New York State Board on Electric Generation Siting and the Environment

 

New York Assembly member Addie Russell explains why she voted against Article X.

The following is a transcript from the Steve Weed Video of Assembly member Addie Russell’s Thursday, March 8, 2012 presentation given during the Article X forum held at the Jefferson County community college.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Source

 

Local EJ groups take on new power plant siting regulations

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

 

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

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

 

NY State Power Act-Article X seminar at JCC, Thursday, March 8, 6:30 PM

Last summer, New York State managed to pass a law that allows the State to override local town laws and jam energy facilities such as industrial wind turbines right down the pie holes of its citizens.

One of the Article X knights in shining armor, Assemblyman Kevin Cahill, is traveling all the way up from Kingston, NY to tell us why Article X is such a good deal for our North Country communities that we should be willing to sacrifice our towns, lifestyles, home values and bird and bat populations just so we can provide expensive designer electricity for downstate New York.

Cahill is the Chairman of the New York State Assembly Energy Committee.

He is a supporter of Article X legislation and fully expects our communities to roll over for an energy technology that has no chance of turning a profit without massive state and federal welfare, followed by rapidly rising home electric rates and the decline of home values within sight of wind turbines.

Also present will be our local Assemblywoman Addie J. Russell who is a member of the Assembly’s Energy and Economic Development Committee. Addie joined Assemblyman Ken Blankenbush and Senator Pattie Ritchie in voting against the Power NY-Article X legislation.

Hopefully, by now, Assembly member Russell and other local representatives have learned enough about the horrors of what the speculation of industrial wind has done to destroy the social makeup of targeted communities that she will lend support to those who already have suffered the impacts of projects that are slated to take over entire Thousand Island Communities.

Addie recently welcomed Senator Chuck Schumer to Cape Vincent, NY during his visit of a Cape Vincent boatworks. The new MetalCraft Marine boatworks has already provided more permanent jobs than those promised by industrial wind. And, without gobbling up the entire St. Lawrence River communities and the view scape.

Those industrial wind targeted communities, especially Orleans and Cape Vincent have prepared extensive economic impact studies of what industrial wind turbines will do to our beautiful Lake Ontario and St. Lawrence communities. The results of those studies do not look favorable.

Just the depreciation of property values, alone, will wipe out any gains in partial tax payments that are being offered by the foreign wind developers who have targeted our communities.

Source

 

JCC to host energy law forum

Jefferson Community College will host a public forum Thursday on the state’s Article X energy law — a 2011 rule that allows the state to override municipal zoning laws for the siting of electrical energy generation facilities with more than 25 megawatts. The two-hour forum, which is free, will start at 6:30 p.m. in the Jules Center Amphitheater, Room 6-002, at JCC off Coffeen Street. Presenting the benefits of Article X that evening will be Assemblyman Kevin A. Cahill, D-Kingston, state Assembly Energy Committee chairman. Assemblywoman Addie J. Russell, D-Theresa, a member of the Energy and Economic Development committees who voted against the measure, will shed light on the law’s downsides.

Raymond E. Petersen, a JCC political science professor and Center for Community Studies director, will be the moderator.In Jefferson County, Article X has become a center of controversy because of wind farm projects proposed in the towns of Cape Vincent, Clayton, Orleans and Lyme. While welcomed by pro-wind groups — who fear that strict local zoning laws would kill these multimillion-dollar, renewable-energy projects — Article X drew criticism from not only opponents of wind development but also area politicians who believe the state should respect municipal “home rule.”

While some details on the 12-month permitting process have yet to surface, Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo had said local communities will have a say in the siting processes. Mr. Petersen, whose 1990 doctoral dissertation was on New York state’s energy policy, said the state saw an incredible level of civic engagement when the first two iterations of the state-controlled energy rule were introduced in the 1970s and 1980s.

The Article X forum is the first in a series of presentations on civic engagement sponsored by the Center for Community Studies. For more information, call Mr. Petersen at the Center for Community Studies at 786-2488.

 

NYSERDA: State should invest in solar power

A new report recommends the state invest in solar power as part of a “sound and balanced renewable energy portfolio,” but found that the cost of implementing the technology is difficult to pin down.

The New York Energy and Research Development Authority issued the 500-page study late Tuesday, which found ratcheting up the state’s solar output to 5,000 megawatts by 2025 would cost ratepayers anywhere from $300 million to $9 billion to implement, depending largely on the level of federal tax credits available and uncertainty in the solar market.

The report found installing meeting the 5,000 megawatt goal would create 2,300 jobs by 2025.

“Nevertheless, even with this range of cost uncertainty, given the many potential benefits that (solar) has to offer and the long-term potential for lower-cost (solar) technology, New York State should support continued investment in the steady and measured growth and deployment of (solar) as part of a sound and balanced renewable energy policy,” the report reads.

NYSERDA was directed to complete the report as part of the Power NY Act of 2011, an end-of-session bill that was included as part of a deal that enacted a 2 percent property tax cap and extended the state’s rent regulations for stabilized units.

Environmental groups were pleased with the report’s findings.

“New York State wins the policy ‘triple crown’ by making a big commitment to solar power,” said Ross Gould, program director for Environmental Advocates of New York. “An aggressive goal for siting solar power would reduce fossil fuel consumption by the electricity sector and reduce our dependence on oil, reduce greenhouse gases – which would be the equivalent of taking 250,000 cars off the road – and create approximately 2,300 new good jobs.

“This report shows New York State should move quickly and advance an aggressive investment in solar power by the end of this Legislative session.”

Here’s a findings summary from the report. The full document can be found here.

Source

 

Low cost financing now available for homeowners to make energy efficient upgrades

ALBANY – New York consumers seeking to make energy-efficient upgrades to their homes can now obtain low cost financing and repay the loan on their monthly utility bill. The program, known as On-Bill Recovery Financing, allows costs incurred by homeowners to be offset through energy savings while reducing consumption and air pollution, making it a win-win for New Yorkers.

On-Bill Recovery Financing was a signature part of the Governor’s Power NY Act of 2011. While the legislation originally scheduled On-Bill Recovery Financing to begin in June 2012, the Governor in his State of the State Address announced that the program had been accelerated to start sooner than scheduled.

“This program is a great way for New Yorkers to make their homes more energy-efficient and more environmentally friendly in a way that doesn’t cause financial hardship,” Governor Andrew Cuomo said. “The program will also create immediate jobs, and I hope homeowners across the state take advantage of this opportunity.”

The financing program is offered by the New York State Energy Research and Development Authority (NYSERDA) and encourages New York homeowners and businesses to make energy-efficiency improvements.

On-Bill Recovery Financing enables qualifying homeowners to make their homes more energy efficient with no cash up front. Some improvements may also qualify for NYSERDA or utility incentives or rebates. The balance of the cost of the energy efficiency project can be financed and repaid through savings on energy bills.

The interest rate is 2.99 percent for 5-, 10- and 15-year loan terms. Homeowners who apply for financing prior to June 2012 will not be charged on their utility account until the first utility billing after May 31, 2012. No payments are due and no interest will accrue during this deferral period.

Source

The credit application for On-Bill Recovery Financing is available at http://www.nyserda.ny.gov/residential.

 

Cuomo’s “Energy Highway” paved with wishful thinking and plenty of our $$$$$!

January 12, 2012

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

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

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

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

 

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

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