Governor Cuomo acknowledged there would be controversy associated
with siting issues, but that both sides would be heard in a “fair
process.” From the standpoint of a small
town like Cape Vincent, New York, that has been targeted for a major industrial
wind project, by a corporate giant coupled with the loss of control over the
decision making process to a state siting board, a fair process now becomes a
vital issue of survival for that community.
When Governor Cuomo and certain members of the Legislature
expressed the need for Article 10, one of the major factors cited was the need
to bring the entire siting process out into the open and above board. Too
often, wind developers had been operating in a clandestine fashion, recruiting
local public officials to become their leaseholders and, in full effect, their
local agents. Obvious ethical compromises created by these arrangements were of
no apparent concern to the developers, not least of which in this respect was
BP.
This kind of corporate behavior no doubt led the United States
Environmental Protection Agency to recently characterize BP as a corporation
that "lacks business integrity 1" Furthermore, this type of behavior by a
company currently seeking an Article 10 project approval should be exposed and
brought to light before a decision is rendered by a state siting board. Bad
conduct should matter. We would certainly hope that the Article 10 process is
not indifferent to persistent ethical lapses by an applicant.
1. New York Times, November 15,2012.
BP's agents and allegiances: What is apparent from the following is that BP
sought to distance the company from any direct involvement in public outreach
and community discourse, particularly activities that may have had a negative
tone and association. To do this BP
employed a community outreach consulting company, Trieste Associates, who in
turn created, nurtured and supported a community activist group taking the name
Voters for Wind (VFW). It was no coincidence, of course, that VFW was comprised
of many BP leaseholders or others who had a financial stake in the BP project
coming to fruition.
The Article 10 application process requires BP to engage the
community through a Public Involvement Plan (PIP). BP in its revised PIP [Exhibit 1.] describes their relationship with Trieste Associates
and VFW this way,
“In 2007, BP retained the services
of Trieste Associates and the company’s team of public outreach experts to
assist with planning events to educate and engage the public. As part of this
effort, BP assisted a group of local wind power supporters in the Towns of Cape
Vincent and Lyme to form a group known as Voters for Wind.”
BP is acknowledging a direct link to VFW as well as the thinly
buffered relationship through Trieste Associates.
BP's Agent Trieste Associates: Marion Trieste is the principal and founder of Trieste Associates. She provided a remarkable insight into her role and activities in a July 2, 2009 Wind Powering America Webinar [Exhibit 2]. In the webinar Trieste describes forming Green Energy Outreach Services (GEOS) to
“help our clients in the national and international wind
business to promote these types of projects all over the northeast.” She talked about her association with VFW in
Cape Vincent and BP.
“And this group here decided to
call themselves (voter) for wind to let it be known --they actually established
themselves two years ago. And I worked
with them with a BP wind power project here.
BP was - is the developer that I'm - I've been working with there.”
Trieste makes the case as to why BP needs to remain below the
radar screen in the public eye: “I always tell these developers (BP), you
know, you're there to help but pretty much stay away because, you know, we
don't want to be contaminated by, you know, people thinking that they're just
being used by the wind developers.”
Trieste outlines why her program is vital to the interests of
developers like BP,
“We can have Barack Obama”, we can
have all of our politicians talking about using more renewable energy but when
you start putting these, you know, turbines, large turbines in people's view
sheds, it's a totally different story.”
She continues, “So every little locality, every little town has
their own ability to make or break a wind farm by creating an ordinance, wind
power - wind development ordinance that's going to allow a wind farm in or say
no.”
Trieste is recognizing the importance of local politics, and more
specifically local zoning laws, to the overall success and outcome of BP's
project plans. In what could be
interpreted as subtle understatement she concludes,
“So we really need to get our local
politics, our public opinion leaders educated on this. What makes sense and
what it is that's really to their advantage in their community. And the best
way to do this is again through constituents. They're the ones who are going to
reelect them.”
Educating politicians in this context could include petitions and
lawsuits as well as pamphlets and brochures.
BP's Front Group Voters for Wind:
From all indications VFW was created
solely for the purpose of implementing BP's agenda. Their efforts included political, public
relations and, in all likelihood, measures to chill unwanted public discourse
and political speech though legal intimidation.
Trieste's webinar depicts some of the details about the function
and activities of Cape Vincent VFW:
“So we usually have folks prepared
with t-shirts or hats and that can really stand out in the crowd. So the town
board elected officials, whatever, can look out in the audience and they can
see oh wow, I've got a lot of supporters out here.”
This reference may have been suggesting those town officials who
had lease agreements and were also members of VFW. One of Trieste's prominent outreach tools are
petitions,
“When you have the silent majority
that aren't speaking out, you put a petition together and promote your wind
project to your town board members as, you know, before they're having, you
know, very important critical votes on allowing projects to take place or wind
ordinances being developed.”
The advocacy for the use of petitions by Trieste can be seen in
the history of actions of VFW; they carried and promoted a number of petitions.
BP's Lease agreements with their binding “cooperation clauses”: The single most common
characteristic among VFW members are their wind lease agreements [Exhibit3]. Wind companies infiltrated Cape
Vincent beginning in 2004 signing landowners to wind lease agreements prior to
any notification or public awareness of these activities. In particular,
developers appeared to
target sitting local officials, both elected and
appointed. These contracts were complicated legal instruments that many
landowners signed without the review and counsel of any personal
attorneys.
Aside from the usual language and contractual requirements there
is a remarkable clause, particularly for a local elected official, that
requires the cooperation and assistance of the land owner to expedite the wind
developer’s agenda [Exhibit 3]. Section
8.4 Requirements of Governmental Agencies: Cooperation states that landowners “shall assist and
fully cooperate” with BP in securing permits, approvals, environmental
impact reviews and essentially anything else required by BP to get local
approvals. All of this assistance
provided to BP will be “at no out-of-pocket expense to the Owner.” It was an astonishing indifference to basic
ethical standards for BP to seek a contractual obligation from local officials
to put their company ahead of the people the officials were sworn to serve.
Reading down through Section 8.4 the language is even more
compromising regarding general assistance.
“In connection with any
applications for such approvals, (Land) Owner agrees at Grantee's (BP)
request to support such application (at no out-of-pocket expense to Owner) at
any administrative, judicial or legislative level.”
BP's wind lease agreement appears to be a binding contract that
requires landowners to assist them in any way BP determines is
necessary and that the cost of such assistance shall not be borne by
landowners, but will be shouldered by BP alone.
It should need no emphasis to appreciate what BP may have intended
in contractually obligating loyalty, i.e., binding leaseholders to assist
BP. This requirement to “assist and
fully cooperate”, even extending
to public officials is shocking.
Voters for Wind's Vice President Munk's Testimonial: In a testimonial that appeared on the VFW website, [Exhibit 4],
Dawn Munk, Vice-President of VFW states:
“With Marion Trieste at our side,
this small group (VFW) developed a mission statement, elected officers,
developed by-laws, and began the task of reaching out to others.” “We have organized letter writing campaigns
and carried petitions and our group now has four committees regarding very
specific areas of concentration.” “The
staff at GEOS (Trieste affiliate) is with us every step of the way, providing
us with information, suggestions and technical and moral support.”
Munk's testimonial demonstrated that Trieste Associates/GEOS were
the guiding force for VFW and it further suggests that nothing of any
importance would be set in motion by VFW without the advice, consent and full
support of Trieste and BP.
Lawsuit against the Town of Lyme: On May 6, 2008 the Town of
Lyme adopted a wind law that was judged to be too restrictive to the interests
of VFW, Trieste Associates and BP. Then
on July 6, 2008 ten plaintiffs, all members of VFW, filed a lawsuit In
Jefferson County Court to force the Town of Lyme to rescind their newly adopted
wind law.
Public hearing on Lyme's wind law prior to adoption: In the process leading up
to the adoption of a wind law by the Town Council, Lyme officials set dates for
two public hearings. The first one was scheduled for Saturday January 5, 2008
at the Chaumont fire hall in Lyme. On the night prior to the hearing VFW
organized a meeting to prepare and outline their strategy for the public
hearing. The meeting was attended by a
reporter from the Watertown Daily Times who filed a report in the Saturday
edition – the morning before the first public hearing [Exhibit 5]. The article begins, “About 30 members of
Voters for Wind gathered at the fire hall Friday night to organize the opinions
they will share at the town public hearing today...” The article goes on to describe VFW
activities, e.g., monthly meetings, and their concern for setbacks for wind
turbines and limits to turbine noise levels.
Marion Trieste attended and was quoted in the Times article as saying,
“The ordinance calls for turbines
to be set back 4,500 feet, or more than five-sixths of a mile, from the lake,
which, combined with other setbacks, would leave virtually no space in Lyme for
turbines. This is the most restrictive
ordinance that I've ever seen in the state.”
At the Town of Lyme hearing the following day VFW members parroted
Trieste's charge the night before [Exhibit 6].
“The proposed setbacks are three times the setbacks of any other wind
project in the state,” said Dawn Munk (Vice President of VFW). Guy Gosier complained,
“This is not legal and none of the
town's business. These surveys were passed out with Town Board approval? Why
are the people of this town being shoved aside to meet the demands of a certain
few people?”
The surveys Gosier was referring to sought the public's attitude
toward industrial wind development in the Town of Lyme. Larry Comins then added, “The town's
informal survey was not a legal way of determining results for a yes or no
opinion on the wind tower project.”
These three commenters were members of VFW and were also among the
ten plaintiffs in a lawsuit that was filed against the Town of Lyme on July 6,
2008.
Lawsuit filed against the Town of Lyme:
In a report filed by WWNY TV 7 on July 11, 2008 the news broadcast
stated that a lawsuit was filed by ten members of VFW against the Town of Lyme
because they adopted a wind law that was “too restrictive and does not
adequately allow for the orderly development of wind energy facilities.
[Exhibit 7]” The news report further stated, “Members of Voters for Wind say
developers can’t work within those constraints.”
In addition the news report stated, “In the lawsuit, Voters for
Wind says the board failed to recognize their protest petition. The group says because a petition was
presented, the town board needed to have a 75 percent majority vote to pass the
zoning ordinance.” The lawsuit
therefore complained not only about restrictions on wind development in the
newly adopted law, but also on the alleged failure of the Town of Lyme board to
properly consider their petition of landowners.
August 15, 2008 Supreme Court Justice Hugh Gilbert ruled that,” The
Lyme Town Council acted "arbitrarily and capriciously" when it
rejected 10 property owners' petition protesting the adoption of a local law
regulating the siting of wind turbines.”
The law adopted on May 6, 2008 was struck not on the basis of the
restrictions to industrial wind development, but because of the improper
handling of the petition by the Lyme Town Council. While the complaint itself did not describe
any affiliation between the ten plaintiffs and VFW, the news reporting
frequently mentioned VFW and the lawsuit. [Exhibit 8].
Trieste Associates highlights the lawsuit against the Town of Lyme
as an achievement : After reading the WindWise Education
Curriculum supported by the New York State Energy Research and Development
Authority [Exhibit 9.] some may consider Trieste’s statements as confirmation
of Trieste/BP's involvement in guiding the legal action in the Town of Lyme. In this Education Curriculum a case study is
provided by Trieste Associates, a public relations firm from Saratoga Springs,
New York. The case study notes:
“Community opposition can delay or
prevent the installation of a wind farm. Trieste is hired to educate and engage
the community where controversial wind projects are being proposed.” “For example, Trieste Associates has
helped citizens organize groups such as Voters for Wind in New York that
educates the public about the benefits of renewable energy resources. Voters
for Wind filed and won a law suit against the elected officials who voted to
prohibit a wind farm in the Town of Lyme, New York.”
Regardless of Trieste/BP's denials about their involvement in the
Lyme lawsuit, the content of this NYSERDA sponsored document should be
considered carefully.
Article 10 Process – what's said and what's not said:
To reiterate, Governor Cuomo's message regarding Article 10 legislation
claimed that it would result in a “fair process.” Apparently unfazed by the governor’s words,
fairness would not appear to be a top concern to BP. It should be noted here , BP was recently
described by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency as a corporation that
“lacks business integrity.”
What BP considers fair undoubtedly was included in their slim and
cursory Public Involvement Plan (PIP) that was submitted to the New York State
Department of Public Service, as part of their Article 10 pre-application
process [Exhibit 1]. Those listed
outreach activities included: open houses, the use of local project offices,
public education events, local advertisements, project newsletters,
informational publications, and attending Town Board meetings.
In Exhibit 2 of their PIP, BP reached back in time outlining the
history of the outreach in Cape Vincent during the State Environmental Quality
Review (SEQRA) process, again noting the clean, ethical public relations
accomplishments. It was those so called
“accomplishments” (among others) that were fashioned by the kinds of ethical
abuses that led then Attorney General Cuomo to try to hold wind developers in
New York to greater public scrutiny. That effort was only marginally
successful.
The Article 10 process also provides an online forum for
stakeholder input, comments and recommendations regarding various siting
projects. At present there are more than 320 comments from the general public,
mostly opposing BP's project proposal. Presumably, these comments will be used
in some way to gauge public sentiment. The majority of pro-project commentary,
however, comes from unidentified BP leaseholders [they do not identify
themselves as leaseholders], who are being paid by BP and who are contractually
bound to assist and fully cooperate with BP to get their project approved.
A fair public information process should distinguish support and
comment from the general public from those being paid by BP to support their
project under the guise of general public support. A headline "Paid
Advertisement" should be required to accompany any of BP's leaseholder
commentary so that state siting officials will know and understand this is the
applicant speaking through their front group and contractually obligated leaseholders,
and not the general public.
Noticeably absent from BP’s PIP filing was any reference to using
lawsuits, although the Lyme lawsuit was highlighted as an achievement by
Trieste in the NYSERDA supported WindWise Education Curriculum. BP has no qualms pretending that its
relationship to Voters for Wind and Trieste Associates is no more than
incidental and inconsequential.
Remarkably, BP feels free to pick and choose on a whim as to what
is relevant and when.
Conclusion:
Cape Vincent is currently engaged in a fight to protect its future.
The threat comes in the form of an enormous industrial wind project that
would cover the town from corner to corner, and a project that is wholly
incompatible with the town and village's Comprehensive Plan.
Drawn into this struggle is the
neighboring Town of Lyme, through which new electric transmission
infrastructure would be required. Not only Cape Vincent and Lyme would be
affected by the proposed project. There would be significant adverse visual,
sound, economic and environmental impacts for miles around in all
directions. Several communities that
make up much of the famed Thousand Islands Region and the people who live there
and visitors alike would share the effects, directly and indirectly.
At risk could be citizens' health and
safety, the value of their homes, and the small town atmosphere residents have
valued throughout the town's history. The greatest immediate risk,
however, is two-fold: Cape Vincent's loss of local control, and the threat
posed by British Petroleum, a company whose less than stellar record and
reputation on the global stage is being mirrored by its conduct here in New
York's North Country.
The loss of local control will only
be compounded if the Public Service Commission fails to ensure that the rules
governing the Article 10 process are applied fairly, much as Governor Cuomo
outlined and promised.
Standing in stark contrast to a fair
process, is the corporate history of BP in the U.S. They have pleaded
guilty to a number of felonies, lying to Congress being one. In a remarkable
precedent BP has also been denied access to Federal leases as, a consequence of
their recent actions. The Environmental Protection Agency described BP's
corporate behavior best, saying that BP was “lacking business integrity.”
BP's history in Cape Vincent is no
better. BP's lease agreements provided a means to pay town officials for
their cooperation and in their PIP. BP has acknowledge a direct link to Voters For Wind as well as the thinly buffered relationship through Trieste Associates. It was Voters For Wind that filed complaints to remove perfectly
reasonable and prudent local laws and to block public discourse.
BP, incredulously, continues to
assert that they have the support of the community for their project. They simply do not. They choose to define the
community, for their purposes, as the small minority of town resident and
non-resident landowners who have signed lease agreements with them.
And
what cannot be overlooked in considering these matters, is that BP
never would have gained any developer toehold in the community were
it not for the fact that they compromised former town government
officials with financial inducements, and by binding those officials
to unethical contractual promises. Having tainted the process so
thoroughly, BP dismisses their own past actions as if they left no
mark on the town at all. The level of mistrust and resentment they
have generated by their actions will take generations to heal. And
yet, they would presume to go forward with a "fresh"
approach to developing their project as if their hands were perfectly
clean.
It is hoped that by restating some of
the history of the callous approach taken by BP in this development effort,
that regional, municipal leaders reading this, who are involved in shaping the
political, commercial and cultural life of our region, may have their eyes
opened fully to BP's abuses.
Also, there are those who reside in
Cape Vincent and the surrounding area who may have thought they had a general
understanding of the various tensions at work here. Regrettably, many still do not understand how
BP has worked many angles behind the scenes to manipulate, compromise, and
intimidate the common good of the community.
By their past actions in Cape Vincent
BP has demonstrated they are unfit. Cape Vincent deserves better treatment. BP
deserves to be sent away from here to allow the town and the region to recover
from nine years and counting of astonishingly arrogant corporate abuse.
After
a report surfaced last week that Bp wind plans to exit project
development as part of a restructuring announced internally, the
whole town is holding its breath.
We have had enough of BP's brand of
public outreach and it is time for them to stop; it is time for them
to go!
EXHIBIT [1] ~ Bp's Revised PIP
EXHIBIT[2] ~
Wind Powering America Webinar
EXHIBIT[3] ~ Wind Energy Lease Agreement
EXHIBIT[4] ~ VFW Testimonial Letter
EXHIBIT[5] ~ WDT~
Wind Farm Advacotes Prepare for Lyme Hearing
EXHIBIT[6] ~ Transcript, Lyme Wind Law Hearing
EXHIBIT[7] ~
WWNY TV 7 report /VFW lawsuit against the TOL
EXHIBIT[8] ~ Court Doc. Gosier V Town of Lyme
EXHIBIT[9] ~
WindWise Education Curriculum