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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Actually there is none!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"5. Conclusions"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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