BP’s public involvement

“Four hostile newspapers are more to be feared than a thousand bayonets.” — Napoleon Bonaparte

Part of the Article X control siting wind energy projects is the Public Involvement Program. PIP is a written plan for engaging, interacting with and informing the community about the wind proposal. In Cape Vincent, British Petroleum has written what they consider their PIP. While that PIP is weak and vague, it seems there is another more powerful public involvement program quietly afoot. BP wind leaseholders and members of Voters For Wind, a group BP claims credit for assisting to form, filed a lawsuit last summer that seeks to subdue and quiet our local blogs’ voices.

[Watertown Times]

Town of Cape Vincent sends The Public Service Commission a list of things they expect BP to include in their Scoping Statement

Entire letter including recommendations

Town of Cape Vincent Letter to the PSC 1-29-13 by pandorasboxofrocks

Thousand Islands Land Trust Comments To the Public Service Commission Concerning ~ The Cape Vincent Wind Farm

January 18, 2013

Hon. Jaclyn A. Brilling
Secretary to the Commission
New York State Public Service Commission
Three Empire State Plaza
Albany, New York  12223

Dear Secretary Brilling,

From Lake Ontario to Morristown, the Thousand Islands region has been targeted as a prime location for industrial wind development. With active projects in the towns of Cape Vincent and Lyme, as well as Clayton, and  towers in the Town of Hammond, the entire region is being considered for such development.

As a non-profit land trust with preserves and conservation easements in all of the towns stretching from Cape Vincent to Hammond, we have a vested interest in conserving the environmental integrity of our Regional ecosystem. Working to conserve the natural beauty, wildlife habitats, and recreational opportunities of the Thousand Islands, TILT has conserved over 8,000 acres of habitat for migratory waterfowl, grassland restoration for nesting songbirds, and multiple outreach efforts to provide local communities with information as well as hands on expertise required to continue to protect and conserve the Region's unique natural resources.

Lacking a regional comprehensive plan regarding the impact of multiple industrial wind projects in the Thousand Islands region, we respectfully request that the Article X Siting Board pay close attention to the work conducted by our local municipalities.  The towns, including smaller adjacent communities currently involved with industrial wind proposals, have consistently said that, through the development of local comprehensive plans, and more importantly, the elections and appointments of local boards, they seek to protect the health, safety, and welfare of their communities.

New York State has wisely chosen to be a Home Rule state, meaning that municipalities have been given the right to determine local land use decisions for their communities. We respectfully request that the Article X Siting Board respect the wishes and concerns of the electorate in the Thousand Islands region.

Sincerely,


Jake R. Tibbles
Executive Director
Thousand Islands Land Trust
PO Box 238
Clayton, NY  13624

The Public Service Commission responds to Lyme ~ Concerning the Ad hoc public Siting Board Members

Public Service Commission responds to the Town of Cape Vincent's concerns over BP's ethical propriety

NYS BOARD ON ELECTRIC GENERATION SITING
AND THE ENVIRONMENT
STATE OF NEW YORK DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SERVICE

Three Empire State Plaza, Albany, NY 12223-1350
www.dps.ny.gov/sitingboard

GARRY A. BROWN
Chair                                                                                                                
JEFFREY C. COHEN
Acting Secretary
KENNETH ADAMS
JOSEPH MARTENS
FRANCIS J. MURRAY, JR.
NIRAV SHAH, M.D.
Members

January 10, 2012
The Honorable Urban C. Hirschey
Supervisor

Town of Cape Vincent
1964 NYS Route 12E
Cape Vincent, NY 13618

Re:Case l 2-F-0410

Dear Supervisor Hirschey:

I have received your December 20, 2012 letter in which you again raise concerns regarding donations that you assert were provided by Cape Vincent Wind, a potential applicant for an Article 10 certificate, to local community organizations.

You state in your letter that you are concerned about the ethical propriety of a potential applicant "giving money to stakeholders prior to the time these stakeholders will be asked what they think" of the proposed project. Further, you suggest that a program of donation's should be included in an applicant's Public Information Plan ("PIP").

As a general matter, the Siting Board does not review an applicant's policies regarding donations to community service groups. However, several state laws do restrict gifts to public officials and employees. If you believe that an applicant has made an improper donation to such an individual, then a referral of the matter to the Joint Commission on Public Ethics may be warranted.

The Siting Board would make a referral if it has evidence that a violation of the State's ethics laws has occurred; however, the information provided in your letters does not suggest there is a basis for such an action here. You are free to make a referral directly to the Joint Commission on behalf of the Town at any time.

A project developer is free to engage in community-focused activities not listed or identified in a PIP unless those activities have the effect of undermining Article 10's public participation goals by either misinforming the public about the project or hindering interested parties from participating in the Article 10 process. A donation to a community group does not, by itself, demonstrate that those goals have been or will be compromised.

Thank you for your letter. Please do not hesitate to contact the Siting Board if you have any other concerns in the future.

Very truly yours;

Jeffery C. Cohen
Acting Secretary

A letter to the Public Service Commission... Where are the new studies ?

I would like to point out that in addition to BP refusing to answer many of the reasonable and fair questions from our local representatives, all of the noise, environmental impact, and visual impairment studies previously conducted by both BP and formerly Acconia were conducted for windmills much smaller than the currently proposed 499 foot towers. The change in size is a significant change to the project and will have a much more harmful affect on the residents of our community.
 Where are the new studies to show the noise reach, visual impairment, damage to wildlife migration and danger of ice throw caused by these larger monstrosities that will rival the tallest buildings in upstate New York?

Town of Lyme submitts additional information to the Public Service Commission Re; BP's Cape Vincent Wind Farm

Honorable Jaclyn A. Brilling                                                                                
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 Secretary Brilling:

Please do not override our carefully researched and well thought out Law that will protect the residents of our community. BP has made no progress in engaging in a dialog with our Town. Information has not been forthcoming on many of the aspects of this project that concern our Town. A project of this size will industrialize (the words of a wind developer) our rural community, devalue our properties, and create a divide in our Town. This has not only been addressed by this process; it has exacerbated it. Although the transmission line will divide our entire Town and Lyme will be surrounded by industrial

turbines; there has been little attempt to engage with public officials or our residents. We also suspect that the initial proposal of turbines in Cape Vincent, will soon give way to Phase 2, and those leaseholders in the Town of Lyme will also get turbines on their property. The tactic of divide and conquer is one the wind developer uses freely. The Town of Lyme will have industrial wind turbines located just off their boundaries which in turn will impact property values.

Although initially, the idea of green, clean and free energy from industrial wind turbines was acceptable, if not agreeable to most of the residents of Lyme, over the past 6 or 7 years there has been a change of attitude. This was the partially the result of the wind developers own actions, as rumors of the wind development arrived long before there was any formal contact with the Town of Lyme. There also seemed to be collusion among the developers, as the area seemed to have been divided among the various companies before anyone was informed. Secret leases were signed. There was a division in our

small community over the money that was promised. Reports of free electricity, no taxes, or promises of new fire trucks or other goodies were misleading and caused a rift between various groups. There was a deliberate effort on the part of the developers to divide waterfront and year round residents. Even now in various comments to the PSC there is often a statement, "I am a long term resident," although many of the summer cottages have been in the same family for generations, and the owners have winterized

and moved into their beloved family home year round. As we all know, the promise of money is a powerful lure. It makes me wonder how many of the vocal proponents of this project are solely concerned with the environment, or have a cash stake in the project.

We have a real dilemma in the Town of Lyme. How do we balance the needs of all our residents? Those who value the rural nature, quiet beauty, the wildlife, including bald eagles, osprey, owls and bats; the beauty of the stars at night, with those who would impose the noise, view and blinking lights of industrial wind turbines on the entire community. Towers of this size cannot be mitigated in our flat landscape, as admitted by the developers, so they offered money,. The Town commissioned two groups to research the problem and weigh the benefits with the negatives. The groups were clear in their results; the negatives outweighed the positives. Guided by these documents, as well as several different public surveys and hearings, with the assistance of the Jefferson County Land Use Planning Department, the Town of Lyme passed a Zoning Law to protect the health and welfare of its citizens.

Now BP and our own State are ignoring the Town of Lyme, our Comprehensive Plan and our Zoning Law. This is not new, as Lyme has been marginalized in the entire process. BP is behaving like a poor student as they are doing the minimum to get by and check off the various requirements of the process. Richard Chandler of BP repeatedly stated in the first meeting that they would not come where they are not wanted. After each member of Cape Vincent and Lyme's Town and Planning Boards questioned him, it was made very clear that BP did not, in fact, have the support of the community, however he stubbornly insisted that he did.

Perhaps you don't care, perhaps you and the other officials on the siting board are simply doing as BP is, the minimum that is required by law, checking off a box in the steps of a process that ignores the wishes of the residents of a small community. The wishes of people, just like you; with homes and families that live in a place they love. People that have worked tirelessly, for years, to protect their community and neighbors. People that would like to put this unhappy period of discord behind us and return to working together, in our fire departments, our school, our community groups, and our Town and Village to improve the quality of life for all of our residents.

Sincerely,

Town of Lyme, Town Board

Supervisor Scott Aubertine

Councilman Donald R. Bourquin

Councilwoman Anne Harris

Councilman Daniel Villa

Councilman David Henderson

Town of Cape Vincent Supervisor Tells BP's Chandler he is putting the proverbial cart before the horse.

December 30, 2012
Mr. Richard Chandler
Director, Business Development
BP Wind Energy
700 Louisiana Street, Floor 33
Houston, Texas 77002

Re: Case l 2-F-0410 Cape Vincent Wind Power

Dear Mr. Chandler:

Regarding your request for written confirmation of our meeting date and time, our meeting is scheduled for January 22 at 10:00 AM at our Rec Park facility. We intend the meeting to be a work session and not a forum. It will include Cape Vincent and Lyme officials, and we anticipate give and take vs. formal presentations. We will have a lunch served during the session and expect the meeting will continue in to the afternoon.

You state in your December 21 letter that you are "interested in eliciting specific local interests" for consideration when you again visit Cape Vincent in January. Among the areas of likely local interest you mention location and design, local public involvement, property taxes, payments in lieu of taxes, and highway work associated with your proposed project. Other details you mentioned include the potential for incremental operating and infrastructure costs incurred for police services, fire services, emergency services, water, sewer, solid waste disposal, and highway maintenance and other municipal services during construction and operations phases. In contrast to these detailed points in your PIP you mention the broad, general topics of potential negative impacts, adequacy of studies to address those impacts and applicability of our local law. The details you describe in your letter, however, are putting the proverbial cart before

the horse.

To discuss these matters at our January meeting, while BP is still in a public involvement phase of your proposal, and before any formal scoping process has commenced, strikes us as not only premature but highly presumptuous on your part. Should we be even talking about a construction and operation phase for a proposed project which is still only proposed and a long way from being understood, much less approved? It seems to us that BP has much more groundwork to do before it is anywhere near timely to be discussing such matters as fire services and solid waste disposal, etc.

Mr. Chandler, we are puzzled as to how you think it might be possible to productively engage in discussions on these and other matters without first having the benefit of a full range specific details regarding your proposal. All we really have is a poorly done map with little information other than 124 red dots within the boundaries of the Town of Cape Vincent. In our written communications to BP Wind Power, our face-to-face meeting and open house with you in Cape Vincent, and in our several written and publicly posted communications to the New York State Siting Board staff, we have repeatedly expressed our frustration over the poor details provided by BP for this project proposal and the lack of specificity in your development plans. In a very real sense we are operating in the dark, while you have the benefit of controlling the light.

Your letter does not in any way reflect or even acknowledge your appreciation of our ongoing difficulties in understanding the full scope and nature of your proposal for Cape Vincent and Lyme. If part of your purpose in wishing to come to Cape Vincent in January is to inform us more fully about the proposed location and design of your project, we would welcome that. We would also welcome discussing the issues mentioned in your revised PIP - namely the listing of potentially negative impacts, studies to assess their impacts and those parts of our local law you will be requesting that the Siting Board extinguish.

In your letter you mentioned the need to identify all of Cape Vincent's potentially applicable local laws and regulations. As you are aware all such laws are posted on the town's website and fully available for your review and study. In fact, after having reviewed our draft zoning law you sent us a letter on June 27 stating, " the provisions contained within the Proposed Zoning Law are unreasonably burdensome." If BP continues to hold this then on January 22 BP should be telling us specifically what parts of our law you will ask the Siting Board to supplant.

If part of your purpose for you visit to Cape Vincent in January is for you to better understand how you could improve your public involvement efforts, you need read the several publicly posted letters on that specific matter that we have provided to New York Siting Board staff. In those letters we have identified numerous specific shortcomings in BPs public outreach work to date.

In the closing line of your letter, Mr. Chandler, you say that you look forward to continuing dialogue regarding your project. We would suggest that true dialogue regarding your proposal (not yet a "project") has really not yet commenced. For dialogue to continue it must first begin. We do look forward to candid discussions with you on the substantive matters necessary for our evaluation of your proposal.

Respectfully yours,

Urban Hirschey - Supervisor

Tall Turbines make Good Neighbors...

It is my understanding that by New York State Law , a good neighbor agreement cannot be used to subvert a communities zoning law. If these agreements were to be honored the land owner would essentially be writing their own land use variance.

Below are excerpts from a BP good neighbor agreement also known as an easement.
Additionally at the end of this post, I have added a link to a BP good neighbor agreement contract.

~~~
Good Neighbor
Although Grantee (BP)adheres to generally recognized wind industry practices and applies commercially reasonable measures to minimize effects of its wind farm activities on neighboring properties, will acknowledges the grantee's wind power facilities may still impact the owner's property. Owner has agreed to grant certain rights and easements to accommodate any impact that Grantee's (BP’s) wind power facilities they have on owners property.

This clause is an acknowledgement disclosure the landowner acknowledges that they are aware that there are impacts and they are giving informed consent.Wind farm operations easement.Owner grants Grantee (BP) an exclusive easement in, on, over, across and through owners property, for the purpose of allowing any audio, visual, view, light, noise, vibration, shadow flicker, air turbulence, wake, ice, electromagnetic, electric and radio interference, ice throw or other, whether created hazards, or other effect of any kind whatsoever resulting, directly or indirectly from any construction, development, repair, maintenance, replacement, or operation of grantee's wind power facilities or other of grantee's activities on wind farm.

This clause allows broad unlimited surface and subsurface property uses.Noise waiver.Owner grants Grantee and easement for the right and privileges to generate and maintain audible noise levels in excess of 50 dBA(L 90) on and above the noise easement property at any times of the day or night(" noise easement"). The "noise easement property" shall mean owners property, except those portions within a two hundred (200) – foot radius circle (or lesser distance with owner's prior consent). Centered on the inside of each presently existing, occupied residents on the owner's property. If noise levels produced by the turbines exceed 50 dBA (L90), as measured within (200) feet (or lesser agreed distance) from inside of a presently existing, occupied residents on owners property by an independent, professional applying commonly accepted measurement instruments and standards, grantee shall reduce the noise levels produced by the turbines to 50 dBA (L 90) at two hundred (200) feet (or lesser agreed distance) from the residence. Said noise easement shall further permit the grantee to generate and maintain audible noise levels, emitting from grantee's wind turbines installed on property adjacent to owner’s property, up to 55 dBA at the property boundaries.

This noise waiver allows Grantee (BP) to maintain audible noise levels day and night exceeding 50 dBA (L90). Noise may affect wildlife, as well as other landowners and the quiet enjoyment of the Owner’s Property.)Owner understands and acknowledges that by ordinance, and otherwise, Jefferson County and other governmental entities may now and in the future require, unless waived, certain setbacks of wind turbine generators from property boundaries based on their noise levels. Owner for itself and it's successors and assigns, as owner of the property, waives any and all claims that it may now or hereafter have against Grantee or against Jefferson County, New York, in connection with noise levels that may be generated on owners property by the wind farm.

Setback waiver Grantee(BP) or any affiliate of Grantee (BP) owns, leases or holds an easement in other land concerning or contiguous to the owner's property and has installed or constructed or desires to install construct wind power facilities such adjacent land at or near, the boundary with owners property, owner hereby waives any and all setbacks and setback requirements, whether now or hereafter imposed by applicable law, or by any person or entity, including, without limitation, any setback requirements described in current or future zoning ordinances. In Jefferson County, New York, or in any governmental entitlement or permit heretofore or hereafter issued to Grantee (BP) or such affiliate provided, however, Grantee (BP) agrees that no generating unit shall be located closer than 500 feet from owner’s property line or 1200 feet from any occupied residence on the property, such measurements to be calculated from the center point- of the generating unit.

Upon Grantee (BP) or an affiliates request, owner shall at no additional cost to Grantee (BP)execute(and if appropriate cause to be acknowledged) any setback waiver, setback elimination or other document or instrument reasonably requested by Grantee(BP), its members, or lenders, Jefferson County real estate of New York or any applicable governmental authorities in connection there were, – return the same for any applicable governmental authorities in connection there with – return the same thereto within 10 days after such request, and – provide such public support as Grantee(BP) may reasonably request in connection with any related zoning variance or other government applications by grantee(BP).This clause seemingly overrides without limitation, any setback requirements described in current or future zoning ordinances of Jefferson County.

Additionally the Owner agrees to execute a setback waiver as requested by BP or their lenders. and the owner will publicly support BP's request.

Link here to read entire Good Neighbor agreement

Lyme has been “ignored,” “marginalized” by state and BP Wind Energy, officials say

“Now BP and our own state are ignoring the town of Lyme, our comprehensive plan and our zoning law. This is not new, as Lyme has been marginalized in the entire process,” Lyme officials said in a Dec.

By JAEGUN LEE
TIMES STAFF WRITER

THURSDAY, DECEMBER 27, 2012

CHAUMONT — Lyme officials said the town has been “ignored” and “marginalized” by both BP Wind Energy, developer of the proposed Cape Vincent Wind Farm, and the state.

Although there will be no wind turbines in the town under the developer’s latest proposal, BP still would need to run a transmission line connecting the wind farm to a substation in Lyme.

Continue reading via this link