Town of Cape Vincent Supervisor Tells BP's Chandler he is putting the proverbial cart before the horse.

December 30, 2012
Mr. Richard Chandler
Director, Business Development
BP Wind Energy
700 Louisiana Street, Floor 33
Houston, Texas 77002

Re: Case l 2-F-0410 Cape Vincent Wind Power

Dear Mr. Chandler:

Regarding your request for written confirmation of our meeting date and time, our meeting is scheduled for January 22 at 10:00 AM at our Rec Park facility. We intend the meeting to be a work session and not a forum. It will include Cape Vincent and Lyme officials, and we anticipate give and take vs. formal presentations. We will have a lunch served during the session and expect the meeting will continue in to the afternoon.

You state in your December 21 letter that you are "interested in eliciting specific local interests" for consideration when you again visit Cape Vincent in January. Among the areas of likely local interest you mention location and design, local public involvement, property taxes, payments in lieu of taxes, and highway work associated with your proposed project. Other details you mentioned include the potential for incremental operating and infrastructure costs incurred for police services, fire services, emergency services, water, sewer, solid waste disposal, and highway maintenance and other municipal services during construction and operations phases. In contrast to these detailed points in your PIP you mention the broad, general topics of potential negative impacts, adequacy of studies to address those impacts and applicability of our local law. The details you describe in your letter, however, are putting the proverbial cart before

the horse.

To discuss these matters at our January meeting, while BP is still in a public involvement phase of your proposal, and before any formal scoping process has commenced, strikes us as not only premature but highly presumptuous on your part. Should we be even talking about a construction and operation phase for a proposed project which is still only proposed and a long way from being understood, much less approved? It seems to us that BP has much more groundwork to do before it is anywhere near timely to be discussing such matters as fire services and solid waste disposal, etc.

Mr. Chandler, we are puzzled as to how you think it might be possible to productively engage in discussions on these and other matters without first having the benefit of a full range specific details regarding your proposal. All we really have is a poorly done map with little information other than 124 red dots within the boundaries of the Town of Cape Vincent. In our written communications to BP Wind Power, our face-to-face meeting and open house with you in Cape Vincent, and in our several written and publicly posted communications to the New York State Siting Board staff, we have repeatedly expressed our frustration over the poor details provided by BP for this project proposal and the lack of specificity in your development plans. In a very real sense we are operating in the dark, while you have the benefit of controlling the light.

Your letter does not in any way reflect or even acknowledge your appreciation of our ongoing difficulties in understanding the full scope and nature of your proposal for Cape Vincent and Lyme. If part of your purpose in wishing to come to Cape Vincent in January is to inform us more fully about the proposed location and design of your project, we would welcome that. We would also welcome discussing the issues mentioned in your revised PIP - namely the listing of potentially negative impacts, studies to assess their impacts and those parts of our local law you will be requesting that the Siting Board extinguish.

In your letter you mentioned the need to identify all of Cape Vincent's potentially applicable local laws and regulations. As you are aware all such laws are posted on the town's website and fully available for your review and study. In fact, after having reviewed our draft zoning law you sent us a letter on June 27 stating, " the provisions contained within the Proposed Zoning Law are unreasonably burdensome." If BP continues to hold this then on January 22 BP should be telling us specifically what parts of our law you will ask the Siting Board to supplant.

If part of your purpose for you visit to Cape Vincent in January is for you to better understand how you could improve your public involvement efforts, you need read the several publicly posted letters on that specific matter that we have provided to New York Siting Board staff. In those letters we have identified numerous specific shortcomings in BPs public outreach work to date.

In the closing line of your letter, Mr. Chandler, you say that you look forward to continuing dialogue regarding your project. We would suggest that true dialogue regarding your proposal (not yet a "project") has really not yet commenced. For dialogue to continue it must first begin. We do look forward to candid discussions with you on the substantive matters necessary for our evaluation of your proposal.

Respectfully yours,

Urban Hirschey - Supervisor

Tall Turbines make Good Neighbors...

It is my understanding that by New York State Law , a good neighbor agreement cannot be used to subvert a communities zoning law. If these agreements were to be honored the land owner would essentially be writing their own land use variance.

Below are excerpts from a BP good neighbor agreement also known as an easement.
Additionally at the end of this post, I have added a link to a BP good neighbor agreement contract.

~~~
Good Neighbor
Although Grantee (BP)adheres to generally recognized wind industry practices and applies commercially reasonable measures to minimize effects of its wind farm activities on neighboring properties, will acknowledges the grantee's wind power facilities may still impact the owner's property. Owner has agreed to grant certain rights and easements to accommodate any impact that Grantee's (BP’s) wind power facilities they have on owners property.

This clause is an acknowledgement disclosure the landowner acknowledges that they are aware that there are impacts and they are giving informed consent.Wind farm operations easement.Owner grants Grantee (BP) an exclusive easement in, on, over, across and through owners property, for the purpose of allowing any audio, visual, view, light, noise, vibration, shadow flicker, air turbulence, wake, ice, electromagnetic, electric and radio interference, ice throw or other, whether created hazards, or other effect of any kind whatsoever resulting, directly or indirectly from any construction, development, repair, maintenance, replacement, or operation of grantee's wind power facilities or other of grantee's activities on wind farm.

This clause allows broad unlimited surface and subsurface property uses.Noise waiver.Owner grants Grantee and easement for the right and privileges to generate and maintain audible noise levels in excess of 50 dBA(L 90) on and above the noise easement property at any times of the day or night(" noise easement"). The "noise easement property" shall mean owners property, except those portions within a two hundred (200) – foot radius circle (or lesser distance with owner's prior consent). Centered on the inside of each presently existing, occupied residents on the owner's property. If noise levels produced by the turbines exceed 50 dBA (L90), as measured within (200) feet (or lesser agreed distance) from inside of a presently existing, occupied residents on owners property by an independent, professional applying commonly accepted measurement instruments and standards, grantee shall reduce the noise levels produced by the turbines to 50 dBA (L 90) at two hundred (200) feet (or lesser agreed distance) from the residence. Said noise easement shall further permit the grantee to generate and maintain audible noise levels, emitting from grantee's wind turbines installed on property adjacent to owner’s property, up to 55 dBA at the property boundaries.

This noise waiver allows Grantee (BP) to maintain audible noise levels day and night exceeding 50 dBA (L90). Noise may affect wildlife, as well as other landowners and the quiet enjoyment of the Owner’s Property.)Owner understands and acknowledges that by ordinance, and otherwise, Jefferson County and other governmental entities may now and in the future require, unless waived, certain setbacks of wind turbine generators from property boundaries based on their noise levels. Owner for itself and it's successors and assigns, as owner of the property, waives any and all claims that it may now or hereafter have against Grantee or against Jefferson County, New York, in connection with noise levels that may be generated on owners property by the wind farm.

Setback waiver Grantee(BP) or any affiliate of Grantee (BP) owns, leases or holds an easement in other land concerning or contiguous to the owner's property and has installed or constructed or desires to install construct wind power facilities such adjacent land at or near, the boundary with owners property, owner hereby waives any and all setbacks and setback requirements, whether now or hereafter imposed by applicable law, or by any person or entity, including, without limitation, any setback requirements described in current or future zoning ordinances. In Jefferson County, New York, or in any governmental entitlement or permit heretofore or hereafter issued to Grantee (BP) or such affiliate provided, however, Grantee (BP) agrees that no generating unit shall be located closer than 500 feet from owner’s property line or 1200 feet from any occupied residence on the property, such measurements to be calculated from the center point- of the generating unit.

Upon Grantee (BP) or an affiliates request, owner shall at no additional cost to Grantee (BP)execute(and if appropriate cause to be acknowledged) any setback waiver, setback elimination or other document or instrument reasonably requested by Grantee(BP), its members, or lenders, Jefferson County real estate of New York or any applicable governmental authorities in connection there were, – return the same for any applicable governmental authorities in connection there with – return the same thereto within 10 days after such request, and – provide such public support as Grantee(BP) may reasonably request in connection with any related zoning variance or other government applications by grantee(BP).This clause seemingly overrides without limitation, any setback requirements described in current or future zoning ordinances of Jefferson County.

Additionally the Owner agrees to execute a setback waiver as requested by BP or their lenders. and the owner will publicly support BP's request.

Link here to read entire Good Neighbor agreement

Lyme has been “ignored,” “marginalized” by state and BP Wind Energy, officials say

“Now BP and our own state are ignoring the town of Lyme, our comprehensive plan and our zoning law. This is not new, as Lyme has been marginalized in the entire process,” Lyme officials said in a Dec.

By JAEGUN LEE
TIMES STAFF WRITER

THURSDAY, DECEMBER 27, 2012

CHAUMONT — Lyme officials said the town has been “ignored” and “marginalized” by both BP Wind Energy, developer of the proposed Cape Vincent Wind Farm, and the state.

Although there will be no wind turbines in the town under the developer’s latest proposal, BP still would need to run a transmission line connecting the wind farm to a substation in Lyme.

Continue reading via this link 

Off and running

No matter the intangibles, the pace at which BP is moving this application along is sufficient warning to municipalities that to be a part of the process, you cannot drag your heels. Towns like Cape Vincent and Lyme and Clayton and Hammond, all of which have passed laws regulating commercial wind farm operations, will be bypassed and marginalized if their leaders are not ready to run with the big dogs,

 Perry White, Watertown Daily Times Staff Editor

 It should not have taken Cape Vincent officials long to see that they’d better get their track shoes on if they hope to have any influence on the state’s review of BP’s application for the Cape Vincent Wind Farm.

 Under Article X of Public Service Law, an application for any energy production facility bypasses local regulatory bodies and goes before a state siting board, which must shepherd the application through in 12 months. BP was facing a process at the town level that had little to no chance of being reviewed within a year, but with the passage of Article X, it’s like the company was able to jump in a plane to avoid all the traffic on local roads. What the town now fears is that BP will be in first class while the town struggles back in coach seats. Continue reading via this link

Cape Town Board member comments to NYS PSC regarding Bp Article X proposed siting.

 BP outrageously states on page 7 of their submission that "the project is not anticipated to have a potentially significant adverse impact..." on the community.

December 23, 2012

Honorable Jeffrey C. Cohen

Acting Secretary, New York State Public Service Commission

Three Empire State Plaza

Albany, New York 12223-1350

Re: Case 12-F-0410 - Cape Vincent Wind Power

Dear Acting Secretary Cohen:

I am a member of the Cape Vincent Town Board. I am writing as an individual to add a comment on the revised Public Involvement Program (PIP) submitted by BP on 16 November 2012.

BP outrageously states on page 7 of their submission that "the project is not anticipated to have a potentially significant adverse impact..." on the community.

In fact,  the NYS Historic Preservation Office had come to the very opposite determination in a letter from John A. Bonafide to Andrew C. Davis dated May 28, 2008 for the former St Lawrence Wind project which proposed significantly fewer turbines but in a generally similar configuration. Mr. Bonafide wrote that "sufficient information does exist to determine that under section 14.07.1 { c ) of the NYS Parks and Recreation Law the undertaking will have an Adverse Effect on cultural resources. The introduction of the sleek ultramodern turbines forever alters and changes the rural setting which serves as backdrop for the architectural cultural and scenic tourism heritage of the communities."

The project map submitted with the PIP, although it does not indicate details requested by the Cape Vincent Planning and Town Boards, is sufficient to show that the proposed project is antagonistic to the Cape Vincent Comprehensive Plan and grossly non-compliant with the Cape Vincent Zoning Law. How could the proposed 124 industrial turbines not create an Adverse Effect on the community's inspired views along the St Lawrence River and Lake Ontario, its Broadway Historic District and its many distinguished Historic Preservation properties, as well as the community's predominantly view sensitive property tax assessment base and tourism based economy?

BP writes on page 3 in paragraph B that they have reduced the number of turbines in their proposal by 11 after an extensive review because of their proximity to the river in response to community feedback. The wording of the PIP is such that one might infer that there has been some outreach in this matter by BP to the community of Cape Vincent. This is categorically not the case. There has been to date no communication between BP and either the Cape Vincent Planning Board or the Cape Vincent Town Board on any siting issues nor has there been, as I see it, any communication that could be considered genuine outreach.

For the Article X law to function properly I believe there needs to be early on outreach to potential stakeholders and interested parties. Only by engaging insincere outreach can the economy of time and the fairness aspired to in the Article X law be achieved. To date BP has engaged only in token outreach. At the 23 October 2012 meeting between BP and the Towns of Cape Vincent and Lyme I asked Richard Chandler of BP repeatedly if BP intended to comply with the Cape Vincent Zoning Law. Mr. Chandler declined to answer evasively and willfully. In the initial BP open house empty statements and evasions were constants. An easel labeled 'Sound' was not supplemented by any data either technical or otherwise. In the second BP open house on the Article X law a power point on the process involved was read but no questions specific to the Cape Vincent project were answered. On the BP website to date the box in which "Outreach" is intended to be tracked remains blank.

1 have not been able to locate in the PIP a list of neighboring communities that shall be included as stakeholders and interested parties. This is an omission that should be corrected. Because of the size and scale of the turbines and because the overall region is relatively flat, view sensitive and the fact that there are historic preservation assets in many communities, careful attention should be given to possible regional impacts and the possible cumulative effect of all of the industrial turbine projects that may be constructed. Nearby communities in which projects reportedly may be built are the Towns of Clayton, Lyme, Orleans,Theresa, Hounsfield and Henderson. In Canada construction of wind turbines has been discussed in many areas on and near Wolfe Island and along the St Lawrence River. As we have experienced in Cape Vincent with the Wolfe Island project industrial scale turbines alter the view shed in a major way.

Affected parties have a right to be advised as to what is being proposed.

More outreach should be provided for the experts on the area as an important bird flyway. Wolfe Island is a recognized Important Bird Area and so is Derby Hill in Mexico NY. The entire Cape Vincent area should be evaluated as to the impact of turbines on migratory birds. Organizations such as Audubon NY, Onondaga Audubon, and the American Bird Conservancy should be consulted.

Finally the question should be asked if BP is minimally engaged in the Article X review process. The EPA has temporarily banned BP because of dishonest business practices from bidding on US government contracts. Should the PSC not have serious reservations about BP's repeated distortions of fact and apparent lack of genuine engagement in the review process?

Sincerely,

Brooks Bragdon

BP’s monetary gift came at inappropriate time

The more important point relates to BP’s Article 10 application for a 124-turbine wind project that would cover our town from corner to corner. For BP to have their proposal approved they will need to convince the state Siting Board that the town’s zoning law is too restrictive and that it should be thrown out. Our zoning law, however, was designed to protect the health, safety and general welfare of our community, and the town will fight to keep our law in place.

SATURDAY, DECEMBER 22, 2012

In a Dec. 14 letter, Paul and Elaine Mason claimed I was worse than Scrooge for questioning the intentions of BP for offering money to the food pantry in Cape Vincent. I thought I would explain what the Masons failed to explain.

In the Article 10 meeting with BP I never mentioned the food pantry in my questions to BP’s attorney, John Harris. I referred to service organizations in general, albeit the food pantry is one of the service organizations in Cape Vincent.
 continue reading via this link 

BP's Chandler confirms a meeting with the Town of Cape Vincent for Tuesday, January 23rd

BP Wind Energy

700 Louisiana Street, Floor 33

Houston, Texas 77002

December 21, 2012

Urban Hirschey

Town Supervisor

Town of Cape Vincent

1964 NYS Route 12E

Cape Vincent, NY 1361!

Re: Cape Vincent Wind Farm

Dear Supervisor Hirschey:

I am following up to confirm a meeting with the Town of Cape Vincent for Tuesday, January 23rd. I would appreciate it if you could provide written confirmation of the time, location, and format of the meeting, including whether the Town prefers a working session or a public forum.

We are interested in eliciting specific local interests for consideration in the development of the Cape Vincent Wind Farm, including, but not limited to, location and design, as well as suggestions for our approach to local public involvement activities. There are a number of items we would specifically like to discuss with the Town some of which are discussed below. We would ask that the Town identify or appoint a contact person with whom we should be engaging in discussions regarding issues such as property taxes, a potential payment in lieu of taxes agreement and highway work / road crossing agreements.

We would also like to consult with a representative or representatives of the Town to determine whether we have correctly identified all potentially applicable local laws and regulations. We have attached a copy of our Public Involvement Program plan (PIP) which contains all those potentially material adverse environmental and health impacts that we have identified as resulting from the construction and operation of the proposed facility, especially as they relate to the particular aspects of the environmental setting of the Town. If you have any other additional material impacts or effects of the project on the Town please let us know.

If you or the Town's chief financial officer would be available to discuss die potential for incremental municipal operating and infrastructure costs incurred for police, fire, emergency, water, sewer, solid waste disposal, highway maintenance and other municipal services during the construction and operation phases of the project we may be better able to estimate these actual costs.

Beyond direct contact with the Town, we are also interested in the contact information for interest groups or community leaders outside Town government that you would suggest we engage with.

Additionally, on October 29, 2012, we submitted a request (copy enclosed) to the Town Planning Board notifying the Planning Board of the continued operation of 7 meteorological towers in the Town and requesting confirmation regarding receipt of the notice. To date we have not received any confirmation regarding receipt of this notice and we would appreciate confirmation that this notice was received.

We look forward to continuing the dialogue on the Cape Vincent Wind Farm project.

Sincerely,

Richard F. Chandler

Director, Business Development

BP Wind Energy

Cc: Richard Macsherry

Brooks Bragdon

Mickey Orvis

Clif Schneider

John L. Byrne, III

Bob Brown

Cyril Cullen

Bob Cardarelli

Karen Bourcy

Rockne Burns

Paul Docteur

Cape Vincent Responds to Public Service Commission's Response Re: BP Donations

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.

 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.

Cape Vincent Comments to Public Service Commission RE: BP ~ PIP

BP officially began their PIP Sept. 17. To date their website has neither summaries of feedback from the public nor summaries of actions taken by BP in response to feedback. It has been two months and their web-page is blank along with their response to DPS.

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:

Regarding the revised Public Involvement Program (PIP) dated Nov. 12, 2012 from BP, there are several areas where the DPS made specific recommendations as to what actions were necessary to make the original PIP plan adequate. The following requests from the DPS were not met in BP's revised PIP, nor did BP provide a written explanation as to why it decided not to incorporate DPS's recommendations.

 We wish to make clear, for the record that BP’s revised PIP is substantially lacking.

From the DPS letter Oct. 17, 2012 “Pursuant to 16 NYCRR 1000.4 (e), Cape Vincent Wind Power, LLC shall within 30 days consider the measures recommended by DPS and, in a final written Public Involvement Program plan filed with the Secretary, shall as to each specific measure either revise the Public Involvement Program plan to incorporate the DPS recommendation, or provide a written explanation as to why it decided not to incorporate the recommendations.”

And

“The PIP should identify a proposed Study Area, and identify any additional stakeholders or

stakeholder groups that are within that broader area. Representatives and residents of adjacent

municipalities (e.g., Town of Clayton; Wolfe Island, Ontario) should be considered as potential

stakeholders based on regional scale impacts of the proposed large-scale wind energy project,

and potential cumulative impacts with existing or proposed wind energy facilities in those

jurisdictions.”

However, Wolfe Island, an existing project, and Clayton, a proposed project, were not included in BP's revised PIP.

The DPS also wrote:

"In addition, we would appreciate it if you could provide DPS with some basic project

information including (a) a map showing the project area including the turbine array limits, and

the location of electric lines, substations, switchyard and interconnection points; and (b) a

description of the changes resulting in the consolidated project including the number and size of

turbines, their location, and the project boundary."

BP ignored this recommendation by DPS in their revised PIP and did not change a single feature of their original map "Exhibit 1- Map of Cape Vincent Wind Farm." BP's map lacks boundaries of the project, setbacks from property lines, location of turbines, a legend of host landowners and adjacent landowners. Locations of electric lines, substations, switchyards, and interconnection points are vague and indeterminable.

In BP’s revised PIP on page 4 there is a chart which describes setbacks distances from non-participating landowners, yet their map does not delineate which properties are non- participating making interpretation of setback distances impossible.

The DPS further writes:

“3. The Plan should provide a preliminary specific (non-generic) identification of: (i) host

landowners; and (ii) adjacent landowners;….”

Again, no such information is included and the recommendations of DPS were ignored.

BP writes in their revised PIP “...has developed a list of stakeholders using the following criteria (a preliminary specific list of stakeholders is attached as Exhibit 3):”

Exhibit 3, however, lacks lists of specific host landowners and adjacent property owners. The Lyme Planning Board is not entirely represented and Clayton and Wolfe Island are not included. In this instance BP has failed to include what they said they would include!

DPS writes:

“1. The Public Involvement Program plan (Plan) should identify: (c) the location of reasonable

alternative sites,…..” BP’s revised PIP has no alternate facility sites proposed, nor did BP provide an explanation as to why they ignored DPS's recommendations.

DPS writes:

“9. The Plan should include a provision that the Applicant will prepare a monthly spread sheet style tracking report identifying public involvement program activities conducted by the

Applicant, summaries of feedback received in such activities, and summaries describing any

actions taken by the Applicant in response to such feedback.”

BP officially began their PIP Sept. 17. To date their website has neither summaries of feedback from the public nor summaries of actions taken by BP in response to feedback. It has been two months and their web-page is blank along with their response to DPS.

DPS writes:

“Identification of goals and methods for specific consultations...d) provide a methodology to

measure the success of the outreach. “

BP responds in their revised PIP:

"...consultation will be deemed successful if information relevant to affected stakeholder or

agency was provided to affected agency or stakeholder,..” In addition to information requested in previous letters to the PSC and BP, the Town of Cape Vincent has requested:

 An accurate map with specifics details

 lists of host landowners and adjacent landowners

 accurate and definitive size of project - 200-285 MW has a 42% variation

 accurate numbers for productivity- not exaggerated by at least 3 times

 acknowledgement that significant adverse environmental, social, financial, and cultural impacts exist

 respect for our Town Comprehensive Plan and our Local Zoning Laws.

 In spite of these requests, BP chose to ignore the Town's requests in much the same manner that they have ignored DPS recommendations for improving their PIP.

There has to be some recognition in the Article 10 process between an applicant's rhetoric and their compliance with the law, rules and the recommendations of the DPS. In BP's Article 10 case they obviously talk better than they walk. Although we view the loss of home rule to be unfair to the interests of our community, we felt the rules that were promulgated by DPS attempted to balance the interests of all the players, us included. However, if BP continues to be unresponsive to these rules, as they have been with their PIP, then we foresee a continued adulteration of the Article 10 process. Governor Cuomo, during the signing of the NY Power Act 2011, stated that “the process will be fair,” and we hope and expect that the Siting Board will uphold the expectation of the governor.

Respectfully yours,

Urban Hirschey – Town Supervisor

Brooks Bradgon – Deputy Supervisor

John Byrne – Town Council

Clifford Schneider – Town Council

Michelle Oswald – Town Council

Richard Macsherry – Planning Board Chairman

Robert S. Brown – Planning Board

Cyril Cullen – Planning Board

Paul Docteur – Planning Board

Hester Chase – Zoning Board

PSC responds to conflict concerns

“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 X process,” he said.


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

Public Service Commissions Response to Supervisor Hirschey's Concerns

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.


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

Acting Secretary


Link here to the PSC website