Extension of the PTC?

What!!!..no,no,no....this can't be happening!   An extension of the Production Tax Credit! 

I was told over and over by both cv blogs and commenters  that the PTC  and wind were DEAD!  I guess somebody missed something in the politics!!

Know what you missed?  If the ptc does survive the cliff, we can discuss what you missed!

The Town's Insistence on Participation in Art. X - Who Benefits Most???

Who benefits  most, pro wind or anti wind, by the Town of Cape Vincent Town Board insisting on following Article X ?    Well let’s see, it’s really pretty simple!

Pro wind heavily favors following the Art X process because it puts the full force and power of a green NYS and its popular green governor and his agencies behind them.   It removes home rule on wind zoning to make pro wind’s  power almost unlimited on the community wind siting issue. 

Pro wind favors Art X because it significantly weakens anti wind  and forces anti wind into a system to hand over their restrictive zoning law to BP for BP ( and by default pro wind ) to negotiate its terms through the political third party Art X process, no matter how the Board declares they will defend our zoning, or how restrictive it is.   And that third party is significantly rigged to the developer’s agenda , and empowered by a green State agenda.

 Pro wind didn’t have to show up to the CV zoning committee meetings to have input or influence our law.  What would be no point for them?   They will let the real force of BP, Cuomo, and the State agencies he lords over, negotiate and have input for them against the Town.  This is where the real power is to formulate what our law will ultimately look like and they know it.  They don’t need to sit in local meetings with an ‘anti wind” board or zoning committee.  

This is what our Town Board insists on following despite the overwhelming odds.  So you have to look at this and ask…who are they benefiting by this absolute insistence of stay in the Art X process and letting our law be negotiated away by BP and the State powers behind BP? 

The Town Board is so devoted to the idea of  being “ reasonable and fair and not overly burdensome” that  they won’t even pass a simple political resolution to oppose Art X and the loss of home rule, as Jefferson County did.  They have had one tunnel visioned path, and that is a zoning law as the only defense, yet it is then handed to the State and BP to be negotiated

Question is WHY will they charge ahead when it is obvious how this system is significantly stacked to the pro wind side?  They can not claim to be defending our community and its law when the best shake they will get is to negotiate our law with powers like BP and the State in a rigged system.

Many of the Board’s supporters claim the Board to be anti wind.  Do you really think this helps the anti wind side???  Really???

Who are they actually helping and WHY?  No wonder pro wind is so tickled pink about Art. X and our Board charging ahead with it!   Our Board just keeps handing the power to BP and the State and its green agenda and by default also to pro wind.

If you carefully consider all the above, it becomes clear that the Board by its actions (not its rhetoric)  to remain devoted to the Art X process is actually a very wind friendly town board by purpose or by miscalculation. 

You don't see pro wind saying an awful lot lately, not even many letters to the PSC.  They have figured it out what the Board is doing and where it will lead for them!

Art. X is Completely Bass Ackwards!!!

Cuomo's Art X process is completely ass backwards.  NY communities through home rule and other enabling laws  are given home rule powers to decide their zoning and land use futures and visions.  So towns like ours take that power and form our own zoning laws including regulations on wind power.

Then along comes Cuomo and the State with a corporate backed scheme and says NO, we won't allow you do that with wind power, we can now preempt your laws and you have to come to us begging and and justifying  why we and our corporate buddies should abide by your laws.

What's wrong with this picture????

Well I tell ya what....how about since we as communities have home rule power and have been given the power to zone with home rule...and in fact ironically we even have the power to not even have a zoning law if we don't want it...how about we execise that full power and form our zoning laws for what we want, then tell the State to go to HELL!   If  they want wind power then they can bring their Art X siting board people here.  Then they can make an argument before us as to why WE should modify our zoning for THEM and their green agenda and the agenda of their corporate buddies.

Then we will make that final decision in our community, and not let some detached unelected bureaucrats in Albany control our destiny in a community most of them probably couldn't even find on a NY map unless some flunky staffer point it out for them!

Sounds good to me!

NARUC...TO YOU!!!

NARUC ! 

No, that isn’t a Merry Christmas greeting in Star Trek Klingon, or a character from Star Wars.

NARUC is the National Association of Regulatory Utility  Commissioners.

Here is information on what NARUC does.

“NARUC is the national association representing the State Public Service Commissioners who regulate essential utility services in your State. NARUC members are responsible for assuring reliable utility service at fair, just, and reasonable rates.

Founded in 1889, the Association is an invaluable resource for its members and the regulatory community, providing a venue to set and influence public policy, share best practices, and foster innovative solutions to improve regulation”.

Hon. Philip B. Jones,
President NARUC

In 2009 NARUC had an annual meeting, and with this link you can see who attended.

http://annual.narucmeetings.org/2009/registrants.cfm

Now once you have this list up do a search.  Hit Control F on your key board and that should bring up a box that will allow you to type in a word or name and it will find it and highlight it, then hit next to find more of the same word or name.

That is what I did starting with the name Harris and I got some interesting results.

Mrs. Harris, the NY PSC commissioner with the BP lawyer husband pops up. No real surprise, she is a regulatory commissioner after all.  If you scroll the list of names you can see other NY PSC commissioners and  also NY PSC staff as well.  Nothing unusual there either…right?

But other Harris names pop up that are more interesting.  There is no John Harris , Maureen’s BP lawyer husband, however, there are a number of partners from the Harris Beach law firm.  That would be the same Harris Beach that John S. Harris, the BP lawyer was a partner in at one time.  I wonder what they are doing at this meeting?   I guess they do a lot of legal work in the energy arena.  You know like guide clients through the govt regulatory maze as clients put up energy projects that need permits and approvals.

Now one other name was interesting.  That is William Flynn and he is a big wig in Harris Beach law firm as well…and what else was he at one time?????

Well…he was the former Commissioner of the NY PSC!!!  Garry Brown is also in attendance who is the current  NY  PSC commissioner with Maureen Harris.

Now have you ever been to a big convention, or even a small one representing a company of association?  I have several times. 

The NY PSC says there is no funny business going on with Maureen Harris having a husband as a BP lawyer representing BP in the Art X process with the Cape Vincent Wind Farm.  That the Art X system in Albany is all fair and square.  Maybe…maybe not!

What happens at the conventions is people from like agencies get together. Maybe Maureen Harris gets together with Gary Brown the current NYPSC Commissioner and maybe they go to dinner with the former PSC commissioner William Flynn that now works for a law firm that Maureen’s husband worked for, maybe Flynn brings some of his lawyer buddies,  or they get together with other people they know etc.  They have  dinner, and a few drinks, maybe go to a sports bar, talk a little energy policy and rub green elbows and casually figure out what is best for NY’s energy future and how to carry it out on behalf of Gov. Cuomo.

I wonder if the NY PSC can assure us they have control over that too????

Gooooooood luck Cape Vincent!!!

Another Critical Video - Cape Vincent's Wind Problem in a Nutshell

Want to see why we are in the wind mess we are in, in Cape Vincent and why our Board is likely taking us in the wrong direction of working within the system...watch this video!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=biGhErNWLek

THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR HELPING US OUT!

The Town wrote a letter to the PSC  outlining the flaws and holes in  BP’s Public Information Plan (PIP).  Gee I guess they want to help BP make its PIP better????  Why???   Now I say the “Town” but based on the approach I think Cape Vincent Councilman Clif Schneider is the driving force behind these letters.

You can see the letter at this link.

http://documents.dps.ny.gov/public/Common/ViewDoc.aspx?DocRefId={564E88B4-A17F-4575-B84B-41140D7E5AA5}

Some of you might say…Ok Pundt, what is wrong with this approach?  Well I would say… Why are we helping BP improve their PIP by carefully pointing all the flaws, so they can have a better more adequate PIP to use against US!!!

The Town ( and or Clif) has shown the PSC and particularly BP where the flaws are.  Now BP and the PSC can say THANK YOU VERY MUCH!!!  for helping us out by pointing out the flaws and we will correct them. 

And when and if BP does correct it’s PIP to the liking of the Town and they and BP and the PSC consider it adequate …then what?    Unless you want to look foolish, you will have no more complaints because you just helped BP makes it’s PIP “completely adequate.” 

The Town with this approach just assisted BP in beating us at the Art X game.  Why in the hell, are we suggesting to the PSC or BP how to improve the BP PIP?  Are we nuts???    If it is flawed then good leave it alone!  Do we actually want to make BP’s PIP better?  And guess what happens when it is improved?   BP ends up with a  much more effective tool we assisted them with to make a stronger case for their wind farm.

This isn’t just my opinion, it is the opinion of some very sharp environmental lawyers that have won (at least temporarily at the time until they smartened up  ) numerous environmental battles just like CV’s battle against BP. 

 Look at the videoINKED  below and scroll the time bar to 5:30…and listen to about 8:55.  The lawyer Tom Linzey from The Community Environmental Legal Defense Fund ( CELDF0 will explain how this approach the Town is taking by getting into this point by point detail analysis with BP and the PSC is itself flawed because it actually helps BP.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HowKoNmODNY

If Clif is the driving force behind these letters and approach, he is a scientist and he will be bound and determined to argue the data and the details etc.  He will try to analyze and paper work this thing to death, and it will come back to bight him and the Town.  And that is too bad because this approach came back to bight him before in a law suit against the old planning board.

Once you have analyzed it to death and helped BP improve their PIP so you and everyone thinks it is adequate…then what?  Well, you just helped BP in the process to make their PIP more effective and they will now move on and make their application to the Art X board with their new shiny adequate PIP … which we helped them improve!!!

GREAT IDEA!!!

A Pro Wind View of Article X - A Guest Post

I opened up my email this AM to find this letter.  The sender asked if I would post if in fairness.  There was also a challenge in the email saying I had said many months back that I would post any pro wind view that wasn't just a wild pointless attack or incomherent.  They challenged me by saying  "now will you be fair and have the balls to post this"

I could not identify the sender, only that it appears to have come from around the CV area. Maybe it is from BP or Trieste. 

I have obvious disagreements with this person but I did find this letter interesting.  So after mulling it over today I decided to post it.

Here it is below for your enjoyment.

I am a proud supporter of BP and their Public Information Outreach efforts for their Cape Vincent Wind Farm that will bring exciting opportunities for Cape Vincent. I also credit New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo for his vision of a fair and balanced siting process like Article 10.   Article 10 carefully balances community concerns, with the need to address global warming, and also bring us energy independence from foreign oil and bring new American jobs and help save family farms.

But I am amused by the continued fringe voices of Art Pundt and his local soldier David Lamora who want to deny BP and the Article process in our community, and defend home rule.  They are out of touch, because I think the community and especially our Board and their supporters have moved on to a wiser path and I applaud the Town Board for not letting Pundt  and Lamora sway their thinking away from a fair balanced process, or denying BP into our community with a turbine ban. It is clear they do not agree with Lamora and Pundt.   Even the blogs have moved on and recognized Pundt and Lamora as the radical fringe for trying to ban BP turbines and deny the Board to participate in Article 10 and represent all of us. This Board has chosen a far more reasonable path for a community the Zogby poll says is more in favor of wind than not

That got me thinking.  Whose side am I actually on? We are not as far apart as some would believe and we should stop this deny, deny, deny, talk that separates us.

I did not vote for our current board nor do I support their anti - wind leanings and that of their supporters.  I have followed this Cape Vincent wind issue very closely and have been a strong advocate for BP and wind but I have not been particularly vocal.  

 But I was struck by something recently in a Cape Vincent town letter to the NY Public Service Commission (PSC) as part of the Article 10 process that made me step back from the shrill voices on both sides and try to take an unbiased look at what the Town Board and their supporters are actually doing.  I tried to cut through the rhetoric and instead look at their actions.  I am pleased that they are now fully engaged in the Article 10 process leaving fringe voices behind.

What struck me in the Town’s letter and letters from their supporters was an apparent willingness to have a detailed  dialogue with BP and the PSC to reach a better solution for all.  I was particularly struck by the Town’s expressed willingness in one  letter to support renewable energy on a large scale.  They indicated to the PSC and BP that they are not opposed to a large commercial renewable project for Cape Vincent, and felt BP could be the proper agent to bring us that project. One would have to surmise that this would also include a willingness to discuss local tax incentives to bring such a project to fruition. That too was implied in the letter.   They preferred solar, however, I would far prefer wind as a better solution. This is very positive!

But at least we are taking large steps toward each other rather than following the divisive voices of Art Pundt and David Lamora that would completely deny  BP into our community or the fair Article 10 process where our Board clearly recognizes they can better represent all sides in the community and possibly reach a potential compromise that is fair and balanced, despite having to put aside home rule on this critical issue.

 If the Board supports Gov. Cuomo’s and our direction  for  clean renewable energy, as they outlined in their letter, and in fact their comprehensive plan and zoning support as well, then we are more than half way there to an agreement and all we need to do is hammer out some details via the help of an unbiased knowledgeable Article 10 process taking a fair look at our zoning. A fair approach for BP as well.

I am also struck by the Boards acceptance of the PSC letter on potential conflicts at the PSC, and that they agree they now have assurances that the system is untainted and fair. This sets the stage from which we can now move ahead and trust the process for a fair decision for the entire Cape Vincent community.  I too had concerns and was hoping this potential conflict would not mar the process or turn the Board away from it. I applaud the PSC for their detailed response and I applaud the Town for recognizing it as fair and reasonable and not buying into the Pundt, Lamora hysteria that the Albany system is rigged.

 Former Cape Vincent Town Councilman Mickey Orvis was wise when he said we should give this problem to the State to decide and let the community heal. It appears in the end our board is now agreeing with Mr. Orvis by wisely ignoring Pundt and Lamora’s marginal voices to deny BP and Article 10 and committing to seeing that the Article 10 process works fairly  and brings us a final solution , and by participating are agreeing to that final solution as fair.  I now feel despite my differences with them and their supporters that they are coming around to recognizing by participating in the Article 10 that they have an obligation to represent me and are in fact doing so in a fair way with assistance they recognize and accept from the State. 

 And fortunately as I stepped back to examine it, it appears by the appropriate direction of our Boards we are almost to a solution ourselves, so let’s move forward and not let the fringe voices misdirect us from a compromise or a reasonable solution that you appear to support in the balanced Article 10 process.  This is where the Board and their supporters have moved on by participation in Article 10, and have wisely left the fringe voices behind to ensure fair representation of the whole community, and even me as a strong wind advocate. I hope my pro wind friends come to recognize we may have reasonable representation on the Town Board and should foster this relationship since they are finally moving on and leaving the fringe voices behind.  The Board’s continued support of the Article 10 process is critical to us now.

So despite my strong disagreements with this board, I at least strongly credit your reasonableness and willingness to recognize a renewable solution and participate and represent us all in a fair unbiased Article 10 process where even you recognize we can benefit from the State’s wise counsel by putting home rule aside.

 Sometimes like yourselves it is wise to recognize that individual rights should be trumped for the greater good.  Thank you!