Friday, December 21, 2012

Cape Vincent Responds to Public Service Commission's Response

Re: BP Donations

  December 20, 2012

Honorable Jeffrey C. Cohen

Acting Secretary, NYS Board of Electric Power Generation Siting and Environment 3 Empire State Plaza

Albany, NY 12223-1350

Re: Case12-F-0410 Cape Vincent Wind Power

Dear Acting Secretary Cohen:

Thank you for your prompt response to our December 12 letter. We appreciate the assurance you have provided that Commissioner Harris will not be a part of, nor have any influence on, the deliberations that lie ahead for us in BP's Article 10 project proposal.

We are somewhat puzzled, however, with your response to our concerns regarding BP offering donations to stakeholders in Cape Vincent. In your letter you state:

“You are correct that providing donations to community groups is not an activity listed in the PIP. Notwithstanding your concerns, the fact that the PIP does not discuss charitable donations to local service groups does not make the plan inadequate or preclude the involvement of any sector of the Cape Vincent community from participating in the Article 10 process.”

We are surprised that you see nothing questionable or unreasonable about BP giving money to stakeholders prior to the time these stakeholders will be asked what they think of BP's project proposal. You state donations do not make the plan inadequate, but adequacy was not the point we tried to make. Our concern was one of ethics and propriety, not adequacy. You also state that donations from BP do not disqualify a stakeholder from participating in the process. Again, our point was not stakeholder participation or eligibility. We were questioning the ethical behavior of the corporation that is supposedly operating under a law and rules which DPS is responsible for administering.

If the practice of donating money to stakeholders is so routine and ubiquitous,then it should have been included in the PIP. If the practice of paying stakeholders is not so unsavory, then why did BP's attorney John Harris and BP's project manager Richard Chandler remain silent when the practice was questioned at their November 6 Article 10 information meeting?

We are sorry, but we do not share the view that paying stakeholders prior to their engagement in public outreach is ethical, acceptable business practice. We believe donations by BP are not by themselves onerous. Rather, it is the timing of these offers that is unseemly and which taints the process.
Mr. Cohen, we would like to close with a constructive suggestion that may help resolve our discomfort on this issue, which is very important to us. We ask that you forward our collective correspondence on the issue of BP offering money to stakeholders to the New York State Joint Commission on Public Ethics and ask them for a advisory opinion. This approach would satisfy our concerns, and hopefully, provide some relief for DPS and the Siting Board as well.

The Problem in Cape Vincent is outsiders

In this clip from the Cape Vincent Town Board meeting 12/20/12, A Cape Vincent resident  states that there is an issue with the new zoning law.

 "There are problems that the organizers of the committee were not aware of and one of the problems was that the committee was made up primarily of let me use the word-- outsiders."





  

Thursday, December 20, 2012

The Clock is Ticking


STATE OF PLAY: The House and the Senate will work a rare Friday shift as the clock runs down on an expiring wind industry tax credit.

Lawmakers are focused on getting a deal to avoid a series of automatic spending cuts and tax increases set to take effect Jan. 1.

For now, proponents and detractors of extending the wind credit for one year are busy drumming up support for their sides. That credit expires Dec. 31.




British Petroleum,
Bribes, Cocaine, and Meth


By John Harding
On May 24, Mary L. Kendall, Acting Interior Department Inspector General’s memo to her boss, Secretary Ken Salazar, discussed an “Investigative Report,” titled “Island Operating Company, et al.”
Ordinarily, public release would have followed a formal MMS response, 90 days after getting it. But today’s events forced Kendall “to release it now,” saying her greatest concern is the “environment in which these inspectors operate – particularly the ease with which they move between industry and government.”
Kendall’s report stated, “Minerals Management Service (MMS) employees (in charge of inspections and oversight) accepted gifts from oil and gas production companies.”
Kendall found evidence that MMS and industry personnel fraternized and exchanged gifts, and have known each other since childhood. MMS staff used illegal drugs including cocaine and crystal methamphetamine and (just like the SEC) viewed pornography on their government computers.
Her findings were presented to the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Western District of Louisiana, which declined prosecution.
Kendall discovered MMS falsification of offshore oil rig inspection forms.  On October 15, 2009, she presented her findings on this to the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Western District of Louisiana who again declined the case for prosecution.

Golden Eagle Snatches kid

Parents Vow to move to Cape Vincent

 A Golden Eagle attempts to snatch a child in Montreal...

Parents of the child have vowed to move near BP's proposed Cape Vincent Wind farm, to protect their children from predatory birds.


Wednesday, December 19, 2012


T’was the night before Christmas


T’was the night before Christmas,

when all through the town,



The Wolfe Island turbines echoed a swooshing sound.



The wind leases were hung by the chimney with care,



In hopes that BP soon would be there;



The windies were nestled all snug in their beds,



While visions of riches danced in their heads.



Voters for Wind dressed in their green shirts and caps,



Had just settled in for their long winter naps.



When across the river arose such a clatter,



They sprang from their beds to see what was the matter.



Away to the window they flew like a flash,



Hoping to get a bag full of cash.



The shadow flicker hitting the new fallen snow,



Gave the luster of mid-day to objects below;



When, what to their wondering eyes should appear,


But a view of Wolfe Island and eight maimed reindeer.



 When They met with the blades,



More rapid than eagles their demise had come.


As the turbines chopped them up one by one...



~~~






PSC responds to conflict concerns

By JAEGUN LEE
TIMES STAFF WRITER
WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 19, 2012

 CAPE VINCENT — The state Public Service Commission has responded quickly to local concerns regarding a possible conflict of interest and promised that Commissioner Maureen F. Harris will not influence Cape Vincent Wind Farm’s state siting review.

 Mrs. Harris is married to John S. Harris, an attorney with Brown & Weinraub PLLC, Albany, who is representing BP Wind Energy in its proposed 124-turbine Cape Vincent wind project. Continue reading via this link

Tuesday, December 18, 2012

Public Service Commission Double talk

 December 12, 2012
The Town of Cape Vincent sent a letter to the Public Service Commission (PSC) regarding the money that BP has been throwing around our community.  Yesterday, the PSC's response to this letter was posted on the PSC website. Unfortunately the PSC’s response does not adequately address the concerns expressed by the Town of Cape Vincent board members. 

What the PSC wrote ~  
You  are  correct  that  providing  donations  to  community  groups  is  not  an  activity  listed  in  the  PIP. Notwithstanding  your  concerns,  the  fact  that  the  PIP  does  not  discuss  charitable  donations  to  local  service groups  does  not make  the  plan inadequate  or preclude  the  involvement  of any sector of the Cape Vincent community from participating in the Article 10 process.

Below is a portion of the Letter from the Town of Cape Vincent.

Recently BP began approaching a number of service groups in Cape Vincent offering to make
donations. At no point, however, in either the original PIP or its revision did we see any
reference to offering donations to stakeholders, especially prior to the time when BP meets with
these stakeholders to gather their input and comments. Aside from our first reaction that

donating funds to stakeholders is a questionable, ethical practice, if BP believes paying
stakeholders is perfectly ethical then why not include the practice in their PIP plan? Why not
have PSC staff comment on the approach?

We believe PSC should provide an opinion on these payments before BP continues with their
solicitations in Cape Vincent and before it becomes common practice within the Article 10
process. Furthermore, we believe at worst these donations appear to be bribes and at least
“facilitating payments,” which typically have been used by BP operating in less-developed
countries. Needless to say, we think this approach is totally inappropriate at this time and that
BP should cease this activity.



Public Service Commissions Response to Supervisor Hirschey's Concerns


  
Honorable Urban C. Hirschey
Supervisor  Town of Cape Vincent
1964 NYS Route  12E
Cape Vincent, NY  13618
Re: Case  12-F-041 0

Dear Supervisor Hirschey:
Thank you  for  your  letter dated  December  12, 2012  regarding the  Public  Involvement  Plan ("PIP") filed  by  Cape Vincent Wind  Power and  your concern  about possible conflicts of interest.  You state in  your letter that  Cape Vincent Wind  offered  charitable donations 'to  service groups  in  the Town  of Cape Vincent,  an  activity  which  is  not reflected in  the PIP.  You also expressed concern  about a  possible conflict of interest because the  attorney  for  the  project, John  Harris,  is  married  to  Commissioner  Maureen  Harris,  a  member  of the  Public Service Commission ("Commission").  I hope the following responds to your concerns.

As  you know, the New York State Board on  Electric Generation Siting and the Environment ("Siting Board")  is  empowered  to  issue  Certificates  of  Environmental  Compatibility  and  Public  Need  authorizing  the
construction  and operation of major electric generating facilities in New York State,  pursuant to Article  10  of  the Public Service Law. 
The statute and the Siting Board's regulations require a project developer to submit its proposed PIP to the staff of the Department of Public Service ("Department staff') for review and comment.

The purpose of this requirement is to ensure that the developer has an adequate plan  in  place to inform affected  communities  about  the  project  and  to  facilitate  the  public's  participation  in  the  Article  10  process.  
Cape Vincent Wind submitted  its  proposed  PIP  on  September  17,2012.  Department staff found  that the  proposed  PIP  was  inadequate  and  provided  suggestions  as  to  how  Cape  Vincent Wind  could  Improve  its  plan.  The  company submitted a revised PIP on November 16, 2012.

You  are  correct  that  providing  donations  to  community  groups  is  not  an  activity  listed  in  the  PIP. Notwithstanding  your  concerns,  the  fact  that  the  PIP  does  not  discuss  charitable  donations  to  local  service groups  does  not make  the  plan inadequate  or preclude  the  involvement  of any sector of the Cape Vincent community from participating in the Article 10 process.

Furthermore, you are correct that John Harris is married to Commissioner Maureen Harris, who is a member of  the Commission, and that Department staff serve as staff of the Siting Board in the Article  10 process.  You  stated in your letter that the community is very sensitive to conflict of interest issues.  I can assure you that the Siting Board,  the Department,  and the Commission  are very aware  of concerns  about potential  conflicts of interest.

First, the  Siting Board,  and not the Commission, will review  any Article  10  application submitted by Cape Vincent wind.  Commissioner Harris is not a member of the Siting Board and therefore Commissioner Harris will  not have  any role  in  that review.  While  it does not appear at this  point that there will  be any matters  related to the Cape Vincent project that are statutorily required to come before the Commission, Commissioner  Harris will be informed that this matter is pending before the Siting Board.

Second, Department Staff will ensure that Commissioner Harris does not receive any documentary information  pertaining to the Cape Vincent project and will be instructed, once an application is filed,  not to discuss this  matter with her.  Should an issue arise in the future  that requires Commission review, Commissioner Harris  will be required to disclose her relationship with her husband and to recuse herself from any consideration of  the matter.  The process of disclosure and recusal  is  consistent with the policies set forth  by the predecessor agencies to the Joint Commission on Public Ethics (see, for example, Advisory Opinion No. 95-35).

By statute, there  is a  distinction  between the Commission and the Department of Public  Service.  The chief executive officer of the. Department of Public Service is the Chairman of the Public Service Commission, not  the Commissioners, as defined in Public Service Law Section 3. Furthermore, the Commission .is  a separate  body within the Department, as defined in Public Service Law Section 4. As such, please be advised that staff  assigned to facilitate the stipulation process under Public Service Law 163 (5) do not report to and do not share information with any Commissioner other than the Chairman of the Department of Public Service,  as noted  above. Department Staff provide information to the Commissioners. pertaining only to matters that are within  the Commission's statutory powers and duties to consider.

I  hope that this  letter  provides you  with  a  greater' understanding of the  review  process regarding the Cape Vincent project, and all Article  10 projects. The Siting Board will make its decisions on the record developed in the review proceeding, assuming Cape Vincent Wind files  an Article  10 application.  Please contact me if  you have any further questions.

 Very truly yours  ,
Jeffery C. Cohen

Feds look other way as wind farms kill birds -- but haul oil and gas firms to court



The wind sector has had an exemption from prosecution under two of America’s oldest wildlife-protection laws: the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and the Eagle Protection Act. A violation of either law could result in a fine up to $250,000 or two years imprisonment. To date, the Obama administration -- following in the footsteps of the George W. Bush administration – has not prosecuted a single case against the wind industry. What they have done is gone after oil and natural gas providers for similar infractions.
 
December 16, 2012 by Barnini Chakraborty in Fox News

Washington - Lights left on during a foggy night last year at a West Virginia wind farm are thought to be behind the grizzly deaths of nearly 500 songbirds. 

The Production Tax Credit ~ is as brazen as a mid-day bank robbery on Main Street.

This story came from The Chattanoogan.com

Last Thursday in a speech from the floor of the Senate ,    Senator Lamar Alexander (Rep.Tn.) said the Proposed faze out of the Production tax credit 
Is a proposal that is as brazen as a mid-day bank robbery on Main Street. 
 Transcript of Senator Alexander's 
“The nation is consumed by the fiscal cliff.  From all I can tell, the Presidential limousine is moving very rapidly toward the fiscal cliff with the President's foot on the accelerator.  I am still hopeful we will get a budget agreement that will help us get the economy moving again, but at a time like this, of course, what we all need to be doing is thinking about saving every possible penny to fix the debt. 
“This government in Washington, DC, is borrowing 42 cents out of every dollar we spend.  That is why I come to the floor to point out a proposal that has been made to fleece the taxpayers out of an additional $50 billion over the next 6 years.  This is a proposal that is as brazen as a mid-day bank robbery on Main Street.  It is a proposal by the wind developers of America to say to the taxpayers:  Please give us $50 billion or so more dollars over the next 6 years to phase-out the Federal taxpayer subsidy for wind power.
“Why is this a brazen fleecing of the taxpayers?  First, this taxpayer subsidy began in 1992, 20 years ago, as a temporary subsidy for a new form of energy.  Of course, windmills are not really new.  We have had them for hundreds of years.  But the idea was to give them a little boost so they could get bigger and perhaps help us supply electricity.
“It was intended in 1992 that this would only be a temporary tax credit.  But as President Reagan used to say:  There is nothing that comes as close to eternal life as a government program.  So this temporary taxpayer credit has been renewed time after time after time.  It is 20 years old.  Now, after billions of dollars and 20 years, wind power is, according to President Obama's Energy Secretary, a mature technology.
“The Congress has decided that Federal taxpayer subsidies for wind power should end at the end of this year.  Everyone knows that.  This is no surprise.  It has been out there for a while, so businesses can plan on this.  In other words, it is time for wind power, the Congress has said, to take its place in our free market system and compete with natural gas, compete with nuclear power, compete with hydropower, compete with solar power---compete with other forms of power producing electricity.  After all, we produce and use about 20 to 25 percent of all the electricity in the world, and we want to make sure we have plenty of it and that it is a reliable supply at a low price. 
“Yet along came the wind developers who have benefited from this giveaway for 20 years -- I say giveaway because, according to the Joint Tax Committee and the United States Treasury, from 2009 through 2013 it has cost the taxpayers $16 billion to subsidize windmills in America.  Put that in a little perspective.  The federal government spends about $6 billion a year on all energy research.  We could be spending it there.  We could be reducing the debt.  Instead, we are continuing to subsidize this mature technology.
“But the brazenness of those who have been receiving this giveaway money -- it is hard to imagine how it could be exceeded by a so-called phase-out proposal.  They announced:  Phase us out over the next 6 years, through 2018.  In 2013 the credit would be 100 percent.  We would have the credit for next year at the same level it is this year.  That’s estimated to cost about $12 billion over 10 years. That is twice the amount of money we spend each year on energy research in America.  Then, in 2014, they want 90 percent of the previous full tax credit, and then 80 and 70 and 60 and nothing after 2018.
“I have not had a chance for the Congressional Budget Office to evaluate how much this phase-out would cost, but it is tens of billions of dollars.  One estimate is $50 billion new taxpayer dollars at a time when we are borrowing 42 cents out of every dollar to keep doing something that is already phasing out on its own terms. We cannot afford that.  We simply can't afford that.  We cannot afford 1 year more of the wind tax credit -- that is $12 billion -- on top of the $16 billion for grants and the production tax credit from 2009 through 2013.
“Second, it is interfering with the marketplace.  The subsidy to wind developers is so great they are actually paying distributors of electricity, in some cases, to take their wind power, which undercuts other forms of electricity on which we rely.  Why is that so important?  We cannot rely on wind power, because it only works when the wind blows.  It often blows at night when we really do not need it.  We have a wind farm in Tennessee.  It is the only one in the Southeastern United States.  Why?  Because the wind doesn't blow much in the Southeastern United States. 
“In Tennessee, somebody has a big contract with extra subsidies by the government to put these gigantic towers on top of our scenic mountains.  And how much electricity does it produce?  Not very much.  Of course, these turbines only generate electricity about 19 percent of the time, and it produces even less electricity when we actually need it.  You can fly over it or drive by these giant windmills at 4 p.m. in the afternoon in the summer when everybody has their air conditioning on and they need electricity, and not a single windmill is turning.  You might go at night and it is turning, but they don't need the extra electricity at 7 or 8 or 9 o'clock at night.  That is the problem around the country.  It is a puny amount of unreliable, expensive electricity. 
“The idea that the United States of America, using 20 to 25 percent of all the electricity in the world, would produce the largest amount of clean and reliable electricity by windmills is the energy equivalent of going to war in sail boats when nuclear submarines are available.
“Let's let wind power, after 20 years, find its place in our market.  There are clearly places where it should be fine.  But there is no need to subsidize it from the Federal Government; to cause the ratepayers of Tennessee, for example, to pay more to import electricity produced by wind from South Dakota when we should be using those dollars to lower our rates, to pay for air pollution control equipment, and to build nuclear power plants--of which we have several in the Tennessee Valley.  They are clean--they emit no sulfur, no nitrogen, no mercury, and no carbon.  That is the cleanest form of reliable energy we have in the United States.
“There may be some places where windmills work, but not along the tops of the Tennessee mountains or even in the valleys of Tennessee.  The idea of continuing to waste $50 billion of taxpayer money over the next several years to subsidize a mature technology at a time when the government is going broke is as brazen as a bank robbery in the middle of the day on Main Street.  I hope we put a spotlight on this $50 billion giveaway.  I hope it becomes the poster child for what is wrong with spending in Washington, DC.  I hope the Congress will come to its senses this month and next month and say no to those who come forward with their hand out for this $50 billion giveaway. “

Cape officials request ‘assurance’ commissioner will not influence wind project


Monday, December 17, 2012

Recommended Reading if you have the Stomach for it

Poisoned Legacy recommended by Lady Grace 

The Human Cost of BP's Rise to Power.


  The author describes how BP (British Petroleum) failed to live up to its promises as both an environmentally conscious and a safety oriented company, resulting in the catastrophic explosion in the Gulf of Mexico, and other previous environmental disasters as well.


A page from this book


It is hard to imagine a corporation having a worse season for operations than BP had in the spring of the macondo well blowout, and not just because of the deep – sea leak that began on April 20.
At the same time the oil and gas was streaming uncontrollably into the Gulf south of New Orleans, BPs Texas City refinery was releasing more than a half – million pounds of potentially harmful chemicals, including 8 1/2 tons of cancer – causing benzene, into the air around the plant on the Texas coast southeast of Houston.

The leak began April 6 after a fire shut down a key component of the refineries alter cracker unit that breaks down crude oil.  When the hydrogen compressor that normally collects waste chemicals from the process failed plant manager said the excess fumes of event topped by a flare that burned off some, but not all, of the chemicals. The result was a steady stream of toxic gases spewing into the atmosphere around the refinery.

BP could have chosen to immediately shut down the altar cracker unit, but that would have meant stopping the process of an estimated 65,000 barrels of oil per day, with each barrel worth between five and $10 in profits. Instead, plant managers decided to keep production going allow the omissions to that while the hydrogen compressor was being repaired. As a result, the Lee continued for 40 days, until May 16 resulting in an estimated release of 583,000 pounds of chemicals, including 17,000 pounds of benzene, into the air, state officials said later.BP inform the state on April 7 that it had an "upset" at the refinery requiring some releases beyond its permit limits, but it wasn't until June that the company reported the full volume of access emissions.

one nearby resident later told the New York Times that the humans had a brutal effect on her neighborhood, although no one really knew what was happening. " We all became real sick – throwing up, diarrhea, couldn't keep anything down – and we just thought it was something that was going around,"said Khristina Kelley, who lived about a half-mile from the refinery with her husband and four children," But then everybody around here got it."




link here to order your copy

Sunday, December 16, 2012

We have a voice they say, and we will use it ~ But will they listen?

 BP successfully bypassed the community at large ~ by using conflicted Municipal Officers as a means to facilitate the development of their project. Through the democratic process our community was able to eliminate the conflicted officials, thus removing BP’s influence/control over the approval process for their wind project.

August 4, 2011, Governor Andrew M. Cuomo signed The Power NY Act of 2011;   with the stroke of a pen our constitutional rights were usurped.

Our right to choose what we want for our community was stripped away, replaced by a one stop shopping approval process for power plants. As a result of this legislation BP is once again attempting to bypass our community, by pursuing their project through the Article 10 process.



 On the historic occasion, when Article 10, was being signed into law Carol Murphy, Executive Director of Alliance for Clean Energy, was on hand to give Governor Cuomo a pat on the back.



     
This is what Murphy had to say ~ 

Carol Murphy comments:

7:40 minutes into video

Today I commend … the gov for signing a bill that reinvigorates the energy industry “...while ensuring robust safeguards for our environment.”

"Gov Cuomo has repeatedly emphasized that investment in new power production must uphold New York's strong environmental protections.” “By providing resources to the communities to have a voice in the siting process and a clear timely path for decision making. The power NY Act recognizes the importance of involving all stakeholders in decisions about new power plant facilities; further this law will allow NY to become a leader in clean energy production and green jobs."


 Murphy said that Article 10 ensures Robust safeguards for our environment, and strong environmental protections. These are things that our updated zoning law will ensure for our community upholding Cape Vincent's strong environmental protections.
 ~~~~~~~~~~
The Governor's comments  suggest that small towns will have a fair process.  
We have a voice they say, and we will use it ~   But will they listen?  



 .

The Government Is About To Spend $28 Million On Wind Power

The Obama Administration on Wednesday gave a huge boost to the development of offshore wind energy projects in the U.S., of which there are exactly none, currently.
But that’s about to change quite soon, with the Energy Department announcing awards for seven offshore wind farms around the country, each project receiving $4 million for a collective $28 million.


Read more: via this link to business insider

Saturday, December 15, 2012

AWEA ~ Wind Welfare Argument does not Bode well for the future



 December 13, 2012

Denise Bode, AWEA’s  CEO, stressed that, “At the same time, our number one priority right now is not putting the wind industry over its own fiscal cliff. [AWEA  press release]

Additionally, the American Wind Energy Association sent a letter to Capitol Hill leaders, Dec.12, addressing separate parallel conversations that have been going on between the industry and Capitol Hill, about extending the PTC in the short term and the vision for the long-term future of the PTC, the association notes. To read the letter,