BP ~ offering donations to stakeholders...

We are writing you again with issues that surfaced as a result of BP's recent Article 10
instructional meeting on Thursday, December 6, 2012. Our concerns include BP's Public
Involvement Program (PIP) and a potential conflict between a PSC Commissioner and BP's
attorney of record.


December 12, 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:

We are writing you again with issues that surfaced as a result of BP's recent Article 10
instructional meeting on Thursday, December 6, 2012. Our concerns include BP's Public
Involvement Program (PIP) and a potential conflict between a PSC Commissioner and BP's
attorney of record.

We have reviewed both versions of BP's PIP submitted to the PSC for its review and comment.
In the revised plan dated November 16, 2012 BP lists “Local Cape Vincent and Lyme
Community Groups” as stakeholders (p.15-16). BP lists the goals for their interaction with these
stakeholders as: “Disseminate information, gather information to assist in the PIP process, PSS
document and the Article 10 application as well as schedule follow up meetings. Identification
of specific issues. Adequacy of studies completed to date and need for additional studies.” BP
outlined methods to engage stakeholders as those suggested by PSC in their review of BP's first
PIP submission. The methods include phone calls, and where necessary letters. In addition,
stakeholder outreach will involve face to face meetings, as well as invitations to Open House
Events and Workshops.

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.
Another issue that surfaced as a result of BP's meeting is the marital relationship between BP's
attorney John Harris and his wife, PSC Commissioner Maureen Finnegan Harris. At the time BP
originally retained Harris he was a partner with McKenna, Long and Aldridge LLP (2006-2010).
In May 2010 he became a partner at Harris Beach PLLC and just recently is a partner with
Brown & Wienraub PLLC. During these changes of affiliation BP seems to have shown more
interest in continuing its relationship with Harris, personally, rather than the law firms he
represented.

In an article in today's Watertown Daily Times (Dec. 12, 2012) PSC spokesman James Denn is
quoted regarding the potential conflict of interest for PSC Commissioner Harris, “Wind farm
approvals would be the responsibility of the siting board, not the PSC. PSC has no role to play in
the review of the BP project in Cape Vincent.” Yet, in Section 163(5) of the Article 10 law it
states, “In order to attempt to resolve any questions that may arise as a result of such
consultation, the department shall designate a hearing examiner who shall oversee the preapplication
process and mediate any issue relating to any aspect of the preliminary scoping
statement and the methodology and scope of any such studies or programs of study.”

Clearly the hearing examiner has an important role to play in the Article 10 process by
administering the hearings and making recommendations to the Siting Board. Are we wrong to
assume hearing officers are members of PSC staff, in spite of Mr. Denn's comment? Please
understand that we in Cape Vincent have had a long, tortuous history of local municipal officials
who have had direct conflicts of interest with BP and the other wind developer Acciona Energia.
As a community we are very,very sensitive to the conflict issue.

We also understand that energy company staff and their attorneys are probably frequent visitors
to the PSC, NYSDEC, NYSDOH and NYSERDA. After all, you are all in the energy or
regulatory business. Regrettably, small municipalities do not have the same access and exposure
to the State's regulating bodies. We know as we proceed with BP's Article 10 proposal that this
imbalance puts Cape Vincent at a disadvantage. Having BP's attorney of record married to a
PSC Commissioner does nothing to mollify our fear of having the process tilted even further in
favor of the applicant.

To help us we would appreciate some assurance that Commissioner Harris is not involved in the
Article 10 process and that she would not have any influence over PSC staff who may be
involved in any future proceedings in our case.


Thank you for your attention to our concerns.
Respectfully yours,

Urban Hirschey – Town Supervisor
Brooks Bradgon – Deputy Supervisor
John Byrne – Town Council
Clifford Schneider – Town Council
Richard Macsherry – Planning Board
Chairman
Robert S. Brown – Planning Board
Cyril Cullen – Planning Board
Paul Docteur – Planning Board