After hearing presentations from Dr. DiPippo of the Alternative Energy Committee, Ms. Jenkins from the Finance Committee (that committee voted unaimously in favor of the article), Dr. Friedman of the Finance Committee (who wrote a computer model for the turbine economics) and Mr. John Aylward. a resident who opposes the project, the Town Meeting voted to authorize borrowing of $9.5 million dollars to fund the wind turbine project, 182 in favor and 44 against. The authorization required a 2/3 majority of the Town Meeting and the article passed. There is a bit of confusion on the exact vote which the moderator has addressed in an email. Here is what he reports in the email to Town Clerk Lynn Medeiros,
Subject: Offical Vote Total on Article 1 - Wind Turbines
Hi Lynn ... Thanks your help again tonight. My records will reflect a 182-44 vote on Article 1, the wind turbine article. After the Town Meeting, I gave that count to WBSM and The Standard-Times. I'm sending that same information by e-mail to The Chronicle. If I announced it as 182-49, it's only because I couldn't read my own writing. Both tellers clearly counted 44 negative votes and my notes show that. I do know I announced 182 in favor and said that 226 had voted. Either way, the vote was far in excess of 2/3rds. In fact, it was about 80% in favor. In your records, it should be correct. Blame my poor eyesight.
Thanks Steven C. Sharek
In related news, some residents have filed a lawsuit, ...
... appealing the special permit and seeking to block the wind turbine project. The Town Counsel was notified of the suit by the Standard Times on Monday. The paper got the filing before the town. The town and Select Board were served yesterday. I will post the filing here on the blog when I have time to scan it. Ms. Sweet raised a question from the floor about how the town would proceed if Town Meeting authorized the borrowing for the turbines in light of the suit. Executive Administrator, Mr. Cressman replied that the town could borrow some funds to start design and procurement or could wait to see the result of the suit. My preference is to wait until the legal hurdles are cleared before proceeding further.
Posts
71 comments:
This comment is for the little unknown article 3
Article 3 passed 244 to 0.........
Our new Executive Administrator gave a short overview of chapter 32B section 18 stating that it only effected 40 town retiree's that have reached age 65 plus. I'm one of the forty retiree's that would like to thank our town meeting members along with David Chressman, elected officials and fin-com members for the royal screwing I received, along with the other 39 retired town employee's.
When asked, I decided to become a town employee. One of several reasons for deciding to work for the town was the health benefits and the retirement package. The town offered and I agreed to accept a smaller pay check for health insurance and a retirement package. Private industry provided a larger pay check but no health insurance and retirement was based on your ability to save or invest money. Private industry was also forced by the federal government (socialism) to contribute into social security. As you may not know the town of Dartmouth doesn't pay into social security. No payee no checkee.
Anyone, who has always worked for the town and is now at the age of 65 years can not receive social security. This all makes sense because they and the town never paid into social security.
Chapter 32Bs18 states that anyone who qualifies for Medicare part A shall be FORCED to accept Medicare part B. Most of the 40 town retiree's at age 65 years are not effected by this law because they do not qualify for Medicare part A. This means that this group shall continue to have the same town health insurance as provided for everyone else. The only retired town employee's who qualify are those who joined or drafted into the military service for their country. While in the military fighting for the so called freedom of my country, the government was paying into my social security. What in hell did I know or care about social security when people where trying to kill me.
After my town retirement, social security notified me at age 62 that I was eligible for Medicare part A and shall become eligible for Medicare part B when I reach the sweet old age of 65 years. As promised and knowing that I'm covered by the town of Dartmouth, I didn't accept Medicare part A/B.
Some 244 town meeting members voted to force me to accept Medicare part B. My out of pocket cost is 110.00 dollars per month above the amount I paid for town health insurance. I just want to take this time to thank everyone involved with the above mentioned screwing.
Thanks for the health insurance lies and may you all rot in hell. A long time ago, somewhere in Southeast Asia, I thought I was fighting the enemy, but now I've met the enemy,the enemy is you.
Does anyone know when the RFP will go out to bid ?
Does this lawsuit hold up the actual project?
Where does the town go from here?
Does anyone have any projects?
I read in the paper the town was expecting a lawsuit . Knowing the lawsuit was here where does that leave the entire project ?
Can the residents around to site appeal any decision ?
Anyone ?
I love the fact that Bill Trimble...a voting town member, sat on his laptop for over an hour while other town meeting members ast for hours listening to the information being presented at the meeting.
I work with people like Bill...getting paid to work but busy texting or surfing the internet.
"He is addicted to "Blogging" - ALL DAY LONG - look at the posting times!!!!! HE IS A JOKE!!!
This was posted on another thread. I thought it was worth a copy and paste. It looks like David Brownell personally screwed the taxpayers in a do nothing, get yourself set for life deal and he is still is not satisfied.
To David Brownell,
Since you came on this blog with no purpose other than to attack good, hardworking volunteer town officials, I thought I would enlighten the readership about you.
Back in the early 80's David cut a sweetheart deal with the state for a conservation restriction on his property for well over $2million. Keep in mind that this was a time when people thought real estate prices were going through the roof because a typical house had reached a value of $100k. Compare this to the deal that the Cornell farm got thirty years later for a larger parcel.
Now I am happy that the old Sylvia farm, now belonging to David who I don't consider to be a farmer(his hay looks more like cord wood than something you would feed an animal), has been preserved. However, if David Brownell had not cut a deal that paid him over a $million more than what he deserved, we could have used that state money to preserve much more farmland like the Piva property abbutting his.
Anyone want to take a stab at who our state rep was at the time of David Brownell's sweatheart conservation restriction deal?
The town voters enacted these wind regulations with the desire to protect neighborhoods while allowing the development of alternative-energy sources.
Why are we going to court against the people we are supposed to protect with the special permit regulations ?
To anon 2:41pm,
Mr. Trimble has heard Ron Dippio's power point so many times he could probably recite it by heart! Folks, this project has been going on since 2004!I want to thank the hard work of all the volunteers who worked on this project. So many people were engaged along the way. This is very exciting for Dartmouth! Perhaps we will pave the way for other cities and towns to convert to wind power!
The other cities and towns around us have rejected the commercial wind turbines because of residential concerns -if you hadn't noticed .
Who will hold the reigns on the town attorney ?
Hope this doesn't end up like the contract the old town executive administrator had written by the town ! That cost us a few bucks -this probably will cost us more .
I want to personally thank all of the Town Meeeting Members who voted in opposition for funding the wind turbines.
For having a conscience and the courage to voice your opposition and for putting public safety first.
As for the woman who said "turbines will save the lives of our soldiers"....if that were so true, turbines would be everywhere and soldiers would be home! I have family in the military and they thought it was insulting too!
We will all witness the unreliability of these machines here in Dartmouth.
Our opposition continues...
New England averages about one hurricane per decade, but there is some evidence that more and stronger hurricanes occur when Atlantic Sea-Surface-Temperatures are warm. There has been no hurricane since 1991 ,Hurricane Bob . How will Dartmouth insure against withstanding different levels of hurricane force winds ?
The new Massachusetts Wind Energy Siting Reform Act if passed will end this project .. The setbacks on the state act are three times the hub height. The act takes all control away from cities and towns including by-laws,zoning and special permits .Under this act the Energy Facilities Siting Board will control all land based commercial wind turbines .
If you have visited Europe, particularly Western Europe, you see these turbines all over the place. The biggest controversy that I am aware of, is offshore placement of them. The turbines have held up well, I am told. There were a few in Germany that failed due to design/construction issues. At this point in time, there should be no excuse for repeating those errors. I have no problem with Dartmouth being the leader amongst local communities in alternative energy development. Good job SB and TM members.
The setback that is attributed to the Massachusetts Wind Energy Siting Reform Act is incorrect. There is no setback specified in the Act. You can read the act at this link
The Act says,
Section 69U. No later than nine months after the effective date of this act, the board shall, with the approval of the secretary of the executive office of energy and environmental affairs, promulgate regulations containing standards for the siting, operation, and decommissioning of electric generating plants and ancillary facilities thereto that are: (1) powered by wind energy and (b) have the capacity to generate two or more megawatts of electricity. The criteria shall be established for wind energy facilities that are sited on land. Facilities are not required to comply with such standards, but compliant facilities shall be entitled to state agency fast-track permitting pursuant to section 69V of this chapter and municipal fast-track permitting pursuant to chapter 40T.
and continues,
The standards may vary from region to region to take into account material differences in the natural resources, available wind resources, or other characteristics of regions, provided that all applicable standards shall be as protective as existing state environmental statutes and regulations. The standards shall be based upon best available science
The bill's summary says,
To respond to concerns that the bill not take away home rule authorities, the bill has been revised to state that if a municipality rejects a wind project, the proponent’s only remedy is to go to court - the same remedy as is currently in place. If a municipality approves a wind project, opponents of the project would appeal to the Siting Board. The Siting Board also would issue a one-stop permit for all state permits that are needed.
Dartmouth is now repeating history. At the end of WWII when the prison camps were liberated those same camps were found to be right in the middle of some neighborhoods. The German people claimed they didn't know what was going on but could see the smoke, smell the burning hair and flesh, and could hear the peoples' agony. They ignored the suffering of some because of the "good" the "father land" was receiving from those same suffering some. Like the TM member who got up and said "I suppose if it was in my neighborhood I would vote differently" he is just going to ignore it like the German people did. Dartmouth should be "Proud", we have become just like Nazi Germany!
12:17 might be overreacting, I'll admit, but the comparison to a prison is not incorrect. These Chase Rd. neighbors will be imprisoned in their own homes. You might as well keep them in the confines of an electrified, barbed-wire fence. They are living in their own private hell, placed there by a group of people who value $$$$ before the sanctity of a human life.
Evidently like most proponents, you are so narrow minded you can't understand the symbolism. People ignoring others suffering because they are profiting. You just hate to see it in real words. Anytime someone's liberties are infringed upon by others it is wrong. You are so upset because you can't look at yourself in the mirror.
It will take at least two years to get through all the appeals to this project . I would be willing to bet in a few months another group of residents from the same location file another suit with a different attorney .
The Wind Energy Siting Reform Act does allow an appeal to the State Supreme Court - There will be many cases in the Supreme Court to appeal the siting of these turbines .
The people who wrote the Wind Energy Siting Reform Act may have overlooked how many people will file suits against commercial wind turbines in their backyards with the State Supreme Court .
I see that Godwin's Law applies to wind turbine discussions as well.
And how much in tune was the woman who referenced our servicemen and women in relationship to the wind turbines? Hello????
Maybe, just maybe, some people do feel that strongly in opposition to the turbines, whether or not the comparison is overreactive or of a different reference.
I do believe that if the shoe were on the other foot, there would be a lot of turbine proponents who would be just as upset and screaming bloody murder if the turbines were to be located in their backyards/neighborhoods. Now, would THEY be called NIMBYs?
This entire turbine project leaves a lot to be desired, both in terms of a moral obligation to our fellow "neighbors" as one (or more) Select Board members called the Chase Rd. opponents, and in financial gain at the expense of others.
Maybe, after the turbines are all in place, the Select Board, AEC, and other proponents can all gather together on a nice, summer's eve in the backyard of one of the turbine's neighbors for hot dogs and beer.
I have not seen or heard any rational reason to oppose construction of these turbines. However, I have seen and heard irrational scare tactics, personal insults, and threats utiliized to oppose construction. Now, it's the Nazi connection. Wow.
Than I guess it's great that they hired a crooked attorney to shed light on all of you crooked members!!!!!!!!
Thanks for pissing away MORE of OUR money!!!!!
Ann Marie - I resent your implication that those in favor of the turbines put fianacial interests above public safety. There was no compelling public safety issue presented by the opponents. The DVD passed around was misleading and disingenuous at best.
Time to move forward.
3:43 You've heard no rational reasoning? You must be deaf or only listening to Ron DiPippo. Even SoCo magazine has heard enough and they have no stake in this either way. They heard that the Canandian risk assessment engineer offered the SB to contact him and also an opponent submitted a report from that engineer and they didn't even consider it. It's been presented that all other countries have much greater setbacks because they have learned of the problems and that too was ignored. What is going on is the US is trying to catch up by offering all these incentives to put these up. Those same incentives were offered in Europe but are no longer because they realized it has caused their countries to go broke. 12.5% of Denmark's GNP is wind turbine related. Why do you think they are pushing all their equipment here and in Canada. They can't even make a profit on it in their own country anymore. It won't be long until America realizes that wind power when all is said and done, costs more than it produces and can only be profitable and sustainable when it is subsidized by the government. When those programs go away everyone will be left with a big white elephant in their yard. Just not your yard. By the way, you should be happy. Umass Dartmouth is erecting 3-50m units, the town, 2-100m units, and down right across from Colonel Greens entrance, Kirby is putting up a 100m unit. Dartmouth is now going to be called "Denmouth" By the way, if you didn't hear and can't count, that's 6 units next year pending the law suit.
Well if you look at Goodwin's law it states the reference is allowed when genocide, propaganda, or totalitarianism is in the subject matter. The end of some peoples quality of life will end. The AEC has fed a lot of propaganda (major BS) to everyone and the SB acts like a dictatorship (God) so even Goodwin's law would approve of the German and Nazi reference.
Oh my! SoCo Magazine has weighed in! Better re-think my decision if that weighty tome has offered their opinion. Was it before the beauty salon ad or after the real estate ad?
To the person who spoke about about future units to be installed. Please try to get your facts correct about number of units and size. Once again rumor and mis infomation is being spread.
On January 26th 2010 the US District Court approved a compromise solution that will allow PORTIONS of the Beech Ridge Wind Project to go forward with daytime operations being allowed year-round. The oppistion group is extremely grateful to all who have given their support over the last 4.3 years.This is an unprecedented environmental victory in federal court over a renewable energy project. The ripple of this decision will reach very far.
The much anticipated decision came nearly 41/2 years after Chicago-based Invenergy first applied for a siting certificate .
Good luck Dartmouth
Mr. Wm Palmer's comments to an Ontario public hearing were submitted and reviewed by the Select Board. I even commented on his testimony during the public hearing. I also want to point out that Mr. Palmer is far from the expert that some have claimed. In fact, in the ruling on which Mr. Palmer is commenting, his arguments were rejected by the Ontario board. His expertise is not in acoustics but nuclear power. His analysis makes fundamental errors in statistics. It is no wonder to me that his comments gain no traction.
The alleged setbacks that were shown at town meeting have not been adopted by the localities mentioned. For instance, the recommendation of 1.5km by the French Academy of Medicine was not adopted by the French authorities. This is true of most of those shown. Now they are being held up as proof. Proof of what? The same arguments have been brought forward here, in Ontario, in England, and other places and they have consistently been rejected. Does that tell you anything? It tells me that they are poor arguments, not based on sound science or research.
No, 9:11, NOT Nazis, "LIKE (caps mine) Nazi Germany." Reread the post.
Frank1 has once again given at least part of the story. Here is a portion of an article from the Beckley, WV Register-Herald,
"Titus ruled in December that the Beech Ridge developer would have to seek an incidental take permit from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Those permits are required when a project might harm endangered or threatened wildlife.
Invenergy has already started the permit process, according to Joe Condo, vice president and general counsel for the company.
In the meantime, 40 turbines are in place along Beech Ridge, with up to an additional 27 planned while the permit application works its way through the bureaucracy. According to an Invenergy news release, the project is allowed to operate year-round, but will be subject to certain time-of-day restrictions during seasons when Indiana bats are out of hibernation until the incidental take permit is issued.
The agreement also allows Beech Ridge to expand this initial phase of the project by an additional 33 turbines, which like the 27 now in the planning stage, will be sited according to a configuration that was altered under the terms of the agreement.
“Based on the existing layout, that’s down from 120 (turbines in the initial phase),” Condo said. “We can top out at 100 turbines.”
He noted, “We are very pleased to have reached an agreement that allows us to move forward with creating clean, renewable energy in Greenbrier County while at the same time meeting the goals of important wildlife conservation efforts.
Here is the link to the full article
I'd like to extend an offer to any of the NIMBYs in the area of the windmills. You're sure that the windmills will lower your property values 20-40%. I'll buy your house today at 15% below market value and save you thousands in losses. Leave your address here and I'll stop by and close the deal.
No problem with the noise either at Vinalhaven ME either right Bill? The developer Baker isn't trying to fix the problem that exists with just three turbines and most of the time there is just two running? Those units are GE units, quieter than Vestas and GE isn't ready to go out of business like AAER. These people are a lot farther away that 860' and have more night time background noise than Dartmouth will have yet they have a huge noise problem acknowledged by the developer. All this stuff doesn't exist, right Bill? Why does Denmark pay the people for property loss? That doesn't exist either? France is still 500 meters for a setback, 300 more than Dartmouth. Why don't you say that when you say they didn't adopt the 1.5km? You only say what you want and don't admit to the truth.
SoCo Magazine (so-called) is just a publication catered to the ego of the owner. It's a shit magazine.
http://www.southcoasttoday.com/static/multimedia/audio/0120dipippowind10.mp3
Dartmouth wind advocate Dr. Ron DiPippo, an engineer and chairman of the Dartmouth Alternative Energy Committee, says shadow flicker can be disconcerting and is opponents’ most valid concern. He also responds to an opinion piece in The Standard-Times by Canadian engineer William K.G. Palmer, who warned that even a small piece of falling turbine blade would hit the ground with the force of a Ford Crown Victoria.
This is a note to this sound track - Dr. Ron DiPippo admits the shadow flicker is a problem !
To : Bill Trimble
Reading comprehension is important when reading facts about commercial wind turbines . Some people only read and hear positive solutions to a project they want . I've read a few of frank 1 blogs ,you are very quick to respond to these particular blogs over time. You should review your response time to these blogs .
I believe that last blog of franks was about the 4 and 1/2 years of court appeal time it took to start that project somewhere down South .
Thanks Twin Pond Drive
Once more you give part of the story, France does NOT have a 500m setback requirement. From the anti-wind power website, Natuional Wind Watch,
"FRANCE
On a case-by-case basis, only limited by noise legislation. The French Academy of Medicine recommends 1,500 m (4,921 ft). This is not respected, however. In practice, 500 m (1,640 ft) seems to be the minimum observed.
I just did some checking on the number of units and sizes. It seems UMass was going to go with a single unit large like Dartmouth but has changed their mind and will go with three units "just like MMA". This commment came from a man directly associated with the project. TOD's two 100m units (-the FAA's ruling) and the Kirby unit (not sure of height but was told by neighbors down in the area over 400'. So it seems the poster was right about the number of units, maybe just not the height.It seems this project has educated a lot of people more than anyone for these things likes.
Hi Bill,
Ted here. I notice that you try again to discredit William Palmer like Joe Michaud did. You are correct on somethings, his background is in not only Nuclear, but coal and powerline transmission. No one ever said his expertise was in acoustics, it is in risk assessment. I guess you feel that Dartmouth's technical advisory board made up of Roger Tougas, Nat Dias, DiPippo and others has more expertise than a man who has studied and worked his lifetime in the field of Nuclear Power. I wonder how many people in this town could do the job Bill Palmer has done or even be remotely qualified to do so. Did you know he is considered by at least one in the anti wind establishment as having one foot in each camp? A quote by Geoff Leventhall, an acoustician who feels Mr. Palmer is not "severe" enough against wind power. Mr. Palmer's acoustical offerings are not based on his work but based on Frits van dan Berg's. This work has shown with proof, the the changing of the wind profile at night which causes too much noise. Dr. DiPippo's own comment to Mr. Lynam back at the Fin. meeting in 2007 confirms this. DiPippo stated that if the AEC was held to night time ambient noise readings rather than the louder daytime readings then the town wouldn't be able to construct turbines anywhere. That was basically his statement verifying what Mr. Palmer has stated using the Van dan Berg formula. This only shows that the AEC and ALL involved know that there is a noise issue. A very real issue that will need to be addressed. The problem is the AEC and the SB sit at the "head of the class" and the students,(town meeting members) think the teachers are right. Unfortunately, the teachers have only been teaching one side of the story and not the full story.
As far as the Ontario board rejecting what Mr. Palmer stated was not because it was without merit. It was because Ontario had a very big lucrative deal on the table with Samsung for 6.7 billion. (it has just been announced) You see, like here in Dartmouth, the money talks and the people who are effected, walk. Walk away from the lives and homes as they know it. People have sold out others all through the centuries and though we are supposed to be more civilized it seems to be done even more. The best thing about this is the residents are getting more educated about important issues just like our last election. They are fed up with the government not listening. I would believe more and more town meetings and select board hearings will be attended just to watch whats going on. Even on this blog you can see where people are finding out things like Denmark's GNP being mostly wind power related.(pretty interesting) Speaking of Denmark, I understand that they just raised their noise restrictions. Not sure if that is fact but I will check it out. It's funny how the poster child for wind power (Denmark) keeps protecting the public more and more. Isn't Vestas, a Netherlands company, and aren't they the company that recommends not closer than 1,300'?
"I have not seen or heard any rational reason to oppose construction of these turbines. However, I have seen and heard irrational scare tactics, personal insults, and threats utiliized to oppose construction. Now, it's the Nazi connection. Wow."
If you are serious about making a rational decision,please spend a few hours as a minimum, searching "industrial turbine noise" and "industrial turbine shadow flicker" (UTube is one link)and if after reading and listening to specific cases, ask yourself if you are concerned. I'm sure that you could verify the info by personnally contacting the individuals AS WE HAVE. More than one case will demonstate the condition that "modeling" results did not hold true and humans ( could be you or one's you love or are concerned about)are living with undesireable conditions after first believing those who engineered the project.
...And about "Nazi connection," please keep your comments comparable to those on this blog that are having a professional exchange, whether you agree with the positions taken or not.
If Mr. Palmer has expertise in risk assessment, then he should know that multiplying the probability of an event by the number of installations is statistically invalid. It ignores the principle of independence of events. But he did just that in his comments in Ontario. Let me give a brief example of independence. If a fair coin is tossed, the probability of heads or tails is 1 in 2, or 50%. I flip the coin once and get heads. What is the probability of getting heads on the next flip? It is 50% and 50% for all subsequent times I flip the coin. No dependence on the number of flips at all. Independent events are like that.
I have been a shift test engineer on nuclear submarines and have been in charge of the testing several nuclear reactors. I have worked for many years constructing and commissioning co-generation power plants of many different designs, fuels, and sizes. While I don't know what Mr. Palmer does specifically, I may very well be qualified to do what he does.
Your statement that night time noise levels were not used is incorrect. From the Acoustical Analysis done by Atlantic Design and posted on the town website,
"In order to establish ambient background sound levels, Atlantic Design Engineers utilized an environmental sound level meter over 24-hour periods to quantify the background sound levels for relevant parameters at three different locations on the site located near the adjacent residential properties (See Figure 2). The parameters selected for determination of ambient sound levels were average 10 minute increments (L90) and both the L10 and Leq baseline levels. The combination of this data will provide an understanding of existing daytime and diurnal noise patterns, as well as statistical reference levels, which are used to screen out traffic impacts and other sound amplifiers.
Night time noise levels were considered and the project easily meets the standard of 310CMR7.10.
I would also point out that if the wind turbines do not meet the standard of 310CMR7.10 of 10 decibels above ambient after they are commissioned, then the residents have recourse to get the turbines shut down. I am very confident that the installation can and will meet that standard.
Vestas does NOT recommend 1300 ft setbacks, as you implied, or any other setback. They are based in Denmark, not the Netherlands. The Danes are world leaders in clean energy technology and their economy has flourished as a result. This is the exact model that American leaders frequently point to when they talk about green jobs.
The Province of Ontario has signed a $6.7 billion dollar deal to pay Samsung for renewable energy installations of wind and solar power. How does that affect the provincial authorities consideration of Mr. Palmer's comments?
You heard that maybe Denmark might change their noise standards. What should the rest of us do with that information?
It's all about the money. Dartmouth is no different but here we also have a heavy investment in egos and accolades, never mind that being the "pioneer" of bringing clean energy to Dartmouth and making the town the "model" for such, comes at the high cost of shattering someone else's life and lifestyle. After all, who are these people anyway, and what right do they have to complain, because, of course, that is what they are doing, isn't it--complaining?
And who do they think they are to question the "experts"? Don't they know that there is no other answer other than that given by the experts"? Who do they think they are to hamper "progress"?
Why can't they just shut up and go away? It would make things a lot easier, wouldn't it? Just roll over and die.
It's about money, prestige, and a twisted value system that knows no conscience and has no respect.
What did the rest of you do with any information the opponents gave you? Oh, yeah, you did your "due diligence" in reading "thousands" of pages of information over "several hours," and then you cheated your fellow "neighbors" out of their quality of life. No skin off your backs, right?
Isn't it great to have buzz words to hide behind!
Bill, if you have all that experience then you know the importance of a true risk assessment. How come you didn't demand it!!! Shame on you. Would have hated to have you work on a nuclear project. Did you work on 3 mile island per chance?
-Tax rates aren't going down because of this project, that was clearly stated at the Town Meeting vote.
-Dr DiPippo can't promise $31million dollars over 20 years without a written contract in place with NSTAR.
-Turbines with hubs the size of school buses and filled with oil, washed with chemicals sitting on top of our drinking water is more dangerous than having no turbines on our drinking water.
-Dartmouth has the SECOND LOWEST tax rate on the southcoast, behind only Westport. Datmouth Residents pay only $7.85 per thousand as compared with the $12.03 per thousand charged to New Bedford Residents. For a $300,000 house a Dartmouth Resident pays $2355 a year and a New Bedford Resident pays $3609 per year. Clearly there should be some room to grow.
-Why are we not asking Walmart, Target, Lowes, Home Depot, Fridays, Applebees, 99, The Mall, McDonalds, Wendys, Best Buy, Stop and Shop, Kohls, Texas Roadhouse, Hertz, Five Guys, Bank Five, Cardoza's, Michaels, PetCo, Dicks..
NO, why are we not DEMANDING that these commercial businesses pay more in taxes? How many Dartmouth resident's do they actually employ?
These Business would pay $24 per thousand in New Bedford. They pay $12 per Thousand in Dartmouth. TWICE AS MUCH IN NB!!!
-Taking basic numbers as an example, if the Value of all the Dartmouth Businesses is
$10 million dollars, raising their tax rate by only 5 cents per thousand produces $500,000. Dr DiPippo proudly boasts borrowing $9.5 million to make $380,000 in the first year.
-The town has a small budget issue and the answer has to be endanger the water supply and beauty of the town with two proptotype turbines.
-Let's get some leaders in town, let's find reasonable solutions to problems, look to see where there is unreasonable spending and not gamble $9.5 million dollars the town doesn't have.
-Again I will tell you the reason for the placement of the turbines on Chase Rd is because no one on the SB or the AEC can even SEE the turbines from their homes.PERIOD.
The savings and excess generation from wind turbines will add to the revenue of the town. That will help pay for our town government.
We are not going to sell electricity to NSTAR on a power sales agreement. That is what Mr. Miller was talking about and he is mistaken. That is not needed because NSTAR will be paying us the retail rate under a new Net Metering regulation set up by the Green Communities Act.
All businesses in Dartmouth MUST be assessed at the same tax rate by law. We can shift the tax burden to businesses with a split tax rate and have done so. I posted about how it works. Here is a post about split tax rates
Our total tax levy cannot increase more than 2.5% per year. If we raise business tax, it cuts residential tax. The levy can only change 2.5% as I explained here
Dr. DiPippo thinks that the turbines will return over $800K the first year, after paying for the note, O&M, and insurance.
The town, Commonwealth and nation have huge budget issues, the water will be protected, the turbines won't be seen in most places, and the design is not a prototype.
Dr. Friedman's analysis shows that there is a greater than 99% certainty that the turbines will pay for themselves and generate revenue. The town has spent less this year than it did last year to run the same programs. That is commendable but can't continue. Materials cost more, people have to get raises. There is no wholesale waste in town government. Cutting funds means fewer cops, teachers and reduced services.
The placement of the wind turbines has been explained many times and the Select Board member residences have not been mentioned among the criteria.
Your comment assumes that a true assessment of the risks has not been done. I disagree. The bylaw setbacks have been satisfied, the economics of the project have been thoroughly vetted, the acoustics and shadow-flicker have been quantified, conservation restrictions still apply and must be met, additional conditions have been specified in the special permit.
All these things show that the risks have been assessed and mitigated to the extent possible. Does that mean the risks are zero, no, it does not. I posted here about that. Perhaps the problem is that an objective consideration of the risks does not come to the conclusion that you would like. That is a different animal altogether.
Let me first say that a Risk Management Plan is a living document that includes an analysis of all the potential risks associated with the project throughout it's life ( that's why it's considered "living")and that one continuously look at the risks and addresses plans on how to resolve them or mitigate them.
Mr Trimble states that a true assessment of the risks has been accomplished for this project. I would argue that during the public forum, then the followup meetings and then the special permit vote evening, the opponents where the ones that identifed risk issue after risk issue with this project. They, the opponents were the true identifiers of what the risks really were. Only then did ADE and the AEC chairman discuss how they might mitigate them. It became even more obvious to the opponents that risk assessment had not been earlier accomplished when @ the end of the special permit vote evening, each SB member provided his /her risk assessment suggestions in the content of adding turbine specification items as conditions to the special permit. Never in my days have I seen individuals with no relative professional experience other than you Bill, become specification developers. That exhibition in itself was enough to make one feel very uncomfortable about how this project will be handled.
Thank you to everyone at town meeting who voted for the wind project! This is a great thing for our town. Ms. Moore stated that she live on Cuttyhunk Island when they had a wind turbine and she loved it! Why can't people be more positive about this project instead of letting the fear factor control them!
The NIMBY group let fear control their lives.
The opponents identified risks that have not been addressed? Name one, They go on the internet and embrace every hare-brained claim on there. Flying microbes from the treatment plant! Exploding bats! It will be like a disco with strobe lights! Ford Crown Victorias falling out of the sky! Stray voltages (wonder why their engineer town meeting spokesman wouldn't touch that one)! They sound like jets in Vinalhaven! Photoshop a distorted picture voila! That's the look!, they say.
All not true and easily proven to be so.
I will be willing to bet that every voting town member who voted in favor would change their vote to "oppose" if they were an abbutter of these turbines. What does that tell you????If It's the out of sight, out of mind mentality and that is why the Town voted the way it did. Continuously skirting the real testimonies of real people being impacted by calling it "heresay" obviously shows that some people do not have any empathy for their fellow man.
To all the opponents of this turbine project: be careful in letting out any info as we continue our steps against it.
The following email sent by Ron DiPippo indicates that the assumption of net metering may not be valid:
Subject: Game changer
Hi everyone,
Mr. Henry Lamontagne of NSTAR called me at 2:15 PM this afternoon (1/28/2010) to discuss our application for an Interconnection and Net Metering. He informed me that today the DPU made a determination on how applications for net metering will be handled. Everyone thought this was a decided matter but apparently not.
The cap on megawatts is set by the legislature at 1% of NSTAR’s peak load. That cap is 49 MW. We had been told and everyone understood – until today – that making an application to NSTAR for an interconnection reserved a place in the queue for net metering. NOT SO with today’s ruling by the DPU.
The remaining space in the queue is determined by the OPERATING megawatts as they come on-line, not by the IC application. Henry told me there are 12 MW in operation under net metering and 24 MW in the current queue, but he did not know how much of that 24 MW is under construction and how much is in IC application queue (this is where we are).
This is to me an incredible ruling. It asks us (and others in the same boat) to move ahead with huge expenditures with no clear knowledge of whether we will qualify for net metering until the turbines are put into operation! How the DPU could make such a ruling is beyond me.
NSTAR for its part maintains a monthly web page showing the numbers I just cited, but now they will update it to list operating, under construction and in the IC queue. Then everyone can know where they are in the race to net metering.
This is a huge game-changer. If it weren’t for the law suit, we might be able to squeeze through the rapidly closing window of opportunity. Henry thinks the window will stay open through the summer, but could not say how much longer.
The only solution I can see is to lobby the daylights out of legislature to raise the cap from 1% to a more reasonable value. This ruling in effect nullifies the intent of the Green Communities Act by subjecting communities to unacceptable financial risks.
Our meeting for tomorrow morning was well-timed but now we have a new agenda item.
Ron
Ronald DiPippo, Ph.D.
Chairman, Alternative Energy Committee
Town of Dartmouth
Then again, maybe net metering is valid,
Hi all,
Just got a call from Gerry Bingham who was with Paul Lopes at the DOER and got more insight on what is happening.
It is not as dire as might have first appeared. First, NSTAR listed and counted everyone who had either applied for an IC or had turbines on-line. That came to 36 MW or about 73% of the cap, 49 MW or 1% of their historic peak load. It is becoming clear to me that this was done, not in accordance with any DPU decision (as confirmed by Shaela Collins, DPU, yesterday in my talk with her), but rather to give the impression that the cue was filling up rapidly. It would naturally elicit precisely the reaction that I had when I heard it, especially if one had not already filed an IC application. That is, projects not that far along would be discourgaed from going ahead.
Second, Jerry told me that the legislature pulled the 1% cap out of the air (my words) as a trial figure. They intend to track the progress of net metering - how many apply and how fast the cap is approached - and intend to adjust the cap upwards as the limit is approached. This will keep the projects moving with the likelihood of getting net metering. We meet all the other requirements for net metering and everything we have used in our calculations remains valid, including getting the G1 rate for stand-alone turbines with a parasitic load of less than 100 kW.
hird, I asked Jerry and Paul to find out which committee on Beacon Hill is doing this and to get me the contact person(s). I will speak to them. I will pass their contact inforamtion around so everyone can reach them.
So the bottom line is that only 24% of the cap is currently filled. We are certainly further along than many communities and other projects. We should continue to move ahead as expeditiously as we can. There is still plenty of time for the legislature to adjust the cap as more and more of us line up our projects to go online.
This does not mean we can be complacent, but rather we - all of us involved in wind projects - should keep the pressure on Beacon Hill to encourage rather than discourage net metering projects.
Regards,
Ron
9:12 has an excellent point.
So far the NIMBY opponents have shown themselves to be nothing more than people who Dartmouth would be much better off if they left town. So why don't you all sell your homes and go back to the south ends of New Bedford and Fall River where you belong!
Hi All ,
Ronald DiPippo, Ph.D. Chairman, Alternative Energy Committee Town of Dartmouth wears two hats when it comes to net metering .Ron DiPippo is also a Renewable Energy Consultant -Geothermal & Wind Specialist as stated on his own personal stationary .
Dr.DiPippo wrote a letter on October 2,2009 on his own personal stationary begging Shaela McNulty Collins Hearing Officer Department of Public Utilities One South Station Boston, MA 02110 . This letter refers to himself and the AEC members that agreed to make a personal request of the state agency .
Here is the request : " We encourage the DPU to specify a single, favorable Rate Class in its final Tariff"
We are the people that signed or agreed with the letter . I would like some input on this letter . Here are the people that signed that letter ,who must be the ones referred to as we :
Edward F. Iacaponi, Ex-Officio; Nathalie Dias, Kevern Joyce, Arthur Larrivee, Paul Lopes,
Raymond Medeiros, Roger Race, Saul Raposo and Joseph Sousa
A review of the letter shows it is written on Ron DiPippo personal stationary as a wind turbine consultant and the members of the Alternative Energy Committee went along with this . This letter shows that the AEC was working pro wind turbine advocates while working for the Town of Dartmouth to forward their own agenda . The letter should have been written and addressed by the Town of Dartmouth
Please review the letter ;
http://www.env.state.ma.us/dpu/docs/electric/09-71/10509drthcom.pdf
Isn't it interesting when people get their feathers ruffled by having someone oppose their views. The evidence of health and safety issues being experienced by others will keep those effected fighting for their well being. Referencing portions of New Bedford and Fall River just go to show how immature some people are!
I wonder if all the people that signed the personal letter written by Ronald DiPippo new and AEC members understand why the letter was written on his stationary and not the towns ? After all he wrote it as a consultant .
This is probably going to be part of the lawsuit yes/no ????
to 8:22
Exactly what health and safety issues are you blogging about? Nothing has been proven. Yet you still complain? How about researching all the proven successes? And blogging those results? Oh yes, people with self serving agendas don't do that do they!
Can an educated proponent out there provide me with the success story of a community living with two industrial size turbines 440 and 470 ft tall, with approx 260 ft diameter blades that is distanced 659 ft from a roadway ,and 800 ft from a resident's property and many,many other residences around the perimeter?
And for you proponents, if I told you that the scientific data gathering was not done for the current turbine sites (north and south unit moved as much as 650ft)would you still be convinced that ADE's and Dr Depipo analysis was foolproof. Not the opponents and their size is growing larger!..Kirby Farms opponents are next!!!
Any proponents want to answer this??
It is a FACT that once the turbines were moved to the new location (wetlands issue) with the south's turbine being moved as much as 650ft, both the noise study and the Windpro shadow flicker modeling was not revisited. Dr Depipo in his 30 Sept 2009 AEC meeting minutes stated, and I quote:
" (5)Given the very low noise impact determined for the original locations,it is expected that the new configuration will not change the conclusion that the incremental sound from the turbines will still be below the threshold for hearing detection
" (6)Shadow-flicker pattern will be affected in detail but it is expected that roughly the same general pattern will be seen as in the previous case.
WE ARE NOT CONCERNED ABOUT THE NOISE AND SHADOW EFFECTS BECAUSE DR DIPIPPO "EXPECTS" SOUND AND SHADOW FLICKER TO BE OK? I believe that by his using the "expects" position ,the Town could be setting themselves up for a "hold harmless " position if noise and or shadow-flicker become a lawsuit since no specific data is linked to the current positions of the turbines.
Hi Bill,
I've been working on some things with my friend Bill Palmer and a couple of ecoustical engineers and I copied him on your comments about his work. Here is his reply to you as he wanted me to pass it on.
It may be that Selectman Trimble has a selective memory.
Feel free to pass this reply to him, and pass my address on to him if he should choose to discuss this further.
1) If the probability of success of any test is x, then if one performs the test 20 times, then while it is true that the probability of success of each test is x, then the results of the 20 tests will be 20 times x.
2) In the given coin toss example, the probability of success is 0.5. So, if one performs the coin toss 20 times, then one can expect to have 20 x 0.5 (or 10) heads and 10 tails.
3) In the case of wind turbine failures, if one finds that 100 similar turbines in similar conditions have 1 failure in 1 year, then the probability of failure for any given turbine is 0.01 failures per year, or 1 failure in 100 turbine years of operation. If one has an array of 100 turbines, one can expect that one of those turbines will have a failure in the year. One cannot say which turbine, but the array can expect a failure.
4) This has nothing to do with ignoring the principle of independence, and the calculation is statistically valid.
5) The calculations performed by multiplying the individual failure rate times the number of turbines in an array to determine the probability of failure in the array were verified by other professionals.
6) I will choose to make no comment regarding Selectman Trimble's qualification or ability to calculate risk. Perhaps it is good that Selectman Trimble is no longer in charge of a nuclear reactor.
Bill Palmer
Once again, look at the application for special permit. It clearly shows the position of the turbines on a site plan and the position for acoustical analysis and shadow flicker. The positions shown on the site plan match the position of the turbines in the acoustic and shadow flicker analysis.
Anonymous said...
Bill, you can put anything you want on the permit to tie the analysis and study to the current location but you keep skirting the real question. Was there and analysis and study done after the move? Sept 30 Dr Depippo's AEC minutes say NO!!! Just "expectations"
I rest my case!!!
For the last time, the special permit application contains an acoustical analysis and shadow flicker study for the turbines in their presently proposed locations. The permit was prepared after Dr. DiPippo made his remark that the location change was unlikely to substantially change the results which proved to be correct.
Palmer's point #6 choosing to make no comment then making a a comment is a reflection of low moral character.
"The permit was prepared after Dr. DiPippo made his remark that the location change was unlikely to substantially change the results which proved to be correct."
FINALLY you admit that testing was not done after the turbines were moved. Everyone was assured by Dr Dippipo when he stated in his AEC minutes that he "expected" it would be unlikely to substantially change.
Have it your way then, Ed. You've shown that the truth doesn't matter to you.
Bill:
Any chance you could create a "wind turbine only" section of your blog and move all comments related to this project to that section? Maybe that would prevent the copious repostings from frank and his gang?
It seems that the group of opponents are afraid that we have missed the numerous postings of the same arguments over, and over, and over again...the move of all turbine project related posts to one section could relieve their fears?
(Plus it would allow us to read and post about other subjects for without the constant "frank-isms" for a change....)
Do you think the SB decided to have TMM's vote to approve funding for the turbines so THEY would be the "fall guy" when it all comes crumbling down?
Clever....
The Town Meeting is the only authority in the town that can authorize spending. All spending, any spending. The Select Board as executive can propose spending but only the Town Meeting can appropriate funds.
A recent poll released by the University of Massachusetts Dartmouth Center for Policy Analysis found a majority
of respondents (55 percent) report they would not pay more for electricity produced by wind turbines. Much of
the support for wind energy was based on survey respondents’ false assumption that offshore wind energy will
lower their electric bill, UMass Dartmouth found.
According to UMass Dartmouth, “while 42 percent of respondents are less likely to support the Cape Wind
project if their bill increased by $50 per year, this percentage increases to 67 percent at the $100 increase per year
threshold and to 78 percent at the $150 increase per year threshold.”
“The message from Massachusetts ratepayers is clear. They are unwilling to dig deeper into their own pockets in
PRWeb eBooks - Another online visibility tool from PRWeb
the form of dramatically higher electric bills to subsidize a private wind developer,” said Parker.
A similar project in Rhode Island, Deepwater Wind, generated widespread opposition when its deal to sell power
to National Grid came in at nearly three times the price of natural gas in Rhode Island.
# # #
Post a Comment