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

TOWN OF CAPE  Vincent

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