document #12-127 bp-cvwf application tocv comment letter 09/25/12

8/13/2019 Document #12-127 BP-CVWF Application TOCV Comment letter 09/25/12

1/6

SupervisorURBAN C HIRSHEYTown Clerkrra x Co l lectorMICHELLE A BO UCHARD

CouncilmanMICKEY W ORVISBROOKS J . BRAGDO NCLIFFORD P SCHNEIDERJO HN L B Y RNE IIISuperintendent of HighwaysDANNY P HUBBARD

September 25, 2012Hon. Jaclyn A Brilling

TOWN OF C PE VINCENTJefferson County New York 13618

Secretary, New York State Public Service CommissionThree Empire State PlazaAlbany, New York 12223-1350

ss essorR O B E R T V R B RN R D

HistorianP E T E R J M R G R E Y

Planning Board ChairmanRICHARD H M CSH E R R Y

Soard of Appeals ChairmanR DENNIS FAULKNHAMZoning Enforcement Off icerEOWARD P BENDER

Re: Case 12-F - - Cape Vincent Wind Power, LLC, Public Involvement ProgramDear Secretary Brilling:The Town of Cape Vincent was recently made.aware that BP initiated a pre-application processfor a wind power project in our town under Article 10. We have read their Public InvolvementProgram (PIP) proposal and we are rather surprised at its lack of rigor. It appears to be a .hodgepodge of materials slapped together to document what has occurred in the past with littleforesight into what is needed to move forward in the future . We respectfully submit thefollowing comments for the consideration by the PSC in their review ofBP s PIPIn the 14-page Public Involvement Program statement most of this document, pages 3 through10, describe public involvement efforts conducted prior to the adoption ofArticle 10 rules. BPintroduces its past public involvement history with the statement, it is necessary to understandthe significant amount of public participation and outreach already conducted in the SEQRAproceedings for the individual projects. BP then quotes Section 1001.2(c) of the Article 10 rulessuggesting the rules requires a review ofthe public involvement efforts under SEQRA. In ourreading of this section, however, the rules do not require or even suggest outlining publicinvolvement outside of, and which occurred several years prior to, the commencement of theArticle 10 process. Rather, we read this section as requiring the applicant to describe whatmeasures it is presently taking, or intends to take, during the Article 10 public outreach periodprior to actually submitting an Article 10 application. Public involvement efforts, includingthose required by SEQRA, that took five or more years have no legitimate value in an Article Xpermitting process going forward under that law. Much has changed since BP's years old priorgroundwork. Those earlier efforts are stale and have lost their validityAdditionally, BP's past history with Cape Vincent was not as well received as they suggest intheir PIP BP's past efforts were well received by town officials, but not the community as awhole, because many of these officials had wind contracts or were closely related to leaseholders


2/6

of BP and Acciona. While addressing these wind related matters, these former town officialswith wind leases were receiving money from wind companies. Because of those past conflicts ofinterest the entire SEQRA process and public involvement program by the wind industry was, atthe very least, tainted. Most ofthose conflicted officials have now been replaced, either throughelections or by new appointments. To underscore this point, BP failed to include in its exhibits aWatertown Daily Times story dated Augusl 14,2010, State Probing Officials at Cape, where theNew York State Attorney General's Office launched an investigation into the relationshipbetween Cape Vincent's municipal officials and commercial wind developers (see attached).This investigation does not support BP's assertion that they had a strong track record of closecommunity engagement and outreach. On the contrary, it suggests a more than questionablerecord ofcommunity involvement.Much ofwhat BP outlines in their exhibits occurred between BP and their leaseholders and notthe general public or the town. Moreover, little of the material listed in their exhibits wasforwarded to the town. None of it is currently in any town files; much of it was new to all of us.was obvious from the exhibits attached to their PIP thai most of their past public informationefforts were directed at their leaseholder organization - Voters for Wind (VFW). VFWinformation, however, was never accessible to the general public, since membership wasrestricted to those who promised to support industrial wind development. Non-wind supporterswere told on VFW's website they were not welcomed. BP needs to redirect their efforts in thefuture in order to have any credibility in the requirement for public outreach.Qualitatively, the majority ofBP's past public information program was a one-waycommunication. Their efforts were directed more to telling us what they were going to do ratherthan a dialog where they were listening to community concerns. This should change underArticle 1 . For example, at the public hearing for BP's Cape Vincent Wind Power Project DEISon January 26, 2008, BP solicited public comment. Many people and various involved agencies,including the PSC, studied the SEQRA material carefully and collectively wrote hundreds ofquestions in response to BP's solicitation. Yet, today, four and one-half years later, not a singlequestion has been answered.n another example, on April 14, 2010 the Cape Vincent Planning Board, then chaired by a BP

leaseholder, brought PIAcciona's sound expert to Cape Vincent for a presentation to rebutearlier testimony from the Town's acoustic consultant. This was a big issue and an importanteducational opportunity. At the end of the presentation there were attempts by the public to askquestions, but these individuals were cut-off by the conflicted Cape Planning Board Chairman.His purpose was to halt any view that opposed or questioned wind developers intent. In otherinstances this same conflicted chairman openly bragged that he failed to open letters from othermunicipalities and the general public prior to accepting the SEQRA for Acciona's project (nowBP s project) . This leads to one conclusion, that wind developers see their role as giving us facts,as they see them, possibly allowing some chit-chat at an open house, but rarely responding to anyformal, public questioning. This, too, should change under Article 1 and begin anew. We needhonest, open dialog.Suggested Changes to BP's Public Involvement rogram


3/6

We would like to see BP go back to the drawing board and put more effort into their Publicinvolvement program. BP needs to build some trust in Cape Vincent. Their efforts should bedirected toward engaging the general public with less emphasis oriented toward theirleaseholders. In addition, much of the information they cite is not up-to-date and much of it littlemore than BP advertisements and public relations literature. We submit that it should be plainlyobvious that they need to update materials, especially their time-lines.We have a few additional suggestions that we believe to be essential to any proper effort toinform and educate our residents:

L Honest treatment of important issues: BP correctly states that excessive turbine noise,property devaluation and bird and bat kills along the migratory corridor are the majorconcerns we have for our community. We do NOT need to hear or read more propagandafrom BP that these issues are phony and merely the rantings of overly sensitive seasonalresidents. BP can build some trust by admitting these issues are legitimate concerns andthat our zoning law is designed to deal with these issues.2. Maps and more maps: The most important information BP can provide to our communityare maps outlining turbine locations. We need large-scale maps that show all turbinesand interconnecting lines that make up the total project, both the 200 W and 289.5 Wproject alternatives. The maps should include the 35 dBA sound emission contour, sinceCape Vincent s nighttime sound limit is 35 dBA. There should also be smaller scale mapsthat also include property lines so that individuals can see turbine locations referenced totheir property. Detailed project maps have been the most scrutinized documents in all theopen houses and DEIS filings in the past. All other materials are of far less significanceto average property owners. Good maps are a must in any public information program

1 Turbine model description: Specifications should be provided for the type(s) ofwindturbines proposed for Cape Vincent. In the past, 1.5 W turbines with heights ofapproximately 400 ft were proposed, but recent information suggests larger sizes may beproposed under the Article 10 proposal. Cape residents want to know how tall theturbines will be and they also need information on noise levels and other specifications.4. Public hearing/open house: Along with BP s open house we suggest they include aprovision for an informal public hearing where people can ask questions and getresponses that all attendees can hear and understand. This format would be far moreinformative than any one-on-one communication.Engaging local government: In their PIP BP suggests the only interaction needed withthe Town ofCape Vincent is to discuss infrastructure costs and what local zoning laws wewould elect to NOT apply. We find their presumption and indeed, arrogance, on the issueof our local law appalling. At the same time, we welcome the opportunity to assert anddefend the importance of public safety, property values and protecting the Cape s naturalresources . Since financing is such a critical piece to wind development and nearly allproject developers seeks some kind of local tax relief, it should be a requirement in itsPIP for BP to begin a dialog with all the local taxing jurisdictions, including Towns ofCape Vincent and Lyme, T I and Lyme school districts and Jefferson County. A singlemeeting with representatives from all these taxing authorities would be preferred.6. JustifY supplanting our local law: Given BP s past conduct in this matter, it is entirelyreasonable for us to believe that BP s goal in initiating this application is to supplant our


4/6

zoning law, and to have the local siting board declare it as unduly burdensome. Sincethis issue is crucial to our future, we believe we are entitled to see the rationale forthrowing aside our municipal prerogatives and trashing the zoning law that was d es ignedin good faith and with expert consultation to protect the health, safety apd general welfareof our citizens.

7. Justify ignoring our Comprehensive Plan: Similarly, our Comprehensive Plan describes acommunity that embraces its small-town roots, values its natural , scenic and historicresources . The Plan pointedly states that a large wind project, similar to that proposed byBP under Article 10, is not a good fit for our community. There are just too many peopleliving in Cape Vincent to safely place a large-scale, industrial wind project. Given that alarge utility scale project is a poor fit, we would like to see BP's rationale for ignoring ourPlan and proposing to tum our community into something it does not want and that willbe a detriment to our overall prosperity - a highly industrialized energy complex.

8. Providing a solar alternative: As much as industrial wind is a poor fit for our community,we are not opposed to a commercial, renewable energy project. In both ourComprehensive Plan and Zoning Law commercial solar projects are deemed better fitsand are encouraged as a renewable energy development project proposal. Since BP hascompleted other solar, renewable projects in New York, i.e. , Brookhaven, L.I., weencourage BP to provide a solar energy development alternative as part of their publicinvolvement program.

We appreciate the opportunity to respond to BP's Public Involvement Program. SecretaryBrilling, we hope you understand why we take this matter so seriously and why we will respondto each and every proposal BP directs toward our community, it is because after BP, the sitingboard and your efforts are finished in Cape Vincent, we the undersigned will be responsible todeal with the aftermath.Respectfully yours,Urban H f l i h e ~ - Town SupervisorJohn Bym - Town Council, c : ~ . W f V ' \ t ) . ~Dick Macsherry - Planning ~ r m a n

C ~ h ' ~ n n i n g BoardRo ne Bums - Planning Board

- -. Denms F; fbtham - ZBA ChaIrman~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ B A ,

Joe Martin - ~

Brooks Bradg,on ---:--p';puty Supervisor~ k : D ~ ~C l i f ~ ~ ~ : i ~ ~ S i lBob ; J ~ -Planning Boardy

P ~ ~ ~ n g BoardE ~ ~ ~ r d Bendr


5/6

State probing offici ls tapeBy BRIAN KELLYTIMES STAFF WRITERSATURDAY, AUGUST 4, 201 0

AAS.. .- - - - -: J . .

CAPE VINCENT - The state attorney general's office is investigating allegations of misconduct bycertain town officials in connection with the development of wind farms.

John T Milgrim, spokesman for the attorney general, confirmed that a letter was sent to the town andits attorney Friday afternoon informing them an investigation had been launched ,Me. Milgrim also confirmed that two senior members of Attorney General Andrew M. Cuomo's staff,Deputy Chief of Staff John B, Howard and Henry M. Greenberg, executive division counsel , were inCape Vincent about two weeks ago conducting interviews of parties interested in wind power. Me. Milgrim declined comment on details of the investigation, including what prompted it or whichtown officials may be its focus.According to the letter, obtained by the Times, the attorney general has told the town it mustpreserve all town documents, including those of the Town Council and Planning Board, and the townis not to delete or purge any records until the investigation is complete .The attorney general's office is specifically requesting information about any present, past or futurewind farm development or siting of the farms, as well as all information regarding wind turbines, windpower and related faciinies or wind power projects.The office wants all information about wind farm development compiled since Jan. 1 2005, whetherconsidered, planned, attempted or completed , including, but not limited to permitting, licensing,construction and energy production.By Aug. 28, the attorney general's office wants:• All documents relating to town action on wind farm development, including, but not limited to,board minutes, board packages, resolutions, voting records, communications, permits, applicationsand licenses• All communications between or among town officials and any company engaged in wind farmdevelopment.


6/6

• All documents concerning any financial relationship between a town official , or their relatives, anda company engaged in wind farm development, including , but not limited to, any financial disclosuresfiled with the town and any board minutes reflecting any such disclosures.The attorney general s office is asking that town Supervisor Urban C. Hirschey and Planning BoardChairman Richard J. Edsall, as well as members o the Town Council and Planning Board, be madeavailable for interviews. The office also wants to talk to anyone else who served on either boardsince Jan. 1 2005.Acciona Wind Energy USA has proposed a 51-turbine St. Lawrence Wind Farm for the town and BPAlternative Energy has an active application for the 62-turbine Cape Vincent Wind Farm. Theproposed projects have caused controversies between pro- and anti-wind advocates, includingallegations o conflicts o interest among town officials.

document #12-127 bp-cvwf application tocv comment letter 09/25/12

Documents