Brainwashed!

To expand on a post I just did recently below about preempted wind laws.

The state and the Art. 10 process for siting large power plants (industrial wind included) has some people in such an obedient group think mind set, they are actually writing wind zoning regulations  that the state Art. 10 law essentially prohibits when it comes to large scale wind development.

These towns who stay within the lines of the state Art siting process and write absurd wind laws...they and their "expert"zoning lawyers are writing industrial wind zoning that requires a wind developer to come to the town for the application and permitting process.  When in fact the Art 10 law CLEARLY  prohibits towns from doing any such thing as requiring applications or giving such permits to large wind developers!

And this permitting power is not some part of your law the siting board later allows you to  have.  because the developers are, right now, REQUIRED  to go to the STATE with an application and for a permit...not the town.

If you stick within the Art 10 process the state took that application permitting power away from towns...and you ain't getting it back no matter how much you think you can defend your law!

So why are towns (and their lawyers) writing that permitting language into their wind zoning laws as if they still have that permitting authority when they clearly don't????   Do they not understand the Art. 10 law?

Or is that part of the zoning just a Tonka Toy wind regulation that doesn't really do what the big boy  state law does...but you can still pretend!!!

Article 10 - Proof of a Rigged System!

This is a quote from Cathy Orr who will be impacted by the Lighthouse Wind Project along Lake Ontario in W. NY.  She is discussing a meeting within the Art. 10 electric energy siting process...in this case a wind farm she objects to.

"At Somerset's May 2016 Town Board meeting, Supervisor Dan Engert informed us that the town was excluded from meetings being held between Apex and state and federal agencies regarding the proposed industrial wind project here — even though a request was made by the town to be copied on the conversations. Unbelievably, Engert's request was denied due to the claim that the information from these meetings was "proprietary."

"This lack of transparency — especially when we are the ones who are going to be stuck dealing with the destructive effects of these giant machines sited among our homes — stinks of corruption.
The New York State Public Service Commission is supposed to be working on behalf of all New York state taxpayers and ratepayers. Yet, when asked about the contents of the meeting, the PSC refused to allow Somerset to know what is being planned for our community. It appears Governor Cuomo's New York is now being run as a dictatorship. This is simply unacceptable!"

I believe beyond a doubt that the event Ms. Orr is describing clearly show just how rigged the state's Art 10 siting process really is and how it is stacked to the developers.

So I will ask once again...if the system is so rigged to be so much against a community and opposition and its input...the why in God's name do you want to participate in and enable it?

How exactly do you think you can win in a system that is so rigged against you?

Wind Zoning - Behind Before You Even Start!

I noticed in the latest edition of the 1000 Islands Sun there was a report regarding the Clayton Town Board meeting on Grindstone Island. 

The discussion in the meeting soon turned to the industrial wind development proposed by Iberdrola in the town of Clayton.

 In regards to wind development Clayton  town councilman Chris Matthews explained about the new comprehensive land use plan being drafted”  He refers to the wind issue in regards to Article 10 which is the state process the wind developers now have to use to site their large  wind projects.  The siting is no longer in the hands of the local communities since the state removed the home rule rights of local communities on this issue.  Of course this is a rather controversial issue when local community’s rights are preempted by a state law.  Mr. Matthews says this in the Sun paper:

“The (Clayton) Comprehensive Plan with regard to Art. 10 is very important.   Art. 10 is the state’s way to look at it (the project) and they can ignore our laws.  If our Comprehensive Plan is not in order they’re going to run right over the top of us, he said.”

Then town supervisor Mr. Storandt said this as quoted in the Sun:

“Last week we met with our special wind attorney to discuss what our new wind law should look like, and we considered items that should be added, drawing from wind laws from other areas of the state, he said”

Unfortunately based at least on these statements I’m not sure these gentlemen have fully grasped the issue surrounding Art. 10.

First, I would agree with Mr. Matthews that the comp plan is very important for a community, and having read what is available it looks like Clayton is doing a very good job with theirs.  As to its effectiveness against Art 10 that is another matter.  The state can still run right over you with their power to preempt your zoning laws no matter what your comp plan says or looks like.  And although they are connected in legal ways, it is the wind zoning regulations that will actually get overturned.

And if the state decides your zoning is “too burdensome” to the wind developer, it won’t matter what your comp plan says.   Your wind zoning  will get preempted, and that in essence makes your comp plan worthless in many ways, especially if your plan is about protecting scenic assets, which the Clayton plan does. 

So at least in the way Mr. Matthews is quoted he is putting way to much faith in the comp plan, ...even as good as it is, and confusing the issue.

And unfortunately both Matthews and Storandt seem to be missing something in the Art. 10 process.

They are talking about  writing wind zoning as if will protect the community.  But the state can preempt those laws if it sees fit.  

In fact Storandt and Matthews should grasp that when they draft a wind law, virtually half has been remove by the state already!!!  Virtually all of the procedural sections in the law, like in most of these types of wind laws, has been preempted.  Things like where, when and how the town requires the wind developer to present an application, getting a permit, fees, site pan reviews, variances etc...all preempted!

Why?    Because the developer no longer even goes to the town for any of those requirements written in that wind law.  The developer goes to the state Art 10 process with and application and to get a permit, not the town.

The state specifically took all those powers away from the local community.    And then the state siting board will determine if what’s left in your law will apply or not.  The entire point of Art. 10 was to take the siting of large scale generating facilities, like industrial wind, out of the hands of local communities.

 So if the Clayton town board  decides to write a wind law thinking  it will protect your community from wind development, they are in a system where they are already  way behind right out of the gate.  They aren’t telling you they are in a system that removed most of your rights in your zoning law even before it is written!!!  At least about half of your wind law will be irrelevant before it even starts.

I’m sure that Mr. Storandt and Mr. Matthews and the rest of the Clayton board mean well and are doing what they think is best for the community.  However, in my opinion that isn’t an effective way to protect your community by being obedient to the state Art. 10 system that has preempted nearly half of your law even before you start drafting it, and has the power to waive the rest!!!

I believe they should have stuck with their original idea a few months ago to prohibit wind development outright.

Be a Good Citizen???

I noticed this subtle little propaganda jewel on the Cape Vincent based JLL "supposed anti wind" blog run by Mr. Wiley.  He is talking in regards to the state Art 10 process that will determine if a wind developer will be allowed to site their wind project in your community.

JLL feels that you must participate in the process and write letters to the NYPSC objecting to these wind projects.  Well that's fine if that's what you want to do.  Go ahead and write your little heart out!

 However, there are a few of us who think that system is rigged. And there is NO question it took away a community's home rule rights on siting large wind projects and is a "fast track" for wind developers to site their wind projects and for the state to meet its aggressive renewable agenda.  So we choose not to participate in the system and have looked at other viable alternatives.

But on Wiley's JLL blog he is quoted as saying this:

The wind developer would love to have you boycott and ignore the New York State Public Service Commission record. 

Visit these links to follow good citizens and make your voice known

So the rest of us are BAD citizens because we don't agree with Wiley or want to enable a bad unfair rigged system?    

Isn't  that just like the propaganda of the wind developers calling you a "good neighbor" if you agree to not complain about the negative impacts of the turbines on you neighbor's property?  Otherwise you must be a "bad neighbor"?  See the subtle inference? 

So he wants you to participate in a rigged unfair system that took away your rights in your own community...and now he is using the wind company style propaganda to get you to be obedient to the system that actually favors wind developers!

And who's side is this guy supposed to be on???

Another Contradictory Comment to the NYPSC

"For example it's been demonstrated that turbines optimally should be placed one and a half kilometer from existing homes in order to prevent the health issues mentioned above."

Sounds reasonable enough ...right?  Actually 1.5 kilometers equals about 9 tenths of a  mile.

Well consider that this person is from Cape Vincent.   As this comment was submitted to the NYPSC CV had drafted a zoning law with wind regulations.  Those regulations require turbines to be set back 2 MILES from the shoreline and 1.25 MILES from many other things...including schools, hamlets, villages etc which this commenter references in another part of their comment.

OK...so why is this commenter implying that 1.5K or .9 miles should be  ANY kind of an acceptable  standard.  That doesn't even support the higher setbacks in their very own town law!!!

Well...somebody had told this person they had to write the PSC and get heard and be in the record.

 And in the RECORD they suggest wind turbines would be ok less than a mile from homes?  Not to mention this would imply that wind turbines are ok in the town as long as they meet this paltry setback. 

So are wind turbines an acceptable use in the town or not????  Apparently so!

And I am sure this would also be a person who would gripe about the negative impacts of turbines on Wolfe Island more than 2 MILES AWAY from CV!

And this is what we want in the NYPSC record!  Once again, a good wind company lawyer will have a field day with this nonsense. 

And people wonder why I suggest you should not write the PSC.  This comment like others is a vivid example why not!  

If you want to make a good case for wind development in your town...then follow the lead of this and other such comments to the PSC!

Wind Zoning Nonsense!

Below is a quote from a comment by a Cape Vincent official to the NYPSC in the Art 10 matter concerning the Galloo Island wind project.

"In spite of what developers and their advisers state, wind turbines do create harmful noise. While it is true that noise may not be always present, on many days the disturbance of air as it flows through the blades results in a dull, constant roar. I hear it from Wolfe Island on some days and I live nearly two miles from the nearest turbine."

Now it is important to understand that this CV official was deeply involved in the CV zoning process and I believe they are still part of the CV zoning administration.

As you can see, this person is trying to make a case that wind turbine sound at nearly two miles is detectable and could be disturbing.

OK...so logically I would have to ask..then why does the CV zoning allow wind turbines only 2 miles from the CV shore line?   And that is only from the shore.  What about those people who live inland where turbines are allowed who will be much closer to the potential disturbing noise?????

OR...why would you  restrict turbines to only 1.25 miles from the Seaway Trail which is route 12E along which their is more population density...OR...only 1.25 miles from hamlets, schools, and the  Village of CV boundary...OR...only approximately 3000 ft from other town borders?

And as I noted, this person knowing what they know about the turbine sound issues, was on the CV zoning committee.

The really disturbing part of this zoning law is this quote:

"...the purpose of this Section is to protect citizens from any potential negative impacts associated with WECS and also to protect the Town’s highly valued properties along the Lake and River from property devaluation associated with proximity to WECS"

So what about the health, safety and welfare and property values of the citizens in the CV interior where turbines are allowed?????  Apparently only the "high valued" properties deserve protection???

This zoning is outright discriminatory by favoring shoreline properties, and obviously by writing this zoning in this way they  have essentially endorsed this discrimination.  And they may have set themselves up for a solid legal challenge!

The point to be made here is just how screwy and contradictory you have to get to draft wind zoning regulations on a land use, the impacts of which can not be mitigated in the first place.

Now the other point is this comment went to the NYPSC concerning Galloo Island and the distorted logic used as a defense to oppose the Apex Galloo project (or Horse Creek in Clayton).  I can just see an Apex lawyer saying to this CV official..." why are you writng the PSC and opposing our project, when first, you are a  zoning official and in your town  the zoning YOU WROTE  allows  wind development...AND... the setbacks in your law allow turbines considerably closer to people and shore properties than our project on Galloo Island?

Now some people are going to say that  I am attacking.  Well...guess what...I did not write this contradictory or discriminatory zoning nonsense... the CV officials did in an effort to be supposedly "reasonable" in abject fear of the state Art 10 siting process and in the process sacrificed residents in the CV interior.  Don't have to believe me just look at the CV zoning map and see where turbines ARE allowed!

Here is a link to the CV zoning, see for yourself.

http://townofcapevincent.org/index.php/document-center/miscellaneous/215-cape-vincent-zoning-law-final-9-14/file.html 

The only real way to protect the ENTIRE town is to prohibit industrial wind which CV officials and their supporters refused to do. A ban just as Clayton proposed a few months ago and should  follow through on.

THINK...if you lived in the CV interior and did not want wind turbines near you...would you be happy with this law?  You were SACRIFICED!!!!
.

Atlantic Wind (Iberdrola) vs. The Town of Clayton, NY - Court Decision

The NY Supreme Court in Jefferson County ruled against the Atlantic Wind petition for an injunction against the Clayton moratorium specifically regarding wind study met towers  and on wind relayed development in the town of Clayton, NY.  Apparently this was only in regards to the injunction.  There is yet to be a hearing on the validity of the moratorium law itself.

Here is the related article in the Watertown Daily Times:

http://www.watertowndailytimes.com/news03/judge-claytons-moratorium-on-meteorological-towers-stands-for-now-20160715

In addition here is the Clayton defense response which I find far more enlightening in regards to the Art 10 law issue.  Thanks to John Droz for sending this information from his site.

http://wiseenergy.org/Energy/TI/Clayton_Lawsuit_Response.pdf