Home Rule

Archived Posts from this Category

June 8, 2012

Deadline Nears for Boards to Comment on Article X

Posted by coaxny under Article X, Home Rule, New York State, Power NY Act
Leave a Comment 

June 7, 2012

By Mary Kay Barton, Letter to the Editor, The Daily News Online

Thanks to the New York State Association of Counties going to bat on behalf of all New York citizens to the state Public Service Commission (PSC), the comment period for municipalities on Article 10 of the Power NY Act — regarding the siting of all energy facilities in New York State — has been extended to June 15.

All New York town boards should take this opportunity to comment on the proposed regulations on behalf of their respective municipalities. While the citizen comment period ended May 29, citizens can still get involved by encouraging their respective town boards to comment on the proposed Article 10 regulations.

What’s at stake is our long-held, Constitutional right to “home rule” — the right to decide for ourselves what we want our communities to look like 20, 40, and 60 years down the road.

Article 10, as currently written, has put the decision-making regarding the siting of all energy facilities in New York State into the hands of five (5) distant, unelected Albany bureaucrats. Neither we, nor our duly-elected local officials, will have a vote on these very important matters.

Make no mistake, Big Corporate has been lobbying the state hard to make changes to this law that best suits them and their bottom line, and completely removes our right to self-determination through Municipal Home Rule.

Comments submitted by industries who wish to exploit our resources whenever, wherever, and however they feel like, are alarming. Many industry-submitted comments argue that the PSC should allow: expedited processes, hiding real data, allowing eminent domain, and disregarding pertinent health, safety and sound studies meant to protect residents.

The first draft of the law did include C-weighting requirements for sound, which industries successfully petitioned the PSC to remove from the current draft. Professional sound engineer, Charles Ebbing’s, and the Abraham/James posted comments, discuss the importance of the C-weighting and requiring industries to abide by these requirements to protect citizens. (See all comments at: 12-F-0036)

This sad scenario — of private interests working to usurp public rights — is a serious issue that should concern all New York citizens!

Stand up — speak out! Encourage your town boards to file comments with the PSC before the June 15 deadline. Remember, “All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing.”

Towns who would like to comment before the June 15 deadline can send their comments via e-mail to: Hon. Jacylyn A. Brilling at secretary@dps.ny.gov.

Mary Kay Barton lives in Silver Lake

source

 

June 2, 2012

Assemblymen Cahill, Sweeny and Lavine ask the PSC to use Community-Based Participatory Research to Maximize the Benefits of Environmental Justice Community Involvement Within the Article Rules

Posted by coaxny under Article X, Environmental Justice, Home Rule, New York State, Power NY Act
Leave a Comment 

June 2, 2012
Cahill, Sweeney and Lavine comments to the PSC

May 29, 2012
Jaclyn A. Brilling, Secretary Public Service Commission
3 Empire State Plaza Albany, NY 12223-1350

Dear Secretary Brilling:

We are writing about the “Regulations Implementing PSL Article 10 Governing Applications to Construct Major Electric Generating Facilities” recently proposed by the Public Service Commission (PSC) (Stale Register 1.0. #PSC-15-12-00006-P). These rules add a new Subchapter A to 16 NYCRR Chapter X to implement the new streamlined permit process provided for in the “Power NY Act” (Chapter 388 of the Laws of 2011).

We previously commented (copy enclosed) (see letter#2) on a related rule proposal by the Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) entitled “Analysis of Environmental Justice Issues Associated with the Siting of Major Electric Generating Facilities” (State Register 1.0. #ENV-03-12-00010-P). We advised DEC that additional regulatory provisions were needed to ensure the process for siting major electric generating facilities fully effectuates the commitment we made in the Power NY Act for enhanced review of environmental justice (EJ) issues under the new Article X.

Severa! of the recommendations we made to DEC are equally appropriate for consideration for inclusion in the regulations of the Board on E!ectric Generation Siting & the Environment. The Board has incorporated numerous provisions in its proposed regulations to facilitate meaningful involvement by the public as a whole (e,g., intervenor funding, the public information coordinator), However, nothing in these regulations or proposed Part 487 provides for specific outreach or assistance to the affected members of EJ communities. It is well-recognized that members of these communities face additional barriers to active and informed participation that require affirmative efforts to overcome.

We recommend that the Board review DEC’s EJ policy (Commissioner’s Policy CP-29) and ensure that the Article X rules include appropriate provisions needed to ensure meaningful participation by members of impacted EJ communities. Among these are requirements for a targeted Dublic participation plan that actively seeks to identify and involve stakeholders in a potential EJ area, the conduct of periodic public information meetings at locations and times convenient to EJ community stakeholders. the establishment of document repositories in or near the EJ community, and periodic progress reports to ensure that the enhanced public participation plan is successfully implemented on an on-going basis. The Board should also ensure that when an application involves an EJ community, local parties within such community are included in any allocation of intervenor funds.

We hope these comments are helpful in developing the final version of these regulations. Please feel free to contact us if you require any further information on these comments.

Very truly yours,

Kevin A. Cahill, Chair, Assembly Standing Committee on Energy
Robert K. Sweeney, Chair, Assembly Standing Committee on Environmental Conservation.
Charles D. Lavine, Assembly Chair, Administrative Regulations

Letter #2

Melvin Norris
NYSDEC Office of Environmental Justice 625 Broadway
Albany, NY 12233-1500

Dear Mr. Norris:
We are writing about a recent rule proposal by the Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) entitled “Analysis of Environmental Justice Issues Associated with the Siting of Major Electric Generating Facilities” (State Register I.D. #ENV-03-12-0001O-P). These rules add a new Part 487 to Title 6 NYCRR to implement the commitment made in the “Power NY Act” (Chapter 388 of the Laws of 2011) that a streamlined permit process for electric generating facilities would not diminish the review of environmental justice (El) issues, but would in fact provide for enhanced EJ reviews. While there may be other improvements that could be made to proposed Part 487, these comments focus on one significant omission in the proposal that we believe would render the analysis of EJ issues under Article X much less meaningful than those undertaken under the provisions of the State Environmental Quality Review Act and DEC’s own EJ policy.

The proposed rules establish standards for determining whether the impact study area includes one or more EJ communities. If so, the preliminary seoping statement must include a preliminary evaluation of any potentially significant and adverse disproportionate impacts, the proposed measures to avoid, offset or minimize these impacts, and describe any additional studies or program of studies the applicant proposes in support of its final EJ analysis. The proposed rules also set forth lhe process for completing all required studies and require the application to include a statement of environmental justice issues discussing why the remedial measures it proposes were chosen and how lhey can be verified.

An of the above requirements omit a key element of environmental justice: nowhere is there any affirmative requirement to ensure meaningful involvement of the EJ community in the process. While it is true that the statute contains several provisions to facilitate meaningful involvement by the public as a whole (intervenor funding, the public information coordinalOr), nothing in the statute or proposed Part 487 provides for specific outreach to the affected members of EJ communHies. As the Office of Environmental Justice well knows. one basic tenet of environmental justice is that government must work actively to overcome barriers that have all LOO often resulted in decision-making without the active and informed participation of minority and low-income communities.

Environmental justice 1S not something that is “done to” or even “done for” an EJ community, To be effective, it must be done with the community members. DEC’s own EJ policy. Commissioner’s Policy CP- 29, recognizes this by requiring an enhanced public participation plan that actively seeks to identify stakeholders in a potential EJ area; provides for information to be distributed to the EJ community that is written in an understandable manner, including in other languages where appropriate: calls for holding periodic public information meetings at locations and times convenient to EJ communi[y stakeholders; establishes document repositories in or near the EJ community; and requires progress reports to ensure that the enhanced public participation plan is successfully implemented on an on-going basis. With the exception of the provision for appropriate translation of documents (and a plain language requirement that only applies to the final EJ analysis), none of these very important components of the EJ process would be required to occur in an analysis under Part 483.

Requirements for meaningful public involvement and broad public participation are necessary and important, but such requirements extend to not only EJ community members, but also to other residents of the impact study area and of any alternate location, and to other residents of the affected municipalities. Outreach and engagement of EJ community stakeholders is necessary so that their voices are not subordinated to those of other affected communities with more resources, and also to ensure that the analyses and recommended mitigation measures are not developed in dry studies that are detached from their knowledge and insights on the needs of their community.

We urge DEC to include provisions in the rules for meaningful outreach to stakeholders in EJ communities potentially impacted by an Article X application, to maXimize their ability to participate meaningfully throughout the process. We also encourage you to consider incorporating some of the newer tools currently under review by the US Environmental Protection Agency, such as community-based participatory research, to maximize the benefits of EJ community involvement.
We hope these comments are helpful in developing the final version of these rules. Please feel free to contact us if you require any further information on these comments.
Very truly yours,

Kevin A. Cahill, Chair, Assembly Standing Committee on Energy
Robert K. Sweeney, Chair, Assembly Standing Committee on Environmental Conservation.
Charles D. Lavine, Assembly Chair, Administrative Regulations

Source

 

May 28, 2012

COAX Comments to the Public Service Commission Regarding Article X Draft Regulations

Posted by coaxny under Article X, COAX, Home Rule, New York State
Leave a Comment 

Hon. Jaclyn A. Brilling 

Secretary, New York State Public Service Commission
Three Empire State Plaza
Albany, New York 12223-1350

VIA First Class Mail and Email (Secretary@dps.ny.gov)

Comments to the New York Board on Electric Generation Siting and the Environment
Case 12-F-0036 – In the Matter of the Rules and Regulations of the Board on Electric Generation Siting and the Environment contained in 16 NYCRR, Chapter X, Certification of Major Electric Generating Facilities

Dear Secretary Brilling:

Enclosed for filing are the comments of Coalition on Article X (“COAX”), regarding the draft regulations of Article 10 of the Public Service Law. In a thorough review by COAX members, all New York State taxpayers and ratepayers, we have collected and assembled comments of the draft regulations as they relate to siting of energy facilities.

COAX is a statewide grassroots coalition, which connects municipalities on a unified position to keep “Home Rule” strong, in force and as intended by the New York State Constitution since 1894. We have connected dozens of towns and counties throughout New York State to submit Resolutions that oppose the loss of any “Home Rule.”

Since the New York State Public Service Commission is employed by and for New York State taxpayers and ratepayers, we expect the regulations for Article 10 to both enforce and strengthen the PSC posted Mission Statement, “to ensure safe, secure, and reliable access to electric… services for New York State’s residential and business consumers, at just and reasonable rates.” We also stress that justice and reason is applied to the regulations of Article 10, especially in the following areas of the draft regulations: Local Laws and Ordinances, Noise and Vibration, Decommissioning, Socioeconomic/Property Value Guarantee and Public Comment Period.

We thank you for the opportunity to express our concerns and offer comments to protect and preserve Home Rule throughout New York State.

Sincerely,
Robert E. Aliasso, Jr. – Member COAX
raliasso@twcny.rr.com
+1 (315) 771-9753
8748 State Route 178
Henderson, NY 13650

">Attachment

 

May 25, 2012

Electric Power Generation Under NYS Article X

Posted by coaxny under Article X, Home Rule, New York State, Power NY Act
Leave a Comment 

May 22, 2012
James Hall, Power NY Act

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

 

May 15, 2012

State Law Favors Developers Over Home Rule

Posted by coaxny under Article X, Home Rule, New York State, Power NY Act
Leave a Comment 

Letter to the Editor, Watertown Daily Times
MONDAY, MAY 14, 2012

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

 

May 11, 2012

Speak Out for home Rule on Wind Power

Posted by coaxny under Andrew Cuomo, Article X, Home Rule, Power NY Act
Leave a Comment 

Watertown Daily Times Letter to the Editor
FRIDAY, MAY 11, 2012
Perry White’s column regarding efforts by Upstate New York Power Corporation to sell wind-generated power to Fort Drum was revealing.
He reveals the pitfalls of selling energy from an intermittent energy source to a local consumer, the abandonment of underwater transmission from Galloo Island and an antiquated electrical grid, thus exposing the increasingly tenuous nature of the wind industry as they face the loss of taxpayer subsidies.

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: http://www.dps.ny.gov under electric generating facilities. The deadline for public comments is May 29.

David Duff
Macomb

source

 

March 21, 2012

The Kevin and Addie Show

Posted by coaxny under Article X, COAX, Home Rule, New York State, Power NY Act | Tags: |
Leave a Comment 

March 20, 2012

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

 

March 17, 2012

New York State Article X gearing up

Posted by coaxny under Article X, Home Rule, New York State, Power NY Act
Leave a Comment 

Subject: NEW YORK STATE BOARD ON ELECTRIC
Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2012 17:28:06 -0400

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

 

March 10, 2012

Local EJ groups take on new power plant siting regulations

Posted by coaxny under Article X, Home Rule, Power NY Act | Tags: , , |
Leave a Comment 

Representatives of local EJ (environmental justice) groups in NYC addressed the DEC (Department of Environmental Conservation) on Wednesday on the agency’s new, proposed regulations for power plant siting. At 90 Church Street in Manhattan, the groups represented Southern Brooklyn, Northern Brooklyn, the South Bronx, West Harlem and less directly, all “EJ communities” and anyone now or potentially exposed to power plant pollution.

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

 

March 10, 2012

JCC Article X forum Thursday draws a crowd of 100 concerned citizens

Posted by coaxny under Article X, Home Rule, Power NY Act | Tags: , , |
Leave a Comment 

New York’s Article X energy law is not flawless and indeed was passed “surprisingly fast” but addresses both statewide energy needs and local concerns, according to a sponsor of the state rule.

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

 

Next Page »

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.