coaxny

Under draft regulations developed by the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation new or expanding electric generating facilities in New York would be required to evaluate the potential disproportionate impacts on nearby environmental justice communities, DEC Commissioner Joe Martens announced today. The proposed regulations are the first in the country to require an environmental justice analysis in the siting of major electric generating facilities.

Additional regulations proposed by DEC will limit carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from new major electric generating facilities and certain expansions at existing electric generating facilities.

DEC developed the proposed regulations (6 NYCRR Part 487 and 6 NYCRR Part 251) as required by the Power NY Act of 2011, which Governor Andrew M. Cuomo signed into law in August 2011.

The proposed regulations in Part 487 will establish a regulatory framework to analyze environmental justice issues associated with the siting or expansion of major electric generating facilities, the first of their kind in the nation.

During the siting of major electric generating facilities, the proposed regulations require applicants to evaluate the significant and adverse disproportionate environmental impacts, if any, which may result from the facility’s construction or operation.

“Negative environmental impacts from industrial operations like power plants often disproportionately affect environmental justice communities,” DEC Commissioner Martens said. “Under our proposed regulations, an applicant must undertake an environmental justice analysis if a proposed electric generating facility’s potential adverse environmental and public health impacts may affect an environmental justice area. Our proposed regulations are the first in the nation that seek to protect public health and the environment in overburdened communities.”

The draft regulations require applicants to evaluate:

the significant and adverse disproportionate environmental impacts of a proposed major electric generating facility, if any, resulting from its construction or operation;
the cumulative impact on air quality; and
the demographic, economic and physical description of the community where the facility will be located, compared and contrasted to the county and adjacent communities
Carbon Dioxide Emission Regulations

The proposed regulations in Part 251 would establish CO2 emission limits for proposed new major electric generating facilities that have a generating capacity of at least 25 megawatts, and for increases in capacity of at least 25 megawatts at existing electric generating facilities.

“Carbon dioxide emissions are chief contributors to climate change,” Martens said. “We are proposing CO2 emissions limits for new and expanding power plants to further reduce the carbon footprint of New York’s power sector.”

The proposed carbon dioxide emission regulations will:

set a CO2 emission limit of 925 lbs/mw-hr (output-based limit) or 120lbs/mmBtu (input-based limit) for most new or expanded base load fossil fuel-fired plants;
set a CO2 emission limit of 1450 lbs/mw-hr (output-based limit) or 160 lbs/mmBtu (input-based limit) for simple cycle combustion turbines;
allow each facility’s owner or operator to choose whether to comply with the relevant output-based or input-based emission limits;
provide for DEC to set case-specific CO2 emission limits for certain power plants that fire non-fossil fuels
require recordkeeping, monitoring and reporting consistent with existing state and federal regulations.
Under existing regulations, power plants in the state are required to comply with New York’s Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI) program, as well as certain federal requirements regarding greenhouse gas emissions. The proposed Part 251 will, for the first time, establish a specific limit on the allowable CO2 emission rate of new and expanded power plants and will make New York one of only a few states in the country with a CO2 performance standard for both new and expanding power plants.

Public Comment

Public hearings for both proposed regulations will be held around the state in locations reasonably accessible to persons with impaired mobility. Anyone who wishes to make a statement at the hearings is invited to speak. Hearings will be held:

Monday, March 5, 2012 – 3 p.m.
NYS Department of Environmental Conservation Central Office
625 Broadway, Room 129, Albany
Tuesday, March 6, 2012 – 3 p.m.
NYS Department of Public Service
90 Church Street, 4th Floor, NYC
Thursday, March 8, 2012 – 3 p.m.
NYS Department of Environmental Conservation Region 9 Office
270 Michigan Avenue, Hearing Room, Buffalo
One hour prior to each hearing (2 p.m. – 3 p.m.), public information sessions for Part 487 will be held at the same locations. DEC staff will answer questions from the public about the environmental justice regulations during this time, but the dialogue will not be part of the official hearing record.

DEC will provide interpreter services for deaf persons at no charge. Written requests for interpreter services are required and should be submitted by February 20, 2012, to Laura Stevens, NYSDEC, 625 Broadway, Albany, NY 12233, (518) 402-8451 or e-mail airregs@gw.dec.state.ny.us.

To request additional information on Part 487, or to submit comments on record, contact Melvin Norris, NYSDEC Office of Environmental Justice, 625 Broadway, Albany, NY 12233, (518) 402-8556 or e-mail: EJcomments@gw.dec.state.ny.us. Written comments may be submitted to DEC until Thursday, March 15, 2012 at 5 p.m.

To request additional information on Part 251, or to submit comments on record, contact Michael Jennings, NYSDEC Division of Air Resources, 625 Broadway, Albany, NY 12233, (518) 402-8403 or e-mail: 251GHG@gw.dec.state.ny.us. Written comments may be submitted to DEC until Thursday, March 15, 2012 at 5 p.m.

For more information on the proposed regulations, visit:

http://www.dec.ny.gov/regulations/propregulations.html

January 12, 2012

It’s no wonder Governor Andrew Cuomo’s State of the State speech was “a hit with industry insiders” (http://nawindpower.com/e107_plugins/content/content.php?content.9166). These insiders will be the primary beneficiary of Cuomo’s newly-passed Article X.

Since 1894, New York State has supported NYS municipalities’ right to “Home Rule” regarding planning and zoning decisions within our respective municipalities.  Our locally elected officials have always had the right to decide how our respective communities would be developed and protected for future generations.  Unfortunately, Governor Cuomo has used the political savvy he has gained as a life-long politician and Albany insider to remove our long-held “Home Rule” rights (http://tinyurl.com/7f73wr9).  

Governor can now use ‘Article X’ as a new tool in his tool box to rework New York’s energy policies and, as a result, the landscape of New York, without any further public discussion.
 
Governor Cuomo’s politically-favored ‘renewable’ projects have been faced with growing state-wide public opposition. Fueling this opposition is:
1.) the increasing public knowledge and awareness of the inefficiency & unreliability of current antiquated ‘renewable’ technologies available (i.e.- wind & solar)
2.) the massive amounts of money being taken from taxpayers for these boondoggles and further contributing to bankrupting our State and Federal governments (http://tinyurl.com/cdotqgw)
 
Now like the puppet master, Governor Cuomo has taken the role of overlord into his own hands – supported by the bill’s enthusiastic “industry insiders”, who will now be determining where energy projects will be sited in New York State, instead of by the duly-elected officials who live, work and pay taxes within the targeted areas across the State.  
 
A viable solution to New York City’s energy woes is the Champlain-Hudson Power Express (CHPE) currently under consideration.  CHPE will not have to rely on public funds to be built as it is privately financed.  The project will provide 1000′s of high paying jobs, and will deliver highly-reliable, emissions-free hydropower to the New York City area, at a fair price for consumers.
 
We cannot afford a haphazard energy policy based on crony-capitalist back door dealings, political double-speak, and junk science.  Thankfully, there is a growing number of politicians nationally who have worked to better educate themselves about our energy issues in light of the Solyndra debacle and others (http://tinyurl.com/3nstj4d).  We trust that their growing numbers and efforts in Congress will stop the corporate welfare programs (i.e. – the Production Tax Credit and 1603 Direct Cash Grants) that enable these crony-capitalism enabled boondoggles to exist in the first place (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/nov/26/era-of-energy-subsidies-is-over/).
 
As Americans continue to wake up, get involved, and demand that real energy producers be approved,  New York State citizens need to wake up and speak out if we hope to fight the loss of such a critical right as “Home Rule”!

Robert E. Aliasso, Jr. – Coax Media Committee
raliasso@twcny.rr.com +1 (315) 771-9753

Enacted Article 10 Statute:

On August 4, 2011, Governor Andrew M. Cuomo signed into law Chapter 388 of the Laws of 2011 that enacts Article 10 of the Public Service Law. The primary purpose of Article 10 is to provide for the siting review of new and repowered or modified Major Electric Generating Facilities in New York State by the Board on Electric Generation Siting and the Environment (Siting Board) in a unified proceeding instead of requiring a developer or owner of such a facility to apply for numerous state and local permits. A previous version of such a law expired on January 1, 2003. Key provisions of the law include:

1. Defines a major electric generating facility as facilities of 25 megawatts or more;

2. Requires environmental and public health impact analysis, studies regarding environmental justice and public safety, and consideration of local laws;

3. Directs applicants to provide funding for both the pre-application and application phases. It allows funding to be used to help intervenors (affected municipalities and other parties) hire experts to participate in the review of the application and for legal fees (but not for judicial challenges);

4. Requires a utility security plan reviewed by Homeland Security and, for New York City (NYC) plants, NYC’s emergency management office;

5. Provides for appointment of ad hoc public members of the Siting Board from the municipality where the facility is proposed to be sited; and,

6. Requires a public information coordinator within the Department of Public Service (Department) to “assist and advise interested parties and members of the public” in participating in the siting process.

Chapter 388 of the Laws of 2011 can be accessed via the link below:

CHAPTER 388

Other useful information on the enacted Article 10 statute: Peter McGowan, General Counsel, Department of Public Service, Presentation at ACE NY Conference

Source

The funny thing about Sen. Patrick Gallivan’s Dec. 27, 2011, response letter, “Power NY: A comprehensive, inclusive energy strategy,” to my Dec. 20, 2011, letter, “A loss of self-government,” was that Sen. Gallivan completely ignored mentioning the main point of my letter — the loss of “Home Rule” — which has occurred across NYS thanks to the passage of Article X contained within the Power NY Act.

In spite of Republican campaign rhetoric rallying against the expansion of “Big Government” — removing “Home Rule” is the expansion of “Big Government”! Article X has put all control regarding the siting of energy facilities into the hands of a select few, unelected bureaucrats — rendering all of our locally elected officials completely powerless.

As Sen. Gallivan is well-aware, a unanimously-passed county-wide Resolution opposing the Power NY Act has been passed within his district because of the bill’s resulting loss of “Home Rule” (http://wp.me/p1JXUo-6c). One would think that the good Senator would be working hard to protect and implement the wishes of those within his district — you know, those pesky people who elected him into office in the first place.

Sen. Gallivan cited his justifications for supporting the law as “promoting energy independence and clean energy use throughout New York State.” This statement reads like something right out of President Obama’s “green” energy handbook, which, as Obama admitted, “will cause our electricity prices to necessarily skyrocket.”

First of all, our energy “dependence” problem is because of our addiction to oil for gasoline. We already are “energy independent” when it comes to our electricity supply. Our nationwide electricity output from oil is only 1 percent. And since electricity from wind and solar are dependent on the rare earth elements that come from China, that’s not “energy independence” either. (http://tinyurl.com/4u2xjst)

Despite the expose’ of all the corruption surrounding Obama’s “green” energy agenda currently in the news (e.g., Solyndra), and how it’s full of hot air and costing you big bucks, Sen. Gallivan seems to be saying, “All aboard the ‘green’ energy train!” — the derailment of Home Rule is just a necessary casualty along the way. (http://tinyurl.com/cdotqgw)

As President Obama, Gov. Cuomo, and energy-illiterate green ideologues continue to:

1. push for the closing of Indian Point Nuclear plant outside NYC (http://tinyurl.com/d4xxnmq and http://tinyurl.com/bmu3tpw);

2. over-regulate coal plants right out of business — the source of over half of our nation’s affordable, reliable power (http://tinyurl.com/bulzpgv);

3. close existing co-gen plants across NYS; and,

4. fail to operate Niagara Falls at full capacity —

We are expected to believe that our declining populace in this severely indebted state needs to spend millions, if not billions, on building new, ridiculously inefficient, unreliable “green” energy generation facilities that exist only because of taxpayer-funded corporate welfare? This is nothing short of insane! (http://tinyurl.com/cva4s6t and http://tinyurl.com/cgmw9ja)

It’s no wonder NYS continues to rate as one the worst states in the country to do business when its leaders continue to spend money on things that don’t work — causing energy prices to soar and increasing the cost of doing business in NYS. (http://www.northnet.org/brvmug/NYSDirtyDozen.pdf)

Likewise, it’s not hard to figure out why businesses and people are leaving NYS in droves, and citizens who used to be proud of their respective party — Republicans and Democrats alike — are becoming independents. (http://tinyurl.com/d5bo7ue)

We continue to hope and pray that as a dedicated “public servant,” Sen. Gallivan will work to educate himself in order to pursue policies backed by sound science and economics, and based on ethics and integrity above money. (http://tinyurl.com/ca3fl9z)

Supporting the derailment of all NYS municipalities’ Constitutionally-appointed right to “Home Rule” to hop on board the “green” energy train is, at best, extremely misguided.

Mary Kay Barton lives in Castile.

Source

New York State energy policy is a game that’s largely about territory and players and not so much about principles. I obviously don’t work in Albany, and would be happy to be wrong about much of this, but this is the story I tell based on what I’ve seen.

The key pieces of this story are New York City and Westchester County.

New York City depends on power generation from outside of the city much the same way it depends on water from outside of the city. One of the key tasks of state government for the past century or so has been keeping New York City supplied.

Electricity has been a particular challenge, as NYC’s supplies sometimes get stretched, especially in summer, and the temporary generators Con Ed pulls out haven’t been very popular. On top of that, there’s a pretty loud call to shut down the Indian Point nuclear power plant just north of NYC, which needs its licenses renewed in 2013 and 2015 to keep operating. Sure enough, it’s on a fault line, and Westchester is too densely populated for the evacuation plans to make much sense.

Back in the late 1980s/early 1990s there were hopes to buy electricity from HydroQuebec’s ever-larger hydroelectric plants, but Governor (Mario) Cuomo stopped that, or at least barred one set of plans for doing so. The Shoreham nuclear plant could have provided power too, but a nuclear power plant in Long Island had even crazier evacuation plans than one in Westchester.

More recently, the city has been looking to Upstate for power. Around 2004, NYRI, a Canadian company, proposed a major power line from around Utica to Middletown (map), serving NYC, and residents fought hard (rough summary). After a lot of wobbling, Governor Pataki denied them the use of eminent domain in 2006, and it’s more or less died since.

However, the Federal Government created a “National Corridor Designation” including roughly the same area. We didn’t hear too much about it here because neither Tompkins nor Cortland County is included, but Cayuga, Chenango, Otsego, and Broome are.

That’s designed to make it easier for power companies to build corridors. From their FAQ (49KB PDF):

On a more specific level, the designation of a National Corridor is a necessary first step in providing the federal government – through the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission – siting authority that supplements existing state authority. The Energy Policy Act of 2005 provides a potential siting venue at FERC for transmission facility proposals within a National Corridor.

In practice, this will mean that if an applicant does not receive approval from a State to site a proposed new transmission facility within a National Corridor, the applicant may then apply to FERC for a permit and authorization to construct the facility. If FERC accepts the application, before it would issue a permit, it would conduct a full National Environmental Policy Act review and consider alternatives.

Such a federal permit would empower the project developer to exercise the right of eminent domain to acquire necessary property rights to build the facilities. However, that authority could only be exercised if the developer could not acquire the property by negotiation, and even then would not apply to property owned by the United States or a State, such as a national or State park. (Emphasis and paragraph breaks added.)

Powerlines, of course, are just one piece of the story. (For more on them, this article on a proposed Champlain-Hudson line has good background.)

Article X, a law for fast-tracking power plant placement decisions, had expired in 2002. Its long failure to get renewed had a lot to do with past crazy powerplant siting decisions, but it finally moved ahead this year. Why?

I think the story politicians (Governor Andrew Cuomo in particular) were hoping would yield political happiness was:

Add powerlines and/or gas pipelines from Upstate to the NYC area.

Generate power Upstate with wind farms and new plants running on natural gas. (Article X helps with both of these.)

Shut down Indian Point.

Point (3) appeals to most Downstate environmentalists. Until recently, natural gas seemed like the miracle fuel, burning cleaner with less climate change impact (yes I know that’s questionable), and wind farms were the future, so point (2) also appealed to Downstate environmentalists. Point (2) tied in nicely to growing desperation Upstate for economic development of any kind as well.

Point (1) has always been ugly, but maybe the Feds would take care of that for the state, and let Albany off the hook?

Until it became clear that hydrofracking had massive side effects, this was a plausible story. It’s not the only possible story – see, for example, this expensive offshore possibility – but it at least sounded like a balancing of Downstate consumption with clean Upstate production. (And yes, Liquified Natural plants, pipelines elsewhere, etc., mean that this is not just a New York State story.)

This plan, of course, isn’t going over very well in a lot of Upstate communities, largely because of hydrofracking. Powerlines don’t make people happy, but pollution can force them to desert a place.

How does this tie to home rule, in particular Senator Jim Seward’s push for it?

Seward’s home rule position lets him find political balance on most of this, except with the relatively small group of voters who have the time to see how the pieces don’t fit.

He can tell places like Dryden and Middlefield that overwhelmingly want to avoid hydrofracking that they can stay out of it, while letting places that cheer it on move forward. It takes the heat off of him for the ugliest piece of this puzzle, while letting him stay more or less in the general story Albany is pushing. (And it leaves the conflict open place-by-place for the long run, too.)

It’s a classic Albany compromise, in which elected officials can make themselves look better than the oil and gas industry who are busy suing Dryden, while still permitting the companies to do a lot of what they wanted anyway.

(If you have time for the broader story, I suggest the classic Why There Will Always be an Upstate.)

Cross-posted with minor differences from Living in Dryden.

Source

Officials statewide continue to push to knock the wind out of the Power NY Act of 2011.

The legislation, signed by Gov. Andrew Cuomo in July, is intended to promote the growth of clean energy and power in New York state moving forward, but the wording of the legislation has created a pocket of opposition to the measure.

“(The Power NY Act) encourages investment in clean power plants and affords communities more meaningful input in the plant siting process,” it was stated in the governor’s recently released one-year progress report, titled “Building a New New York.”

The progress report also contests that the measure expands opportunities for homeowners and businesses to invest in energy efficiency under the “Green Jobs/Green New York” program. The Cuomo administration has said that the Power NY Act will create thousands of jobs in the state and will allow homeowners and business owners to take out low-interest loans for energy-efficiency improvements, which can then be paid back through utility bills.

Also, the bill enacts a new permanent streamlined permitting process for power projects that would produce more than 25 megawatts by creating a “one-stop” multi-agency board that makes decisions as to where these facilities would be located. The Cuomo administration has also said the legislation allows communities to participate in the process by requiring power plant applicants to provide “intervener funding” for the community that would be affected by potential projects. This funding would be used to hire experts and lawyers to review proposals.

Shortly after the ink from Cuomo’s pen dried on the legislation, pockets of opposition to the measure began to pop up due to the reference to a multi-agency board described in the legislation. That opposition is led by the Coalition on Article X (COAX), Article X being the name the group coined the Power NY Act. The opposition stems from the belief that the wording of the legislation suggests the stripping away of home rule in New York, which is the legislative authority that allows each municipality in the state to govern themselves.

“Using his political savvy as an Albany insider, he makes mere mention of his total control over your rights with regard to zoning and planning of 25 (megawatt) energy-producing facilities,” said Robert Aliasso Jr., member of COAX. “New Yorkers should be appalled at the zoning and planning rights Gov. Cuomo stripped from us, which we held since 1894.”

Oswego County Legislator Shawn Doyle, R-Pulaski, as a private citizen, is a member of COAX and hosts meetings with group members at his home. Doyle has called for — at the very least — an amendment to the wording of the legislation.

“When it comes to the placement of power-generating operations, the local planning boards, the local town boards, county government — there is no say,” Doyle said. “It is determined by a board in Albany.

“There seems to be more and more power being taken away from small towns and counties by the state,” he added. “This Article X is potentially devastating.”

Doyle referenced the push by the New York Power Authority to seek contractors to construct a wind farm off the shores of Oswego County. The project was blown away with municipality opposition, and eventually collapsed.

“We were upset with the proposal because the map that was shown to us showed that the turbines would have created a barrier off our shores,” the legislator said. “Not only a visual barrier, but an actual barrier for boating. … We defeated the offshore wind (project) because all of the counties along the lake said, ‘No, we don’t want it here.’ This Article X legislation takes that authority away from the locality.”

The feelings expressed by Aliasso and Doyle have gained steam in upstate New York, as several county legislatures, including Oswego County, have passed formal resolutions calling for the Power NY Act to be revisited. Over the past few weeks Herkimer and Cortland counties have followed suit with Oswego, St. Lawrence, Wyoming and Wayne counties, as well as officials in the towns of Richland and New Haven in calling for a change to the legislation.

Members of Cuomo’s office have not commented on the issue.

Source

COOPERSTOWN — In a message to Gov. Andrew Cuomo, the Otsego County Board of Representatives went on record Wednesday in support of state legislation that would allow communities to ban heavy industry.

The resolution to endorse a bill authored by state Sen. James Seward, R-Milford, was supported by eight of the 14 county lawmakers at the first meeting of the new year. All seven Democrats backed the measure, which would have failed had they not been joined by Rep. Pauline Koren, R-Milford. The board’s other six Republicans voted “nay.”

Until Wednesday, Koren, who had come out against hydrofracking in her campaign last year, had not staked out a position on home rule.

Koren said she hoped the measure would not have “unintended consequences,” such as a town using home rule to try to restrict a gas supplier from transporting fuel to a local gas station.

But the fact that Seward, who lives in her district, is trying to pilot the measure through the Legislature helped convinced her the measure deserved her support.

“He’s put a lot of effort and thought into this,” she said.

Pushing the resolution for the last several months has been Rep. Rich Murphy, D-Town of Oneonta. He said he was pleased it passed, not because it would have an impact on Cuomo and state lawmakers but because “it was the right thing to do.”

Home rule supporters overcame strong vocal opposition from Rep. James Powers, R-Butternuts. He argued only the state Department of Environmental Conservation is equipped to regulate gas drilling and asserted town board members would make uninformed decisions that could infringe on landowners’ rights.

The board voted on the issue after local citizens sounded off on both sides of the debate. One of them, Robert Harlem Jr., president of Oneonta Block Co., said local businesses could face new headaches and entanglements if home rule results in them having to obtain permits for transporting products and materials.

Richard Downey of the pro-drilling Unatego Landowners Association said enacting home rule would be akin to erecting a sign stating, “New York Is Not Open for Business.”

But Brewery Ommegang spokesman Larry Bennett confronted that argument directly, saying, “We’re just not open to business to people who simply want to pillage the environment _ such as gas companies.”

Freshman Rep. John Kosmer, D-Town of Otsego, said claims that home rule would lead to negative “unintended consequences” amounted to a “red herring” pushed by drilling advocates out to stymie towns from making their own choices.

In other business, the board approved a resolution that keeps salaries flat for more than 80 appointed and elected officials employed by the county.

Before doing so, board members approved a motion by Powers to go into a closed-door executive session to discuss the salaries. A Daily Star reporter objected to the move, saying the state Public Meetings Law does not allow for secret meetings to discuss salaries for public employees.

County Attorney Ellen Coccoma reviewed the law and declared the reasons being given were not sufficient for a secret session, and the board meeting was kept open.

Source