Fwd: THIS WEDNESDAY - KEY POWER LINE MEETING IN HANCOCK
mary cronk
they are done.
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: lynn phillips <lynn_p...@earthlink.net>
Date: Sun, Nov 2, 2008 at 2:34 PM
Subject: THIS WEDNESDAY - KEY POWER LINE MEETING IN HANCOCK
To: l...@vaguepolitx.com
URGENT
UPDATE oct .25 2008:
Contents:
1. IMPORTANT MEETING IN HANCOCK Nov 5th!
2. Steve Dungan's invite to same.
3. View Previous Citizens' Hearings Videos
4. Other Hearings Locations
5. A Few Key Issues for Hancock to Raise at Hearing
6. Article Describing Downstate Development Slowdown
7. Chris Rossi of www.stopnyri.info warns of NYRI's fake opinion poll
8. Federal Government now trying to use taxpayer funds to guarantee
NYRI profits in excess of previous 13.5%
9. A Couple of Other Items for Your Area-Defense Radar
1. IMPORTANT MEETING IN HANCOCK:
Hancock, Wednesday, Nov. 5, 2008,
Hancock Central School, 67 Education Lane.
Information forum: 6 p.m.
Public-statement hearing: 7 p.m.
2. Steve Dungan's invite to same
"Dear friends,
My apologies on the mass em on this.
I hope that you can attend this as well as get everyone you know to do
the same. If, like me, you don't want this monstrosity ruining our
beautiful area and bring us higher electricity costs in the name of
profits for some foreign owned firm and their unnamed investors, then
be there and make your voice head loud and clear.
Anything less than a packed house will tell the PSC that we don't
care. Please pass this on to all who care and might attend.
Thanks
s Steve Dungan [sdu...@hughes.net]"
3. View Previous Citizens' Hearings
The link below will take you to the video Webcasts of all of the NYS
Public Statement Hearings that have been held to date regarding the
nyri transmission application proceedings.
It's really quite interesting to watch the citizens speaking out on this topic.
4. Other Hearings Locations
Many residents, politicians and advocacy groups along the proposed
path say that NYRI's power line will hurt their communities.
The Public Service Comision (NYPSC) judges ruled that a hearing be set
in or adjacent to every county, as practicable, and to choose
locations no farther than 15 or 20 miles from the proposed routes.
Public information forums and public statement hearings will be held as follows:
Hancock, Nov. 5, Hancock Central School, 67 Education Lane.
Information forum: 6 p.m. Public-statement hearing: 7 p.m.
Norwich, Nov. 6, Chenango County Council for the Arts, 27 W. Main St.
Information forums: 1 and 6 p.m. Public-statement hearings: 2 and 7
p.m.
Hamilton, Oct. 20, Colgate University, 13 Oak Drive, J. C. Colgate
Hall of Presidents. Information forums: 1 and 6 p.m. Public-statement
hearings: 2 and 7 p.m.
Utica, Oct. 22, Mohawk Valley Community College, 1101 Sherman Drive,
MVCC Theater. Information forums: 1 and 6 p.m. Public-statement
hearings: 2 and 7 p.m.
Middletown, Oct. 28, Kuhl's Highland House, 512 Highland Ave. Ext.
Information forum: 1 p.m. Public-statement hearing: 2 p.m.
Montgomery, Valley Central School, 1175 State Route 17K. Information
forum: 6 p.m. Public-statement hearing: 7 p.m.
Callicoon, Oct. 29, Delaware Community Center, aka Callicoon Youth
Center, 8 Creamery Road. Information forum: 1 p.m. Public-statement
hearing: 2 p.m.
Lake Huntington, Sullivan West High School, 6604 State Route 52.
Information forum: 6 p.m. Public-statement hearing: 7 p.m.
The information forums will be presented by Department of Public
Service staff and will address the details of the administration of
the proceeding under DPS rules and modes of operation.
After the information forums, people will be able to present their
comments at the hearing before administrative law judges assigned by
the PSC to the case.
5. Key Issues for Hancock
a. Our local economy, still recovering from floods and job loss, is
already fragile. We can't afford any further hits, and NYRI is one. We
are still dependent on retirement real estate and tourism. NYRI will
industrialize the entire area's viewscape. With purses tightening, we
can't afford to lose business to areas that look more serene and
"Natural."
b. NYRI promises that eventually its power line will reduce rates
state-wide, even here. But on the brink of a major recession,
"eventually" is too long for us to wait for better electric rates.
Even a few years of raised rates could permanently cripple the area.
c. NYRI's argument that its line is "needed" is based on outdated
financial information. The projected Downstate growth rates the
company uses in its market projections are products of a bygone era of
rapid growth and deep pockets… (see appended article.) The demand for
NYRI's power is likely to lag for several years, and since it is to be
subsidized by the FERC, this will most likely make the project a
burden on the already-strained public purse.
d. By the time the era of expanded energy demand that NYRI hopes to
serve has arrived, new technologies and practices will handle
generation and transmission in better ways.
f. If NYRI's line must be built, it should not run though our states
historical towns up North or be visible from all the river towns along
the Delaware; it should not loom over our elementary and high schools
or frame the visitor's first glimpse of our Village.
g. The Family School, currently the largest employer in Hancock,
depends on being able to offer its clients a natural, unspoiled
setting. NYRI's line, planned to run straight across their viewlines,
could drive them under, pushing us all further towards the brink.
h. The future of natural gas drilling in our area is currently
uncertain. We can't count on the state agreeing to allow drilling in
the city's watershed and we can't count on the gas companies to
develop this area during a downturn. We have to assume that NYRI can
be the straw that will break our back.
6. One Article Describing Downstate Development Slowdown
NY Times October 15, 2008
End Seen to New York Building Boom
By CHARLES V. BAGLI
New York City's long-running building boom will peak this year, before
new office and residential projects peter out in the coming years and
the number of construction jobs falls by almost 30,000 by 2010,
according to a report released on Tuesday by the New York Building
Congress.
The building congress, a trade group for construction and real estate
companies, estimates that construction spending on new housing, office
towers, stadiums, subway tunnels and schools will decline slightly in
2009 before falling to $26.2 billion in 2010, from $33.8 billion this
year. But even that forecast may be a bit optimistic.
The report noted that construction had already begun on "the majority
of the 15 office towers factored into the 2009 and 2010 estimates."
But at least one-third of those projects are already in doubt, given
the flagging economy, turmoil on Wall Street and the virtual
disappearance of construction financing for new projects.
Few if any real estate and construction executives believe that
JPMorgan Chase will build a new tower downtown, at Greenwich and Cedar
Streets, as it announced last year that it would, now that it has
bought Bear Stearns and Bear's Midtown headquarters.
Vornado Realty Trust, one of the city's biggest commercial landlords,
suspended its plan to build a 23-story, $435 million headquarters for
Major League Baseball's cable network, after it failed to secure
additional tenants and financing. Vornado's effort to build a 1.3
million-square-foot office tower over the Port Authority Bus Terminal
on 42nd Street is also "dormant," a company executive conceded.
Stephen Sigmund, a spokesman for the Port Authority of New York and
New Jersey, disputed the notion that Vornado's tower over the bus
terminal was stalled, saying that planning continues apace with the
developer, who is required to meet very specific goals and timetables
for the project.
"This is such an uncertain situation that it is almost impossible to
say with confidence what the forecast for the construction market will
be over the next several years," said Richard T. Anderson, the
building congress's president. "That's why we posed two scenarios."
In the first instance, said Mr. Anderson, who delivered the report to
a somber crowd of construction and real estate executives at the
Hilton New York, the downturn is short-lived as the federal government
steps in to ease the credit crunch, preserving thousands of jobs and
projects.
But a more gloomy situation, he said, involves a prolonged downturn,
with private projects coming to a standstill while government slashes
funding for mass transit projects, new schools and infrastructure.
Currently, capital spending by city, state and federal governments
accounts for about half of all construction activity in the city.
"You've just got to be optimistic," Kenneth J. Knuckles, chief
executive of the Upper Manhattan Empowerment Zone Development
Corporation, whispered to the executive next to him during the
presentation.
The warning signs, however, are everywhere. Unemployment is inching
upward, and commercial landlords are nervously gauging the impact of
the continuing consolidation of the city's all-important financial
industry.
Vacant space in the city's office towers is no longer hard to find. In
Midtown alone, more than 20.9 million square feet of space is
available, according to the latest report by Newmark Knight Frank, a
real estate broker. The availability rate — the amount of space vacant
or available — rose to 10.2 percent in September, up from 8.2 percent
a year ago.
Housing construction is also expected to slow drastically, after a
spectacular four years in which new apartments, mostly condominiums,
were built in virtually every neighborhood in the city. The boom was
fueled by a growing demand for housing and the Bloomberg
administration's efforts to rezone areas like Williamsburg and the Far
West Side of Manhattan for high-rise construction.
The report estimated that 35,700 housing units would be built this
year, up from 31,900 last year. But by 2010, that number is expected
to drop to 18,500. At the same time, the number of construction jobs
would fall 23 percent — to 100,250 from a record 130,100 this year.
The report confirms that construction and real estate activity tends
to be a lagging indicator of economic health. Projects that got under
way in the last two years are going forward despite a flagging
economy. But experts say that new projects are being delayed.
"The thing that's reassuring is how much work is under way," Mr.
Anderson said. "This is a very large construction market."
Even if construction spending falls to $26.2 billion in 2010, from an
estimated $33.8 billion this year, that is still a considerable sum,
he said.
The Goldman Sachs headquarters near ground zero is nearing completion,
as is a tower at 42nd Street and Eighth Avenue and a smaller tower at
510 Madison Avenue in Midtown. The steel for the Freedom Tower at
ground zero is rising above street level, and uptown, Boston
Properties says it will move forward with its proposed office tower at
55th Street and Eighth Avenue.
The big question, Mr. Anderson said, is whether the city and state
will continue their commitment to capital spending on subway
expansions, schools and other projects, or be forced to slash their
budgets as tax revenues from Wall Street and real estate fall sharply.
The Bloomberg administration has already stretched out its four-year
capital budget to five years. But Seth W. Pinsky, president of the
city's Economic Development Corporation, told construction executives
on Tuesday that the Bloomberg administration would continue to
maintain important city services and build for the future, with the
redevelopment of Willets Point in Queens and the development of a
large-scale affordable housing project at Hunters Point South, on the
East River waterfront.
==============
6. Federal Government now trying to use taxpayer funds to guarantee
NYRI profits in excess of previous 13.5%
Officials: Incentives for NYRI 'outrageous'
Federal commission boosts investors' rate of return
advertisement
By ELIZABETH COOPER
Observer-Dispatch
Posted Sep 18, 2008 @ 10:28 PM
The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission has given New York Regional
Interconnect a boost for its rate of return for investors.
The commission has granted additional incentives, so now NYRI
investors — under certain circumstances — could make even more than
the 13.5 percent rate of return the company had hoped for, experts
said.
"For a long-term investor, this is an attractive investment," said
Jamie Van Nostrand, executive director of the Pace Energy and Climate
Center.
The actual rate of return only would be decided if the power line is
approved, either by the state Public Service Commission or the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission. NYRI wants to run a power line from
Marcy to Orange County downstate.
Nonetheless, the commission's order drew ire from some of the area's
federal officials, who called the move "outrageous" and "unwarranted."
In the order issued Thursday, the commission said the power line
company could add 2.75 percentage points to whatever baseline rate of
return it is given, if the project is approved.
Base line rates usually range from 10 percent to 11 percent, Van
Nostrand said. It's impossible to say now what NYRI's baseline rate
would be, experts said.
NYRI general counsel Len Singer called the additional 2.75 percentage
point advantage "a significant benefit" for attracting investors.
But power line opponents said the decision wasn't important in the grand scheme.
"What's happened is NYRI is a barking dog of a project and FERC threw
the dog a bone," said John Klucsik, an attorney representing the NYRI
opposition group Counties Against Regional Interconnect. "And it's a
very small bone."
In its order, the commission said it has the power to grant rates of
return up front, "but we decline to do so here."
The report said there still was too much uncertainty about the
company's application. NYRI had failed to get property rights for the
route, had not yet received site approval from the state, and the
company did not yet have customers, among other things, the report
stated.
Federal officials were adamant in their opposition to the commission's decision.
"Not only does FERC's outrageous decision completely ignore the
concerns and wishes of many New Yorkers, it actually forces them to
pay for a project they don't want," U.S. Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y.,
said in an e-mailed statement.
U.S. Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., had a similar view.
"Ratepayer subsidies to NYRI are unwarranted and outrageous and
further proof that FERC is too close the industry," Schumer said in an
e-mailed statement. "Now it is vital for the New York Public Service
Commission to scour NYRI's application with a fine-tooth comb, and we
hope that will lead them to reject it as too intrusive and
unnecessary."
U.S. Rep. Michael Arcuri, D-Utica, said he would continue to fight the
power line.
"I find this decision by FERC — and this administration that supports
it — to be an unconscionable and indefensible burden on taxpayers," he
said in an e-mailed statement. "We all know the NYRI project will
raise electric rates for consumers in Upstate New York, and to force
local citizens to guarantee profits for NYRI's secret shareholders is
equally unacceptable. I will continue to fight the NYRI proposal every
step of the way."
Arcuri's Republican opponent for the 24th Congressional District in
November's election — Richard Hanna of Cooperstown — however, said
Arcuri was not the best one for the fight.
"This ruling by FERC is outrageous. It is an attempt to incentivize
investors to participate in the power line project, and this is
another indication of the failure of Mike Arcuri to stop this blight
on not only property holders but the over all quality of life in
Central New York," Hanna said in an e-mailed statement.
========
7. Chris Rossi of www.stopnyri.info warns of NYRI's fake opinion poll
Friends,
A heads-up - one of our STOP NYRI folks had a call tonight from
Opinion Dynamic. They are a polling company that was asking many
energy related questions which became more and more power line
centered. When asked the pollster revealed that a power line company
was sponsoring the poll. Hmmm, who could that be?!
We believe this is NYRI's attempt to craft a new PR campaign. Or, to
obtain positive poll results and publish them claiming that opposition
to the project is being fueled by negative associations with the NYRI
name spawned by citizen's group PR.
Whatever the case, please let other know that they shouldn't answer
the questions at all. Instead, tell the pollster that you oppose the
NYRI project on any terms.
Thanks,
chris rossi
=======================
8. Federal Government now trying to use taxpayer funds to guarantee
NYRI profits in excess of previous 13.5%
Officials: Incentives for NYRI 'outrageous'
Federal commission boosts investors' rate of return
advertisement
By ELIZABETH COOPER
Observer-Dispatch
Posted Sep 18, 2008 @ 10:28 PM
The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission has given New York Regional
Interconnect a boost for its rate of return for investors.
The commission has granted additional incentives, so now NYRI
investors — under certain circumstances — could make even more than
the 13.5 percent rate of return the company had hoped for, experts
said.
"For a long-term investor, this is an attractive investment," said
Jamie Van Nostrand, executive director of the Pace Energy and Climate
Center.
The actual rate of return only would be decided if the power line is
approved, either by the state Public Service Commission or the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission. NYRI wants to run a power line from
Marcy to Orange County downstate.
Nonetheless, the commission's order drew ire from some of the area's
federal officials, who called the move "outrageous" and "unwarranted."
In the order issued Thursday, the commission said the power line
company could add 2.75 percentage points to whatever baseline rate of
return it is given, if the project is approved.
Base line rates usually range from 10 percent to 11 percent, Van
Nostrand said. It's impossible to say now what NYRI's baseline rate
would be, experts said.
NYRI general counsel Len Singer called the additional 2.75 percentage
point advantage "a significant benefit" for attracting investors.
But power line opponents said the decision wasn't important in the grand scheme.
"What's happened is NYRI is a barking dog of a project and FERC threw
the dog a bone," said John Klucsik, an attorney representing the NYRI
opposition group Counties Against Regional Interconnect. "And it's a
very small bone."
In its order, the commission said it has the power to grant rates of
return up front, "but we decline to do so here."
The report said there still was too much uncertainty about the
company's application. NYRI had failed to get property rights for the
route, had not yet received site approval from the state, and the
company did not yet have customers, among other things, the report
stated.
Federal officials were adamant in their opposition to the commission's decision.
"Not only does FERC's outrageous decision completely ignore the
concerns and wishes of many New Yorkers, it actually forces them to
pay for a project they don't want," U.S. Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y.,
said in an e-mailed statement.
U.S. Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., had a similar view.
"Ratepayer subsidies to NYRI are unwarranted and outrageous and
further proof that FERC is too close the industry," Schumer said in an
e-mailed statement. "Now it is vital for the New York Public Service
Commission to scour NYRI's application with a fine-tooth comb, and we
hope that will lead them to reject it as too intrusive and
unnecessary."
U.S. Rep. Michael Arcuri, D-Utica, said he would continue to fight the
power line.
"I find this decision by FERC — and this administration that supports
it — to be an unconscionable and indefensible burden on taxpayers," he
said in an e-mailed statement. "We all know the NYRI project will
raise electric rates for consumers in Upstate New York, and to force
local citizens to guarantee profits for NYRI's secret shareholders is
equally unacceptable. I will continue to fight the NYRI proposal every
step of the way."
Arcuri's Republican opponent for the 24th Congressional District in
November's election — Richard Hanna of Cooperstown — however, said
Arcuri was not the best one for the fight.
"This ruling by FERC is outrageous. It is an attempt to incentivize
investors to participate in the power line project, and this is
another indication of the failure of Mike Arcuri to stop this blight
on not only property holders but the over all quality of life in
Central New York," Hanna said in an e-mailed statement.
9. A Couple of Other Items for Your Area-Defense Radar
===========================
www.stopthepowerlines.com contributor Fred Peckham has been posting in
this newsletter lately:
A http://hancockgaslease.com/2008/10/nyri-hearings-planned
============================
It looks like a couple of groups are considering developing the
reservoirs for hydroelectric. Anyone know more about this?
B: hydro????????????????????????
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
NOTICES
Competing Preliminary Permit Application:
City of New York,
61850–61851 [E8–24706]
[TEXT] [PDF]
_____
[Federal Register: October 17, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 202)]
[Notices]
[Page 61850-61851]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr17oc08-71]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
[Project No. 13287-000]
City of New York; Notice of Competing Preliminary Permit
Application Accepted for Filing, and Soliciting Comments, and Motions
To Intervene
October 9, 2008.
On September 15, 2008, the city of New York filed a competing
application, pursuant to section 4(f) of the Federal Power Act,
proposing to study the feasibility of the West of Hudson Hydroelectric
Project, which comprises four development sites, Schoharie,
Cannonsville, Pepacton and Neversink, located on the Schoharie Creek,
West Branch Delaware River, East Branch Delaware River, and the
Neversink River, in Schoharie, Delaware and Sullivan Counties, New
York.
The proposed West of Hudson Hydroelectric Project would consist of
the following developments:
Cannonsville Development
(1) An existing 2,800-feet-long, 175-foot-high earthen Cannonsville
Dam; (2) an existing reservoir having a surface area of 4,800 acres and
a storage capacity of 300,000 acre-feet and normal water surface
elevation of 1,150 feet mean sea level; (3) a proposed 78-inch-diameter
penstock; (4) a proposed powerhouse containing four new generating
units having an installed capacity of 12.1-megawatts; (5) a proposed
tailrace; (6) a proposed 750-foot-long, 46-kilovolt transmission line;
and (7) appurtenant facilities. The proposed Cannonsville Development
would have an average annual generation of 25.46-gigawatt-hours.
[[Page 61851]]
Neversink Development
(1) An existing 2,830-foot-long, 195-foot-high earthen Neversink
Dam; (2) an existing reservoir having a surface area of 1,477.8 acres
and a storage capacity of 112,000 acre-feet and normal water surface
elevation of 1,440 feet mean sea level; (3) a proposed powerhouse
containing two new generating units having an installed capacity of
1.65-megawatts; (4) a proposed tailrace; (5) a proposed 2,400-foot-
long, 4.8-kilovolt transmission line; and (6) appurtenant facilities.
The proposed Neversink Development would have an average annual
generation of 7.79-gigawatt-hours.
Pepacton Development
(1) An existing 2,450-foot-long, 204-foot-high earthen Downsville
Dam; (2) an existing reservoir having a surface area of 5,700 acres and
a storage capacity of 441,000 acre-feet and normal water surface
elevation of 1,280 feet mean sea level; (3) a proposed powerhouse
containing two new generating units having an installed capacity of
3.1-megawatts; (4) a proposed tailrace; (5) an existing 800-feet-long,
46-kilovolt transmission line; and (6) appurtenant facilities. The
proposed Pepacton Development would have an average annual generation
of 9.04-gigawatt-hours.
Schoharie Development
(1) An existing 2,273-foot-long, 183-foot-high earthen Gilboa Dam;
(2) an existing reservoir having a surface area of 1,130 acres and a
storage capacity of 58,800 acre-feet and normal water surface elevation
of 1,130 feet mean sea level; (3) four penstocks; (4) a powerhouse
containing three new generating units having an installed capacity of
12.9-megawatts; (5) a tailrace; (6) a proposed 15,000-feet-long, 13.8-
kilovolt transmission line; and (7) appurtenant facilities. The
proposed Schoharie Development would have an average annual generation
of 31.8-gigawatt-hours.
Applicant Contact: For West of Hudson Hydroelectric Project, Mr.
Robert M. Loughney, Esq., Couch White, LLP, 540 Broadway, P.O. Box
22222, Albany, NY 12201, phone (518) 426-4600.
FERC Contact: Patricia W. Gillis, (202) 502-8735.
Competing Application: This application competes with Project No.
13222-000 filed May 9, 2008. Competing applications were required to be
filed on or before September 18, 2008.
Deadline for filing comments, motions to intervene: 60 days from
the issuance of this notice. Comments and motions to intervene may be
filed electronically via the Internet. See 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii)
and the instructions on the Commission's Web site under the ``e-
Filing'' link. If unable to be filed electronically, documents may be
paper-filed. To paper-file, an original and eight copies should be
mailed to: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426. For more
information on how to submit these types of filings please go to the
Commission's Web site located at http://www.ferc.gov/filing-
comments.asp. More information about this project can be viewed or
printed on the ``eLibrary'' link of Commission's Web site at http://
www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/elibrary.asp.
Enter the docket number (P-13287-000) in the docket number field to
access the document. For assistance, call toll-free 1-866-208-3372.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E8-24706 Filed 10-16-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
------
Competing Application: This application competes with Project No.
13222-000 filed May 9, 2008. Competing applications were required to be
filed on or before September 18, 2008.
Deadline for filing comments, motions to intervene: 60 days from
the issuance of this notice. Comments and motions to intervene may be
filed electronically via the Internet. See 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii)
and the instructions on the Commission's Web site under the ``e-
Filing'' link. If unable to be filed electronically, documents may be
paper-filed. To paper-file, an original and eight copies should be
mailed to: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426. For more
information on how to submit these types of filings please go to the
Commission's Web site located at http://www.ferc.gov/filing-
comments.asp. More information about this project can be viewed or
printed on the ``eLibrary'' link of Commission's Web site at http://
www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/elibrary.asp.
Enter the docket number (P-13287-000) in the docket number field to
access the document. For assistance, call toll-free 1-866-208-3372.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E8-24706 Filed 10-16-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
_________________
FYI – From the 10/17/2008 Federal Register.
Dave
-----