Honorable Jaclyn A Brilling Secretary NYS Board on Electric Generation Siting and the Environment

3 Empire Plaza
Albany NY 12223

 

RE: Case 12-F - 0410: Application of Cape Vincent Wind Power LLC for a Certificate of Environmental Compatibility and Public Need to Construct an approximately 200-285 MW Wind Electric Generating Facility in the Town of Cape Vincent NY Honorable Secretary Brilling, I am submitting comments on the following actions taken by BP regarding this project:

 

A. Revised PIP

 

B. Work Session of the Town Board of Cape Vincent, Town Board of Lyme, Planning Board of Cape Vincent and Planning Board of Lyme with Mr. Richard Chandler on October 23, 2013

 

C. Open House regarding this project held in Cape Vincent on November 10, 2013 D. General Observations  

 

A:  On November 17, 2013, BP submitted to you revisions to their PIP plan. Much of the revision is formatting as required by the Article X process with little change in the content or overall approach of the project plan by BP.  I have previously made extensive comments on the initial PIP submitted and will not repeat all of them.  Many of the comments I made in my September 25 and October 10, 2013 letters have not been addressed by the revised PIP.   I wish to draw your attention to the following points:

 

1.       In the Introduction section on page 1, BP states again that "the SLWF completed the SEQRA process with a favorable findings statement.....while the CVWF completed a substantial portion of the SEQRA process...."  These statements are (again) extremely misleading.  First, The SLWF did complete the SEQRA process.....technically.  The SEQRA for the SLWF was completely controlled by a Planning Board Chairman who did hold and still holds leases with BP. He claimed he could vote on the Acciona project since he was not a lease holder with Acciona. Since BP has now bought out this project, any decisions made by financially conflicted Planning Board and Town Board members should not be accepted in the Article X process. Article X  is designed to both streamline decision-making  and protect citizens. Under the SEQRA process in Cape Vincent, major concerns of citizens regarding sound studies, bird and bat studies, property values and health issues were completely ignored by the Town and Planning Board members who held leases with either Acciona or BP. The ethical issues involving this process are still under a NYS Attorney General investigation process that formally began in August 2010.  All work completed in the SEQRA process should be discarded now that BP has started a review with Article X. Second, the CVWF submitted a DEIS and the necessary hearings and comments were made.  Then a SDEIS was submitted to the financially conflicted Planning Board Chairman. This SDEIS was never formally accepted by the Planning Board, no Public Hearing was held and no public comments were accepted. So, in reality, the CVWF completed only Step 1 of the SEQRA process, not  "a substantial portion" as BP continues to claim.

  

2.       On Page 3, BP explains they have eliminated 11 turbines that were initially part of the two previously proposed projects by increasing the size of the remaining 124 turbines. They claim this was done to alleviate visual and sounds concerns about turbines close to the St Lawrence River.  This statement fails to address the multiple concerns of the community regarding placement of turbines in general.  BP does not recognize that visual and sound concerns were not limited just to homes along the St Lawrence River. The revised PIP states, "Studies are in the process to determine the relative impacts associated with a taller turbine."   What studies? When were they started, when will they be completed, when will they be explained to the community?

 

3.       On Page 4, there is a chart of setbacks that BP has used. There is NO explanation of any of these setbacks. A citizen has no way of comparing these setbacks to other wind farms, since this information is not usually provided by the wind farm developers. They appear to be simply what they think a community will accept and how much profit will come from the allotted number of turbines in the project. Cape Vincent Zoning Law clearly identifies scientifically substantiated setbacks, yet the setbacks used by BP violate our Zoning Law. Before the Article X Siting Board makes any decision on whether or not to set aside some or all of our Zoning Law I would expect that BP would be required to provide scientific evidence for the setbacks they chose.  I have yet to see any explanation of setbacks by any wind developer in any of the personal research I have done on these projects. BP has listed 16 other wind farms they own.  I reviewed these projects from the BP website. Each project page shows 3-4 pictures of the wind farm, totally 48-64 pictures. Only TWO of those pictures showed a residence in the picture. EVERY residence in this town will see most of the 124 turbines every day and hear them 24/7. This is only one reason why this community does not accept "wind industry standards" as an answer to what makes a good setback for an industrial wind development proposal  in a residentially dense community.

 

4.       On Page 4, there is once again a reference to financial gains for the leaseholders and community by referencing the "previously approved" JCIDA PILOT for another project (which has since been abandoned). As noted in my previous comments, this a misleading statement. Why is BP being allowed to continue to mislead the community with this information.? Below I will provide further details when I explain my personal experience at the Open House of November 10, 2012 regarding this topic.

 

5.        On Page 4, Section III there is a reminder of all the "outreach" done since 2007. This is listed in Exhibit 2. It is the exact same information on which I made extensive comments in my letter of September 25, 2012. Please refer to my comments in red on Pages 4-11 of my September 25 letter regarding the inaccuracy of the information provided by BP in this section.

 

6.       The remainder of the revised PIP contains the necessary charts to meet the Article X regulations.  I recognize it is the obligation of BP to meet the Article X regulations. Substantial comments were made by citizens regarding the PIP submitted in September. These comments have yet to be addressed by BP.

 

B:   Work Session with Mr. Chandler and the Town and Planning Boards of Cape Vincent and Lyme on October 23, 2012:  During this session, Mr. Chandler revealed for the first time a map of the proposed turbine layout. It clearly violated the CV Zoning Law. He heard unconditionally by every elected Town and Planning Board member present that the actions taken by BP since buying out the Acciona project in February 2012 were totally unacceptable. BP and the Voters for Wind group organized by BP choose not to participate in the fully public process of revising the Town Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Law. Instead, they waited 8 months to reveal what Mr. Chandler repeatedly said they believed was a "good project for this community."  There was NO explanation of what criteria made it good for the community. It was very clear that Mr. Chandler had completely ignored all the concerns raised by the community over the previous six years.

  

C:    I attended the Open House on November 10, 2012. Overall I did not find much new information at this Open House. Most citizens are well informed about how turbines make electricity and are very suspicious of wind company provided sound studies due to past experiences during the SEQRA process. The proposed map was available and some citizens had a chance to ask Mr. Chandler some questions directly.  Some  "Voters for Wind" members (wearing their green shirts) were in attendance. While I was there (for about half of the allotted time) I would estimate that the citizens in attendance represented the "hard core" pro and anti-wind viewpoints.  The Open House was announced in the local papers, but was not posted in the town locations where information about local events are usually seen. I spoke with many citizens after the event who knew nothing about the Open House. Effective communication with all town citizens was not evident by the relatively small number of people at the Open House.

 

       My first focus was a discussion with Mr. Chandler regarding the misleading information about the PILOT fact sheet and the money that it would allegedly bring to this town. I asked why he continued to use the Galloo Island PILOT example when the Jefferson County Industrial Development Agency has publically stated many times that this formula would NEVER again be approved as it was for this now defunct project. I indicated I believed it was misleading to the community. "It is NOT misleading....it was an approved PILOT by the JCIDA" was his response. I asked why he did not include the Town of Lyme and the Lyme School District, since, according to the Acciona Economic Report that Mr. Chandler has used as evidence for the combined project, clearly states that the PILOT money was to be divided among the FIVE municipalities, not the usual THREE as has been done in other NYS industrial wind turbine developments. His response was that the handout available at the Open House (and on the project website) was mostly meant for the people from Cape Vincent who would attend the Open House! I almost laughed out loud! Here is the project manager basically admitting that the Town of Lyme and the Lyme School District (and any of those citizens who might have chosen to attend the Open House) were really not very important. But, these groups are stakeholders in this project.

 

       Mr. Chandler repeatedly stated to me that "everyone would know that this was only an example." I told him I disagreed and that this information was misleading. He condescendingly stated that most people would understand that it was "just an example." I tried to point out to him that his perception of this as an example was not clearly stated on the information sheet. He repeatedly told me he disagreed. I had no effective communication with him on this topic.

 

       I became very frustrated with his lack of willingness to hear me out and accept that there just might be an opportunity to refine communication with the community. It was clear to me that his idea of communication is "telling you what you must believe." I have read in the PIP about BP being "open to dialogue with the community" but his actions did not communicate that message. In the revised PIP there are other examples about sound studies and property values which reflect the exact same attitude. BP's idea of "dialogue and communication" is to provide the BP point of view and expect that the community will accept it. That is not going to happen in Cape Vincent. Many citizens have spent many hours researching the multiple aspects of hosting an industrial wind turbine development. We have many questions that have not been answered by the previous wind lease holding financially conflicted Town and Planning Board members. We have used the democratic process to remove these people from office. We now have the opportunity to deal directly with BP - but that must be a DIALOGUE, not a dismissive statement meant to shut down any discussion.  I was extremely disappointed with Mr. Chandler's  clear message that real dialogue was not to be accepted. 

 

       At our Town Board meeting of November 15, 2012, (a few days after the Open House)during our public comments, Mr. Jim Wiley, a former Town Supervisor and well respected citizen made the following statement in the context of a review of historical events in Cape Vincent from the 1950's to the present. He stated (in regard to the current controversy regarding industrial wind development), "According to our newspapers, the School District will receive 50% of the PILOT, Jefferson County will receive 35% and the Town will receive 15% and we lose home rule."   In his mind this PILOT "example" is actually a done deal. (For your reference,  Town Board meetings are videotaped and available for public review on www.steveweedproductions.com.) This is a perfect example of the point I was trying to make with Mr. Chandler - lack of clarity in the ads and fact sheet on this topic makes people believe this is THE formula that will be used and the amount of money is correct. I urge to you to insist that BP stop misleading the community regarding any PILOT money that a project might bring. Stop allowing BP to lie to our community and to you.  Any example PILOT must be clearly identified as a "sample" and include the Town of Lyme and Lyme School District (as clearly explained on page 5 of the Economic Report prepared by Acciona and presented to the community in August 2011). See Exhibit F of the original PIP submitted by BP in September 2012.  This Economic Report in fact, quotes the Galloo Island PILOT example differently than the ads and fact sheets provided by BP. This report indicates that Jefferson County would receive 50% of the PILOT (not the School District). What is a citizen left to believe? At the Open House, I was convinced that Mr. Chandler had no idea what that Economic Report stated.

 

       My second focus at the Open House was a conversation with Mr. Joe Kushner, Supervisor of the Town of Eagle, NY which hosts the Noble Bliss Windpark.  I am assuming that Mr. Kushner was paid by BP for his time at this event, but since his town had been used many times by Cape Vincent prowind citizens to "prove" that an industrial wind project would be wonderful for our town, I was very interested to hear his story. He clearly stated that his community is very different from Cape Vincent.  When his town was approached by Noble Energy regarding this project, the town was bankrupt. Unlike Acciona and BP, Noble discussed the project with the town board before they contacted land owners regarding leases. The town board members also recognized that any individual on the board who might have a lease would have financial conflicts and could not participate in the decision process. No one on their board signed a lease. Also, his county did not have a county legislature or an industrial development agency to guide any PILOT decisions. Mr. Kushner was able to negotiate a very profitable arrangement for his town with a Host Community Agreement that gave the town 80% of the money the wind company put on the table. The remaining 20% was divided between the county, the school district and the town. That division gave the town an additional 8% - providing the town alone with 88% of any money the company had available. The project has been operating since 2008 and Mr. Kushner explained that he was in the right place at the right time and got a very good deal for his town. He also clearly stated that this will not happen again due to the changes with PILOT negotiations and the Article X process. Mr. Kushner is very supportive of wind development and told us that we should "just get the best money deal you can since NYS will force it on you anyway." While I did not agree with some of his opinions about the NYS process, I was pleased to hear the "real story" about Eagle NY.  Comparing Cape Vincent with Eagle NY is just like apples and oranges....they are very different. What was good for them will not even exist for us....we will not solve all of the Cape Vincent problems with a PILOT with any wind company.  The current BP "example" PILOT calls for our town to have 15% of the money....and of course we have to share it with the Town of Lyme.  That amount is very small compared to the 88% of the project money that goes to his town! The lesson I learned.....just because a project works for another community, unless it has the same characteristics as Cape Vincent (and I have yet to find a town like us that is targeted for wind development) it will not work for us.

 

 D: General Observations:  In the town elections of 2009, 2011 and 2012 every Cape Vincent town board member who had signed leases with either Acciona and/or BP were voted out of public office. The current town board has no members with any financial conflict of interest in the proposed industrialwind turbine development.  Citizens have used the democratic election process in this town to removeofficials whose decision-making was being driven by their own personal monetary gain.  Since BP no longer has the support of financially conflicted town and planning board members to guide the project hey  have turned to  the Article X process.  The citizens of Cape Vincent have stated a clear message at the ballot box.  Industrial wind development is not a good fit for this community and is not welcome in his community by the majority of citizens. Cape Vincent citizens who made positive comments on this website regarding the project in general and about the Open House of November 10,2012 are all either lease holders or friends/family members of leaseholders. They are entitled to their opinion but I believe it is slanted by the potential of financial personal gain should the project proceed.  Payments to leaseholders are listed by BP as another "economic advantage" of this project. BP states they have about 100 leaseholders(representing about 4% of our town's population) who will receive about one million dollars annually - or about $10,000 per leaseholder.  BP concludes on page 5 of the revised PIP, "The economic benefits of the Cape Vincent Wind Farm will play a critical role in providing a sustainable community that will ensure growth and economic strength for future generations."  I fail to see the connection between paying 4% of the town population about a million dollars a year and "ensuring growth and economic  strength for future generations."  Am I to assume they will all spend all their money in town or start a new business? What will happen to the 96% of the citizens who face certain property value loss and possible health issues? Will the Article X process protect ALL citizens?

The social fabric of this community has been torn apart by proposed wind projects.  The new Article X process has resulted in only two applications for proposed wind projects. This BP proposal is extremely large at 124 turbines (each about 500' tall)- with  EVERY residence in this town being within 1-2 miles of one or more of the 124 industrial turbines.   There is not another industrial wind turbine development in the country with the majority of citizen's homes this close to turbines. This project demands critical attention to every detail by the Siting Board members in order to insure NYS citizens that this process is designed to promote appropriate siting of large industrial wind turbine evelopments and provide protection for the health, safety and welfare of the citizens who are forced to live within these large scale developments.

 I appreciate the opportunity to post this information for the PSC to review.

 Sincerely,

Donna Essegian