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).
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.
Excerpt from DEC policy
ReplyDeleteAbstract: Facilities regulated by the Department of Environmental Conservation located in visual
proximity to sensitive land uses can produce significant visual impacts. This policy and guidance defines
what visual and aesthetic impacts are, describes when a visual assessment is necessary and how to
review a visual impact assessment, differentiates State and local concerns, and defines avoidance,
mitigation and offset measures that eliminate, reduce, or compensate for negative visual effects. A
glossary of terms is provided for reference.
I. Purpose
This memorandum provides direction to Department staff for evaluating visual and aesthetic impacts
generated from proposed facilities. This guidance defines State regulatory concerns and separates them
from local concerns. There is nothing in this program policy that eliminates or reduces the responsibility
of an applicant to local agencies to address local visual or aesthetic concerns.
5:19 And your point is????
ReplyDeleteYou suggested reading the DEC policy on wind power.Thought this excerpt was relevant, guess you don't.
ReplyDeleteno need to get defensive. Since you didn't put any other commentary with your comment, I was wondering what your point was.
ReplyDeleteAre you saying the DEC is going to deny BP's projects based on their guidelines???
The evident and implied intent of your post was that the odds are stacked immeasurably in favor of the ART.10 siting board issuing a permit to BP, because both the DEC and the PSC are in the camp of renewable energy promotion. I'm sure you'll admit you give the Town of Cape Vincent's zoning law very little chance of prevailing, in fact your comments drip with sarcastic insinuations that perhaps the Town officials are'nt even genuinely interested in defending the law or preventing BP from developing.
ReplyDeleteI think the point of this excerpt is obvious,if one could peer through the dark gloom of certainty that you project onto the process. Regardless of its political bent, the DEC states that an applicant has a responsiblity to address local issues of visual or aesthetic concerns. This is an arguing point that goes directly to the heart of pre-emption by the state. Is it significant? Only to the degree to which it is pursued ,argued,and subsequently adhered to. But there it is , in black and white, right in DEC policy. I did'nt see any references in the policy that address any necessity to stipulate these local concerns during permit review either.
So since the town is fully engaged in this review process, I hope (assume) Attorney Curtin has or will read the DEC policy thoroughly.
D L
DL
ReplyDeleteWe have about 1400MW of industrial wind power spread across NYS.
Some of these areas are very aesthetic areas like the Finger Lakes as one for example. There would be major visual impacts, in fact I have seen the turbines near Cohocton and there ARE major adverse visual and aesthetic impacts since those turbines are on high ridges. Beekmantown is the same near the mountains and Lake Champlain.
So my question is...where was that DEC policy then...where was the NYPSC then?
Not to mention that some DEC people have told me that the DEC SEQR process was gutted and they have little faith in the DEC.
I just don't have a lot of faith in either the DEC or the NYPSC or the Art X process.
In addition my lack of faith also stems from the actions of Gov Cuomo who is the power behind this. He should have been investigating CV and Aubertine and that investigation evaporated. And after NNY voters removed Aubertine over wind issues Cuomo just appoints him right back into NY govt. as part of his administration, knowing full well the situation in CV and how Aubertine is tied to it. Then Cuomo tells us we all have to be "reasonable'!
I don't know about you, but all this doesn't exactly give me a lot of confidence in the "system" the Town is involved in!
And "certainty". No you miss interpret! I don't project certainty, I could certainly be wrong...but I project the odds based on the evidence we can see all around us, and draw a conclusion based on this evidence.
Regardless of what the town does, when the presiding Art. X examiner clearly states he would be interested in the parites working out stipulations on our zoning law that might be less than 100% compliance...I don't think we should ignore that. I think that is a real wake up call. I certainly don't think it should be spun by rabid supporters of the town board as meaning he said BP must abide by our law.
That isn't even fair in giving the community an accurate picture of what is going on in reality. Even you pointed that out.
Just like I do on a regular basis on my SAR team when we have a difficult lost person case. I look at the evidence, apply the statistics of past behavior of the person and from others in the same situation and reach a conclusion to start an action. And experience says that past behavior is a very good predictor of future behavior and results. Not perfect...but good.
If the bulk of the evidence says the person is walking east...I don't commit all our resources to look west. And I certainly don't do what Wiley at JLL did and try to convince everyone to look somewhere else based on a twisted interpretation of the evidence to fit a certain mind set.
So are you now concluding that the Town is taking the correct action, and the system will act favorably to them as a result????
As I see this the town can defend and defend etc all they can or want...but the final decision still rests in the hands of the state.
So I think it is very relevent to take a close look at the evidence of what the State and it's agencies have done in the past.
Excellent job of ignoring the essence of my observation and tayloring an argument that marginalizes any significance of this policy statement, and bolsters your viewpoint. You even stooped to suggest that now I support the ART.10 process.
ReplyDeleteAt least you didn't call me any names. I'll credit that to being friends.
As your comments progress I get more confused. I am not trying to be sarcastic...what is the essence of your observation when you posted the DEC policy? What do your think the DEC policy means when applied to the CV Art. X situation?
ReplyDeleteAre you saying that if Curtin and the town demands the DEC enforce this policy that this precludes the DEC representative on the Art. X board from voting to give BP a certificate to build its wind farm?
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.
ReplyDeleteI 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 anyyone 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 conslusions.
Think carefully if the accusations/protestations that you make are beneficial or detrimental to their and our eventual cause.
Ok thanks for the clarification. Now I much better understand what you are saying.
ReplyDeleteI will think on this and respond later, still trying to catch up on sleep from a series of long SAR mssions. So keep an eye on this comment section.
While i consider the rest of your comments...conside this from the DEC Visual Impact Polict thatI think sums up my doubts.
ReplyDelete"Staff must be assured that consistent with social, economic and other essential considerations, the action is one that avoids or minimizes adverse impacts to the maximum extent practicable."
There is that same theme (to the maximun extent practicable)that comes from Garry Brown the Chairman of the PSC and Chairman of the Art X siting board. Cuomo's be "reasonable' is the same thing...as is Agrestas "degree possible" when talking about complying to our law, and the same language is in the Art. 10 regulations It is their ace in the hole or escape clause!
The bottom line is simple desite what anybody's policy says. The State has a green agenda and an RPS and aggressive renewable targets. They need green wind power and its technology has visual mitigation limitations if you want it since it is so large...but we will mitigate the impacts to the "maximum extend practicable!"
I read the rest of that document as well and don't find anywhere the DEC is suggesting that a project be denied...it is all about mitigation to the "extent practical." And you can drive a herd of cattle through that little vague statement hole!
To Dave and any interested reader. See my recent post for a response.
ReplyDelete