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.
Friday, May 31, 2013
Simply NOT True! - A Little Reality Please!
Mr. Wiley at the Cape Vincent JLL blog is making an erroneous claim about CV town officials actions.
Here is part of a comment he (or his friend said) in a recent post on his blog.
"...the Town of Cape Vincent who is fighting for our right to home rule on wind siting and other land use matters."
NO they aren’t. That is inaccurate. Jeeez I just explained this in detail in a recent post based on LAW!.
The idea the Town is fighting for rights to Home Rule is simply a convenient illusion acceptted without question to make the best out of a terrible situation, by believing something that is not reality.
The town may be fighting hard to defend their specific zoning law in Cape Vincent and fighting within a very set of specific and restrictive state rules that have already removed thier Home Rule...and fighting to be reasonable in fear of State preemption…I will give them that, but they ARE NOT fighting for our right to Home Rule. That is a completely different battle and the Town IS NOT engaged in it at present!
Read this from the Art. 10 Law. I don’t know how this can be any clearer!!!
“1. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no state agency, municipality or any agency thereof may, except as expressly authorized under this article by the board, require any approval, consent, permit, certificate or other condition for the construction or operation of a major electric generating facility with respect to which an application for a certificate hereunder has been filed…”
See that "no municipality" part...what do you think that means??? After reading this let me ask you again the questions asked in my previous post.
1. Does the Power NY Act and Art. 10 have the power to preempt our zoning law on behalf of BP? YES, it certainly does!!! Is that Home Rule…NO!!!
2. Who makes the final decision if Cape Vincent’s law will stand as is and be enforceable by the Town? Is it the State or the Town? It is very clear IT IS NOT THE TOWN unless the State says so! Is that Home Rule …NO!!!
3. Do you see anywhere in the above quote from Art. 10 law that says the Town gets to make the final decision on our laws by exercising autonomy through Home Rule on the wind power plant siting issue?
NO you don’t, and in fact it says the complete opposite! That is NOT Home Rule!
4. Now…if Art. X renders a decision on the BP power plant that upholds our zoning law, did the Town make that decision with Home Rule or was it the State? It will be the State!! Is that Home Rule!!! NO!
5. Has the Town done anything to directly and strongly fight against, or strongly oppose the provisions in the Art. X law that allows the removal of Home Rule rights on the wind power plant siting issue?
NO THEY HAVE NOT! If so FIND IT!!!! And post it here!
They didn’t even pass a resolution to oppose Art. 10 like the County and a number of other counties and towns have done, In fact they are going completely along with the Art. X process, which in effect is tacit approval of the State’s local law preemption power, and validates it. Is that fighting for our right to Home Rule?...NO!
In fact can anybody find me anything, anywhere, where the Town has put up a real stink or shown real strong opposition to Art. X. and it’s removal of Home Rule rights on this issue?
NO...Instead they call the Art. X process and its preemption of local law provisions , even handed and balanced , and the rules fair and impartial. Now can somebody please explain to me how the that is fighting for our right to Home Rule????
There is this idea floating around that if the State upholds our law, that will be defending or protecting Home Rule rights , or our Home Rule rights will have been reestablished. NO!!!! ANY decision we get, bad or good, will still be a STATE decision and it will NOT BE THROUGH HOME RULE!!!! And either way the Town will have let that decision happen. That is NOT Home Rule or fighting for it! .
The Town may be defending its law by arguing with a bunch of third party bureaucrats in Albany who are also listening to BP telling them to preempt our law…but THAT IS NOT fighting for our rights to Home Rule!!!
And if we DID have Home Rule and were fighting for it we would NOT be battling and begging a State board to uphold our law. Does it make any sense from a Home Rule defense position that you write a zoning law and then have to ask the State, who has removed your Home Rule for money to defend your law from the very developer you are fighting??? How exactly is that Home Rule or fighting for our Home Rule rights???? A little reality please!!!!
And when the Art. X presiding examiner, Judge Agresta , comes to Town and says he is interested in the parties ( the Town and BP ) reaching a stipulation (agreement) to abide by our zoning law…Oh.... but maybe NOT 100%...is that Home Rule? Good luck finding a way to justify that as Home Rule rights!
So where was at least ONE, just ONE, town officer in the crowd to say to Agresta that we weren’t going to enter into ANY stipulations with anybody over our law because we are fighting for our Home Rule rights? Where were they? Just ONE! They were sitting in the audience trying to be "reasonable" to the Art. X and its preemption power to remove our law and Home Rule rights. That is where they were. Trying to be "reasonable" like they have from the start to the very thing that has already stripped away our Home Rule rights!
You can't claim to be "fighting for our right to home rule on wind siting" when you are appeasing and trying to be "reasonable" and beg money from the very thing that stripped away your Home Rule rights in the first place!
In fact ask any town officer who was deeply involved in the formation of our zoning law if they wrote it with complete reliance on Home Rule or in defiance of Art. 10 taking away our Home Rule rights...or did they write it with the idea of being "reasonable" to Art. 10?
The ones I talked to and all the hoopla about our law on the blogs was all about formulating a law with Art. X's preemption power in mind and being "reasonable".
Not exactly what I would call a spectacular display of fighting for our Home Rule rights???
Money Talks!!!
On the blog Pandora’s Box of Rocks you can see a press release from Gov. Cuomo granting more funds to support renewable energy in NYS, including wind projects.
http://pandorasboxofrocks.blogspot.com/
At many of these events Cuomo marches out the comments of at least two faithful and important state agency leaders. The NYPSC and NYSERDA. You can see their obedient comments below on behalf of Cuomo and renewable energy.
Below are some quotes from the article.
Governor Cuomo Announces $191 Million in Project Awards to Increase Renewable Energy in New York State
" Governor Cuomo said. "New York has one of the most ambitious and responsible renewable energy targets in the nation: 30 percent by 2015.
With this ambitious target do you think Cuomo is just going to set a precedent that any town with a tough wind zoning law just walks away free? Especially when he could be getting 200+ megawatts of wind energy from BP or some other wind player if BP sells…and especially when he came to NNY and told communities that we have to be “reasonable”!!!
Then a quote from NYSERDA!
Francis J. Murray Jr., President and CEO of NYSERDA said, "The RPS has been instrumental in attracting private investment in renewable energy and supporting the state's clean energy agenda. Thanks to Governor Cuomo's commitment to clean-energy investment, we will help create jobs, improve our environment and strengthen our energy security in New York."
Why is Francis Murray important to Cape Vincent? He or someone he designates sits on the Art. X siting board that will determine CV’s future with BP’s wind farm!
Garry Brown, Chairman of the PSC said, "The generation of electricity from renewable sources increases energy diversity and promotes a better environment for us all. Renewable energy, along with our energy efficiency efforts, provides our best hope toward ending dependency on fossil fuels, improving regional economies, and reducing harmful emissions."
Why is Garry Brown important to CV? Well he is the Chairman of the Art. X siting board that will determine CV’s future with BP’s wind farm!
This sure doesn’t make me feel real comfortable that playing in the Art. X game that all these guys control is going to turn out real well for Cape Vincent!!!
Thursday, May 30, 2013
We Have NO Home Rule On The Wind Issue - Not Now And Not Later - A Response To Comments By Dave Lamora
My readers may have missed a debate between Cape Vincent citizen Dave Lamora and myself in the comment section of one of my posts. Although I think Dave and I agree on many of the big wind issues we have some differences that I think are very important to examine. Dave is a person who I believe carefully examines his arguments, and has shown siginificant commitment to the community since he volunteered a great deal of time to the formulation of our comprehensive plan.
But before we go on, Dave you have to understand that because I disagree with you or the town does not mean I am attempting to belittle anyone.
Here are Dave’s last comment. as posted in the comment section of my blog. I apologize for the format of the comments. The copy and paste was not working well.
“I have been deservedly accused many times of being an idealist .If I were the DEC representative on the ART.10 review panel, I would find it virtually impossible to justify issuing a permit to BP for a project in Cape Vincent ,considering the language in the Cape Vincent Comprehensive Plan, and considering the above stated DEC policy. Particularly when the New York State Municipal Home Rule Law, specifies that a community has the authority to protect and preserve its physical (visual) character, and the default position of the ART.10 rules is to follow local law.
I believe this element of the Home Rule is just as defendable as public health and safety, perhaps even more so because aesthetics does not require justification. The original SEQR law stated (in my words) that visual character, and value only need be defined by the community itself, it is not subject to interpretation or contradiction by others. It cannot be challenged by studies or research, or even need to be qualified. It has legal status.
As you know I was dissatisfied with the lack of stronger specific protections for scenic quality in the revised Zoning Law, but even as written it provides more than ample justification for precluding industrial turbines.
If the DEC representative has any sense of integrity for his agency's "raison d'etre" he would deny a permit. I certainly do think the Town and their attorney should press this point.
If you genuinely are confused, I would venture to say it is because you continue to view this entire process from a perspective that allows no alternative interpretation.
Consider this if you will.
In the larger context, New York State has legislatively taken complete autonomy on land use from local municipalities, by exercising its authority to pre-empt local laws. Collectively, by refusing to challenge this abrogation of control, the local municipal governing system has conceded this control. Like you ,I am appalled both by the legislation and the local level response. Nevertheless, it is law and townships are following it.
In the practical , applicable context, what I see is a municipality(Cape Vincent) who has conceded autonomy but not Home Rule. In effect, if pre-emption does not take place and our local laws prevail and are applied to the project application, we do not lose Home Rule. You can argue the logic of this, belittle anyone who espouses to it, and continue to advocate for a rebellion to reclaim complete autonomy, but I will repeat again-to what end?
It is not my interpretation or the course of action I would have chosen to take, but the fray has been entered and resources devoted to its conclusions.
Think carefully if the accusations/protestations that you make are beneficial or detrimental to their and our eventual cause.”
I will focus on the part o Dave's comment about losing or nor losing Home Rule because I think it gets to the crux of the matter and is a belief (I believe erroneous) held by many in our community concerning Art. X’s preemption power.
I strongly disagree with the argument that if the State doesn't preempt our law, then we retain Home Rule. Here is why.
First you can not split Home Rule from autonomy as Dave suggests. . Home Rule IS autonomy. You can’t become just a little bit pregnant on this issue! Consider what the National League of Cities says as a legal opinion on Home Rule.
“Home rule is a delegation of power from the state to its sub-units of governments (including counties, municipalities, towns or townships or villages). That power is limited to specific fields, and subject to constant judicial interpretation, but home rule creates local autonomy and limits the degree of state interference in local affairs.”
And note something important that I will get into later. This opinion does not say that Home Rule is applied differently by a State from one municipality to the next. The application is uniformly applied.
Home Rule IS autonomy, and they can not be separated.
So here are two questions to consider.
1. Why do the Art. X regulations allow pre-emption or local laws? What is the point of at? How do they legally come about?
2. No matter what the Art. X decision is in terms of our zoning law, WHO determines the final outcome of our law. Is it the town or the State?
Dave, and many others supporting our town govt. make the assertion that if the State lets our local laws prevail, then we have not lost Home Rule. I disagree!
If the process is entirely set by the State and within that process from it’s inception is the power to remove Home Rule with an expressed intent to preempting local laws, then it should be obvious you have NO Home Rule no matter what the final decision is.
I believe the fatal flaw in thinking is that the final outcome is the determining factor in whether we retain Home Rule or not. I believe that is incorrect, and that the original intent and how the process is carried out is what determines your Home Rule status, not the final outcome. In terms of actual Home Rule or not, that final outcome has been rendered mostly irrelevant. Even the NY State Constitution, and Municipal Home Rule Laws recognize this expressed intent up front idea.
Here is why I believe this.
They state that one way for the State constitutionally override Home Rule on issues they feel are of critical importance is by deliberately expressing the “intent” to remove Home Rule in a general State law on an issue and occupy that field of legislation. They do not say that Home Rule will be determined later on a community by community basis as a result of whether the State agrees with each law or not.
Therefore I believe based in part on this that it is incorrect to imply that a later decision under this regime has granted you back Home Rule or that you have protected or defended it.
Legally and Constitutionally if the State removes your Home Rule…then it is GONE, and no decision later brings it back to life. That would be like the State preempting itself in its own law.
Next, whether you have Home Rule or not is not a vague sliding scale based of a final decision. You either have it or you don’t.
If you are going to rely on the final State decision as the determinant factor as to whether you have Home Rule or not, then what is the standard for determining your Home Rule? This becomes a real slippery slope and the State has wisely avoided it by not letting it rest on a final decision later. It is probably why the State has recognized they will express an intent upfront that home rule is removed in its entirety on an issue by law. Not on a negotiated piece meal basis for each community. They aren’t going to play that game even though you believe you can.
Do you only have Home Rule if the State agrees absolutely 100% with every regulation in your zoning? What if the State says… “well we agree completely with you Cape Vincent EXCEPT on this one little setback and we would like liberalized by 10 ft.! Is that us retaining Home Rule ? Would the State’s decision to allow for one turbine placed well into the CV interior be a victory for retaining Home Rule? Are five turbines retaining Home Rule? Ten, twenty, or Sixty? Is an agreement to an alternative to our law that is not necessarily 100% in compliance like Judge Agresta suggests…is that retaining Home Rule? If you use the final decision as determining Home Rule…then where and who decides when Home Rule is being protected and when it is not, or if we have lost it or not?
It becomes an absurd slippery slope vague opinions, and that is why the State has removed Home Rule up front…not let it rest on the final decision for interpretation from one community to the next. You don’t have Home Rule…It was taken away by right up front by expressed intent in the Power NY 2011 legislation…period!!! You don’t suddenly get it back just because the State agrees with your law. That is defending your law alone…not Home Rule which has already been removed!
Then there is the need for a uniform application of Home Rule up front to not be arbitrary.
In NY Town Law Article 16, Sec. 272 on comp planning, the State encourages communities to comp plan and zone and that is uniformly applied to every community in NYS. It doesn’t say Lyme gets to comp plan and we don’t. Nor does it say… make your comp plan and then we will decide on a case by case basis after the fact if it will be valid. In addition in the legislature’s intent and findings in Sec. 272 the State expresses how crucial local comp planning and zoning is to the community and State’s well being.
Yet Art. X does just the opposite and insidiously rips apart this intent and let’s every community fend only for themselves and their zoning and their specific interests as warring parties. It applies comp planning and zoning on an absurd… contrary to other NY laws…. arbitrary piece meal basis. For example the State could say…
“OK CV your experts did an excellent job defending your law. So we will uphold your laws as is, and the applicant must comply. We aren’t giving you Home Rule…just allowing your law to stand. But Lyme and Orleans, your experts didn’t do so well and your community has more interior, so even though you have a law and comp plan just like CV’s and you don’t want turbines…we rule your law too burdensome and you get X number of turbines!”
Again the point is there is no Home Rule and any uniformity to apply it is gone in either case when the final decision is what you think you can consider Home Rule or not.
Home Rule has to be uniformly applied across the board State wide to be valid on the issue at hand. Piece meal decisions from one community to another is NOT HOME RULE! And why is that… because like I said the State removed Home Rule upfront with an expressed intent in law to take it away on this issue. That is a legally binding requirement. So their final decision is invalid and irrelevant as a criteria for whether you retain Home Rule or not…you don’t and the State removed it up front, and it is flawed analysis to believe they are somehow arbitrarily giving it back because they may agree with you later.
Now what significantly disturbs me is that a fair number of people including our important town leaders are willing to accept this final decision as protection of Home Rule premise in lieu of what IS ACTUALLY HOME RULE as defined in the NYS Constitution and Municipal Home Rule Laws instead of protesting and fighting what is obviously terrible public policy and an insidious system THAT HAS REMOVED HOME RULE, and by following and validating it will have terrible consequences in precedent !!! And because “ it exists” and because the Town has chosen to follow, means we must follow too is very weak reasoning in my opinion.
So what does this imply? In my opinion it implies that the town and many of their supporters are participating in Art. X on a completely false premise. They erroneously believe they can retain or reestablish Home Rule based on a fully committed approach to chase a final decision that they believe validates Home Rule. When in fact the State has already removed Home Rule legally by an expressed intend in the Power NY 2011 legislation. The town is chasing something that has constitutionally and legally already been REMOVED no matter what is decided later.
Now they can try to defend their specific law in isolation, and hope the State will agree with them. I get that. However, that is not comprehensive for regional protection. That is a narrow defense of just our community, but is certainly NOT defending or retaining Home Rule for us or other communities in a combined effort to save our region from corporate and industrial and State political control.
Let me explain this.
There was a previous time in the wind battle when this flawed analysis to accept the condition and go along with it as we are doing with Art. X was also the norm. Some of our current town leaders and anti wind advocates were so intent on getting any wind law that they would have gone along and allowed badly wind conflicted former town board members to vote on a wind law if it was close to what we wanted and conformed to what they considered a “good” result.
Yet some of us didn’t accept this and fought like hell against what appeared to be overwhelming odds to change this condition and in many way we did!!! I guess that would be in part the answer to Dave’s question as to what my end game is.
From our perspective now I think you can see what a terrible frightening idea that would have been, to allow these town officers to take control of our community with ANY vote no matter what it resulted in. This appeasement would have very likely left them still in power. You should not use and validate a terribly flawed and insidious and reckless system just because you think it will ultimately meet your ends or because everyone wants to go along with it…especially when the analysis is flawed that you are somehow retaining home rule, when clearly you aren’t. That is the case with our following of Art. X and trying to rationalize that if it comes out our way it is ok because we erroneously believe we have retained or reestablished Home Rule.
The previous go along thinking was badly flawed especially when you consider these same conflicted town board members later agreed to participate in the attempted illegal removal of certain citizens voting rights, and challenged the very essence of free speech by suing the bloggers or legal cameras from meetings!!! Yet at the time we would have allowed them to determine our community’s future with that badly flawed insidious condition…just like we are doing with participation I Art. 10…as long as we believe a final favorable decision will be an “acceptable thing” and preserve Home Rule, which it doesn’t! Home Rule that has already been taken away on this issue and doesn’t even exist…and even the State Constitution and Home Rule Laws legally say so, yet we are in a chase as if we can get it back with a final decision.
So what are my ends? Dave implies that my ends may be detrimental to the town’s and our cause. I doubt it can be any more detrimental than enabling a system that is so arbitrary, insidious, and piece meal and flies directly in the face of other NYS laws granting Home Rule and has removed our rights and even has many now believing the final decision determines if we have Home Rule when clearly we DON’T and State laws support my claim.
My ends are just like this post, that despite the town’s insistence to follow the insidious Art. X system I will protest to try to get the community to understand the possible implications of what we are doing, and because the “crowd” is going one way…one that I think is based on a false premise, does not convince me to support the town or be quiet. I believe that is still my democratic right. Some of us either spent money or gave moral support on defending the bloggers on free speech. It seems rather contrary to now ask someone to suppress there ideas because the crowd believes otherwise.
As a result of the insidious arbitrary and terrible policy wrapped up in Art. X and the extremely negative implications it has for our community and region and its power to remove our critical rights, I can not support the town’s decision to follow and enable it. nor will I simply choose to be quiet about it.
But before we go on, Dave you have to understand that because I disagree with you or the town does not mean I am attempting to belittle anyone.
Here are Dave’s last comment. as posted in the comment section of my blog. I apologize for the format of the comments. The copy and paste was not working well.
“I have been deservedly accused many times of being an idealist .If I were the DEC representative on the ART.10 review panel, I would find it virtually impossible to justify issuing a permit to BP for a project in Cape Vincent ,considering the language in the Cape Vincent Comprehensive Plan, and considering the above stated DEC policy. Particularly when the New York State Municipal Home Rule Law, specifies that a community has the authority to protect and preserve its physical (visual) character, and the default position of the ART.10 rules is to follow local law.
I believe this element of the Home Rule is just as defendable as public health and safety, perhaps even more so because aesthetics does not require justification. The original SEQR law stated (in my words) that visual character, and value only need be defined by the community itself, it is not subject to interpretation or contradiction by others. It cannot be challenged by studies or research, or even need to be qualified. It has legal status.
As you know I was dissatisfied with the lack of stronger specific protections for scenic quality in the revised Zoning Law, but even as written it provides more than ample justification for precluding industrial turbines.
If the DEC representative has any sense of integrity for his agency's "raison d'etre" he would deny a permit. I certainly do think the Town and their attorney should press this point.
If you genuinely are confused, I would venture to say it is because you continue to view this entire process from a perspective that allows no alternative interpretation.
Consider this if you will.
In the larger context, New York State has legislatively taken complete autonomy on land use from local municipalities, by exercising its authority to pre-empt local laws. Collectively, by refusing to challenge this abrogation of control, the local municipal governing system has conceded this control. Like you ,I am appalled both by the legislation and the local level response. Nevertheless, it is law and townships are following it.
In the practical , applicable context, what I see is a municipality(Cape Vincent) who has conceded autonomy but not Home Rule. In effect, if pre-emption does not take place and our local laws prevail and are applied to the project application, we do not lose Home Rule. You can argue the logic of this, belittle anyone who espouses to it, and continue to advocate for a rebellion to reclaim complete autonomy, but I will repeat again-to what end?
It is not my interpretation or the course of action I would have chosen to take, but the fray has been entered and resources devoted to its conclusions.
Think carefully if the accusations/protestations that you make are beneficial or detrimental to their and our eventual cause.”
I will focus on the part o Dave's comment about losing or nor losing Home Rule because I think it gets to the crux of the matter and is a belief (I believe erroneous) held by many in our community concerning Art. X’s preemption power.
I strongly disagree with the argument that if the State doesn't preempt our law, then we retain Home Rule. Here is why.
First you can not split Home Rule from autonomy as Dave suggests. . Home Rule IS autonomy. You can’t become just a little bit pregnant on this issue! Consider what the National League of Cities says as a legal opinion on Home Rule.
“Home rule is a delegation of power from the state to its sub-units of governments (including counties, municipalities, towns or townships or villages). That power is limited to specific fields, and subject to constant judicial interpretation, but home rule creates local autonomy and limits the degree of state interference in local affairs.”
And note something important that I will get into later. This opinion does not say that Home Rule is applied differently by a State from one municipality to the next. The application is uniformly applied.
Home Rule IS autonomy, and they can not be separated.
So here are two questions to consider.
1. Why do the Art. X regulations allow pre-emption or local laws? What is the point of at? How do they legally come about?
2. No matter what the Art. X decision is in terms of our zoning law, WHO determines the final outcome of our law. Is it the town or the State?
Dave, and many others supporting our town govt. make the assertion that if the State lets our local laws prevail, then we have not lost Home Rule. I disagree!
If the process is entirely set by the State and within that process from it’s inception is the power to remove Home Rule with an expressed intent to preempting local laws, then it should be obvious you have NO Home Rule no matter what the final decision is.
I believe the fatal flaw in thinking is that the final outcome is the determining factor in whether we retain Home Rule or not. I believe that is incorrect, and that the original intent and how the process is carried out is what determines your Home Rule status, not the final outcome. In terms of actual Home Rule or not, that final outcome has been rendered mostly irrelevant. Even the NY State Constitution, and Municipal Home Rule Laws recognize this expressed intent up front idea.
Here is why I believe this.
They state that one way for the State constitutionally override Home Rule on issues they feel are of critical importance is by deliberately expressing the “intent” to remove Home Rule in a general State law on an issue and occupy that field of legislation. They do not say that Home Rule will be determined later on a community by community basis as a result of whether the State agrees with each law or not.
Therefore I believe based in part on this that it is incorrect to imply that a later decision under this regime has granted you back Home Rule or that you have protected or defended it.
Legally and Constitutionally if the State removes your Home Rule…then it is GONE, and no decision later brings it back to life. That would be like the State preempting itself in its own law.
Next, whether you have Home Rule or not is not a vague sliding scale based of a final decision. You either have it or you don’t.
If you are going to rely on the final State decision as the determinant factor as to whether you have Home Rule or not, then what is the standard for determining your Home Rule? This becomes a real slippery slope and the State has wisely avoided it by not letting it rest on a final decision later. It is probably why the State has recognized they will express an intent upfront that home rule is removed in its entirety on an issue by law. Not on a negotiated piece meal basis for each community. They aren’t going to play that game even though you believe you can.
Do you only have Home Rule if the State agrees absolutely 100% with every regulation in your zoning? What if the State says… “well we agree completely with you Cape Vincent EXCEPT on this one little setback and we would like liberalized by 10 ft.! Is that us retaining Home Rule ? Would the State’s decision to allow for one turbine placed well into the CV interior be a victory for retaining Home Rule? Are five turbines retaining Home Rule? Ten, twenty, or Sixty? Is an agreement to an alternative to our law that is not necessarily 100% in compliance like Judge Agresta suggests…is that retaining Home Rule? If you use the final decision as determining Home Rule…then where and who decides when Home Rule is being protected and when it is not, or if we have lost it or not?
It becomes an absurd slippery slope vague opinions, and that is why the State has removed Home Rule up front…not let it rest on the final decision for interpretation from one community to the next. You don’t have Home Rule…It was taken away by right up front by expressed intent in the Power NY 2011 legislation…period!!! You don’t suddenly get it back just because the State agrees with your law. That is defending your law alone…not Home Rule which has already been removed!
Then there is the need for a uniform application of Home Rule up front to not be arbitrary.
In NY Town Law Article 16, Sec. 272 on comp planning, the State encourages communities to comp plan and zone and that is uniformly applied to every community in NYS. It doesn’t say Lyme gets to comp plan and we don’t. Nor does it say… make your comp plan and then we will decide on a case by case basis after the fact if it will be valid. In addition in the legislature’s intent and findings in Sec. 272 the State expresses how crucial local comp planning and zoning is to the community and State’s well being.
Yet Art. X does just the opposite and insidiously rips apart this intent and let’s every community fend only for themselves and their zoning and their specific interests as warring parties. It applies comp planning and zoning on an absurd… contrary to other NY laws…. arbitrary piece meal basis. For example the State could say…
“OK CV your experts did an excellent job defending your law. So we will uphold your laws as is, and the applicant must comply. We aren’t giving you Home Rule…just allowing your law to stand. But Lyme and Orleans, your experts didn’t do so well and your community has more interior, so even though you have a law and comp plan just like CV’s and you don’t want turbines…we rule your law too burdensome and you get X number of turbines!”
Again the point is there is no Home Rule and any uniformity to apply it is gone in either case when the final decision is what you think you can consider Home Rule or not.
Home Rule has to be uniformly applied across the board State wide to be valid on the issue at hand. Piece meal decisions from one community to another is NOT HOME RULE! And why is that… because like I said the State removed Home Rule upfront with an expressed intent in law to take it away on this issue. That is a legally binding requirement. So their final decision is invalid and irrelevant as a criteria for whether you retain Home Rule or not…you don’t and the State removed it up front, and it is flawed analysis to believe they are somehow arbitrarily giving it back because they may agree with you later.
Now what significantly disturbs me is that a fair number of people including our important town leaders are willing to accept this final decision as protection of Home Rule premise in lieu of what IS ACTUALLY HOME RULE as defined in the NYS Constitution and Municipal Home Rule Laws instead of protesting and fighting what is obviously terrible public policy and an insidious system THAT HAS REMOVED HOME RULE, and by following and validating it will have terrible consequences in precedent !!! And because “ it exists” and because the Town has chosen to follow, means we must follow too is very weak reasoning in my opinion.
So what does this imply? In my opinion it implies that the town and many of their supporters are participating in Art. X on a completely false premise. They erroneously believe they can retain or reestablish Home Rule based on a fully committed approach to chase a final decision that they believe validates Home Rule. When in fact the State has already removed Home Rule legally by an expressed intend in the Power NY 2011 legislation. The town is chasing something that has constitutionally and legally already been REMOVED no matter what is decided later.
Now they can try to defend their specific law in isolation, and hope the State will agree with them. I get that. However, that is not comprehensive for regional protection. That is a narrow defense of just our community, but is certainly NOT defending or retaining Home Rule for us or other communities in a combined effort to save our region from corporate and industrial and State political control.
Let me explain this.
There was a previous time in the wind battle when this flawed analysis to accept the condition and go along with it as we are doing with Art. X was also the norm. Some of our current town leaders and anti wind advocates were so intent on getting any wind law that they would have gone along and allowed badly wind conflicted former town board members to vote on a wind law if it was close to what we wanted and conformed to what they considered a “good” result.
Yet some of us didn’t accept this and fought like hell against what appeared to be overwhelming odds to change this condition and in many way we did!!! I guess that would be in part the answer to Dave’s question as to what my end game is.
From our perspective now I think you can see what a terrible frightening idea that would have been, to allow these town officers to take control of our community with ANY vote no matter what it resulted in. This appeasement would have very likely left them still in power. You should not use and validate a terribly flawed and insidious and reckless system just because you think it will ultimately meet your ends or because everyone wants to go along with it…especially when the analysis is flawed that you are somehow retaining home rule, when clearly you aren’t. That is the case with our following of Art. X and trying to rationalize that if it comes out our way it is ok because we erroneously believe we have retained or reestablished Home Rule.
The previous go along thinking was badly flawed especially when you consider these same conflicted town board members later agreed to participate in the attempted illegal removal of certain citizens voting rights, and challenged the very essence of free speech by suing the bloggers or legal cameras from meetings!!! Yet at the time we would have allowed them to determine our community’s future with that badly flawed insidious condition…just like we are doing with participation I Art. 10…as long as we believe a final favorable decision will be an “acceptable thing” and preserve Home Rule, which it doesn’t! Home Rule that has already been taken away on this issue and doesn’t even exist…and even the State Constitution and Home Rule Laws legally say so, yet we are in a chase as if we can get it back with a final decision.
So what are my ends? Dave implies that my ends may be detrimental to the town’s and our cause. I doubt it can be any more detrimental than enabling a system that is so arbitrary, insidious, and piece meal and flies directly in the face of other NYS laws granting Home Rule and has removed our rights and even has many now believing the final decision determines if we have Home Rule when clearly we DON’T and State laws support my claim.
My ends are just like this post, that despite the town’s insistence to follow the insidious Art. X system I will protest to try to get the community to understand the possible implications of what we are doing, and because the “crowd” is going one way…one that I think is based on a false premise, does not convince me to support the town or be quiet. I believe that is still my democratic right. Some of us either spent money or gave moral support on defending the bloggers on free speech. It seems rather contrary to now ask someone to suppress there ideas because the crowd believes otherwise.
As a result of the insidious arbitrary and terrible policy wrapped up in Art. X and the extremely negative implications it has for our community and region and its power to remove our critical rights, I can not support the town’s decision to follow and enable it. nor will I simply choose to be quiet about it.
Tuesday, May 28, 2013
Shadow Flicker? - OK Let's Look At Shadow Flicker For Real!
I have an idea. Before any Art. X board member makes a decision on the BP wind farm in Cape Vincent, we should rent a movie threater and let them view these shadow flicker videos on the big screen for a couple hours! Enlarge your screen view for maximum effect.
Shadow flicker from Maple Ridge
Shadow flicker from Maple Ridge
Shadow flicker from Palm Springs Ca.
Areas around Palm Springs are the wind
industry run amuck! Note the old
small 1980's defunct turbines not running.
Let's Take Break From The Wind Issue - Come On An Adventure!
Flagstaff, AZ where I live 8 months of the year is a gateway tourist city to the Grand Canyon as well as a lot of other spectacular AZ wonders. As a result things get a bit crazy in and around town on Memorial Day weekend. Also people like to come here to the cool pines to escape the desert heat which is pushing into the 100's now.
Unfortunately things don't always go as planned for outdoor enthusiasts, and I spent much of the weekend with my SAR team on search missions, and unfortunately one body recovery.
Last year about this time we had a large complex search for a missing hiker in the remote west end of Grand Canyon. So join me for a video and eagles eye view of Grand Canyon and an inside view of a search mission aboard the AZ Dept. of Public Saftey Air Rescue Helicopter...Ranger 52, as they shuttle us to the remote search area inside Grand Canyon.
Three videos after these pictures.
After our drop off.
Guiding the helicopter in for our pick up at the end of the day.
Take off from the SAR Incident Comand Post.
Sadly this hiker was never found after several weeks of searching and is still missing today.
Then talking about Memorial Day ...and those who have given their lives in service to country, a couple weeks ago we had another search for another overdue hiker in Grand Canyon. This one started at night. We were very fortunate to work closely with the elite Air Force Pararescue Jumpers (PJ's) from Nellis Air Force Base near Las Vegas. They do combat search and rescue for downed pilots, and injured soldiers behind enenmy lines. They also assist civilian search and rescue units,like ours which helps them in training. Their motto is "So Others May Live" They currently have a program on the Nat. Geo Channel about the PJs. The two PJs we briefed looked like real impressive dudes with some neat equipment!
In the video if you expand the view and look closely you will see them being winched up into their big Pave Hawl rescue helicopter, capable of operating 24/7 in all kinds of weather and terrain. Similar to the Black Hawk helos we see flying around Cape Vincent from Ft. Drum but more sophisticated for rescue work. The pics and video taken through our night vision googles.
They had winched down to us to set up communications and have us brief
them on the search area and search subject.
The lone female hiker was found the next morning safe, but dehydrated and exhausted.
One video after this picture.
Air Force PJs on a dirt 4wd road on a starry starry
N. AZ night waiting for their helicopter to winch them up.
Didn't The NYPSC Skip A Step????
In the matter of Art. 10 and the siting of BP's wind project. BP has submitted it's PSS. There have been comments on it by various stakeholders and agencies. BP has made its summary of those comments and commented back. We now have the intervenors fund distributed, and the stipulation phase of Art. X is now open.
But my question is...why are we where we are???? Why are we here??? Seems we skipped a big step!
What happened to BP's Public Information Program (PIP) that everyone was saying was an inadequate disaster? Was that it...its a done deal? Sure seems we have moved dramatically forward in the process with no accounting for the inadequacy of BP's PIP.
The Town of Cape Vincent a number of times complained to the NYPSC about the PIP being very inadequate and not addressing many of the important issues and questions they raised during that PIP phase of Art. X.
So did the NYPSC and DEC just say...OK good enough and blow it off??? Did they say...OK you attempted your PIP...good enought for us, move on! Why did they just let it go and allow BP to move forward with addition significant steps with no apparent accountability despite the Town's repeated complaints?
I doubt the Town of Cape Vincent feels the PIP process was well done or complete. In fact in comments to BP's PSS the Town was making many of the exact same complaints they did about the PIP. Then in fact the PSC has told the Town the Art. 10 presiding examiner Judge Agresta can not force BP to include studies in the PSS as the town is asking.
But my question is...if the Town and others have repeatedly complained that the BP PIP was terribly inadequate and a number of the Town's requests for information from BP were not answered, and this is supposed to be a balanced system ...then why did the NYPSC just allow BP to move forward? Why didn't they tell BP that since their PIP was very inadequate and lacking critical information, that they would not be allowed to proceed in the process, they would not accept the PSS, or allow intervenor funding, or open the stipulation phase until BP provided the information theTown and other parties requested and made their PIP process adequate?
Does this imply how NYPSC and the Art. X siting board will handle the rest of the Art. X process?
Doesn't make me feel real confident about the process. Has the Town and other stakeholders just accepted this glaring inadequacy in the system and are willing to just move on?
I looks a lot like Art. X is just another hoop jumping process with a bunch of boxes to check off to make us all feel good and involved!
But my question is...why are we where we are???? Why are we here??? Seems we skipped a big step!
What happened to BP's Public Information Program (PIP) that everyone was saying was an inadequate disaster? Was that it...its a done deal? Sure seems we have moved dramatically forward in the process with no accounting for the inadequacy of BP's PIP.
The Town of Cape Vincent a number of times complained to the NYPSC about the PIP being very inadequate and not addressing many of the important issues and questions they raised during that PIP phase of Art. X.
So did the NYPSC and DEC just say...OK good enough and blow it off??? Did they say...OK you attempted your PIP...good enought for us, move on! Why did they just let it go and allow BP to move forward with addition significant steps with no apparent accountability despite the Town's repeated complaints?
I doubt the Town of Cape Vincent feels the PIP process was well done or complete. In fact in comments to BP's PSS the Town was making many of the exact same complaints they did about the PIP. Then in fact the PSC has told the Town the Art. 10 presiding examiner Judge Agresta can not force BP to include studies in the PSS as the town is asking.
But my question is...if the Town and others have repeatedly complained that the BP PIP was terribly inadequate and a number of the Town's requests for information from BP were not answered, and this is supposed to be a balanced system ...then why did the NYPSC just allow BP to move forward? Why didn't they tell BP that since their PIP was very inadequate and lacking critical information, that they would not be allowed to proceed in the process, they would not accept the PSS, or allow intervenor funding, or open the stipulation phase until BP provided the information theTown and other parties requested and made their PIP process adequate?
Does this imply how NYPSC and the Art. X siting board will handle the rest of the Art. X process?
Doesn't make me feel real confident about the process. Has the Town and other stakeholders just accepted this glaring inadequacy in the system and are willing to just move on?
I looks a lot like Art. X is just another hoop jumping process with a bunch of boxes to check off to make us all feel good and involved!
Saturday, May 25, 2013
The Town's Entire Strategy Depends on the NYPSC and the NYDEC Denying BP's Wind Project - Is That Expectation Realistic???
The Town Board of Cape Vincent’s strategy to defeat the BP wind project. ( and I mean I have been repeatedly been told by their supporters that is their goal)…well that strategy with their new zoning law will be in part extremely dependent on two important NYS agencies. The NYSDEC and the NYPSC. Both these powerful NYS agencies will be represented on the Art. 10 siting board along with others and the town hopes they will deny BP's wind porject and defend our zoning law. So what can we expect from these state agencies...is there any history in all of NYS of them doing what the town is desperately hoping for?
So let me ask you a question. We have about 1400MW of wind power operational in NYS today in various large industrial wind complexes. Can anyone tell me if either the NYDEC or the NYDPSC has ever recommended the complete denial of a major wind project on any grounds as the Town is banking on here in CV? That could be a criticasl question!
I will let you ponder that for a while!
At the end of my comments you will see a very interesting (chilling) press release from the NYSPSC, and Chairman Garry Brown who will also be the Chairman of the Art. X siting board on the BP project decsion in Cape Vincent. It ought to make your blood run cold!!!
As you ponder, let’s look at some evidence of how these agencies feel about industrial wind energy. First here is a link to the NYDEC where they talk about wind power.
http://www.dec.ny.gov/energy/40966.html
I’ll be damned, it sounds like the wind developers themselves wrote this little wind promo for the NYDEC!!!
And unlike before where the NYDEC was only involved in the SEQR environmental study process, but could not deny a wind farm…now under Art. X they have a more direct power to make a decision that could deny a wind project. That is what the entire CV Town strategy is based on. Add to that the power of the “green” NY Governor behind these agencies and the State RPS to achieve some very aggressive renewable energy targets!
Read the DEC promo on wind power and consider the Town’s strategy. How do you think that will work out???? Doesn’t make me real warm and fuzzy that a wind farm will be denied in CV!
So then let’s look at the NYSPSC. Here is a press release from them. And this one is real scary because it sounds much like what BP is proposing in CV and the same reasoning about those giant nearly 500 ft. turbines. And what about that Garry Brown, the Chairmnan of the NYPSC ? He will also be the Chairman of the Art. X siting board that determines CV’s fate on wind energy and our laws and comp plan.
Again, this doesn’t make me real warm and fuzzy about a BP wind farm being denied in CV by the PSC!
Oh…and that Garry Brown…he sits on the NYSPSC with fellow commissioner Maureen Harris. And who is she? She is the wife of John Harris, BP’s CV Wind Farm attorney.
Now after you absorb all this information…try to get your head around the fact that Judge Agresta who is with the NYPSC is the head examiner for the Art. X process between CV and BP, and he just said last week right here in CV that he would be very interested in the Town and BP working out stipulations (agreements) on BP project alternatives that would comply to our zoning law to the degree possible, and not necessarily 100%! And Mr. Agresta is very familiar with Mr. Brown and Mrs. Harris, because you can look up and see that he regularly presents before the NYPSC commissioners. He may even know the BP lawyer John Harris personally. Who knows???
But carefully note what PSC Chairman Brown says about this Marble River wind project and those huge 500. ft turbines…oh excuse me, I must be accurate here…only 492 ft. There, you should feel better! Can we learn something important here???
Here are Brown’s comments:
“The changes we are approving to the Marble River wind farm will help maximize project efficiencies to reduce construction and operational costs while continuing to minimize environmental impacts to the maximum extent practicable,” said Commission Chairman Garry Brown."
…to the maximum extent practicable!!! And what did Judge Agresta say in CV the other night about BP complying to our zoning?
…to the degree possible, maybe not 100%!
See any theme here?
Agresta - To the degree possible, maybe not 100%
Brown - To the maximum extent practicable
It appears they have a political code language book they are both working from that tells them how to make you feel better about how they are going to screw you!!!
And this is what our Town Board is banking on, hoping these two agencies will deny BP a wind project in Cape Vincent??????
Here is the full press release from Brown and the NYPSC
STATE OF NEW YORK
Public Service Commission
Garry A. Brown, Chairman
Three Empire State Plaza, Albany, NY 12223
Further Details: James Denn
james_denn@dps.state.ny.us
518.474.7080
http://www.dps.state.ny.us
http://twitter.com/NYSDPS 11051/07-E-1343
NORTH COUNTRY WIND FARM WINS RETOOLING
— PSC Allows Installation of Largest Land-Based Wind Turbines in NY —
Albany, NY—6/16/11— The New York State Public Service Commission (Commission) today voted to approve a modification to the plans of the Marble River Wind Farm in the Towns of Clinton and Ellenburg, Clinton County. The decision will allow the wind farm owners to install the largest wind turbines in New York State.
“The changes we are approving to the Marble River wind farm will help maximize project efficiencies to reduce construction and operational costs while continuing to minimize environmental impacts to the maximum extent practicable,” said Commission Chairman Garry Brown. “The installation of these state-of-the-art turbines will maximize energy production, while significantly reducing the number of turbines needed due to the more efficient use of the region’s wind resource.”
The 3 megawatt (MW) turbines to be installed at Marble River are 492 feet tall, significantly larger than previous models proposed for the site, and are designed to achieve greater efficiencies of production by utilizing new gearbox and control designs, and by increased height and blade swept area to maximize generation potential at low and medium wind speed sites.
Earlier this year, wind farm developer Marble River LLC requested modification of the plan previously approved by the Commission. The company said its construction schedule must proceed by early July, 2011 to accommodate planned outage on the New York Power Authority’s 230 kV interconnection line later this year, and to maintain the viability of financing the construction of this 216 MW wind energy plant. The Marble River project is owned by Horizon Wind Energy and EDP Renewables, a subsidiary of Energias de Portugal.
Based on today’s decision, Marble River will site and operate 72 Vestas V112-3 MW turbines with a total maximum generating capacity of up to 216 MW. Marble River was previously authorized to install up to 109 2.1 MW wind turbines, with a rated project output of 229 MW.
The turbines are the largest ever approved for use in New York State. In addition to installing fewer, larger wind turbines, the project as now configured will include significant reductions in the length and area of access roads, a reduction in the length of underground electrical collection lines, and elimination of overhead collection lines, with overall disturbed areas and wetlands impacts significantly reduced.
In New York, Horizon is the co-owner of the Maple Ridge Wind Farm, a 322 MW facility located in Lewis County, and the owner of the Madison Wind Farm, an 11 MW facility in Madison County. Horizon is developing a number of other sites in New York that may be suitable for wind generation facilities. Clinton County will host the most wind generating installed capacity in New York with over 500 MW installed.
The Commission’s decision today, when issued, may be obtained by going to the Commission Documents section of the Commission’s Web site at www.dps.state.ny.us and entering Case Number 07-E-1343 in the input box labeled "Search for Case/Matter Number". Many libraries offer free Internet access. Commission orders may also be obtained from the Commission’s Files Office, 14th floor, Three Empire State Plaza, Albany, NY 12223 (518-474-2500).
So let me ask you a question. We have about 1400MW of wind power operational in NYS today in various large industrial wind complexes. Can anyone tell me if either the NYDEC or the NYDPSC has ever recommended the complete denial of a major wind project on any grounds as the Town is banking on here in CV? That could be a criticasl question!
I will let you ponder that for a while!
At the end of my comments you will see a very interesting (chilling) press release from the NYSPSC, and Chairman Garry Brown who will also be the Chairman of the Art. X siting board on the BP project decsion in Cape Vincent. It ought to make your blood run cold!!!
As you ponder, let’s look at some evidence of how these agencies feel about industrial wind energy. First here is a link to the NYDEC where they talk about wind power.
http://www.dec.ny.gov/energy/40966.html
I’ll be damned, it sounds like the wind developers themselves wrote this little wind promo for the NYDEC!!!
And unlike before where the NYDEC was only involved in the SEQR environmental study process, but could not deny a wind farm…now under Art. X they have a more direct power to make a decision that could deny a wind project. That is what the entire CV Town strategy is based on. Add to that the power of the “green” NY Governor behind these agencies and the State RPS to achieve some very aggressive renewable energy targets!
Read the DEC promo on wind power and consider the Town’s strategy. How do you think that will work out???? Doesn’t make me real warm and fuzzy that a wind farm will be denied in CV!
So then let’s look at the NYSPSC. Here is a press release from them. And this one is real scary because it sounds much like what BP is proposing in CV and the same reasoning about those giant nearly 500 ft. turbines. And what about that Garry Brown, the Chairmnan of the NYPSC ? He will also be the Chairman of the Art. X siting board that determines CV’s fate on wind energy and our laws and comp plan.
Again, this doesn’t make me real warm and fuzzy about a BP wind farm being denied in CV by the PSC!
Oh…and that Garry Brown…he sits on the NYSPSC with fellow commissioner Maureen Harris. And who is she? She is the wife of John Harris, BP’s CV Wind Farm attorney.
Now after you absorb all this information…try to get your head around the fact that Judge Agresta who is with the NYPSC is the head examiner for the Art. X process between CV and BP, and he just said last week right here in CV that he would be very interested in the Town and BP working out stipulations (agreements) on BP project alternatives that would comply to our zoning law to the degree possible, and not necessarily 100%! And Mr. Agresta is very familiar with Mr. Brown and Mrs. Harris, because you can look up and see that he regularly presents before the NYPSC commissioners. He may even know the BP lawyer John Harris personally. Who knows???
But carefully note what PSC Chairman Brown says about this Marble River wind project and those huge 500. ft turbines…oh excuse me, I must be accurate here…only 492 ft. There, you should feel better! Can we learn something important here???
Here are Brown’s comments:
“The changes we are approving to the Marble River wind farm will help maximize project efficiencies to reduce construction and operational costs while continuing to minimize environmental impacts to the maximum extent practicable,” said Commission Chairman Garry Brown."
…to the maximum extent practicable!!! And what did Judge Agresta say in CV the other night about BP complying to our zoning?
…to the degree possible, maybe not 100%!
See any theme here?
Agresta - To the degree possible, maybe not 100%
Brown - To the maximum extent practicable
It appears they have a political code language book they are both working from that tells them how to make you feel better about how they are going to screw you!!!
And this is what our Town Board is banking on, hoping these two agencies will deny BP a wind project in Cape Vincent??????
Here is the full press release from Brown and the NYPSC
STATE OF NEW YORK
Public Service Commission
Garry A. Brown, Chairman
Three Empire State Plaza, Albany, NY 12223
Further Details: James Denn
james_denn@dps.state.ny.us
518.474.7080
http://www.dps.state.ny.us
http://twitter.com/NYSDPS 11051/07-E-1343
NORTH COUNTRY WIND FARM WINS RETOOLING
— PSC Allows Installation of Largest Land-Based Wind Turbines in NY —
Albany, NY—6/16/11— The New York State Public Service Commission (Commission) today voted to approve a modification to the plans of the Marble River Wind Farm in the Towns of Clinton and Ellenburg, Clinton County. The decision will allow the wind farm owners to install the largest wind turbines in New York State.
“The changes we are approving to the Marble River wind farm will help maximize project efficiencies to reduce construction and operational costs while continuing to minimize environmental impacts to the maximum extent practicable,” said Commission Chairman Garry Brown. “The installation of these state-of-the-art turbines will maximize energy production, while significantly reducing the number of turbines needed due to the more efficient use of the region’s wind resource.”
The 3 megawatt (MW) turbines to be installed at Marble River are 492 feet tall, significantly larger than previous models proposed for the site, and are designed to achieve greater efficiencies of production by utilizing new gearbox and control designs, and by increased height and blade swept area to maximize generation potential at low and medium wind speed sites.
Earlier this year, wind farm developer Marble River LLC requested modification of the plan previously approved by the Commission. The company said its construction schedule must proceed by early July, 2011 to accommodate planned outage on the New York Power Authority’s 230 kV interconnection line later this year, and to maintain the viability of financing the construction of this 216 MW wind energy plant. The Marble River project is owned by Horizon Wind Energy and EDP Renewables, a subsidiary of Energias de Portugal.
Based on today’s decision, Marble River will site and operate 72 Vestas V112-3 MW turbines with a total maximum generating capacity of up to 216 MW. Marble River was previously authorized to install up to 109 2.1 MW wind turbines, with a rated project output of 229 MW.
The turbines are the largest ever approved for use in New York State. In addition to installing fewer, larger wind turbines, the project as now configured will include significant reductions in the length and area of access roads, a reduction in the length of underground electrical collection lines, and elimination of overhead collection lines, with overall disturbed areas and wetlands impacts significantly reduced.
In New York, Horizon is the co-owner of the Maple Ridge Wind Farm, a 322 MW facility located in Lewis County, and the owner of the Madison Wind Farm, an 11 MW facility in Madison County. Horizon is developing a number of other sites in New York that may be suitable for wind generation facilities. Clinton County will host the most wind generating installed capacity in New York with over 500 MW installed.
The Commission’s decision today, when issued, may be obtained by going to the Commission Documents section of the Commission’s Web site at www.dps.state.ny.us and entering Case Number 07-E-1343 in the input box labeled "Search for Case/Matter Number". Many libraries offer free Internet access. Commission orders may also be obtained from the Commission’s Files Office, 14th floor, Three Empire State Plaza, Albany, NY 12223 (518-474-2500).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)