Commissioners New York State Public Service Commission 3 Empire State Plaza Albany, NY 12223

Dear Commissioners :

Business fears that the "renewable portfolio standard" now before the PSC will create a seller's market that will drive prices still higher - perhaps much higher. And companies like mine, Har-Rob Fire Apparatus Svc. & Sales, Inc. 519 Liberty Street Syracuse, NY 13204, are alarmed that industrial and commercial users might pay even more than their fair share of any increase.

Sincerely,

Michael Wheeler i:JflNE.BONflVITfl (15184740421) 11:20 07/09/04 EST Pg 1-

JANE BONAVITA 210 Delaware Ave Delmar, NY 12054

July 9, 2004

Commissioners New York State Public Service Commission 3 Empire State Plaza Albany, NY 12223

Dear Commissioners :

Advocates claim this plan would probably increase rates by very little, if at all. But if that is the case, there is no reason the commission can't try using voluntary measures- rather than mandatory purchase quotas-to meet the goal of 25 percent renewable power. Sound incentives are already bringing more and more renewable power on line. Go with what works. Don't add to the cost of doing business and drive more jobs from our state.

Respectfully yours,

JANE BONAVITA i:Patrick.Hopkins (15184740421) 11:14 07/09/04 EST Pg I-

July 9, 2004

Patrick Hopkins PO Box 6811 Ithaca, NY 14851

Commissioners New York State Public Service Commission 3 Empire State Plaza Albany, NY 12223

Dear Commissioners :

Yours truly,

Patrick Hopkins James.Reale (151M740421) 11:09 07/09/04 EST Pg 1-

July 9, 2004

James Reale 4941 Trivet Dr S Liverpool, NY 13088

Commissioners New York State Public Service Coiiuriission 3 Empire State Plaza Albany, NY 12223

Dear Commissioners :

Business fears that the "renewable portfolio standard" now before the PSC will create a seller's market that will drive prices still higher — perhaps much higher. And companies like mine, Advantage Energy, Inc., are alarmed that industrial and commercial users mi^it pay even more than their fair share of any increase.

Advocates claim this plan would probably increase rates by very little, if at all. But if that is the case, there is no reason the commission can't try using voluntary measures — rather than mandatory purchase quotas — to meet the goal of 25 percent renewable power. Sound incentives are already bringing more and more renewable power on line. Go with what works. Don't add to the cost of doing business and drive more jobs from our state.

Yours truly,

James Reale :J0Seph.RuF0 (15184740121) 11:08 07/09/04 EST Pg 1-

July 9, 2004

Joseph Rufo 4941 Onondaga Rd Syracuse, NY 13215

Commissioners New York State Public Service Commission 3 Empire State Plaza Albany, NY 12223

Dear Commissioners :

Sincerely,

Joseph Rufo :phyllis.knapp (15181740421) 11:04 07/09/04 EST Pg 1-

July 9, 2004

phyllis knapp 2112 Erie Blvd E Syracuse, NY 13224

Commissioners New York State Public Service Commission 3 Empire State Plaza Albany, NY 12223

Dear Commissioners :

Best regards,

phyllis knapp i:Brian,Berlin (15184740421), 11:04 07/09/04 EST Pg 1-

July 9, 2004

Brian Berlin PO Box 4840 Syracuse, NY 13221

Commissioners New York State Public Service Commission 3 Empire State Plaza Albany, NY 12223

Dear Commissioners :

Business fears that the "renewable portfolio standard" now before the PSC will create a seller's market that will drive prices still higher — perhaps much higher. And companies like mine, LMC, are alarmed that industrial and commercial users might pay even more than their fair share of any increase.

Sincerely,

Brian Berlin i:Marc.Funaro (15184740421) 15:44 07/09/04 EST Pg 1-

July 9, 2004

Marc Funaro 5547 State Highway 12 Norwich, NY 13815

Commissioners New York State Public Service Commission 3 Empire State Plaza Albany, NY 12223

Dear Commissioners :

I am writing to caution the Commission against taking any action that, will further increase electric rates for business in New York State. Business rates in this state are 47 percent above the national average already. New York's rate of job creation lags far behind our competitors. The last thing you should do is make this situation worse.

Business fears that, the "renewable portfolio standard" now before the PSC will create a seller's market that will drive prices still higher - perhaps much higher. And companies like mine, Advantex LLC, are alarmed that industrial and commercial users might pay even more than their fair share of any increase.

Advocates claim this plan would probably increase rates by very little, if at all. But if that is the case, there is no reason the commission can't, try using voluntary measures — rather than mandatory purchase quotas - to meet, the goal of 25 percent, renewable power. Sound incentives are already bringing more and more renewable power on line. Go with what works. Don't add to the cost, of doing business and drive more jobs from our state.

Best, regards.

Marc Funaro :Robert.Nassar (15184740421) 16=08 07/09/04 EST Pg 1-

tmuCjl

Robert Nassar 182 SharmanDr Norwich, NY 13815

July 9, 2004

Commissioners New York State Public Service Commission 3 Empire State Plaza Albany. NY 12223

Dear Commissioners :

I am writing to caution the Commission against taking any action that will further increase electric rates for business in New York State, Business rates in this state are 47 percent, above the national average already. New York's rate of job creation lags far behind our competitors. The last, thing you should do is make this situation worse.

Business fears that, the "renewable portfolio standard" now before the PSC will create a seller's market that, will drive prices still higher -perhaps much higher. And companies like mine, Norwich Tire Co. Inc. 34 Hale St. Norwich NY 13815, are alarmed that, industrial and commercial users might pay even more than their fair share of any increase.

Advocates claim this plan would probably increase rates by very little, if at all. But if that is the case, there is no reason the commission can't, try using voluntary measures - rather than mandatory purchase quotas - to meet, the goal of 25 percent, renewable power. Sound incentives are already bringing more and more renewable power on line. Go with what works. Don't, add to the cost, of doing business and drive more jobs from our state.

Respectfully yours,

Robert Nassar i: Grant. Hani on (151M74M21) 14:11 07/07/04 EST Pg 1- cerrr^r)

July 7, 2004 C6S-

Grant Hanlon 9 Beach Rd Marcellus, NY 13108

Commissioners New York State Public Service Commission 3 Empire State Plaza Albany, NY 12223

Dear Commissioners :

I am writing to caution the Commission against taking any action that wil further increase electric rates for business in New York State. Business rates in this state are 47 percent above the national average already. New York's rate of job creation lags far behind our competitors. The last thing you should do is make this situation worse.

Advocates claim this plan would probably increase rates by very little, if at all. But if that is the case, there is no "reason the commission can't try using voluntary measures - rather than mandatory purchase quotas - to meet the goal of 25 percent renewable power. Sound incentives are already bringing more and more renewable power on line. Go with what works. Don't add to the cost of doing business and drive more jobs from our state.

Yours truly.

Grant Hanlon i:flndy.Stadelraann (1518WUM21) 13:59 07/07/04 EST Pg 1-

July 7, 2004

Andy Stadelmann 4 Adler Dr East Syracuse, NY 13057 0Vt?C>l8£

Commissioners New York State Public Service Commission 3 Empire State Plaza Albany, NY 12223

Dear Commissioners :

Respectfully yours,

Andy Stadelmann i:Hugh.Roszel (1518474M21) 13:16 07/07/M EST Pg 1- c-OT7-eo-p

Hugh Roszel PO Box 696 Syracuse, NY 13209 8 July 7, 2004 ^^v^-oi ^

Commissioners New York State Public Service Commission 3 Empire State Plaza Albany, NY 12223

Dear Commissioners :

Advocates claim this plan would probably increase rates by very little, if at all. But if that is the case, there is no reason the commission can't try using voluntary measures - rather than mandatory purchase quotas -to meet the goal of 25 percent renewable power. Sound incentives are already bringing more and more renewable power on line. Go with what works. Don't add to the cost of doing business and drive more jobs from our state.

Best regards,

Hugh Roszel Ce-r>€4-p

Elaine Lynch To: Pamela Conroy/Exec/NYSDPS@NYSDPS cc: 07/07/2004 02:54 PM Subject: AskPSC Consumer Comment

Forwarded by Elaine Lynch/Exec/NYSDPS on 07/07/2004 02:56 PM •

Dianne Cooper To: Steven Kramer/OGC/NYSDPS@NYSDPS, Michele 07/07/2004 11:05 AM Hacker/OSec/NYSDPS@NYSDPS cc: Subject: AskPSC Consumer Comment

FY!

Dianne K. Cooper, Utility Consumer Program Specialist Office of Consumer Services New York State Department of Public Service Three Empire State Plaza, Albany, N.Y. 12223-1350, Call: (518) 473-0275 or Toll Free: 1(877)772-2789 E-mail: [email protected]. Fax: (518)473-5685

Forwarded by Dianne Cooper/OCEA/NYSDPS on 07/07/2004 11:04 AM

"Dept. of Public To: Service" cc: 07/06/2004 07:21 PM

COMMENTS on fossil fuels from: cantos13®juno.com UTILITY: fossil fuels ***** TOPICS Healthy Air and Sustainability! ***** Comments When I first read that the Gov. was promising that 25% of this state's energy come from renewable sources by 2013, I was shocked that that would have to be promised at all, and that the date wouldn't be sooner, or the percentage higher.

New Yorkers- along with all human beings, our health care system, our economy...- benefit from clean, healthy air that won't put us at risk for myriad diseases. And we need to contribute whatever we can to reducing global warming ASAP!! ***** EMAIL Address: canto813®juno.com ***** Zip Code: 12504 ***** Area Code: 845 ***** Phone: 845-758-4483 CBAJMplMkHQ

Elaine Lynch To: Pamela Conroy/Exec/NYSDPS@NYSDPS ^ 07/09/2004 08:44 AM ^S.: Ask PSC question form

Forwarded by Elaine Lynch/Exec/NYSDPS on 07/09/2004 08:45 AM •

Dianne Cooper To: Eleanor Stein/OHADR/NYSDPS@NYSDPS, Michele 07/08/2004 03-17 PM Hacker/OSec/NYSDPS@NYSDPS cc: MPf^ Subject: Ask PSC question form

For your Info:

Forwarded by Dianne Cooper/OCEA/NYSDPS on 07/08/2004 03:16 PM •

[email protected] To: [email protected] 07/08/2004 03:07 PM cc: Subject: Ask PSC question form

I would like to make a comment on the Renewable Energy Issue that will be deciding what constitutes Renewable Energy in NY State. I have written the following letter and hope that it is submitted to the opinion file. Honorable Jaclyn A. Brilling Secretary NY State Public Service Commission State of New York 3 Empire State Plaza Albany, NY 12223 Re: Case Number 03-E-0188 Retail Renewable Portfolio Standard Dear Hon. Brilling, We are the Concerned Citizens for Safe and Responsible Industry located in Corinth, NY. April 19th, 2004, we formed this group to fight a Waste to Energy Incinerator proposed in Corinth, NY. As a direct result of this proposal we delved into research on this topic and consulted an expert in the field. Dr. Paul Connett to educate our community about the hazards of this type of industry. Dr. Connett is a tenured professor of Chemistry at St. Lawrence University, Canton, NY specializing in Municipal Waste Incineration. He warned us that for the diminutive amount of energy actually produced, the hazards and pollution far out weigh the benefits. From our collective research and what we have learned from Dr. Connett we have found the waste to energy incinerators should NEVER be allowed on the Renewable Energy Portfolio. Incinerators use fossil fuels to start and keep the incinerator up to temperature that is wasteful and certainly does not solve the dependence on foreign oil. The process produces a toxic ash that is hazardous to humans, animals, land, waterways and the air we breathe.

Dioxin emissions make its way into our food chain and the percentages are far too high and unacceptable. In 1992 Dutch Scientists found Dioxin interferes with the thyroid of babies at one week of age. In addition Dioxin interrupts endocrine systems in all humans. EPA admits Dioxin'is a carcinogen. The average adult has enough Dioxin to cause adverse health effects such as increases in cancer rates, respiratory ailments, reproductive abnormalities and neurological damage.

Heavy metals such as lead and mercury are not destroyed during incineration and are often released into the environment in more concentrated and dangerous forms. These tiny particles or gases, which escape from the stack, vastly increase the potential surface area of contact between them and the environment. This increases the risk through inhalation. Mercury and lead penetrate deep into human lungs where the particles are rapidly exchanged with the blood stream. Mercury also pollutes the water and enters the food chain through the fish that we eat. Just recently the FDA warned pregnant women and small children to reduce their consumption of tuna fish because it is contaminated with high levels of mercury. Exposure to Lead causes learning disabilities and neurological damage especially in children. The effect of lead poisoning is so devastating that pediatric physicians periodically test children to detect the levels of lead in their blood.

Gov. Pataki wrote the Renewable Energy Plan for New York State to increase the energy portfolio by 25 percent in the year 2013 from renewable resources such as solar, wind, tidal and fuel cells. We cannot even imagine waste to energy incineration being incorporated within the portfolio. Judge Eleanor Stein, Administrative Law Judge, predicated that the policy would cause substantial decreases in pollution. She goes on to say, "Burning garbage should not be considered on par with wind and waves as NY increases its reliance on renewal energy." Judge Stein states, "Garbage incineration was incompatible with the environmental objectives of the renewable plan." (Michael Hill, Associated Press quoted in the Times Union, 6-4-04)

It is apparent to us that waste to energy is NOT an acceptable industry and we conclude that waste to energy incinerators should be stricken from the renewable energy portfolio forever.

Sincerely,

Barbara L. Weatherwax Concerned Citizen

Thank you. Elaine Lynch To: Pamela Conroy/Exec/NYSDPS@NYSDPS , cc: ^ 07/08/2004 02:50 PM Subject: Web Comments - Case 03-E-0188

Forwarded by Elaine Lynch/Exec/NYSDPS on 07/08/2004 02:52 PM

/p^Zl Rose Hamm To: Eleanor Stein/OHADR/NYSDPS@NYSDPS, Michele //fe- 07/08/2004 09.3! AM Hacker/OSec/NYSDPS@NYSDPS d^\-%=^. cc: ^^ *j '// Subject: Web Comments - Case 03-E-0188

Rose Hamm Utility Consumer Program Specialist Office of Retail Market Development 518-474-1571 [email protected] Forwarded by Rose Hamm/OCEA/NYSDPS on 07/08/2004 09:30 AM

"Cynthia Cole" To: "Jillian Liner" , "Tim Sullivan" , "Rudyard Edick" net.net> 07/08/2004 09:22 AM Subject: Fw: ME: Wildlife threats stall wind energy project Please respond to "Cynthia Cole"

THIS IS A MUST READ - not an opinion - a news report IT INCLUDES A WIND DEVELOPER CALLED "EVERGREEN" IN MAINE - OWNED BY PARENT COMPANY UPC WIND PARTNERS. THE SAME GROUP INVOLVED HERE IN OUR AREA UNDER THE NAME GLOBAL WIND (OR AKA PRATTSBURGH WINDFARM LLC). THERE IS A DEFINITE TONE OF THE DEVELOPER WANTING TO EXCUSE AND BE FLIPPANT ABOUT DAMAGE TO BIRDS AND BATS. THE ATTITUDE PORTRAYED IS SIMILAR TO THE ONE GISH/BACHMEYER & ALBANO SHARE WITH CONCERNED CITIZENS AND AGENCIES REGARDING THE PRATTSBURGH/ITALY PROJECTS. AND COHOCTON, WAYLAND, SPRINGWATER, ETC, ETC, ETC. PLEASE DON'T SKIP THIS.

http://news.mainetodav.com/apwire/D83IVIEDFG1-189.shtml Maine News From the AP WIRE Today's stories

Thursday, July 8, 2004 3:00 am E-mail this Wildlife threats stall wind energy project story

BANGOR, Maine —The ADVERTISEMENT possibility that the 400-foot-high turbines of the state's first wind farm could kill birds and bats has stalled the project in central Aroostook County.

Maine Audubon last week appealed the state Department of Environmental Protection's approval of the plan by Evergreen Wind Power LLC to construct 33 turbines atop Mars Hill Mountain.

Maine Audubon has expressed concern that the 50-megawatt project, which can provide clean, renewable power to 25,000 homes, could be harmful to migrating birds.

"We're excited about the potential for wind power in the state _ the majority of wind farms don't cause problems. But when they do, they cause big problems," said Jody Jones, a wildlife biologist with Maine Audubon.

Wind currents that make mountainous areas good wind resources also serve as highways for most migratory birds. Thermal updrafts, particularly on the northwest side of small mountains, are used by hunting raptors, like hawks and eagles, that glide on the winds.

Biologists don't know that Mars Hill Mountain is in a migratory corridor. Most scientists assume that birds migrating through New England probably follow the coastline, far east of Mars Hill, but the research has never been done.

"We just don't know what's happening in the interior of Maine," Jones said.

General surveys conducted by local birders indicate that more than 70 species of birds, including federally protected bald eagles and state-protected golden eagles and peregrine falcons, have been seen near Mars Hill Mountain.

Federal biologists were concerned enough about the potential risk in Mars Hill to propose at least three full years of pre-construction study before the turbines are constructed, according to a letter from Gordon Russell, supervisor at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife field office in Old Town.

"In the absence of adequate pre-construction data on migratory bird usage of the airspace at the proposed turbine site, Evergreen Windpower proceeds with this project at its own risk," the letter reads. "There is a liability there," Russell said.

The turbines in Mars Hill simply pose the lowest possible risk to birds because of their slowly rotating blades and streamlined design, the project's supporters said.

"These are not bird-killers," said Pete Didisheim of the Natural Resources Council of Maine, a wind power advocate.

Evergreen has promised to do what it can to reduce the risk. But over the past five years, a new controversy has emerged as biologists realized that bats were also being killed by turbines.

"We don't know exactly what's happening with bats. They're flying around and they're coming too close, and they're getting whacked," said Richard Hoppe, a state wildlife biologist based in Aroostook County.

Northern Maine may have as many as five resident bat species, and information about their lives is even harder to come by than bird data.

Peter Gish of UPC Wind Partners, Evergreen's parent company, said Audubon is calling for an "unfair standard" for wind turbines as compared to other types of development.

"This is already a developed site, with a ski area, and ATV trails, and six cell towers _ some taller than the turbines are going to be," Gish said. "There is no evidence whatsoever that this is a migratory bird path."

The state Department of Inland Fisheries & Wildlife had recommended further study before allowing the turbines to be built. Ultimately, the state agreed to the project in exchange for Evergreen's promise to do after-the-fact studies for one year and to address any problems with solutions like shutting down turbines during sensitive times or adjusting lighting.

-— Message from "D & L Roberson" on Thu. 8 Jul 2004 06:26:17-0400 — To: "The CROW" , "Eleanor Tillinghast" , "Glenn Schte "Eric Rosenbloom" , "Cath" , "Vera Trafton"

Thursday, JulyS, 2004 3:00 am E-mail this story Wildlife threats stall wind energy project

Associated Press

BANGOR, Maine — The ADVERTISEMENT possibility that the 400-foot-high turbines of the state's first wind farm could kill birds and bats has stalled the project in central Aroostbok County.

Maine Audubon last week appealed the state Department of Environmental Protection's approval of the plan by Evergreen Wind Power LLC to construct 33 turbines atop Mars Hill Mountain. Maine Audubon has expressed concern that the 50-megawatt project, which can provide clean, renewable power to 25,000 homes, could be harmful to migrating birds.

"We just don't know what's happening in the interior of Maine," Jones said.

"In the absence of adequate pre-construction data on migratory bird usage of the airspace at the proposed turbine site. Evergreen Windpower proceeds with this project at its own risk," the letter reads. "There is a liability there," Russell said.

The turbines in Mars Hill simply pose the lowest possible risk to birds because of their slowly rotating blades and streamlined design, the project's supporters said.

"These are not bird-killers," said Pete Didisheim of the Natural Resources Council of Maine, a wind power advocate. Evergreen has promised to do what it can to reduce the risk. But over the past five years, a new controversy has emerged as biologists realized that bats were also being killed by turbines.

Northern Maine may have as many as five resident bat species, and information about their lives is even harder to come by than bird data.

Peter Gish of UPC Wind Partners, Evergreen's parent company, said Audubon is calling for an "unfair standard" for wind turbines as compared to other types of development.

Elaine Lynch To: Pamela Conroy/Exec/NYSDPS@NYSDPS cc: •^ 07/08/2004 02:50 PM Subject: AskPSC Consumer Comment on Renewables

Forwarded by Elaine Lynch/Exec/NYSDPS on 07/08/2004 02:52 PM

Dianne Cooper To: Eleanor Stein/OHADR/NYSDPS@NYSDPS, Mlchele Hacker/OSec/NYSDPS@NYSDPS J^l 07/08/2004 09:40 AM cc: Subject: AskPSC Consumer Comment on Renewables

FYI

Forwarded by Dianne Cooper/OCEA/NYSDPS on 07/08/2004 09:39 AM •

"Dept. of Public To: Service" cc: 07/08/2004 08:25 AM

COMMENTS on All from: [email protected] UTILITY: All ***** TOPICS : Renewable Energy ***** Comments NY needs clean energy, and I support a requirement that 25% of the electricity sold in NY come from clean, green sources by 2013.

NY needs the pollution reductions that this renewable energy policy will bring. Millions of'New Yorkers live in parts of the state that do not meet the health-based standards for clean air. NY needs to take responsibility for its share of the pollution that causes global warming, and this renewable energy requirement is an important step in the process to reduce global warming pollution. ***** EMAIL Address: friedmanOnycap.rr.com ***** Zip Code: 12308 ***** Area Code: 518 ***** Phone: CLCrT->-eAiD

Elaine Lynch To: Pamela Conroy/Exec/NYSDPS@NYSDPS cc: ^ 07/08/2004 02:50 PM Subject: AskPSC Consumer Comment on Renewables

Forwarded by Elaine Lynch/Exec/NYSDPS on 07/08/2004 02:51 PM

Dianne Cooper To: Eleanor Stein/OHADR/NYSDPS@NYSDPS, Michele 07/08/2004 09:21 AM Hacker/OSec/NYSDPS@NYSDPS cc: 4»IF I Subject: AskPSC Consumer Comment on Renewables FWI

Dianne K. Cooper, Utility Consumer Program Specialist Office of Consumer Services New York State Department of Public Service Three Empire State Plaza, Albany, N.Y. 12223-1350, Call: (518) 473-0275 or Toll Free: 1 (877) 772-2789 E-mail: [email protected]. Fax: (518)473-5685

Forwarded by Dianne Cooper/OCEA/NYSDPS on 07/08/2004 09:20 AM

"Dept. of Public To: Service" cc: 07/07/2004 05:51 PM

COMMENTS on Electricity from: [email protected] UTILITY: Electricity ***** TOPICS : Pollution ***** Comments I urge that 25% of New York's energy requirements are met from clean, green sources by the year 2013. New York needs to cut pollution and help combat global warming. ***** EMAIL Address: [email protected] ***** Zip Code: 10025 ***** Area Code: 212 ***** Phone:

Elaine Lynch To: Pamela Conroy/Exec/NYSDPS@NYSDPS cc: 07/07/2004 08:47 AM Subject: Comment on AskPSC from Consumer re Renewable Energy Portfolio Standard in NYS

Forwarded by Elaine Lynch/Exec/NYSDPS on 07/07/2004 08:49 AM •

Dianne Cooper To: Eleanor Stein/OHADR/NYSDPS@NYSDPS, Michele 07/06/2004 11:44 AM Hacker/OSec/NYSDPS@NYSDPS cc: Subject: Comment on AskPSC from Consumer re Renewable Energy Portfolio Standard in NYS

For your information:

Dianne K. Cooper, Utility Consumer Program Specialist Office of Consumer Services New York State Department of Public Service Three Empire State Plaza, Albany, N.Y. 12223-1350, Call: (518) 473-0275 or Toll Free: 1(877) 772-2789 E-mail: [email protected], Fax: (518)473-5685

Forwarded by Dianne Cooper/OCEA/NYSDPS on 07/06/2004 11:42 AM

"Dept. of Public To: Service" cc: 07/05/2004 07:53 PM

COMMENTS on electricity from: [email protected] UTILITY: electricity ***** TOPICS ; clean renewable energy ***** Comments There is a proposal floating about recommending adoption of the Governor's 2003 State of the State proposal that 25% of all New York state electric power be supplied through 'clean renewable sources by the year 2013. As a New York resident, with homes in Hudson and Long Island City I see this as a complete win for the people of New York, cleaner air, and a cleaner future, good for the health, good for the economy, a vision that can last a long time. I hereby heartily endorse this idea and suggest the NY PSC votes it up! Thank You for your attention. Michael Arkin, Long Island City, NY & Hudson NY ***** EMAIL Address; arkinaktor®aol.com ***** Zip Code: 11101 ***** Area Code: 718 & 518 ***** Phone: Ccrrr-cAJi Od-E-ai%V

Elaine Lynch To: Pamela Conroy/Exec/NYSDPS@NYSDPS ^ 07/07/2004 08:47 AM ^11 AskPSC Consumer Comment

Forwarded by Elaine Lynch/Exec/NYSDPS on 07/07/2004 08:49 AM •

Dianne Cooper To: Eleanor Stein/OHADR/NYSDPS@NYSDPS, Michele 07/06/2004 11 45 AM Hacker/OSec/NYSDPS@NYSDPS cc: Jib Subject: AskPSC Consumer Comment

For your information

Forwarded by Dianne Cooper/OCEA/NYSDPS on 07/06/2004 11:44 AM •

"Dept. of Public To: Service" cc: 07/06/2004 12:28 AM

COMMENTS on electric and gas from: [email protected] UTILITY: electric and gas ***** TOPICS : we need to implement renewable energy ***** Comments i would like to let the state know that i completely support the renewable energy portfolio standards and encourage this portfolio to be adopted, we need to start making decisions for the future and this is one that is very important. ***** EMAIL Address: splatino®buffalo.edu ***** Zip Code: 14214 ***** Area Code: 5 85 ***** > Phone: 5067641 :Barry.Short (15184740421) 11:08 07/13/04 EST Pg 1-

as- c^m

Barry Short 24 Carpenter Rd Chester, NY 10918

July 13, 2004

Commissioners New York State Public Service Commission 3 Empire State Plaza Albany, NY 12223

Dear Commissioners :

Business fears that the "renewable portfolio standard" now before the PSC will create a seller's market that will drive prices still higher — perhaps much higher. And companies like mine, Repro-Med Systems, Inc., are alarmed that industrial and commercial users migjit pay even more than their fair share of any increase.

Sincerely,

Barry Short Janes.l.Uebb (151847/IM2I) 15=06 07/13/04 EST Pg l- CMA&M c' K

James I. Webb 1066 County Road 23 Sherburne, NY 13460

July 13, 2004

Commissioners New York State Public Service Commission 3 Empire State Plaza Albany, NY 12223

Dear Commissioners :

Business fears that the "renewable portfolio standard" now before the PSC will create a seller's market that will drive prices still higher - perhaps much higher. And companies like mine, Webb and Sons, Inc. and Lok-N-Logs Inc., are alarmed that industrial and commercial users might pay even more than their fair share of any increase. Advocates claim this plan would probably increase rates by very little, if at all. But if that is the case, there is no reason the commission can't try using voluntary measures - rather than mandatory purchase quotas -to meet the goal of 25 percent renewable power. Sound incentives are already bringing more and more renewable power on line. Go with what works. Don't add to the cost of doing business and drive more jobs from our state.

Sincerely,

James I. Webb STATE OF NEW YO#L DEPARTMENT OF PU0JC SERVICE THREE EMPIRE STATE PLAZA, ALBANY, NY 12223-1350 Internet Address: httpt/Zwww.dps.state.ny.us

PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION

WILLIAM M. FLYNN DAWN JABLONSKI RYMAN Chairmnn General Counsel THOMAS J. DUNLEAVY LEONARD A. WEISS JACLYN A. BRILLING NEAL N. GALVIN Secretary

July 13, 2004

Honorable James W. Wright New York State Senate Room 915, Legislative Office Building Albany, NY 12247 t bv^

Dear Senator Wright:

Thank you for your recent letter regarding the Commission's efforts to develop a Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS). As you may know, the Commission has received a Recommended Decision from the Administrative Law Judge and is currently receiving briefs from the parties concerning the judge's recommendations. The staff of the department will hold numerous public comment forums across the state. All the above submissions and comments (including your letter) together with the voluminous testimony and exhibits will be included in the record of the proceeding. The Commission will review the record thoroughly before making any determination in. this case.

Please be assured that the Commission is exploring all options and alternatives in order to develop a RPS that is consistent with the public interest.

Again, thank you for your comments.

Yours very truly, (X S^Jît 'aclyn A^Brilling Secretary (?• New Yorl^tatek* SenatûcÊRvTbRUtCElVLD ENERGY AND TELECCMiiilffi COMMITTEE Senator Jim Wright, Chainnan 200^ JUH 23 PH 2' 36

June 22,2004

Honorable Jaclyn A. Brilling, Secretary New York State Public Service Commission 3 Empire State Plaza Albany, NY 12223

RE: Case 03-E-0188 - Renewable Portfolio Standard

Dear Ms. Brilling:

I would like to thank the Public Service Commission for the opportunity to comment on the development and implementation of the Renewable Portfolio Standard in New York State. My comments concern the Administrative Law Judge Recommended Decision that would exclude waste-to-energy (WTE) as a renewable energy source and the exclusion of existing renewable resources as eligible under the RPS.

The Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) initiated by the Governor, is a key piece to New York's energy policy. The Governor has put forth a far-reaching proposal that will require 25 percent of the state's energy produced by renewable resources by 2013. The goal is ambitious and the most aggressive in the nation.

As Chairman of the Senate Energy and Telecommunications Committee, my priority has been to ensure that energy remains affordable and reliable. While the state has reduced electricity costs, the state still remains higher than the national average. The only way the RPS is affordable is if the renewable standard takes full advantage of existing renewable energy and includes diverse and economically competitive technologies capable of growth. A strong case exists to promote renewable energy at the lowest possible price.

I have been on record previously advocating for the inclusion of WTE as a renewable resource under the guidelines of the RPS. WTE currently provide about 300 megawatts of power generated by ten facilities throughout the state. Unlike wind or solar, it is a reliable source of power available 24 hours a day, year round. The facilities not only contribute to the reliable base load capacity but also diversify our state's energy supply. New York prides itself on the

Room 915, Legislative Office Building, Albany, New York 12247 • 518-455-2346 • Fax: 518-455-2365 • [email protected] Brilling, Case 03-E-0188 - Renewable Portfolio Standard comments, pg. 2 reliability of our electric system. In implementing the RPS, we must not jeopardize the reliability of our system by relying heavily on intermittent technologies such as wind and solar. These technologies deserve a place in the renewable policy, but we must be mindful of their effect on reliability. Reliability remains New York's advantage.

Inclusion of WTE will result in mitigating price volatility and the risk of higher natural gas prices in a market with fewer energy resources. The estimates of the RD show that there is an approximate 1.8% increase per residential customer, 2% for commercial and 2.4 % for industrial customers. While the cost to the residential customer may be minimal, industrial customers will be taking the largest hit. Relying on more expensive renewable energy such as wind will only exacerbate the increase to customers. WTE could provide a cost balance between the various renewables and lessen the increase on customers.

Waste-to-energy provides a substantial impact on the creation of long term, high quality local jobs. The state's ten plants provide about 400 full time jobs and contribute $100 million to the state's economy.

WTE is a clean power —as clean or cleaner than several of the renewable technologies now considered in the RD. New York's facilities have the most advanced emissions control equipment commercially available. WTE emissions are lower than other accepted renewable sources particularly in comparison to emissions from landfill gas and wood waste biomass facilities.

New York's waste-to-energy plants provide greater economic benefits, cleaner energy and a better opportunity to meet its renewable goal. Several states including Connecticut, Hawaii, Massachusetts, Maryland, Michigan, New Hampshire, New Jersey, Oklahoma, Oregon, Virginia, Florida and Pennsylvania define Waste-to-energy as a renewable technology. The US Department of Energy recognizes waste-to-energy as a renewable energy in their efforts towards achieving the federal government's renewable energy goal established by Executive Order 13123. In addition, the Federal Power Act Amendments of 1978 defines WTE as a renewable energy source.

I urge the Public Service Commission to recognize the importance and reliability of WTE and include it as part of New York's renewable portfolio standard.

The second issue I would like to address is the exclusion of existing, accepted renewable facilities, particularly the exclusion of existing biomass plants. As New York prepares to implement the RPS, it makes sense to include already established facilities that utilize renewable resources. It is not rationale to penalize innovative and aggressive facilities that have previously taken the initiative that could help meet the state's goal. Brilling, Case 03-E-0188 - Renewable Portfolio Standard comments, pg. 3

Following the exception made for hydropower, the inclusion of biomass facilities should also be considered. Doing so would help bring the state closer to meeting its goal while supporting economic development in rural areas. Currently, there are only two such facilities in the state including Lyonsdale Biomass, which burns 750 tons of wood chips daily to create 19 mw of electricity. This one facility provides a market for forestry products and has an impact on nearly 400 loggers as well as multiple trucking companies located across Lewis, St. Lawrence, Oneida, Onondaga, Jefferson, Herkimer and Oswego counties. The facility is major employer and taxpayer in the area.

Biomass and the clean burning of wood products is an important segment of the RPS. It is a proven technology that has already been successful. The creation of new biomass facilities would not be an improvement upon the already established facilities since there is no new technology to make them even more environmentally friendly or efficient. The most efficient way to implement the RPS would be to first ensure that existing baseline is sustainable and encourage growth from there.

Including existing biomass facilities will help biomass remain competitive with respect to the New York marketplace. Creating a small exception to allow economic incentives for the existing facility will have no negative impact upon the competitive marketplace. The incentives are not sufficient for the economics of new biomass plants and could help sustain the viability of the existing facilities if made available.

The lofty goal of 25 percent by 2013 puts New York in the position of needing to take advantage not only of new facilities, but also facilities, which are already in use. The goal of diversity is best served by increasing the amount of energy produced by proven technologies such as biomass. This goal will be easily thwarted if the baseline deteriorates because the existing biomass facilities cannot remain viable. By accepting the two established facilities as a part of the RPS, it would act as a sign to investors that New York is committed to the growth of these projects.

Therefore, I urge the Public Service Commission to allow the existing biomass facilities to participate in the RPS. The small number of similar facilities combined with the job intensive nature of this technology dictates that this would be the most economically efficient method of pursuing the goals outlined in the RPS proceeding.

Thank you for allowing me to comment on the Recommended Decision.

S W'WRIG Senator New YorK^tate:A Senate?i|S|^ ENERGY AND TELECOMMOTC^TIQNS COMMITTEE Senator Jim Wright, Chairman y^k M 23 ^ ^

June 17,2004

Jaclyn A. Brilling Secretary, New York State Department of Public Service Three Empire State Plaza Albany, New York 12223

Re: Case 03-E-0188 - RetaU Renewable Portfolio Standard

Dear Ms. Brilling:

We are writing in response to the Recommended Decision issued by Administrative Law Judge Eleanor Stein on June 3, 2004. We respectfully disagree with Judge Stein's conclusion that municipal solid waste not be eligible for the Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) at this time.

As expressed in our previous letters, we believe the environmental and economic benefits derived from the operation of the ten existing, and future, waste-to-energy plants in New York State make a compelling case for municipal solid waste being designated a "renewable resource" under the RPS.

By definition, waste-to-energy combines two inseparable purposes: the recovery of energy from municipal solid waste and waste management. The ten facilities in New York State facilities process approximately 11,000 tons-per-day of solid waste, thereby avoiding the environmental impacts of land filling, and generate up to 300 megawatts of clean, renewable energy.

In addition, we believe that recycling and waste-to-energy are a complementary and essential means of providing effective waste management for municipalities. Studies have shown that communities with waste-to-energy facilities attain higher rates of recycling. Yet, even with the greatest efforts to recycle or reduce the generation of solid waste, there will be enough trash for energy recovery—it is an indigenous, sustaining alternative to fossil fuels and, therefore, "renewable."

Room 915, Legislative Office Building, Albany, New York 12247 • 518-455-2346 • Fax: 518-455-2365 • [email protected] Brilling, Case 03-E-0188 - Retail Renewable Portfolio Standard, pg 2

New York's waste-to-energy facilities are equipped with emissions control facilities that are superior to any type of incineration and also to most coal-fired power plants. The waste-to-energy air pollution control equipment includes dry scrubbers to control acid gas, carbon injection to control mercury and organic emissions, selective non-catalytic reduction (SNCR) systems to control NOx, and fabric filters to control particulate matter.

Moreover, we wish to point out that according to U.S. EPA data, wood-fired biomass plants - even those using sustainable biomass fuels - and landfill gas power plants emit dioxins at higher concentrations than waste-to-energy plants, and yet, biomass and landfill gas technology is recommended by the Judge Stein for inclusion in the RPS.

In order to remain economically viable, waste-to-energy facilities must generate revenue from the sale of electricity at reasonable prices in an extremely competitive marketplace. Any reductions in energy revenues would have to be recovered by raising tipping fees or increasing the cost of electricity to customers. Either choice is undesirable to our communities or our constituents and will ultimately place waste-to-energy facilities at a competitive disadvantage vis-a-vis conventional and renewable energy sources currently included in the RPS.

In conclusion, the search for renewable energy sources is motivated by the desire to reduce use of fossil fuels, while keeping energy costs relatively stable. Waste-to-energy facilities accomplish both tasks, and as such, are an integral component of integrated municipal solid waste systems for communities across the State.

It is for these aforementioned reasons that we strongly urge the Public Service Commission to include municipal solid waste within the definition of renewable resources under the RPS. • [

Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,

Uil^-Wkatz: Brilling, Case 03-E-0188 - Retail Renewable Portfolio Standard, pg.3 P^ # dS-^Qj

Elaine Lynch To: Pamela Conroy/Exec/NYSDPS@NYSDPS tm^| 07/13/2004 03:12 PM Subject: AskPSC Consumer Comments

Forwarded by Elaine Lynch/Exec/NYSDPS on 07/13/2004 03:14 PM -—

Dianne Cooper To: Eleanor Stein/OHADR/NYSDPS@NYSDPS, Michele '^ 07/13/2004 1210 PM Hacker/OSec/NYSDPS@NYSDPS . cc: Subject: AskPSC Consumer Comments

Forwarded by Dianne Cooper/OCEA/NYSDPS on 07/13/2004 12:09 PM •

"Dept. of Public To: Service" cc: 07/13/2004 08:32 AM

COMMENTS on Central Hudson from: [email protected] UTILITY: Central Hudson ***** TOPICS : Adoption of a Renewable Energy Portfolio ***** Comments New York needs to adopt The Renewable Energy Portfolio. I am writing in support of this portfolio requiring at least 25% of energy generated in NY State coming from renewable sources. The Public Sevice Commission should set this as a standard and not be pressured by fossil fuel interests to overlook this important step we need to enter into to help guide the future production of energy by more sustsinable technologies than what we presently employ.

Thank You Larry Brown Sun Mountain ***** EMAIL Address: [email protected] ***** Zip Code: 12461 ***** Area Code: 845 ***** Phone: 6578096 c^n-ire^p

\y^ry\ Elaine Lynch To: Pamela Conroy/Exec/NYSDPS@NYSDPS cc: 07/13/2004 03:12 PM Subject: AskPSC Comment from Consumeer's Comments

Forwarded by Elaine Lynch/Exec/NYSDPS on 07/13/2004 03:14 PM

Dianne Cooper To: Steven Kramer/OGC/NYSDPS@NYSDPS, Michele 07/13/2004 11 -54 AM Hacker/OSec/NYSDPS@NYSDPS cc: Subject: AskPSC Comment from Consumeer's Comments

Forwarded by Dianne Cooper/OCEA/NYSDPS on 07/13/2004 11:52 AM

"Dept. of Public To: Service" cc: 07/11/2004 07:49 PM

COMMENTS on New York Water Service Corporation from: [email protected] UTILITY: New York Water Service Corporation ***** TOPICS : Proposed Amendments to (Increase)Rate Schedule ***** Comments Gentlemen:

As a customer of the above quoted water comany residing at 877 Beckman Drive, North Bellmore, NY 11710, I oppose the proposed rate increase notice dated June 1, 2004.

Sincerely yours, David R. Kaiser ***** EMAIL Address: davidkaiser7004Ohotmail.com ***** Zip Code: 11710 ***** Area Code: 516 ***** Phonei rt^&ASnfa Elaine Lynch To: Pamela Conroy/Exec/NYSDPS@NYSDPS v y^^\ ^ cc: ^•^a 07/13/2004 03:12 PM Subject:

Forwarded by Elaine Lynch/Exec/NYSDPS on 07/13/2004 03:14 PM

Dianne Cooper' To: Eleanor Stein/OHADR/NYSDPS@NYSDPS, Michele Mmnk 07/13/2004 11 45 AM Hacker/OSec/NYSDPS@NYSDPS cc: m w Subject:

Forwarded by Dianne Cooper/OCEA/NYSDPS on 07/13/2004 11:44 AM

"Dept. of Public To: Service" cc: 07/10/2004 11:34 PM

COMMENTS on Electric from: [email protected] UTILITY: Electric ***** TOPICS : Case 03-E-0188 - Retail Renewable Portfolio Standard ***** Comments NY needs clean energy, and I support a requirement that 25% of the electricity sold in NY come from clean, green sources by 2013 ***** EMAIL Address: [email protected] ***** Zip Code: 11755 ***** Area Code: 631 ***** Phone: ^^rrr^JP dS-E-dJE?

Elaine Lynch To: Pamela Conroy/Exec/NYSDPS@NYSDPS cc: ^ 07/08/2004 02:49 PM Subject: Opinion Line Comment Report June 2004

Forwarded by Elaine Lynch/Exec/NYSDPS on 07/08/2004 02:50 PM •

Dianne Cooper To: Eleanor Stein/OHADR/NYSDPS@NYSDPS, Michele Hacker/OSec/NYSDPS@NYSDPS 07/07/2004 03:42 PM cc: 4*w 1 Subject: Opinion Line Comment Report June 2004 Note Consumer call in to Opinion Line regarding Renewables:

— Forwarded by Dianne Cooper/OCEA/NYSDPS on 07/07/2004 03:41 PM •

Jill Wasser To: Rita Schneider/OCEA/NYSDPS@NYSDPS, Richard Gifford/OCEA/NYSDPS@NYSDPS, Tamika C7 07/07/2004 02:31 PM Goodwin/OCEA/NYSDPS@NYSDPS, Bruce Bentley/OCEA/NYSDPS@NYSDPS, Ophelia I Amegashie/OCEA/NYSDPS@NYSDPS, Dianne Cooper/OCEA/NYSDPS@NYSDPS, Jeffrey Wagner/OCEA/NYSDPS@NYSDPS. Virginia Stimson/OCEA/NYSDPS@NYSDPS, Nancy Plotkin/OCEA/NYSDPS@NYSDPS, Erin ODell-Keller/OCEA/NYSDPSQNYSDPS, Sonny DiCarlo/OCEA/NYSDPS@NYSDPS cc: Subject: Opinion Line Comment Report June 2004

Attached is the opinion line comment report for June. There was a total of 51 messages. They were regarding the Heritage Hills Water rate case and the Renewal Portfolio Standard (RPS) Proceeding. There were 29 messages about Heritage Hills. They were all opposed to the rate increase. There were 22 messages about the RPS case. The majority (20) were in favor.

Opinion Line Comment Report June 2004

Jill Wasser STATE OF NEW YORK DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SERVICE

INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM

July 6, 2004

TO: CAE Staff

FROM: JillWasser

SUBJECT: Opinion Line Comment Report—June 2004

During the latter part of the month of June, we received 51 messages on the Opinion Line. The messages were in regard to the Heritage Hills Water Rate Case and the Retail Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS), Case 03-E-0188. There were 29 messages about Heritage Hills and 22 about the RPS Case. The messages regarding Heritage Hills were all opposed to the proposed rate increase citing mainly high cost. Comments about the RPS Case, however, were mainly in favor. In this case, it was mentioned that the standard would enhance competition and help the environment.

The breakdown of comments is as follows:

Heritage Hills Rate Case

Total Messages: 29

Opposed 29

Cost Issues 26

Rollback not (3) Increase rates Excessive/can't (15) Afford Increase is (8) Unreasonable/ Only benefits Developer

PSC Action 6

Lower increase (1) Shouldn't (2) Change previous Decision Vote against (2)

Quality Concerns 2

Water not drinkable (2)

Renewable Portfolio Standard

Total Messages: 22

In Favor: 20 Opposed: 2

In Favor 20

Enhance (2) Competition Decrease pollution (9) Help air quality/ Environment Alternative (1) Energy requirements Should be higher

Opposed 2

Too expensive/ (2) State shouldn't Dictate cost J^onforH, M:w YORK STATE AssodTXTiONcR % FOR SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT Established 1975

PRESIDENT June 22, 2004 Jeffrey Bouchard Fulton County Honorable Jaclyn A. Brilling VICE PRESIDENT ,£'(>$> F. Joseph Stockbridge, P.E. Secretary, NYS Public Service Commission 6-2> Town of Colonle Three Empire State Plaza TREASURER Eric D. Swenson, Esq. Albany, New York 12223 Town of Oyster Bay SECRETARY Frank Vlsser, P.E. Reference: Case 03-E-0188 - Retail Renewable Portfolio Standard Oswego County AT LARGE DIRECTOR Paul F. Dudden, P.E. Dear Secretary Brilling: Barton & Loguldice. P.C. AT LARGE DIRECTOR David A. Blackman, P.E. The New York State Association for Solid Waste Management (NYSASWM) is a NYS DEC longstanding state-wide organization of over 400 members responsible for protecting the AT LARGE DIRECTOR Michael Wolak environment through comprehensive recycling programs, composting, household hazardous Onelda-Herkimer SWA waste management, and disposal of the non-recyclable portion of the waste stream. Our AT LARGE DIRECTOR James Hell, P.E. membership includes the owners and operators of solid waste management and recycling Cashln Associates facilities that provide for the environmentally sound management of over 20 million tons of DIRECTOR SOUTH REGION 1 Martin Bellew solid waste generated every year by New York State residents and businesses. New York City DIRECTOR SOUTH REGION 2 Dennis J. Lynch The NYSASWM urges the Public Service Commission to include municipal solid Town of Brookhaven waste incineration-based generation as an eligible source of renewable generation in the DIRECTOR EAST REGION 1 Robert Matarazzo Renewable Portfolio Standard. Listed below are several reasons for the Public Service Westchester County DIRECTOR EAST REGION 2 Commission to take such action. Matthew McGarry Town of Colonle 1. It would be consistent with the New York State solid waste management policy, as DIRECTOR NORTH REGION 1 & NEWSLETTER EDITOR established by the State Legislature in Environmental Conservation Law Section 27- Cindy Livingston Fulton County 0106. This official policy of the State of New York sets forth a priority "to recover, in an DIRECTOR NORTH REGION 2 environmentally acceptable manner, energy from solid waste that can not be William Selfrled Dev. Auth. of the North Country economically and technically reused and recycled." Moreover, this State policy was DIRECTOR CENTRAL REGION 1 adopted "to conserve energy and natural resources" and "shall guide the solid waste James Zecca Madison County management programs and decisions of the department and other state agencies and DIRECTOR CENTRAL REGION 2 authorities." (emphasis added; ECL §27-0106). Tom Rhoads Onondaga County RRA DIRECTOR WEST REGION 1 2. Since adoption of the Solid Waste Management Act of 1988, New York State has & WEBMASTER aggressively pursued and promoted waste reduction and recycling programs through a Vincent Nyklel DIRECTOR WEST REGION 2 local-state partnership. In spite of the tremendous gains in recycling rates that have been Sharon Ulla made during the past 16 years throughout New York State, millions of tons of solid waste Western Finger Lakes SWMA LEGISLATIVE CHAIR still remain every year that require disposal in landfills or solid waste incineration Kevin Voorhees facilities. For the foreseeable future, solid waste will continue to be available for use as Barton & Loguidlce, P.C. PAST PRESIDENTS an alternative fuel to generate electricity from solid waste incineration plants. James V. Blamonte 2001-2003 Sharon Ulla 1997-2001 George Bevington 1995-1997 Eric D. Swenson, Esq. 1993-1995 Hans G. Arnold 1991-1993 James H. Hell, P.E. 1989-1991 P.O. Box 13461, ALBANY. NY 12212 / E-MAIL: [email protected] Charles F. Miles, Jr. 1987-1989 WWW.NEWYORKWASTE.ORG Michael Gapln 1985-1987 AlAlbanese 1983-1985 Robert H. Roller 1981-1983 Victor H. Buckstad 1079-1981 Member of THE FEDERATION OF*NEW*YORK SOLID WASTE ASSOCIATIONS Donal A. Devlne 1977-1979 Howard F. Christensen 1975-1977 Affiliate of The New York State Association of Counties <*$*>* for \. 1^EW YORK STATE ASSOCIATION FOR SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT Established 1975

PRESIDENT 3. It is a myth to believe that solid waste incineration facilities will harm waste reduction Jeffrey Bouchard Fulton County and recycling programs. That myth has been repeatedly disproved in New York State VICE PRESIDENT communities that operate solid waste incineration facilities. In addition, State law (ECL F. Joseph Stockbridge, P.E. Town of Colonle §27-0106) and facility permit conditions ensure that recycling will not be adversely TREASURER affected by facilities that produce electricity from the incineration of solid waste. Eric D. Swenson, Esq. Town of Oyster Bay SECRETARY 4. Electricity generated from the incineration of solid waste qualifies to be deemed green Frank Vlsser, P.E. power, since such facilities include extensive environmental controls and are subjected to Oswego County intense scrutiny during the State Environmental Quality Review Act and permit review AT LARGE DIRECTOR Paul F. Dudden, P.E. processes. Such facilities cannot be built and operated in New York State unless they are Barton & Loguldlce, P.C. demonstrated to be environmentally sound. Furthermore, such power plants reduce the AT LARGE DIRECTOR David A. Blackman, P.E. volume of solid waste requiring disposal in landfills, thereby helping to preserve and NYS DEC conserve land resources. AT LARGE DIRECTOR Michael Wolak Oneida-Herklmer SWA 5. Solid waste incineration power plants reduce the use and reliance on fossil fuels. Such AT LARGE DIRECTOR facilities can and should be an integral part of the State's efforts to reduce reliance on James Hell, P.E. Cashln Associates fossil fuels for electricity production. DIRECTOR SOUTH REGION 1 Martin Bellew In sum, in 1988 the New York State Legislature recognized the importance of New York City recovering energy from solid waste when it adopted the State solid waste management policy. DIRECTOR SOUTH REGION 2 Dennis J. Lynch Inclusion of waste-to-energy facilities in the Renewable Portfolio Standard will be in TownofBrookhaven furtherance of established State law and policies, and will help promote the development of DIRECTOR EAST REGION 1 Robert Matarazzo additional renewable power projects for New York's retail energy portfolio. Westchester County DIRECTOR EAST REGION 2 Please feel free to contact me at 518-736-5501 with any questions or if you'd like Matthew McGarry Town of Colonle additional information. DIRECTOR NORTH REGION 1 « NEWSLETTER EDITOR Thank you for providing the New York State Association for Solid Waste Cindy Livingston Fulton County [ement with this opportunity to submit comments for your consideration. DIRECTOR NORTH REGION 2 William Selfried Dev. Auth. of the North Country DIRECTOR CENTRAL REGION 1 James Zecca Madison County DIRECTOR CENTRAL REGION 2 Tom Rhoads Onondaga County RRA Jouchard DIRECTOR WEST REGION 1 Resident & WEBMASTER Vincent Nykiel NYSASWM DIRECTOR WEST REGION 2 Fulton County Sharon Lllla Western Finger Lakes SWMA G-804 Department of Solid Waste LEGISLATIVE CHAIR Kevin Voortiees Barton & Loguldlce, P.C. \\DIRECTOR\DirectortNYSASWMUiGISLATIVE\6-22-04 PSC letter.doc .IclTrev Boucluircl PAST PRESIDENTS James V. Blamonte 2001-2003 Sharon Lllla 1997-2001 George Bevlngton 1995-1997 P.O. Box 28 Eric D. Swenson, Esq. 1993-1995 (518) 736-5501 Hans G. Arnold 1991-1993 84 7 Mud Road FAX: (518) 762-2859 James H. Hell, P.E. 1989-1991 P.O. BOX 13461, ALBANY, NY 122 Johnstown , NY 1 2095 Charles F. Miles, Jr. 1987-1989 Michael Gapln 1985-1987 WWW.NEWYd ^.__ Al Albanese 1983-1985 Robert H. Roller 1981-1983 Victor H. Buckstad 1979-1981 Donal A. Devlne 1977-1979 Member of THE FEDERATION OF*NEW*YORK SOLID WASTE ASSOCIATIONS Howard F. Christensen 1975-1977 Affiliate of The New York State Association of Counties Elaine Lynch To: Pamela Conroy/Exec/NYSDPS@NYSDPS

^ 07/16/2004 02:34 PM Sub^. Case 03.E.o188

-- Forwarded by Elaine Lynch/Exec/NYSDPS on 07/16/2004 02:37 PM

/^TZ.' Rose Hamm To: Eleanor Steln/OHADR/NYSDPS@NYSDPS, Mlchele Z//^: 07/16/2004 01.52 pM Hacker/OSec/NYSDPS@NYSDPS VX• .^^:-- cc: ,#&.]// Subject: Case 03-E-0188

Rose Hamm Utility Consumer Program Specialist Office of Retail Market Development 518-474-1571 rose_hamm@(jps.state.ny.us — Forwarded by Rose Hamm/OCEA/NYSDPS on 07/16/2004 01:51 PM •

"Cynthia Cole" To: "Tom Hagner" , "Erich Bachmeyer" net.net> cc: n7/i4/?nn4 n8-4Q AM Subject: Fw: Troubled Wind Farm Undergoes Dismantling (Denmark) Please respond to "Cynthia Cole"

Subject: Troubled Wind Farm Undergoes Dismantling (Denmark)

Ladies & Gentlemen:

Here's a very interesting story on Denmark's "Flagship" Offshore "Wind Farm" found by Don Roberson (MA).

I wonder if the windmill advocates are still touting Denmark as THE world leader in terms of a commitment to wind energy. Denmark does have the highest residential electric rates in the world.

Glenn Schleede it***********************************************************************

http://www.solaraccess.com/news/storv?storvid=7116&p=1

Troubled Wind Farm Undergoes Dismantling

Ringkobing, Denmark - July 13, 2004 [SolarAccess.com] Denmark-based Vestas, one the world's major wind turbine companies, announced that every last one of their wind turbines installed offshore at their flagship Horns Reef project will be transported to nearby Ringkobing and Lem and dismantled for tests and repairs due to ongoing problems.

The Horns Reef offshore wind farm is located roughly 15 kilometers off the shore near Esbjerg, on the Danish west coast, and with a total capacity of 160 MW, is one of the world's largest offshore projects.

Vestas has experienced a series of difficulties with the operation of the offshore project due to problems with the transformers and a number of the generators. After considering their options, project partners Vestas, ABB and the Danish electric utility Elsam decided to take a costly, but necessary action.

All 81 of the V80 2-MW turbines will be dismantled, including all of the units installed offshore and the test nacelle that is located on land near the city of Esbjerg.

While it doesn't necessarily appear there are equal problems with every single wind turbine, the company decided it would be best to remove all the units.

Undertaking necessary repairs on-site was not an option. Because of the rough weather conditions in the North Sea, the company decided to transport the nacelles and the blades onshore to accomplish part of the work.

The wind farm, constructed in the period between April to September 2002, served as the company's flagship demonstration offshore wind farm. This puts more weight on the importance of achieving a successful wind farm operation at Horns Reef.

"Experience is expensive, but also precious," said Svend Sigaard, president and CEO of Vestas. "Being the first large offshore project. Horns Reef must be a success. The project is important for Vestas' continued leadership in the offshore segment. It is my belief that Vestas will win the market in this segment. Even though it has been at a high premium, it puts Vestas and our suppliers into a unique position,"

Through the Horns Reef project, Vestas has gained a lot of experience in offshore work and has been chosen as the supplier to three other offshore projects in the UK with a total capacity of more than 200 MW. One of these projects. North Hoyle, is already installed and has proven itself so far with good results, according to the company. In 2003 Vestas entered into agreements of delivery of a total capacity of roughly 150 MW to two other offshore projects in the UK, Scroby Sands approximately three kilometers off Great Yamouth in Norfolk on the UK's east cost and Kentish Flats off Kent.

The Horns Reef repair project is expected to be completed during the autumn of 2004.

Forwarded by Rose Hamm/OCEA/NYSDPS on 07/16/2004 01:51 PM -—

"Cynthia Cole" To: "Richard & Cynthia Cole" Subject: check out New article - Philadelphia Inquirer j 07/19/2002 j Foes of n7i-\fiionr\A MAI A*/I 'green' power: Environ, Washington Post and Sierra Club "official" _, .. statement Please respond to "Cynthia Cole"

FYI more news on windfarms. Following a short message is a series of new articles and information for ease of access.

The news/media articles I send along will help you draw your own conclusions on large commercial windfarms. Someone had feedback on what the relevance of the previous article I sent out today(about that Denmark's banner VESTAS windfarm that is being shut down after a long history of unsolvable problems).?

How about that Denmark and it's wind "successes" and VESTAS turbines are used to convince our local population that large commercial windfarms are a great idea (in spite of huge taxpayer burden). Also, Ecogen plans on using the 1.5 mw Vestas turbines, (not that the GE are better - remember that GE bought ENRON'S now de-flinct wind energy division). Something is obviously wrong with the direction windpower is heading in NY State/USA and is very likely to be harmful to the environment and our pocketbooks. The protesting, news of failures and bird kills indicates serious trouble - you think? Renewable energy is important to continue researching for use in the USA. Windpower is just 1 of the technologies available. It appears not to be as beneficial in large commercial corporate endeavors as it has been when used by individuals and by small communities wishing to unburden the grid. The cost is enormous, the return poor, and the overall reduction on the use of fossil fuels questionable at best.

Many believe that the current programs should be scrapped and re-addressed with more emphasis on solar and other renewable infants that offer less destruction and more acceptance. Windpower for NY can always be put back on a better track, once the public catches "wind" of what is going wrong; and demands that politicians and agencies move to fix it. Research on renewables needs to continue and responsible R&D should be funded. Rushing to windpower for corporate gain at the expense of taxpayers and our environment is irresponsible. Thanks for your patience, Richard & Cynthia Cole Prattsburgh, NY

PS: Many Sierra Club members rally to support the huge commercial/corporate windfarm endeavors Please read the OFFICIAL SIERRA CLUB POSITION ON WINDPOWER following (scroll down) and save for future reference.

PPS: Thank You! Alice, Nancy, Ruthe and everyone who contributes to the sharing of information, facts and news.

Click here: Philadelphia Inquirer I 07/19/2002 I Foes of green' power: Environmentalists http://www.phillv.com/nnld/inquirer/3693755.htm71c

H email this ^> print this

Posted on Fri, Jul. 19,2002

Foes of •green' power: Environmentalists

By Tom Avril Inquirer Staff Writer

WAYMART, Pa. - Workers will start careerbuilder. building 47 giant windmills this fall along a MEGA five-mile stretch of the wooded Moosic Mountain Ridge, a project that will make Pennsylvania the leading producer of Looking for your wind-based electricity east of the company's next star? Mississippi. What better place to find them than at Lincoln financial field! That is, unless some local environmentalists put a sto Don't pass on this one! Sign your company up today! he irony of environmental opposition to earth-friendh opponents, who acknowledge that wind power is aboi doesn't pollute the air, and it doesn't depend on a fuel The 47 turbines would produce 63 megawatts, enoug long as the wind blows.

Yet the concerns are similar to those voiced by opponents of wind "farms" elsewhere, including ones in Northern California and Washington and one planned off Cape Cod: That although a wind farm is clean, it is big - sometimes placed in unspoiled natural areas and sometimes killing birds with the giant blades.

"It's a recipe for taking large areas of green space and slicing them in half," said Kenneth Mayers, treasurer of the local chapter of R.E.S.C.U.E., an environmental group challenging the state's issuance of a permit for the wind farm.

Area Sierra Club members also have urged caution, stressing that they support wind power but want to make sure the turbines are put in the right place.

Other environmentalists question whether the local objections are less about being green and more about crying: "Not in my backyard."

Floyd Schnakenberg, president of the Northeast Pennsylvania chapter of the National Audubon Society, said the Moosic Mountain Ridge was not a major flyway for migratory birds. And though the 200-foot-tall windmills - more than 300 feet tall, counting the blades - would be spread over five miles they are spaced several hundred feet apart, largely maintaining the open space, he said.

"I think the arguments they're using against this in conjunction with the environment... [are] rather weak," Schnakenberg said. "I think the opposition is mostly a 'nimby' thing."

The debate about the Waymart site, northeast of Scranton, marks a coming of age for wind power. As recently as three years ago, old-guard utility companies had written off Pennsylvania and other mid-Atlantic states as a place to generate wind energy.

The reason? Not windy enough.

These days, the Waymart project is one of several proposed in the state. Already, 35 megawatts of capacity have been built, mostly along the turnpike in Western Pennsylvania. An additional half-dozen projects are in the planning stages.

New Jersey has none yet, but Community Energy Inc. of Waynehas proposed a 5- to 7-megawatt farm to be located at a sewage-treatment plant operated by the Atlantic County Utilities Authority in Atlantic City.

The new interest in wind is not because it started to blow harder.

Windmill technology has improved, and although the price of wind energy is still higher than electricity produced from coal, people buy it to support cleaner air.

"People want this stuff," said Glen Thomas, chairman of the state Public Utility Commission. "Pennsylvania ranks 21st in America for wind potential. But the wind farms are getting built in Pennsylvania because the market's there. People are making the choice for the environment."

Even with the addition of the Waymart project, wind power would still provide a tiny portion of Pennsylvania's power generation - less than one-quarter of 1 percent.

Two dozen Pennsylvania colleges and universities are buying wind power for some of their needs, and individual consumers have begun to do so as well.

The latest is Drexel University, which will start purchasing wind power equivalent to 10 percent of its needs this fall from Community Energy Inc. (Technically, all electricity from coal, wind and other sources is shared by everyone connected to the mid-Atlantic power grid.)

"We feel that this is the thing to do," said university president Constantino Papadakis, a civil engineer who used to design coal-fired power plants. Unlike those plants, wind power doesn't result in smog, acid rain, and so-caiied greenhouse gases, he said.

Those kinds of benefits may seem less immediate in Wayne County, where the air is a lot cleaner than in Philadelphia.

Members of R.E.S.C.U.E., which originally stood for Return Susquehanna County Under Ecology, are worried that the 47 turbines would forever alter the character of the mountain ridge, parallel to Route 296. "It's like paradise," said Paul Ferraro, a group member. "That's the biggest stretch of undeveloped land we have, and once it's gone, it's gone."

Ferraro acknowledged that wind was strong along the ridge top but said there were other mountaintop sites nearby that would be better, as they already are being used for farming.

Officials at Orion Energy, an Oakland, Calif., company that has partnered with the British company National Wind Power to build the Waymart turbines, said the Route 296 site was the best.

Orion looked at which site was the windiest, which had easiest access to power-transmission lines, and which could be readily leased from its owners, said Reid Buckley, company vice president.

The company took pains to minimize impact on the environment, Buckley said, hiring bird and plant experts. They searched for such threatened species as the eastern timber rattlesnake - they found none - and also altered the plan to protect a stand of scrub oak, which can harbor a rare species of moth.

Mayers, Ferraro and other opponents are skeptical, saying they'd prefer an independent study. They have filed an appeal with the state Environmental Hearing Board.

Tom Gray, deputy executive director of the American Wind Energy Association, said he had heard such arguments before.

"It is frustrating," Gray said. "There are environmentalists that want to compare wind plants with nothing, and we can never win. Nothing is really great, except it's hard to get any electricity out of it. The U.S. demand for electricity is continuing to grow, and it's got to come from someplace."

Contact Tom Avril at 215-854-2430 or tavriK&.phillvnews.com. Zl email this t!S print this

Click here: NCPA:WIND POWER PUFFERY http://www.ncpa.orq/abo/cd/020404wpp.htm WIND POWER PUFFERY

February 04, 2004 By H. Sterling Burnett o^ington Sime^

Whenever there is a discussion of energy policy, many environmentalists and their political allies toi alternative to burning fossil fuels. Even if electricity from wind power is more expensive than conven is, wind advocates argue its environmental benefits are worth it. In particular, proponents claim incn power would reduce air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions.

But is this assertion correct? No, the truth is wind power's environmental benefits are usually overst environmental harms are often ignored.

Close inspection of wind power finds the promised air pollution improvements do not materialize. Tf the principal one being that wind farms generate power only when the wind blows within a certain re there is too little wind, wind towers don't generate power. Conversely, when the wind is too strong, t fear of being blown down.

Due to this fundamental limitation, wind farms need conventional power plants to supplement the pc replace a wind farms expected supply to the grid when the towers are not turning. After all, the powi regulated constant flow of energy to function properly.

Yet bringing a conventional power plant on line to supply power is not as simple as turning on a swii fossil fuel power stations must run, even if at reduced levels, continuously. When these factors are • emissions of pollutants and C02 caused by the manufacture and maintenance of wind towers and 1 infrastructure, very little of the air quality improvements actually result from expansion of wind powe

There are other problems. A recent report from Great Britain — where wind power is growing even 1 says that as wind farms grow, wind power is increasingly unpopular. Why? Wind farms are noisy, la unsightly. The industry has tricked its way into unspoiled countryside in "green" disguise by portrayii In reality, wind farms are more similar to highways, industrial buildings, railways and industrial farms major consideration if it weren't that, because of the prevailing wind currents, the most favorable loc usually are areas with particularly spectacular views in relatively wild places.

Worse, wind farms produce only a fraction of the energy of a conventional power plant but require h acreage. For instance, two of the biggest wind "farms" in Europe have 159 turbines and cover thous them. But together they take a year to produce less than four days' output from a single 2,000-meg< station — which takes up 100 times fewer acres. And in the U.S. , a proposed wind farm off the coa would produce only 450 megawatts of power but require 130 towers and more than 24 square milej Perhaps the most well-publicized harmful environmental impact of wind power relates to its effect 01 efficiency, wind farms must be located where the wind blows fairly constantly. Unfortunately, such Ic routes for migratory birds, including protected species like Bald and Golden Eagles. This motivated wind towers "the Cuisinarts of the air."

Indeed, scientists estimate as many as 44,000 birds have been killed over the past 20 years by wim Pass , east of San Francisco . The victims include kestrels, red-tailed hawks and golden eagles — i eagles are killed each year.

These problems are exacerbated explains one study as "Wind farms have been documented to act executioner — rodents taking shelter at the base of turbines multiply with the protection from raptor: greater numbers attract more raptors to the farm."

Deaths are not limited to the United States or to birds. For example, at Tarif, Spain , thousands of I: species protected under European Union law have been killed by the site's 269 wind turbines. Durir least 400 bats, including red bats, eastern pipistrelles, hoary bats and possible endangered Indiana 44-turbine wind farm in West Virginia .

As a result of these problems and others, lawsuits are either pending or being considered to proven farms in West Virginia and California and to prevent the construction of offshore wind farms in a nui states.

Indeed, the Audubon society has called for a moratorium on new wind development in bird-sensitive because of the climatic conditions needed for wind farms, includes the vast majority of the suitable : construction.

Wind power is expensive, doesn't deliver the environmental benefits it promises and has substantia short, wind power is no bargain. Accordingly, it doesn't merit continued government promotion orfui

.H. Sterling Burnett is a senior fellow with the National Center for Policy Analysis (NCPA).

12770 Coit Rd., Suite 800 - Dallas, TX 75251-1339 - 972/386-6272 - Fax 972/386-0924 655 15th St. N.W., Suite 375 - Washington, DC 20005 - 202/628-6671 - Fax 202/628-6474 Copyright © 2002 National Center for Policy Analysis - All rights reserved.

****************************************************************** ************************* Click here: Sierra Club Wind Siting Advisory Document http://www.wind-works.orq/articles/scsitingadvisorv.html

The Sierra Club recognizes that all forms of power generation entail environmental tradeoffs, and that there are drawbacks to wind development. The most contentious issues include visual and wildlife impacts. These and other issues are discussed below.

The Sierra Club believes that in most instances many of the negative impacts of wind can be managed. The most important management measures are site selection and careful site evaluation. We believe that with adequate site planning the benefits of wind power in reducing the threat of global warming and pollution will substantially outweigh wind's negative impacts. We believe there are locations in every region in the country where wind power can be responsibly sited and generated.

Wind power alone cannot solve global warming. We need significant efficiency gains in our cars, buildings, and appliances; we also need to develop other clean, renewable energy sources and conservation. But wind is an available and important part of the solution and its development needs to begin sooner rather than later. Today wind is the only renewable, sustainable energy resource which is being seriously proposed for immediate development on a major scale. It is therefore extremely important for the Club to support responsible wind development proposals where the sites are appropriate.

It is critical that we begin now to implement solutions to global warming. The Sierra Club encourages activists to evaluate potential wind projects as practical alternatives to fossil and nuclear energy - alternatives which offer important environmental advantages. No wind project should be considered as "just another energy development proposal".

The wind industry has come a long way in the last thirty years and will continue to mature. Wind generation capacity is increasing rapidly and will continue to increase. As we gain experience with wind power generation the Sierra Club will review its successes, failures and problems. This document will be reviewed as necessary by the Club's Global Warming and Energy Committee.

Wind Power Siting Issues

Land Use

Much of our already-developed public and private land is suitable for wind production. The Sierra Club supports the development of wind projects where appropriate siting criteria are met, meaningful public participation is offered, and any site-specific and substantial environmental concerns are addressed or remedied in a responsible manner.

We support wind production on public and private land where specific and substantial reasons to oppose it do not exist. We particularly support the development of wind power on agricultural land where wind production complements existing land use. The Sierra Club opposes development in protected areas such as national and state parks, national monuments, wilderness areas, wildlife refuges, designated roadless areas, critical habitat and designated habitat recovery areas for wildlife, and areas of cultural significance, sacred lands, and other areas that have special scenic, natural or environmental value. In these areas, it is inappropriate to build wind turbines, roads, transmission lines, or any other structure related to wind development. Very limited exceptions may be appropriate when a more damaging impact from an alternative approach can be avoided or mitigated. For example, a carefully placed on-site wind turbine might eliminate the need for building roads and transmission lines into a service facility in a park.

Avian and Wildlife Impacts

The Sierra Club believes that data and observations from wind facilities at locations worldwide indicate that proper siting and design of wind turbines can greatly reduce harmful impacts on birds, animals and plants. Further, the Club believes that there should be appropriate sites for wind power in most general regions of the United States. However, specific sites may prove to have unacceptably high risks for wildlife. In these cases, the Sierra Club should oppose any siting of turbines. Site studies should evaluate data on wildlife from at least a one-year period prior to construction to evaluate potential wildlife impacts. Each site of concern should be evaluated for potential avian and other biological and habitat effects. Effort should be made to identify and reduce adverse wildlife impacts. If a decision is made to go ahead, appropriate mitigation measures should be deployed, and each selected site should be systematically monitored. Methodologies used for wildlife studies should be carefully recorded so that siting procedures resulting in problem sites can be accurately identified and study methodology can be modified in the future.

Visual/Scenic and Noise Impacts

Visual impacts are highly subjective. The best way for Club activists to ensure minimal visual impact is to develop regional recommendations for places that wind should and should not be sited.

Federal aviation rules require specific lighting on turbines of certain heights. This lighting should always be minimized for aesthetic reasons, unless specific lighting is shown to reduce bird or bat mortality. As more study is done, it may be appropriate to seek modification of the Federal rules for the wind industry, in particular to reduce or eliminate the need for strobing, bright colors, and lights visible from the ground. Wind turbines might be assigned a unique warning light color.

We suggest that wind developers restrict their impact on involuntary neighbors to near-ambient noise levels at the closest residence. Legally binding mechanisms to guarantee sustained noise control should be considered.

Safety

Windmills have the potential to throw blades. Under storm conditions turbine blades can throw ice to considerable distances. Siting should take account of risks to humans as well as to biota. General Guidance for Chapters

Work with developers early. It is important to begin working with the wind development company as early as possible to maximize public input and minimize impacts of the project. Start working with the wind developer as early as you can - hopefully while they're still at the stage of choosing an appropriate site.

Chapters should encourage local developers to abide by the following principles:

Wind developers who acquire access to rights for public or private property for wind development should respect the rights of neighbors, especially regarding noise impacts;

Wind developers should discuss any proposed project proposal with local communities. This should be done early on;

Wind developers should embrace minimal impact practices;

Wind developers should be obligated to meet site restoration and financial assurance criteria set by regulation. When such criteria do not exist they should be developed.

Developers should carefully record the methodology used for wildlife studies, so that procedures resulting in problem sites can be accurately identified and modified in the future.

Regulation regarding these issues may be appropriate. At an early stage in any project Chapters should identify organizations with regulatory authority and should work with them to assure close coordination with developers and implementation of enforceable constraints The wind industry and appropriate government agencies can and should play a major role in addressing many issues regarding wind development. These issues include mitigation efforts such as turbine and tower design that minimize perching, reflection and unnecessary light, and minimizing land impact before, during and after the presence of the turbine. Wind developers have a responsibility to be good neighbors, and by working collectively to solve some of the problems they can help ensure that the public will work with them, and not against them. The wind industry should make the results of their research openly available to facilitate rapid development of a core set of best practices for the industry.

Draw on local experience and regulations; Be sensitive to local issues; Regulatory procedures for wind siting are rapidly evolving. Some states and local areas have significant experience with wind siting, and it is important to draw on that experience while adjusting regulatory approaches to the situation in each jurisdiction or locality.

The public should be involved early and continuously. Public participation should be encouraged at every stage in each siting process. Meaningful public participation often requires funding. As you develop your participation process, make sure mechanisms to support it exist. This includes funding for research (including its peer review) you deem essential.

Above all, processes be perceived as - and actually be - fair, inclusive and transparent.

Hierarchy of Development Preferences

The following hierarchy generally ranks places where wind development is appropriate. This hierarchy refers primarily to large wind projects. Small wind projects (1-2 turbines) may necessitate less scrutiny, as they will usually have lesser impacts on the environment. (They may have serious consequences in limited areas, in which case close scrutiny is of course needed).

MOST APPROPRIATE SITES

The Sierra Club will usually support wind development in places that are Most Appropriate: • Agricultural land - farms, ranches, grazing lands (considering impacts on rare grassland birds, if any) • Land that has been substantially disturbed (e.g. brownfields), or where transmission lines exist already

MORE APPROPRIATE SITES

The Sierra Club should support wind development with appropriate mitigation techniques in places that are More Appropriate: • Sites near population and electricity consumption centers. • Sites where credible environmental review concludes siting will result in acceptable wildlife/habitat impacts Sites with extremely good wind potential, without strong negative concerns. LESS APPROPRIATE SITES

The Sierra Club may oppose wind development in places that are Less Appropriate, unless mitigation techniques can adequately minimize environmental impacts: • Natural areas where damaging road and/or transmission capacity must be installed • Projects located so as to significantly impair important scenic values NOT APPROPRIATE SITES

The Sierra Club will usually oppose wind development in areas that are Not Appropriate. The categories below include prior-designated or prior-proposed areas. For a more comprehensive discussion see the Club's Energy Facility Siting Policy www.sierraclub.org/policv/conservation/enerqvfac.asp: National parks Marine preserves or parks State parks National monuments Wilderness areas Wildlife refuges Federally-designated roadless areas Critical habitat for Rare, Threatened or Endangered Species or habitat for indigenous species critical to a region or state's biodiversity. Offshore wind development

It is likely that offshore development of wind will be an important component of reversing global warming. The Club hopes to work toward a reasonable balance between environmental and aesthetic concerns and the need for clean energy. Offshore site analysis should include a determination of significant habitat for non-endangered species.

The Club will not generically oppose offshore projects. However, offshore projects have their own set of sensitive issues which must be considered. As with land projects, it is crucial that meaningful public participation be offered and that site-specific and substantial environmental concerns be addressed and remedied.

Studies of all significant aspects of offshore wind development, including the effects of underwater structures on habitat, bird mortality, impacts on marine mammals and shoreline, proximity to sensitive and protected areas, and other issues should be performed as significant issues are identified.

Case Studies

As wind systems are installed it is important to develop and maintain a Club record of the process, and of lessons learned in each case, with the goal of helping future processes proceed more smoothly and helping us learn from experience. Mechanisms to assure this need to be developed.

References/Resources

SIERRA CLUB POLICIES

The Club's website, www.sierraclub.orq, allows searching policies by key work. Concepts sometimes occur in multiple places (e.g. Precautionary Principle) www.sierraclub.ora/pollcv/conservation/enerqvcons.asp Sierra Club conservation policy on energy conservation and renewables. This basic statement about renewables reads: "The following steps are some of many that should be pursued with vigor:... The use of renewable energy sources, such as solar energy, wind power, and geothermal power. "[Adopted by the Sierra Club Board of Directors January 20-21, 1973]. http://www.sierraclub.orq/policv/conservation/iustice.asp The Precautionary Principle. www.sierraclub.orq/policv/conservation/offshore.asp Identifies concerns about coastal ecology. Many of the concepts are relevant to offshore wind siting. www.sierraclub.org/policv/conservation/fuels.asp Discussion of trade-offs and environmental impacts of oil shales and synthetic fuels. Some concepts are relevant to wind siting www.sierraclub.orq/policv/conservation/enerqvfac.asp Discusses subtle trade-offs and public participation.

OTHER RESOURCES

The following provide helpful further reading, www.nationalwind.orq/pubs/avian collisions.pdf National Wind Coordinating Committee's August 2001 Avian Collisions with Wind Turbines. This document points out that wind turbines account for 0.01 - 0.02% of all avian collision fatalities per year. In contrast, cell phone towers account for 1-2 percent, buildings and windows account for 25 - 50 percent, and vehicles account for 15 - 30 percent of total estimated bird fatalities per year. www.nationalwind.orq/pubs/default.htm Studying Wind Energy/Bird Interactions: A Guidance Document. December 1999.

International Resources

Two international reports are exceptionally\well done. The Australian guide covers all they key issues in a slightly different style. The British guide has a helpful discussion of reducing conflict in identifying potential wind sites. www.auswea.com.au/downloads/AusWEAGuidelines.pdf Best Practice Guidelines for Implementation of Wind Energy Projects in Australia. March, 2002. 101 pages. www.bwea.com/pdf/bpq.pdf. Best Practice Guidelines for Wind Energy Development. London: British Wind Energy Association. November, 1994. ISBN 870054216, 24 pages.

*******************************************

Click here: Sierra Club's Southern California Regional Conservation Committee Wind Energy Policy

Sierra Club's Southern California Regional Conservation Committee Wind Energy Policy The following text was posted] to awea-windnet on 2/20/97. This monitored news group is WIN 13 hosted by the American Wind POWER Energy Association.-Paul -iNl Villv 6/pe r^ 3,'-^^fcr-r ^ "j c^Tt«. f-,•"- Wind Note: I am posting thel following policy statement b a regional group of the Sierra Club to elicit general comment. A broade awareness of the Club'sj 'WisvPowm views on wind energy will be helpful to advocates of wind energy in North America, especially in light of recen inconsiderate remarks abou environmental issues b some wind industry leaders in the United States.

For background, the Siern Club is one of North America's larges environmental or Greenl organizations. The Club hasj chapters in nearly every statej^wni of the United States as welli*1'^^ as chapters in Canada. Many of the group's members are| located in California wherej the organization was founded! in the late 19th century by the| legendary Scottish conservationist John Muir. California is also home to one of the world's largest concentration of wind turbines. When this policy statement was written, wind development in California had been underway for four years and was at a frenzy that hasn't been seen since.

The twelve-year old policy statement predates the Tejon Pass or Gorman controversy of the late 1980s. Thus it is not tainted by that highly charged conflict and represents views shared in the mid 1980s by an influential part of the organization.

The Tejon Pass fiasco is summarized in Wind Energy Comes of Age. In short, local Sierra Club activists over-reacted to an ill-advised proposal to build a wind plant near Gorman, California. In collaboration with the area's largest landholder. Sierra Club and other activists killed the project in a widely publicized bloodletting. As with many other environmental controversies, the conflict could have been avoided.

The policy statement was written by committee, probably compiled from notes of a meeting, and reads a little awkwardly in places.

Comments on the policy can be posted to me privately or posted publicly to this news group.

Paul Gipe

Sierra Club Wind Energy Policy Southern California Regional Conservation Committee

13 July, 1985

A. Introduction: The Sierra Club supports renewable alternative sources of energy which are non-polluting and causes less environmental damage than fossil fuels or nuclear power. Therefore, wind power is supported in principle as an acceptable source.

This policy statement seeks to encourage local, regional, and state regulation, including windfarm siting and design. Since the Club considers that windfarms may be less damaging to the environment than other feasible alternatives, the purpose of this policy is to help local groups in addressing the potential environmental impacts of wind energy projects in the planning and development process.

The California Energy Commission has identified areas suitable for wind development, most notably the San Gorgonio, Tehachapi, and Altamont Passes. During the last two years there has been a rapid growth of the wind industry in California due mainly to generous state and federal investment tax credits. There has resulted great public concern related to the siting and design of windfarms because of their unfavorable impacts on the environment.

B. Definition: wind energy conversion systems (WECS) are used to change the kinetic energy of the wind to useful mechanical energy, or by means of generators, to electricity. Windfarms are groups of WECS or wind generators.

C. Impacts: Due to the large areas of land required by windfarms, the potential for significant cumulative impact on the environment and other areas of concern is great."

1. Erosion: Potential for watershed destruction, flooding, sedimentation, landslides, and fugitive dust resulting from loss of native ground cover and grading on steep slopes.

2. Vegetation/Wildlife: Destruction of native plants and natural habitats; disruption and/or loss of wildlife and any rare, endangered or protected species.

3. Archaeological Sites: Site destruction or loss of visual integrity due to adjacent windfarm development.

4. Significant Geological Sites: Loss of scenic qualities of geological formations due to adjacent windfarm development.

5. Visual Quality: a) Loss of natural vistas due to service roads, other construction, and placement of WECS towers on or near ridgelines. b) Structural design, placing, and spacing of towers.

6. Acoustics: Infliction of operational sounds of WECS at any time of day or night on nearby residences or other highly sensitive land uses and wildlife.

7. Safety: WEC hazards include blade throw, expulsion of parts and toppling of towers.

D. Policy: Because of their significant and cumulative impacts, the development and operation of windfarms will be considered for support by the SCRCC only if a cumulative environmental impact report is first produced for the total area to be considered for development. The following concerns should be addressed thoroughly to ensure environmentally sound development before any zone changes occur or any permits are granted.

1. Develop those areas first which are rated as excellent (average wind speeds in excess of 14 mph) by the California Energy Commission to be sure maximum energy is produced to justify the large land areas required by windfarms, or where co-located with other energy or industrial facilities results in a net benefit.

2. Develop windfarm sites gradually to test the effectiveness of the local ordinance and other regulations.

3. Coordinate the windfarm siting process among local, state, and federal agencies to evaluate the impacts on the total are to be considered.

4. Erosion: a) In depth soil and slope studies are needed, including potential seismic and flooding activity, to ensure little or no erosion will occur both during and after construction. b) Roads, pads, cuts and fills, and structures should be designed to minimize erosion. c) Only slopes of less than 25% should be developed. Roads should have grades of 10% or less.

5. Vegetation/Wildlife: a) Preferred sites for development should be those with low ground cover. Forested areas should be avoided and protected by an appropriate buffer zone or setback. All mature, healthy trees should be preserved.

b) Avoid disruption of critical habitats such as riparian areas, migration corridors, and habitat for rare, endangered, or protected species.

c) Native plants must be used for the revegetation of graded areas.

6. Archaeological Sites: The protection of sites and their visual integrity should be ensured with an appropriate setback on adjacent windfarms and with height controls. In cases of removal of WECS, bankruptcy, or abandonment, the windfarms should be restored to their previous condition.

7. Significant Ecological and Geological Sites: Scenic qualities of such sites should be protected in a similar manner.

8. Visual Quality: There are many ways of achieving a visually acceptable windfarm through controlling the siting, spacing, height, reflectivity, and type and general appearance of WECS. With proper erosion control and the planting of new native vegetation, the visual scarring of service roads and pads can be reduced.

9. Acoustics:

a) An acoustical analysis should be conducted to establish guidelines for acoustical controls, including setbacks, height, and noise limitations, vegetation screens, spacing of both windfarms and WECS.

b) A buffer zone should be established (one-half mile or more) between windfarms and nearby residential and potential residential areas.

10. Safety: Appropriate setbacks from windfarm boundaries and height limits should be established to ensure protection of adjacent property and nearby public roads.

11. Related Governmental Actions:

a) Encourage the inclusion of a wind energy element in local general plans.

b)Support adoption of strong local wind energy ordinances and their enforcement in all phases of development and operation. c) Support the newly adopted state performance rating system which requires a quarterly reporting of such information as number of new WECS installed, electricity produced, and projected production per turbine. d) Support removal of all non-producing WECS within a reasonable amount of time (2-5 years) and restoration of the site to a more natural character. e) Require performance bonds to cover removal of equipment, land restoration, and correction of any environmental impacts during operation.

E: Summary: Development of wind power as a renewable energy source is encouraged. While some impacts of wind development on the environment are unavoidable, it should not mean environmental degradation. The SCRCC encourages development which minimizes all potential environmental impacts and which is equally sensitive to all other concerns. Preservation of the presently remaining open spaces as recreational or scenic resources will become increasingly important and valuable. A more responsible development of the land, with consideration for all values, not just economics, will benefit both the wind energy industry and the environment.

-End-

back to Archive of Articles * *

Home Books

m******************************************************************************************

Click here: Renewable Energy - Why Renewable Energy Is Not Cheap and Not Green http://www.ncpa.org/studies/renew/renew2d.html ************************************************************ ******

Click here: LAWRENCE A http://psvweb2.ucdavis.edu/grads/larabin/

LAWRENCE A. RABIN (Larry Rabin) Animal Behavior Graduate Group, UC Davis e-mail: iarabin(a),ucdavis.edu

CURRENT RESEARCH INTERESTS

The desire to develop wind energy technology has always been great among those exploring possible "renewable energy" resources due to the relatively low impact that windfarms have on the environment. Yet, organisms in the immediate vicinity of wind turbines have been affected by the development of these farms. Avian mortality resulting from windmill collision as well as behavioral alteration in birds has been reported. Little work however, has examined how windfarms affect terrestrial species. In my graduate work, I am exploring the potential effects of wind turbines on resident small mammal communities. I am studying rodents inhabiting the Altamont Pass Wind Power Plants, a collection of 5000 wind turbines in Northern California. In particular, my dissertation research asks how windfarms affect predator recognition, antipredator behavior, and communication 4 » '>

in small mammals.

*******************************************************************************

http://www.solaraccess.com/news/storv7storvid-7116&p-l

Troubled Wind Farm Undergoes Dismantling

Ringkobing, Denmark - July 13,2004 [SolarAccess.com] Denmark-based Vestas, one the world's major wind turbine companies, announced that every last one of their wind turbines installed offshore at their flagship Horns Reef project will be transported to nearby Ringkobing and Lem and dismantled for tests and repairs due to ongoing problems.

All 81 of the V80 2-MW turbines will be dismantled, including all of the units installed offshore and the test nacelle that is located on land near the city of Esbjerg.

While it doesn't necessarily appear there are equal problems with every single wind turbine, the company decided it would be best to remove all the units.

"Experience is expensive, but also precious," said Svend Sigaard, president and CEO of Vestas. "Being the first large offshore project, Homs Reef must be a success. The project is important for Vestas' continued leadership in the offshore segment. It is my belief that Vestas will win the market in this segment. Even though it has been at a high premium, it puts Vestas and our suppliers into a unique position,"

Through the Homs Reef project. Vestas has gained a lot of experience in offshore work and has been chosen as the supplier to three other offshore projects in the UK with a total capacity of more than 200 MW. One of these projects. North Hoyle, is already installed and has proven itself so far with good results, according to the company. In 2003 Vestas entered into agreements of delivery of a total capacity of roughly 150 MW to two other offshore projects in the UK, Scroby Sands approximately three kilometers off Great Yamouth in » ^> v-^

Norfolk on the UK's east cost and Kentish Flats off Kent.

The Horns Reef repair project is expected to be completed during the autumn of 2004. :Charles.Parsons (15184740421) 15:37 07/15/04 EST Pg 1- /V. •'^P 6? £'Wrt

July 15, 2004

Charles Parsons 104 Richard Rd Syracuse, NY 13215

Commissioners New York State Public Service Commission 3 Empire State Plaza Albany, NY 12223

Dear Commissioners :

Business fears that the "renewable portfolio standard" now before the PSC wil create a seller's market that will drive prices still higher - perhaps much higher. And companies like mine. Parsons & Associates Inc, are alarmed that industrial and commercial users might pay even more than their fair share of any increase.

Sincerely,

Charles Parsons :Connie.RufF (15184710421) IS^l 07/15/04 EST Pg 1- t&tnesp'

July 15, 2004

Connie Ruff 780 Searles Hill Rd Bainbridge, NY 13733

Commissioners New York State Public Service Commission 3 Empire State Plaza Albany, NY 12223

Dear Commissioners :

Advocates claim this plan would probably increase rates by very little, if at all. But if that is the case, there is no reason the commission can't try using voluntary measures - rather than mandatory purchase quotas -to meet the goal of 25 percent renewable power. Sound incentives are already bringing more and more renewable power on line. Go with what works. Don't add to the cost of doing business and drive more jobs from our state.

Sincerely,

Connie Ruff i:Kevin,Conley (15184740421) 16:48 07/15/04 EST Pg 1-

06-£r0fW

Kevin Conley 7401 Round Pond Rd Syracuse, NY 13212

July 15,2004

Commissioners New York State Public Service Commission 3 Empire State Plaza Albany, NY 12223

Dear Commissioners :

Sincerely,

Kevin Conley "Anthony Conrad" flB To: "[email protected]" Subject: RPS Case 03-E-0188 S* 03-tI-t)\S6' 07/20/2004 08:22 AM OZtoiU July 20, 2004 ^

Jaclyn A. Bnlling v^-/^ Secretary, Public Service Commission Three Empire State Plaza Albany, NY 12223-1350

The Honorable Jaclyn A. Brilling,

I am writing to comment on the Draft Generic Environmental Impact Statement regarding a Retail Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS), and to urge the Public Service Commission to implement such a standard in New York. As clearly shown in the impact statement, a renewable standard for New York would provide both economic and environmental benefits to residents of our state.

The renewable standard will help reduce our growing dependence on imported natural gas, and avoid natural gas price spikes. It will conserve natural resources for future generations. By encouraging the development of renewable energy facilities, it will pump money and jobs into our state and local economies. By improving air quality, the standard will avoid sick days and hospital visits for New Yorkers. By diversifying our energy supply with renewable standard. New York can increase energy security and benefit the economy. As found in the impact statement, these benefits will come at little or no cost, and will even provide savings for some consumers.

The standard will also help reduce the damaging environmental impacts of our state's current reliance on fossil fuels and nuclear power for electricity. Fossil fuel use is responsible for air pollution that contributes to global warming, acid rain, smog, and respiratory illness, and in the case of nuclear power, the production of hazardous waste and thermal pollution of waterways. These are all serious problems for the health and well-being of New York residents, and taking action to alleviate them should be a priority for the Commission. The impact statement finds a renewable standard would do just that, reducing statewide emissions of major pollutants by at least 5 percent, and likely more.

But to best provide these benefits, the standard must include only real renewable resources like wind, solar, bioenergy, low-impact hydropower, and tidal energy. Including garbage incineration ("Waste-to-Energy") would significantly weaken the effectiveness of the standard. Per unit of electricity, garbage incineration emits even more mercury and nitrous oxides than coal plants in New York. In addition, garbage is not a renewable or sustainable resource, and burning it competes with preferred technologies, such as recycling. Therefore it should not be encouraged by a standard aimed at p^|Rotingp^PToting new clean, renewable techn^i^dtechn^l^ies. By implementing a state renewable standard, the Commission can ensure that more clean renewable facilities are put in place to offset the damaging effects of fossil and nuclear plants, while providing substantial economic benefits. The sooner the Commission acts, the sooner the benefits of the RPS will come to New Yorkers. I urge the Commission to adopt the standard no later than July 2004 and to gradually phase in the renewable requirement starting in 2005. Please put New York on a path to a cleaner, safer and more prosperous energy future. Sincerely, Anthony Conrad 134 Congress St Buffalo, NY 14213-1416 USA anthosconOhotmail.com i:Kelly.UagstaFf (1518WM21) :28 07/19/04 EST Pg 1- C^-rv<=^p m 03'g-of%6 Kelly Wagstaff 55 Main St Binghamton, NY 13905

July 19, 2004

Commissioners New York State Public Service Commission 3 Empire State Plaza Albany, NY 12223

Dear Commissioners :

Respectfully yours.

Kelly Wagstaff 03-&CI88

Michele Hacker To: Pamela Conroy/Exec/NYSDPS@NYSDPS cc: \M» 07/19/2004 02:18 PM Subject: RPS Web Comments Ram,

If Elaine didn't forward onto you, this should be included in case file.

Michele

— Forwarded by Michele Hacker/OSec/NYSDPS on 07/19/2004 02:17 PM •

"' Rose Hamm To: Eleanor Stein/OHADR/NYSDPS@NYSDPS, Michele / Hacker/OSec/NYSDPS@NYSDPS 'v'^Er: 07/06/2004 08:03 AM cc: ;^. > // Subject: RPS Web Comments

Rose Hamm Utility Consumer Program Specialist Office of Retail Market Development 518-474-1571 [email protected] — Forwarded by Rose Hamm/OCEA/NYSDPS on 07/06/2004 08:02 AM •

"Cynthia Cole" To: "Jeffrey M Peterson" , "Rose Hamm" , "Patricia Roger" net.net> , "YATES COUNTY PLANNING BOARD" , , "Mark 07/02/2004 10:41 AM Assini" , "L Stewart" Please respond to , "Margaret Crawford" "Cynthia Cole" , "Hockford" , "Silver" , "JL Hairie" , "Hogan" , "Susan Johns" , "Simon" , "Will" , "Tarr" , "Doug May" , "Saul Rigberg" , "Judge Eleanor Stein" , "Laura Pearce" , "Richard Brodsky" , "Charles Rangel" , "Clyde Forbes" , "Rick F. Rebedow" , "John Hicks" , "Christina Palmero" , "BARBARA MURPHY" , "Bruce Penrod" , "Sierra Club" , "Steuben Greens" , "Englebright, Assemblyman Steve" , "Assemblyman Robin Schiminger" , "Rochester Regional Group of the Sierra Club" , "LaBella Associates P.O." , "Rudyard Edick" , "Paul Tonko" , "Tim Sullivan" , , "James Sherron" , , , "Tom Collins NYSERDA" , "John St. Cross NYSERDA" , "Bob Callender NYSERDA" , "NY State" , "Jillian Liner" , "Peter Henner Law" , "Senator R. Kuhl" > "Brian Kolb" , "Peter Keane" , , "Howard" , "Greg Heffner" , "Lucille George" , "David Gardner" , "Mr. Kerry Fitzpatrick" , "Adele Ferranti" , "Peggy Coleman" , "J. Cole" , , "Amy" , "James Baccalles" cc: Subject: Empire Zones-NO MORE free ride!

— Original Message — From: Cynthia Cole To: James Baccalles ; Senator R. Kuhl Sent: Friday, July 02, 2004 10:30 AM Subject: Empire Zones-no more free ridel

Dear Senator Kuhl & Assemblyman Baccalles,

What will bring business to the state is a sane tax structure that encourages our skilled workers a future and hope of settling within the state. GREAT companies are built and held by QUALITY employees. NY is just attracting welfare corporations and welfare recipients who come here for a free ride on our backs. Our ambitious and educated young adults are seeking futures in other states - our skilled workers are leaving. What kind of business is going to be attracted to NY when skilled, ambitious labor is slim pickings? Only the ones who need ALBANY'S CORPORATE WELFARE! Empire Zones had their chance - ALBANY & the state agencies BLEW IT! Set up a totally new program for QUALIFIED companies and ENFORCE the guidlines, and needed spending.

Please, stop this insanity! You must know how this program is being abused. Start new. Enforce honesty and integrity in your agencies- and in yourselves! PLEASE! Sincerely,

Richard & Cynthia Cole Prattsburgh, NY Forwarded by Rose Hamm/OCEA/NYSDPS on 07/06/2004 08:02 AM "Cynthia Cole" To: "Erich Bachmeyer" , "Tom Hagner" net.net> cc: miwiMA ni -JO DM Subject: This is a good one. AK RR * ENERGY PULSE ***ln Search of a U/7U.i^uU4 in .M KM National Energy Strategy Please respond to M/ a7 "Cynthia Cole"

Hello, I greatly appreciated the receipt of this article today, however disturbing was the contents to those of us concerned about oil and coal use. This is some seriously UN-politically correct reasoning BUT has the content of science and economics and elements of truth many will prefer to stay in denial of- and many will hope is not true. Read the article and follow up for yourselves. Truth is truth, science is science and wishful thinking is still wishful thinking. Alas. Dreams may still change our future - reality still needs to be dealt with - now. Coal plants need strict enforcement (not enfarcement) of guidelines to insure minimal harmful emissions. Renewable energy looks more and more best designed for use as individuals and small communities and businesses. Of course, if we do that, we will be reducing the need for traditional coal and oil. That would be a good thing. Our views about renewable energy does not have to have a blanket application covering individual in statewide or national. The benefits change depending on the application. If you would like to reproduce this article on your web pages, 1 see link provided at end of article for instructions. Regards, Cynthia

Original Message From: Angela Kelly To: Angela Kelly Sent: Saturday, July 03, 2004 7:18 AM Subject: AK RR * ENERGY PULSE ***In Search of a National Energy Strategy

RR Energy Pulse

In Search of a National Energy Strategy - Why Cold, Hard Scientific Realities Will Always Trump Warm, Fuzzy Political Ideals

6.30.04

Richard Barker, President & CEO, Quad Resources, Inc. http://www.enerqvpulse.net/centers/article/artlcle display.cfm?a ld=769

In 1897, the Indiana House of Representatives approved a bill changing the value of pi to 3.2. (Engrossed House Bill No. 246: The Indiana Pi Bill) But pi, a universal mathematical constant, stubbornly refused to change. Funny thing about the laws of nature - they will never, can never, be subjugated by man-made laws. Seldom do screwball ideas proliferate in greater numbers than when warm, fuzzy political ideals challenge the cold, hard logic of science. And if you think the Indiana Pi Bill is a quaint but isolated anecdote from a bygone era, think again. Today's politicians are still at it, many of the proposals for a national energy policy being prime examples.

Immediately we see that thermodynamics is at odds with politics, whose practitioners often spend enormous amounts of time and money convincing voters that they can indeed get something for nothing. Thermodynamics, then, is politically incorrect.

The Second Law of Thermodynamics addresses this question. The property of energy that gives it value is its capacity to do work. The Second Law tells us that in any process, energy's capacity for work always decreases, and the decrease is irreversible. What we refer to as energy consumption is actually the process of diminishing energy's capacity to do work. So if the First Law tells us that we can't get something for nothing, the Second Law tells us that we can't even break even. No matter how efficient a process is, energy's capacity for doing work is always irreversibly lost, which is why it is impossible to build a perpetual motion machine.

All are, in effect, either: (1) Solar batteries in which energy from the sun was stored at some time in the past, or; (2) The result of direct and continual solar emission.

The U.S demand for electrical capacity alone is growing by about 35,000 MW per year. Let's look at how some of the more popular energy policy proposals will address this growth.

But why? In spite of the ostensible advantages, they have significant disadvantages, including high capacity and production costs and, perhaps surprisingly, dire environmental consequences.

The locations which receive the greatest amounts of solar radiation are rarely near large metropolitan areas which need the energy the most. And available solar radiation varies with the season and the weather. Lacking some efficient means of storing the energy, we cannot depend on its being available when needed. But suppose, in spite of these drawbacks, we decide to meet just 20 percent of the present growth in demand with solar capacity. Within 10 years, we will have covered about 2,200 square miles of land with solar facilities, the equivalent of almost one third of the State of New Jersey, irreparably altering landscapes and devastating plant and wildlife habitat in the process.

The main beneficiaries of biomass are those who will receive federal subsidies for growing the fuel. Looking to biomass to save our environment is like looking to amputation to lose weight.

Energy from Hydrogen The prospect of a hydrogen-fueled energy economy fires our imaginations. We talk excitedly of "energy from seawater", and are reminded that hydrogen is the most abundant element in the universe. While that is true, elemental hydrogen, the form needed for fuel, is very rare in nature. In order to extract elemental hydrogen from water, we have to expend energy to break the molecular bonds between the hydrogen and oxygen atoms. So hydrogen, unlike other "solar batteries", does not come pre-charged; we have to charge it before we can use It.

When we discharge that battery, the reaction is reversed and the hydrogen becomes water again. But the Second Law tells us that we can never break even on the transaction; we will always get back less energy than we had to put into it. While hydrogen may have its uses as a method for storing energy, it can by no means be considered an energy source.

Rather looking elsewhere for energy, why not concentrate on making those "solar batteries", those abundant resources we already have, more acceptable?

Coal alone could supply all our energy needs for hundreds of years. But because we have deemed it to be politically incorrect, we ignore the easiest solution. Money wasted on unworkable renewable energy projects would be far better spent on clean coal research projects.

Nuclear In spite of its political incorrectness, nuclear energy has the lowest production costs of any energy source (about 1.68 cents/kWh), produces no emissions or so-called greenhouse gases, requires very little land and has almost no environmental impact.

The U.S. has the technology infrastructure to permit almost all non-production work to be performed away from a central office. As more and more American companies accept the idea of telecommuting, our dependence on oil will decrease. A change from five eight-hour workdays to four ten-hour days alone can cut fuel use and emissions by almost 20 percent.

Mankind can triumph over the harsh realities of science onlv by understanding them and learning how to use them, not by trying to change them. If we refuse to understand the science and do the math, we are destined to live out our lives babbling scientific-sounding nonsense and throwing away billions of dollars on fools' errands while watching our economy decline.

Copyright 2004 CyberTech, Inc. Want to distribute or reprint this article or put this article on your web site? Click here for options! Rose Hamm,^^ To: Eleanor Stein/OHADR/NYSDg^NYSDPS, Michele Hacker/OSec/NYSDPS@N>i 107/26/2004 Ol^PM cc. Subject: Case03-E-0188

Rose Hamm Utility Consumer Program Specialist O38° fi ^ Office of Retail Market Development 518-474-1571 [email protected] — Forwarded by Rose Hamm/OCEA/NYSDPS on 07/26/2004 02:23 PM —

"Cynthia Cole" To: "Erich Bachmeyer" Subject: UK Wind Policy 07/25/2004 09:14 PM Please respond to "Cynthia Cole"

FYI - whether you approve or not - the UK is making huge changes for huge reasons.

http://\\^vw.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.ihlTnr?xml=/news/20Q4/07/25/nbook25.x ml&sSheet=/news/2004/07/25/ixhome.html

Overturning the law

At a press conference tomorrow morning at Conservative Central Office, standing alongside the conservationist Professor David Bellamy, Michael Howard will announce a dramatic policy shift by his party on the increasingly contentious issue of wind energy. Triggered by a huge windfarm proposal for Romney Marsh in his own Kent constituency, the Tory leader will come out with all guns blazing against the Government's plans to cover vast areas of Britain in giant wind turbines.

The plan by npower, a subsidiary of the German energy giant RWE, to erect a "wind factory" on Romney Marsh is the first test of a new Government policy, which, for windfarms above 50 megawatts, allows the Department of Trade and Industry to override normal planning procedures. The DTI will hold its own public inquiry, under its own inspector, then decide whether a wind farm can be built, regardless of the views of residents or local councils.

Last Wednesday the DTI launched its review npower's plans to erect 27 giant turbines covering 1,000 acres of Romney Marsh. Each turbine would be 370 ft tall, nearly the height of Centre Point (385 ft), with concrete foundations sunk 110 ft into the earth. Six and a half miles of new roads would be built across the marshland, requiring 50,000 tons of roadstone.

This development, which will change the character of one of the most unspoiled and romantic landsca||^^n southern England, has been bitterly opj^|d by an array of wildlife and d^Pervation groups, led by Philip Merricks, l^pal farmer who runs the famous Cheyne Court bird reserve. It has been unanimously opposed by every elected authority in the area, including 12 parish councils, two district councils (one controlled by the Lib Dems) and two county councils, including Kent. The leader of Kent council. Sir Sandy Bruce-Lockhart, says: "We are not prepared to see the evocative landscape and wildlife of Romney Marsh destroyed by this development."

The Government is, however, so determined to drive forward its wind policy that, on Romney Marsh, the DTI is for the first time claiming the power to override normal planning rules by using Section 36 of the 1989 Electricity Act - which the objectors claim was never intended for this purpose.

In addition, the recent Planning Policy Statement (PPS) 22 says that Britain's need for a huge expansion of windpower to comply with EU renewable energy targets must now become an overriding factor in planning decisions. If the Government is to achieve these targets, by meeting 20 per cent of Britain's energy needs from "renewable" sources by 2020, up to 20,000 more wind turbines must be built in the next 15 years - 20 times the number already installed.

There is increasingly vocal opposition to this policy, led by such eminent conservationists as Professor Bellamy and Professor James Lovelock, the father of the "Gaia thesis". They argue that wind power is a ludicrously expensive, inefficient and inadequate answer to Britain's fast-approaching energy crisis, as we face increasing dependence on imported natural gas and the phasing out of the nuclear power stations that currently supply nearly a quarter of our electricity.

The Government's "wind gamble" works only because of the huge hidden subsidy - currently £1.5 billion a year - that goes to a handful of companies making electricity at two and a half times the cost of that from conventional sources. The Romney Marsh scheme alone would generate an estimated £90 million for its developers, paid by consumers through higher electricity bills.

For months senior Tories have been urging their leadership to expose the confidence trick of wind power. Mr Howard's statement tomorrow, backed by Professor Bellamy, could be the turning point in Britain's gullible acceptance of what has been described as "the greatest scam since the South Sea Bubble"...... Forwarded by Rose Hamm/OCEA/NYSDPS on 07/26/2004 02:23 PM

[email protected] To: [email protected] 07/26/2004 0130 PM cc: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected] Subject: Windfarms- Second letter requesting clarification Second mailing. First darealatMJ July 8, 2004

Dear Ag & Markets Representative,

Prattsburgh is presently going through two SEQR processes in regard to large commercial windturbine projects (79 plus MW each). The non-leasing neighbors have concerns over your guidelines for mitigation especially in reference to the turbines being placed along field edges. The negative impacts on non-leasing neighbors should be considered a higher priority especially in regard to Health and Safety, noise and viewshed.

We, the Advocates for Prattsburgh, request clarification of your Guidelines as well as clarification of whose guidelines supersede others as government agencies, i.e.. Does the PSC and DEC Noise Mitigation supersede your location of turbines at property boundaries?

Respectfully,

Dr. Alice Sokolow 34 Avonmore Way Penfield, NY 14526

Click here: New York State Department of Agriculture and Markets http://www.aqmkt.state.nv.us/AP/agservices/constructWind.html

Guidelines for Agricultural Mitigation for Windpower Pi

The following recommendations and guidelines shall apply to constn for wind power construction projects located in County adopted, Stat agricultural districts. The project sponsor is encouraged to coordinatt York State Department of Agriculture and Markets (Ag. and Markets) appropriate schedule for milestone inspections to assure that the goc guidelines are being met. For larger projects, the project sponsor sh£ Environmental Monitor to oversee the construction and restoration in fields.

Siting Recommendations/Goals

Minimize impacts to normal farming operations by locating structures edges where possible.

Locate access roads, which cross agricultural fields, along ridge tops possible to eliminate the need for cut and fill and reduce the risk of c drainage problems.

Avoid dividing larger fields into smaller fields, which are more difficult locating access roads along the edge of agricultural fields where pos

All existing drainage and erosion control structures such as diversion and tile lines shall be avoided or apj^|riate measures taken to mair design and effectiveness of the exi^Jjstructures. Any structures dii construction shall be repaired to as close to original condition as pos as possible, unless such structures are to be eliminated based on a i

Construction Guidelines

The surface of access roads constructed through agricultural fields s with the adjacent field surface.

Where necessary, culverts and waterbars shall be installed to mainte drainage patterns.

All topsoil must be stripped from agricultural areas used for vehicle a traffic and parking. All vehicle and equipment traffic and parking shal the access road and/or designated work areas such as tower sites ai areas. No vehicles or equipment will be allowed outside the work are approval from the landowner and, when applicable, the Environment.

Topsoil from work areas (tower sites, parking areas, "open-cut" elect trenches, along access roads) shall be stockpiled separate from othe material (rock and/or subsoil). At least 50 feet of temporary workspac along "open-cut" electric cable trenches for proper topsoil segregatio stockpile areas shall be clearly designated in the field and on the on- set" of construction drawings.

In cropland, hayland and improved pasture a minimum depth of forty of cover will be required for all buried electric cables. In unimproved ( and land permanently devoted to pasture, a minimum depth of thirty- cover will be required. In areas where the depth of soil over bedrock zero to forty-eight inches, the electric cables shall be buried entirely I of the bedrock or at the depth specified for the particular land use wf less. At no time will the depth of cover be less than twenty-four inche soil surface.

All excess subsoil and rock shall be removed from the site. On site d such material may be allowed if approved by the landowner and, wh( the Environmental Monitor, with appropriate consideration given to ai agricultural or environmental impacts.*

In pasture areas, work areas will be fenced to prevent livestock acce with landowner agreements.

All pieces of wire, bolts, and other unused metal objects will be picke properly disposed of as soon as practical after the unloading and pa( turbine components so that these objects will not be mixed with any 1

Excess concrete will not be buried or left on the surface in active agri Concrete trucks will be washed outside of active agricultural areas.*

Restoration Guidelines ^P Following construction, all disturbec^Picultural areas will be decom| depth of 18 inches with a deep ripper or heavy-duty chisel plow. In ai topsoil was stripped, soil decompaction shall be conducted prior to tc replacement. Following decompaction, all rocks 4 inches and larger i removed from the surface of the subsoil prior to replacement of the tt topsoil will be replaced to original depth and the original contours will reestablished where possible. All rocks 4 inches and larger shall be r the surface of the topsoil. Subsoil decompaction and topsoil replacer be avoided after October 1, unless approved on a site-specific basis landowner in consultation with Ag. and Markets. All parties involved i cognizant that areas restored after October 1sl may not obtain suffick prevent erosion over the winter months. If areas are to be restored a , some provision should be made to restore any eroded areas in the establish proper growth.

All access roads will be regraded to allow for farm equipment crossin restore original surface drainage patterns, or other drainage pattern I into the design.

All restored agricultural areas shall be seeded with the seed mix spei landowner, in order to maintain consistency with the surrounding are

All surface or subsurface drainage structures damaged during constr repaired to as close to preconstruction conditions as possible, unless structures are to be removed as part of the project design.

Following restoration, all construction debris will be removed from th(

(*Any permits necessary for disposal under local. State and/or federj regulations must be obtained by the contractor, with the cooperation landowner when required.)

Two Year Monitoring and Remediation

The Project Sponsor will provide a monitoring and remediation perloc than two years immediately following the completion of initial restoral year period allows for the effects of climatic cycles such as frost actic precipitation and growing seasons to occur, from which various moni determinations can be made. The monitoring and remediation phase to identify any remaining agricultural impacts associated with constru in need of mitigation and to Implement the follow-up restoration.

General conditions to be monitored include topsoil thickness, relative rock and large stones, trench settling, crop production, drainage and severed fences, etc. Impacts will be identified through on site monito agricultural areas impacted by construction and through contact with farmland operators and the Department of Agriculture and Markets.

Topsoil deficiency and trench settling shall be mitigated with importei is consistent with the quality of topsoil on the affected site. Excessive rock and oversized stone material v\gMe determined by a visual insp disturbed areas as compared to porcBfe of the same field located OL construction area. All excess rocks and large stones will be removed of by the Project Sponsor.

When the subsequent crop productivity within affected areas is less 1 the adjacent unaffected agricultural land, the Project Sponsor as wel appropriate parties, will help to determine the appropriate rehabilitate to be implemented. Because conditions which require remediation m noticeable at or shortly after the completion of construction, the signi release form prior to the end of the remediation period will not obviat Sponsor's responsibility to fully redress all project impacts.

Subsoil compaction shall be tested using an appropriate soil penetro soil compaction measuring device. Compaction tests will be made fo type identified on the affected agricultural fields. The subsoil compac results within the affected area will be compared with those of the ad unaffected portion of the farm field/soil unit. Where representative su of the affected area exceeds the representative subsoil density of th( areas, additional shattering of the soil profile will be performed using appropriate equipment. Deep shattering will be applied during period low soil moisture to ensure the desired mitigation and to prevent add compaction. Oversized stone/rock material which is uplifted to the su result of the deep shattering will be removed.

Revised 7-23-0 CLo-rre^/) # "Lois Darlington" To: "[email protected]" cc: Subject: RPS Case 03-E-0188 09/26/2004 12:32 PM •

Sep 26, 2004

Jaclyn A. Brilling Secretary, Public Service Commission Three Empire State Plaza Albany, NY 12223-1350

The Honorable Jaclyn A. Brilling,

By implementing a state renewable standard, the Commission can ensure that more clean renewable facilities are put in place to offset the damaging effects of fossil and nuclear plants, while providing substantial economic benefits. The sooner the Commission acts, the sooner the benefits of the RPS will come to New Yorkers. I urge the Commission to adopt the standard no later than July 2004 and to gradually phase in the renewable requirement starting in 2005. Please put New York on a path to a cleaner, safer and more prosperous energy future.

Sincerely,

Ms. Lois Darlington 200 Cabrini Blvd Apt 57 New York, NY 10033-1120 USA lhd2®columbia.edu Science Applications International Corporation An Employee Owned Company

September 16, 2004

Jaclyn A. Brilling Secretary to the Commission 3 Empire State Plaza ^- PorurpS A i l e Albany, NY 12223 nU^ ' H- - - -^ ^__(^_ L^>i>S>ZA^0(X- RE: Request for list service; Case # 03-E-0188 (Renewable Energy)

Dear Ms. Brilling:

Let this letter service as a formal request to be added to the sen/ice list for the proceeding on Renewable Energy (Case # 03-E-0188). Please use the following contact information for direct mail, phone contact or email correspondence.

Kevin C. Hale Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC) 500 New Kamer Rd. Albany, NY 12205 518-452-8800x236 518-452-8111 (fax) [email protected]

If you should have any question feel free to contact me directly at the phone number listed above.

C fa r£. Kevin C. Hale ^ f| O ^

3i rO'^

Energy Solutions Group 500 New Kamer Road, Albany, New York 12205 (518) 452-8800 • FAX: (518) 452-8111 STATE OF tmN YORK DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIMERVICE :i THREE EN^iE STATE PLAZA, ALBANY, NY 1^^-1350 Internet Address: http://www.dps.state.ny.us co-rre^p

PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION

WILLIAM M. FLYNN DAWN JABLONSKI RYMAN Chairman General Counsel THOMAS J. DUNLEAVY LEONARD A. WEISS JACLYN A. BRILLING NEAL N. GALVIN Secretary September 16, 2004

Brenda Platt Institute for Local Self-Reliance 927 15th Street, NW, 4th Floor fo-t-blH Washington, DC 20005

Monica Wilson GAIA 1442A Walnut Street, #220 Berkeley, CA 94709

Dear Ms. Platt and Ms. Wilson:

I respond to your September 1, 2004 letter to Chairman William Flynn. You ask for a response of the Commission concerning issues related to the qualification or designation of renewable energy resources, specifically municipal solid waste.

The Commission has not articulated a policy establishing qualifications for renewable resources, but these and other related issues are the subject of a pending proceeding (Case 03-E-0188). In May, the Administrative Law Judge issued her Recommended Decision and numerous public forums were held across the state to educate and solicit comment on these very complex issues. The record of the proceeding is comprehensive and the case is expected to be presented to the Commission shortly.

Thank you for submitting your views. I will forward your letter to the correspondence file for this proceeding.

Yours very truly, ^

cc: Gary Davidson Dave Flanagan Central Files V " JrortNCINEMTORJf I ALTERNATIVE} I

..: MTOPOBtaSElF-MilKCB

; September 1,2004 : k: -•,;•:• ^SSir^ i;

; The Honorable \yilliaTn Flynn SEP OH ^OM :•;••. fc Chairman • .' -.. New York State Public Service Commission ALB AM V; ^i ,: Three Empire State Plaza ; : : Albany).NY12223/'•' v • • . • .\ ,..: v'' '' ''. ^ ^

DearMr.Flynn;-

We are encouraged by the growth of renewable energy and green power technologies and programs at the locail, state, and federal levels. Given rising fossil-fuelprices and global warming, the need for . renewable energy and power has never been greater...... "' 'r •• :.•'

We are writing today to alert you to a critical issue regarding technologies and fuels ttiat qualify as- ;• renewableor green! As professionals representing organizations with decades of experience in both renewable energy and waste management issues, we urge you to exclude municipal solid waste and ;.''.. .. municipal solid waste energy conversion technologies as a renewable.source of fuel and power, We similarly urge you to,exclude municipal solid waste in the definition of biomass when biomass qualifies;. as renewable. •

The attached "sign-on" document provides the basic rationale and indicates brOad support for this request. -It is signed by 3.7 U.S. organizations and 24.international groups in 12 countries. •

A related concern is the inclusion of landfill gas as renewable fuel and power. Because.landfill gas is , produced from municipal solid waste, which is not renewable, it perpetuates our.inefficient throw-away society. Qualifying landfill gas as :green or renewable unfairly subsidizes the disposal industry making it

We would appreciate a response on your agency's position to these issues.. We're happy to provide more information and are available to dialogue further, :

/Sincerely, .•'. •[ : •''•':'• '.'•''-• '• hv/osUJiMm irenda Platt Monica Wilson Co-Directori Institute for Local Self-ReHance North America Coordinator, GAIA 927 IS"1 Street, NW, 4* Floor.. 1442A Walnut St., #220 • Washington, DC 20005 ... .. Berkeley, CA 94.709 .. (202) 598-1610 ext. 230 . . (510) ,883-9490 : • bplatt(S),ilsr.org mwilson(2',no-bum.org :Nayne.DeLaCroix (151M74M21) 15:10 09/01/04 EST Pg 1- c&n-e&p

September 1, 2004

Wayne DeLaCroix 43 Fuller Rd Albany, NY 12205

Commissioners k\ v r New York State Public Service Commission jSA \ -_^O^ N 3 Empire State Plaza T x>^ Albany, NY 12223

Dear Commissioners :

Sincerely,

Wayne DeLaCroix "Julia Raybould" ^^k To: "[email protected]"

Aug 29, 2004

Jaclyn A. Brilling Secretary, Public Service Commission Three Empire State Plaza Albany, NY 12223-1350

The Honorable Jaclyn A. Brilling,

The renewable standard will help reduce our growing dependence on imported natural gas, and avoid natural gas price spikes. It will conserve natural resources for future generations. By encouraging the development of renewable energy facilities, it will pump money and jobs into our state and local economies. By improving air quality, the standard will avoid sick days and hospital visits for New Yorkers. By diversifying our energy supply with renewable standard, New York can increase energy security and benefit the economy. As found in the impact statement, these benefits will come at little or no cost, and will even provide savings for some consumers.

Sincerely,

Julia Raybould 1215 5th Ave Apt 12C New York, NY 10029-5212 USA jr3 3 7®cornell.edu Dianne Coc^^ To: Eleanor Stein/OHADR/NYSDijtoNYSDPS, Paul -0.oe.onn. •fr,*. Agresta/OGC/NYSDPS@N^Ps, Saul 08/26/2004 raW5 PM Rigberg/0GC/NYSDPS@NY5DPS cc: Michele Hacker/OSec/NYSDPS@NYSDPS Subject: AskPSC Consumer Comment

For your information: CfrTT^ C***~ 03-£-0\^

— Forwarded by Dianne Cooper/OCEA/NYSDPS on 08/26/2004 12:14 PM •

"Dept. of Public To: Service" cc: 08/24/2004 10:20 PM

COMMENTS on Electric from: [email protected] UTILITY: Electric ***** TOPICS : RPS ***** Comments Dear PSC Chairman, William Flynn:

As New York State Public Service Commission (PSC) begins to debate the Renewables Portfolio Standard (RPS) , I would strongly encourage you to support the benefits of wind, solar, biomass, and geothermal energy as electricity markets become more competitive. New York will do better by putting its energy dollars into labor-intensive homegrown industries than it will buying Pennsylvania coal or Mideast oil.

The RPS is an appropriate mechanism to advance critically important renewable energy provisions soon enough to encourage meaningful growth in this critical industry.

Please support the Renewables Portfolio Standard using language similar to that which recently was approved.

Sincerely, Karen & Richard Blanke

***** EMAIL Address: [email protected] ***** Zip Code: 14525 53~£'*.o(ti ***** Area Code: 585 ***** Phone: 584-3606 STATE OF NEW ^#RKDEIVARTMENT OF WBLIC SERVICE THREE EMPIRE STATE PLAZA, ALBANY, NY 12223-1350 Internet Address: http://www.dps.state.ny.us

PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION

WILLIAM M. FLYNN DAWN JABLONSKI RYMAN Chairman General Counsel THOMAS J. DUNLEAVY LEONARD A. WEISS JACLYN A. BRILLING NEAL N. GALVIN Secretary

August 18,2004

Mark Scher C 6Ve-^ President MSE Power Systems, Inc. 255 Washington Ave. Ext., Suite 202 Albany, New York 12205

Dear Mr. Scher:

Thank you for your recent letter regarding the Commission's efforts to develop a Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS). As you may know, the Commission has received a Recommended Decision from the Administrative Law Judge and is currently receiving briefs from the parties concerning the judge's recommendations. The staff of the department held numerous public comment forums across the state. All the above submissions and comments (including your letter) together with the voluminous testimony and exhibits will be included in the record of the proceeding. The Commission will review the record thoroughly before making any determination in this case.

Please be assured that the Commission is exploring all options and alternatives in order to develop a RPS that is consistent with the public interest.

Again, thank you for your comments.

Yours very truly,

J^lyn A. prilling Secretary August 6,2004 <7 |L RE

William M. Flyrm, Esq. Vi)^ j AU6 10 2004 Chairman T nuiua./.M,. Public Service Commission ' 3 Empire State Plaza Albany, NY 12223-1350 Dear Chairman Flynn:

As you know, in February of 2003 the Public Service Commission began a proceeding to implement a renewable portfolio standard (RPS) to ensure 25 percent of New York State's electricity will come from renewable energy by 2013. We believe an RPS will ensure continued investment in renewable energy development in New York and provide numerous benefits to the State's residents. The analyses by NYPSC staff and independent experts show that the economic benefits to customers (lower wholesale electric and gas prices, lower fuel price risk) of a RPS out weigh the small increase in utility system expenses. Moreover, a RPS will improve New York's air quality, reduce greenhouse gas emissions, provide much-needed income to New York communities, diversify the State's energy supply and increase employment. Rural, upstate communities need the investment occurring now, in anticipation of an RPS, to continue. The renewable energy industry is a high-growth, high-technology industry with much to offer those states willing to provide a conducive environment for its growth and development. In addition, the preservation of New York's farms and rural communities is an often-unmentioned piece of this forward-thinking energy policy. We applaud the efforts that you have taken so far in launching the RPS and urge you to help keep the proceeding on track. To provide market certainty and assure continued investment in New York by the renewable energy industry, the commission's ruling on the recommended decision should be issued by the end of the summer and implementation should begin as soon as practicable. The time to act is now to ensure New York is able to take advantage of its significant renewable resource base and the many benefits it can provide for all New Yorkers. Sincerely, MSE Power Systems, Inc.

Mark Stmer President cc: Gary Davidson, Public Service Commission Charles Fox, Esq., Executive Chambers

255 Washington Avenue Extension • Suite 202 • Albany, New York 12205 • (518) 452-7718 • Fax (518) 452-7716 J^JT. Dianne C^^r To: Michele Hacker/OSec/NY^^@NYSDPS gJl Jg/f 08/05/20d^Pj8 PM subject: AskPSC Consumer Comm^Pon closed case

— Forwarded by Dianne Cooper/OCEA/NYSDPS on 08/04/2004 09:09 AM —

"Dept. of Public To: Service" cc: 08/04/2004 08:21 AM

COMMENTS on electricy-renewable energy from: erinedwards®taconic.net UTILITY: electricy-renewable energy ***** TOPICS : adopt and strenthen RPS decision ***** Comments Approve the RPS recommendations as soon as possible to get NY on the path to cleaner air, renewable energy, and increased development. Strenthen the recommendations to include air emissions standards; we can't just replace polluting coal and oil with bad technology when effeicient technology exists. ***** EMAIL Address: [email protected] ***** Zip Code: 12502 ***** Area Code: 518 ***** Phone:

tf-f-"''•a "J.M. Rudder" ^^^ To: "[email protected]"

August 15, 2 004

Jaclyn A. Brilling Secretary, Public Service Commission Three Empire State Plaza Albany, NY 12223-1350

The Honorable Jaclyn A. Brilling,

But to best provide these benefits, the standard must include only real renewable resources like wind, solar, bioenergy, low-impact hydropower, and tidal energy. Including garbage incineration ("Waste-to-Energy") would significantly weaken the effectiveness of the standard. Per unit of electricity, garbage incineration emits even more mercury and nitrous oxides than coal plants in New York. In addition, garbage is not a renewable or sustainable resource, and burning it competes with preferred technologies, such as recycling. Therefore it should not be encouraged by a standard aimed al^fcromotingil^fcromoting new clean, renewable tecd^fclogiestecd^fclc By implementing a state renewable standard, the Commission can ensure that more clean renewable facilities are put in place to offset the damaging effects of fossil and nuclear plants, while providing substantial economic benefits. The sooner the Commission acts, the sooner the benefits of the RPS will come to New Yorkers. I urge the Commission to adopt the standard no later than July 2004 and to gradually phase in the renewable requirement starting in 2005. Please put New York on a path to a cleaner, safer and more prosperous energy future.

Sincerely,

J.M. Rudder 339 9th St Brooklyn, NY 11215-4054 USA jmrudder®rcn.com :carol.halter (15184748421) 08/12/04 EST Pg 1- Cfinr>e4J3

•

carol halter 264 Woodbine Ave Syracuse, NY 13206 August 12, 2004 C03^- %m Commissioneis New York State Public Service Commission 3 Empire State Plaza Albany, NY 12223

Dear Commissioners :

I am writing to caution tbe Commission against taking any action that will further increase electric rates for business in New York State. Business rates in this state are 47 percent above the national average already. New York's rate of job creation lags far behind our competitors. The last thing you should do is make this situation worse.

Advocates claim this plan would probably increase rates by very litde, if at all. But if that is the case, there is no reason the commission can't try using voluntary measures - rather than mandatory purchase quotas - to meet the goal of 25 percent renewable power. Sound incentives are already bringing more and more renewable power on line. Go with what works. Don't add to the cost of doing business and drive more jobs from our state.

Yours truly.

carol halter The Honorable Jaclyn A. Brilling ^^ >C Secretary, New York State Department of Public Service Three Empire State Plaza Albany, New York 12223

Case Reference "Case 03-E-0188 - Retail Renewable Portfolio Standard"

SUMMARY OF COMMENTS: Include Waste to Energy and the Onondaga County Resource Recovery Facility in the Portfolio of Renewable Energy Facilities for New York State. Waste To Energy should be included in the Portfolio, but if generic inclusion of WTE is precluded, the specific analysis of the Onondaga County Resource Recovery Facility merits its individual inclusion.

COMMENTS On behalf of Onondaga County Resource Recovery Agency (OCRRA), I wish to thank the New York Public Service Commission for this opportunity to comment on the development and implementation of a Renewable Energy Portfolio Standard (RPS) in New York. My comments reflect the provision in the Administrative Law Judge Recommended Decision that would exclude waste-to- energy and the Onondaga County Resource Recovery Facility from its rightful and fair place as an essential source of renewable energy. Almost one half million citizens in the Syracuse area would be negatively impacted by the ALJ decision and we ask that you therefore give careful consideration to the following discussion. The PSC should include the Onondaga County Resource Recovery Facility (OCRRF) as a renewable source. Here is why:

1. Waste to Energy in the OCRRA service area supports recycling. The OCRRF is a fundamental component of a total solid waste system. That system recycles over 65% of the trash in the local community. The community is served with award winning environmental programs. The non-recyclable trash in the community is the material converted into power in the OCRRF waste to energy plant. The OCRRF is permitted under a condition that 40% of the processable waste in the community shall be recycled. Waste To Energy is compatible with recycling and indeed recycling is a requirement for the OCRRF. Revenues from the OCRRF pay for environmental programs recognized by New York State and the USEPA as excellent and award winning. We seek the inclusion of the Onondaga County Resource Recover/ Facility as a renewable portfolio asset, it specifically supports an award winning environmental and recycling program. Excluding the OCRRF from the portfolio would undercut those programs.

2, The environment is protected and improved by the OCRRA system. A. Landfill footprints and impacts are mitigated. In Onondaga County, Waste-To-Energy does not displace recycling; it displaces landfilling of trash. Recycling and waste-to-energy are not competing but complementary and co- essential means of waste management. Non-recyclable waste volume is reduced by about 90% due to processing in the OCRRF, thereby vastly reducing the heavy footprint created by landfilling 'raw' garbage. In Europe, Waste-To-Energy is a mandatory technology used to mitigate the impact of landfilling - it is required there to preserve the environment. Again, the OCRRF is the only solid waste disposal facility in New York with a specific (and significantly large) recycling condition in its permit. Typical landfills do not have recycling conditions and do not generally support recycling. Including landfill gas to energy in the RPS, but not including the OCRRF, would be an error.

B. Greenhouse gas emissions are reduced. Decomposition of organic compounds in landfills leads to the emission of methane, a potent greenhouse gas that is avoided when trash is processed in a waste-to-energy facility. Greenhouse gas emissions from waste-to-energy processes are much lower than from landfills (Schmidt 2001, Batchelor 2002.) It has been estimated that the combustion of trash in the existing waste-to-energy facilities reduces the annual release of carbon dioxide, a greenhouse gas, by 33 million tons. (Themelis 2002.) C. Fossil Fuels are avoided through Waste To Energy at the OCRRF. The generation of electricity by means of waste-to-energy provides greater environmental benefits than any other source of renewable energy for the simple reason that in addition to the benefit of reducing the use of fossil fuels, as all other renewable energy sources do, it also avoids the environmental impacts of landfilling and transporting waste to a landfill. Prior to the construction of the OCRRF, trash from the Syracuse area was trucked to landfills in Pennsylvania. Millions of truck miles a year were used to move the trash. The OCRRF avoids the trucking of waste to landfills and the associated diesel emissions and diesel combustion related to moving 2,000,000 pounds of non-recyclable garbage every business day.

3. (Waste to) Energy from the Onondaga County Resource Recovery Facility is a clean source of reliable power. A simple fact. Municipal Solid Waste is a very non-homogeneous fuel and its heating value is far below that of fossil resources. Waste-to-energy goes beyond the power production and provides a sustainable waste management tool. Equipped with modem air pollution control systems, the OCRRF is a minor contributor to anthropogenic sources of most contaminants. The combustion of MSW for power production results in lower emissions than that of other combustion-based renewable resources. Reliable power is available from the OCRRF; it produces this clean energy reliably in all weather and around the clock. Sustainable, reliable power from the OCRRF is very cost effectively scheduled in the market place.

The search for renewable energy sources is motivated by the desire to reduce the use of fossil fuels. Waste-to-energy facilities in the U.S. produce about 550 kilowatt hours of power per ton of municipal solid waste, thus obviating the use of either 0.3 tons of coal or 1 barrel of fuel oil per ton of municipal solid waste combusted. U.S. waste-to-energy facilities are equipped with emissions control facilities that are superior to typical combustion units and, also to most coal-fired power plants. The technology here includes sophisticated computerized combustion control, dry scrubbers to control acid gas, carbon injection to control mercury and organic emissions, selective non-catalytic reduction (SNCR) systems to control

NOx, and specially engineered fabric filters to control particulates.

Waste-to-Energy, serves two purposes: conserving non-renewable fossil fuels and also conserving land to be used in landfilling. The "fuel" for generating power from waste-to-energy plants does not create its own environmental problems as does the mining of coal or global problems related to the drilling of oil in the Middle East. The "fuel" for waste-to-energy plants is municipal solid waste that has already been produced and would have gone to a landfill. In a landfill the waste partially decomposes to create methane, other gases, and liquid wastes requiring extensive treatment. Hopefully the remaining solid, liquid, and gaseous residue does not leak from the landfill liner in a few decades to the detriment of our great- grandchildren.

For utilities the desirability of fossil fuels is based on their heating value, hydrogen content, handling characteristics, homogeneity (lack of byproducts), and energy content. For these reasons, natural gas is preferable to fuel oil, and fuel oil to coal. For a public utility boiler, it is obvious that municipal solid waste is at the very bottom of the list of 'desirable fuels' since it is a very non-homogeneous material consisting of all the solid products that citizens use, cannot or do not recycle, and discard. The heating value of trash is less than one half that of coal. Also, the heat-to-electricity conversion efficiency of waste-to-energy facilities is two thirds that of coal-fired power plants. Therefore, a comparison of emissions between waste-to-energy and fossil-fuel power plants, on the basis of kilowatt-hour of electricity generated, serves no purpose but to show the known fact that municipal solid waste is not as efficient a fuel as coal or oil.

If emissions comparisons are appropriate then it makes sense to compare emissions from other solid waste disposal options and other potential 'combustion' renewables. But first let's put dioxin into context. Currently, the main source of dioxins/furans emissions in the U.S. is "backyard barrel burning" of trash with about 628grams on a toxic equivalent basis of dioxins emitted out of an estimated total of 1,106grams TEQ from all sources combined (U.S. EPA 2000.) In contrast to waste-to-energy facilities, which operate under highly controlled conditions designed to reduce formation and emission of air pollutants, backyard trash burning is not controlled. The low temperature burning and smoldering conditions typical of backyard trash fires promote the formation of dioxins/furans, particulate matter and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs.) These pollutants form during backyard trash burning regardless of the composition of the material being burned (Chlorine Chemistry Council 2002.) Literally about one half dozen household bum barrels create the equivalent dioxin emissions of the OCRRF, which serves over 150,000 households and 450,000 citizens in the greater Syracuse area..

According to U.S. EPA data, wood-fired biomass plants and landfill gas power plants emit dioxins at higher concentrations than waste-to-energy plants, and yet, biomass and landfill gas technology are recommended by the Administrative Law Judge for inclusion in New York State's Renewable Portfolio Standard. Let's compare those emissions for context:

Table 1: Renewable energy sources: emissions per Megawatt-hour generated (in lbs per megawatt hour) '

Pollutant Waste-to-Energy Wood Waste Landfill Gas To Energy Particulate 0.085 0.62 0.8

NOx 5.6 4.4 4.2

S02 0.49 0.50 0.00036 HC1 0.32 0.38 0.00034 CO 1.0 12 7.8 Dioxins/Furans 0.009 xlO-5 3.34xl0-5 2.07xl0-5 Total Hazardous Air Pollutants " Nondetect 0.68 0.45 Non-Methane Organic Compounds 0.01 in Incl. in HAPs 2.12 Benzene Nondetect 0.084 0.01 Toluene Nondetect 0.018 0.15 Lead 0.00058 0.0010 Nondetect Mercury 0.00027 0.000070 0.0000046 Cadmium 0.000040 0.000082 Nondetect

C02 3635 3900 4449

Emissions listed on this table are derived from EPA emissions databases, EPA AP-42 factors or Dioxin Reassessment, depending on best available agency data. Emissions reflect energy generation only, and do not include fugitive emissions from landfills. Waste-to-energy and biomass are not considered sources of fugitive emissions. The scope of hazardous air pollutants (HAPs) reported for each source is based on EPA AP- 42. HCl is not included in this column, but is reported separately on this table. ' Waste-to-energy typically tests at non-detect levels for NMOC, but an assumed value of I ppmdv at 7% O2 was used in this table as the worst case.

The OCRRF historically operates at lower emission rates than the industry averages noted above. For example, in 20,03 the Dioxin/Furan emissions (on an NY TEF basis) from the OCRRF were 3.10 x lO'10 pounds per megawatt of energy so\A,five orders of magnitude less than the wood waste and landfill gas equivalent emissions. OCRRF mercury emissions in 2003 were approximately 0.0000665 pounds per mWh.

4. There have never been claims of environmental injustice lodged against the OCRRF. Allow no confusion on the record. An inaccurate generality has appeared in the global deliberations about waste to energy. Environmental injustice is not germane to the subject facility or believed to be applicable to any waste to energy facility in New York. (I note as an aside that the siting of upstate landfills for metropolitan trash might be carefully considered for environmental fairness.) We seek the inclusion of the Onondaga County Resource Recovery Facility, a well sited and well suited community asset. The OCRRF processes only Onondaga County non-recyclable trash; the waste created here is not a burden to the poor in Onondaga County or the poor or disadvantaged in other counties.

5. Public Policy/Multiple Public Benefits! In New York as well as the rest of the United States, government bodies are promoting renewable energy. The federal government has defined waste-to-energy as a source of renewable energy, as well as fifteen states that have renewable energy statutes or renewable purchasing mandates. One of the main drivers is the desire to reduce the dependency on fossil fuels. Waste-to-energy facilities in the U.S. produce about 550 kWh per ton of municipal solid waste, thus obviating the use of either 0.3 tons of coal or 1 barrel of fuel oil per ton of trash combusted. The OCRRF has historically produced even more, about 640 kWh per ton of non-recyclable trash. The Onondaga County Resource Recovery Facility helps to quench the thirst for imported oil. Also, since the Onondaga County Resource Recovery Agency is a non-profit public benefit corporation, the inclusion of the OCRRF in New York's renewable portfolio means that any potential economic benefit from your determination will be converted into reduced costs for the residents and businesses of Syracuse and Onondaga County and will result in the ability to provide even more enyironmental program there.

The facts speak loudly in favor of acknowledging the Onondaga County Resource Recovery Facility as a renewable source of power. . Specific consideration should be given to the facts regarding this facility as well as including waste to energy in general.

Very truly yours,

Tom Rhoads Executive Director OCRRA 1 References

Batchelor, D., Eeraerts, D., Smits, P. (2002), Greenhouse Gas Abatement: Assessing Waste-to-energy and Landfill Disposal. fVaste Management World 2 (5), pp. 43-47

Chlorine Chemistry Council (2002), Backyard Trash Burning: The Wrong Answer. The Chlorine Chemistry Council, Arlington, VA

Deyette, J., S. Clemmer, and D. Donovan (2003), Plugging in Renewable Energy - Grading the States. Union of Concerned Scientists, Cambridge, MA

Horinko, Marianne and Jeffrey Holmstead (2003), Letter to the Integrated Waste Services Association, U.S. EPA, Washington, D.C., online version at http://www.waste-to-energy.org/epaletter.html

1EA (2002), Renewables in Global Energy Supply - An 1EA Fact Sheet. International Energy Agency (IEA), Paris Cedex, France.

Kaufman, S.M., N. Goldstein, K. Millrath, N.J. Themelis (2004), The State of Garbage in America. BioCycle 45 (1), pp. 31-41.

Kiser, J.V.L and M. Zannes (2002), The 2002 IWSA Directory of Waste-To-Energy Plants. Integrated Waste Services Association, Washington, D.C.

Kiser, J.V.L. (2003), Recycling and Waste-to-Energy: The Ongoing Compatibility Success Story. MSWManagement 13 (4), pp. 92-103

Millrath, K. and N.J. Themelis (2003), Waste as a Renewable Source of Energy: Current and Future Practices. Proceedings of the ASME International Mechanical Engineering Congress and Expo, Washington, D.C, November 2003

Scharff, C. (2003), The waste site story - exploring the NIMBY syndrome. Waste Management World 3 (3), pp. 47-53

Schmidt, I,, Kircherer, A., and Zwahr, H. (2001), Eco-Efficiency Analysis of Waste Management Options - Mechanical-Biological Treatment, Waste-To-Energy, and Landfilling (in German). BASF, Ludwigshafen, Germany

Stevenson, W. (2002), Emissions from Large MWC Units at MACT Compliance. Memorandum to Docket A-90-45, U.S. EPA, Research Triangle Park, NC Themelis, N.J. and A. Gregory (2002), Mercury Emissions from High Temperature Sources in the Hudson Basin. Proceedings of 10th North American Waste To Energy Conference, Philadelphia, PA, May 2002. Themelis, N.J. and C. Todd (2004a), Recycling in a Megacity. Journal of Air and Waste Management Association 54, pp. 389-395 Themelis, N.J. and S.M. Kaufman (2004b), State of Garbage in Amwica - Data Methodology and Assessment, BioCycle, April 2004, p. 22-26. Thomeloe, S.A., K.A. Weitz, S.R. Nishtala, S. Yarkosky, and M. Zannes (2002), The Impact of Municipal Solid Waste Management on Greenhouse Gas Emissions in the United States. Journal of Air and Waste Management Association 52, pp. 1000-1011 Toxics Release Inventory (webpage). Quantified U.S. Dioxin Sources Over Time. http://trifacts.org/quantified_sources/quantified_sources.php U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), Homepage. http://energy.gov/engine/content.do?bt_code=bioenergy U.S. EPA (2000), Exposure and Health Assessment of 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodiobenzo- p-dioxin (TCDD) and related compounds - part I Estimating Exposure to Dioxin- like Compounds, Volume 2: Sources of'Dioxin-like Compounds in the United States. EPA/600/P-00/00Bb, Draft Final report, U.S. EPA, Washington, D.C. U.S. EPA (2003), Municipal Solid Waste in The United States: 2001 Facts and Figures. Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, U.S. EPA, Washington, D.C. STATE OF NEW YORK DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SERVICE THREE EMPIRE STATE PLAZA, ALBANY, NY 12223-1350 Internet Address: http://www.dps.state.ny.us -a^tZtLervl-i

PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION

WILLIAM M. FLYNN DAWN. JABLONSKI RYMAN Chairman General Counsel THOMAS J. DUNLEAVY JAMES D. BENNETT JANET HAND DEIXLER LEONARD A. WEISS Secretary NEAL N. CALVIN

December 9, 2003

James E. Orsillo, CEO Shadow Stand Properties Airport Corporate Park P.O. Box 459 Big Flats, NY 14814-0459

Case03-E-0188 Proceeding on Motion of the Commission Regarding a Retail Renewable Portfolio Standard.

Dear Mr. Orsillo:

Chairman Flynn has forwarded to me your letter about the development of a Renewable Portfolio Standard in this proceeding. I am the Administrative Law Judge presiding over this case. I appreciate your expression of concern about the cost, reliability, and fairness of such a program to encourage the development of renewable generation in New York State. I can assure you that these issues are being given close scrutiny in a series of studies, conferences, and comments. Your letter has been added to the official record of this proceeding and will be part of the information the Public Service Commission will consider in making its decisions on this case.

Thank you for your contribution to the record of this proceeding.

Sincerely yours,

ileanor Stein " / Administrative Law Judge ShadowSQama

November 10,2003 %i^a it!! B • f Iv iLxr ADM 26 ;niu. «.!.•«#;.../. -'3 NOV 1 7 2003

William M Flynn, Chairman New York State Department of Public Service '— 3 Empire State Plaza Albany, N.Y. 12223-1350

Re: "Renewable Energy Resources" Public Service Commission

Dear Mr. Flynn,

This correspondence is to express our concerns with the Governor's proposal requiring New York State businesses and consumers to buy at least 25% of electricity from "renewable energy resources", by 2013.

The Council's brief stated,"A recommended decision should not be issued before critical studies are completed with respect to cost, feasibility, and reliability." Also stated, "These matters are far too important to be treated as mere ancillary elements of deliberations."

A similar rush to judgement was made in adopting the 'six-cent law', which resulted in New York's businesses and consumers paying "hundreds of millions of dollars a year in excess power costs. What happens to the excess revenues created?

New York State's economic burdens continue to become more difficult with each passing year. Where is the relief?

The Public Service Commission must fully consider a voluntary standard-and that, too, should await pending studies on feasibility and other issues.

ShadowStand Properties, Inc. Airport Corporate Park, P.O. Box 459, Big Flats, NY 14814-0459 (607)562-2100 Fax (607)562-2110 f STATE OF NEW YORK DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SERVICE •4 THREE EMPIRE STATE PLAZA, ALBANY, NY 12223-1350 Internet Address: http://www.dps.state.ny.us

PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION

WILLIAM M. FLYNN Ol^^PM* DAWN. JABLONSKI RYMAN Chairman wWmSlS&ffltM General Counsel THOMAS J. DUNLEAVY JAMES D. BENNETT ^3^^^^ JANET HAND DEUCLER LEONARD A. WEISS "-SscEuae^ Secretary NEAL N. GAL YIN

December 9,2003

James E. Orsillo, CEO Thundering Hooves Stables, Inc. 119 Sing Sing Road Horseheads, NY 14845

Case 03-E-0188 - Proceeding on Motion of the Commission Regarding a Retail Renewable Portfolio Standard.

Dear Mr. Orsillo:

Thank you for your contribution to the record of this proceeding.

Sincerely yours,

Eleanor Stein / Administrative Law Judge THUNDERING HOOVES STABLES. INC

November 10, 2003 NOV 1 7 2003 ADM 17 t^lANV, N.Y. William M Flynn, Chairman New York State Department of Public Service 3 Empire State Plaza Albany, N.Y. 12223-1350

Re: "Renewable Energy Resources" Public Service Commission

Dear Mr. Flynn,

New York State's economic burdens continue to become more difficult with each passing year. Where is the relief?

The Public Service Commission must fully consider a voluntary standard-and that, too, should await pending stydie^ on feasibility and other issues.

119 Sing Sing Road. Horseheads, NY 14845 (607) 562-2100 * STATE OF NEW YORK DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SERVICE THREE EMPIRE STATE PLAZA, ALBANY, NY 12223-1350 Internet Address: http://www.dps.state.ny.us

PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION

WILLIAM M. FLYNN DAWN. JABLONSKIRYMAN Chairman General Counsel THOMAS J. DUNLEAVY JAMES D. BENNETT JANET HAND DEIXLER LEONARD A. WEISS Secretary NEAL N. CALVIN

December 9,2003

J. Patrick Ervin Chairman of the Board, President and Chief Executive Officer Hardinge Inc. One Hardinge Drive Elmira, NY 14902-1507

Case 03-E-0188 - Proceeding on Motion of the Commission Regarding a Retail Renewable Portfolio Standard.

Dear Mr. Ervin:

Thank you for your contribution to the record of this proceeding.

Sincerely yours.

ileanor Stein // Administrative>Law Judge J. Patrick Ervin Chairman of the Board President / CEO

November 18, 2003

NOV 2 4 2003

Mr. William M. Flynn J New York State Department of Public Service 3 Empire State Plaza Albany, NY 12223-1350

Dear Mr. Fynn:

Governor Pataki recently directed the New York State Public Service Commission (PSC) to develop a standard that would require New York's businesses and consumers to buy at least 25 percent of their electricity from "renewable energy sources" such as solar power, wind, and fuel cells by 2013.

We feel that before making such a recommendation, the PSC should await the results of detailed research and studies regarding costs, feasibility, and reliability of a proposed energy mandate. These items are certainly important elements that should be considered thoroughly.

In lieu of a rushed judgment that presents the commission with only a single plan, a range of options on what standard should be adopted, at what time, and whether it should be mandatory or voluntary should be presented for review.

As this proposal will likely increase the cost of doing business in New York State, we urge you to consider other options in respect to an energy mandate.

Thank you.

Sincerely,

J. Patrick Ervin Chairman of the Board / President / Chief Executive Officer

JPE/nlc'-

Phone: 607-734-2281 Fax: 607-735-0474 HARDINGE • KELLENBERGER • HIT HAUSER TRIPET TSCHUDIN STATE OF NEW YORK DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SERVICE THREE EMPIRE STATE PLAZA, ALBANY, NY 12223-1350 Internet Address: http://www.dps.state.ny.us

PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION

WILLIAM M. FLYNN DAWN. JABLONSKI RYMAN Chairman General Counsel THOMAS J. DUNLEAVY JAMES D. BENNETT JANET HAND DEIXLER LEONARD A. WEISS Secretary NEAL N. GALVIN

December 9, 2003

Mr. William Weber Engineering Manager 1st Imaging & Sensing Technology 100 1st Center Horseheads, NY 14845

Case 03-E-0188 - Proceeding on Motion of the Commission Regarding a Retail Renewable Portfolio Standard.

Dear Mr. Weber:

Chairman Flynn has forwarded to me your letter in opposition to the development of a Renewable Portfolio Standard in this proceeding. I am the Administrative Law Judge presiding over this case. I appreciate your expression of concern about the cost and fairness of such a program to encourage the development of renewable generation in New York State. I can assure you that the issues you raise, including the role of nuclear energy, are being given close scrutiny in a series of studies, conferences, and comments. Your letter has been added to the official record of this proceeding and will be part of the information the Public Service Commission will consider in making its decisions on this case.

Thank you for your contribution to the record of this proceeding.

Sincepely yours,

Jleanor Stein Administrative ^aw Judge IMAGING & SENSING TECHNOLOGY 100 1ST Center Horseheads, NY 14845 USA Tel: (607) 562-4300 kt Fax: (607) 562-4499 www.istcorp.com

14 November 2003 r ^T^p | \| E Q 1

ft; fSiK^'SI \ NOV 1 ^ 2003 | Mr. William M. Flynn, Chairman \ ^r&a&M l NYS Department of Public Service I MffiAK^»W.Y 3 Empire State Plaza L~—^ Albany, NY 12223-1350

Dear Mr. Flynn:

I am writing to you with regard to the Governor's proposal to have New York State businesses purchase 25% of their electricity from "renewable energy resources" by 2013.

My company is opposed to this plan for the following reasons:

1) Over the same time frame the New York State Energy Plan calls for approximately 6000 megawatts of increased electrical capacity in the state, pushing the total to nearly 37,000 megawatts; plus a reserve factor of at least 20%. While I do not know the percentage of total New York State power consumed by industry compared to other consumers, it seems unrealistic to demand that new technology can be brought on line in 10 years to produce 10,000 megawatts of power at any price.

2) Every point of use of electricity in New York State pays unusually high prices for power compared to other parts of the country and to legislate such a large fraction of renewable power will inevitably lead to higher prices, which naturally increases the burden of doing business in New York state.

3) My company is the leading manufacturer of Nuclear Detectors used in commercial nuclear power plants. We view, with great dismay, the decline of nuclear power in the USA and are especially disappointed to see the State government stand idly by while various interest groups push to close the nuclear plants, especially Indian Point. Not only is this a threat to our business and the jobs we have created but also to reduce the overall electric capacity of the state by closing nuclear facilities runs counter to the State's energy plan calling for future increases in electric power capacity.

4) Given the general climate of New York State, it is highly unlikely solar power will be a major contributor to the "renewable" energy. I am not conversant with fuel cell technology, so I cannot assess the practicality of such a source. Flynn Page 2 14 November 2003

However, wind power may be a reasonable alternative power source but not to the extent of 5,000 to 10,000 megawatts. The number of wind farms would be staggering and not in the public interest as recent developments in Steuben County have shown. (Prattsburgh has a wind farm proposal before it and the public is speaking out loudly against this concept they view as both a nuisance and invasion of their privacy.)

5) Strictly speaking "Breeder Nuclear Reactors" fall within the definition of "renewable energy sources". Can you imagine the public and legislative outcry that would occur if new technology nuclear power plants were proposed to meet the needs of renewable energy legislation?

6) Inevitably, with the inability to significantly increase our hydropower capacity and the public's resistance to nuclear and coal power, natural gas will become a larger fraction of the fuel mix for electric power generation. 1 see this as alarming because of two factors—the increased demand for natural gas and the associated price increases and the "green house" gas effect caused by the plant emissions of carbon dioxide.

Mr. Flynn, I feel so strongly about this topic I am attending the New York State Business Council Energy Committee meeting in Albany on 2 December 2003. I will tell the committee of my company's opposition to the Governor's renewable energy plan as well as speaking on the benefits of nuclear power as the most likely and practical source of electricity to increase the capacity that New York State must have for the future.

Very truly yours.

William Weber Engineering Manager cc: George E. Miner, STEG

/cbc STATE OF NEW YORK DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SERVICE THREE EMPIRE STATE PLAZA, ALBANY, NY 12223-1350 Internet Address: http://www.dps.state.ny.us aa^-tCAxo-Vb

PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION DAWN. JABLONSKI RYMAN WILLIAM M. FLYNN General Counsel Chairman THOMAS J. DUNLEAVY JANET HAND DEIXLER JAMES D. BENNETT Secretary LEONARD A. WEISS NEAL N. CALVIN

Co3-'*='0'^ June 23,2003

Re: CASE 03-E-0188 - Retail Renewable Portfolio Standard

Basil J. Piazza, Mayor Village of Williamsville 5565 Main Street Williamsville, New York 14221

Dear Mayor Piazza

Chairman Flynn has passed along to me your letter of June 13, 2003, containing your comments on the pending proceeding to implement a Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) for New York State. I am the Administrative Law Judge presiding over this case. I appreciate your comment that waste to energy has been an important source of energy and solid waste disposal in New York, and your concern that it be included in a renewable portfolio standard.

Your letter has been placed in the official record of this proceeding. I look forward to your ongoing participation in this process.

?rely yours.

Eleanor Stein Administrativ aw Judge

ei =6 HV i-w mi

AN^BlV-SBll-i-OaSO NOISSIIWJO FioiAdas onand • CHAGOIIH 06/20/2003 ia:3i VAA. OXQ tio luxo

TownLUVVUV/ of Lancaster - ertn ROBERT H.GIZA OFFICE OF THE SUPERVISOR K ^^^ 21 Central Avenue Lancaster. New York 14086 (716) 683-1610 Fax (716) 683-0512 June 18,2003

Mr. Charles G. Fox Deputy Sesretary to Governor for Energy Office of tlie Secretary to the Governor State of New York Executive Chamber Albany, New York 12224

^R)ear Mr. Fox: Ithascometo my attentionthatthe^ renewable energj portfolio s^dardthat^ energy by 2013. Tîs is an âb!^f ^ our municipalily's support for indudmg n t0 reducemunicipal New waste-to-energy York's reliance (WTE) on fossil as fuels.a renewable I ^ • energyS source ^ in ^tnese regulations g and in any related legislation that may be considered in the future. WTBhasbeen-coêdas^^^ ur and proven indigenous renewable energy f f ^^XecîW which is about 56% of the non-hydro tons of solid waste per day and generate dose to 300J^ °f ^f^J make no sense for New York to now renewable energy used in the State, a^^ WTE has also been defined as disregard years of precedent and simply dê^^'î Massachusetts, New Jersey, Pennsylvania renewable by the Federal government -^f^ 'little dispute in New York that and Maine, among others^ We a!s0/^ ^ energy program, given that the fuel

future. ' facilitiesreSttsrsp^-^^co-^^^^^ provide several "7»^ro•^e ^fer taffl ^aee by 90%. it provides groeohouse gas

combustion or landfill gas to energy. .

^Nia^aFallsRosourceReo^^^^ industry and the benefits of the technolo^. ^''^J^^.i,, ^U* reduetions. The &o.h* inctaded new boilers and npdated emrssion confr*. «"'•8 ^j; ^.nnnWes and provides about 50 K^x^^TJ^frdSrcCp^^^^-^^^-, 06/20/2003 15jjnjFAX-liJL-4y,J '«>i» tj i. in. ±-i "i

Page 2 Re: Re^ab.eEnergyand^.e-.o-En^Pub.icScrviceCo^ionProce.d^

^youtayonrCo0sid

discuss this further.

Sincerely,

Robert H. Giza Supervisor

• STATE OF NEW YORK DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SERVICE THREE EMPIRE STATE PLAZA, ALBANY, NY 12223-1350 Internet Address: http://www.dps.state.ny.us

PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION

WILLIAM M. FLYNIS DAWN. JABLONSKI RYMAN Chairman General Counsel THOMAS J. DUNLEAVY JAMES D. BENNETT JANET HAND DEIXLER LEONARD A. WEISS Secretary NEAL N. GALVIN

June 23,2003

Re: CASE 03-E-0188 - Retail Renewable Portfolio Standard

Robert H. Giza, Supervisor Town of Lancaster Office of the Supervisor 21 Central Avenue Lancaster, New York 14086

Dear Supervisor Giza:

Chairman Flynn has passed along to me your letter of June 18, 2003, containing your comments on the pending proceeding to implement a Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) for New York State. I am the Administrative Law Judge presiding over this case. I appreciate your comment that waste to energy has been an important source of energy and solid waste disposal in New York, and your concern that it be included in a renewable portfolio standard. m Your letter has been placed in the official record of this proceeding. I look forward to your ongoing participation in this process.

Since

Eleanor Stein Administrative Law Judge UO/iU/iCUUO .10.00 i'n.A «x u •» •

Village of WilliamsviUe

5565 Main Street 716-632^4120 ^^^^ WilliamsviUe, New York 14221 FAX: 716-632-6009 June 13.2003 Mr. Charles G. Fox Deputy Secretary to Governor for Energy Office of the Secretary to the Governor State of New York Executive Chamber Albany, New York 12224 RE: RenewableEnergyandWaste-to-EnergypubUcServi^ConunissionProceeding

Dear l»4r. Fox. ^conKton^ontMttheNewYork^^ rene^ble energy portfolio aandaid ^7^«Mt^S4SS^ will help reduce New York's reliance 2013. Wan adnMeimhabvet^^ ^^r^SSSS^

and poven indigenous renewable ^0-^ ^g ^^fi£^^0 rei^wable energy uêd m flte waste per ay and getterate-clcseto 300 ^f e^^^^^y^,^ aisregard yeare of precedent and simply State.accordingtpfecentPSCdata.' ^^ênfJS^lX *Sk^^^ ^**states 0 b 5 dSide that WTEv* rio loiiger rêw^Ê ^f . ^^S^^ We also find itiromc that there appears

to be relativelylMe dispute TO^Yo^tMdfiUg^^^^i^PU* , -^ irtBte.questionable state l^yprog^'giventhattb^^ce^^^

thefiiture. ;;•:> ^^''''^y'^-^'l^:^^^-••:'::i'-'i '' n' ^l /:•' •.'•'.•' K' WTE fecilities ^rye ^ .^îS^îSvSdSS olWQ^lon and ericouiêment Not only (toes C/AJ several unique enyironnientkl benefife^d^^J S^SS^SS % eUminaBhg the creation of landfill M WTEr^ss^s^srseSs^g^^ reduce the nee^for landfill ^f y:?te»gg^f ^^gi^Ste emission standards al^Se, such as biotocombuônorlandfillgas to energy. ;

! mNiagaraFallsRes^^^^^^^^ and the benefits of the technology, lite ^^^^SS^ S% ^processes about 800,000 tons of

supplying process steam to local manufecturing industries. Thank you for ycmr considemfion of this important issue. Please feel fiee to contact me if you would ^

this inrther. Sincerely, ,LIAMSVnJL£:

Basil Mayor BJP/esh