Yesterday I published a post concerning the incestuous relationship between the American Wind Energy Association (AWEA) the Alliance for Clean Energy (ACE NY)and the Cuomo administration.
As you may know,the NYS Department of Public Service has issued proposed regulations for the new Power Plant Siting Law, Article X /Power NY Act.
The public comment period is open (until 5/29/12).
Carol Murphy (Ace NY) has submitted a comment letter to the Department of Public Service
I have posted a portion of their 16 page letter below.
~~~~~
While ace New York continues to believe that a number of the exhibits include overly detailed, cumbersome and unnecessary requirements . All really detailed requirements will unsustainably increase the burden on applicants, constrain the decision-making ability of the siting board, and cause the state to lose investment and lose ground in meeting clean energy and economic development goals and the building of a vibrant clean energy economy.
Necessary Revisions
A. Criteria for Override of Local Laws
an essential component of article 10 is the ability of the developer to request that the siting board rule on a local law is unduly burdensome, which allows the developer to proceed in compliance with requirements set by article 10 itself and the board rather than the locality, for the particular requirement in question. Ace New York appreciates the need to consider the concerns of local communities and include opportunities for their participation in the siting process, but believes it is in the best interest of all New Yorkers for the board to retain its statutory discretion on this matter rather than allow overly restrictive implementing regulations to determine the factors that the board can consider.
The newly enacted statute provides an established standard for" overriding" local laws this is very similar to that which was in effect under the previous article X legislation and for which siting board president exists. Under article 10, the siting board" may elect not to apply" any local law that is" unreasonably burdensome interview of the existing technology or the needs of or cost to the ratepayers." However, the proposed regulations interpret that standard using narrower language that changes its nature and limits the board statutory authority and discretion. Article 10 legislation establishes standards for project approval; once those standards are met there should be a low threshold for showing the local laws, which impose additional requirements, are" unreasonably burdensome" and the burden should fall on the community to show the more restrictive requirements are well-founded (for example, a community with air-quality violations could have grounds on which to argue against a new emitting power plant). The law allows an application to argue that a local law is unduly burdensome and also allows the Board broad authority to grant the request. However, the proposed regulations adopt a much narrower approach and flip the burden of proof such that local standards, as opposed to the law of article 10, are the assumed threshold for compliance even if the proposed project meets the standards of article 10, the regulations as proposed would only allow for an override if the applicant could show it could not make project changes for narrowly drawn reasons.
The proposed regulations contain three different tests in order to qualify for a local law override, and none are in the law its self. It is the siting board's responsibility to permit projects that meet the needs of the state of New York. In doing so, it must be prepared to work for the benefit of the state as a whole. The law provides the board with the authority to do so well considering the needs and desires of local communities. However, the decision is ultimately for the board to make and its statutory authority should not be undermined and predetermined by limited – and unfounded – regulations that include tests not identified in the law. In addition, New York has newer operating generation where local laws have accommodated these plants while meeting community standards; the board should use these as a guideline and the implementing regulations, therefore, should not preempt the board's authority to do so by automatically presuming any local law is reasonable unless shown by the applicant to be otherwise. Finally, the regulations should ensure that applications need only consider local laws in existence at the time of the application. Local governments should not be allowed to enact or amend laws as obstacles to development after an application is filed.
The entire ACE-NY letter to the Department of Public service can be read at this link
1 comment:
"Finally, the regulations should ensure that applications need only consider local laws in existence at the time of the application. Local governments should not be allowed to enact or amend laws as obstacles to development after an application is filed."
But what do you do about the towns that were corrupt? With your leaseholders on the board, PREVENTING laws from getting written? Those communities, like Cape Vincent, should be exempt from any kind of rule that Chowder Murphy suggests...
Post a Comment