What will Friday May 10 bring from BP?

  March 29, 2013 Cape Vincent Wind Power, LLC (“ CVWP") filed a preliminary scoping statement(" PSS") for the proposed Cape Vincent wind farm pursuant to article 10 of the New York public service law(16 and why CRR – 1000.5 ). APSS is a written document intended to inform the New York State board on electric generation and siting(the “siting board”), other public agencies, and the public that CVWP is contemplating making an article 10 application parentheses the" application") to the siting board.

The Town, NYSDEC and the NYSDPS worked overtime to complete and file its reviews of BP's Preliminary Scoping Statement on April 19.  Since that time the ball is back in BP's side of the court.  According to Article 10 rules:

"Within 21 days after the closing of the comment period, the applicant shall prepare a summary of the material comments and its reply thereto, and file and serve its summary of comments and its reply in the same manner as it files and serves the preliminary scoping statement pursuant to Subdivision (c) of this section."

Mr. Chandler, BP's project director, must be working overtime to complete his summary of comments and BP's reply.  Consider, the Town had 80 pages of comments; NYSDEC had 58 pages and NYSDPS 60 pages.

While BP found no reason in its PSS to justify doing any additional work, remarkably, the Town and state agencies had enough new work for BP that they needed 198 pages to list it all.  The DEC said it the simplest, do it all over again!  The new project is sufficiently different that new studies are needed and we'll be happy to meet with BP staff to begin planning, they said.

What then are Chandler and BP's options with so many hurdles?  First, but with the least chance of occurring, is for BP to comply with each and every request.  This course would eat up time and money, neither of which BP wants to commit much of since they are involved in a yard sale for its wind business.

Another option is tokenism - agree to a few suggestions, but none that would materially delay the application or the project.  This approach, however, leaves Chandler and BP open to not having their application approved.  If the application isn't approved then the whole Article 10 process stops dead in its tracks.  

A third option seems to fit with how BP has done business in the past - stonewall.  They could provide a summary of comments without specifically acknowledging what they intend to do - does this sound familiar?  How about this line, we are taking all of the concerns issued by the Town, DEC and DPS under advisement?  Give a hint that you care, but in practical terms pay no attention to any of it.

This course of action will also run amuck at some point when and if BP submits its application.  Again, if BP chooses to ignore the rules then its application will be judged to be incomplete.  

Mr. Chandler has some difficult choices to make and what may appear as an easy way out now will only come back to bite him later.  What to do, what to do...