The New York State Public Service Commission draft (link for comments) from the New York State Board on Electric Generation Siting and the Environment for the proposed regulations to the Power NY Act 2011 (source), known as Article X is deficient in its mandate. Since a SEQR review for electric generation projects that fall under the new regulations is no longer a requirement, New York State is effectively writing new regulations that abdicate the oversight role of the Department of Environmental Conservation. The motive to fast track permitting approval at the expense of environmental protection demonstrates a bias in favor of developer projects. Therefore, in order to establish an equitable balance in interests, it is prudent to include a comprehensive citizen participation process within the administrative structure of the DPS.

The initial draft of the Article X regulations cite the following needs.
To ensure that the public and interested parties are fully assisted and advised in participating in the Article 10 process, an office of public information coordinator has been created within Department of Public Service.
Public information (page 9) coordination shall include:

(a) To ensure throughout the Article 10 process that the Board is fully aware of the concerns of stakeholders and that the Board’s consideration of an application is not delayed, it is the Board’s policy to require applicants to actively seek public participation throughout the planning, pre-application, certification, compliance, and implementation process. It is also the Board’s policy to encourage stakeholders to participate at the earliest opportunity in the review of the applicant’s proposal so that their input can be considered.

(b) To ensure that the public and interested parties are fully assisted and advised in participating in the Article 10 process, an office of public information coordinator has been created within DPS. Public information coordination shall include:
(1) implementing measures that assure public participation in matters before the Board;
(2) responding to inquiries from the public for information on how to participate in matters before the Board;
(3) assisting the public in requesting records relating to matters before the Board;
(4) ensuring all interested persons are provided with a reasonable opportunity to participate at public meetings relating to matters before the Board;
(5) ensuring that all necessary or required documents are available for public access on the DPS website; and
(6) any other duties as may be prescribed by the Board, after consultation with DPS.

(c) Each Applicant shall conduct a Public Involvement Program that includes:
(1) consultation with the affected agencies and other stakeholders;
(2) pre-application activities to encourage stakeholders to participate at the earliest opportunity;
(3) activities designed to educate the public as to the specific proposal and the Article 10 review process, including the availability of funding for municipal and local parties;
(4) the establishment of a website to disseminate information to the public;
(5) notifications; and
(6) activities designed to encourage participation by stakeholders in the certification and compliance process.

(d) Applicants shall submit a proposed Public Involvement Program plan in writing to DPS for review as to its adequacy at least 150 days prior to the submittal of any preliminary scoping statement, except that for good cause.
In order to facilitate the objectives of the public information coordinator office, Senator Pat Gallivan submitted, S-6924-2011. The essential elements of the legislation would create a citizen advisory panel within the Public Service Commission. Highlights and functions follow.

Section 1. The public service law is amended by adding a new section 174 to read as follows:
S 174. CITIZEN ADVISORY PANEL.

1. A CITIZEN ADVISORY PANEL IS HEREBY ESTABLISHED.

2. A. THE PANEL SHALL CONSIST OF SIX PERMANENT AND THREE ROTATING MEMBERS APPOINTED BY THE CHAIR OF THE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SERVICE TO FOUR YEAR TERMS AS FOLLOWS: ONE PERMANENT MEMBER SHALL BE A RESIDENT OF LONG ISLAND; TWO PERMANENT MEMBERS SHALL BE RESIDENTS OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK; THREE PERMANENT MEMBERS SHALL BE RESIDENTS OF UPSTATE NEW YORK; ONE ROTATING MEMBER SHALL BE A RESIDENT OF LONG ISLAND; ONE ROTATING MEMBER SHALL BE A RESIDENT OF NEW YORK CITY; AND ONE ROTATING MEMBER SHALL BE A RESIDENT OF UPSTATE NEW YORK. FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS SECTION:
E. IN ADDITION TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE PUBLIC OFFICERS LAW, NO PERSON SHALL BE ELIGIBLE TO BE AN APPOINTEE TO THE PANEL WHO HOLDS ANOTHER STATE OR LOCAL OFFICE. NO MEMBER OF THE PANEL MAY RETAIN OR HOLD ANY OFFICIAL RELATION TO, OR ANY SECURITIES OF AN ELECTRIC UTILITY CORPORATION OPERATING IN THE STATE OR PROPOSED FOR OPERATION IN THE STATE, ANY AFFILIATE THEREOF OR ANY OTHER COMPANY, FIRM, PARTNERSHIP, CORPORATION, ASSOCIATION OR JOINT-STOCK ASSOCIATION THAT MAY APPEAR BEFORE THE PANEL, NOR SHALL EITHER OF THE APPOINTEES HAVE BEEN A DIRECTOR, OFFICER OR, WITHIN THE PREVIOUS TEN YEARS, AN EMPLOYEE THEREOF.

The Citizen Advisory Panel has the functions and SHALL CONSIST OF THE FOLLOWING SECTIONS:
A. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY;
B. PROJECT LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION;
C. INPUT FROM LOCAL OFFICIALS AND GENERAL PUBLIC;
D. ANALYSIS OF ECONOMIC CONSIDERATIONS;
E. ANALYSIS OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS;
F. AREAS OF CONCERN;
G. REVIEW OF ALTERNATIVES;
H. RECOMMENDATION TO THE BOARD; AND
I. ANY NECESSARY APPENDICES.

The purpose of incorporating a Citizen Advisory Panel within the PSC is to have access, in a timely manner to the entire database of relevant information on each project. A review of applications and stakeholder input from representatives of citizen organizations is in keeping with the Article X mandate. Recommendations by the panel have the value of experience and expertise that deserves consideration by the Article X Siting Board.

The Citizen Power Alliance is a coalition of concerned citizen organizations that have years of involvement within the electric permitting process. From the perspective of local community interest, the spirit of Home Rule will remain in practice with the support of the multi-agency Siting Board. Individual municipalities, hard pressed to engage as an intervener or challenge the new Article X application process, will benefit from a central resource function of the Citizen Advisory Panel.

As part of the stakeholder submission process, specific comments and recommendations, previously submitted, need to be included in the final regulations. Absent from the PSC draft regulations are specific minimum standards for protecting the public safety. Local communities with existing industrial wind regulations that fall below inadequate siting requirements must adopt practices that are more protective. New York State must ensure that jurisdictions without specific legislation fall under regulations that conform to manufacturer safety standards, excess noise limits, verifiable usable electric generation monitoring and fiduciary solvency of developers with guaranteed bonding for de-commissioning costs.

NYS needs to demonstrate environmental leadership and resist acting as an agent that facilitates developer interests.

source

Article X of the Power NY Act draft regulations are up for public comment until May 29. Siting power plants of 25 megawatts or more of all types— nuclear, gas, coal, solar, wind, biofuel, etc. — is now in the hands of a board of five people, all Albany political appointees. The siting process takes one year. It includes transmission lines.

The regulations being drafted by the Public Service Commission need to be scrutinized by all who have worked to remove conflicts of interest and create updated comprehensive plans and zoning regulations to protect people, local and national economies, and the environment.

In general, the issues that have been fought over like setbacks for sound, occupied residences or property lines, low-level vibration, what is an economic study and what comprises decommissioning will be fought out again; but this time the decisions will be made by this new board, not our town boards. Local laws already can be overruled if deemed “unreasonably burdensome” to the developer. Now developers are pushing for all local laws to be pre-empted entirely.

These are some additional points I feel are unacceptable.
While the Art X regulations state they expect towns to defend their local laws, the intervenor fund cannot be used for litigation. Time periods for public response are inadequately short. Economic impact and property values are ignored. Bird and bat studies happen in less than one year. Decommissioning is only a vague description.
This new draft raises the possibility of eminent domain. Environmental justice is simply a “consideration.” Citizens cannot appeal when a certificate is granted, although developers can appeal if denied.

Given that the regulations say “the needs of or costs to ratepayers “ outweigh the local laws of the host community, the decision of the board becomes a political decision to proceed with a power plant or not. Making new local zoning laws may help us, but it is imperative that we all weigh in now and try to protect what we can.

Hester Chase
Cape Vincent
source

The fact that an aging grid bottles a significant portion of the intermittent power that wind does generate, as well as the abysmal 25 to 30 percent of nameplate capacity generated at peak operation, shows where the real Achilles heel for the industry is. They can’t operate or compete with current electrical rates, and raise a profit for their shareholders, without subsidies.
Without the capacity for storage, wind-generated power is subject to the intermittent nature of the source. Backup power, from traditional sources, is required, adding costs for the ratepayer.

So without subsidies or an upgraded smart grid, most municipalities, and surely, New York State Energy Research Development Authority and state government should recognize that this industry is revealing itself for what it is — self-serving and sustainable only at the public’s expense, all the while posturing as green and renewable.

Unfortunately, this appears not to be the case. Local land- use regulation under home rule has been removed from the powers granted to municipalities under Article X Power NY legislation (involving power projects generating over 25 megawatts), passed by the Cuomo administration at the 11th hour of the last legislative session.

Assemblywoman Addie Russell, state Sen. Patricia Ritchie, and Assemblyman Ken Blankenbush voted against this anti-home rule legislation.

I urge you to familiarize yourself with the travesty this legislation proposes: support of a failing technology, and more importantly, a wholesale removal of the ability for municipalities to form their own siting criteria to protect the health, safety, welfare and property values of their constituents. So far, 12 counties, including St. Lawrence and Jefferson, as well as many towns have passed resolutions opposing this legislation.

Are you content to let the posse in Albany make conditions and decisions that your community will have to live with? Our region’s self-interests will never see the light of day, let alone get a fair, transparent hearing.

The Article X legislation and its particulars are up for public comment. A copy of the legislation can be found at the Public Service Commission’s website: www.dps.ny.gov under electric generating facilities. The deadline for public comments is May 29.

David Duff
Macomb

source

Many COAX members attended the forum held Thursday (3/8/12) at Jefferson Community College (JCC) in Watertown, NY. Power NY Act of 2011 & Art. X co-author, Assemblyman Kevin Cahill was there to defend this law while area Assemblywoman Addie Russell took the position opposing the law – both are Democrats. A good-sized crowd of about 100 people also attended and the meeting was video taped as well by Steve Weed Productions. The forum was hosted by JCC’s Dr. Ray Petersen – an expert on NYS energy.

COAX provided 2-sided color flyers that were passed out to all who attended – flyers critical of the Power NY Act of 2011 & Art. X emphasizing the loss of municipal home rule.

Cahill spoke before Russell and I was shocked that not once did he mention “home rule” during his initial comments. He did say he thought Addie Russell’s main complaint about the Power NY Act would be the Article X reduction of the power threshold from 80 MW to 25 MW. Cahill also admitted he and other Kingston, NY residents fought a garbage to energy plant proposed for his area years ago that would burn waste. Does that make him a NIMBY? A hypocrite?

Cahill confused others and myself in the room when he alluded to the siting board possibly containing more than 7 members. He also stated local governments under the new law have significant representation on the board, saying that if a power plant was proposed within a village then the village and town and county get to appoint representatives on the board and the state legislature gets to appoint people on the board. I do not know how he could have this issue mixed up as the law Gov. Cuomo signed clearly says 7 board members.

Assemblywoman Addie Russell followed Cahill’s comments and her second sentence was on point: “And, Kevin was right when really one of the major concerns I had and the reason why I voted against this piece of legislation was the reduction in the megawatt threshold because the reduction in the megawatt threshold resulted in the loss of local control.” Yes… loss of local control, municipal home rule, is the crux of the matter at hand and Russell understands this.

Assemblywoman Addie Russell made this comment regarding turbines: “Article X will never allow them to be built here”, said Russell.” I believe industrial wind is done for the entire region. With Article X, we have just lost the ability to have the projects that have been proposed here. Article X has relieved us of the burden of industrial wind.” And Russell also said this in her comments: “I will also say that I actually think that this Article X likely will never allow industrial wind to be built here.”

In my opinion you must believe in the tooth fairy to accept Russell’s above comment. As soon as the Governor signed the Power NY Act into law – the legislature was out of the picture. Russell is only kidding herself to think wind developers would be intimidated by the Power NY Act and avoid the beautiful Cape Vincent – Thousands Islands region. If she thinks the law will prohibit wind development she’s wrong. The developers are hoping the Power NY Act and the unelected siting board will force wind factories into this area against the will of the town’s officials and state legislators will NOT be part of the decision process. Time will tell the outcome but you can predict the first victim will likely be a rural upstate community that could ill afford litigation to prevent their town from being raped.

I’m sure most people attended the forum for the opportunity to participate in a question and answer (Q & A) period that followed the speaker’s formal comments. During the Q & A I asked Cahill about his reference to having more than 7 persons on the siting board and he back-pedaled in my opinion from what he previously said. I believe he was unsure about his answer but he did indicate that ad hoc board members would have the right to vote on a power plant site.

Also, during the Q & A, a woman spectator kind of yelled out that the Latin “ad hoc” meant “no vote”. I checked this out later and this is NOT true and if I knew who she was I’d call her to correct her. Per Wikipedia: Ad hoc is a Latin phrase meaning “for this”. It generally signifies a solution designed for a specific problem or task, non-generalizable, and not intended to be able to be adapted to other purposes. Per Law.com: ad hoc adj. Latin shorthand meaning “for this purpose only.”

As most of you know, I’ve been trying to get an answer from Cahill for months on the ad hoc member voting matter. Regarding the section in the Article X text where it says ad hoc board members have or do not have the opportunity to vote on siting the electric plant, he has steadfastly refused to answer me. My own assemblyman has also refuse to answer me on this. I also requested an answer from Assemblyman Speaker Sheldon Silver – never expecting he would answer me. But he DID answer my 2 simple questions in a letter I received the day after the JCC forum. Here is the key text of Assemblyman Sheldon Silver’s typed reply to me: “Although the law does not explicitly state that members vote on a final decision, it as envisioned that ad hoc members vote on the siting of a facility, just as they had under the previous law, which expired in 2003.” Now – having Assembly Speaker Silver’s reply – do you feel my question is adequately answered and that you are convinced that ad hoc siting board members will have 2 of 7 votes on the siting of a power plant when a vote is taken? I am not convinced they will have a siting vote!

In any case, at the JCC forum Cahill was asked about the siting board and two ad hoc board members and here is his reply: The local governments, if there are multiple local governments, each of the local governments get to appoint to the board. The board will expand based upon the number of local government entities that there are. The local governments get to appoint those representatives. You are absolutely correct in that they are not elected by the people. They are appointed by the local governing board. The very same people who would have been making the home rule decision had there not been an Article X process. In addition to that, legislative leaders upon the recommendation of, from a pool recommended, would also be making decisions. So, it’s very (?) board. It’s not a very small board.

This answer brings confusion and does NOT jive with what is now signed law as it clearly states 7 board members including ad hocs. The editor of the Jefferson’s Leaning Left blog site wrote this: I then asked Assemblyman Kevin Cahill if the locally appointed members of the Article X siting boards were voting members. He (Cahill) said yes.

Well…….. this is only partly true – if you read the law there are clearly several issues to be voted on by the siting board that the ad hoc members are exempt from voting on. Despite the questions asked by these 2 attendees – my two questions were still not answered and they were (1) will ad hoc board members actually have a vote on the siting of a power plant? And (2) where does it say in the Article X text that they do or don’t have the opportunity to vote on the siting of a power plant? I managed to put them directly to Cahill and actually received an answer – “It is my understanding that they do have a vote.” On question #2 – he said he could not answer because he didn’t have the text of the bill with him.

During the Q & A Cahill also said this: What I started to see, particularly when it came to wind, was that promoters of wind development across New York State were town-shopping; they were municipality-shopping. And we saw a number of examples where town governments, in my view, were corrupted by wind developers.

I surely agree with this! Why did Cuomo, as attorney general, invent the Code of Ethics specifically for NYS wind developers to sign and agree to? It’s because they are corrupt! What other businesses operating in NYS have you ever heard of that signed a Code of Ethics to behave?

Cahill said: “Something that deserves as much of your attention as Article X is the Governor’s proposal for an energy highway. The energy highway proposal will make it so energy can be moved from one part of the state to the other.” Now read between the lines here – what Cahill’s really saying is that wind factories and all their related consequences will be located upstate while their small amount of power will be shipped downstate. Upstate will be victimized as usual and should not welcome the “energy highway” because this would certainly involve more litigation as a result of eminent domain court actions involving unwanted power lines beginning at the turbines. And because of the loss of home rule – it will be difficult if not impossible to stop the siting process.

In the Q & A Cahill also mentioned that in the USA it would be possible for 7 carefully placed bullets to take out our entire USA power system. Both Cahill and Russell expressed surprise at how the passage of the Power NY Act and Article X took place but, if you again read between the lines, quick passage of the law was done at the behest of the Governor – the one who embraces transparency and ethics.

After the meeting was over someone wondered how Cahill could arrive at this forum without a full copy of the Power NY Act (and Article X) with him?

Dr. Ray Petersen saved his last power point slide for the end of the forum after all comments had been made. Part of his opinion should be mandatory for Article X but likely won’t be. Petersen indicated
• Generating facilities be build as close as possible to the demand centers and
• Regions with generating potential should keep a large portion of the power within the region for development and
• Expand intervener fund to cover legal costs.

I’m surprised Dr. Petersen’s recommendations didn’t mention to home rule – that was a big one to miss. The NYISO (Independent System Operator) has also said repeatedly that new power plants should be located where the power is needed. Cahill and the Governor are quick to dismiss this compelling recommendation.

Make no mistake about Assemblyman Kevin Cahill – He is a turbine hugging, wind charlatan. He’ll welcome a wind factory in your neighborhood and could care less about the value of your property declining, the noise impact generated by the turbines and how it affects your health, and how the dozens of other insurmountable issues these subsidy sucking monstrosities infect the community and quality of life.

Al Isselhard 
Wolcott, New York
Great Lakes Concerned Citizens
Great Lakes Wind Truth
Coalition On Article X
Lake Ontario Riparian Alliance

NEW YORK STATE BOARD ON ELECTRIC
GENERATION SITING AND THE ENVIRONMENT

CASE 12-F-0036 – In the Matter of Rules and Regulations of the Public Service Commission, contained in 16 NYCRR, Chapter X, Certification of Major Electric Generating Facilities.

NOTICE OF MEETING
(Issued March 13, 2012)

TAKE NOTICE that a meeting of the New York State Board on Electric Generation Siting and the Environment (Siting Board) will take place on Friday, March 23, 2012, beginning at 2:00 P.M., in the Public Service Commission’s Board Room, 19th Floor, 3 Empire State Plaza, Albany, New York.

All members of the public are invited to attend.

The purpose of the meeting is to consider initiating the rulemaking process for draft regulations to implement Article 10 of the Public Service Law, enacted in Chapter 388 of the Laws of 2011. Article 10 empowers the Siting Board to issue Certificates of Environmental Compatibility and Public Need authorizing the construction and operation of major electric generating facilities.

Another purpose of the meeting will be to consider making a Determination of Significance pursuant to the State Environmental Quality Review Act regarding such rulemaking action. Questions may be addressed to Hon. Jaclyn A. Brilling, Secretary to the Siting Board, secretary@dps.ny.gov or (518) 474-6530.

The meeting will also be videocast to the New York City Offices of the Public Service Commission located at 90 Church Street. Anyone wishing to attend the New York City videocast must notify Jan Goorsky 48 hours in advance of the meeting at (212) 417-2378, and must be prepared to show valid photo identification upon arrival at 90 Church Street.

CASE 12-F-0036 -2-

Disabled persons requiring special accommodations should contact the Department of Public Service’s Human Resource Management Office at (518) 474-2520 as soon as possible to make such accommodations. TDD users may request a sign language interpreter by placing a call through the New York Relay Service at 711.

The meeting will also be Webcast and members of the public may view the meeting by accessing the link at http://nydps.onlinevideoservice.com.

(SIGNED) JACLYN A. BRILLING
Secretary

My perspective comes from living in this community. Living through what this community has been living through the last several years. And, Kevin was right when really one of the major concerns I had and the reason why I voted against this piece of legislation was the reduction in the megawatt threshold because the reduction in the megawatt threshold resulted in the loss of local control. One of the things that I advocated through the process was keeping that threshold the same and also requiring that it not be based on projected output. But, to be based on, in reality, what a turbine project was going to produce.

Those were the nuances of that. But, the crux of the matter for me was local control. And that is important to me, not because I was rooting for one side or another in this debate. But, because we wouldn’t be having that community discussion that was three circles in on Ray’s concentric circles. We then would be having that debate at the next level where all sorts of other interests would be competing with ours on a much larger scale. And, I also believe that the influence of the monetary backing of one of those other circles being global corporations would be a significant barrier to us on either side of the issue having our concerns being heard at the higher level.

So, the reduction in the threshold, which is really tied in with the loss of control. Also, and Kevin and I conferred a little bit on this is what I would consider a lack of debate. Even though he just pointed out to me that there have been hearings and meetings held on this topic for about five years, I ‘m not sure that anyone really anticipated that all of a sudden this is going to move as quickly as it did. And, I think that there are many of us in this room that don’t feel that there was enough time given for debate on this particular issue. Although, I will say that I’m sure if we check the records, there probably was ample time for the North Country to provide our views in the process. I’m not sure that from a practical process we do not believe that the process was actually moving in a significant manner. Related to that is, I don’t believe that this legislation is good perhaps because of the lack of communities like ours participating in the drafting and vetting of this legislation. It does not address the unique concerns when you are talking about wind turbine development. And, it has fallen to the purview of DEC drafting regulations. And, I think we all have experienced how sensitive DEC can be when drafting regulations. Especially when you put it in the context of outdoor wood boilers. So, they certainly can draft regulations that members of our community have problems with. I will concur with Kevin in that there are provisions of this bill that are much better than previous provisions. Having said that, the other issues ultimately outweigh the positiveness of this bill and that’s why I chose not to support this bill on the floor.

When people keep listening to remarks I’ve just made, may come to the conclusion that I am anti-wind. And, I do not believe that is an accurate conclusion about I how feel about wind. I do feel that it has a place in our energy portfolio. But, I think that it has a specific place. That it certainly can be overly utilized. I think that the different scales of wind have different places in our energy portfolio. I wholeheartedly support residential wind and micro-wind. And, I can support industrial wind as well if issues are addressed that affect the communities various types of interests.

These are the issues that are left out to essentially the regulation process Which hopefully we will be able to have an impact on. One of the things I’m most concerned about that we didn’t address in law is my concerns over what is essentially the use of eminent domain. And, eminent domain can be not only the property where the physical turbine is located, but is also the neighbors’, what loss in value of their property, the neighbor might be compensated for. I also worry that a couple of Article Xs removed from this that perhaps the system will get twisted in such a manner that eminent domain will also mean that you signed a contract with the wind company and so therefore they do have a right to site this turbine next to the house that three or four generations of your family have lived in. And so, that decision no longer resides in our community. We have now removed that decision making process of where we site these turbines to a group that, yes includes some local people, but also includes all sorts of other folks that likely have a need for energy somewhere else. And, I said all through this debate, be careful what you wish for. I will also say that I actually think that this Article X likely will never allow industrial wind to be built here. I think that’s just as plausible assertion as one that it will allow turbines to be built everywhere in the North Country. You go just a couple miles east and you cannot do anything in the Adirondack Park. It takes literally, I think, an act of the legislature to move a power pole.

So, I guess, those who are thinking that, OK, now that it’s in the State’s hands all of these developers have to do is shut down their project for a year and then go back. I would submit that there are probably going to be just as many folks that would gear up and say no way, no how, it’s never going to happen in the St. Lawrence Valley. Just like its happened in the Adirondacks. So, this is not, say conducive, to even Galloo Island project-Article X. There’s a whole lot of this. We don’t have control anymore over whether or not that project is supported by that entire community that has some folks that don’t support it. When we talk about loss of control, you can’t count on it being stacked against one or the other. I truly believe that probably industrial wind development is done in this entire region. No matter if the project addresses or is designed in such a way that you address issues of flicker, issues of distances away from another home or building, issues of noise to the closest residence or building. If it addresses issues of reduction of property value, if the whole project is on a parcel that’s completely owned by the developer, I still believe that there is a very likely chance that even a project that addresses all of the issues that have been debated “ad nausem” in this community, I suspect that type of project will never be allowed in the St. Lawrence Valley.

And so, I am not anti-wind. I do think that there may be projects that can address these concerns or designed in such a manner that these concerns are not problematic for a community to allow a project to go forward. But, I think we just lost the ability to have that project.

So, this is kind of the perspective I come from and it is what the very parochial, I guess from an outside observer. But, when we go back to Ray’s concentric circles, I have a tremendous amount of faith that this community can take the State’s and Nation’s and the Globe’s competing interest into account when we make decisions. And, that we don’t essentially have to have somebody watching over us and making sure we do the right thing. Because, as painful a process as this has been in our communities for the last several years, I think that we have been working our way to approving projects that make sense for our communities, putting into law provisions that can protect our communities, they may cut into the bottom line of a global utility, but I still think in the end that there may have been more than just the Galloo Island project that could have gone on in this community and provided some of the benefits. Having said that, I think that now practically speaking now that Article X is here, I think perhaps it really provides an even better opportunity for the building of community wealth because I think now we can turn to exploring thinks like residential wind and allowing the financial subsidy to flow to our farmers or our other folks that live out in the countryside to be able to construct alternative energy production systems, that they get the benefit of the subsidy to their bottom line. They get the benefit of reduced energy dependence on the grid and potentially the benefits of earning money by putting alternative energy onto the grid and selling it to others and keeping the benefit on their farm or in their community.

They will have more money they will spend in their local economy. And, I think now that we have a tremendous opportunity. The burden has been taken away from us to really explore those other elements of energy production and how they might be able to benefit us even more, especially if communities start looking at creating their own development of alternative energy that can be used. I live in the community, so this concept is one that I’ve never been without. Now we have the opportunity to look at what we can have control over and direct all of the economic benefit to our communities instead of what we allowed to kind of have from these global energy companies. Thankyou.

Source

The DEC is required to amend Article 10 of the Public Service Law under the Power New York Act of 2011, which was pushed by Governor Cuomo last year. The original Article 10 expired in 2003 and groups have been lobbying for it’s renewal and revision ever since. The purpose of Article 10 is to both limit C02 emissions from power plants and to create further protections for low income, minority and environmentally burdened communities from new or expanding power plants that generate at least 25 MWs in or near residential areas. Article 10 will require applicants of power plant permits to conduct an EJ analysis, which will include demographic variables as well as existing environmental variables.

Although there were some differences, such as a diversion into the Indian Point nuclear plant, the EJ activists generally commended the Cuomo Administration for pushing forward this action. However, there were common suggestions such as increasing the “impact study area” of a half-mile radius from a power plant to two miles: air pollutants, particularly smog, travel beyond a half-mile. “That may be okay for New York City,” said Norris McDonald of the African American Environmental Association (AAEA) “but I think the two-mile limit will probably work better outside of that in other areas of the State, particularly in rural areas, specifically as it relates to low income communities.”

The suggestion of expanding the impact study area to two miles related to another theme of the hearing: gentrification. Several speakers pointed out that what may have been a result of early EJ victories in the 1980s and 90s, certain communities have experienced a significant demographic shift. The south side of Williamsburg, said a member of El Puente, in the 2000 Census was 75% Latino; it is now 46%. Under the proposed regulations, minority residents will have to comprise at least 51% of the impact study area in order for it to be considered an “EJ community.” Eddy Baltista, Executive Director of the NYC EJ Aliance (NYCEJA) suggested confidently that the power plants will end up where the minority residents are.

Common concerns also included the provision in the proposals for the permit applicant (the power plant company) to conduct the analysis. In addition, Gavin Kearny of NY Lawyers for the Public Interest suggested that the language could be interpreted by the applicant “to give the applicant discretion as to whether to increase the impact study area beyond a half-mile.” The proposed regulations involve the potential of a wider impact study area depending on certain conditions. Kearny suggested that the language should be strengthened as to make that widening mandatory under those conditions.

Another common suggestion was to include more existing environmental conditions in an impact study area such as minor particles, mobile emission sources and cumulative impacts of minor emissions.

The Power Act was passed within the context of a possible closure of Indian Point Energy Center (IPEC) in 2016. Since such an event may trigger new power plants in NYC, the AAEA supports the renewal of IPEC’s license. The NYCEJA on the other hand, opposes the relicensing of the forty-year-old plant in Buchanan, Westchester. “Even though we are concerned with the impacts of co-pollutants and greenhouse gases we are more concerned with the radioactive exposures and other associated impacts in case there’s an accident,” said a member of UPROSE.

Article 10 is to go into effect August 4th. The comment period ends on March 15th. All information is available on DEC’s website and they will be accepting digital comment.

Source

Addressing more than 100 people gathered Thursday in Jefferson Community College’s Jules Center Amphitheater, Assemblyman Kevin A. Cahill, D-Kingston, said Article X allows the state to override municipal zoning laws only if local rules are deemed “unreasonable” by a siting board.

“Built into this law is the requirement that local laws and ordinances be taken into consideration affirmatively. That is not a small thing. The siting board cannot ignore and dismiss local laws and ordinances unless they can explain why they should not apply, and that explanation has to be based upon their unreasonableness,” said Mr. Cahill, chairman of the state’s Assembly Energy Committee.

And while there is no clear definition of what “unreasonable” means, Mr. Cahill said, the protection of viewshed will be taken into consideration by the siting board.

In Jefferson County, Article X — which deals with the siting of electrical energy generation facilities with more than 25 megawatts — has drawn criticism from opponents of commercial wind energy development proposed in rural communities and politicians who argue municipalities have been stripped of “home rule.”

One of the outspoken critics of Article X is Assemblywoman Addie J. Russell, D-Theresa, a member of the Energy and Economic Development committees who voted against the measure.

Maintaining her stance on Article X during her presentation at Thursday’s public forum, Ms. Russell said the crux of the matter for her was the “loss of local control” under the law.

Many in the audience raised similar concerns, arguing that Article X takes away from local communities their constitutional rights.

“There is an exception to home rule legislation when the state occupies the field on behalf of the entire state and does not make a law pertaining to an individual municipality or locality. And when the state picks a compelling interest to legislate on such as energy — and the energy planning and siting processes are considered to be one of those compelling areas — the home rule laws take second place to those,” Mr. Cahill said in response. “From the industry’s perspective, they had to knock on too many different doors.”

Also, he said, anyone has the right to challenge the state in court over Article X for being unconstitutional.

“We cannot pass a law that is immune to litigation,” Mr. Cahill said.

And while the “intervenor funding” provided under Article X does not cover litigation costs, these funds can be used to prepare for legal action, he said.

Until the very end of the forum, there was uncertainty among the crowd over whether the two ad-hoc members — appointed to the seven-member siting board as local representatives — would have a say during the 12-month permitting process.

Mr. Cahill, however, said several times that his understanding was that these local representatives will serve as voting members of the board.

And while Article X was welcomed with much fanfare by pro-wind groups, which fear that strict local zoning laws would kill these multimillion-dollar renewable-energy projects, Mr. Cahill said Article X is, in his view, meant to address problems brought about by “corrupted” town boards.

“What I started to see, particularly when it came to wind, was that promoters of wind development across New York state were town-shopping; they were municipality-shopping. And we saw a number of examples where town governments, in my view, were corrupted by wind developers,” Mr. Cahill said. “And there was no general mechanism to allow a town that was passed over – because maybe they had stricter regulations or a more honest board — to get back and engaged in the process. In my view, this Article X allows those communities to get back into the game to the extent that it continues to affect their communities.”

The Article X forum was the first in a series of presentations on civic engagement sponsored by the Center for Community Studies at JCC.

Source