INDUSTRIAL WIND TURBINES DO NOT PROVIDE RENEWABLE ENERGY!!! The BRSA claims its IWT will provide clean renewable energy, but this is far from the truth. After many years of wind turbines in use, not one coal or gas plant the world over has been decommissioned...and eliminating our dependence on fossil fuels is their raison d’etre. To quote an expert: “Because wind blows intermittently, electric utilities must either keep their conventional power plants running all the time to make sure the lights don’t go dark, or continually ramp up and down the output from conventional coal-or gas-fired generators (called “cycling”). But coal-fired and gas-fired generators are designed to run continuously, and if they don’t, fuel consumption and emissions generally increase.” This is happening in places like Colorado and Texas where CO2 and power plant pollution have increased since they installed wind farms: http://www.denverpost.com/headlines/ci_15081808
Each turbine creates thousands of tons of radioactive waste water in China as the rare earths for the magnets are mined.
http://www.torontosun.com/comment/columnists/christina_blizzard/2011/02/25/17412836.html
They have a huge carbon footprint of their own from shipping, clear-cutting of land, and the fact that they use electricity from the grid (more reliable) for their own systems.

The commissioners who run the "BS"RA have zero loyalty to the towns they serve. They were appointed to be watchdogs for their communities at this autonomous authority. Instead, they all work for the BRSA as if it were a private company and they were getting huge bonuses to shaft their towns. I don't get it. What's really in it for them? One can only guess, but there has to be something and some agency needs to audit them to find out. In Riverhead (Long Island) a sewage plant was set to build a wind turbine. NY State audited them at the last minute and killed the project. The audit proved there was no financial benefit to be gained for any party:
http://riverheadnewsreview.timesreview.com/2011/05/13867/state-findings-sewer-plant-turbine-not-worth-it/
I'd bet the same thing would happen to the BSRA if they were audited.

If anyone reading this thinks it's OK to live 1,000 feet from a 40-story industrial wind turbine, take a look at these:
http://alleghenytreasures.wordpress.com/2011/03/05/5880/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MQkgf_Oxcps
There's tons of information proving wind turbines of this type cause harm to people living close to them, but the BSRA keeps defending Boss Wells' folly. I can't wait to see the class action suit I'm sure the people of the Union Beach area will bring once it's built. All this additional expense and the settlement will be paid for by all of us ratepayers. The 6 commissioners and Robber Fischer don't give a rat's derriere about the people they serve.

No wonder there are so many problems with the BSRA. Even if it were possible for a single turbine to produce a $500,000 dollar savings in one year (which doesn't account for the $100,000 of electric it pulls from the grid to run itself) there are over 20,ooo hookups. Basic grammar school math says that is $25 per hook up. Where's the rest of the money?
Since worldwide the average production for 1.5 MW turbines, in windier climbs than Conaskonk Point, only produce 25 to 30% of their capacity. Why is the BRSA inflating all of their numbers? Because the DEP doesn't require them to quantify anything. I believe their actual bill from JCP&L is just over $30,000 per month. Please look at the video right here on the patch and you will see a far different estimate from Mr. Cohen, and Mr. Coligas your other Holmdel Commissioner. By the way, the John Muir Trust in Britain just concluded a 28 month study over there where it is far windier. The result was 22% production. Just remember the BRSA has no skin in this game, we the ratepayers are REQUIRED to foot the bill for breakdowns, fines and any other costs involved. Last year it cost Sea Girt $250,000 for ONE accidental taking of an endangered species. There are 8 endangered, 6 threatened, and 8 species of concern there are pictures for at Conaskonk Point http://www.flickr.com/photos/ndcsbd1/sets/72157600004658841/ and these don't include Bald Eagles and Harriers that are also on the list.

Make the Towns do a fiscal study of the windmill performed by and outside company which has no ties to BRSA, and I'm sure that they will find the idea that they will save money is a lie. How much does the windmill cost and who is going to pay for it? Who is going to operate and perform the maintenance as the gearbox and other major components have to be replaced every 6-7 years? Who is going to pay the neighbors for the present value of their homes? Will the BRSA give the home owners a Property Value Guarantee so that they don't lose 20-40% of the value of their homes as has happened in other places where windmills have been erected. There are many more questions to be answered before the BRSA gets their windmill erected, and ruins the lives of people living within 1 mile of the site.

I think all the towns should look into moving their service to Middletown and dissolve this Authority. I would even ask the towns to end negotiations with the BRSA and not sign contract extensions. They're not due for another 6 months anyway.
And since the BRSA just took property under Eminent Domain, suppose they needed a new pumping station in Holmdel to sewer a large tract. I dare say they could take enough property to build a nice turbine in your town to power it. Juat a thought. Since they already decided they are willing to go against all the towns wishes anyway, it seems more than possible.

The BRSA Executive Director, Robert Fischer, the six BRSA Commissioners, and at least one key BRSA employee continue to fly in the face of public opinion, despite resolutions by the three original, founding towns, of Holmdel, Hazlet, and Union Beach, who oppose this ill-conceived, 38-story menacing industrial machine in a residential neighborhood. It appears that the founding towns have created an out of control Bayshore area MONSTER.

John Curran
Hazlet Area Quality of Life Alliance

In the course of fighting against this insane plan since July 2009, HAQLA, and others who have taken the time and effort to research the truth on behalf of the unsuspecting residents of UB and its neighboring towns, have encountered a very strange and rare phenomenon. Never before have we seen such rigid posturing by an authority that exists to serve the public and ratepayers. These BRSA folks have continued to march in lock-step, without a shadow of wavering from any one of them ,at any point; not a single concession to scientific criticism, not a speck of compassion or concern, not one single BRSA person stopping for even a brief moment to reconsider one iota of their scientifically unfounded claims. Not one of them has paused to say “maybe we should take another look at this or that issue that the people have raised”, or, “I tend to agree with the public on that particular point”. Never has a single Commissioner bucked the BRSA’s Plan in the slightest way. Normally, there will be at least one dissenter among the pack on at least one point, even it is a very minor one. This is NOT normal human interaction or behavior in my opinion and experience. What do you, the public, think about this dogged loyalty of these politically appointed Commissioners to the BRSA and its turbine project?

John Curran
Hazlet Area Quality of Life Alliance

I can’t understand the fierce loyalty; the un-questioning, un-inquiring attitude; the audacious inflexibility. I can’t understand the blind dedication of some of these folks who have no notable prior history of being so intensely concerned about the environment. What is driving them? Why are they so adamant about forcing this project upon people who have rejected it? This behavior is very suspicious... it doesn’t compute... it doesn’t make sense... something doesn’t quite fit. But, that is my opinion. What do you, the public, think? What could be their incentive...their motive? Is it out of their concern for the public good? We think not!

The PATCH authors suggest that we “Get to Know: The Bayshore Regional Sewerage Authority”, and they are right; every ratepayer should really check out the BRSA for themselves. Well, we have gotten to know the Bayshore Regional Sewerage Authority; and we don’t like what we have found!

John Curran
Hazlet Area Quality of Life Alliance

Fred DeSanti of mc2 Public Affiars, "Public Affairs" being key, was recently reappointed the BRSA's public relations contractor at a BRSA open meeting. Mr. DeSanti is a registered lobbyist in the energy business. Up until 2010, the BRSA and DeSanti listed each other on theur L1-N and L1-A respectively, which are required forms for lobbyists. For the 2010 filing for year 2009, De Santi listed the BRSA, but BRSA failed to list DeSanti. Moving forward from there, neither party listed each other. Early in 2010, Christie signed Executive Order 15 which prohibits State Authroities from keeping PR people or lobbyists on their payrolls. Come on reporters and lawyers...this is a valid question. Is the BRSA a state authority and therefore subject to Exec Order 15? If they are subject, or even not, why are the BRSA and DeSanti playing games with their L1-As and L1-Ns? Why does DeSanti refer to himself as an occasional enegineering consultant for the BRSA when at an open meeting the BRSA renewed him as their PR guru?

I do not know the exact amount of my anuual $480.00 sewage bill that reflects the baseline cost of my community's BRSA bill. I doubt it is as low as $300.00, but even that low, the annual savings to me, the typical rate payer, for the ballyhooed IWT electrical costs savings would be only 7%, NOT 15%. There might be a few small cracks in the BRSA armor, if only the law would investigate same. The recording of Mr. Colgen's presentation to the over 50 club started off with the under spoken phrase about being careful what we tell them. In a recent past meeting when pressured on the shadow/flicker effect impact on the community, a Hazlet rep spoke out and said we will shut it off, a fraction of a second before the Director stated emphatically, if there is a "complaint" we will shut it off. The Director stated publicly that the quest for ARRA funds for the IWTwas to reduce the costs of the "project" to rate payers, Mr. DeSanti representing the BRSA in written correspondence (e mail) to a gentleman in the Governor's office stated in two different paragraphs that if they (BRSA) could not get in-line for this federal taxpayer hand-out the "project" COULD NOT GO FORWARD. Mr DeSanti comments before a State Legislative Committee were false in that he cited the wrong community and the fact that there had been no complaints against the community wind turbine. The community is Sea Girt and the folks that attended the DEP mtng, arranged by Ms. Hanlon, had real complaints about that turbine

Further to my earlier comments, at a recent mtng the BRSA Director stated that the were hiring Mr. DeSanti's Co. to undertake a PR campaign to improve the public image of the BRSA and one of the reason for improving the image was the forthcoming "Hosting Agreement" negotiations with the U.B. Municipal Gov't. If the BRSA was in fact a "Good Neighbor"
why would they have to hire an agency to prove same. It would appear that the recent APP article about the condemnation of needed land, legally trying to go around the U.B. Planning Board, and this article in the Patch, indicate that Mr. DeSanti has hit the road running. The BRSA prides itself (ego) on being an autonomous body, and you would not believe the snickers, giggles, and self-satisfied smiles on the faces of the Director, Commissioners, and Counsel when it was explained to them since their service area does not cross County lines that they would NOT be subject to the legislation proposed by the Governor to rein in automous public organization such as theirs. Community service agreements with the BRSA need to be renoegoitated and I have recommended to the Mayors and Municiple Boards of these communties that as part of these new agreements that they demand and take whatever legal action necessary to gain membership to the BRSA Board of Commissioners to force more transparency and community representation. Look behind the well constructed BRSA public facade and you will not appreciate what you find there.

I must apologize for two errors in my previous submissions. I mispelled MR. Colligas' name but the statement still stands.
It was NOT Mr. DeSantis who provided false information about the Sea Girt turbine it was Mr. Tittle of the Sierra Club.
Further to this line of thought however, the BRSA submitted Flicker Effect data to the DEP stating they would shut-off the turbine, see NJDEP EDD of 15 Oct2009, and then after the fact commissioned an engineering study of the problem only to find out it was greater than they had told the DEP.
They are supposedly purchasing a newly built turbine but told the NJDEP that it would have a HALON fire supressant system (NJDEP EDD 15 Oct 2009), which had been outlawed for invironmental
reasons on new units way back in the mid '90s.
Further, the Director stated publicly that the NJDEP would not allow for building PVC panelling out over the wetlands in order to have enough panels to generate the equivalent savings. BRSA just used condemnation to get a hold of wet land they needed for turbine blade overhang, why didn't they do the same for PVC panels? Why didn't they initiate a joint venture with the County to extend any necessary PVC paneling out over the adjacent County Retention Basin, sharing in the expanded savings. The turbine pedestal base could still be used for a cantilever designed support column for PVC panelling over both facs and wet land. The BRSA'S overall conduct in this matter is reprehensible. U.B. CAN STILL BE SAVED.

I think Mr Cohen's statement: "By saving that amount of money, we will be able reduce the rates to our customers by 15%, which is about $500,000 a year." is in about the same category as: "The pipes are three to four miles below the the surface, said Cohen." That is, they are very hard to believe. With an annual operating budget of about 14 million dollars, a $500,000 per year savings in electricity will only save about three to four percent. And, as other commentators have noted, other factors actually make this savings (if any) much less. By claiming large savings a scenario is set up where people living close to the machine will probably have their lives ruined, whereas people far enough away (say, a mile or more) will think they are saving money and might bu unsympathetic to their distant neighbors. This has happened elsewhere and could easily happen again in Union Beach. An ugly situation.

Cohen, Colligas, DiNardo, Pisano, Parsells and Boss Wells are the living argument for term limits. They are all traitors to their towns, especially Parsells and Boss Wells from Union Beach. they should be appointed to one year terms and made to swear an oath to put their towns first. That way they could be gotten rid of easily when trying to shaft their towns. Cohen is lying about the projected savings from the wind turbine. Most of the savings will come from the retirement of their debt. The turbine will result in about $18 per year per ratepayer in savings IF it lives up to its claims, which it won't. Plus they haven't budgeted fully for maintenance. The gears only last from 3 - 7 years and are extremely expensive to replace, and they are not setting money aside to tear it down once it's reached the end of its useful life, about 20 years from now. Without that, it will be a rusting monument to boondoggles. Plus, Cohen said, "The pipes are three to four miles below the surface" I'd like to have some of what he's smoking.