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 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

 

January 11, 2012

The New York State Board on Electric Generation Siting and the Environment

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

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

 

January 9, 2012

‘Home Rule’ derailed by ‘green’ energy train

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

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

 

January 8, 2012

New York State energy policy (and home rule)

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

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

 

January 5, 2012

Lawmakers aim to revisit Power NY Act

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

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

 

January 5, 2012

Otsego board endorses home rule

Posted by coaxny under Home Rule | Tags: |
Leave a Comment 

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

 

December 29, 2011

“Home Rule” Derailed by “Green” Energy Train

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

The funny thing about Senator Patrick Gallivan’s 12/27/11 response letter, Power NY: A comprehensive, inclusive energy strategy, to my 12/20 letter, “A loss of self-government,” was that Senator 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 Senator 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”. 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.

Senator 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%. And since electricity from wind & 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, Senator 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, Governor 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 1/2 of our nation’s affordable, reliable power (http://tinyurl.com/bulzpgv);

(3) close existing Co-Gen plants across NYS; and,

(4) fail to operate Niagra 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 & http://tinyurl.com/cgmw9ja)

It’s no wonder NYS continues to rate as one the worst states in the country to do business when it’s 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 & Democrats alike – are becoming Independents. (http://tinyurl.com/d5bo7ue)

We continue to hope and pray that as a dedicated ‘public servant’, Senator Gallivan will work to educate himself in order to pursue policies backed by sound science & 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
CitizenPowerAlliance.org

 

December 29, 2011

Power NY: A comprehensive, inclusive energy strategy

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

On Dec. 20 the Batavia Daily News published a reader’s submission (“A loss of self-government,” Another Point of View) where the writer aired concerns about Power NY legislation and Title X siting regulations. I thank the reader for offering her views on this important subject and would like to take the opportunity to offer my own.

The new Article X creates a new regional siting process, one that brings together businesses, state regulators, and local officials. It has two main objectives: first, to promote energy independence and clean energy use throughout New York State, and second, to bring both statewide and local priorities into consideration when deciding to build a power-generating facility.

Energy issues by definition are regional issues. A power plant in any village or town affects its neighbors. Whether it is visual, noise or air pollution, increased traffic on roads during and after construction, or the use of local water sources for cooling, no locality is an island when it comes to energy production or consumption. Under the new Article X framework enacted this past June, avenues are provided for all localities to have their concerns addressed.

In addition to the two members of the siting board selected to represent local municipalities, each proposed project is required to pass a number of stringent tests in order to be approved. Under the new law; local governments are granted full jurisdiction over all proposed projects that produce less than 25 megawatts of power; the siting board must take into account local ordinances and resolutions; affected municipalities are afforded the right to appeal, that appeal is required to be heard and should it be denied, the municipality may seek a judicial review; and each application will have to demonstrate that the proposed site is the best choice among available alternatives and that steps have been taken to avoid environmental damage to the surrounding area.

Further, the developer of any proposed energy production site is required to pay intervener funds to the municipality. These funds may be spent to hire field experts, conduct studies and analyses, and to obtain legal advice associated with energy siting. This provision is very important, and will ensure that the municipality and local interests have the resources to make their case before the siting board.

The full approval process is expected to take at least one year before ground can be broken on any new projects, giving all parties involved time to identify potential problems or concerns. As referenced in the Dec. 20 submission, concerned citizens have the opportunity to register and submit comments, concerns, and opinions into public record through the Public Service Commission’s website. I too fully encourage anyone who wishes, to take advantage of this opportunity to be heard.

For years, to its detriment, New York State ignored the reality that the production, the transportation, and the consumption of energy is a statewide issue with implications for all of New York State’s 19 million citizens. Through Power NY, New York now has a clear, comprehensive, and inclusive energy strategy for the future.

I thank you for your time and attention, and sincerely hope this holiday season has been healthy and happy for you and your family. If you have any additional questions or concerns regarding this, or any other matter, please don’t hesitate to contact me anytime, (716) 656-8544 or by email at gallivan@nysenate.gov.

Source

 

Next Page »

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.