Monday, December 31, 2012

Lobbying blitz to save tax credits for wind energy


The Examiner
Tim Carney:  
Senior political columnist
Washington, DC
December 31, 2012 


The Washington Examiner
An all-star lineup of lobbyists, featuring former congressmen and many of Obama's closest allies, is fighting to save a tax credit for wind energy that expires at midnight Monday.
Congress created the Production Tax Credit in 1992 as a way of supporting the wind power industry until it could be self-sufficient. Twenty years later, the PTC is still subsidizing the likes of General Electric and Siemens and has been expanded to include solar and biomass. Companies get a tax credit of a penny or two for every kilowatt-hour their windmills or solar panels produce in their first 10 years. It's worth $1.4 billion a year to its beneficiaries. 

Sunday, December 30, 2012

Darrel Aubertine Defiantly not standing for the Pledge of Allegiance

Recently I did a post about Darrel Aubertine and the letter he wrote to the Cape Vincent Town Board members, encouraging conflicted board members to vote on wind turbine setback issues. Link here to read the post

 At the same time , I also posted a photo of Darrel Aubertine in the Senate, refusing to stand for the pledge of Allegiance.
This photo brought in a couple of comments disputing that it was actually Darrel Aubertine in the photo. 


(      (1)  I'm as antiwind as they come, but I would bet my neighbors windmill    lease that's not Darrell.


        (2)   The guy circled in the picture doesn't look like darrel aubertine. Maybe it's the way the shot was taken, but I have had three different people look at this pic. None of us think it's him.  



    Just saying... he can be blamed for a lot over the conflicts of interest with the windmill projects, but that's not him. 


      After  I posted the same photo without a circle around Aubertine,   

      a follow-up comment came in.

   ~  Alrighty then..the pic without the circle looks like Darrel. I stand corrected.
     
    As a result of these comments, I have received several emails  disputing my identification of Darrel Aubertine in the photo.   

I    Below is the copy of the  photo in question and a seating chart of the New York State Senate from the time period that Darrel Aubertine was a senator, if you look at the chart ,the person I Identified as Darrel Aubertine is sitting in the seat that is designated as Darrel Aubertine’s.   

There are others in the photo that are clearly recognizable as well.


 Image :Syracuse.com

Link here to original story ~Syracuse-area lawmakers who are seeking re-election played key roles in 2009 Senate coup ~ Syracuse.com






 Chart:NYDaily news
Link here to  view my  source of New York State Senate Seating Chart

“ A Cooperative Measurement Survey and Analysis

of Low Frequency Noise

This document is a report submitted to the Wisconsin Public Service Commission regarding Low frequency noise and infrasound at the Shirley Wind Farm in Brown County, Wisconsin.xx The following statement on page 8 of this report highlights the importance of its results.

 "The four investigating firms are of the opinion that enough evidence and hypotheses have been given herein to classify LFN and infrasound as a serious issue, possibly affecting the future of the industry. It should be addressed beyond the present practice of showing that wind turbine levels are magnitudes below the threshold of hearing at low frequencies.

 A Measurement Survey and Analysis of Low Frequency and Infrasound at the Shirley Wind Farm in Brown

Retroactive Wind Welfare?


“Everything in a stopgap package would be geared toward keeping taxes from jumping on the middle class, which is why the AMT (alternative minimum tax) and payroll tax would likely be in but the PTC (production tax credit) wouldn't,” Wu said.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
  E2 Wire
The Hills Energy & Environmental Blog
By Zack Colman  
An energy security group told The Hill on Friday that it does not expect the one-year wind credit extension it has supported to make it into a “fiscal cliff” deal.
The Truman National Security Project's Operation Free campaign is preparing to fight for a retroactive extension to the credit next Congress.

Saturday, December 29, 2012


Inside Out and Upside Down


  
At the December 20, 2012, Town Board meeting, a citizen made the following statement.

 "I'd like to address an issue, the new zoning laws – – there are problems that the organizers of the committee were not aware of and one of the problems was that the committee was made up primarily of, let me use the word -- outsiders."

Recently, a similar comment was also posted to an editorial by Perry White, on the Watertown Time’s website.  Among other things, this commenter wrote, The local government more resembles a white, retirement community than an actual functioning town board.” Additionally they added,The entire wind-related product of this carpetbagger council should be tossed aside.”

Are these comments an attempt to discredit the validity of our zoning law, by promoting a false premise? 
The characterization of the zoning law committee as outsiders is erroneous; every member of the committee that worked to update our zoning law, is a full- time resident of Cape Vincent.
    A certain element in our community, objects to a zoning law that was designed to protect the health, safety and general welfare of our entire community.

Yet, these same people openly accept, without hesitation ,each and every document and study created under the direction of BP , a convicted felon...     

_____________________________



 Zoning Law Committee

Zoning Law Committee
Years in Cape Vincent

Name
Full Time Resident (years)
Full Time + Part Time (years)



Bill Desouza
11
11
Bob Brown
5
58
Butch Cullen
25
35
Clif Schneider
43
49
Debbie Suller
   27.5
    27.5
Dick Macsherry
  5
   5
Ed Bender
18
  34
Ed Hludzenski
13
  13
Kathy Pierce
18
  18
Paul Docteur
70
   70
Urban Hirschey
12
    30



Totals / Avg.
247.5 / 22
350.5 / 31


Years in Cape Vincent

The Multiple Distortions of Wind Subsidies


Producers get so much from the government that they can pay utilities to take their power and still make a profit.

Federal subsidies for new wind-power generation will end on Dec. 31 unless they are renewed by Congress. For the sake of our economy and the smooth operation of the energy market, Congress should let the subsidies lapse. They waste taxpayer money, subvert the allocation of capital, and generate a social cost many times the price tag of the subsides themselves.
Since 1992, the federal government has expended almost $24 billion to encourage investment in wind power through direct spending, tax breaks, R&D, loan guarantees and other federal support of electric power. The Joint Committee on Taxation estimates that a one-year extension of existing federal subsidies for wind power would cost taxpayers almost $12 billion.

Attorney Todd Mathis

Editor in Chief

for Acciona's SDEIS

 Todd Mathis

  The Cape Vincent Planning Board's attorney,Todd Mathis  formerly of (Whiteman Osterman & Hanna) denied a freedom of information Law (“FOIL”) request submitted on behalf of Town residents for a copy of comments made By Mr. Tocci, sound consultant hired by Cape Vincent’s Planning Board.Consequently, the community had been unable to examine the full extent of Mr. Tocci's concerns over the sound study conducted by Hessler and Associates, for Acciona’s St. Lawrence wind project.
This denial was in violation of New York’s Freedom of Information Law.
The eventual release of the engineering documents revealed that Hessler ‘s sound study, prepared for Acciona and BP , underestimated noise from the proposed turbines, inadequately addressed noise mitigation , and exceeded the noise threshold contained in the towns noise “guidelines” (established in the original draft wind law ), which Acciona had previously agreed to abide by.

Mr. Mathis’s denial of this FOIL request also denied the community the opportunity to observe the extent of Mr. Mathis’s involvement in the preparation of Acciona’s SDEIS document.


OIIIMarch 20, 2009, before the community was allowed to see Acciona’s SDEIS Mr. Mathis sent an email to various representatives of (Acciona), and the subject of this memo was “Comments on St. Lawrence SDEIS.” This email is not just a comment letter about Acciona’s SDEIS. among other things the Mathis memo, addressed the noise portion of Acciona’s SDEIS and Mr. Mathis actually directed  Acciona as to what wording to use, what to eliminate and actually rewrote selected sentences to sanitize the SDEIS, thereby making it a more palatable document for the general public.

Mathis advised project manager Zedick to do the following.
section ~ 3.10.1
NOISE

  • Eliminate “Based on this constancy, there is no reason to believe that the sound levels at points in between the monitoring locations would be substantially different”


  • Eliminate “typical” “From a statistical perspective the Leq is the mean sound level that is most likely to be observed at any given moment; consequently, it is called the “typical sound level,” and replace with definition of Leq deleted from prior revision.


  • Eliminate “very conservative” from “The L90 measure is considered a conservative to very conservative sound level for assessing…”

  • Eliminate “Using only the L90 would give a biased result,” and replace with “Using the L90 is appropriate to evaluate impacts at sensitive receptors, such as residences.”


  • Eliminate the paragraph that starts “A regression analysis was performed…” and replace with “A regression analysis was performed using the measured baseline statistical sound levels and wind speed. The wind speed was measured in 10- minute intervals by an anemometer 40m (131ft.) above the ground, located within the site area. Sound levels were then plotted against the measured wind speed, which was normalized to a height of 10m (33ft). The distances from the anemometer location to sound monitor locations ranged from _to_ Results of this analysis show… [Provide discussion].”
  • Eliminate "There are no local ordinances or regulations that govern potential noise associated with the Project;" and replace with "There are no local ordinances or regulations that govern the methodology for assessment of potential noise associated with the Project"
    section ~ 3.10.2.1
  • Eliminate “…but as a temporary, daytime occurrence, construction noise of this magnitude may go unnoticed by many in the project area,” and replace with “but the noise will be temporary, occur during the daytime and be limited in duration.”

  • Prior to “Modeling results were compared to the NYSDEC cumulative incremental increase guidelines of 6dBa, which conservatively equates to a project- only sound level of 42dBa, as a basis for impact analysis,” insert:

    1. A description of parameters used in the CADN/A modeling which mitigate modeled sound levels; and
    2. Insert paragraph from section 2 of Hessler Report regarding veracity of modeled and potential variability.
  • Eliminate “conservatively” from “Modeling results were compared to the NYSDEC cumulative incremental increase guideline of 6dBa, which conservatively equates to a Project- only sound level of 42dBa, as a basis for impact analysis.”


  • Eliminate “nominal from “Only three residences on CR8 (between Route 12E and McKeever Road) and one at the intersection of Route 12E and Deerlick Road were found to have nominal Project sound level that was slightly above the 6 dBA potential threshold.”


  • Eliminate: “All remaining homes in the project area, and particularly the numerous houses along the St. Lawrence River shoreline, are well outside the area in which adverse Project noise impacts may occur,” and replace with “All remaining homes in the Project Area, and particularly the numerous houses along the St. Lawrence River Shoreline, are well outside of the area in which adverse Project noise impacts have been modeled based upon the L90 analysis.”


  • Eliminate: “An increase of less that 6dBA is not considered to be significantly adverse”

  • Eliminate: “Field experience indicates that these unavoidable and inevitable excursions are infrequent, and short-lived. For the vast majority of the time, sound levels will be close to the mean predicted value.”


  • Eliminate: “A change of at least 3 dBA is normally required before any real difference in sound level begins to be perceptible, so the cumulative increases of 2 dBA or less at some residences in the Project Area are fairly minor and do not represent a substantial change in the potential impact from the project when combined with the adjacent project. In summary, the reaction to noise would essentially be the same if only the St. Lawrence Project or if both projects were constructed.”
    3.10.3


  • Add mitigation bullet points as follows: “Additionally, turbine location will continue to be evaluated based upon potential noise impacts from the St. Lawrence project, as well as potential cumulative impacts from the St. Lawrence and BP projects.”


  • Miscellaneous:
    Confirm whether sound power level used in CANDA/A input is Acciona’s guaranteed spl or monitored spl.

MATHIS MEMO



Link here to Watertown Daily Times story ~
CAPE BOARD OKS REVISIONS TO WIND FARM IMPACT REPORT

Friday, December 28, 2012

Wind energy tax credits causing quite a stir in Congress


Date: Friday, December 28, 2012, 8:48am HST
The extension of the controversial wind energy production tax credit is causing quite a stir across the country and even closer to home as well.
More than 100 Hawaii residents have joined nearly 6,500 people in 25 states in signing letters urging Congress to oppose any extension of this production tax credit that expires at the end of this year.
To date, more than 200 U.S. senators and members of Congress have received the letter. Continue reading via this link

Thursday, December 27, 2012

Darrel Aubertine shares his thoughts...


 June 2009,then Senator Darrel Aubertine ~ refuses to stand  for the Pledge of Allegiance  


   In 2006,  Darrel Aubertine wrote letter to the Cape Vincent town board saying that since he'd missed a recent public hearing, he wanted to share his thoughts on whether two wind conflicted members of the board  need to abstain from voting on the location of wind turbines in Cape Vincent. Aubertine went on to say it was his belief that the board members in question should not abstain because "as elected representatives, we are responsible to make decisions for the benefit of our constituents and community."
  
 The vote in question would have a direct affect on the number of turbines allowed in Acciona’s proposed turbine array plan. Additionally, when Aubertine wrote this letter he had at least 2 wind contracts with Acciona .  


THE LETTER...

WINTER WEATHER!


This amazing stop motion video of snowfall in Washington, D.C.on 6 Feb 2010, set to White Winter Hymnal.Shared from Andrew Cutraro
,

 

 

Winter Storm Warning 

 
...WINTER STORM WARNING REMAINS IN EFFECT UNTIL 10 PM EST THIS
EVENING...

* LOCATIONS...THE EASTERN LAKE ONTARIO REGION.

* TIMING...THROUGH LATE THIS EVENING.

* HAZARDS...HEAVY SNOW.

For more info click title link

Lyme has been “ignored,” “marginalized” by state and BP Wind Energy, officials say


Wednesday, December 26, 2012

BP Good neighbor agreements...

This is a re-posting of a post from May 1,2012
I am re-posting this  because I have been getting an inordinate amount of traffic to this post.
~~~~~~~~~~

It is my understanding that by New York State Law , a good neighbor agreement cannot be used to subvert a communities zoning law. If these agreements were to be honored the land owner would essentially be writing their own land use variance.

Below are excerpts from a BP good neighbor agreement also known as an easement.
Additionally at the end of this post, I have added a link to a BP good neighbor agreement contract.

~~~
Good Neighbor
Although Grantee (BP)adheres to generally recognized wind industry practices and applies commercially reasonable measures to minimize effects of its wind farm activities on neighboring properties, will acknowledges the grantee's wind power facilities may still impact the owner's property. Owner has agreed to grant certain rights and easements to accommodate any impact that Grantee's (BP’s) wind power facilities they have on owners property.

This clause is an acknowledgement disclosure the landowner acknowledges that they are aware that there are impacts and they are giving informed consent.Wind farm operations easement.Owner grants Grantee (BP) an exclusive easement in, on, over, across and through owners property, for the purpose of allowing any audio, visual, view, light, noise, vibration, shadow flicker, air turbulence, wake, ice, electromagnetic, electric and radio interference, ice throw or other, whether created hazards, or other effect of any kind whatsoever resulting, directly or indirectly from any construction, development, repair, maintenance, replacement, or operation of grantee's wind power facilities or other of grantee's activities on wind farm.

This clause allows broad unlimited surface and subsurface property uses.Noise waiver.Owner grants Grantee and easement for the right and privileges to generate and maintain audible noise levels in excess of 50 dBA(L 90) on and above the noise easement property at any times of the day or night(" noise easement"). The "noise easement property" shall mean owners property, except those portions within a two hundred (200) – foot radius circle (or lesser distance with owner's prior consent). Centered on the inside of each presently existing, occupied residents on the owner's property. If noise levels produced by the turbines exceed 50 dBA (L90), as measured within (200) feet (or lesser agreed distance) from inside of a presently existing, occupied residents on owners property by an independent, professional applying commonly accepted measurement instruments and standards, grantee shall reduce the noise levels produced by the turbines to 50 dBA (L 90) at two hundred (200) feet (or lesser agreed distance) from the residence. Said noise easement shall further permit the grantee to generate and maintain audible noise levels, emitting from grantee's wind turbines installed on property adjacent to owner’s property, up to 55 dBA at the property boundaries.

This noise waiver allows Grantee (BP) to maintain audible noise levels day and night exceeding 50 dBA (L90). Noise may affect wildlife, as well as other landowners and the quiet enjoyment of the Owner’s Property.)Owner understands and acknowledges that by ordinance, and otherwise, Jefferson County and other governmental entities may now and in the future require, unless waived, certain setbacks of wind turbine generators from property boundaries based on their noise levels. Owner for itself and it's successors and assigns, as owner of the property, waives any and all claims that it may now or hereafter have against Grantee or against Jefferson County, New York, in connection with noise levels that may be generated on owners property by the wind farm.

Setback waiver 
Grantee(BP) or any affiliate of Grantee (BP) owns, leases or holds an easement in other land concerning or contiguous to the owner's property and has installed or constructed or desires to install construct wind power facilities such adjacent land at or near, the boundary with owners property, owner hereby waives any and all setbacks and setback requirements, whether now or hereafter imposed by applicable law, or by any person or entity, including, without limitation, any setback requirements described in current or future zoning ordinances. In Jefferson County, New York, or in any governmental entitlement or permit heretofore or hereafter issued to Grantee (BP) or such affiliate provided, however, Grantee (BP) agrees that no generating unit shall be located closer than 500 feet from owner’s property line or 1200 feet from any occupied residence on the property, such measurements to be calculated from the center point- of the generating unit.

Upon Grantee (BP) or an affiliates request, owner shall at no additional cost to Grantee (BP)execute(and if appropriate cause to be acknowledged) any setback waiver, setback elimination or other document or instrument reasonably requested by Grantee(BP), its members, or lenders, Jefferson County real estate of New York or any applicable governmental authorities in connection there were, – return the same for any applicable governmental authorities in connection there with – return the same thereto within 10 days after such request, and – provide such public support as Grantee(BP) may reasonably request in connection with any related zoning variance or other government applications by grantee(BP).This clause seemingly overrides without limitation, any setback requirements described in current or future zoning ordinances of Jefferson County.

Additionally the Owner agrees to execute a setback waiver as requested by BP or their lenders. and the owner will publicly support BP's request.

Link here to read entire Good Neighbor agreement

Wind Welfare 8/31 Must Die

Wind Energy Subsidies Must Die
Written By : Dave Blount
Right Wing News
December 26, 2012
8/31/12 Blue Moon Cape Vincent

By watching the “mainstream” media, you could get the impression that the crucial issue of the day is whether the government will be able to raise taxes high enough fast enough to avoid disaster. In reality, Big Government already has too much money if it has even a penny to waste on moonbat insanity like wind energy subsidies:



Since 1992, the federal government has expended almost $24 billion to encourage investment in wind power through direct spending, tax breaks, R&D, loan guarantees and other federal support of electric power.

 The Joint Committee on Taxation estimates that a one-year extension of existing federal subsidies for wind power would cost taxpayers almost $12 billion.
 Continue reading via this link 

Obama’s wind-production tax-credit swindle


Serves big business, hurts the environment


By Kevon Martis and Tauna Christensen
Wednesday, December 26, 2012
The Washington Times 


Regarding the federal deficit, President Obama famously said, “I will not support any plan that puts all the burden for closing our deficit on ordinary Americans [and yet does not ask] the biggest corporations to pay their fair share.” Now, however, Mr. Obama vigorously supports at least one policy that violates that pledge: the federal production tax credit (PTC) for wind energy.

Conceived in 1992 as a means to spur the construction of wind-energy facilities that could compete with monopoly-owned conventional fossil-fuel power plants, this hefty tax credit mostly has benefited the same monopoly: conventional nuclear and fossil-fuel-fired electricity producers.



 

Monday, December 24, 2012

Nearing fiscal cliff,wind industry waits

 By Sarah Harris
 with NCPR Player

 Dec 24, 2012 — Uncertainty over the future of production tax credits for wind energy producers has lead to a major industry slowdown. Now, the tax credit's fate is bogged down in Congressional "fiscal cliff" negotiations. For wind energy producers, the looming expiration date for the production tax credits, or PTCs, is getting even closer.

continue reading via this link









Row after claim wind turbine lifespan is just 10 years

By Jody Harrison | The Herald | 20 December 2012 | www.heraldscotland.com ~~

Wind farms are likely to run out of the ability to generate energy after little more than a decade of use – about half of the previously thought lifespan for the turbines.
An Edinburgh University study found that onshore wind farms, instead of lasting for 25 years without a drop in input into the grid, are more likely to reach the end of their lifespan in 10 or 12 years.

Continue reading via this link



Off and running

No matter the intangibles, the pace at which BP is moving this application along is sufficient warning to municipalities that to be a part of the process, you cannot drag your heels. Towns like Cape Vincent and Lyme and Clayton and Hammond, all of which have passed laws regulating commercial wind farm operations, will be bypassed and marginalized if their leaders are not ready to run with the big dogs,

 Perry White, Watertown Daily Times Staff Editor

 It should not have taken Cape Vincent officials long to see that they’d better get their track shoes on if they hope to have any influence on the state’s review of BP’s application for the Cape Vincent Wind Farm.

 Under Article X of Public Service Law, an application for any energy production facility bypasses local regulatory bodies and goes before a state siting board, which must shepherd the application through in 12 months. BP was facing a process at the town level that had little to no chance of being reviewed within a year, but with the passage of Article X, it’s like the company was able to jump in a plane to avoid all the traffic on local roads. What the town now fears is that BP will be in first class while the town struggles back in coach seats. Continue reading via this link

Saturday, December 22, 2012

The wind production tax credit still hangs in the fiscal-cliff balance


POSTED AT 12:11 PM ON DECEMBER 21, 2012

 BY ERIKA JOHNSEN ~ Hot Air 



With Congress and the White House currently concentrating their laser-like focus on averting (ornot averting, as the case may be) the fiscal cliff, the fate of various tax extenders is still very much up in the air, including the wind industry’s precious production tax credit (which covers about 30 percent of wind power’s costs — no wonder they’re so keen on keeping it around). The wind lobby is working overtime to convince Congress to pass an extension before the clock runs out on December 31st, but most lawmakers’ concerns are about the bigger fish we still need to fry before the end of the year.

House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) on Tuesday unveiled a “Plan B” approach to avoid most of the looming tax hikes, but it did not address the PTC or other so-called tax extenders. President Obama and Senate Democrats were quick to dismiss the offer.

Continue reading via this link

Wind industry tax credits should die


Go Erie.com ~ Letters to the editor: 


Wind industry tax credits should die 
Penn State Behrend Professor John Paul Rossi promotes the production tax credit, a subsidy for the wind industry, in his recent op-ed column (Erie Times-News, Dec. 8).
I have a different viewpoint. My research shows that production tax credit subsidies add billions of dollars of hidden costs and undermine the reliability of our electric grid. Most of the wind industry’s arguments supporting the PTC represent a case of “rent seeking” by an established industry wanting to maintain profits through a generous subsidy, at taxpayer’s expense.
Dr. Lesser, an economics textbook author, has researched almost four years of electric production in our grid. He found that more than 84 percent of the installed wind turbines failed to produce electricity when electric demand was greatest.
I drive through Somerset County in the summer and see hundreds of motionless turbines that do not deliver any power when there is high demand. The July 2012 heat wave was a perfect example. Dr. Lesser has found that the cost of integrating fluctuating wind power into the grid adds $500 million per year nationwide in costs.
Rossi mentions that Pennsylvania has 910 megawatts of wind capacity. Lesser shows that wind’s median availability is only 25.9 percent in our grid. The 910 MW of installed capacity really equals 235.7 MW of output. Who would want to receive electricity only 25.9 percent of the time? That’s what would happen if our homes were powered by electricity only produced from wind turbines.
Rossi is correct when he states that wind energy creates jobs. Construction jobs are temporary and out-of-state workers fill many of them. Operation/maintenance jobs are permanent, but limited to 3 to 5 full-time employees for many projects.
More than 75 percent of the wind capacity is in just 11 states. Why should taxpayers across the country have to support this industry? The PTC is a handout that distorts markets and allows unfair competition.
Laura Jackson
Bedford Count

Wind farm subsidies called into question by new study
 

by David Black,  The Journal

Dec 21 2012
“Bluntly, wind turbines, onshore and offshore, still cost too much and wear out far too quickly to offer the developing world a realistic alternative to coal.”

 MASSIVE subsidies for the onshore wind industry have again been called into question by a new study which found that the effective lifespan of turbines is much shorter than has previously been claimed.
 The study – which examined the performance of wind farms in the UK and Denmark – says the economic life of onshore turbines is between 10 and 15 years, not the 20 to 25 projected by the wind industry itself and used for Government energy projections.
  Continue reading via this link


APPARENTLY BUOYS REALLY ARE
 DESIGNED TO FLOAT!


Friday, December 21, 2012

Is Cape Vincent AG district in the NO Zoning Zone?



 At Thursday’s Town Board meeting Karen Stumph spoke about an issue concerning   the new zoning law, she felt there are problems that the organizers of the committee were not aware of …

   “one of the problems was that the committee was made up primarily of let me use the word – outsiders – – who had no knowledge of the rural community. “Mrs. Stumph said  .

Additionally, she said that the zoning map is deceiving in that much of the land in the outer districts is Agricultural ,she went on to explain that 80% of the River District is  Agricultural, and that 2/3 of the Lake and Recreation area is Agricultural district as well, which again means the township has no authority for land-use in Agricultural Districts, adding that any areas under the Agricultural Districts are immune and or exempt from the town rules and regulations regarding a land-use.

 To support her claim she said that she had spoken with authorities from Cornell Cooperative Extension, the Jefferson County Planning Department and  Agricultural (AG)and markets.

 This sounds credible, however it is not accurate. Farms in some cases are allowed to proceed with farm related activities despite zoning regulations. However the construction of an industrial wind  complex  is not exempt from zoning laws.

Is this a precursor to the road that the pro-wind will be taking? Will they be informing the Public Service Commission that they need not consider the Cape Vincent zoning law because it does not apply to the land slated for BP’s Cape Vincent Wind Farm?



  

Cape Vincent Comments to Public Service Commission

RE: BP ~ PIP


  
December 20, 2012
Honorable Jeffrey C. Cohen
Acting Secretary, NYS Board of Electric Power Generation Siting and Environment
3 Empire State Plaza
Albany, NY 12223-1350


Re: Case12-F-0410 Cape Vincent Wind Power

Dear Acting Secretary Cohen:
Regarding the revised Public Involvement Program (PIP) dated Nov. 12, 2012 from BP, there are several areas where the DPS made specific recommendations as to what actions were necessary to make the original PIP plan adequate. The following requests from the DPS were not met in BP's revised PIP, nor did BP provide a written explanation as to why it decided not to incorporate DPS's recommendations.
 We wish to make clear, for the record that BP’s revised PIP is substantially lacking.

From the DPS letter Oct. 17, 2012 “Pursuant to 16 NYCRR 1000.4 (e), Cape Vincent Wind Power, LLC shall within 30 days consider the measures recommended by DPS and, in a final written Public Involvement Program plan filed with the Secretary, shall as to each specific measure either revise the Public Involvement Program plan to incorporate the DPS recommendation, or provide a written explanation as to why it decided not to incorporate the recommendations.”

And

The PIP should identify a proposed Study Area, and identify any additional stakeholders or
stakeholder groups that are within that broader area. Representatives and residents of adjacent
municipalities (e.g., Town of Clayton; Wolfe Island, Ontario) should be considered as potential
stakeholders based on regional scale impacts of the proposed large-scale wind energy project,
and potential cumulative impacts with existing or proposed wind energy facilities in those
jurisdictions.”

However, Wolfe Island, an existing project, and Clayton, a proposed project, were not included in BP's revised PIP.

The DPS also wrote:

"In addition, we would appreciate it if you could provide DPS with some basic project
information including (a) a map showing the project area including the turbine array limits, and
the location of electric lines, substations, switchyard and interconnection points; and (b) a
description of the changes resulting in the consolidated project including the number and size of
turbines, their location, and the project boundary."

BP ignored this recommendation by DPS in their revised PIP and did not change a single feature of their original map "Exhibit 1- Map of Cape Vincent Wind Farm." BP's map lacks boundaries of the project, setbacks from property lines, location of turbines, a legend of host landowners and adjacent landowners. Locations of electric lines, substations, switchyards, and interconnection points are vague and indeterminable.
In BP’s revised PIP on page 4 there is a chart which describes setbacks distances from non-participating landowners, yet their map does not delineate which properties are non- participating making interpretation of setback distances impossible.

The DPS further writes:
3. The Plan should provide a preliminary specific (non-generic) identification of: (i) host
landowners; and (ii) adjacent landowners;….”

Again, no such information is included and the recommendations of DPS were ignored.

BP writes in their revised PIP “...has developed a list of stakeholders using the following criteria (a preliminary specific list of stakeholders is attached as Exhibit 3):”

Exhibit 3, however, lacks lists of specific host landowners and adjacent property owners. The Lyme Planning Board is not entirely represented and Clayton and Wolfe Island are not included. In this instance BP has failed to include what they said they would include!

DPS writes:

1. The Public Involvement Program plan (Plan) should identify: (c) the location of reasonable
alternative sites,…..” BP’s revised PIP has no alternate facility sites proposed, nor did BP provide an explanation as to why they ignored DPS's recommendations.

DPS writes:

9. The Plan should include a provision that the Applicant will prepare a monthly spread sheet style tracking report identifying public involvement program activities conducted by the
Applicant, summaries of feedback received in such activities, and summaries describing any
actions taken by the Applicant in response to such feedback.”

BP officially began their PIP Sept. 17. To date their website has neither summaries of feedback from the public nor summaries of actions taken by BP in response to feedback. It has been two months and their web-page is blank along with their response to DPS.

DPS writes:

Identification of goals and methods for specific consultations...d) provide a methodology to
measure the success of the outreach. “
BP responds in their revised PIP:

"...consultation will be deemed successful if information relevant to affected stakeholder or
agency was provided to affected agency or stakeholder,..” In addition to information requested in previous letters to the PSC and BP, the Town of Cape Vincent has requested:
An accurate map with specifics details
lists of host landowners and adjacent landowners
accurate and definitive size of project - 200-285 MW has a 42% variation
accurate numbers for productivity- not exaggerated by at least 3 times
acknowledgement that significant adverse environmental, social, financial, and cultural impacts exist

respect for our Town Comprehensive Plan and our Local Zoning Laws.

 In spite of these requests, BP chose to ignore the Town's requests in much the same manner that they have ignored DPS recommendations for improving their PIP.

There has to be some recognition in the Article 10 process between an applicant's rhetoric and their compliance with the law, rules and the recommendations of the DPS. In BP's Article 10 case they obviously talk better than they walk. Although we view the loss of home rule to be unfair to the interests of our community, we felt the rules that were promulgated by DPS attempted to balance the interests of all the players, us included. However, if BP continues to be unresponsive to these rules, as they have been with their PIP, then we foresee a continued adulteration of the Article 10 process. Governor Cuomo, during the signing of the NY Power Act 2011, stated that “the process will be fair,” and we hope and expect that the Siting Board will uphold the expectation of the governor.


Respectfully yours,

Urban Hirschey – Town Supervisor

Brooks Bradgon – Deputy Supervisor

John Byrne – Town Council

Clifford Schneider – Town Council

Michelle Oswald – Town Council

Richard Macsherry – Planning Board Chairman

Robert S. Brown – Planning Board

Cyril Cullen – Planning Board

Paul Docteur – Planning Board

Hester Chase – Zoning Board