Kathleen
Burgess
September 18, 2013
Secretary
to the Siting Board
Re:
Matter
Master: 12-02056/12-F-0410
Application of Cape
Vincent Wind Power, LLC, for a Certificate of Environmental
Compatibility and Public Need to Construct an Approximately
200-285 Megawatt Wind Electric Generating Facility in the Town of
Cape Vincent, New York.
Please accept this letter
from me and post it with the other public comments that have been
submitted in connection with the referenced matter. I understand it
is longer than the hundreds of other comments that have been
submitted to date. However, I sincerely believe I present here a set
of facts and observations that should have a direct bearing on the
resolution of the matter and staff judgment about the application
process that is pending.
One year ago this week, on
September 17, 2012, British Petroleum (BP) took its first step
in applying for an Article 10 review process by submitting a Public
Information Plan for its Cape Vincent Wind Farm project to the
Department of Public Service staff .
Introduction:
On August 4, 2011 The New York Power Act (Article 10) was signed into
law by Governor Cuomo, re-authorizing the state to oversee and
regulate the siting of new and updated electric energy generating
facilities, stripping the decision making process away from local
communities.
Governor Cuomo acknowledged
there would be controversy associated with siting issues, but that
both sides in any siting controversy would be heard in a “fair
process.” From the standpoint of a small town like Cape
Vincent, New York, that has been the subject of major wind power
siting designs for almost a full decade by a corporate giant coupled
with the loss of control over the decision making process to a
distant state Siting Board, a fair process now becomes a vital issue
of survival for that community.
When
Governor Cuomo and certain members of the Legislature expressed the
need for Article 10, one of the major factors cited was the need to
bring the entire siting process out into the
open and above board. Too often, wind developers had been operating in a clandestine
fashion, recruiting local public officials to become their
leaseholders and, in full effect, their local agents. Obvious ethical
compromises created by these arrangements were of no apparent concern
to the developers, not least of which in this respect was BP in Cape
Vincent.
This
kind of corporate behavior no doubt led the United States
Environmental Protection Agency to recently characterize BP as a
corporation that "lacks
business integrity (New
York Times, Nov.
15, 2012).
Furthermore,
this type of behavior by a company currently seeking an Article 10
project approval should be exposed and brought to light before a
decision is rendered by the Siting Board – or even before an
application is considered sufficiently complete to put before the
Siting Board.
Bad
conduct should matter. We would certainly hope that the Article 10
process is not indifferent to persistent ethical lapses by an
applicant.
BP's
agents and allegiances:
What is apparent is that BP sought to distance the company from
any direct involvement in public outreach and community discourse,
particularly activities that might have had a secretive or otherwise
negative tone or association. To do this BP employed a
community outreach consulting company, Trieste Associates that in
turn created, nurtured and supported a community activist group
taking the name Voters for Wind (VFW). It was no coincidence, of
course, that VFW was comprised of many BP leaseholders or others who
had a financial stake in the BP project coming to fruition. By
any measure, VFW membership includes a very small minority of Cape
Vincent residents. It is anything but a “grass roots”
organization.
The
Article 10 application process requires BP to engage the community
through a Public Involvement Plan (PIP). BP in its revised
PIP describes their relationship with Trieste Associates and VFW
this way:
“In
2007, BP retained the services of Trieste Associates and the
company’s team of public outreach experts to assist with planning
events to educate and engage the public. As part of this effort, BP
assisted a group of local wind power supporters in the Towns of Cape
Vincent and Lyme to form a group known as Voters for Wind.”
BP
is acknowledging a direct link to VFW as well as the thinly buffered
relationship through Trieste Associates.
BP's
Agent Trieste Associates:
Marion Trieste is the principal and founder of Trieste Associates.
She provided a remarkable insight into her role and activities in a
July 2, 2009 Wind Powering America Webinar. In the webinar Trieste
describes forming Green Energy Outreach Services (GEOS) to
“help
our clients in the national and international wind business to
promote these types of projects all over the northeast.”
She talked about her association with VFW in Cape Vincent and BP.
“And
this group here decided to call themselves (voter) for wind to let it
be known --they actually established themselves two years ago.
And I worked with them with a BP wind power project here. BP
was - is the developer that I'm - I've been working with there.”
Trieste
makes the case as to why BP needs to remain below the radar screen in
the public eye:
“I always tell these
developers (BP), you know, you're there to help but pretty much stay
away because, you know, we don't want to be contaminated by, you
know, people thinking that they're just being used by the wind
developers.”
Trieste
outlines why her program is vital to the interests of developers like
BP:
“We
can have Barack Obama”, we can have all of our politicians talking
about using more renewable energy but when you start putting these,
you know, turbines, large turbines in people's view sheds, it's a
totally different story.”
She
continues:
“So
every little locality, every little town has their own ability to
make or break a wind farm by creating an ordinance, wind power - wind
development ordinance that's going to allow a wind farm in or say
no.”
Trieste
is recognizing the importance of local politics and local governance,
and more specifically local zoning laws, to the overall success and
outcome of BP's project plans. In what could be interpreted as
subtle understatement she concludes:
“So
we really need to get our local politics, our public opinion leaders
educated on this. What makes sense and what it is that's really to
their advantage in their community. And the best way to do this is
again through constituents. They're the ones who are going to reelect
them.”
Educating
politicians in this context could include petitions and lawsuits as
well as pamphlets and brochures.
BP's
Front Group Voters for Wind:
From all
indications VFW was created solely for the purpose of implementing
BP's agenda. Their efforts included political, public relations
and, in all likelihood, measures to chill unwanted public discourse
and political speech though legal intimidation.
Trieste's
webinar depicts some of the details about the function and activities
of Cape Vincent VFW:
“So
we usually have folks prepared with t-shirts or hats and that can
really stand out in the crowd. So the town board elected officials,
whatever, can look out in the audience and they can see oh wow, I've
got a lot of supporters out here.”
This
reference may have been suggesting those town officials who had lease
agreements and were also members of VFW. One of Trieste's
prominent outreach tools are petitions. In her words:
“When
you have the silent majority that aren't speaking out, you put a
petition together and promote your wind project to your town board
members as, you know, before they're having, you know, very important
critical votes on allowing projects to take place or wind ordinances
being developed.”
The
advocacy for the use of petitions by Trieste can be seen in the
history of actions of VFW; they carried and promoted a number of
petitions.
BP's
Lease agreements with their binding “cooperation clauses”:
The single most common characteristic among VFW members is their wind
lease agreements. Wind companies infiltrated (the correct word
given the secretive nature of it) Cape Vincent beginning in 2004
signing landowners to wind lease agreements prior to any notification
or public awareness of these activities. In particular, developers
appeared to target sitting local officials, both elected and
appointed. These contracts were complicated legal instruments that
many landowners signed without the review and counsel of any personal
attorneys.
Aside
from the usual language and contractual requirements there is a
remarkable clause, particularly for a local elected official, that
requires the cooperation and assistance of the land owner to expedite
the wind developer’s agenda. Section 8.4 Requirements
of Governmental Agencies: Cooperation states
that landowners “shall
assist and fully cooperate”
with BP in securing permits, approvals, environmental impact reviews
and essentially anything else required by BP to get local approvals.
All of this assistance provided to BP will be “at
no out-of-pocket expense to the Owner.”
It was an astonishing indifference to basic ethical standards for BP
to seek a contractual obligation from local officials to put their
company ahead of the people the officials were sworn to serve.
Reading
down through Section 8.4 the language is even more compromising
regarding general assistance:
“In
connection with any applications for such approvals, (Land)
Owner agrees at Grantee's (BP)
request to support such application (at no out-of-pocket expense to
Owner) at any administrative, judicial or legislative level.”
BP's
wind lease agreement appears to be a binding contract that requires
landowners to assist them in any way BP determines is necessary
and that the cost of such assistance shall not be borne by
landowners, but will be shouldered by BP alone.
It
should need no emphasis to appreciate what BP may have intended in
contractually obligating loyalty, i.e., binding leaseholders to
assist BP. This requirement to “assist
and fully cooperate”, even
extending to public officials is shocking.
Voters
for Wind's Vice President Munk’s Testimonial:
In a
testimonial that appeared on the VFW website, [Exhibit
4],
Dawn Munk, Vice-President of VFW states:
“With
Marion Trieste at our side, this small group (VFW) developed a
mission statement, elected officers, developed by-laws, and began the
task of reaching out to others.” “We have organized letter
writing campaigns and carried petitions and our group now has four
committees regarding very specific areas of concentration.”
“The staff at GEOS (Trieste affiliate) is with us every step of the
way, providing us with information, suggestions and technical and
moral support.”
Munk's
testimonial demonstrated that Trieste Associates/GEOS were the
guiding force for VFW and it further suggests that nothing of any
importance would be set in motion by VFW without the advice, consent
and full support of Trieste and BP.
Lawsuit
against the Town of Lyme:
On May 6, 2008 the Town of Lyme adopted a wind law that was judged to
be too restrictive to the interests of VFW, Trieste Associates and
BP. Then on July 6, 2008 ten plaintiffs, all members of VFW,
filed a lawsuit In Jefferson County Court to force the Town of Lyme
to rescind their newly adopted wind law.
Public
hearing on Lyme's wind law prior to adoption:
In the process leading up to the adoption of a wind law by the Town
Council, Lyme officials set dates for two public hearings. The first
one was scheduled for Saturday January 5, 2008 at the Chaumont fire
hall in Lyme. On the night prior to the hearing VFW organized a
meeting to prepare and outline their strategy for the public
hearing. The meeting was attended by a reporter from the
Watertown
Daily
Times
who filed a report in the Saturday edition – the morning before the
first public hearing.
The article begins:
“About
30 members of Voters for Wind gathered at the fire hall Friday night
to organize the opinions they will share at the town public hearing
today...”
The article goes on to describe VFW activities, e.g., monthly
meetings, and their concern for setbacks for wind turbines and limits
to turbine noise levels. Marion Trieste attended and was quoted
in the Times article as saying,
“The
ordinance calls for turbines to be set back 4,500 feet, or more than
five-sixths of a mile, from the lake, which, combined with other
setbacks, would leave virtually no space in Lyme for turbines.
This is the most restrictive ordinance that I've ever seen in the
state.”
At
the Town of Lyme hearing the following day VFW members parroted
Trieste's charge the night before [Exhibit
6].
“The
proposed setbacks are three times the setbacks of any other wind
project in the state,”
said Dawn Munk (Vice President of VFW). Guy Gosier complained:
“This
is not legal and none of the town's business. These surveys were
passed out with Town Board approval? Why are the people of this town
being shoved aside to meet the demands of a certain few people?”
The
surveys Gosier was referring to sought the public's attitude toward
industrial wind development in the Town of Lyme. Larry Comins
then added:
“The
town's informal survey was not a legal way of determining results for
a yes or no opinion on the wind tower project.”
These
three commenters were members of VFW and were also among the ten
plaintiffs in a lawsuit that was filed against the Town of Lyme on
July 6, 2008.
Lawsuit
filed against the Town of Lyme:
In a report filed by WWNY TV 7 on July 11, 2008 the news broadcast
stated that a lawsuit was filed by ten members of VFW against the
Town of Lyme because they adopted a wind law that was “too
restrictive and does not adequately allow for the orderly development
of wind energy facilities.”
The news report further stated, “Members
of Voters for Wind say developers can’t work within those
constraints.”
In
addition the news report stated, “In
the lawsuit, Voters for Wind says the board failed to recognize their
protest petition. The group says because a petition was
presented, the town board needed to have a 75 percent majority vote
to pass the zoning ordinance.”
The lawsuit therefore complained not only about restrictions on wind
development in the newly adopted law, but also on the alleged failure
of the Town of Lyme board to properly consider their petition of
landowners.
On
August 15, 2008 Supreme Court Justice Hugh Gilbert ruled that,” The
Lyme Town Council acted "arbitrarily and capriciously" when
it rejected 10 property owners' petition protesting the adoption of a
local law regulating the siting of wind turbines.”
The law adopted on May 6, 2008 was struck not on the basis of the
restrictions to industrial wind development, but because of the
improper handling of the petition by the Lyme Town Council.
While the complaint itself did not describe any affiliation between
the ten plaintiffs and VFW, the news reporting frequently mentioned
VFW and the lawsuit.
Trieste
Associates highlights the lawsuit against the Town of Lyme as an
achievement : After
reading the WindWise Education Curriculum supported by the New York
State Energy Research and Development Authority some may consider
Trieste’s statements as confirmation of Trieste/BP's involvement in
guiding the legal action in the Town of Lyme. In this Education
Curriculum a case study is provided by Trieste Associates. The case
study notes:
“Community
opposition can delay or prevent the installation of a wind farm.
Trieste is hired to educate and engage the community where
controversial wind projects are being proposed.”
“For
example, Trieste Associates has helped citizens organize groups such
as Voters for Wind in New York that educates the public about the
benefits of renewable energy resources. Voters for Wind filed and won
a law suit against the elected officials who voted to prohibit a wind
farm in the Town of Lyme, New York.”
Regardless
of Trieste/BP's denials about their involvement in the Lyme lawsuit,
the content of this NYSERDA sponsored document should be considered
carefully.
Article
10 Process – what's said and what's not said:
To reiterate, Governor Cuomo's message regarding Article 10
legislation claimed that it would result in a “fair process.”
Apparently unfazed by the governor’s words, fairness would not
appear to be a top concern to BP. It should be noted here that
BP was recently described by the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency as a corporation that “lacks business integrity.”
What
BP considers fair undoubtedly was included in their slim and cursory
Public Involvement Plan (PIP) that was submitted to the New York
State Department of Public Service, as part of their Article 10
pre-application process . Those listed outreach activities included:
open houses, the use of local project offices, public education
events, local advertisements, project newsletters, informational
publications, and attending Town Board meetings.
In
Exhibit 2 of their PIP, BP reached back in time outlining the history
of the outreach in Cape Vincent during the State Environmental
Quality Review (SEQRA) process, again noting the clean, ethical
public relations accomplishments. It was those so called
“accomplishments” (among others) that were fashioned by the kinds
of ethical abuses that led then Attorney General Cuomo to try to hold
wind developers in New York to greater public scrutiny. That effort
was only marginally successful.
The
Article 10 process also provides an online forum for stakeholder
input, comments and recommendations regarding various siting
projects. At present there are more than 320 comments from the
general public, mostly opposing BP's project proposal. Presumably,
these comments will be used in some way to gauge public sentiment.
The majority of pro-project commentary, however, comes from
unidentified BP leaseholders [they do not identify themselves as
leaseholders], who are being paid by BP and who are contractually
bound to assist and fully cooperate with BP to get their project
approved.
A
fair public information process should distinguish support and
comment from the general public from those being paid by BP to
support their project under the guise of general public support. A
headline "Paid Advertisement" should be required to
accompany any of BP's leaseholder commentary so that state siting
officials will know and understand this is the applicant speaking
through their front group and contractually obligated leaseholders,
and not the general public.
Noticeably
absent from BP’s PIP filing was any reference to using lawsuits,
although the Lyme lawsuit was highlighted as an achievement by
Trieste in the NYSERDA supported WindWise Education Curriculum.
BP has no qualms pretending that its relationship to Voters for Wind
and Trieste Associates is no more than incidental and
inconsequential.
Remarkably,
BP feels free to pick and choose on a whim as to what is relevant and
when.
Conclusion:
Cape Vincent is currently engaged in a fight to protect its future.
The threat comes in the form of an enormous industrial wind
project that would cover the town from corner to corner, and a
project that is wholly incompatible with the town and village's
Comprehensive Plan.
Drawn
into this struggle is the neighboring Town of Lyme, through which new
electric transmission infrastructure would be required. Not only Cape
Vincent and Lyme would be affected by the proposed project. There
would be significant adverse visual, sound, economic and
environmental impacts for miles around in all directions.
Several communities that make up much of the famed Thousand Islands
Region and the people who live there and visitors alike would share
the effects, directly and indirectly.
At
risk could be citizens' health and safety, the value of their homes,
and the small town atmosphere residents have valued throughout the
town's history. The greatest immediate risk, however, is
two-fold: Cape Vincent's loss of local control, and the threat posed
by British Petroleum, a company whose less than stellar record and
reputation on the global stage is being mirrored by its conduct here
in New York's North Country.
The
loss of local control will only be compounded if the Public Service
Commission fails to ensure that the rules governing the Article 10
process are applied fairly, much as Governor Cuomo outlined and
promised.
Standing
in stark contrast to a fair process, is the corporate history of BP
in the U.S. They have pleaded guilty to a number of felonies,
lying to Congress being one. In a remarkable precedent BP has also
been denied access to Federal leases as, a consequence of their
recent actions. The Environmental Protection Agency described
BP's corporate behavior best, saying that BP was “lacking business
integrity.”
BP's
history in Cape Vincent is no better. BP's lease agreements
provided a means to pay town officials for their cooperation and in
their PIP. BP has acknowledged a direct link to Voters for Wind
as well as the thinly buffered relationship through Trieste
Associates. It was Voters for Wind that filed complaints to
remove perfectly reasonable and prudent local laws and to block
public discourse.
BP,
incredulously, continues to assert that they have the support of the
community for their project. They simply do not. They choose to
define the community, for their purposes, as the small minority of
town resident and non-resident landowners who have signed lease
agreements with them.
And what cannot be overlooked in considering these matters, is that BP never would have gained any developer toehold in the community were it not for the fact that they compromised former town government officials with financial inducements, and by binding those officials to unethical contractual promises. Having tainted the process so thoroughly, BP dismisses their own past actions as if they left no mark on the town at all. The level of mistrust and resentment they have generated by their actions will take generations to heal. And yet, they would presume to go forward with a "fresh" approach to developing their project as if their hands were perfectly clean.
The history of the callous
approach taken by BP in this development effort, has come to impress
upon many St. Lawrence River area regional and municipal leaders, and
opened their eyes fully to BP's abuses. These leaders who are
involved in shaping the political, commercial and cultural life of
our region, have come to reject BP as a welcome and valuable economic
development partner.
Also,
there are steadily decreasing numbers of those who reside in Cape
Vincent and the surrounding area who may have thought they had a
general understanding of the various tensions at work here.
There has been a steadily increasing number who understand how BP has
worked many angles behind the scenes to manipulate, compromise, and
intimidate the common good of the community.
By
their past actions in Cape Vincent BP has demonstrated they are unfit
to do business in our community. Cape Vincent deserves better
treatment.
We
are collectively holding our breath, and have been for a long time,
for the message to sink in with BP that their development efforts
here are unwelcome by the vast majority of residents. They should
leave here to allow the town and the region to recover from nine
years and counting of astonishingly arrogant corporate abuse.
We have had enough of BP's brand of public outreach and it is time
for them to stop; it is time for them to go!
Thank
you for your consideration of the content
Sincerely,
Kathryn Muschell
Cape
Vincent, NY
Sources:
![[Exhibit 4]](https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjhNRCOALXUtpZXl8LhD0dYW0-oBxdDMjXg5oDnLYaCgBZ0Zcd-RMEoZ8Ydea6pipHZ3Xug43eyOXM7k10ERbitIoKVucf7P70_2IdpF3Mc4VAjHpr_Tia5nj1cE6ryEoZm8IisPL8FuYYZ/s1600-h/vfwadb.jpg){kind=link}
No comments:
Post a Comment