If Article X reform includes meaningfully protective setbacks from residential property and a minimum limit on increases in ambient noise of 6 dbA for rural areas, this would be an improvement over wind wars at the local level. Proponents of home rule should face the prospect that many will lose, some may win without preemption. With Article X preemption minimum siting standards can be augmented in an environmental impact review for which an agency with an environmental staff would be the lead. That's a vast improvement over unsophicated town boards that can be easily bought off by wind developers.
--Gary Abraham
3:49 PM
This is old news, and the focus should not be on Assembly passage, which was pro-forma for their own version of the bill, but on local communities waking up to the loss of home rule and the resultant loss of negotiating position re PILOTS and other financial benefits. I think it is legitimate to ask how many wind farms would be permitted in NYS if there were not such significant financial incentives for rural communities. Strip away the one benefit, and where is the support for this industry?
The Assembly's passage of this legislation was to establish a more formal negotiating position in discussions with the Senate. The regular legislative session concluded with no resolution or action on Article X. I would expect that Article X remains a priority for the Legislature and Governor's Office, but the timeline for accomplishing any program is mid-to-late fall.
Significant differences between the Senate and Assembly remain. The Governor has not yet even been invited in to Article X negotiations with the Legislature (there have been discussions). Governor's staff supporting this issue is in disarray - Deputy Secretary of Energy Steve Mitnick is mired in a misconduct investigation and has indicated he may be stepping down this summer. PSC Chair appointee Angela Sparks-Beddoe remained unconfirmed for the position by the Senate, and announced last week that she too will be stepping down from the Acting Chair role due to concerns for her lobbyist background for the utility industry and stock holdings in a company that she would have been regulating.
It's going to take some time to put energy policy back together after the 2007 debacle to date. So there is time to force the issue on wind, but wind is not yet a prominent part of Article X discussions by staff on Assembly/Senate Energy committees. Also of note, the most sympathetic member of the Assembly Energy Committee - Paul Tonko - and staff have departed for the Chairmanship of NYSERDA. That imports some sympathy at the head of that agency, but strips the Assembly Energy Committee of some expertise and familiarity with our issues. No word on who heads the committee going forward - odds are, Kevin Cahill, from Ulster County, who has reasonably strong environmental credentials, and knows a number of pro-wind environmental groups well. Education and demonstration of political will be needed there.
1 Comment
Close this window Jump to comment formIf Article X reform includes meaningfully protective setbacks from residential property and a minimum limit on increases in ambient noise of 6 dbA for rural areas, this would be an improvement over wind wars at the local level. Proponents of home rule should face the prospect that many will lose, some may win without preemption. With Article X preemption minimum siting standards can be augmented in an environmental impact review for which an agency with an environmental staff would be the lead. That's a vast improvement over unsophicated town boards that can be easily bought off by wind developers.
--Gary Abraham
3:49 PM