It's not what BP put in their PIP but What they left out!

  

 The Town of Cape Vincent was recently made, aware that BP initiated a pre-– application process under Article 10. Subsequently, the Town of Cape Vincent

  Respectfully submitted the following comments for the consideration by the PSC in their review of BP's PIP.

The comments made by the Town  serve to remind us what path BP’s development process has taken in Cape Vincent and it is not what BP  put in their PIP but what they did not include  .

  Excerpts from the letter written by the Town of Cape Vincent to the Public Service Commission.

~~~~~~~~~~~~

In the 14 – page public involvement program statement most of this document, pages 3 through 10, describe public involvement efforts conducted prior to the adoption of article 10 rules. BP introduces its past public involvement history with the statement," it is necessary to understand the significant amount of public participation and outreach already conducted in the SEQR proceedings for the individual projects.

" BP" section 1001.2© of the article 10 rules suggesting the rules requires a review of the public involvement efforts under SEQRA .in our reading of this section, however, the rules do not require or even suggest outlining public reading of this section, however the rules do not require or even suggest outlining public involvement outside of, and which occurred several years prior to, the commencement of the article 10 process. Rather, we read this section is requiring the applicant to describe what measures it is presently taking, or intends to take, during the article 10 public outreach. Prior to actually submitting an article 10 application. Public involvement efforts, including those required by SEQRA,  that took five or more years have no legitimate value in an Article X permitting process going forward under that law. Much has changed since BP’s years old prior groundwork. Those earlier efforts are stale and have lost their validity.

Additionally, BPs past history with Cape Vincent was not as well received as they suggest in their PIP. BP's past efforts were well received by town officials, but not the community as a whole, because many of these officials have wind contractor were closely related to leaseholders of BP and Acciona. While addressing these wind related matters, these former town officials of wind leases were receiving money from wind companies. Because of those past conflicts of interest the entire SEQRA process and public involvement program by the wind industry was, at the very least, tainted. Most of those conflicted officials have now been replaced, either through elections or by new appointments. To underscore this point, BP failed to include in its exhibits a Watertown Daily Times story dated August 14, 2010, state probing officials said Cape, where the New York State Atty. Gen.'s office launched an investigation into the relationship between Cape Vincent's municipal officials and commercial wind developers . This investigation does not support BP’s Assertion that they had a “strong track record of close community engagement and outreach." On the contrary, it suggests a more than questionable record of community involvement.

Much of what BP outlines in their exhibits occurred between BP and their leaseholders and not the general public or the town. Moreover, little of the material listed  in their exhibits was forwarded to the town. None of it is currently in any count file; much of it was new to all of us. It was obvious from the exhibits attached to their PIP that most of their past public information efforts were directed at their leaseholder organization – Voters for Wind (VFW). VFW information, however, was never accessible to the general public, since membership was restricted to those who promise to support industrial wind development. Non- wind supporters were told on VFW's website they were not welcome.  

 Quantitatively, the majority of BPs past public information program was a one – way communication. Their efforts were directed more to telling us what they were going to do rather than a dialogue where they were listening to community concerns .

Link here to read letter