BP's Tatics in Cape Vincent Ny

Wednesday, April 10, 2013

The voice of the clear majority has had no discernible impact on BP's determination to continue through the certification process for their CVWF

April 4, 2013
Acting Secretary, NYS Board of Electric Power
Generation Siting and Environment
Three Empire State Plaza
Albany, New York 12223-1350

Re: Case 12-F-0410 Cape Vincent Wind Power, LLC

Dear Secretary Cohen:

Governor Andrew Cuomo, at the signing of Power NY legislation in August of 2011, remarked
of the bill: "The act gives community members a voice in the siting process and will maintain
New York's position as a leader in environmental protection .... (It) affords communities more
opportunity to meaningfully participate in the siting process."

It's true that the legislation that created the new Article 10 law has given those who live in and
around Cape Vincent an opportunity to voice their opinions about British Petroleum's (BP)
proposed wind power project there.

We've taken the opportunity to read all 290 comments submitted to the Siting Board so far. By
our count, 224 individuals have expressed concerns about or outright opposition to the proposed
development. (Some individuals have submitted multiple comments.) Twenty-tour individuals
have expressed support.

Surely Governor Cuomo did not envision Article 10 as a device to force a wind project on a
community where it is thoroughly unwelcome. We trust that overwhelming opposition to BP's
efforts in our town for almost a decade will have a "meaningful" impact on the siting process.
Yet it appears the voice of the clear majority has had no discernible impact on BP's
determination to continue progressing through the certification process - showing no interest in
the dominant community sentiment.

Yet it appears the voice of the clear majority has had no discernible impact on BP's
determination to continue through the certification process. It has submitted a preliminary
scoping statement that willfully disregards every concern that our town government has
expressed since the project was proposed several years ago.

The Public Service Commission concluded that BP's public involvement program was
"inadequate" and subsequently recommended ways to "address the relevant requirements in the
new regulations." (Letter from DPS to John Harris, Oct. 17, pg. 2). BP was essentially non responsive.
BP has ignored or failed to heed the following recommendations:
· "Representatives and residences of adjacent municipalities" - specifically Wolfe Island -
should be considered potential stakeholders (Letter from DPS to John Harris, Oct. 17, pg. 2 - #4).
BP also ignored a request from Wolfe Island officials to discuss the project. (Letter from Dennis
Doyle to BP CEO Katrina Landis, Feb. 19).
· BP has not provided a map that clearly shows project boundaries, setbacks from property lines,
location of turbines, a legend of host landowners and adjacent landowners as well as more
specific locations of electric lines, substations, switch yards and interconnection points.( Letter from DPS to John Harris, Oct. 17, pg. 3). In doing so, BP has failed to meet the requirements of a
PIP as defined in the legislation as "ensur(ing) communication between stakeholders and an
applicant, and result(ing) in education of the public as to the specific proposal and the Article 10
process." (16 CRR-NY 1000.2ah)

· BP has not identified a location of reasonable alternative sites for this project. (Letter from DPS
to John Harris, Oct. 17, Attachment I, pg. 2, #1 c)
In addition, BP included several action items in its PIP - and the subsequent revision -that the
company never completed:
· BP identified nine (9) organizations in its PIP that it planned to contact, but did not
subsequently list in its chart of tracked contacts: Jefferson County, U.S. Department of
Homeland Security, New York State Department of Transportation, New York State Office of
General Services, New York State Empire State Development, Department of Defense
Clearinghouse for Energy Development, U.S. Federal Aviation Administration, National Grid
and the Thousand Islands Central School.
· BP did not follow through on its own plan to solicit input from stakeholders within the
environmental justice area.
· In its revised PIP, BP said it had created "fact sheets" on health & safety and
environment/wildlife topics (Revised PIP, pg. 22 - F). If those exist, they are not available on the
project's official website.
· In its revised PIP, BP suggested public comments from all of its public events and from its
office "may" be provided on their website (Revised PIP, pg. 22 - F). As of today, those had not
appeared on the site.
· In its revised PIP, BP said "responses to commonly asked questions from the 'open house' and
'Article 10 Intervenor' events will be posted on the website under' Frequently Asked Questions'"
(Revised PIP, pg. 24). That section does not exist on the website.
In summary, BP both ignored recommendations from your commission to "address the relevant
requirements in the new regulations" and promised - but did not follow through on – several

action items that would have better educated the public about its project.
In a visit to the north country last August, Mr. Cuomo called the Article 10 legislation "an
intelligence balance between local input" and an expeditious process. He praised home rule "as
very important - where a locality decides their destiny, "but added, "There also has to be a
reasonableness. Because we have to remember: At the end of the day, we need power."
We believe it quite reasonable to require BP to submit a public involvement program that is
considered adequate by any reasonable standard. I also believe it is reasonable to conclude that
if BP tells the Siting Board it will make a certain outreach, that they do it.
The community of Cape Vincent has spoken in near harmony. We have listened to BP
representatives for several years, but a steady series of non-answers leaves us with many
unaddressed concerns about the project's impact on their health, safety and welfare. When does
this opposition actually have a "meaningful" impact in the certification process?

Respectfully yours,

Urban Hirschey - Town Supervisor
Brooks Bragdon - Deputy Supervisor
John Byrne - Town Council
Clifford Schneider - Town Council
Michelle Oswald - Town Council

We the undersigned appointed officials from the Town of Cape Vincent endorse and
fully support this Town Board letter to the Public Service Commission regarding the
Article 10 application for the Cape Vincent Wind Power project  proposal

Richard Macsherry - Planning Board Chairman
Robert Brown - Planning Board
Cyril Cullen - Planning Board
Paul Docteur - Planning Board

R. Dennis Faulknham - Zoning Board of Appeals Charman
Ed Hludzenski - Zoning Board of Appeals
Keith Walker - Zoning Board of Appeals
Hester Chase - Zoning Board of Appeals
James Millington - Zoning Enforcement Officer

No comments: