Allegany Wind Power Project Final Environmental Impact Statement
4.1 DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED ACTION
4.1.1 Project Purpose, Need, and Benefit
Written Comment 4L: If, as CCCC strongly urges, the Board concludes that the benefits of this project are in reality limited to financial payments to the Town, and financial payments to a handful of private landowners, but there will be a few other benefits, then the Board look that much more closely at the environmental burdens and the risk of a decline in property values in and around the project area, burdening many more town residents and threatening financial benefits to the Town by eroding the town’s property tax base. If in other words, the benefits clearly fail to outweigh the burdens, the Board should exercise its discretion under SEQRA to deny approval.
Response to Written Comment 4L: Comment noted. The benefits described in the DEIS and FEIS are not just financial. As discussed elsewhere in the DEIS and this FEIS, no negative property value impacts are anticipated. No New York Town hosting a wind farm has lost tax base value. Prior to making any decision the Board will balance the social, economic, and environmental impacts and benefits.
The following comments are all related to general concerns regarding Project benefits, and the balance between potential impacts and benefits.
Written Comment 4G: The remainder of the comments below address whether the DEIS demonstrates that the benefits of the project outweigh the project’s environmental and other burdens. The balance of burdens and benefits is a crucial requirement under the State Environmental Quality Review Act and its implementing regulations (SEQRA), and SEQRA gives the Town Board considerable discretion in determining whether the balance ultimately justifies approval of the project.
Written Comment 4J: In an Appendix to this comment letter I have provided the results of independent analyses performed by the wind industry by the agencies that regulate the industry, and by other independent scientists and energy analysts. The Board should rely only on independent, published analyses that actually look under the hood for concrete benefits of wind farms. The sections of the DEIS on project benefits are highly misleading, are in important respects inaccurate, and are supported by little more than assertions from wind industry trade associations rather than independent sources.
April 27, 2011 4.1 - 1
Allegany Wind Power Project Final Environmental Impact Statement
Written Comment 4M: As has been frequently stated, the Everpower proposal would probably be the most intrusive project Allegany has experienced. It is my hope that the Board looks carefully at this letter and the others being submitted on behalf of CCCC to determine whether the location of industrial wind turbines in the town avoids unacceptable impacts, adequately mitigates those impacts that cannot be avoided, and provides benefits that clearly outweigh expected burdens will require an effort appropriate to the project’s size and potential effects [sic].
Written Comment 6A: For your information, I am opposed to wind turbines installation in our town. This is based not only on the impact of the beauty of our area, but also the lack of substantiated information on the benefits of said wind turbine.
Written Comment 7A: Our family resides at 212 Hawthorn Lane in Allegany. We are strongly opposed to the Wind Farm proposal. We have looked at research for positives and negatives. We feel that the negatives far outweigh any positives.
Written Comment 10MMMM: The residents of Allegany choose Allegany for its peace and quiet, its beauty, and its quality of life. I ask, how many Allegany residents/taxpayers lives are you willing to sacrifice for New York City Everpower and its British owner, Terra Firma?
Written Comment 14A: I would like to let you, the members of the Town of Allegany Planning Board, [know] that the Town of Allegany may not be an appropriate location for the proposed Everpower wind turbine project. The character of the Town of Allegany will be deeply affected by this project and it is probable that the project benefits may not be great enough to offset the negative characteristics.
Written Comment 16L: In conclusion, I see little if any benefit to the community and considerable personal and environmental detriment tied to the construction of this project. Additionally, I feel that the above mentioned local, state and federal entities have so far failed to protect and serve the public.
Written Comment 24A: Please accept this letter as a formal request to disapprove the Everpower Allegany Wind Turbine project. I have attended the informational meetings and reviewed written and web provided data. After considering the data I feel that there is no legitimate justification for the turbine installations.
April 27, 2011 4.1 - 2
Allegany Wind Power Project Final Environmental Impact Statement
There does not seem to be any significant advantage to the Township, individual citizens, the environment, or the rural landscape which would be irrevocably altered. Information suggests that at best Western New York is a marginal choice for wind powered energy generation. The price we would pay is profoundly too high for the benefits that would accrue to us.
Written Comment 29C: The idea of a wind farm in the town goes against all logic when you learn the facts about them. I am sure that all the board members have been informed by the wind farm company of all the positive reasons for having wind turbines. I hope that you have looked at all the negative reasons as well. I believe that allowing a wind farm in Allegany would be a mistake. The town and its residents would lose much more than they would gain.
We are in tough economic times now, but with common sense spending and careful planning, we can get through these times without ruining the beauty of the hills and lands that surround us by allowing the wind farms to exist. Money is not the answer nor should it be the deciding factor in this wind farm proposal.
Written Comment 33A: I am writing to urge you to vote no to the proposed wind turbine project in the town of Allegany. There are so many reasons this is not a good thing for our community, or for our region. There are not many, if any, reasons this would be good for us. There may be a few extra dollars seen for a while because of this project, but in the long run, it will cost us much more, both economically and at the expense of the quality of life we have come to take for granted. Unfortunately if it passes and becomes reality, what we take granted will be sorely missed and irreplaceable. At what cost do we sell our beautiful landscape? At what cost do we sell the birds bats and other wildlife that are a vital part of our natural resources?
Written Comment 36C: Please assure us you will consider our best interest, rather than [sic] any temporary monetary gain, and say no to this project in this location or any location in Allegany where it might affect residents. I love this community, I want to raise my two young boys here, please do not take our peaceful quiet valley away from us.
Written Comment 43B: The people of Chipmonk and Allegany have made it very clear that they are not in favor of these wind turbine farms. The residents of Chipmonk and Allegany depend upon each and every one of you to represent them when planning for a new business opportunities. This venture is clearly
April 27, 2011 4.1 - 3
Allegany Wind Power Project Final Environmental Impact Statement
not advantageous to anyone in Chipmonk or even in Allegany. The risks far outweigh the benefits. Please put an end to this potential nightmare for the families who reside in the area and deny the greedy corporation who wishes to gain financially from this venture, the ability to use our area for their gain.
Written Comment 45A:
The net gains and losses need to be assessed, impacts fairly evaluated and community feedback seriously considered. Losses include the following:
1. Industrial blight (static visual pollution) of our greatest resource – the landscape which attracts homeowners (tax payers). 2. Dynamic visual pollution resulting from low rpm turbine blade light interrupting shutter affect. 3. Acoustical pollution (constant background noise). This noise has at least two components – the audible aerodynamic wave produced by a blade passing through the air (the tip velocity of the blade exceed 1000 ft/sec) and the whine of the turbine/generator/rotor/bearing systems (this noise source will increase in dBA levels with time). 4. Power generated will be small (requiring and legitimizing need for more wind turbines) and will be exported from Allegany. 5. Tax benefits from government have a short life expectancy. Temporary additional funding to Allegany Township will not reduce taxes, but may justify spending that will not be maintainable. 6. Capital cost and installation cost – good for big business, but they are not in our community. 7. Equipment Functional Life (determined by other Green Power initiatives) and cost to dismantle (responsibility of landowner or town). 8. Potential for law suits. This is a very real possibility that is a source of good business for local lawyers, but places a time and monetary strain on the Town.
Gains – could not come up with any that exhibited long term redeeming value.
Written Comment 46F: You are here and were elected to protect all of the people of Allegany not just the rich, and not just the heavily populated areas of Allegany. We pay taxes just like everyone else in town. How will you sleep at night knowing that you have ruined peoples lives for greed. I am all for green energy, but it should not be imposed on top of people. Allegany is not the right place for these monster turbines. I urge you to think long and hard about what you are doing before you make a huge mistake.
April 27, 2011 4.1 - 4
Allegany Wind Power Project Final Environmental Impact Statement
Written Comment 51B: After reviewing the information on the pros and cons of this project I am totally opposed to the installation of these wind turbines in the town of Allegany. I think the most significant person who spoke at the most recent meeting was the wind farm engineer. He was totally opposed to this project. He basically said it was a waste of good equipment and they should not be situated in a mountainous area and close to homes. Please listen to him.
Oral Comment 4A: I live in Chipmonk, New York on Flatstone Road. My question is to the planning board and the town board. My main question is how are you going to guarantee the residents that are affected [sic] by these wind turbines, how are you going to guarantee their property values, their health and safety and also the noise issues that we have?
Oral Comment 7B: And I understand the concern of the landowners who are not residents of Chipmonk who are hoping to rake in money and having turbines on their property and also some people who erroneously think that they’re going to have their taxes lowered and it’s going to come from our misfortune. My brother and I are fourth generation residents of Chipmonk. And we’ve raised our children in Chipmonk and I ask you to consider the justice and the rights of those people who are living and who will be affected [sic] most directly and adversely by this project.
Oral Comment 16A: Thank you for coming. And I feel privileged to have the opportunity to speak with you. I took note of an article by Kate Sager in Monday’s edition of the Olean Times Herald, in which toward the ends of the article she quotes one member of the planning board, and it’s a direct quote, this is going to be the town board’s decision when it boils down to a final decision. I think it will come down to what kind of deal the wind people will offer compared to how strongly the community feels.
Oral Comment 19B: There is not justification enough to destroy habitat, scenic views for all of us, nor is that what being green is about. This is not the intent of the subsidy money in the first place.
Oral Comment 21D: Health issues, road damage, property devaluation, loss of tourism, no job creation, negative impact on wildlife. Where is the line on the sand where we stop and say no, it’s just not worth it?
April 27, 2011 4.1 - 5
Allegany Wind Power Project Final Environmental Impact Statement
Response to Written Comments 4G, 4J, 4M,6A, 7A, 10MMMM, 14A, 16L, 24A, 29C, 33A, 36C, 43B, 45A, 46F, and 51B and Oral Comments 4A, 7B, 16A, 19B, and 21D:
Comments noted. The Planning Board, as Lead Agency, has and will continue to undertake a careful review in accordance with the Town's regulations and SEQRA. Under SEQRA, the primary responsibility of the Lead Agency is to identify and consider the relevant impacts of a given action, take a hard look at them, and then provide a reasoned elaboration weighing the environmental impacts together with the social, economic and other essential considerations.
Written Comment 4N:
The purpose of the Everpower proposal is to generate renewable energy for the regional electric grid. It is therefore crucial that the Planning Board and the Town Board get to the bottom of the question, whether in order to provide for our renewable energy needs, we need another wind farm. Among other things, the reviewing Boards need to dispassionately consider the facts about how utility-scale electricity is generat[ed] and why we need more renewable energy. This kind of inquiry is appropriate because the DEIS relies on assertions about the benefits of wind farms in general.
Response to Written Comment 4N:
The New York State Public Service Commission has determined that 30% of New York’s power supplies are to come from renewable energy by 2015. The Planning Board has no authority relevant to that determination, nor to limit the right of any applicant to competitively seek to supply that power, where, as here, the Town Board has determined that wind farms are an allowable special use in the Town.
Written Comment 4I: The SEQRA regulations make it clear that a DEIS must provide an analysis of benefits and burdens:
[A DEIS] must assemble relevant and material facts upon which an agency’s decision is to be made. It must analyze the significant adverse impacts and evaluate all reasonable alternatives. EISs must be analytical and not encyclopedic.
Several claims are made in the DEIS about the ability of the Everpower project to make a significant contribution to energy needs and environmental goals. However, little or no analysis accompanies these claims. To assess the validity of these claims requires looking under the hood.
April 27, 2011 4.1 - 6
Allegany Wind Power Project Final Environmental Impact Statement
Response to Written Comment 4I: The Project benefits are thoroughly discussed and analyzed throughout the DEIS text, the appendices and referenced studies and particularly in Section 2.2 of the DEIS. With regard to meeting the energy needs of the State, the Project is expected to have an average annual capacity of approximately 30%, which is comparable to other commercial wind farms in New York State. Total net generation delivered to the New York State electricity grid is expected to be approximately 190 GWh, or enough electricity to meet the average annual consumption of between approximately 17,000 and 26,500 average NYS households (based on average annual electric consumption of 7.2 MWh for New York and 11.2 MWh for the U.S). This information was obtained from the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA), in a report from 2009. In addition, as explained in Section 2.2 of the DEIS, certain New York policies, including but not limited to Executive Orders 24 and 111, the State Energy Plan, and the State RPS, seek to promote the development of renewable energy sources, including wind energy, and since the Project is a wind energy project, it will meet the needs and goals of those policies.
With regard to environmental goals, the calculations on fossil fuel offset were prepared by utilizing data presented in the NYSERDA “Wind Energy Tool Kit” for a per kilowatt reduction in emissions calculated for the use of new wind power instead of fossil fuel-fired power generation (NYSERDA website: http://www.powernaturally.org/Programs/Wind/largewindfaqs.pdf). The NYSERDA per KW estimates based on 35% capacity factor) were then applied to the anticipated a 20-year project life and the nameplate capacity. Moreover, other environmental benefits of wind power discussed in Section 2.2. have been widely established and recognized in New York State policy statements like the State Energy plan, the PSC’s RPS program, the Governor’s Executive Order No. 24, and the DEC’s Climate Change Office and GHG Emissions Guide. The New York State Energy Plan, NYSERDA’s Report on the RPS Performance and the PSC’s Mid-Course Report on the RPS recognize that it is in the public interest to expand the State’s clean energy investments in New York through wind energy projects and that clean energy sources provide significant environmental benefits.
With respect to Project benefits, please see Response to Written Comments 4O through 4T. With respect to “assertions from wind industry trade associations rather than independent sources”, please see Response to Written Comment 10D.
Written Comment 4O: There is no explicit state or federal policy to promote wind power. The United States and New York have adopted policies to shift reliance increasingly to renewable energy. It is not reasonable to
April 27, 2011 4.1 - 7
Allegany Wind Power Project Final Environmental Impact Statement simply adopt the wind industry’s assertions that it can and will make a substantial or even measurable contribution to the goals of renewable energy policy.
Response to Written Comment 4O: Wind energy is one type of renewable energy. In addition, the State and Federal government policies referred to in DEIS Section 2.2 explicitly refer to wind as a critical component to meet State and Federal energy policy goals. Section 2.2 of the DEIS identifies in detail how the Project will contribute to the goals of State and Federal renewable energy policy.
Written Comment 4P: New York is already a leader in the nation in terms of achieving a substantial portion of electricity from renewables. According to the New York Independent System Operator (NYISO), which manages the state’s electric grid, about 18 percent of the electricity generated in New York comes from emissions-free hydropower. This compares to the national average of about 12 percent of electricity from renewables, which includes 10 percent from hydropower. Although not counted as a “renewable energy” source, another 30 percent of New York’s electricity is generated in New York emissions-free nuclear energy. Against this background, new renewable energy technologies have a high burden to meet to show they can make an additional meaningful contribution to our need for additional renewable energy.
Response to Written Comment 4P: While it may be true that New York is currently a leader in the amount of electricity it generates from renewable sources, the State Energy Plan and recent revisions to the Renewable Portfolio System (RPS) establish ambitious goals of producing 30% of the State’s electricity needs from renewable sources by 2015. (See State Energy Plan), and the outgoing Governor’s goal was 45%. Thus, New York has a long way to go to meet the goals set in these policies. According to NYSERDA’s 2010 Report on the Performance of the RPS, the State has not reached 50% of its 2015 target for electricity from renewable energy sources. Because of the long project development, permitting and construction schedule in New York, which averages about 2.5 years, the existing and proposed projects are critical to the State meeting these goals.
Written Comment 4Q: Concern about conventional, non-renewable power plant pollution centers primarily around the emissions of greenhouse gasses, which are linked to climate change and may, over time, result in catastrophic alteration of the environment. For this reason, the U.S. and New York are committed to developing sources of electric generation that would emit much less emissions than power plants
April 27, 2011 4.1 - 8
Allegany Wind Power Project Final Environmental Impact Statement
fired by fossil fuels. The most important greenhouse gas to reduce is carbon dioxide (CO2) because of the long period of time CO2 remains in the atmosphere compared to other greenhouse gasses, and because since the Industrial Revolution, a short two or three centuries ago in climatological time, the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere has risen steadily, threatening to reach “tipping points” beyond which climate scientists believe global warming and climate change that results from global warming cannot be controlled. Electric power plants are responsible for 40 percent of CO2 emissions in the U.S., more than any other sector, including the transportation and industrial sectors. Coal power plants are responsible for over 80 percent of these emissions. Coal still supplies most of our electricity nationally, and in New York coal supplies 13 percent of our electricity. Natural gas emits about half to two-thirds as much CO2 as coal combustion. When natural gas is added to coal, nearly half of New York’s electricity is generated by polluting fossil fuels. Meaningful reduction of these emissions is therefore the primary test by which the benefits of renewable energy technology must be measured. If Everpower’s proposed wind farm would not meaningfully reduce CO2 emissions by displacing our need for fossil fuel-fired power plants, the Board must find that the need for the project is seriously diminished.
Response to Written Comment 4Q: The intent of DEIS section discussing emissions reductions from fossil fuel offset was to present the potential offset in emissions (as published by the NYSERDA) that can be realized by bringing additional supply from renewable sources to market and lessening the need for additional fossil fuel based generation capacity. As recognized by the NYSDEC, carbon dioxide emissions, a significant portion of which is created from fossil fuel power generation, are a contributor to global climate change, which is one of the most important environmental challenges of our time. The State Energy Plan includes as one of its goals to increase the use of energy systems that enable the State to significantly reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions while stabilizing energy costs and improving the State’s energy independence through development of in-state energy supply resources. The State Energy Plan recognizes that wind energy projects will play a role in fulfilling this objective. The State Energy Plan recognizes that to the extent that renewable resources and natural gas are able to displace the use of higher emitting fossil fuels, relying more heavily on these in-state resources will also reduce public health and environmental risks posed by all sectors that produce and use energy. In addition, reduction in air pollution emissions are just one benefit of a wind powered electric generating facility compared with a fossil fuel plant. Additional benefits are described throughout this FEIS. For example, the New York State Energy Planning Board (Planning Board) has recognized the inextricable link between the availability and price of energy and economic activity and well being. According to the State Energy Planning Board, the U.S.’s position in the world economy and the standard of living of its residents is dependent, to some extent, on having
April 27, 2011 4.1 - 9
Allegany Wind Power Project Final Environmental Impact Statement ready access to reasonably priced sources of energy. The primary sources of energy are, to a large degree, imported from abroad, have significant and long-term effects on the environment, and ultimately face depletion. Until new and sustainable sources of energy are developed, the U.S. and New York will continue to experience the economic and social challenges of fossil fuel dependency. (See State Energy Plan; New York State Energy Planning Board, 2002). The New York State Public Service Commission has also found that “We are increasingly concerned with the effects on our climate of fossil-fired generation and the security implications of importing [from out-of-state] much of the fuel needed to supply our electricity needs. Further in as much as there is a finite supply of natural gas and other fossil fuels, over-dependence on such will leave the State vulnerable to price spikes and possible supply disruptions.” (See Case No. 03-E-0188 Renewable Portfolio Standard, Order Instituting Proceeding (issued February 19, 2003) p.1.).
Finally, the second stated objective of the State’s Renewable Energy Portfolio is to “diversify the generation resource mix of energy retained in New York State to improve energy security and independence, while ensuring protection of system reliability.”
The following comments are related to energy generation/turbine efficiency:
Written Comment 4R: Section 2.1 of the DEIS says the project “will deliver up to 72.5 MW of electrical power to the New York state grid,” using 29 turbines with a rated or design capacity of 2.5 MW each. This “delivery” number assumes the project can generate electricity at 100% of its rated capacity. However, in Section 2.2 the DEIS also says the project will generate 30% of its rated capacity on average, “or enough electricity to meet the average annual consumption of between approximately 17,000 and 26,500 average NYS households.” This estimate is significantly higher than NYISO estimates. NYISO expects wind farms in New York to generate at 30% of their rated capacity in the winter, when demand for electricity is low, and only 10% in the summer, when load demand is highest. Effective generation rates can be expected to be even less. GE Energy reported to NYSERDA in 2005 that, while the capacity factor of utility-scale wind turbines in New York is about 30%, the “effective capacity” of these turbines is 10%, “due to both the seasonal and daily patterns of the wind generation being largely out of phase with the NYISO load patterns.” Consistent with NYISO, this conclusion recognizes that most electricity from wind power is generated during cold winter nights, but electricity demand is greatest during warm summer days. Thus, the Everpower project can be expected to generate much less that the 30% rate asserted in the DEIS. In fact, no wind farm in New York has achieved a 30% generation rate. The Maple Ridge Wind Farm in Lewis County, located in the highest on-land wind resource area in New York, generates at 22%.
April 27, 2011 4.1 - 10
Allegany Wind Power Project Final Environmental Impact Statement
Written Comment 4S: Perhaps more importantly, it is highly misleading when the DEIS asserts that, even at 30%, the project could meet the needs of “between approximately 17,000 and 26,500 average NYS households.” During hot summer days utility-scale wind projects frequently generate no electricity. (Turbines do not operate until wind speeds at turbine height reach 6.7 mph.) On those occasions no household could rely on the Everpower project to meet its needs.
Oral Comment 24A: I’m Chipmonk born and raised. I see a lot of my neighbors and people who live around here. My big thing is they’re not efficient and if you’re running a regular business you wouldn’t want something that was inefficient.
Response to Written Comments 4R, 4S and Oral Comment 24A:
The comments confuse power with consumption. Power is an instantaneous value, while consumption, or energy, is power used over time.
The capacity figure cited in the Gold Book on Page 57 in the footnote to Table III-2, also referred to as “effective capacity”, refers to the expected output available at the time of the system peak usage hour. The peak usage hour is one hour of the 8760 hours in the year when the NYISO expects the demand on the system to be the highest. It is the number that is used in calculating the expected amount of total capacity available to supply the projected peak load for the system. In the summer the average expected available power from wind turbines at the time of system peak is 10% of nameplate. The expected output for the other 8759 hours of the year is, on the average, expected to be higher, up to 100% of nameplate. Over the course of a year the average hourly output of this plant is expected to be 30% of nameplate.
The Project can meet the energy needs of between 17,000 and 26,500 households, based on annual averages. It is true that during the peak hour discussed above the Project probably will not be able to meet the energy needs of those households. But there are many hours that the Project output will exceed the usage for those households. The Allegany Wind Project is only a component of the overall electric supply to meet the needs of the consumers. There are times when this Project will not be available, which is true for every other generating plant on the system. That is why generating reserve is required. However, over the year the plant is projected to generate 190 GWHr, which is the amount of energy consumed by 17,000+ households.
April 27, 2011 4.1 - 11
Allegany Wind Power Project Final Environmental Impact Statement
Written Comment 4T: Even if the project were to generate at 30% of its rated capacity, to get an idea of what contribution this would make to New York’s electric needs this should be compared to the state’s total generation rate, which in 2008 was 144,619,000 MWh, or 144,619 GWh. Everpower asserts that its project could generate 190 GWh (at 30%). That is, by its own estimate the Everpower project could contribute only 0.13% to the state’s needs, and a realistic estimate would put the contribution at between one-third and two-thirds of this amount, noting that unlike other electric generators, Everpower’s project generates intermittently.
Response to Written Comment 4T: It is true that 190 / 144,619 = 0.13%. Plants that supply 190 GWHr or less to the system, such as, Fenner Windpower, Madison Wind Farm, Central NY Wind, and Steel Winds, are important to the overall supply of electric energy to New York consumers. The 190 GWHr is the reasonable estimate. The suggested one-third to two-thirds contribution percentage has been arbitrarily chosen by the commenter, and is based on no actual data. The 30% capacity factor, or 0.13% of the overall state consumption, already takes into account the variable nature of wind generators.
No single plant could provide all the state’s needs, but what would be provided by the Project will be provided without fossil fuels. Further, the DEIS did not claim that the Allegany Wind Project would eliminate the need for other power plants in New York – it merely stated that the Project has the potential to supply clean power safely to the grid and serve customers with power. The commenter’s assertion that a wind power plant in Allegany is not valuable neither addresses nor refutes the benefits claimed in the DEIS.
Written Comment 4U: It should be noted that no direct contribution to the electricity needs of Allegany would be provided by the project. In fact, transmission line surges could negatively affect [sic] electricity customers locally.
Response to Written Comment 4U: Numerous wind farms operate in New York and elsewhere without negative impacts to the electric grid. As to power supply needs, the comment is incorrect. The project will provide energy to serve the needs of New York’s electric consumers, including the Town. Even if the power is purchased by a distant entity, the electrons actually produced will be mainly used locally. The power supplied by the Allegany Wind Project will be injected into the 115kV line located in the nearby Town of Olean. Power from this project will reach local homes and businesses through the utility grid. As to
April 27, 2011 4.1 - 12
Allegany Wind Power Project Final Environmental Impact Statement reliability, the results of testing required by the New York Independent System Operator (NYISO), National Grid, and the North American Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC) indicate that the Allegany Wind Project will have no adverse impact on the reliability and the security of the electric power supply to local customers. A power purchase agreement has not yet been finalized, but that agreement may be with the local load serving entity.
With respect to “transmission surges”, the protective devices on the transmission system are designed to protect the integrity, or reliability, of the system under a variety of conditions. All devices on the transmission system are subjected to a variety of tests to ensure that the system response to a rapid change in state does not jeopardize the ability to serve the customer load within prescribed limits. The rapid change in state could refer to a device opening, closing, or failing to do either when required. The system is able to withstand the loss of a transmission line due a tree falling or other accident. In this case it could be described as a “negative surge” because the current on the line goes from the pre-fault level ultimately to zero in the timeframe of approximately 4 to 9 cycles (a cycle is 1/60th of a second). The system is also able to withstand the “surge” caused by the re-closing of a line, in which the flow on the line goes from zero to some high value in a few cycles. The “surges” caused by the variable output of wind turbines occur with neither the magnitude nor the speed as the above examples. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) requires that all generators undergo “system stability” testing to ensure that they do not cause problems to the system under contingency conditions.
Written Comment 4V: The DEIS asserts that the cost of electricity generated by wind power is practically free, based entirely on a brochure funded by the U.S. Department of Energy that cites no research or other basis for this conclusion. The brochure on which the DEIS relies says this:
Wind energy is a preferred power source on an economic basis because the operating costs to run the turbines are very low and there are no fuel costs. Thus, when the wind turbines produce power, this power source will displace generation at fossil fueled plants, which have higher operating and fuel costs.
However, according to the current draft of the New York State Energy Plan, New Yorkers can expect to pay a premium for renewable energy, including wind power, over and above what they now pay for electricity, in the “range from approximately $16 to $32 per MWh, [which] is the incremental price New York must pay in order to make renewable generation competitive in a market place where
April 27, 2011 4.1 - 13
Allegany Wind Power Project Final Environmental Impact Statement price is primarily driven by fossil-fuel resources. “[M]arket intervention” such as “emissions cap and trade programs, renewable fuels standards and financial incentives” are necessary to allow wind- generated electricity to compete with cheaper fossil fuel generated electricity. The assertion in the DEIS that “there are no fuel costs” should not be understood that wind generated electricity is free, or even that it is cheaper than conventional electricity. Ratepayers in Allegany can therefore be expected to pay incrementally more for electricity if the Everpower project comes on line.
Response to Written Comment 4V: The DEIS does not assert the power produced is free. The DEIS correctly notes that “there are no fuel costs.” Rather than the draft Energy Plan, reference is made to the adopted Renewable Energy Assessment New York State Energy Plan 2009, which states that some of the benefits of renewable energy are as follows:
Reduce the net retail price of electricity. Renewable electricity resources reduce the net retail price of electricity paid by all ratepayers. In 2018, the average statewide retail price of electricity is projected to be 0.06 to 0.16 cents per kilowatt hour (kWh) lower than it would otherwise be without the implementation of RPS-supported renewable resources, representing an annual bill savings to ratepayers of $93 to $262 million. The estimated net retail price impact includes a reduction in the wholesale commodity price of electricity of 0.26 cents per kWh, netted against the estimated retail price increase of 0.1 to 0.2 cents per kWh, due to the collection of ratepayer funds to pay the price premium for the purchase of renewable energy under the RPS and “backing out” of the more expensive, less efficient fossil fuel-fired units.
The plan also states: “Large wind energy projects require the smallest price premium among the renewable energy technologies for which levelized costs exceed levelized wholesale revenues.”
Written Comment 17B: Because electric power is used as it is generated and cannot be stored wind power in our area is very unpredictable. Most electricity from wind power around here is generated during cold winter nights but electricity demand is greatest during warm summer days. As a result the use of up to two thirds of wind-generated electricity is produced at time it is not needed.
Where substantial hydro-electric power is integrated into the grid, wind power may displace proven low emission sources. Western NY is blessed with great hydro-electric power.
April 27, 2011 4.1 - 14
Allegany Wind Power Project Final Environmental Impact Statement
Response to Written Comment 17B: The comment implies that wind power is only needed at times of greatest demand and that is not correct. Wind power does not need to be stored in order to make a meaningful contribution to the grid. Numerous studies have shown that wind power, with proper planning and adjustments to the way we currently operate our grid, can easily supply up to 20% of the power in the US. This is happening around the world as well; this past September the United Kingdom achieved almost 5% of its total energy supply from wind farms, and that was prior to the recent completion of the world’s largest offshore wind farm. Integrating additional renewable energy in NY and the US can help to reduce and stabilize pricing, promote energy security and improve the environment. Wind power can easily be integrated into the grid without displacing hydro-electric power. A September 2010 report by the grid operator, the NYISO, concluded;
The primary finding of the study is that wind generation can supply reliable clean energy at a very low cost of production to the New York power grid. This energy results in significant savings in overall system production costs, reductions in “greenhouse” gases such as CO2 and other emissions such as NOx and SO2 as well an overall reduction in wholesale electricity prices. However, wind plants require a significant upfront capital investment. In addition, wind plants, because of their variable nature and the uncertainty of their output, provide a greater challenge to power system operation than conventional power plants. This study determined that the NYISO’s systems and procedures (which include the security constrained economic dispatch and the practices that have been adopted to accommodate wind resources) will allow for the integration of up to 8 GW of installed wind plants without any adverse reliability impacts (NYISO, 2010).
Written Comment 30A: Wind Turbine Farms are being promoted on the basis that they reduce greenhouse gasses. That is one of the misconceptions listed on a sheet handed out at the April 7 meeting, and I believe that truly is a misconception. However, even if, in fact, the wind turbines did reduce greenhouse gasses, that does not justify the use of wind turbines. Major efforts are being made to reduce the amount of greenhouse gasses discharged into the atmosphere in an attempt to control global warming, and wind turbines are a significant part of that process. In recent years, most of us have heard the talk about the probability of a catastrophic human-caused global warming emergency. Geophysicist Dr. Claude Allegre, one of the first scientists to sound global warming fears over 20 years ago, now says the cause of climate change is “unknown”. Also, a famed UK environmental campaigner, Botanist Dr. David Bellamy said, “global warming is largely a natural phenomenon. The world
April 27, 2011 4.1 - 15
Allegany Wind Power Project Final Environmental Impact Statement is wasting stupendous amounts of money on trying to fix something that can’t be fixed. Much evidence exists that supports those two statements, as well as my belief that it is wrong to continue wasting taxpayers money trying to control the natural process of climate change by the use of wind turbines and other methods.
Response to Written Comment 30A:
Regardless of the cause of global warming, wind power projects provide numerous benefits. Please see Section 2.2 (Project Purpose, Need and Benefit) of the DEIS for a detailed discussion.
Written Comment 31E: I believe a compelling majority of the residents in Allegany are against the windmill farm. I believe the ones that are “undecided” have not been informed in the pros and cons of these windmills or thought about the dramatic damage it would do to our area. Please fulfill your moral obligation to the residents who live here and work here and who elected you and trusted you with our town.
Response to Written Comment 31E:
It is illegal in NY to make determinations based on popular opposition.
Written Comment 47A:
Fourteen years ago my husband Chris decided that he wanted to start up his own business. He asked me if I would ever consider leaving this area because it would be much easier for him (tax wise) to start up anywhere else. I immediately responded NO. I could never image leaving these hills and living anywhere else despite the financial difficulties that our state has. Presently, Chris’ business (Napoleon Engineering Services) has grown. He started with one worker fourteen years ago and presently employs thirty. IT is this type of industry that we desire. One that creates jobs for people, gives us hope for future and preserves our area. We have a moral obligation; YOU have a moral obligation to look towards the future and preserve our community for generations to come. These wind turbines are not consistent with who we are. The voice of the people has clearly stated we do not want them here. Installing these wind-turbine, cutting down trees, transporting parts and putting in a line is going to use up as much energy as these things could possible generate. So we break even and have ugly monstrosities to look at. This is not about going green this is about going greedy. There is little benefit to the COMMUNITY.
April 27, 2011 4.1 - 16
Allegany Wind Power Project Final Environmental Impact Statement
Response to Written Comment 47A:
The benefits associated with the proposed Project are discussed in detail in Section 2.2 of the DEIS.
Oral Comment 4G: Everpower’s DEIS report has been deemed as complete, however all of the negative aspects that have been mentioned and that we have brought to light are glossed over and are minimized in the report to lessen any concerns and leave solutions deliberately unanswered. Everpower doesn’t commit to backing up its claims of no adverse effects to affected residents as stated. Shouldn’t Everpower guarantee their findings? Are the residents going to be forced to sue to protect their property?
Response to Oral Comment 4G:
Please see Response to Oral Comment 4A in FEIS Section 4.1.1. The DEIS was deemed adequate for public comment, not complete.
4.1.2 Project Cost and Funding
The following comments are related to concerns over subsidies:
Written Comment 4W: As federal taxpayers, we pay much more for wind power than for fossil fuel-generated power. Federal subsidies and support provided for utility-scale wind energy amount to $23.37 per MWH in 2007, compared to coal which got $0.44, and natural gas, which got $0.25.
Written Comment 4Y: It is thus not true, as asserted in the DEIS, that wind power is much less costly than other power plant fuels. Without federal, state and local tax credits, subsidies and grants, no utility-scale wind farms would be proposed.
Oral Comment 37C: And thirdly, the tax payers subsidies far outweigh the proposed benefits of the wind farm itself. The petition has been signed, like I said, by a great majority of the people in Knapp Creek and will be presented to you folks after. Real quick, show of hands, how many people are for the wind farm? How many are opposed? It looks like a majority to me.
April 27, 2011 4.1 - 17
Allegany Wind Power Project Final Environmental Impact Statement
Response to Written Comments 4W, 4Y and Oral Comment 37C:
There is no support provided in the comment for the allegations regarding subsidies. Fossil fuels are actually subsidized far more than wind. A recent study by the Institute for Law Studies concluded that from the period of 2002 to 2008 subsidies (in the form of direct payments and tax breaks) for the fossil fuel industry was $79 Billion Dollars as compared to $29 Billion for renewable energy (Environmental Law Institute, 2009). The $79 Billion is spread out over a number of different fossil fuels, with a substantial amount of money over that time directed at coal and natural gas. Therefore the assertion that renewable power is subsidized at a far greater rate does not tell the entire story of support for the fuels and does not accurately treat the historical nature of subsidies by fuel type as shown by these two studies.
The comment cites the Energy Information Administration’s (EIA) Report concerning Federal Financial Interventions and Subsidies in Energy Markets (EIA, 2007). While the information in this comment is correct, it fails to also point out something that the EIA mentions as a limitation of the study – specifically:
“Capital-intensive, baseload generating technologies, such as coal-fired steam generators and nuclear generators, together produce about 70 percent of total net generation which tends to reduce their subsidies and support per unit of production compared to the other fuel groups. For the same reason, electricity subsidies for solar and wind show a relatively large subsidy per unit of production, as these groups account for less than 1 percent of total net generation in the country. It is important to recognize that the subsidies-per-megawatt-hour calculations are a snapshot taken at a particular point in time. Some electricity sources, such as nuclear, coal, oil, and natural gas, have received varying levels of subsidies and support in the past which may have aided them in reaching their current role in electricity production. The impacts of prior subsidies, some of which may no longer be in effect, are not measured in the current analysis.”
The report goes on to mention these additional benefits:
Help achieve environmental goals. Renewable resources reduce the need for electricity generated by fossil fuel-fired sources. In 2018, it is projected that the electricity generation displaced due to the availability of new renewable resources will be 65 percent natural gas and oil, 7 percent coal, and 28 percent imports from other states. Less generation from fossil fuel-fired units results in lower emissions of air pollutants, which means that fewer emission reduction measures will be needed to achieve statewide and regional emission caps and that the cost of compliance with emission caps will be reduced. The renewable resources needed to meet the 30
April 27, 2011 4.1 - 18
Allegany Wind Power Project Final Environmental Impact Statement
percent RPS goal in 2015 are projected to reduce expenditures for carbon dioxide (CO2) allowances by about $82 million per year.
Create jobs, income, and economic development opportunities. The direct macroeconomic benefits of renewable energy include the creation of jobs in construction and operation of new facilities, payments to the State and localities, payments for fuel and land leases, and in-state purchase of materials and services. Meeting the fully expanded 30 percent RPS goal is projected to provide more than $6.0 billion in direct macroeconomic benefits over the average 20-year life of the new facilities. The indirect “ripple” effects of injecting the incremental expenditures and income into the State’s economy increase the total projected macroeconomic benefits to approximately $12.5 billion.
Reduce energy imports. Renewable energy helps to reduce the reliance on fossil fuels imported from outside the State and/or the nation, thereby increasing the security of energy supplies.
Reduce price volatility of fossil fuels. Renewable energy contributes to the reduction of energy price volatility in the long-term. Because the production cost for renewable energy remains stable throughout unpredictable fossil fuel price fluctuations, renewable resources can provide cost- effective options for managing the risks associated with fossil fuel use.
Reduce negative health impacts. As detailed in the Health Issue Brief, increasing the amount of energy generated by renewable resources such as solar, wind, and hydropower will, in general, decrease the health risks associated with energy use. Many renewable resources emit no air pollutants at the site of electricity generation, or produce relatively low emissions when compared to fossil fuels, especially with respect to pollutants like particulate matter, nitrogen oxides, sulfur dioxide, and mercury, which can have negative health impacts.
Lower peak demand. Renewable energy, particularly solar power, may increase the reliability of the local power supply system during peak demand periods. For example, since cooling load peaks during summer days when the solar resource is plentiful, distributed solar power generation can reduce the risk of localized power disruptions.
Relieve transmission and distribution bottlenecks. Since certain renewables, such as solar, can be distributed throughout the grid, these technologies can reduce existing bottlenecks caused by load pocket demand.
April 27, 2011 4.1 - 19
Allegany Wind Power Project Final Environmental Impact Statement
Written Comment 4X: When enterprise incomes declined precipitously in the fall of 2008, wind industry lobbyists complained to Congress that they could not finance wind projects, so federal tax credits should be converted into an outright grant. Congress agreed, and in the Stimulus Bill enacted into law last February a provision was added allowing wind farms to take a lump sum grant from the U.S. Treasury for 30% of the project cost in lieu of tax credits, so long as they construct the wind farm by the end of 2010 and place the project into service by the end of 2011. On September 1, 2009, under the first disbursement of the new grant benefit, the Canandaigua Power Partners wind farm in Cohocton (Steuben Co.) got a check for over $74 million from Treasury. Nationally, $503 million was disbursed to wind farms in September to create 2,000 jobs, thus each job created cost taxpayers one quarter-million dollars. On September 22, 2009 another $550 million in new awards was disbursed, again most to wind farms. Over half the federal renewable energy stimulus money disbursed in September went to Spanish wind farm developer Iberdrola S.A., and 84 percent of the total went to foreign wind companies. It is estimated that this program will cost tax payers $10 billion over the next three years.
Response to Written Comment 4X: Comment noted. The subsidies in question were in lieu of the Production Tax Credit; they did not represent new subsidies. The SEQRA process is not the proper forum to debate government incentive programs and this comment is not pertinent to the issue at hand.
4.1.3 General Project Location
Written Comment 54L: Properties that are not part of the project, but which are participating properties because they have entered into noise or other easements with Allegany Wind LLC, shall be shown on revised Figure 2, in a manner that distinguishes them from the project site. Copies of easement agreements shall be provided to the Town.
Response to Written Comment 54L: The Project Sponsor will obtain such easements as necessary, and provide copies to the Town, or it will request variances as necessary. This FEIS (including the DEIS) has evaluated the noise impacts without regard to property ownership.
April 27, 2011 4.1 - 20
Allegany Wind Power Project Final Environmental Impact Statement
Oral Comment 21B: It’s not as though this project will generate electrical energy and savings for the residents of the entire area. It’s been stated the energy generated here will supply the grid and be used in large metro areas on the East coast to meet fluctuating demands. In fact, this site was chosen because of close proximity and across to transmission lines.
Response to Oral Comment 21B: The commenter is correct in that the site was chosen, in part, due to its proximity to an existing transmission line with sufficient capacity to accept the energy generated by the Project. However, the energy produced by the Project will be transmitted to the NYS grid and utilized locally. With respect to energy use, please see Response to Written Comment 4U in this section of the FEIS.
4.1.4 Project Layout and Components
Written Comment 4XX: The DEIS asks the Planning Board and Town Board to defer review of such plans until after project approval. For example, access roads are planned to be “restored” to 16-20 feet in width, but no gravel roads of this size presently exist in the project area. Run off and erosion control measures are not provided. Instead, the DEIS asks the Planning Board and the Town Board to defer review of such measures until after project approval:
“If access road construction or improvements require the installation of culverts, the Project Sponsor will provide drainage design and calculations to the Town for review. Any ditches or other water conveyance structures shall be assessed prior to any disturbance to determine if they are part of a stream or wetland and subject to U.S. Army Corps of Engineers jurisdiction.”
Response to Written Comment 4XX: To clarify Section 2.5.4 of the DEIS, Project access roads will be temporarily constructed to a width of 34-40 feet, but will be reduced to a width of 16-20 feet for operational access. The commenter’s assertion that 16-20 foot wide gravel access roads do not presently exist in the Project area is incorrect. There are numerous gravel roads of this size (and wider) currently being used to support gas/oil well activities, and logging activities.
Construction of the buried transmission line between the generating facility and the Point of Interconnect station may require temporary 16-foot wide access roads during construction. All
April 27, 2011 4.1 - 21
Allegany Wind Power Project Final Environmental Impact Statement temporary disturbances associated with access roads will be fully restored and vegetation will be allowed to regenerate naturally.
Run off and erosion control measures are provided in the Preliminary SWPPP (Appendix C of the DEIS), and all construction activities will fully comply with the SPDES Stormwater General Permit and associated sediment and erosion control measures. In addition, all culverts will be appropriately designed based on site-specific drainage calculations, as required by post-SEQRA permits (e.g., SPDES, Town Site Plan Approval). However, in accordance with SEQRA requirements potential impacts associated with Project-related stormwater have been identified and addressed in Section 3.2 of the DEIS, which specifically states, “The proposed Project will not result in wide-scale conversion of land to built/impervious surfaces. Tower bases, crane pads, access roads, and the substations in total will add approximately 27 acres of impervious surface to the 9,119-acre Project Site (i.e., conversion of less than 1%). Consequently, no significant changes to the rate or volume of stormwater runoff are anticipated. However, installation of permanent Project components could result in localized changes to runoff/drainage patterns… To avoid localized drainage problems, the environmental monitor will identify the need for ditches, water bars, culverts, and temporary sediment retention basins at each road and tower site prior to the initiation of construction. If drainage problems develop during or after construction, the environmental monitor will evaluate the problem (in consultation with the contractor, landowner, and/or agency representative) and recommend a solution. The contractor will take corrective actions after receiving the recommendation.”
With respect to potential jurisdiction of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, please see Section 4.3 (Water Resources) of this FEIS.
The following comments are related wind turbines and the site-specific wind resource:
Written Comment 23C: Why choose to site in a class 3 low wind area over a class 5 high wind area? How efficient is this? Why not develop in first class high wind areas first? T. Boone Pickens is currently investing in building transmission lines in the flat, windy land in Texas.
Written Comment 44B: There is not enough sustained winds, let alone winds of sufficient energy in this geographical area to allow the wind turbines to operate at a level of acceptable efficiency. We are often spared storms in this area which usually go either north or south of us. This is a benefit for we who live
April 27, 2011 4.1 - 22
Allegany Wind Power Project Final Environmental Impact Statement
here but not for wind turbines which need this air movement to operate. With a poor efficiency to begin with, the wind turbines will not adequately fulfill their intended purpose; to generate electricity.
Oral Comment 25A: My previous expertise was a wind turbine engineer and wind farm operation and maintenance. I’m very much opposed to the installation of the wind farm in the Chipmonk area or any other area in Western New York. My reasons against wind farming here is that there is not sufficient wind to be installing 2.5 megawatt turbines. It’s a waste of our tax dollars, not mention a waste of good equipment to have a wind farm here.
Response to Written Comments 23C, 44B and Oral Comment 25A:
Advances in wind turbine technology over the past several years have allowed wind turbines to operate economically and competitively in a number of different areas. The project in Allegany will be built using turbines that are equipped to capture lower wind speeds. The claims regarding insufficient winds in this geographic area are unsubstantiated.
Written Comment 54J: Provide a map to supplement/replace Figure 2, which identifies all of the parcels that are included in the project site (defined as land on which towers are located and land that will have access roads, electrical collection lines, O&M Building, transmission line, interconnect substation, and any other related project facilities.) The map shall show tax map parcel boundaries and shall provide tax map numbers for all properties. Either on the map or supplemental table, provide the names of the property owners and their mailing addresses. Agreements that give Everpower the authority to make application for the project on behalf of those property owners shall be provided. The map shall be provided in a larger format than 11 x 17” for readability; a format of 24 x 36” is preferred. The definition of project site, as defined above, shall be included in the FEIS.
Response to Written Comment 54J: This map has been created as requested. Please see Figure 1 of this FEIS.
Written Comment 54K: DEIS p. 159 (access) states: “…portions, of Camelback Lane is a private road [sic] and that Allegany Wind LLC anticipates entering into an agreement with the landowner to gain use of Camelback Lane
April 27, 2011 4.1 - 23
Allegany Wind Power Project Final Environmental Impact Statement during both construction and operation/maintenance of the substation.” Provide this agreement or show the applicant has access to the proposed substation location.
Response to Written Comment 54K:
The Project Sponsor is currently negotiating with the landowner along Camelback Lane, and will provide this agreement upon receipt (or show that the Project Sponsor has access to the substation). However, all potential impacts associated with access to the substation along Camelback Lane have been evaluated in the DEIS, as required by SEQRA.
Written Comment 54M: The definitive location of the O&M building shall be shown on revised Figure 2. If this location is not the location of the staging area, an assessment of impacts, including ground disturbance, visual and other potential impacts shall be provided.
Response to Written Comment 54M: As depicted on Figure 1 of this FEIS, the O&M Building is currently anticipated to be located at the staging area location.
Written Comment 54N: VIA, p. 7 states O&M building” …will be linked by fiber optic cables to each of the turbines.” Describe how the cables will be installed (above or below ground). Discuss the amount and location of land area that will be cleared for these cables. Revise Table 2 and Table 36, if necessary. Assess the visual impact of this disturbance.
Response to Written Comment 54N: This statement from the VIA is incorrect. As correctly indicated in Section 2.5.3 of the DEIS, “The majority of the POI station will be owned and operated by National Grid. However, it is anticipated that the POI station will also house the command center of the Project’s supervisory control and data acquisition (SCADA) system, which allows an operator to control critical functions and the overall performance of each turbine. The Project Sponsor will operate this portion of the POI station.”
The fiber optic communication cables that connect each turbine to the SCADA system are co- located in underground conduit with the 34.5 kV interconnection line and 115 kV transmission line. No additional cables outside of these locations are anticipated. The installation of these cables do
April 27, 2011 4.1 - 24
Allegany Wind Power Project Final Environmental Impact Statement not require any additional clearing or disturbance beyond what is identified in the DEIS and, since the cables will be buried, there are no visual impacts.
Written Comment 54O: The locations of the meteorological towers shall be shown on revised Figure 2. Describe the proposed towers, including tower style and height. Assess the visual impact of the meteorological towers. Assess the anticipated impact on birds and bats. Describe what will happen to the existing met towers.
Response to Written Comment 54O: Please see Figure 1 of this FEIS for a depiction of the permanent meteorological tower location.
Please see the Visual Technical Memorandum provided in Appendix E of this FEIS, which provides a description and analysis of the permanent meteorological tower.
The permanent meteorological tower is proposed to be a free-standing lattice steel structure (i.e., no guy wires). Guy wires are a documented source of avian/bat mortality, and the use of a free-standing structure is consistent with NYSDEC/USFWS guidance. Therefore, any impacts associated with the permanent meteorological tower have been minimized to the maximum extent practical. This meteorological tower (and associated access road) has been sited specifically to take advantage of the existing disturbance caused by the oil/gas extraction activities. In addition, the free-standing (i.e., no guy wires) tower design serves to minimize/mitigate impacts to avian/bat resources, which are expected to be very minimal (e.g., of the two meteorological towers including the 2008 fatality monitoring for the Maple Ridge Wind Farm, only two birds [one at each tower] were documented). The visual effects of this meteorological tower are evaluated in the Technical Memorandum provided in FEIS Appendix E.
The existing (temporary) meteorological towers will be removed prior to Project construction.
Written Comment 54P: It appears that buried electrical interconnect lines are located in part along Nichols Run Road and the southern part of Chipmonk Road. State whether or not the line is intended to be placed in the town’s right-of-way. Table 35, p. 222, should indicate that approval from the Town of Allegany
April 27, 2011 4.1 - 25
Allegany Wind Power Project Final Environmental Impact Statement
Highway Superintendent will be needed to locate collection lines within the town’s right-of-way, if this is the proposed location.
Response to Written Comment 54P: As indicated in Section 2.1 of this FEIS, buried electrical interconnect is no longer proposed to be located along Nichols Run Road or the southern part of Chipmonk Road. Instead, the turbines located on the western ridge will be electrically connected to the eastern ridge (and ultimately the existing 115 kV line) through buried electrical interconnect placed on participating land (see Figure 1 of this FEIS). Through field investigations and GPS technology, EDR biologists relocated the interconnect to assure it is placed entirely within the footprint of existing oil/gas access roads, and therefore no ecological disturbance is anticipated as a result of this relocated interconnect.
Please see Section 2.1 of this FEIS for additional detail in regards to the buried electrical interconnect location.
4.1.5 Project Construction
The following comments are general concerns regarding the Spill Prevention, Containment, and Countermeasure Plan (SPCC). Written Comment 1Q: Due to possible construction impacts from heavy equipment use (such as larger cranes) and the need to move much soil and concrete over rugged terrain, hydraulic and diesel fuel spills are a distinct possibility. And during operation, spills are also a possibility due to the number of wind turbine generators and large electrical transformers. A Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasures Plan will be required for any permit issued by the DEC. Measures to prevent, contain, and cleanup spills should be discussed in the Final Environmental Impact Assessment Statement.
Written Comment 54PP: Clarify when in the process a Spill Prevention, Containment and Countermeasure (SPCC Plan) will be developed and implemented.
Response to Written Comments IQ and 54PP:
A Spill Prevention Plan has been developed and is attached to this FEIS as Appendix B. The Spill Prevention Plan will be implemented immediately prior to construction, and all contractors will be required to adhere to the Spill Prevention Plan throughout the duration of construction.
April 27, 2011 4.1 - 26
Allegany Wind Power Project Final Environmental Impact Statement
Written Comment 4YY: Figure 5 is offered for “typical access road details,” but as the DEIS indicates, these may or may not conform to actual plans to be developed following project approval.
Where development of access roads and turbine sites encounters bedrock that cannot be excavated with a backhoe, the DEIS says blasting may be necessary, but no specific blasting plans are provided. A “Preliminary Blasting Plan” is provided in Appendix A, but the plan is entirely conceptual and lacks any details that would allow the Planning Board or the Town Board to determine what to expect.
Response to Written Comment 4YY: Figure 5 includes photographs of access road construction from other wind power projects in New York State, along with typical access road details. These details indicate that gravel/crushed stone would be placed on a compacted subgrade, which is consistent with the anticipated access road construction for the Project. With respect to blasting, as indicated in Section 3.1.2.1 of the DEIS, blasting is not anticipated because any bedrock encountered is expected to be rippable using common construction equipment such as a backhoe, and/or broken up using a pneumatic hammer. However, in the event that blasting is necessary, the contractor will follow the parameters set forth in the preliminary blasting plan and in Section 4.3 of this FEIS.
Written Comment 54MM: Discuss the potential impacts to oil/gas wells from construction, with or without blasting and propose mitigation measures, if necessary. Also address possible cross-contamination of oil into the water supply.
Response to Written Comment 54MM: Significant impacts to the oil and gas wells are not anticipated. During construction, there is the potential to encounter a minimal number of buried oil and gas power lines that bring 480v power to the pump jack (assuming the lines are close to the ground surface and have not been buried very deep). In addition, there is the potential to encounter a minimal number of oil or gas lines that carry the product away from the pump jack (again assuming the lines are close to the ground surface and have not been buried very deep).
The Project Sponsor will have an adequate supply of spare gas lines and conduits on hand to immediately dispatch a crew to effect a repair if construction causes damage to a line. The Project
April 27, 2011 4.1 - 27
Allegany Wind Power Project Final Environmental Impact Statement
Sponsor will also dedicate a supervisor to work directly with the oil and/or gas operators to insure a safe project and continuous production of the on-site wells. In addition, as indicated in Section 3.2.3 of the DEIS, “a Spill Prevention, Containment, and Countermeasure (SPCC) Plan that outlines procedures to be implemented to prevent the release of hazardous substances into the environment will be developed and implemented. This plan will not allow refueling of construction equipment within 100 feet of any stream or wetland, and all contractors will be required to keep materials on hand to control and contain a petroleum spill. These materials will include a shovel, tank patch kit, and oil-absorbent materials. Any spills will be reported in accordance with NYSDEC regulations. Contractors will be responsible for ensuring responsible action on the part of construction personnel.”
Regarding possible cross-contamination of oil into the water supply, based on current activities (i.e., oil/gas drilling), the Allegany Wind Power Project is not anticipated to create a greater potential for cross-contamination of oil into the water supply than exists now (see also Section 4.3 [Water Resources] of this FEIS). See Response to Written Comments 13E, 37A, 46C, 54I and 54LL, and Oral Comments 13A and 24C for additional detail on the protection and mitigation of water supply impacts.
Written Comment 54NN: DEIS p. 225 states: “the operation of oversized/heavy vehicle used to deliver Project components, as well as other equipment associated with Project construction has the potential to impact the existing oil/gas infrastructure present within the Project area.” Describe this impact to oil/gas infrastructure and propose mitigation measures. Assess the impact to water supply wells from these vehicles and propose appropriate mitigation measures.
Response to Written Comment 54NN: The existing oil and gas operations, logging operations, and associated road building that occurs in the area impose the same axle loads that construction of the Allegany Wind Power Project will impose on the roads and infrastructure. Specifically, the heaviest component on any wind project is the nacelle. Although this is the heaviest component delivered to the site, it is also the component that has the most axles on the trailer to distribute this load. The weight of some nacelles can be as much as 90 tons (or nearly 200,000 pounds). However, the nacelle is delivered on a trailer with 19 axles, which is a load of only 9,500 pounds per axle. Please note that a typical tri-axle truck used in construction usually has a maximum allowable load (Full) limited by the number of axles (54,500 pounds for a Tri-Axle truck) or 18,167 pounds per axles. It is not the overall weight of the
April 27, 2011 4.1 - 28
Allegany Wind Power Project Final Environmental Impact Statement component that matters but the weight of the component distributed on the quantity of axles that matters most. A 9,500-pound per axle load translates to a load typical of most vehicles used in the oil/gas and logging industry. Therefore, construction of the Allegany Project will be consistent with the axle loads currently experienced on many of the existing oil/gas and logging roads.
However, during pre-construction planning efforts the Project Sponsor will coordinate with the oil and gas operators in an effort to obtain all available data regarding the locations of oil/gas infrastructure, and then adequately mark the locations of all buried infrastructure within the Project work area. Specific to potential impacts to the existing infrastructure, the Project Sponsor’s priority is to avoid such impacts through micro-siting. In those locations where avoidance is not practicable, special construction techniques may be used in order to protect the infrastructure from damage (e.g., use of additional fill, timber mats, or steel plates to distribute the load over a larger area). To the extent impacts cannot be foreseen or avoided, the infrastructure will be repaired and any spills cleaned up in accordance with all applicable regulations/permit conditions (see the Spill Prevention Plan included in FEIS Appendix B).
See comments/responses in Section 4.3 of this FEIS for additional detail on the protection and mitigation of water supply impacts.
4.1.6 Decommissioning and Closure Plans
The following comments are all related to general concerns regarding the Project Decommissioning Plan.
Written Comment 54A: The final decommissioning plan shall include the removal of all access roads and driveways, unless written permission is acquired from the landowner.
Written Comment 54GG: Provide a draft Decommissioning Plan that is in accordance with the provisions of Section 2.25(D) of the Town’s Zoning Ordinance. The proposed contents listed in the DEIS (p. 31ff) will serve as a starting point for this Plan. Among other items the Plan shall include: determination (in consultation with the Town of Allegany Planning Board) of whether or not underground collection cables that are installed at depths of 36 inches or greater will be considered to be “structures” for purposes of removal as part of decommissioning.
April 27, 2011 4.1 - 29
Allegany Wind Power Project Final Environmental Impact Statement
thresholds under which decommissioning and removal as part of decommissioning. (DEIS contains only a vague reference to “…if turbines are non-operational for an extended period of time…”) mechanisms for periodically updating the amount of the decommissioning bond process and circumstances under which the Town can access the bond (or other Financial Assurances)
Response to Written Comments 54A and 54GG:
A Decommissioning Plan has been prepared, and is included as Appendix A of this FEIS.
The following comments are all related to general concerns regarding financial security for decommissioning of the Project.
Written Comment 4ZZ: Similarly, the DEIS says that financial security sufficient to pay for the decommissioning of towers and turbines “will be available,” but no commitment to any specific amount is made. Instead, the DEIS asks the Planning Board and the Town Board to defer until after project approval its review and approval of the decommissioning fund, based on an engineer’s estimate that would “establish the cost of decommissioning” later.
Apart from a funding mechanism, the DEIS says the applicant will “formulate a decommissioning plan cooperatively with the Town of Allegany” prior to any project approval. The Planning Board and Town Board should insist that the decommissioning plan, the expected cost of decommissioning, and the funding mechanism to pay for implementing the plan be finalized prior to project approval.
The DEIS says that the “salvage value of the towers and turbines” will be applied as a discount on the amount of funds necessary for decommissioning. This seems highly speculative, particularly if scrap value will be a significant portion of the required funding. The Planning Board and Town Board should ensure that the decommissioning fund is sufficient to cover the cost of dismantling all turbines and restoring all turbine sites. The DEIS commits to use of an independent engineer to estimate these costs, and the Town should insist that the estimate be performed by an engineer it selects, at the applicant’s expense.
The decommissioning plan specifies the removal and restoration activities it covers (and funds) “unless the Applicant can show that its land leases adequately address this issue.” Any
April 27, 2011 4.1 - 30
Allegany Wind Power Project Final Environmental Impact Statement
demonstration that land leases specify the equivalent of the elements of a proper decommissioning plan and funding, should be made prior to project approval.
Written Comment 10LLLL: With respect to the Project Decommissioning, the DEIS states the developer will establish a decommissioning fund or purchase a decommissioning bond in an amount sufficient to secure the cost of removing turbines. Since the project has a 20-year term, I would ask that the officials of Allegany seriously consider what the removal cost of the turbine structures will be in 20 years to ensure sufficient funding for the removal. What will workmen’s compensation costs be in 20 years? Will the turbines contain materials that we learn in the future have negative health effects, much like the use of asbestos in building materials in previous years? The decommissioning fund/bond should take all of these items unexpected items into consideration to ensure Allegany’s beauty is restored to its natural state.
Written Comment 34B: After the government subsidies run out, there is a VERY high likelihood that these turbines will be mothballed because the cost of producing the electricity will no longer be profitable. Therefore, are YOU prepared to explain to the taxpayers (who already are paying way too much in taxes in Allegany) why they now have to foot the bill to either maintain them or remove them?
Oral Comment 15E: When Applebee’s came to our area looking to build a restaurant they wanted to put up a 120 foot high sign so it could be seen from the highway. That request was quickly rejected as not being consistent with what we wanted for our community. You have a much taller task at hand in your decision. I ask you, are you prepared to be the leaders to change who we are and what we’re marketing? As observed in the public hearing, the people have spoken; our community leaders are clear on who we are. Are you? I strongly urge you to vote in opposition to the proposed Everpower wind turbine project. Long term, you’ll be glad you did. This technology is changing too fast to give up everything that we do have for a company that could be gone tomorrow. What guarantee do you have that this company is financially stable enough to even carry out the full scope of this project over 20 years? None. There will be no money in escrow for contingency plans, if they’re bankrupt in a year.
Response to Written Comments 4ZZ, 10LLLL, and 34B, and Oral Comment 15E: Although there is no evidence to support the contention that when subsidies expire the turbines will be mothballed (for example, the project debt may be paid off by that time, significantly lowering the cost of electricity), a plan for decommissioning the turbines is included in this review. Please see Section 2.8
April 27, 2011 4.1 - 31
Allegany Wind Power Project Final Environmental Impact Statement
(Decommissioning and Closure Plans) of the DEIS, which clearly indicates that the Project Sponsor, not the taxpayers, is responsible for decommissioning costs. Also, Appendix A of the FEIS contains a detailed Project Decommissioning Plan, which is summarized in FEIS Section 2.2. The Decommissioning Plan also indicates that every five years, a Licensed Engineer, selected by the Town Board and paid by the Project Sponsor, recalculate and recertify of the estimates of the decommissioning costs.
The following comments are all related to general concerns regarding inoperable turbines.
Written Comment 26C: Twenty-nine windmills are the preliminary idea, the initial plan. Potentially, they could add more. And what do we get, for the sacrifice of our town, our scenery? A few payments for ten years? Our loss vastly outweighs any sum of money. Our love for this place cannot be paid off. Once their job is done here, their colossal wind turbines are no longer of use to them, they will remain here and rust. They will forever affect this town and its prosperity.
Written Comment 52B: Furthermore, the blight on the town as well as adjoining communities is not temporary. After the wind turbines lose their viability or when towns wake up to the fact that they weren’t as good as of an idea as was once thought, the turbines, in whatever state of disrepair they happen to be in at that point, will still be around. They will affect not only Allegany, but Olean and our neighbors in Pennsylvania as well. How many generations will suffer from their impact?
Oral Comment 5A: I live in Chipmonk. The proposed wind turbine plan will have turbines on both sides of my house if this goes through. I’ve lived in Allegany for 38 years moving from California. And when I moved here, I’d never seen anything so lush and green and natural as this area.
Erecting turbines will deface and disrupt nature. I’m sure like anything else now days turbines will be obsolete and then we will be stuck with giant, rusting metal forms that will forever scar the hilltops of Allegany.
Oral Comment 39B: For us to live with that junk up there that's going to rust. The guys are gone. The guys putting it up are gone. The guys that dug the holes up there, everyone of those posts up there for what? Finally it will just sit there, not do anybody any damn good. You can put it in Texas, put it in the middle of Kansas. I've driven in the middle of Texas. There's nothing for miles. Good. The only
April 27, 2011 4.1 - 32
Allegany Wind Power Project Final Environmental Impact Statement
problem is there are no power lines. See. See. So that's why we're suckers if we let them come here. So don't do it please.
Response to Written Comment 26C, 52B and Oral Comment 5A and 39B:
As indicated in Section 2.8 (Decommissioning and Closure Plans) of the DEIS and in Section 2.2 of this FEIS, inoperable and unoperated turbines will be removed. The Project Sponsor has prepared a Decommissioning and Site Restoration Plan for the Project (FEIS Appendix A). In accordance with the Town of Allegany Zoning Ordinance, this plan states that the Project Sponsor will provide financial security for decommissioning the Project (Decommissioning Security), which would be utilized in the event that the Project, or part there of, becomes inoperable or nonfunctional for a continuous period of one year (following construction) and thereafter the Project Sponsor refuses to conduct decommissioning and site restoration activities after a request is made in writing by the Town. A NYS Licensed Engineer, selected by the Town Board and paid by the Project Sponsor, will estimate and certify the cost of decommissioning as well as the salvage value of wind farm components and will establish the Decommissioning Security as the difference between the estimated cost and the estimated salvage value. Decommissioning Security (in the form approved by the Town Board) will be delivered to the Town prior to issuance of a building permit and will be maintained by the Project Sponsor and its successors or assigns for the duration of the Special Use Permit. The level of Decommissioning Security will be recalculated by a NYS Licensed Engineer every five years.
4.1.7 Required Approvals and Applicable Regulatory Programs
Written Comment 4UU: On December 4, 2009, I submitted comments on the completeness of the Everpower project application, but the Planning Board was unable to review the comments prior to acting on Everpower’s request to make a completeness determination. Therefore, I respectfully ask that those comments be considered on the adequacy of the DEIS, which has not changed.
Response to Written Comment 4UU: There is no provision in the SEQRA regulations for project opponents to submit comments on the adequacy of the DEIS. Per the Resolution passed on February 24, 2010, the Lead Agency determined that the DEIS was adequate for the purposes of public review and comment. Nevertheless, the Planning Board, as Lead Agency, does not want lack of knowledge of SEQRA procedures to affect this review. Therefore it has reviewed the comments, which mainly constituted disagreement with the Project rather than discussion of DEIS inadequacies. Where legitimate
April 27, 2011 4.1 - 33
Allegany Wind Power Project Final Environmental Impact Statement inquiries were raised, the responses to those comments are included in this Responsiveness Summary.
Written Comment 4WW: No blasting plan, road construction plan and no specific transportation routes have been decided, as noted in my December 4, 2009 comments. Before approving the project, the town should insist that such plans be finalized and reviewed.
Response to Written Comment 4WW: Although blasting is not anticipated, a Preliminary Blasting Plan was provided in Appendix A of the DEIS. So was a Route Evaluation Study (DEIS Appendix P) identifying the anticipated delivery/haul routes and public roads likely to require upgrade to accommodate Project construction. The potential environmental impacts from these activities have been evaluated.
The following comments are general concerns regarding Project changes.
Written Comment 13H: Expansion of Project – if this project is approved, what assurances (in writing) will there be that the project doesn’t grow in size? What safeguards, through Zoning or other means, will the Town provide for us so that additional turbines won’t be added in the future? The addition of even one or more turbine would change many of the dynamics of the project area – sound, visual impact, wildlife, etc. – even more.
Oral Comment 15B: The 115 kV transmission line starting at the Southwest branch of Chipmonk Ridge with four mile and two mile ridges and valleys continuing into Olean. It will open the door for additional turbines on Rock City, Knapp Creek, Four Mile, Two Mile ridges with access to all of these ridges from Route 16.
Ladies and gentlemen, there are better places to put these turbines. Saying no to wind turbines does not make you un-American or against our national goal for clean energy. As a member of the American Wind Energy Association, I am privy to the magazines of this association and they show -- [sic]
April 27, 2011 4.1 - 34
Allegany Wind Power Project Final Environmental Impact Statement
Oral Comment 19D: Once the green light is given to the project in the Town of Allegany for the first 29 turbines, the rest of the town is open for turbines. From hilltop to hilltop including right up to the boundary of neighboring towns. I ask you, the planning board, to say no to the project for the good of all.
Response to Written Comment 13H and Oral Comments 15B and 19D: Substantive changes to the Project following approval, which includes additional turbines, would require additional SEQRA review and authorization through the Town’s permitting process. Any additions to the project would also be required to meet Town standards.
Written Comment 13J: It would appear that the application was not complete at the time it was submitted. Everpower, as would any applicant for a project, needs to have their “i’s dotted and their t’s crossed”. As the Planning Board is well aware, there has been much time, effort and emotion associated with this project to date. Everpower needs to complete the required steps, in the required order. It would be wrong to have so many people spend so much time on this issue, only to find that Everpower was not successful in negotiating leases for the transmission line.
Response to Written Comment 13J: In Written Comment 13I, the commenter references the Town of Allegany Wind Energy Regulations (adopted August 28, 2007). In accordance with this law, the Allegany Planning Board must issue a discretionary approval for any wind power project proposed in the Town of Allegany. Issuance of a discretionary approval by any “agency” triggers the SEQRA process, and SEQRA must first be completed before said agency can act on the discretionary approval. Therefore, this Project is being reviewed in the required order.
See also Response to Written Comment 13I.
Oral Comment 4E: We had a – we sat here and listened to the seeker [sic] study that the town board went through and answered the questions as far as the litigation of problems and whether they are low, medium, or high. Are there going to be solutions to that? You realize that there are questions as far as these problems. Are you going to have solutions to the problems that you’re going to give to the town board when you make your report? Are you going to have teeth in a document of some kind to EverPower to guarantee that.
April 27, 2011 4.1 - 35
Allegany Wind Power Project Final Environmental Impact Statement
Response to Oral Comment 4E: Comment noted. The DEIS discusses the Project impacts as well as mitigation. Any approval of the Planning Board will include enforceable conditions.
April 27, 2011 4.1 - 36