coaxny

March 9, 2012

IS INDUSTRIAL WIND IN OUR AREA DEAD? 

Tonight, in a nearly filled Jefferson County Community College auditorium, anti-wind and pro-wind citizens heard NY 118 District Assembly Member Addie Russell tell them that Article X legislation will never allow wind turbines to be built in our area. (New York’s Golden Crescent on Lake Ontario and the Thousand Island’s Region of the St. Lawrence River.)

During the JCC symposium, Assemblyman Kevin Cahill explained the pros and procedures of Article X legislation. Then, Assemblyperson Addie Russell explained the many reasons why she voted against the Power NY-Article X legislation. She said it was not that she was anti-wind. There was a place for it in our State’s energy portfolio. But, it can be overly utilized.

Addie expressed deep concern for the loss of the home values of people living near turbines and she was also concerned about the threat of eminent domain, including the loss of the rights of the industrial wind leaseholders because of what they give up to the wind developers when they sign leases.

“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.” Industrial wind projects are proposed for Cape Vincent, Clayton, Lyme and Hammond, NY.

Russell then said that on a local level, our communities can now be free to look at other ways to control our  energy needs with personal wind towers and solar. Kevin Cahill agreed with Russell by saying that the view shed of our area is a legitimate reason for local municipalities to object to Article X sitings of industrial wind.

Cahill also emphasized that Article will bring some towns back into the decision making because “some towns were corrupted”. His statement was followed by a long round of applause by the mostly anti-wind attendees. During the question and answer period one person commented that their town had thrown out the industrial wind conflicted public servants.

I went to the microphone and thanked Assembly member Addie Russell for her defense of local rule and her opposition vote on Article X. I then asked Assemblyman Kevin Cahill if the locally appointed members of the Article X siting boards were voting members. He said yes.

During the question and answer period, Voter for Wind member, Paul Mason of Cape Vincent told Russell that Cape Vincent had lost home rule because of last November’s absentee votes by the seasonal voters. Russell replied that because of that issue, more people now have the right to vote on the wind decision. She also told Mr. Mason to be careful what he wished for because Article X means that the uniqueness of our area and its view shed will probably prohibit wind turbines.

When Russell and Cahill were told that Cape Vincent had very good wind, Cahill replied not to worry because all of the other places they will be put in New York State will have good wind, too.

Lyme Town Council member Boo Harris asked Cahill and Russell if placing an outright ban on turbines in a community would be considered an undue burden by Article X siting boards. Addie Russell replied that a ban would probably not pass the test of the courts and a town would be better off with a well written zoning ordinance.

Russell explained that in New York State there is no need for all of the wind projects proposed, especially where there is no existing delivery system. And, in conclusion, she said, “probably this is it for wind development here because of our unique area”.

Addie then added that she and Kevin Cahill are proponents of solar power.

source

JAEGUN LEE, Watertown Times Staff Writer
MARCH 9, 2012
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