September 25, 2012
Hon. Jaclyn
A. Brilling
Secretary, New York
State Public Service Commission
Three Empire
State Plaza
Albany, New
York 12223-1350
Re: Case
12-F - - Cape Vincent Wind Power, LLC, Public Involvement Program
Dear Secretary
Brilling:
The Town
of Cape Vincent
The Town
of Cape Vincent was recently made. aware
that BP initiated a pre-application process
for a wind
power project in our town under Article 10. We have read their Public
Involvement
Program (PIP)
proposal and we are rather surprised
at its lack of rigor. It appears
to be a .
hodgepodge of
materials slapped together to document what has occurred in the past with
little
foresight into what
is needed to move forward in the future. We
respectfully submit the
following comments
for the consideration by the PSC in their review ofBP's PIP.
In the 14-page
Public Involvement Program statement most of this document, pages 3 through
10, describe public
involvement efforts conducted prior to the
adoption of Article 10 rules. BP
introduces its past
public involvement history with the statement, "it
is necessary to understand
the significant
amount of public participation and outreach already conducted
in the SEQRA
proceedings for the
individual projects." BP then quotes Section 1001.2(c) of the Article 10
rules
suggesting the
rules requires a review ofthe public involvement efforts under SEQRA. In our
reading of this
section, however, the rules do not require or even suggest
outlining public
involvement outside
of, and which occurred several years prior to, the commencement of the
Article 10 process.
Rather, we read this section as requiring the applicant to describe what
measures it
is presently taking, or intends to take, during the Article 10
public outreach period
prior to actually
submitting an Article 10 application. Public
involvement efforts, including
those required by
SEQRA, that took five or more years have no legitimate value
in an Article X
permitting process
going forward under that law. Much has changed since BP's years old prior
groundwork. Those
earlier efforts are stale and have lost their validity.
Additionally, BP's
past history with Cape Vincent was not as well received as they suggest in
their PIP.
BP's past efforts were well received by town officials, but not the community as a
whole, because many of these officials
had wind contracts or were closely related to leaseholders of BP and Acciona. While addressing these wind related matters,
these former town officials with wind leases were receiving money from wind
companies. Because of those past conflicts of interest the entire SEQRA process
and public involvement program by the wind industry was, at the very least,
tainted. Most ofthose conflicted officials have now been replaced, either
through elections or by new
appointments. To underscore this point, BP failed to include in its exhibits a Watertown Daily Times story dated Augusl 14,2010, State Probing Officials at Cape, where
the
New York State
Attorney General's Office launched an investigation into the relationship
between Cape
Vincent's municipal officials and commercial wind developers (see attached).
This investigation
does not support BP's assertion that they had a " strong track record of
close
community
engagement and outreach." On the contrary, it suggests a more than
questionable
record of community
involvement.
Much of what BP
outlines in their exhibits occurred between BP and their leaseholders and not
the general public
or the town. Moreover, little of the material listed in their exhibits was
forwarded to the
town. None of it is currently in any town files; much of it was new to all of
us.
H was
obvious from the exhibits attached to their PIP that most of their past public
information
efforts were
directed at their leaseholder organization - Voters for Wind (VFW). VFW
information, however,
was never accessible to the general public, since membership was
restricted to those
who promised to support industrial wind development. Non-wind supporters
were told on VFW's
website they were not welcomed. BP needs to redirect their efforts in the
future in order to
have any credibility in the requirement for public outreach.
Qualitatively, the
majority of BP's past public information program was a one-way
communication. Their
efforts were directed more to telling us what they were going to do rather
than a dialog where
they were listening to community concerns. This should change under
Article 10. For
example, at the public hearing for BP's Cape Vincent Wind Power Project DEIS
on January 26,
2008, BP solicited public comment. Many people and various involved agencies,
including the PSC,
studied the SEQRA material carefully and collectively wrote hundreds of
questions in
response to BP's solicitation. Yet, today, four and one-half years later, not a
single
question has been
answered.
In another example, on April
14, 2010 the Cape Vincent Planning Board, then chaired by a BP
leaseholder,
brought BPI Acciona's sound expert to Cape Vincent for a presentation to
rebut
earlier testimony
from the Town's acoustic consultant. This was a big issue and an important
educational
opportunity. At the end of the presentation there were attempts by the public
to ask
questions, but
these individuals were cut-off by the conflicted Cape Planning Board Chairman.
His purpose was to
halt any view that opposed or questioned wind developers intent. In other
instances this same
conflicted chairman openly bragged that he failed to open letters from other
municipalities and
the general public prior to accepting the SEQRA for Acciona's project (now
BP's
project). This leads to one conclusion, that
wind developers see their role as giving us facts,
as they see them,
possibly allowing some chit-chat at an open house, but rarely responding to any
formal, public questioning. This,
too, should change under Article 10 and begin anew. We need
honest, open
dialog.
Suggested Changes to BP's Public
Involvement Program
We would like to
see BP go back to the drawing board and put more effort into their Public
involvement program.
BP needs to build some trust in Cape Vincent. Their efforts should be
directed toward
engaging the general public with less emphasis oriented toward their
leaseholders. In
addition, much of the information they cite is not up-to-date and much of it
little
more than BP
advertisements and public relations literature. We submit that it should be
plainly
obvious that they need to update
materials, especially their time-lines.
We have a few
additional suggestions that we believe to be essential to any proper effort to
inform and educate our residents:
1. Honest
treatment of important issues: BP correctly states that excessive turbine
noise,
property
devaluation and bird and bat kills along the migratory corridor are the major
concerns we have
for our community. We do NOT need to hear or read more propaganda
from BP that these
issues are phony and merely the rantings of overly sensitive seasonal
residents. BP
can build some trust by admitting these issues are legitimate concerns and
that our zoning law is designed to
deal with these issues.
2.
Maps and more maps: The most important information BP can provide to our
community
are maps outlining
turbine locations. We need large-scale maps that show all turbines
and interconnecting
lines that make up the total project, both the 200 MW and 289.5 MW
project
alternatives. The maps should include the 35 dBA sound emission contour, since
Cape Vincent's
nighttime sound limit is 35 dBA. There should also be smaller scale maps
that also include
property lines so that individuals can see turbine locations referenced to
their property.
Detailed project maps have been the most scrutinized documents in all the
open houses and DE
IS filings in the past. All other materials are of far less significance
to average property owners. Good maps
are a must in any public information program .
3 Turbine model description:
Specifications should be provided for the type(s) of wind
turbines proposed
for Cape Vincent. In the past, 1.5 MW turbines with heights of
approximately 400
ft were proposed, but recent information suggests larger sizes may be
proposed under the
Article 10 proposal. Cape residents want to know how tall the
turbines will be and they also need
information on noise levels and other specifications.
4.
Public hearing/open house: Along with BP's open house we suggest they include a
provision for an
informal public hearing where people can ask questions and get
responses that all
attendees can hear and understand. This format would be far more
informative than
any one-on-one communication.
5 Engaging local government: In their PIP BP suggests the only
interaction needed with
the Town of Cape
Vincent is to discuss infrastructure costs and what local zoning laws we
would elect to NOT
apply. We find their presumption and indeed, arrogance, on the issue
of our local law
appalling. At the same time, we welcome the opportunity to assert and
defend the importance
of public safety, property values and protecting the Cape's natural
resources. Since
financing is such a critical piece to wind development and nearly all
project developers
seeks some kind of local tax relief, it should be a requirement in its
PIP for BP to begin
a dialog with all the local taxing jurisdictions, including Towns of
Cape Vincent and
Lyme, T. I.
and Lyme school districts and Jefferson County. A single
meeting with
representatives from all these taxing authorities would be preferred.
6.
Justify supplanting our local law: Given BP's past conduct in this matter, it
is entirely
reasonable for us to believe that BP's
goal in initiating this application is to supplant ourzoning law, and to
have the local siting board declare it as "unduly burdensome." Since this issue is crucial to our
future, we believe we are entitled to see the rationale for throwing aside our
municipal prerogatives and trashing the zoning law that was designed
in good faith and with expert
consultation to protect the health, safety apd general welfare
of our citizens.
7. Justify ignoring
our Comprehensive Plan: Similarly, our Comprehensive Plan describes a
community that embraces its small-town
roots, values its natural, scenic and historic
resources. The Plan pointedly
states that a large wind project, similar to that proposed by
BP under Article 10, is not a good fit
for our community. There are just too many people
living in Cape Vincent to safely place
a large-scale, industrial wind project. Given that a
large utility scale project is a poor
fit, we would like to see BP's rationale for ignoring our
Plan and proposing to tum our
community into something it does not want and that will
be a detriment to our overall
prosperity - a highly industrialized energy complex.
8. Providing a solar
alternative: As much as industrial wind is a poor fit for our community,
we are not opposed to a commercial,
renewable energy project. In both our
Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Law
commercial solar projects are deemed better fits
and are encouraged as a renewable
energy development project proposal. Since BP has
completed other solar, renewable
projects in New York, i.e., Brookhaven, L.I., we
encourage BP to provide a solar energy
development alternative as part of their public
involvement program.
We appreciate the opportunity to
respond to BP's Public Involvement Program. Secretary
Brilling, we hope you understand why
we take this matter so seriously and why we will respond
to each and every proposal BP directs
toward our community, it is because after BP, the siting
board and your efforts are finished in
Cape Vincent, we the undersigned will be responsible to
deal with the aftermath.
Respectfully yours,
Urban Town Supervisor
Brooks Bragdon Deputy Supervisor
John Byrne - Town Council Clif Schneider – Town Council
Dick Macsherry - Planning Board Chairman Bob Brown –
Planning Board
Cyrl Butch Cullen Planning Board
Paul Docteur – Planning Board
Rockne Bums - Planning Board Edward
Bender – Zoning Officer
Dennis Faulknham ZBA Chairman
Keith
Walker - ZBA
Ed Hludzenski ZBA
Hester Chase ZBA
Joe Martin - ZBA
State
probing officials at
Cape
By BRIAN
KELLY
TIMES STAFF
WRITER
SATURDAY, AUGUST 14, 2010
CAPE VINCENT - The state
attorney general's office is investigating allegations of misconduct by
"certain" town
officials in connection with the development of wind
farms.
John T. Milgrim,
spokesman for the attorney general, confirmed that a letter was sent to
the town and
its attorney Friday
afternoon informing them an investigation had been launched,
Me. Milgrim also
confirmed that two senior members of Attorney General Andrew M. Cuomo's staff,
Deputy Chief of Staff
John B, Howard and Henry M. Greenberg, executive division counsel, were in
Cape Vincent about
two weeks ago conducting interviews of "parties interested in wind
power."
Me. Milgrim declined
comment on details of the investigation, including what prompted it or which
town officials may be
its focus.
According to the
letter, obtained by the Times, the attorney general has told the town it
must
preserve all town
documents, including those of the Town Council and Planning Board, and the
town
is not to delete or
purge any records until the investigation is complete.
The attorney general's
office is specifically requesting information about any present, past or future
wind farm development or
siting of the farms, as well as all information regarding wind turbines, wind
power and related facilities
or wind power projects.
The office wants all
information about wind farm development compiled since Jan. 1, 2005,
"whether
considered, planned,
attempted or completed, including, but not limited to permitting, licensing,
construction and energy
production."
By Aug. 28, the attorney
general's office wants:
• All documents relating
to town action on wind farm development, including, but not
limited to,
board minutes, board
packages, resolutions, voting records, communications, permits,
applications
and licenses .
• All communications
between or among town officials and any company engaged in wind farm
development.
• All documents
concerning any financial relationship between a town official, or their
relatives, and
a company engaged in wind
farm development, including, but not limited to, any
financial disclosures
filed with the town and
any board minutes reflecting any such disclosures.
The attorney general's
office is asking that town Supervisor Urban C. Hirschey and Planning Board
Chairman Richard J. Edsall, as well
as members of the Town Council and Planning Board, be made
available for interviews.
The office also wants to talk to anyone else who served on either board
since Jan. 1, 2005.
Acciona Wind Energy USA
has proposed a 51-turbine St. Lawrence Wind Farm for the town and BP
Alternative Energy has an
active application for the 62-turbine Cape Vincent Wind Farm.
The proposed projects
have caused controversies between pro- and anti-wind advocates, including
allegations of conflicts of interest among
town officials.
