In another effort to promote the Art. 10 electric generation siting process. Mr. Wiley's JLL blog has posted the last letter from the Town of Cape Vincent to the NYPSC regarding the BP wind farm in CV as some kind of wisdom.
This was after BP had finally pulled their application under the Art. 10 process. The letter basically is the Town of Cape Vincent council slobbering all over the NYPSC Art. 10 process saying how wonderful and fair it was. There are a number of disturbing things in this letter, but I have posted one paragraph here to comment on. Underlining emphasis is mine.
"Local governments also need to be a forceful advocate for their community, they do have a role to play in the Article 10 process, contrary to what some believe. If they choose not to fully participate, then they effectively relinquish home rule."
This quote in my opinion shows a disturbing lack of understanding of the Art. 10 process, and very skewed logic. It also shows how the state of NY has completely snookered small towns like Cape Vincent into obedience.
What this letter is in complete denial over is that the state's Art. 10 law ALREADY REMOVED local community home rule on this issue of siting large wind farms. THAT IS FACT!!!
Participate...or don't participate...your home rule was already removed by the state legislators...end of story!!! You either have home rule on this issue or you don't, and in this case YOU DON'T!
So let me see if I get this straight.
So the town thinks if it chooses not to participate in the process that already took away their home rule...they would be relinquishing home rule they already don't actually have??????
WHAT????? And these are supposed to be smart people!
Ahhhhh...Somebody want to explain how this logic works????
Oh and BTW...how about this sentence..."Local governments also need to be a forceful advocate for their community..."
I agree, but essentially in CV that never occurred! Explain to me how you can be a forceful advocate for your community when the one essential tool you need (local zoning law) to protect your community was taken away by the state...and you play right along?
Again...someone want to explain how this is supposed to work!!!
STOP, The regional wind energy industrialization of one of New York State's most beautiful and environmentally sensitive areas, the 1000 Islands of the St. Lawrence River and the Golden Crescent of Eastern Lake Ontario. If you don't think you are seeing the most recent posts click on the current month in the archives to the right.
Take it from someone retired from the industry. The JLL Blog is right on when it comes to developer's fears of the Article 10 process. It is not a process they want to go through if there is even a hint of "bad information" being entered into the public record. There are plenty of places in NYS where wind might be accepted under 25M to avoid PSC review. Is your concern really with Article 10 or is it with the author of the blogger personally?
ReplyDeleteThanks for your comment. First of all if my information is right you do not reside in NY, but let's look at this anyhow. We will soon see how the Art. 10 process will work since in NYS there are now a couple of wind farms under review. Your comments about the developer not wanting a hint of bad information does not hold up according to actual evidence in NYS. If you go back a few posts on this blog you can see an actual Art. 10 siting of a gas power plant in the scenic Hudson Valley. A situation very similar in many respects to CV. It was under a prior Art. 10 law, but they are very similar and administered by the same agency. In addition just like wind now NYS had a rabid agenda to site any power plant back then since they felt the state needed a lot more electric generation, again similar to now. So as to your comment about bad information... this power plant had significant well organized opposition and the controversy even reached the NY Times, yet the Art. 10 process still preempted several local laws to site the power plant. And those zoning regulations were not radical clauses aimed to keep the power plant out.
ReplyDeleteIf you are truly in the industry it baffles me that you don't understand what laws like Art. 10 are intended to do, and it isn't to be an avenue to defeat the states agenda on renewables. Even Gov. Cuomo has made public statements to that effect and calls for reasonableness. To me that means compromise, and that will be a disaster.
Besides, if all it took was a "good" wind law in the Art. 10 process to defeat wind in a community the state would have a real difficult time getting to it's renewable goal. Which goes to your other comment. If there are lots of towns that are willing to host a wind farm, then why does the state need a law to preempt local zoning to site wind farms? Just leave control at the local level so those tht want them get them and those who don't wont get them. Art. 10 exists in the first place because many NY communities were getting savy about wind, ousting wind conflicted govts and drafting zoning not friendly to wind that the state could see was not good for their renewable goals.
To finish my thoughts see more comments below.
Now as to your question about Art. 10 and Mr. Wiley’s JLL blog. YES I have a major issue with Art. 10 and that goes back a long ways and does not have anything to do with Mr. Wiley. To even imply that I am objecting to Art. 10 simply because I disagree with Wiley is an absurd diversion. You have heard of the right to a contrary opinion, right? Which I have backed with documentation.
ReplyDeleteHowever, as to Mr. Wiley and his blog…the answer is again YES I definitely have issues with him and his blog. Your question about how I feel about Mr. Wiley and the JLL blog is a clever question to divert the issue, and discredit my thoughts. Did you think I was somehow going to shy away from it?
But before I proceed let me say that in general Rick has provided a valuable service to the community on the wind issue especially if you are anti wind. However, in recent years I think he has gone off the rails in his rabid support of the Hirschey govt and the Art. 10 wind law approach to where he distorts information to match his agenda and form a group think mentality.
It’s his blog and he can do what he damn well pleases with it, but I also have a right to counter his arguments as well. But his type of distortion does NOT serve the community well. That is where you take the Wiley reader approach, somehow because I debate Wiley’s thinking this is not rational or valid?
I notice that you are probably the friend Mr. Wiley talks about who is in the wind industry, and who also comments on his blog. More power to you. However, your comments are an example of what I am talking about how Wiley operates. He has apparently marched you out to comment on my blog, instead of commenting himself. I find that interesting since you are both welcome to comment here any time, unlike his blog where he always blocks my comments. Now again that is his right, but here is the problem that I think discredits him.
Mr. Wiley and his readers have no problem taking shots at me on his blog. That’s fine I am a big boy and it is the price of the ticket for having a strong opinion. But Wiley will block my comments and not let me defend myself or my position in his discussion. So he and is readers don’t have to be accountable or see a rebuttal that might rattle their group think. They know they are protected on the JLL blog which reinforces their group think, and frankly that is chicken shit!!! Like standing behind the schoolyard bully for protection. What the hell are they afraid of? Maybe having to think for themselves? They don’t come on my blog often because they know I won’t stand still automatically accepting their thinking and they may get a stiff debate backed by actually documentation and facts that shake their tree.
more below
Let me give you another example of the distorted information that can appear on JLL to support the group think agenda.
ReplyDeleteWhen the Art 10 admin. Judge came to CV he recommended BP and the town sit down and look at a compromise where BP would mostly abide by the CV zoning but maybe not 100%. In my opinion he was signaling where the process was headed… a compromise that would be a disaster, and violate our comprehensive plan on scenic protection. However Wiley ran home and spewed out that JUDGE SAYS BP MUST ABIDE BY CV ZONING LAW. It was a total distortion of the truth in order to promote that the Art. 10 wind law process the town had engaged in was the right direction. This was a critical issue and he did a large disservice to the community in his desperation to promote his agenda first rather than the truth.
He also implies the wind law Art 10 process and input to the NYPSC in CV was what caused BP to abandon their project. BP left primarily because of financial issues. That is a dangerous and distorted message and he has zero evidence to back that claim since the process in CV was never concluded and we have no clue how it would have ended, not to mention as of yet there has been no wind farm that has completed the process in NYS. Yet I have posted evidence that shows how an Article 10to CV decision under similar circumstances DID preempt local laws despite heavy opposition.
And in the end that is why you are here on my blog, and you AND Mr. Wiley are welcome any time.
anon 6:06, if you have a background in the wind industry, and you claim that developers are loathe to go through an ART.X process, could you explain why, when shortly after the New York Power Act was approved, BP had an option to either continue their permit approval process through the Town of Cape Vincent Planning Board, or apply for a permit via the ART.X process,- they chose ART.X !
ReplyDeleteMy presumption was that ,even though the newly revised Zoning Law did not prohibit wind turbines, it was sufficiently restrictive in the developers eyes to limit their project. It was obvious they believed they had a good chance that the state would set aside this local law with their pre-emption authority because it was overly burdensome to BPs project, especially since the project would help the State reach their renewable energy goals.
Your suggestion that there are many places in New York that could accommodate under 25 megawatt projects that could avoid the ART.X process begs the question-why aren't there any being proposed?
Excellent points Dave.
ReplyDeleteNo to mention that if BP was worried about bad press showing up in Art. 10 input they knew significant opposition to their project existed well before they applied under Art. 10.
ReplyDeleteThey had to know that opposition would show up in the Art. 10 input.