A Letter from John Droz to the Public Service Commission

Hon. Jaclyn A. Brilling:

Re Matter: 12-02056; Case 12-F-0410

New York State is currently listed as one of the top three worst states to live and do business, in large part to our very high electricity rates.

We need to waste money on allowing wind power in prime tourist areas like the Thousand Islands, like we need a hole in the head. For more job and economic growth, we need affordable, reliable energy, not unreliables like wind energy.

Assuming that global warming is partly attributable to man-made causes, there is zero scientific proof that wind energy has any more than a minuscule effects on CO2 levels. Part of the reason is that there is no such thing as wind energy by itself, as it always requires full-time auxiliary power to be available, which usually gas.

Building gas-fired stations near New York City (where the electricity is needed most), would provide reliable, dispatchable, baseload capacity, that would be cost-effective for all New York State taxpayers and ratepayers. It would actually reduce CO2 emissions (over coal) and prevent the needless environmental degradation, bird & bat carnage, and human health impacts caused by the massive towers associated with antiquated industrial wind facilities.

By spending money and time focusing on trying to make unreliables like wind power a reality, we are wasting limited resources that we could be directing towards a real clean energy future powered by reliable, dispatchable energy sources - like natural gas, mini-nuclear and hydro - that will provide ALL New York citizens with reliable, affordable power, and which will draw jobs to NYS.  

Please read this 2/20/13 letter [http://tinyurl.com/b5ksn4x ... attached] from Senator Maziarz (Chairman of the Senate Energy Committee) applies directly to this case at hand. There is no proven NET technical, economic or environmental benefit from locating industrial wind energy in any part of the Thousand Islands region.

I urge you to educate yourself (e.g. EnergyPresentation.Info) about reliable, economic and dispatchable energy sources of the future, and to stop wasting money on the scam of industrial wind power, which makes New York State an inhospitable place to live and do business.

Thank you for your attention to this important matter.

John Droz, jr.
physicist
Brantingham Lake, NY

The 1000 islands Seaway Valley is a Natural Wonder of New York State

Comments to the New York Board on Electric Generation Siting and the Environment
Case 12-F-0036

Cape village officials: do not override our laws

FRIDAY, FEBRUARY 22, 2013

CAPE VINCENT — Village officials have asked the state Public Service Commission to refrain from overriding Cape Vincent’s local laws during the Article X siting process for BP’s proposed wind farm project.

Trustees said in a letter submitted to the PSC that as individuals, they “may not agree with all parts” of Cape Vincent’s zoning regulations and comprehensive plan, but they “acknowledge that these two items were arrived at and approved in a well thought out and democratic manner.”[Watertown Times]

The Village of Cape Vincent Writes to the Public Service Commission

 Honorable Jeffrey Cohen


Secretary, NYS Board of Electric Generation Siting and the Environment 3 Empire State Plaza
Albany. New York 12223-1350

Regarding: 12-F-041 0 Cape Vincent Wind Power

Dear Acting Secretary Cohen:

As a designated stakeholder in the proposed BP Wind Turbine project in the Town of Cape Vincent, the Cape Vincent Village Board feels it is our right and civic obligation to share our thoughts on the mechanism (Article X) which BP has chosen to use to facilitate the approval of its project. In 2003. the Town and Village of Cape Vincent passed a Joint Comprehensive Plan which endorsed a vision for both the Town and Village.

In accordance with the periodic review mandated by the 2003 Joint Plan, our Town Board appointed a committee composed of village and town residents to review and update that plan. It should be noted that Village trustee, Pamela Youngs served on that committee. On August 1, 2012. after two public hearings, the Town Board passed the updated Joint Comprehensive Plan, It should be noted that the 2012 Plan has, as its basis, many of the tenets of the original plan. The vision statement of the 2012 Joint Plan. quoted below is based on the original 2003 vision statement.

Cape Vincent is a small-town, rural community with unique scenic, historical and natural resources. We are committed to preserving these essential qualities that make it a desirable place to live, while seeking to improve the local economy by promoting compatible residential and small business growth.

Using the 2012 Joint plan as a guide, the Town then tackled the issue of Zoning in the hopes of revising the Zoning regulations in order to be consistent with the objectives and philosophy of the new Joint Comprehensive Plan. Again, after much hard work and public input and review. the Town passed new Zoning ordinances. At our meeting of August 14, 2012 we the Village Board, unanimously endorsed the 2012 Joint Town and Village Comprehensive Plan.

Based on our support of the 2012 Joint Comprehensive Plan. we feel we need to let the PSC know our feelings vis a vis the Article X process. Although we as individuals may not agree with all parts of the Joint Plan and the Zoning regulations. we acknowledge that these two items were arrived at and approved in a well thought out and democratic manner. We abhor the idea that the state would feel that they would have more insight into what is best fit for the Town and Village of Cape Vincent than do its residents and duly elected officials. These people spent many hours studying the impact of wind turbines. Their goal was not to ban all wind turbines but rather to first and foremost protect the citizens of Cape Vincent and the beauty, character and heritage of our community. While we know we cannot stop the Article X process. we implore you to respect the decisions our elected officials have made concerning our Town and its future.

We, the undersigned, as duly elected Village of Cape Vincent Board members  entreat you to respect our vision for our community and refrain from overriding our carefully researched and well thought out laws that were designed to protect our residents and community.

~~~

This is an equal opportunity program , Discrimination is prohibited by federal law 

to file a complaint of discrimination, write: USDA,  Director office of civil rights , 1400 Independance Avenue , S.W., Washington DC 20250- 9410, or call (800) 795 3272 (voice) or (202) 720- 6382 (TDD).

The Mayor of Wolfe Island Canada writes to the NYS Public Service Commission

 Ms. Katrina Landis                                                                                                                    
Chief Executive Officer
BP Alternative Energy
501 Westlake Park Blvd.
Houston, TX 77079

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

Dear Ms. Landis;

The Township of Frontenac Islands is immediately north of the proposed area that British Petroleum (BP) is, as I understand, talking about a large scale wind development. Our geography is on the North side of the St. Lawrence River stretching from west of the Town of Cape Vincent and  just to the east of the Town of Clayton NY approximately one mile across the water. While we have many Islands in the municipality, the largest Island of Wolfe has an 86 tower wind plant that was commissioned three years ago. Through this process we have learned much about the use of Wind Towers to generate electrical energy and would like to share our experience with you. While there are benefits from such developments, such as tax revenue to the municipality and money to the property owners, there are some issues that can be avoided through good planning, and discussion with the stakeholders.

Some of the concerns we have heard are: the flashing aviation marker lights; the effects on migrating birds and the need to adhere to the Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918; the effect on the tourist industry in our beautiful Thousand Island Region which crosses the USA Canadian border; the negative risk to property values, and etc.

We had understood that as part of the process BP would be contacting us for input but have not yet heard from you. Our Township Council, and residents on the north side of the border (a number of which are USA citizens) who have beautiful summer homes throughout the Islands, have been asking questions and expressed their desire to find out more about this proposed development. Would you please assist us in engaging the appropriate people in this discussion?

Yours truly,
Denis Doyle
Mayor, Frontenac Islands

Copy:
Honorable Jeffrey Cohen:
Richard Chandler:
Urban Hirschey:

Mr. John Graham
President
BP Alternative Energy
501 Westlake Park Blvd.
Houston, TX 77079

More questions concerning letters to the Public Service Commission

Re: Case12-F-0410 Cape Vincent Wind Power

Dear Acting Secretary Cohen:

Recently, the Cape Vincent Town Board told you:

Specifically, we would recommend that BP make available to the Siting Board and its staff and the public a list of their leaseholders and individuals with good neighbor agreements, so that we can all better understand the special influence that BP has on those voices that support their efforts.

And in the next paragraph said this:

Please understand the Town is not suggesting BP's paid supporters should not be heard in the Article 10 process. They should, of course, be heard. However, to better gauge the relative public support for the Cape Vincent project, it is incumbent on the Siting Board and staff to know what proportion of BP's project support is linked to their financial agreements.

If you go to the website of the Lyme-Cape Vincent Voters for Wind you will read the following rules for becoming a member:

http://www.votersforwind.com/about_us.html

"We welcome new members. To become a member you must meet the following qualifications for membership: an existing member of Voters For Wind that is in good standing must sponsor prospective members. Each member must complete and sign an application providing contact information. This will be submitted with the application fee at the time of application. Additionally, qualifications for membership include a signed statement committing to publicly support the efforts and the mission of Voters for Wind. Applications for membership will be approved by a majority vote of the members present at a regular meeting of Voters for Wind. Individual membership applications may be rejected if the prospective member has publicly denounced a renewable energy project supported by Voters for Wind as a whole. Upon notification a prospective members acceptance into membership, attendance at the next regular meeting is encouraged."

In their PIP program, British Petroleum said they were working locally with Trieste Associates and Voters for Wind. Voters for Wind was organized with the help of and is under strong advisement by Marion Trieste of Trieste Associates. Voters for Wind membership appears to be mostly BP leaseholders with a few non leaseholders who may possibly be rewarded for their support they give and the work they do for BP's project.

When Voters for Wind comment to the PSC it is possible that they are doing so as a matter of direct financial interest rather than a sincere effort to make you believe that the entire communities of the Lyme and Cape Vincent are supportive of the BP proposal.

Thank you.

 
 

The Public Service Commission has asked BP to identify projects depicted on their website.

 Recently the Town of Cape Vincent sent a letter to the public service commission regarding BP's website.
Town of Cape Vincent ~
 We would like to bring to your attention to a recent post from the Cape Vincent blog, Pandora's Box of Rocks. We Were All Struck by the Irony of the Post. BP's Article 10 Public Involvement Plan, We Assume, Requires a Certain Degree of Honest Representation of Facts and Information Presented to the Public. Yet, the False, misleading visual aids that are a prominent feature of BP's website are in stark contrast to what our community represents. This concerns us. [continue...]

Below is the Public Service Commissions  response to the Town of Cape Vincent's concerns

Town of Cape Vincent expresses concerns over BP's Wind lease documents

February 12, 2013

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:

Once again we are writing with concerns regarding BP's Public Involvement Plan.
In their revised Public Involvement Plan (PIP) for the Cape Vincent Wind Power project, BP
indicated the purpose of their PIP was to “inform, engage and solicit additional input from
statutory parties, the local community, general public and other stakeholders.” Our concern in
this letter is solicitation of input, specifically public comments.

BP goes on in their PIP to outline how they will collate and organize the input from stakeholders
and how they will make this information available to the public on their website:

“Cape Vincent Wind Power will prepare a monthly spreadsheet-style tracking report
identifying PIP activities conducted by CVWP for the preceding time period, providing
summaries of feedback received in such activities and summaries describing any actions
taken by CVWP in response to given feedback.” “The reports will be posted on CVWP’s
website and filed with the Secretary for posting in the case file.”

As of February 10, 2013, there is no spreadsheet, no summary of public comment and no
response to those comments by BP on their website. However, on the Public Service
Commission's website there were 222 “Public Comments” posted as of that same date. The large
majority of those comments are critical of BP's proposal, although some are generally supportive
of industrial wind development and specifically supportive of BP's Cape Vincent Wind Farm
project.


The Town of Cape Vincent is uncertain how these endorsements and support of BP's project will
be used and how these comments might influence the Siting Board's eventual decision. Our
concern lies with the relationship between BP and a number of those people posting comments
who support the Cape Vincent Wind Farm project.


From our examination of the comments, many of the pro-project comments appear to be made by
individuals with lease agreements with BP. These individuals not only received money from BP,
but their financial agreements have the following cooperation clauses stipulated in the
agreements:

BP Lease Agreement “Owner (lessee) shall assist and fully cooperate with Grantee (BP),
at no out-of-pocket expense to Owner, in complying with or obtaining land use permits
and approvals, tax-incentives, or tax-abatement program approvals, building permits,
environmental impact reviews, or any other permits or approvals required for the
financing, construction, installation, relocation, replacement, maintenance, operation or
removal of Windpower Facilities in the Project (whether located on the Property, on
adjacent propety, or elsewhere), including execution of applications for such permits or
approvals if required.”

BP Good Neighbor Agreement: “Owner agrees to cooperate fully and promptly with
Grantee (BP) and its successors and assigns, at Grantee's sole cost, and to join in all
applications for permits, licenses and governmental approvals or requests for other
instruments which Grantee may deem necessary for purposes of the intended use or
development of the Wind Farm.”

None of the other stakeholders or interested members of the general public whose comments we
have examined on the PSC's website have similar contractual constraints. These arrangements
clearly influence the public dialog. How can benefit or harm to the community be properly
evaluated on the basis of the comments of those who stand to directly gain financially from
project approval? We believe payments to leaseholders and BP's contract language requiring
cooperation should at the very least separate and identify these project supporters from the
remaining general public.

Specifically, we would recommend that BP make available to the Siting Board and its staff and
the public a list of their leaseholders and individuals with good neighbor agreements, so that we
can all better understand the special influence that BP has on those voices that support their
efforts.

Please understand the Town is not suggesting BP's paid supporters should not be heard in the
Article 10 process. They should, of course, be heard. However, to better gauge the relative
public support for the Cape Vincent project, it is incumbent on the Siting Board and staff to
know what proportion of BP's project support is linked to their financial agreements.

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

Dennis Faulknham – ZBA Chairman

Ed Hludzenski – Zoning Board

PSC: BP cannot be forced to revise preliminary scoping statement for CV wind farm

By JAEGUN LEE
TIMES STAFF WRITER

WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 13, 2013

CAPE VINCENT — BP Wind Energy will not have to modify its preliminary scoping statement for the proposed Cape Vincent Wind Farm even if the public objects to its contents, according to the state Public Service Commission.

“While the law requires a potential applicant to respond to comments on the PSS (preliminary scoping statement), it does not require the developer to adopt the recommendations made during the preliminary scoping phase,” said PSC’s acting secretary Jeffrey C. Cohen in response to a Jan. 29 letter from Cape Vincent’s town supervisor, Urban C. Hirschey.[Watertown Times]

Misrepresenting our community in the photos on their Cape Vincent Wind Project website may help explain why BP...

      February 6, 2013 

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: 

We would like to bring to your attention to a recent post from the Cape Vincent blog, Pandora's Box of Rocks. We were all struck by the irony of the post. BP's Article 10 Public Involvement Plan, we assume, requires a certain degree of honest representation of facts and information presented to the public. Yet, the false, misleading visual aids that are a prominent feature of BP's website are in stark contrast to what our community represents. This concerns us.

The following is a copy of the post: 

“The BP Alternative Energy website now has a link to their Cape Vincent project. 

http://www.capevincentwindfarm.com/ 

When you click on that link you will see a brief paragraph about the project and three or four panoramic color photos that appear and dissolve away in sequence every minute or so into a new photo. But each of these photos (such as the one above) is from some place far away from Cape Vincent. North Dakota perhaps? Eastern Montana maybe? Certainly not around here. At the risk of making you ill or upset, take a look for yourself.

Do these completely misleading photos constitute an example of misleading visual propaganda? Certainly. Anyone personally unfamiliar with our area who looks at the BP web page might wonder what all the fuss is about in Cape Vincent. Who would be complaining about the project? There are no people around to complain if you go by the pictures they want you to associate with the project.

Here’s a suggestion, BP. Why don’t you take down those irrelevant photos and put up some true local panoramas. There are plenty of nice ones already available. Use some images that show the town as it is – with Churches, schools, homes, cottages, streets, docks, boats and people – with Lake Ontario and the beautiful Thousand Islands in the foreground or the background.

But then again, that would require a certain measure of honesty and transparency on your part. Never mind. Just a silly passing thought.”

Secretary Cohen, this is an important, relevant point. Misrepresenting our community in the photos on their Cape Vincent Wind Project website may help explain why BP so seriously misjudged our community's support for their project at our October 2012 meeting. If BP thinks Cape Vincent is an open prairie with little residential development, then it is not difficult to understand how BP came to believe they have rousing community support for their project proposal when they do not. In both cases BP is in our view dangerously ill-informed.

BP should not only take down their deceptive panoramas from their website, but they should also make an honest re-assessment of what constitutes a majority of community support for their project here in Cape Vincent. They can start that re-assessment by considering all the elected and appointed officials from the Town of Cape Vincent who have affixed their signatures to this letter.

        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

Dennis Faulknham – ZBA Chairman

Ed Hludzenski – Zoning Board

Town of Hammond Comments to the Public Service Commission

The NYS Public Service Commission responds to questiones posed by the Town of Cape Vincent

 The Honorable Urban C. Hirschey
Supervisor
Town of Cape Vincent
1964 NYS Route 12E
Cape Vincent, NY 13618

RE: case 12 – F – 0410


Dear Supervisor Hirschey:

                     I have received your January 29, 2013 letter which you posed several questions
regarding the preliminary scoping procedures established pursuant to Article 10 of the public service law. Responses to your inquiries are given below.

If BP chooses to ignore a number of items on our list of potential impacts when they submit their PSS as and we object during the comment period and argue for their inclusion, can the hearing examiner compel BP to include these impacts in a revised PSS?

No. The hearing examiner does not direct the outcome of the scoping process.After the
developer has filed a preliminary scoping statement(PSS), any person,  agency, or municipality
May submit comments on the proposed scope I serving such comments on the applicant and filing a copy with the Secretary.The developer is required to prepare a summary of the material comments and its responses to those comments within 21 days after the closing of the comment period.(See 16 NYCRR 1000.5 (g). Thereafter, it is contemplated that the developer will work with interested parties to resolve any disagreements they may have about the sufficiency of the
planned scope and the studies to be included in the application. The hearing officer's role during
the PSS phase is,among other things, to distribute intervenor funds and to mediate stipulations
among the parties, where possible.(See PSL – 163(5); 16NYCRR 1000.5( i)).

Can BP be made to reviseand resubmit their PSS?if not, then what recourse would the town
 have in this case?


No. As described above, applicants are required to prepare a summary of the material comments received regarding the PSS and to provide a reply to those comments. Once an application has
then filed, any party that is not a signatory to a pre- application stipulation may raise objections at the hearing as to the methodology or scope of any study or program of studies performed.(See
PSL – 163( 5) and 16 NYCRR 1000.5 (k)).

If BP chooses not to revise and consider any suggestions during the PSS comment period ,is it
possible they could move on to the application phase without responding to the Town and the hearing examiner?


Yes. While the law requires a potential applicant to respond to comments on the PSS,it does not
require the developer to adopted the recommendations made during the preliminary scoping phase.
As noted above, parties may raise objections to the methodology or scope at the hearing on the application.

                        If you have any additional questions or concerns relating to the PS as process,
please contact Ashley Moreno, Assistant Counsel,at (  518) 473 – 8123.

                                                                              Very truly yours,



                                                                             Jeffrey C.Cohen
                                                                              Acting Secretary

Town of Cape Vincent ~ Writes to the Association of Towns of the State of New York

The resolution The Town of Cape Vincent sent to the NY Association of Towns has made it through the resolution committee. Now we need it to be circulated throughout NY for support. Please pass it to all town boards. We need as many towns as possible to recommend that the Association of Towns put it up for a full vote January 29, 2013

Association of Towns of the State of New York

150 State Street,

Albany, NY 12207

Dear Lori,

            Here is the proposed language to fit with New York State Association of Towns.  It is based on a resolution passed by the Board of Directors of Wisconsin Towns Association.  They passed it on the 21^st of January of this year.  Their decision was based on the results of a study the Wisconsin Public Service Commission asked for; (Report # 122412-1) released December 28, 2012.  I have enclosed a copy of their resolution, and the report it is based on.  The Executive Director of the Wisconsin Towns Association is Richard Stadelman.  If you have any questions please do not hesitate to contact him at (715) 526-3157.

            I am sorry for the late submission but this is a fresh study that occurred over the last month.  Thank you for your consideration.

Resolution for the New York Association of Towns

TITLE: Requesting a moratorium on wind power development in New York State

WHEREAS, the New York State Legislature recently created Article 10 of the Public Service Law to establish procedures for certifying major electric generating facilities; and

WHEREAS, wind power developers are now seeking certification from the Public Service Commission to erect industrial turbines across the state; and

WHEREAS, each application must include a study of the noise impacts of the operation of any potential wind farm; and

WHEREAS, the Wisconsin Public Service Commission recently asked four experts in acoustics to investigate whether low-frequency noise generated by wind turbines was potentially causing health issues for families living near the Shirley Wind Farm in Denmark, Wisconsin.; and

WHEREAS, the experts reported on Dec. 28, 2012 that low-frequency noise was found in some homes surrounding the turbines; and

WHEREAS, the experts’ opinion was that low-frequency noise could be a “serious issue, possibly affecting the future of the industry” and that immediate, more in-depth study was needed; and

WHEREAS, the Wisconsin Association of Towns, on the basis of this report, passed a resolution calling on its Public Service Commission and its legislature to put a moratorium on all permitting and installation of industrial wind turbines until further studies could be completed and solutions found; and

WHEREAS, the goal of the New York Association of Towns is the protection of the health and safety of its residents

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the New York Association of Towns calls on Public Service Commission and the state Legislature to halt the Article 10 certification process for industrial wind turbine development until studies regarding the health impacts of low-frequency noise generated by turbines can be completed, solutions found and the state’s Article 10 rule can be modified to mitigate any adverse health impacts, if necessary

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

Dennis Faulknham – ZBA Chairman 

Ed Hludzenski – Zoning Board

Resolution for the New York Association of Towns

TITLE: Requesting a moratorium on wind power development in New York State

WHEREAS, the New York State Legislature recently created Article 10 of the Public Service Law to establish procedures for certifying major electric generating facilities; and

WHEREAS, wind power developers are now seeking certification from the Public Service Commission to erect industrial turbines across the state; and

WHEREAS, each application must include a study of the noise impacts of the operation of any potential wind farm; and

WHEREAS, the Wisconsin Public Service Commission recently asked four experts in acoustics to investigate whether low-frequency noise generated by wind turbines was potentially causing health issues for families living near the Shirley Wind Farm in Denmark, Wisconsin.; and

WHEREAS, the experts reported on Dec. 28, 2012 that low-frequency noise was found in some homes surrounding the turbines; and

WHEREAS, the experts’ opinion was that low-frequency noise could be a “serious issue, possibly affecting the future of the industry” and that immediate, more in-depth study was needed; and

WHEREAS, the Wisconsin Association of Towns, on the basis of this report, passed a resolution calling on its Public Service Commission and its legislature to put a moratorium on all permitting and installation of industrial wind turbines until further studies could be completed and solutions found; and

WHEREAS, the goal of the New York Association of Towns is the protection of the health and safety of its residents

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the New York Association of Towns calls on Public Service Commission and the state Legislature to halt the Article 10 certification process for industrial wind turbine development until studies regarding the health impacts of low-frequency noise generated by turbines can be completed, solutions found and the state’s Article 10 rule can be modified to mitigate any adverse health impacts, if necessary
~~~~

Link to  The letter Assemblyman Jacque wrote to the Wisconsin PSC to stop all wind projects until further studies are complete