More On An Actual Power Plant Sited By the Old Article 10 Process - Something We Can Learn From!

If you have not read my last post below on a power plant along the Hudson River sited by the old Art. 10 process in 2000, it would be instructive to read it first.  

The implied message by some around Cape Vincent and the area is that by participating in the Art. 10 process and sending input in the form of letters to the NYPSC and Art. 10 process we can defeat a wind farm on Galloo Is. or in the area.  That with enough of your opposition or concerned input an Article 10 siting board will see it our way, and up hold our laws.  I believe that is a delusion and fantasy that "Big Brother Govt" will protect us.
   
The old Art. 10 is much like the new Art. 10 and did have the local law preemption clause, and the siting process was administered by the same board on electrical generation siting at the NYPSC.

Here is a quote from the NY Times about the controversy of siting this power plant along the scenic Hudson River Valley.  This situation is not unlike what CV faced with BP, or what might occur on Galloo Island under an Art. 10 scheme.

"Since it was proposed two years ago, the Athens plant has met with ferocious local opposition, in part because it represented the beginning of a boom in industrial development on the banks of the Hudson, after the river had undergone more than a half-century of transition from an industrial thoroughfare to the attractive centerpiece of a fairly bucolic region. In recent months, opponents repeatedly tried to portray Pacific Gas & Electric as a corporate villain, reminding reporters and politicians that it was the company that polluted ground water in a California town, in a case made famous by the movie ''Erin Brockovich.''"

http://www.nytimes.com/2000/06/03/nyregion/big-power-plant-on-the-hudson-wins-approval.html

Geee...sound familiar??? Better pay attention all you Art. 10 believers!!!   And at the time this electric plant was allowed by Art. 10 it was one of the largest in NYS with many scenic concerns.  The NYT article says it was the largest in the nation, however I think that is in error.

Had this been CV, the mantra to faithfully follow the Art. 10 process and developing a zoning law we thought Art. 10 would abide by and protect us...well it would have been an unmitigated disaster!!!

In addition to ignoring the opposition to this plant (I'm sure they had their "input" letters) the Art. 10 board also easily preempted local zoning laws and trashed home rule to pave the way for this monster plant along the scenic Hudson corridor.  A number of important zoning regulations were simply waived for the developer.

Those of you putting your faith in Art. 10 as a fair process that will uphold your concerns and local home rule...you better start thinking again about a more effective approach.

Actual Evidence That The NYPSC Art.10 Siting Process WILL Preempt Local Laws And Disregard Local Concerns!

If the Galloo Island wind developer plans to move forward with the 32 turbine project, they will have to apply through the NYS Art. 10 process, as BP did in Cape Vincent and Iberdrola in Clayton.

Keep in mind those projects in CV and Clayton never proceeded completely through the Art.10 process.  In BP’s case they simply walked away from their CV project. As far as I know to date NO wind development state wide has completed an Art. 10 process.

The point is we have no real evidence as to how a completed Art. 10 siting would play out under the new law and rabid state renewable agenda, or if the process would completely uphold a town’s wind zoning regulations. 

 But with a little dgging we do have some evidence now and it ain't good!!!!

However, on the Cape Vincent JLL blog Mr. Wiley is once again appealing to people who are concerned or opposed to Galloo to write letters to the NY Public Service Commission if a Galloo wind farm enters the Art. 10 process.   

However, with no concrete evidence to support it, the implied message is that enough input to the NYPSC will make the Art. 10 process a pathway to defeat the Galloo Island project or in the case of other towns, the input will force the Art.10 siting board to uphold restrictive wind zoning.

In my opinion this is a  very misguided and dangerous message based on nothing credible. that puts far too many in complete denial as to what Art. 10 is actually intended to do.  It is not to defeat wind development because a bunch of people wrote letters showing concern or opposing a particular project or a town wrote tough wind zoning regulations.

Art. I0 is designed to SITE energy projects including wind projects, not defeat them.  Wiley and others like the town of CV go off the rails with absolutely NO evidence when they support involvement in Art. 10 to imply  it will uphold a town’s zoning and wind regulations.  

 And keep in mind Art. 10 can simply preempt local laws the developer can convince the board are too restrictive.

But the big debate is and has been whether Art. 10 will uphold local laws or not or go with enough local opposition or not.

Robert Brown the head of the CV zoning law committee that developed strict wind regulations said on NPR that the Art. 10 board will uphold our CV laws once they see they are for the health safety and welfare of the community.  Really?… there is evidence in the record exactly to the contrary.  This was also the mantra of the entire CV Town Board.  And it may be frighteningly wrong!

So where is the evidence Brown, the CV Board, and Wiley seem to rely on, and Wiley uses to promote the idea of letter writing to the NYPSC and Art. 10 to defeat industrial wind development?

Actually there is none!

But as I said  there is actually evidence showing an opposite case. 

 That evidence is housed in the previous Art. 10 law that expired.

 The old law was not that different than the new one and included the local law preemption clause.   The old Art. 10 was host to  a number of actual electric generation projects that went completely through the siting process and were granted permits AND which in some cases  DID preempted local laws despite the opposition of environmental groups on scenic issues etc, although these were gas projects not wind projects.  And  that included preemption of local law’s setbacks and height restrictions. 

There is a lot to learn here, and it should be a wake up call to Art. 10 promoters implying the defeat of wind through writing letters and supporting this process and playing in this rigged game.

Below is part of a decision by an Art. 10 siting board concerning gas electric generation plant proposed in Athens, NY along the Hudson River some years ago under the old Art. 10.   

Several environmental groups opposed the plant on scenic and other grounds and the decision to permit it.  They even sued the Art. 10 decision after the fact and lost.  There are some parallels to CV and what might occur around us including Galloo Island.

The quotes below are the rational by the Art. 10 board to actually preempt some important zoning regulations to ensure the siting of the power plant.

"5. Conclusions"

"The proposed generating facility would comply with the requirements of the LI zoning classification applicable to the facility's site. The zoning ordinance's criteria for light industrial uses would be met, while the ordinance's restriction on the pH content of discharges to drainage channels would not

apply to discharges of cooling water and treated waste water into the Hudson River.

The pump house would be a non-conforming use in a RU district. In addition, the interconnects, which would cross various land use districts, would not be permitted uses or uses authorized by a special permit. The pump house and the interconnects, however, are essential elements of the proposed facility. Therefore, the local requirements barring those installations are unreasonably restrictive given the existing technology.

Because the pump house could not comply with the established setback requirement in the RU district, we conclude that the requirement is unreasonably restrictive given the existing technology. In addition, many of the proposed facility's structures would not comply with the 35-foot height limit established in ZO §403. Those structures, which include the turbine enclosures and the transmission towers, cannot be redesigned to conform to the requirement. Therefore, we conclude

that the height limit is unreasonably restrictive given the existing technology."

Note that part about “unreasonably restrictive given the existing technology”.

That is the hole Art.10 provides for itself and the advantage to the developer to worm its way past local laws. Now think about that in terms of a wind developer argument. The existing technology is massive and getting bigger all the time. 

No wind developer is going to put up 60 ft. turbines that might be screened by landscaping or trees.  The existing wind  technology is turbines reaching nearly 600 ft. to be the most efficient.

That is the "existing technology"  Do you honestly think the State is going to say NO to the best existing technology to further its rabid renewable agenda?

As you know if you read this blog, and as I have said for years, Art. 10 is a developer lobbied scam the State will use to overcome local control on its rabid wind energy agenda and home rule despite some thinking home rule will be preserved by Art. 10 not preempting local laws.  THINK AGAIN and read the decision above that clearly effectively negated home rule and local laws.

Art. 10 is a suckers game wrapped up in paper work and a promise you will have "input".

It will also overcome your input despite what the supporters of the Art. 10 process like Wiley at JLL are promoting.

The record is clear here in the old Art. 10 siting evidence that despite opposition, even on scenic grounds in a place like the treasured Hudson River Valley, your input will mostly likely be disregarded.  And the contention that a wind law will dissuade an Art. 10 siting board is getting real thin and Art. 10 process supporters are dealing out more fantasy than reality.

Now as a supporter of the Art. 10 process and that letters opposing any local wind development will help stop a particular project, and ensure local laws, and home rule...it is now incumbent on Wiley to provide actual evidence that this will be the case.

And keep in mind that NO local Art 10 process was ever completed on wind development and as a result there is NO evidence in our local Art. 10 experiences despite what some might like you to believe.

  

Of Course Then There Are Some Places That DO Go Out of Their Way to Preserve Their Scenic Beauty!

                                                    Click on any picture to enlarge.

                 Panorama from the Sedona airport on a high  mesa showing the town of Sedona and the
                                      spectacular red rock cliffs and canyons as a backdrop.

 This past week my wife and I spent a fair amount of time in Sedona, AZ where we hiked and explored the town and area.  

We have the very good fortune to live in an area with so much spectacular beauty so close...and a population so highly committed to preserving that beauty.  It was refreshing after listening to so much anti SASS hoopla controversy over the past months.

 

     Sitting by Oak Creek at Red Rock Crossing State Park with spectacular cliffs in the background. This area was once subject to a proposal for a road and bridge, for traffic convenience that would have badly compromise the beauty.  The local reaction was overwhelming to preserve this beauty and the proposal was handily defeated.

 

 Hiking one of the dozens of trails in the Red Rock Secret Canyon Wilderness area.   No vehicles, no bikes, no mechanical transportation, and no development.   The wilderness was designated to give the highest level of protection to this spectacular beauty, at the same time providing access and recreational opportunity.  The economic benefit to Sedona that backs this wilderness has been HUGE!!!

  Sedona like the 1000 Islands is a tourism, recreation, and second home destination due primarily to its spectacular beauty.  In the case of Sedona it is the rugged red rock cliffs, buttes, canyons, and pinnacles and mild climate.  

                        Preserved forever...Panorama of part of the Red Rock

                                    Secret  Mt. Wilderness cliffs and canyons near Sedona.

The whole SASS designation controversy in the 1000 Islands came to mind frequently while we hiked and explored beautiful and spectacular Sedona and surroundings, and it just made me laugh how far behind the curve the anti SASS people are.  It also made me appreciate that I live so close to areas where environmental protection and scenic preservation are such a high priority.

There is a highly visible message everywhere you look that clearly indicated people really care, and have an intense pride in the scenic beauty of their town and region. 

 And unlike some places in the 1000 Islands, the local population is very welcoming of tourists and bend over backwards to ensure your stay is a positive one.

I could not detect any time in our visit that there was a resentment, or that we were marginalized for not being locals.

 And the level of tourism dollars coming to Sedona would  make any 1000 Islands town or business salivate.

The Town of Sedona, the area residents, and local land management agencies like the National Forest Service, show a very high level of commitment to the scenic and environmental protection of this incredibly unique and beautiful area.

In affect here are a number of tough regulations designed specifically to preserve the scenic beauty, not only in the town but on the surrounding land where much of the land is public national forest, including a large portion designated as wilderness, precluding the use of vehicles, or any development.

And it is no secret that the high level commitment to conservation and preservation and environmental protection has not been lost on tourists and potential property owners.  This effort  helps draw millions of visitors ( and their dollars) to what is a world class scenic eco - tourism destination primarily because of the rugged natural beauty and recreational opportunities, but also because of the efforts on scenic preservation and access to the what is preserved and ensured for generations.

It’s not that there is no development in Sedona…there is plenty, but it is very carefully managed and the benefits are obvious everywhere you look.  Things like strict sign codes, home and business location placement, and design and coloring etc. have a highly beneficial impact on scenic preservation and attracting tourism and first and  second home owners.

 

  Sedona homes with tough codes that restrict heights, designs, roof and paint colors, that  blend    with the spectacular surroundings.

 

You people who are whining that SASS regulation might be too tough?    Get over yourself!  Check the link below and take a lesson.  Note what the article says about developers.  And many of them are high end developers with a lot at stake.  Guess what…even they GET IT!!!

 

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2004-05-08/news/0405080042_1_sedona-strict-building-requirements 

The short sighted SASS whiners will never have these types of codes or commitment to scenic preservation, or understand the potential positive rewards.  

They will also never have the potential economic wind fall that goes with it because of the misplaced and completely irrational fear, and the sometime marginalization of seasonal residents who have supported the local economies for decades.

It's really sad, since the 1000 Islands area has so much potential and so much to protect!!