Public Service Commissions Response to Supervisor Hirschey's Concerns

You  are  correct  that  providing  donations  to  community  groups  is  not  an  activity  listed  in  the  PIP. Notwithstanding  your  concerns,  the  fact  that  the  PIP  does  not  discuss  charitable  donations  to  local  service groups  does  not make  the  plan inadequate  or preclude  the  involvement  of any sector of the Cape Vincent community from participating in the Article 10 process.


Honorable Urban C. Hirschey

Supervisor  Town of Cape Vincent

1964 NYS Route  12E

Cape Vincent, NY  13618

Re: Case  12-F-041 0

Dear Supervisor Hirschey:

Thank you  for  your  letter dated  December  12, 2012  regarding the  Public  Involvement  Plan ("PIP") filed  by  Cape Vincent Wind  Power and  your concern  about possible conflicts of interest.  You state in  your letter that  Cape Vincent Wind  offered  charitable donations 'to  service groups  in  the Town  of Cape Vincent,  an  activity  which  is  not reflected in  the PIP.  You also expressed concern  about a  possible conflict of interest because the  attorney  for  the  project, John  Harris,  is  married  to  Commissioner  Maureen  Harris,  a  member  of the  Public Service Commission ("Commission").  I hope the following responds to your concerns.

As  you know, the New York State Board on  Electric Generation Siting and the Environment ("Siting Board")  is  empowered  to  issue  Certificates  of  Environmental  Compatibility  and  Public  Need  authorizing  the

construction  and operation of major electric generating facilities in New York State,  pursuant to Article  10  of  the Public Service Law. 

The statute and the Siting Board's regulations require a project developer to submit its proposed PIP to the staff of the Department of Public Service ("Department staff') for review and comment.

The purpose of this requirement is to ensure that the developer has an adequate plan  in  place to inform affected  communities  about  the  project  and  to  facilitate  the  public's  participation  in  the  Article  10  process.  

Cape Vincent Wind submitted  its  proposed  PIP  on  September  17,2012.  Department staff found  that the  proposed  PIP  was  inadequate  and  provided  suggestions  as  to  how  Cape  Vincent Wind  could  Improve  its  plan.  The  company submitted a revised PIP on November 16, 2012.

You  are  correct  that  providing  donations  to  community  groups  is  not  an  activity  listed  in  the  PIP. Notwithstanding  your  concerns,  the  fact  that  the  PIP  does  not  discuss  charitable  donations  to  local  service groups  does  not make  the  plan inadequate  or preclude  the  involvement  of any sector of the Cape Vincent community from participating in the Article 10 process.

Furthermore, you are correct that John Harris is married to Commissioner Maureen Harris, who is a member of  the Commission, and that Department staff serve as staff of the Siting Board in the Article  10 process.  You  stated in your letter that the community is very sensitive to conflict of interest issues.  I can assure you that the Siting Board,  the Department,  and the Commission  are very aware  of concerns  about potential  conflicts of interest.

First, the  Siting Board,  and not the Commission, will review  any Article  10  application submitted by Cape Vincent wind.  Commissioner Harris is not a member of the Siting Board and therefore Commissioner Harris will  not have  any role  in  that review.  While  it does not appear at this  point that there will  be any matters  related to the Cape Vincent project that are statutorily required to come before the Commission, Commissioner  Harris will be informed that this matter is pending before the Siting Board.

Second, Department Staff will ensure that Commissioner Harris does not receive any documentary information  pertaining to the Cape Vincent project and will be instructed, once an application is filed,  not to discuss this  matter with her.  Should an issue arise in the future  that requires Commission review, Commissioner Harris  will be required to disclose her relationship with her husband and to recuse herself from any consideration of  the matter.  The process of disclosure and recusal  is  consistent with the policies set forth  by the predecessor agencies to the Joint Commission on Public Ethics (see, for example, Advisory Opinion No. 95-35).

By statute, there  is a  distinction  between the Commission and the Department of Public  Service.  The chief executive officer of the. Department of Public Service is the Chairman of the Public Service Commission, not  the Commissioners, as defined in Public Service Law Section 3. Furthermore, the Commission .is  a separate  body within the Department, as defined in Public Service Law Section 4. As such, please be advised that staff  assigned to facilitate the stipulation process under Public Service Law 163 (5) do not report to and do not share information with any Commissioner other than the Chairman of the Department of Public Service,  as noted  above. Department Staff provide information to the Commissioners. pertaining only to matters that are within  the Commission's statutory powers and duties to consider.

I  hope that this  letter  provides you  with  a  greater' understanding of the  review  process regarding the Cape Vincent project, and all Article  10 projects. The Siting Board will make its decisions on the record developed in the review proceeding, assuming Cape Vincent Wind files  an Article  10 application.  Please contact me if  you have any further questions.

 Very truly yours  ,

Jeffery C. Cohen

Acting Secretary


Link here to the PSC website 

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

Did BP participate in writing Article 10?

Past experience with BP’s project manager Richard Chandler gave us little hope BP
would be forthcoming with information. Nevertheless, many attended anticipating that
BP’s attorney John Harris would be more responsive to questions. Unfortunately this was
not the case. Attorney John Harris talked at us much the same as Chandler. We asked
pointed questions and they dodged and ducked. For example:

December 14, 2012

Honorable Jaclyn Brilling
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 Secretary Brilling:
BP held a Public Education Workshop in Cape Vincent on December 6, 2012. This
workshop was advertised to explain how the Article 10 permitting process works, provide
information on how to become involved with the Article 10 permitting process and
answer questions on the Article 10 permitting process.

Past experience with BP’s project manager Richard Chandler gave us little hope BP
would be forthcoming with information. Nevertheless, many attended anticipating that
BP’s attorney John Harris would be more responsive to questions. Unfortunately this was
not the case. Attorney John Harris talked at us much the same as Chandler. We asked
pointed questions and they dodged and ducked. For example:

Question: Did BP participate in writing Article 10
Answer: I don’t know the answer to that. I think they may have submitted
comments on the siting law but, off the top of my head I don’t remember (It is
hard to believe that Mr. Harris did not know if BP submitted comments or not.)


Question: Is the PIP process supposed to be a dialogue, a two way communication,
or does the applicant state what they intend to do without any discussion?
Answer: Both (Why then will the applicant not answer question in a substantive
manner?)

Question: Is the applicant required to interact with the Town during the
development of their Preliminary Scoping Statement?
Answer: The applicant will reach out. (What does that mean? When is this
supposed to happen during the process?)

Question: Is the applicant required to submit a copy of their Preliminary Scoping
Statement to the Town for comment before it is officially submitted to the Article
10 Board?

Answer: Nothing requires the applicant to do so. (Why wouldn’t they if the
applicant was truly interested in the Town’s input?)

Question: Does Article 10 make provision for ad hoc members to be nominated
from each municipality in which the project will be located? If there are two
separate municipalities involved does the number of ad hoc member of the Board
increase?

Answer: I do not know. (You would at least hope the attorney representing BP
would have offered to find out the answer if he wasn’t up to speed on the process.)

We were not the only people who were struck by BP’s obfuscation. The Watertown Daily
Times reported (Dec. 7, 2012) that, “Like the wind farm’s project manager at a previous
meeting, John S. Harris — an attorney who represented BP at Thursday’s workshop at
the Cape Vincent Recreation Park — was unable to answer several questions posed by
local officials. Some of the inquiries were out of the meeting’s scope, Mr. Harris told the
audience, and others, he simply did not know what the answer was.”

We understand that BP may not have their project plans fully completed, but they must
have a better idea of what they are going to do than what they are providing for us. For
another example, they still cannot tell us whether the project is 200 MW or 285 MW.
Either BP is woefully ill-equipped to move ahead with an Article 10 project or they are
choosing not to share any substantive information with the Town, which flies in the face
of the Article 10 PIP.

We respectively submit that BP is not following the intent, let alone the letter of the
Article 10 Public Involvement Program. We further submit that BP is more interested in
checking off the box that says they conducted a Public Information Program,

We ask the Siting Board to address this lack of meaningful dialogue on the part of the

applicant. Continued and flagrant failure of the applicant to abide by rules, and the
complete lack of good faith sharing of information, should result in a rejection of BP's
Public Involvement Program.

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

Town of Cape Vincent Comments Re: Conflict of interest and BP ~ Making Donations

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 pre-application 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

BP attorney’s PSC connection

CAPE VINCENT — An attorney representing BP Wind Energy in its proposed Cape Vincent Wind Farm project is married to a high-ranking official with the state Public Service Commission.

Both BP and PSC confirmed that attorney John S. Harris is the spouse of PSC Commissioner Maureen F. Harris but said Mrs. Harris does not have a say in the outcome of state siting reviews.

Continue reading via this link

BP's PIP contains statements that are misleading and/or incorrect.

The November 16, 2012 submission by Cape Vincent Wind Power, LLC (BP) of a revised Public Involvement Program (PIP) for their proposed construction of a wind generating facility in the Town of Cape Vincent, NY contains statements that are misleading and/or incorrect. 

Honorable Jaclyn A. Brilling, ¿Secretary.
NYS Board of Electric Generation Siting and the Environment
3 Empire State Plaza
¿Albany, NY 12223-1350

RE: Case 12-F-041 0 Cape Vincent Wind Power

Dear Secretary Brilling,

The November 16, 2012 submission by Cape Vincent Wind Power, LLC (BP) of a revised Public Involvement Program (PIP) for their proposed construction of a wind generating facility in the Town of Cape Vincent, NY contains statements that are misleading and/or incorrect.   The company claims that its proposed project has the support of citizens in Cape Vincent and Lyme.  Nothing could be further from the truth.  I served on the Lyme Planning Board from 2007 until 2011.  During that time I attended many public meetings in Cape Vincent.  I was also one of the founding members and co-chair of the Coalition for the Preservation of the Golden Crescent and the 1,000 islands.  The Coalition was formed to fight wind developers throughout the region.

I have had a long career in the international energy and ocean shipping businesses with a particular expertise in natural gas.  I have served as a consultant in these matters to Mobil Oil, General Dynamics, Pertamina (the Indonesian state energy company), Pertrobras, and others.  I have also developed designs, specifications, and supervised construction of a number of large oceangoing vessels, each containing a complete electrical generation and distribution system and I therefore have a thorough understanding of such electrical systems.  I also have, in addition to my education and experience of 50 years in naval architecture and marine engineering, an MBA from Harvard Business School and extensive experience in the economics of energy production and distribution.

There are a number of reasons why Industrial wind turbines are not suitable for an area such as Cape Vincent and Lyme in the Thousand Islands area.  These towns are located on Lake Ontario and the Saint Lawrence River and have miles of waterfront residences, for both year round and seasonal use.  The imposition of large industrial wind towers, which may be 500 feet or more in height will obviously change this beautiful area into an industrial site that people will not be inclined to visit.  There are many concerns about imposing these large machines on communities of this type and population density, which I am certain others will make you aware of through their letters.

What I wish to point out is that the whole idea of generating useful power with the objective of reducing consumption of fossil fuels is fraudulent.  I am concerned that the State of New York and the Federal government have made a tragic mistake in promoting and subsidizing wind energy.

I attach a power-point presentation that I put together three years ago. It demonstrates that an industrial wind power facility backed up by an open cycle gas turbine, which is the only fuel powered device that can accommodate the natural variability of wind power, will consume more fuel than a modern combined cycle gas turbine without wind power.  The inclusion of wind power on the electrical grid will actually increase consumption of fossil fuels.  The wind turbines are not green.

I would be pleased to travel to Albany to make such a presentation to your commission and answer any questions you may have.

Sincerely,

A letter to the Public Service Commission from Cape Vincent Town Board members

It is, on the contrary. a fact that the proposed project will have major adverse environmental impacts on those within the proposed boundary and to those throughout the surrounding areas. How could it possibly be otherwise? Those impacts will significantly alter what currently exists. Many of these adverse impacts cannot be mitigated as a practical matter. Examples are major bird kills (as convincingly demonstrated at the nearby Wolfe Island site since 2009), excessive noise, light pollution and electronic signal interference.

December 5, 2012

Honorable Jaclyn A. Brilling Secretary. 

NYS Board of Electric Generation Siting and the Environment 

3 Empire State Plaza
Albany, NY 12223-1350

RE: Case 12-F-041 0 Cape Vincent Wind Power

Jefferson County. New York 13618

The November 16, 2012 submission by Cape Vincent Wind Power, LLC (BP) of a revised Public Involvement Program (PIP) for their proposed construction of a wind generating facility in the Town of Cape Vincent, NY contains statements that are misleading and/or incorrect. 

They are as follows:

On page 7 the applicant states, "While the Project is not anticipated to have a potentially significant adverse environmental impact resulting from its construction and/or operation that is different in type. scope, or magnitude compared to the population located in the broader geographic area surrounding the proposed wind farm...," etc.

It is, on the contrary. a fact that the proposed project will have major adverse environmental impacts on those within the proposed boundary and to those throughout the surrounding areas. How could it possibly be otherwise? Those impacts will significantly alter what currently exists. Many of these adverse impacts cannot be mitigated as a practical matter. Examples are major bird kills (as convincingly demonstrated at the nearby Wolfe Island site since 2009), excessive noise, light pollution and electronic signal interference.

Throughout out the BP submission the project is described as an "Approximately 200-285 Megawatt facility." Again, this is vague and misleading information. The quantitative spread of 200-285 equates to a 42.5% scope variation! In other words, the applicant is allowing itself the latitude to change the scope over a very wide range, as if that were an incidental rather than central consideration. Also, the word "approximately" leaves us with no clarity as to what BP is actually proposing to do in our town. Are they reserving to themselves the prerogative to construct a project of any size they wish -- not limited to the 200 - 285 MW range?

It would be impossible for us, as local stakeholders and government officials, to conduct a proper review of BP's project until we know what that project actually is. The locations and output of each tower are not specified and have not been made public. At least one attendee of the November 10, 2012 CVWP public meeting was told by a CVWP representative that CVWP does not intend to make the specifics of the project public. Interesting approach to "public involvement."

The applicant states, "Assuming CVWF generates approximately 200 MW, the CVWF would make an annual tax payment of $1.7 million in year one..." etc. 200 MW is based on the rated output of the project. It is a well-known fact that wind energy conversion systems are normally 75% less efficient than their rated capacity. That fact is nowhere in dispute. If the economic benefits projections are based on rated output but paid out in actual output, then the projected economic benefits are overstated by 75%. Again, the use of the word "assuming" enables the applicant to make misleading assertions for which they could not be held effectively accountable for after start-up.

These are only some of the glaring examples that highlight how BP's pre-application public outreach efforts still lack clarity and should be weighed by Siting Board staff accordingly. A deliberate avoidance of true communication at this stage, clearly suggests how BP intends to proceed should the process move forward.

We see repeated statements from BP, in the context of their Public Involvement Program, wherein they play very fast and loose with the most pertinent information, or chose to withhold such information altogether. To approach their obligations with the message, "We will tell what we think you need to know when we want you to know it," is surely not the standard for the level of community involvement expected of developers under Article 10

Sincerely,

These are only some of the glaring examples that highlight how BP's pre-application public outreach efforts still lack clarity and should be weighed by Siting Board staff accordingly. A deliberate avoidance of true communication at this stage, clearly suggests how BP intends to proceed should the process move forward.

We see repeated statements from BP, in the context of their Public Involvement Program, wherein they play very fast and loose with the most pertinent information, or chose to withhold such information altogether. To approach their obligations with the message, "We will tell what we think you need to know when we want you to know it," is surely not the standard for the level of community involvement expected of developers under Article 10

Sincerely,

Urban Hirschey, Supervisor                  Brooks Bragdon, Councilman

Clifford Schneider , Councilman              John Byrne, Councilman

BP Attorney of Record for the Cape Vincent Wind Farm has moved to another firm

BP's Attorney of record John Harris , moves to a new firm taking BP along as a client.

John S. Harris has been the attorney of record for BP's Cape Vincent Wind project since 2008, perhaps even earlier. 

 December of 2008, Harris was on hand when BP was encouraging the Jefferson County Industrial Development Authority to hurry the uniform pilot.

"The need for a uniform policy is great," said BP Alternative Energy representative John S. Harris, attorney with McKenna Long and Aldridge, Albany. "It certainly allows BP to make a business decision to move forward. We are willing to engage in dialogue on what makes sense."

 2006 to 2010; John Harris was a partner with McKenna Long and Aldridge .
  When Harris left McKenna Long and Aldridge he joined Harris Beach, bringing BP with him.

Honorable Jaclyn A. Brilling... For the past 6 years Cape Vincent has been a victim of BP’s lack of business integrity.

Secretary, New York State Public Service Commission

Three Empire State Plaza

Albany, New York 12223-1350

 RE: Case 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 MW Wind Electric Generating Facility in the Town of Cape Vincent NY.

 Honorable Secretary Brilling,

 I am submitting this letter in regard to BP’s continued pursuit of their Cape Vincent, Wind Power Project under an article 10 process.

 BP has been suspended from winning new government contracts. Due to what the EPA cited as a "lack of business integrity."

 For the past 6 years Cape Vincent has been a victim of BP’s lack of business integrity.

BP came into our community like thieves in the night, quietly signing many of our Town Officials and their families to Wind Leases and Good Neighbor Agreements, knowing this would create blatant conflicts of interest. This is a clear violation of the town’s ethics code and NY State law. These conflicted Municipal Officers played a pivotal role in moving BP and Acciona’s projects along.

 As a result of complaints over these conflicts of interests and subsequent actions taken by our Municipal Officers, then Attorney General, Andrew Cuomo, launched an investigation that to this day has not properly addressed the conflicts of interests.  As a result, our community galvanized and through the democratic process we were able to eliminate the conflicted officials, removing BP’s influence/control over the approval process. 

  

  Now BP is attempting to bypass our community by pursuing their project through an Article 10, process. BP has submitted a public involvement program that grossly distorts their public involvement and outreach in our community.

The only board or community members that BP has reached out to are the ones that have signed financial agreements with BP.

 Recently; BP Wind Power Development Director, Richard Chandler

  stated publically, “we have an incredible amount of support from the community”.

BP began promoting their project by cultivating a façade of community support.

  In 2007, BP retained the services of Trieste Associates (Marion Trieste) and her 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 (VFW). [1] 

 Marion Trieste uses a community outreach technique she defines as grassroots organizing. Typically a grassroots movement is driven by the politics of a community however; Trieste specializes in developing grassroots movements that are driven by the politics of the wind developer. [2]  

Trieste organized a body of residents consisting largely of wind lease holders whom expect to profit from the wind turbine developments in Cape Vincent, NY.

 Over the years Voters for Wind have been successful in maintaining the appearance of being a civic organization, independent of the wind developers.

  Recently in their PIP, BP, re -branded Voters for wind as a public interest group they developed as part of their public outreach and education process. 

 Voters for Wind have been actively and aggressively promoting and assisting BP/Acciona with their respective wind projects.

  Below I have listed a few noteworthy outreach activities, conducted by BP’s Voters for Wind. 

 August 14, 2008 - Voters for Wind filed and won a lawsuit against town board members who voted for a law to regulate the siting of wind turbines in the town of Lyme, New York[3][4] ( Lyme is a stakeholder in BP’s Cape Vincent wind project)

  

May 5, 2010 - Voters for Wind were successful in derailing Cape Vincent’s efforts to enact a wind law.

 Over the years Cape Vincent has made several unsuccessful attempts to develop a zoning law to properly regulate the siting of industrial wind towers.

  A committee convened in 2010, and over the course of several months they reached a consensus on a wind law. However May 2, 2010 through the efforts of   a Voter for Wind spokesperson the agreement was sabotaged.

  The Voter for Wind spokesperson introduced data containing facts and figures supportive of a less restrictive, developer friendly wind law .The lease holding committee members agreed with the Voter for Wind spokesperson, consequently the process was subverted [5] [6]

Three days after this last wind law committee meeting, BP business developer, Jim Madden, sent a letter to the Cape Vincent Town Board containing the exact same data that the Voter for Wind spokesperson had presented to the wind law committee as her own.  It became apparent that the Voter for Wind Spokesperson was representing BP, and not the interests of the community. [7][8]

August 5, 2010 - during a Jefferson County Industrial Development Agency (JCIDA) meeting , members began discussing drafting a policy based on an idea put forward by Justin S. Miller, Harris Beach PLLC, Albany which would preclude local governments from signing off on any deal the agency made with a developer.[9]  

A voter for wind spokesperson supported taking away local jurisdiction as well,  stating  "I am appalled that anyone on this board would consider distorting the mission of the JCIDA to attempt to control alternative energy development by giving school boards the power to kill a project. We vote for our school board members on the basis of their ability to run our school, not our town or county. This back-door effort to kill wind power in Jefferson County is alarming and a gross misuse of power. Do not destroy the reputation of the JCIDA by using it as a political weapon. [10]

January 13, 2011 - At the Cape Vincent Town Board meeting, Voters for wind called for the resignation of Cape Vincent’s Town Supervisor because he released a series of 51 documents, that revealed the initial study on ambient sound levels conducted by the wind developers consulting firm, was "flawed" and that the "Planning Board had ignored the recommendations" of the town's own acoustic consultants. [11], [12]

Since their inception, Voters for Wind have been extremely vocal in promoting BP’s Cape Vincent Wind Project. In their pursuit of thwarting the opposition various members of this civic organization have engaged in other non- traditional activities that may or may not have been carried out under the direction of BP.

   BP’s record in Cape Vincent and Lyme is abhorrent; we have been used and abused by BP’s lack of business integrity. Their Development methods have been and continue to be unduly burdensome.  As long as BP has a presence in our communities we cannot begin to repair the damage done by their underhanded activities. In light of their past and continued actions, I respectfully implore you, to dismiss BP’s application for their Cape Vincent Wind Farm project.

 Sincerely,

Kathryn A. Hludzenski

Cape Vincent,NY


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
 Sources:
Links in body of text

[1] BP’s PIP

[2]US-DOE WEBSITE Wind Powering America

[3] NYSERDA Wind Wise Education brochure Case Study Voters for Wind sue Lyme TB.

[4]Court Document - Gosier Voter for Wind V Lyme TB members

[5] Town of Cape Vincent Video Log

[6] YOU TUBE video

[7] Link to letter sent to CV from BP Director of Development Jim Madden

[8]CV warned of Restrictive zoning

[9] Watertown Times - PILOT-

[10] JCIDA board approves uniform tax-exempt policy Watertown Times 8/6/10

[11] Video recording of Cape Vincent Town Board meeting Cape Vincent TB video January 13, 2011 - Privilege of the floor

[12] Watertown Times Expert: papers wrongly released

Town of Cape Vincent Supervisor Responds to BP Letter dated November 20, 2012

BP Wind Energy claims to be proceeding in good faith under Article 10 by engaging in a Public Involvement Program (PIP) through which they will diligently seek to inform and educate the residents of Cape Vincent and other stakeholders. However, the referenced BP letter shows no trace of genuine public involvement.

November 26, 2012

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:

We are in receipt of a letter dated November 20, 2012 from Mr. Larry Folks, Senior Vice

President and Chief Development Officer for BP Wind Energy North America, Inc.

Mr. Folks claims in his letter to respond to a letter sent to BP Alternative Energy and BP Wind Energy North America on October 30, 2012. In that October 30 letter we, the collective elected and appointed officials of the government of the Town of Cape Vincent, expressed a number of problems we experienced in attempting to learn BPs plans for a major wind power development project in our town.

Mr. Folks’ letter is a “response” only in the most technical sense. In fact, it is wholly

unresponsive. Of the several concerns and questions clearly set forth in our letter, Mr. Folks does not respond to any of them. His letter does not merely fail to clarify anything; it does not even do us the courtesy of acknowledging the issues presented in our letter.

BP Wind Energy claims to be proceeding in good faith under Article 10 by engaging in a Public Involvement Program (PIP) through which they will diligently seek to inform and educate the residents of Cape Vincent and other stakeholders. However, the referenced BP letter shows no trace of genuine public involvement. It is nothing more than a few short paragraphs of very standard BP marketing language quoting generalized benefits that BP asserts will come to a community from having a wind project. We could have lifted that language from one of their

brochures.


The letter concludes with BP claim to be looking forward to “continuing dialogue” with us, but
we are unaware of any dialogue to date with BP -- in spite of our repeated efforts to have one.
BP’s effort is better characterized as a monologue, not a dialog.

This most recent communication from BP is very disturbing. It serves as further indication that
our town is faced with a major industrial developer, proposing a project of unprecedented size
and scope, which refuses to talk with us in any meaningful way.

We trust that you will weigh our concerns and frustrations very carefully as you continue to
evaluate BP’s so-called public involvement with the Town of Cape Vincent.

Sincerely,
Urban C. Hirschey
Supervisor