Hon. Jaclyn A. Brilling

   I wish to advise you of the following decision made by the US Environmental Agency against BP. The information printed below is copied directly from the EPA web site and I would expect that this important decision made by the EPA would have a direct impact on the proposed Cape Vincent wind factory making it impossible for BP to continue the Cape Vincent wind factory development.

~~~

Hon. Jaclyn A. Brilling
Secretary, New York State Public Service Commission Three Empire state Plaza
Albany, NY 12223-1350

Re: Case 12-F-0410 

Dear Secretary Brilling:

I am contacting you with regard to the proposed wind factory planned by BP (British Petroleum) in the town of Cape Vincent, New York. I wish to advise you of the following decision made by the US Environmental Agency against BP. The information printed below is copied directly from the EPA web site and I would expect that this important decision made by the EPA would have a direct impact on the proposed Cape Vincent wind factory making it impossible for BP to continue the Cape Vincent wind factory development.

News Releases - BP Spill

BP Temporarily Suspended from New Contracts with the Federal Government

Release Date: 11/28/2012
Contact Information: Stacy Kika, kika.stacy@epa.gov, 202-564-0906, 202-564-4355WASHINGTON - The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) today announced that it has temporarily suspended BP Exploration and Production, Inc., BP PLC and named affiliated companies (BP) from new contracts with the federal government. EPA is taking this action due to BP’s lack of business integrity as demonstrated by the company's conduct with regard to the Deepwater Horizon blowout, explosion, oil spill, and response, as reflected by the filing of a criminal information. On November 15, 2012, BP agreed to plead guilty to eleven counts of Misconduct or Neglect of Ship Officers, one count of Obstruction of Congress, one misdemeanor count of a violation of the Clean Water Act, and one misdemeanor count of a violation of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, all arising from its conduct leading to the 2010 Deepwater Horizon disaster that killed 11 people and caused the largest environmental disaster in U.S. history.
For the Deepwater Horizon investigation, EPA was designated as the lead agency for suspension and debarment actions. Federal executive branch agencies take these actions to ensure the integrity of Federal programs by conducting business only with responsible individuals or companies. Suspensions are a standard practice when a responsibility question is raised by action in a criminal case.
The BP suspension will temporarily prevent the company and the named affiliates from getting new federal government contracts, grants or other covered transactions until the company can provide sufficient evidence to EPA demonstrating that it meets Federal business standards. The suspension does not affect existing agreements BP may have with the government.

BP has had an incredibly poor record of death, personal injury and environmental destruction wherever they have done business and this should be taken into account by the New York State Board on Electric Generation Siting and the Environment should this matter reach the siting board as a result of the Article X process. With BP’s deplorable history I wonder how any of the siting board members could possibly curse a NYS community with a project associated with this company. Would any of the siting board members welcome this foreign company into their own community? If the answer to this question is NO – then how could the siting board members malign another NYS community by forcing an unwanted wind project upon them – particularly when the project owner has the worst record of safety of any company on earth? BP has been fined billions in the most recent Deep Horizon disaster in the Gulf of Mexico and punished in dozens of documented US industrial disasters prior to this latest adversity.

At the very least – the recent EPA decision should impact BP’s plan for a wind factory in NYS at Cape Vincent and halt the wind project. It is unfortunate that the NYS legislature and Governor have stripped New Yorkers of home rule on power plant siting instead of leaving these decisions within the affected community. As a result of this letter the New York State Board on Electric Generation Siting and the Environment is now aware of the US EPA decision AGAINST BP. The siting board should therefore reject any effort by BP to do business within NYS and exercise their Art. X powers wisely on behalf of the people.

Sincerely,

Alan Isselhard

Wolcott, NY 14590

BP BLOWS OFF CAPE VINCENT

BP ( Landis) Response to Cape Vincent's Concerns

Mr. U.C. Hirschey and Mr. R. H. Macsherry

Town of Cape Vincent

Jefferson County

New York 13618

Dear Mr. Hirschey and Mr. Macsherry,

BP Wind Energy North America Inc.

700 Louisiana Street, 33'd Floor

Houston, Texas 77002 

Larry Folks

Senior Vice President & Chief Development Officer

November 20, 2012

On behalf of Katrina Landis and the BP Wind Energy team, I wanted to let you know we

have received your letter dated October 30, 2012

I want to express our appreciation to the Board for taking the time to follow-up on BP's

plans to develop the Cape Vincent Wind Farm. We know that some in the community

have concerns about this project. Therefore, we look forward to exploring resolution of

these issues where possible. We are committed further engagement and dialogue

with the Board and community groups in Cape Vi cent and throughout Jefferson County

as we move through the Article 10 state permitting process.

I

This project will provide significant benefits to the r own and the community in an

environmentally and socially responsible manner. As we have discussed with the

Board, once built this wind project will provide Significant funds to local governments for

the improvement of schools, roads and other local infrastructure.

In addition to funds aiding local government priorities, annual royalty payments in

excess of $1 million will be paid to local land owner's once the wind farm is in commercial

operation. This income will enable landowners to supplement their income and remain

stewards of their land.

Furthermore, this project will provide an immediate boost to the local economy as

approximately 250-300 workers, hired locally where possible, would increase the

demand for local goods and services. In the long term, up to 15 permanent jobs would

be created to monitor and maintain the wind facility when it moves into full commercial

operation.

We look forward to continuing our dialogue with you and others in the community and

working with all Cape Vincent stakeholders to bring renewable power, jobs and

economic development to the region and the State of New York.

Yours sincerely,

Larry Folks

Cc:

Brooks Bradgon - Deputy Supervisor

John Byrne - Town Board

Clif Schneider - Town Board

Robert Brown - Planning Board

Cyril Cullen - Planning Board

Paul Docteur - Planning Board

Han. Jaclyn A. Brilling, Secretary, NYS Public Se ice Commission

 Screenshot of Original letter 

BP~ PIP ~ Acciona Drafted SLW Site Plan requirements

September 17, 2012 Bp Alternative energy submitted an application to pursue their proposed Cape Vincent Wind farm project under an Article 10 Process.

 As part of this process they are required to submit a Public involvement Plan (PIP).

 In their PIP, as an example of their prior community involvement BP included news letters that they sent to their leaseholders and letters sent by Acciona’s project developer (Tim Conboy) to their lease holders.
 This actually demonstrates their lack of involvement with our community at large.

 The letter below from BP’s PIP ,is an example of Acciona’s prior public involvement ~ a directive to their lease holders to challenge the wind economics committee during the Nov.18/2012,  town board meeting.
 Conboy even provided a fact sheet so lease holders can fulfill their "help Acciona" clause in their contracts.

 Additionally, note in the cover letter Conboy admits to drafting the site plan requirements (outline) that the PB acted on, but did not review or consider.

Below are the fact sheets  Acciona's Project Developer included in the letter to their lease holders.

Link to BP, PIP containing the letter cited above

Wind Developer using a flawed Sound Study

 Back in February of last year BP wind energy purchased the rights to Acciona's St. Lawrence wind farm and have combined  the Cape Vincent Wind farm with the St. Lawrence Wind farm ,  touting it as  a "new and improved" wind farm.

 To give BP's Cape Vincent Wind Farm credibility  Project developer Richard Chandler has been promoting the fact that the ST. Lawrence Wind farm's FEIS  had been accepted by the Cape Vincent Planning board.
 However ,the Planning Board that approved Acciona's FEIS was under the tutelage of a wind lease conflicted Planning Board Chairman.
Prior to this approval there had been controversy because  the Town of Cape Vincent's sound consultant had issues with the methodology used by the developers sound consultant in their noise  study for the St. Lawrence Wind project.

  Planning Board Chair Richard Edsall accepted Acciona’s FEIS, against the recommendations of the Lyme PB and ignored the noise recommendations of the town's  own consultant, Cavanaugh Tocci.

 Below is a  letter that was sent by Tim Conboy , Acciona's Senior Project  Manager for the St. Lawrence wind project,to Planning Board Chair  Richard Edsall ,telling him what position is supported by Acciona.
 Is Conboy subtly telling Edsall what position to support as well?

Link -->here <-- to read Hessler response to Dimmick  that Acciona's Project Developer  Conboy refers to in the letter above



 link--> here<-- to Cavinaugh Tocci response to Hessler study the  NOTE: the first page is blank

BP's Chandler is Promoting a Flawed Sound Study

  BP held an open house Nov.10/2012 in Cape Vincent NY as required by the Public Service Commission to pursue their project under an article 10 process. It was abundantly clear that this open house was merely a formality as was completely devoid of meaningful dialog or public involvement.  

 BP’s Project developer  Richard Chandler was on hand to answer questions and respond to feedback from the community.     

 I expressed my concerns to Chandler about turbine setbacks and noise, he responded  to my feedback like a robot using scripted a dialog.

   He cited the sound study completed by Acciona for the St. Lawrence wind project as reassurance that noise is a non-issue.  This was hardly reassuring...

Acciona's noise study was flawed a fact that was kept from the public.

Because there were concerns early on among local citizens that the developers noise report was misleading, the Wind Power Ethics Group (WPEG) contracted Schomer and associates to conduct an independent background sound survey of Cape Vincent.

Dr.Schomer is chair of the International Organization for Standardization working group on environmental noise and chair of the American National Standards committee on noise and holds other leadership roles in noise measurement. His findings identified "tricks" used by Hessler to arrive at pre-determined conclusions.

In Schomer's summary he explained how Hessler permitted summertime insect noise to contaminate the sound surveys to show background noise levels as high as 45-50 dB(A). In fact, Schomer's own survey showed noise levels in Cape Vincent to have an overall level of 30 dB (arithmetic average using A-weighted L90 levels). This included day, evening and night sound levels.

Dr.Schomer found that Hessler's study for the Cape Vincent Wind Power Facilities appears to have selected the noisiest sites, the noisiest time of year, and the noisiest positions at each measurement site.
Collectively, these choices resulted in a substantial overestimate of the a-weighted ambient sound level, 45-50 db.
Consequently, Dr.Schomer’s report had the potential to cause big problems for Acciona, and British Petroleum if it were not discredited.

Previously the Town of Cape Vincent had commissioned Cavanaugh Tocci and Associates to analyze the noise study by the wind developers. The Cavanaugh Tocci report was critical of the current flawed sound study as well ; and subsequently the report was suppressed.
This was discovered with the legal release of FOILED documents by Supervisor Hirschey . Because the information that was released pertaining to Cape Vincent’s sound study would be damaging to Acciona ,Acciona's project manager Tim Conboy led a charge at the Town Board meeting to discredit Supivisor Hirschey by accusing him of releasing the engineering documents illegally.

The email below is from David Hessler ~ [Hessler and Associates ]the Acoustical Consultants hired by Acciona to conduct the noise studies for Acciona's St. lawrence Wind project to Blayne Gunderman ~[Environmental Permitting Manager for Acciona energia and BP ]

This email is part of the engineering correspondence concerning Acciona's flawed sound study. That was legally released through a FOIL request.


Kris Dimmick
From: Mathes, Todd
Sent: Monday October 26, 2009 1:35 PM
To: Kris Dimmick
Subject: FW: FW: St. Lawrence Wind
From: David Hessler
Sent: Monday, October 26, 2009 1:14 PM
To: Gunderman, Blayne
Cc: Zedick, Pete; Mathis, Todd
Subject: Re: St. Lawrence Wind
Blayne,
I just tried several times to call Schomer to get to the bottom of this, but he’s not there.
This is what I know-
When we first were made aware of the Schomer study in July I wrote a letter to Paul explaining the circumstances surrounding the summer test and summarizing some of the results of the winter test, which he had not known about. The gist of the letter was to ask that he make a serious effort to retract his criticisms, which were overly harsh, totally undeserved and apparently written with the express intent tell his client, the Industrial Wind Action Group, what they wanted to hear.

Some time prior to this in the late spring , my father , George Hessler ( the other half of the company) was asked by Paul to chair a session a the Noise- Con 2009 conference in Ottawa in late August . At that conference, the two of them talked face to face about the Cape Vincent situation. During that discussion, my father was told that Paul now understood the background circumstances and no longer objected to our study principally because the levels he measured during his own wintertime survey were comparable to and in some cases even higher than we got. Amicable relations resorted, my father was told that Paul was going to immediately write a letter to Cavanaugh Tocci essentially retracting his objections. We had no reason to doubt he was going to do that. However, we have never received a copy as we had requested.

As an additional note, our work on the BP project largely ended with the submittal of the summer and winter background test reports and we did not prepare an impact assessment for the project, but rather an assessment was written without our knowledge by the general environmental consultant (ERM) basing the impact on, I believe, the summer background levels because they were much more favorable to the project. Evidently, it was this DEIS assessment that rankled the anti- wind people and prompted them to hire Schomer to do an “independent” field survey.

David
~~~~~~~

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

 Clif Schneider Re: Hessler

I was at the Ottawa INCE conference when David Hessler's father George was lobbying Dr. Paul Schomer to recant his criticism of Hessler Associates BP study. In fact, George Hessler was the chair of the section when I presented my paper on background sound levels in Cape Vincent.
I am very familiar with the issue and the circumstances outlined in this post. Hessler's complaint was Schomer's report was "overly harsh, totally undeserved and apparently written with the express intent tell his client, the Industrial Wind Action Group, what they wanted to hear." On the contrary, Hessler was upset because someone of impeccable professional standards, Dr. Schomer, exposed his questionable, unprofessional study for BP.
Hessler can complain all he wants, but in the end he was the one who recanted his summer study.
Schomer stood by his report and its conclusions, and he stands by them today.


Clif Schneider




--------------Original Message------------------
From: Mathes, Todd
Sent: Monday, October 26, 2009 11:57 AM
To: Zedick, Pete
Cc Cogen, Richard; K. Dimmick; Gunderman Blayne




View Schomer Report -->here

Cape Vincent ~ BP's shoddy public involvement

Over the past several years and two political elections the majority of the Cape Vincent voters
have clearly voiced their opposition to large scale wind development like that proposed by Cape
Vincent Wind Power. As such the Cape Vincent Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Law have been
updated to meet the wishes of the majority.


 November 13, 2012                                                                                   
Honorable Jaclyn A. Brilling,Secretary


NYS Board of Electric Generation Siting and the Environment
3 Empire Plaza
Albany, NY 12223

Re: Case 12-F-0410 Cape Vincent Wind Power
Public Information Plan

Dear Secretary Brilling:

As a member of the Town Of Cape Vincent Planning Board I have been directly involved with
review of the proposed Cape Vincent Wind Power 200-285 MW project and the impact that it
would have on our Town and our neighboring Towns.

In spite of the fact that the applicant applied for Town Of Cape Vincent Site Plan Review in
2006, the applicant has made it virtually impossible for the Town Planning Board to conduct a
proper review. The purpose of this communication is to confirm my primary concerns, to
confirm comments I made during the applicants October 23, 2012 meeting with Cape Vincent
and Lyme Town officials and to provide you and your colleagues with information in hopes that
the applicant will be considerably more forthcoming and cooperative during the Article X
review process.

Over the past several years and two political elections the majority of the Cape Vincent voters
have clearly voiced their opposition to large scale wind development like that proposed by Cape
Vincent Wind Power. As such the Cape Vincent Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Law have been
updated to meet the wishes of the majority.

CONCERNS
1)   The applicant continues to publish outdated and misleading information that is not
applicable to the current proposal. Examples of that are: Public statements that there is
"overwhelming community support" for the project; Publication of charts and graphs
that show tax incomes to taxing authorities based on PILOT agreements that do not (and
probably will not) exist.
2)   Vague or incomplete responses/mitigations to ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS. Examples of
environmental concerns are: Migratory birds and bats in a major flyway; Radar and
radio interference; Noise. Safe setbacks: Etc.
3)   Denial by the developer of the overall negative impacts on the Cape Vincent economy in
spite of the fact that the Town of Cape Vincent consulted with reputable experts to
reach the conclusions stated in the WIND TURBINE ECONOMIC IMPACT REPORT. If not
already on file with the PSC, the complete report will be made available to you in the
very near future.

COMMENTS FROM OCTOBER 23. 2012 P.I.P MEETING

As you are aware, on 10/23/12 Cape Vincent Wind Power held their first P.I.P. meeting in Cape
Vincent. 17 members of the Town and Planning Boards of Cape Vincent and Lyme asked
questions and made comments to Richard Chandler, representative for Cape Vincent Wind
Power. A project boundary map was displayed by Mr. Chandler.

1)   The map is the only current site map available for public viewing. It does not provide
adequate detail to enable anyone or any authority to determine specific location of each
wind turbine tower. Thus it is not possible to determine setbacks from property lines,
residences, roads, etc.This is an example of providing vague information and consistent
with the semi-secret methods of communicating with the Town of Cape Vincent
Planning Board and the public.
2)   In spite of numerous changes in the scope of the project, the application has not been
updated since the original 2006 application.
3)   The applicant has made numerous attempts to negotiate with the Jefferson County
Industrial Development Agency to strip the local taxing authorities of their jurisdiction in
hopes that the Towns, School and County would have no say in how the project would
be taxed. In that the applicant continues to publish newspaper ads and charts showing
figures based on a PILOT agreement leads me to believe the applicant is still negotiating
to strip taxing authority from the local jurisdictions.
4)   Many questions asked of Mr. Chandler were not answered in such a way to reach a
conclusion. Examples of this are:
a)   No meaningful response to the question, is it likely that you will develop wind
projects in Towns neighboring Cape Vincent which would result in a much larger
overall footprint than what appears on the map.
b)   No meaningful response to the question, will this project comply with the current
Town of Cape Vincent Zoning Law.
c)   No meaningful response to the question, if you are denied by the Art X process, is it
possible that you will reapply to the Town of Cape Vincent for site plan review.
5)   One question that I asked was "are you (Mr. Chandler) aware of the fact that a Wind
Turbine Economic Impact Study exists. This was clearly and decisively answered "no I am
not".
6)   Following are my closing remarks to Mr. Chandler: BP (Cape Vincent Wind Power) has
subjected this community (Cape Vincent) to enormous pressures on families,
friendships, health, elections, budgets, Town Board, Planning Board, volunteers, local
businesses and local organizations.


The results of this are:

a)   A total lack of trust in BP (Cape Vincent Wind Power)
b)   Removal from office of conflicted and/or unethical Town Board members
c)   A melt-down and rebuild of the Planning Board
d)   An updated Comprehensive Plan
e)   An amended Zoning Law
f)   The use of the Article X siting process option to again disconnect with a community
that knows what it wants and does not want and that has a zoning law that is based
on scientific fact and expert advice

A November 10, 2012 P.I.P. gathering consisted of several display stations. Attendance
primarily consisted of members of an organization created by BP (Cape Vincent Wind Power) to
promote wind development. The gathering was primarily a sales promotion event. We need to
know the details of this project rather than details about other projects.

Needless to say PSC consideration of the above facts would be appreciated and vital to arrive
at a fair and balanced review that preserves the quality of life, health, safety and welfare of the
citizens of Cape Vincent.

Respectfully submitted,

Cyril Cullen

BP REVISED PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT PROGRAM ~ documents

Cape Vincent Wind Farm Revised Public Involvement Program Document set #1 Cape Vincent Wind Farm Revised Public Involvement Program Document set #2

BP's NON ~ OUTREACH OPEN HOUSE

The following letter was written to the New York State Public Service Commission by two Cape Vincent Town Board members that attended an open house in Cape Vincent NY, hosted by BP Wind Energy. BP has aspirations of erecting a 200MW plus wind farm in Cape Vincent NY; subsequently they hosted this open house as part of their Public Involvement Plan (PIP) a requirement of the Article 10 process, a newly enacted law in New York state law that regulates power plant siting
 November 12, 2012

Memorandum To: Urban Hirschey and John Byrne

From: Clif Schneider and Brooks Bragdon

RE: ARTICLE 10 OUTREACH – BP OPEN HOUSE

We both attended BP Alternate Energy's November 10, 2012 Open

House in Cape Vincent and we were both underwhelmed.

BP showcased their latest 124-turbine layout, the same map that

was on display at their October 23 meeting. Nothing was new in

spite of the widespread criticism from the Towns of Cape Vincent

and Lyme municipal officials.

We asked questions about what model turbine BP used in the

latest layout and we were told they had not yet decided.

We asked questions about wind turbine noise limits and we were

told they were not sure because they did not know which turbine

model will be used.

We asked questions when would the Article 10 Siting Board's

representatives come to Cape Vincent and at what time would they

begin to hear testimony. We were told they didn't know and that

these were good questions.

We asked why BP's projected economic impacts used a hypothetical

financial model that was not intended to be used for any other

wind project other than for Galloo Island. We were told the

Galloo Island PILOT was used because it was approved by

Jefferson County.

BP's presentation included Town Supervisor Joseph Kushner, who

discussed economic impacts from the wind project in the Town of

Eagle, NY. BP's poster stated that the Town of Cape Vincent

would receive 15% of the PILOT payment; yet Kushner noted that

his town gets 88% of the pie. On a benefit per MW basis

Kushner and the Town of Eagle are receiving nearly 6 times the

money that BP plans for Cape Vincent. Kushner's experience was

not a good example of what BP was offering Cape Vincent.

 

In summary, this open house never should have happened. The two

big pieces of information, the project layout and economic

impacts, were guesses and were not good examples for Cape

Vincent.

The Department of Public Service needs to revamp the Public

Involvement Program that is required under Article 10. There is

no sense having an Open House and disguised public outreach if

an applicant has nothing to say or offer other than

possibilities.

Cape Vincent Citizen reports to New York PSC on British Petroleum "open house".

Dear Honorable Jacyln Brilling, 

As the PSC begins developing and utilizing Art. X it seems very important that this end up a just process that instills confidence in our government.  

To that end I wish to point out that Open Houses are meaningless for "involving" the community.  An Open House simple gives the developer a plus mark in the column  for Public Involvement.  The public is not actually involved. They are being stone walled.

 Mr. Chandler of BP at the Nov. 10 Open House felt my questions were "irrelevant".  Instead of actually answering or even engaging in a conversation  he continued to to say "we have a project here, we are here to present the project for your consideration,  please give us your comments." Finally he said he would like to excuse himself.   

The most important question I asked was, "Will you provide a map with all participating owners so it will be clear who is in the project and who is not so setbacks from nonparticipating property lines can be accurately measured?"    Mr. Chandler said, "not at all, not gonna happen".

As long as this is secret information it will be impossible to judge if BP has truly made setbacks for "the project" as Mr. Chandler repeatedly calls it.

Farmers as far back as the middle ages call this "a pig in a poke". 

 In Cape Vincent we are accustomed to the recalcitrant corrupt behavior of BP refusing to divulge the actual boundaries of the participating parcels.  They point blank refused to give this information to the Economic Team. 

No Siting Board nor Planning Board can legitimately site any project without knowing the physical location and parcels boundaries.  We expect the PSC to insist on receiving this information from BP.

Mr. Chandler repeatedly says he has support for "the project". He said he would find out the percentage of landowners, with leases, that give him this high level of confidence. We expect him to provide this information shortly. He said "over 100 landowners." 

This is a very difficult time in Cape Vincent.

We have a company, BP, in the persona of Mr. Chandler,  going around saying he has public support, saying he is here to listen, saying he wants feedback from the community. Yet he knows full well our Zoning Law does not permit his project , he was told clearly on Oct. 23 by the elected Town Board and the appointed Planning Board on no uncertain terms his project is unwanted.   Yet he stands there asserting his good faith with words yet attempting to physically drive over us with Art. X.  

 It is sort of like a truck driver telling a pedestrian he wants to hear their feelings and future plans while mashing them into the asphalt with his Big Rig. 

Does the  PSC  and Governor Cuomo endorse this level of disrespectful mockery?

I think it would be more fair to the process of Art. X if Open Houses were not considered part of the Public Involvement Program. They should be reclassified into Developers Describing Their Project. 

They should also be graded on how much  their project changes after being viewed. Quality of work and communication should be evaluated and measured as part of a genuine PIP.

 So far BP's response after overwhelming elections, new zoning, and public outcry has been to reduce 11 turbines from a 134 array. That is not quality listening.

Please do us and yourself a favor - send them and their application away as "not wanted". 

Thank you, Hester Chase

My questions are posted below for your consideration to their relevancy. 

As a scientific phenomenon, does low level vibration exist, say like gravity? He said  wanted to focus on"the project" not answer this. 

Have you read the Cape Vincent Economic Impact Report? No.

In the Economic Impact Report there is a  the part where it says there could be up to a 20-40% property loss for homes and properties near the turbines. Is that fair  for those people  to subsidize BP with their personal savings?

Mr. Chandler said "He has a project here for our consideration if we would like to make a comment..........."

Does BP plan to compensate them for their personal loss?  Mr. Chandler looped " He has a project here for our consideration if we would like to make a comment..........................."

Does the local TB and PB's publicly stated position that we do not want BP here mean anything to you?  Again Mr. Chandler looped "He has a project here for our consideration if we would like to make a comment..........................."

This is where he excused himself. 

I had many more questions I considered relevant. 

Including- You state on BP's web page  http://www.capevincentwindfarm.com/cape_vincent/public-involvement-program/key-milestones.html  your PIP began Sep 17, since this was rejected by the PSC, why do you continue to post this inaccurate date?