Advocates for Springfield, Update on Jordanville, NY

ADVOCATES FOR SPRINGFIELD
P. O. Box 25
Springfield Center, New York 13468

Update #40

October 17, 2007

Public Service Commission Reduces Size of Turbine Project PSC Approves Wind Project with Conditions

At its meeting August 20, 2007, the NYS Public Service Commission approved the Jordanville wind project but set three significant conditions based upon a very thorough review of the application.

First, the PSC required that 19 of the proposed 68 turbines be removed.
These are the turbines with the greatest visual impact on Otsego Lake and the Glimmerglass Historic District. Second, the PSC required the applicant to consult with the Mohawk Valley Heritage Corridor Commission regarding further mitigations to offset negative historic and cultural impacts. And third, the sponsor was required to come up with a plan to mitigate local historic impacts including a fund to carry out the recommendations. Included in this last item is a requirement that a conservation easement fund be established to protect lands from further development.

The PSC order was very well written with the staff doing an especially thorough job. Although many of our criticisms of the plan were dismissed or not addressed, the three key conditions were similar to suggestions that we had submitted to PSC. ("We" refers to Otsego 2000, Advocates for Stark, and Advocates for Springfield.)

Neither the applicant nor the town boards of Stark and Warren are particularly happy with the order. A local advocacy group, Friends of Renewable Energy (FORE), both towns, and the developer have all formally requested a re-hearing. The bases of that request include:

• The order to remove 19 turbines was "directly contrary" to the "carefully conducted" SEQRA hearing and findings of the lead agency (Town of Warren).

• The order was "appalling" in that it favored distant populations over local farmers.

• The PSC allowed testimony from project opponents despite the failure of these opponents to register their concerns in a timely manner.

• The order requires a program of conservation easements which is a violation of landowner rights.

It is our position that the Lead Agency (Town of Warren) failed to take the required "hard look" during its SEQRA review. During that review, the lead agency did not adequately consider the project’s impacts on neighboring communities (as required by SEQRA). The PSC order is simply a reflection of these shortcomings of the local approval process.

Article 78 Petition Continues

In separate action, our joint Article 78 complaint against the local approvals granted in July to Jordanville Wind was heard in oral argument in early October before Judge Greenwood of the State Supreme Court, Onandaga County. The petition asserts several failures: the lead agency failed to take the required "hard look" at the project impacts; the lead agency failed to request public input when it "scoped" the project; both towns conducted numerous illegal executive sessions for review and evaluation of the project; and one participating town board member failed to recuse himself despite having a financial interest in the project.

The judge listened to both sides while demonstrating a good understanding of the issues. He will issue his ruling in 2-6 weeks.