You are on page 1of 21

From Eva Gnacik To Export to DMM CC 40 "tubuloq" <> 05/29/2012 07:39 PM To Secretary@dps.ny.g ovcc Subject Art.

X Comments May 29, 2012 Honorable Jaclyn A. Brilling, Secretary New York State Board on Electric Generation Siting and the Environment Empire State Plaza Albany, NY 12212-1350 Dear Secretary Brilling, RE: In the Matter of the Rules and Regulations of the Board on Electric Generati on Siting and the Environment. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the draft regulations of Art. X and the comments posted from lobbyists and the energy industry. I tried to be as brief and succinct as I could. Critique of draft regulations ART. X Ad hoc members should have the right to vote, they should be necessary for a quo rum, and all Siting Board meetings should happen in the municipality where the project is proposed. Studying a 5 mile radius for wind projects is important for bird and bat studies , property values, and sound issues. Information currently kept confidential from met towers and energy production sh ould be disclosed so the Siting Board can evaluate if the proposed plant will help the fill the energy ne ed and how much the energy/facility will end up costing the ratepayers. Partnering with an IDA or Authority should not give a private company the power of eminent domain directly or indirectly. Partnering is an undefined phrase and will be used as an expansio n of power for private companies over normal ownership rights. This is not a healthy direction for a capitalistic country. The paragraphs pertaining to eminent domain should be removed and the traditional em inent domain channels followed. An energy deliverability study up front for any facility would help the Siting B oard make a determination early that a project would actually help the "need" part of the certificate and if the transmission system will be adequate. At least there should be a general energy deliverability study in a ba ll park range. Knowing what the facility will do to the grid should be one of the original basic issues to b e discussed and decided. Building new transmission lines is expensive and frequently difficult to garner public su pport for. The Siting Board will know early what additional issues/ hurdles an energy project will bring.

Power NY Act says the default position is to enforce local laws. This should rem ain in the regulations. The burden of proving local laws unreasonably burdensome should fall on the develope r.

Art X expects towns to defend their laws- the intervenor fund should be availabl e for this unasked burden. In fact the enormity of asking a town to defend its laws, without compensation, is grotesque considering the status quo is the norm and if someone wants change it is their responsibility an d burden to make that case. It is akin to flipping on its head the concept of "innocent until proven guilty". Let the burden fall, appropriately, on the applicant to prove local laws unreasonable. The intervenor fund is inadequate for all the studies that may need to be done. The amount of money should not be capped but worked out with the Siting Board as additional studies are rec ognized. Under Home Rule Town Boards had the right to require unlimited funds in an escrow account. There is no record of Towns abusing these accounts with frivolous expenses. Low level vibration, C weighting, should be measured. If, as wind developers say , there is no problem, then the science will measure that. If it is a problem, then the Governor certainly w ould not want to knowingly expose people to harmful vibrations. Let science be the judge like in any enligh tened country. Opponents of noise and proponents of new facilities should be able to agree that they share an interest in a robust review of noise issues to ensure adequate protection agains t and mitigation of adverse impacts and to maintain the viability of future projects. Strike this concept from your mind that municipalities and developers have commo n interest in adequate sound protection. The fact is wind companies are documented to use fraudulent sound st udies. See Soundgate Papers for an example of fraud. Acciona, a Spanish wind developer, hired David Hessler, accoustical engineer. He sold his professional credentials and wrote a sound analysis that threw out quie t samples and used incorrect methodology. His conclusion raises the ambient sound level many decibe ls above reality. People need genuine protection - 35 dba at non participating property lines shou ld be included in the regulations or 5 above ambient in the winter night. Peoples' right to peacefully enjoy their property and sleep should be protected as is normally required by property ownership laws. Public involvementThe periods to comment and apply for intervenor funds should be not less than 60 . 60 days is hardly even enough for Town Boards who meet only once a month to do adequately due diligence on behalf of their constituents. Intervenor funds are intimidating. Individuals who receive the intervenor funds will be forced to assume administrator status which requires skills they make not have. I fear the y will be intimidated and even held liable for misappropriating funds through their lack of training. Once the

Siting Board has agreed to the studies and method the person/ municiaility using the funds should be held blame less. Additional words need to be added to the Art. X regulations so that people are not liable. Especially when it is remembered that the applicant/ developer gets all money, unused or perhaps unintentionally misspent, back. This is a dangerous intimidating prospect and has a chilling effect on public involvement without pr otective language added. 1000.15 Acceptance of a Certificate (a) Upon issuance of a final decision by a Board granting a Certificate, an appl icant shall, within 30 days after the issuance of such decision, file either a written unqualified acce ptance of the Certificate or a petition for rehearing, but not both. The municipality should also have the right to ask for a rehearing. 1001.8 Exhibit 8: Electric System Production Modeling Items 1-8 should all be mandatory. This information about production over the ar, monthly output, peak production etc. is all very important for the Siting Board to access the fectiveness of the facility in producing power that fills the needs of NY and reduces emissions. is information also protects the ratepayers from being victimized by an overly expensive project. the end the ratepayers ye ef Th In

pay for all facilities. Please keep these requirements in the regulations. 1001.17 Exhibit 17: Air Emissions (b) An assessment of existing ambient air quality levels and air quality trends for pollutants in the region surrounding the facility, including air quality levels and trends taken f rom regional air quality summaries and air quality trend reports. It is important that the locations the air samples are taken from actually measu re the emissions. For example, if a sample is taken upwind it will appear there are no emissions. The regulations should include include air samples from the smokestacks, downwind analysis, and a measu rement of air quality at the property line of the facility. The facility should be using i ts regular fuel and not a extra clean fuel for the sample periods. 1001.21 Exhibit 21: Geology, Seismology and Soils (j) an assessment of potential impacts of blasting to environmental features, ab ove-ground structures and below-ground structures such as pipelines and wells; "Assessment" is not adequate protection; there must be adequate compensation for the loss of a water system. (h) For proposed wind-powered facilities: (1) an identification and evaluation of the expected environmental impacts of th e facility on avian and bat species and the habitats that support them based on information gathered during preconstruction studies conducted at the proposed site and other nearby sites, anal ysis of known or predicted species and species migration corridors present on site, and including a description of the extent, methodology and results of all such pre-construction studies; This paragraph should include all studies done in the last 10 years in the area because it is impossible to do adequate environmental studies in less than a year. Including all studies conducted would permit the 1 year process and give the Siting Board adequate information to make inform ed decisions. 1001.27 Exhibit 27: Socioeconomic Effects Exhibit 27 shall contain: (a) An estimate of the average construction work force, by discipline, for each quarter, during the period of construction; and an estimate of the peak construction employment leve l........ Negative economic effects like loss of local character, loss of property values, loss of secondary industries connected to existing tourism etc. should also be considere d. Considering the economics that only benefit the developer's brief is biased and unacceptable in the State of NY. Please add to the regulations making sure all effects are considered.

1001.28 Exhibit 28: Environmental Justice (3) If such impacts cannot be avoided or minimized, the specific measures the ap plicant proposes to take to offset such impacts to the maximum extent practicable for the duratio n that the Certificate is in effect, including a description of the manner in which such impact offset measures will be verified and a statement of the cost of such measures. Enviromental justice is evaluating the effect of a facility on the people in the area. At times people should be more important than a facility and instead of "maximum extent practica l" the language should be changed to read "the Certificate will be denied". 1001.31 Exhibit 31: Local Laws and Ordinances Board elects to not apply them by finding that, as applied to the proposed facil ity such are unreasonably burdensome in view of the existing technology or the needs of or co sts to ratepayers whether located inside or outside of such municipality...........(2)....costs to consumers associated with applying the local substantive requirement outweigh............. .(3)the needs of consumers for the facility outweigh the impacts on the community.......... In other words, the ratepayers/consumers across an undefined area are more impor tant than the local community. This is profoundly unfair and is so vague that this paragraph should be removed from the regulations.

Critique of Attorneys for the Independent Power Producers of New York, Inc. READ AND LANIADO, LLP COMMENTS Section 1000.2(ae) - The proposed definition provides in part that an applicant that partners with an industrial development agency or public authority "for the acqu isition of any land for the facility or the Interconnections has an indirect power of eminent d omain ... ," and, therefore, would not qualify as a "private facility applicant." Lacking that sta tus subjects the applicant to presenting extensive information on reasonable and available altern ate location sites that will be costly and delay the pre-application process. The requirement is im posed even if the condemning authority is not taking the site slated for the proposed generating f acility but is instead taking a small piece of land, say for example, any part of a substation or transmission line. It is overkill to require the condemning authority to identify entirely ne w sites if only a small piece of land is being acquired. If there are properties available but the authority does not want to resort to eminent domain for a host of reasons, the developer risks havi ng its application denied because there may be a preferable site that exists and it is theoreticall y "available." Accordingly, the wording should be revised to provide that if the authority is p artnering with the applicant to condemn the proposed site location, then the applicant would not be deemed a private facility applicant. In this instance, the authority appears prepared to use eminent domain on a large scale and it would not be unreasonable to require it to use the power for an alternate site location. This appears to be an expansion of eminent domain by simply reclassifying an app licant as" not a private facility applicant". A developer/applicant should not have more rights t han regular property owners and businesses. All language in the regulations pertaini ng to eminent domain should be removed from the regulations. Assessing alternatives is the cost of do ing business and brings money into NY as people are put to work evaluating alternatives. For appl icants/ developers to balk at doing the studies necessary to assess the impacts on a local area is ver y third world mentality and has no place in the Empire State. Section 1000.2(ai) - This definition was not proposed during the stakeholder pro cess. The proposed definition excludes land owned by the specified municipalities that may not be used by motor vehicles but are held out for the use of the public such as areas that are accessible

by foot and land underwater. Projects typically place interconnections in the su bsurface of these public rights-of-way and there is no reason to exclude them. The wording of the statute does not restrict public rights-of-way to those areas traversed by motor vehicles. Public right of ways are the jurisdiction of the local municipality and their pe rmission should be necessary. For instance, the requirement in Section 1001.19(a) would require developers of a wind project to identify locations of all residences within five miles of a prop osed wind turbine. Assuming a wind project of 50 turbines located on a 3 mile by 3 mile site (5,800 acres),....... 5 miles is reasonable because a wind project sprawls across enormously large tr acts of land and have impacts on the surrounding areas. If wind projects were tiny and you could hide them under a bed 5 miles would be excessive but the lights and effects are visible 40 mile away so 5 miles is actually a small area. Additionally a 1 mile radius for an urban project is reasonable sinc e power plants have tall stacks and air pollution; they impact large areas. Section 1001.6(d) - The requirement for the analyses of wind meteorological data , demonstrating adequate wind conditions to support the facility's estimated capac ity factor, asks for too much. The meteorological data and estimated capacity factor information are confidential and can be employed by competitors, for example in NY SERDA procure ment auctions, to undercut another bidding facility, thereby causing it economic dama ge. Instead, the wording in the regulation should be revised to allow a wind developer to provide publicly

available information about wind conditions in the area and typical wind project capacity factors to support the estimated capacity factor of the facility. This is concealment of the actual value or lack of value of a wind project. Meas ure the wind resource, measure the production so the Siting Board knows what they are granting on behal f of the ratepayers and local community. The public has a right to know the validity of a wind proje ct. Section 1001.8(a)(3) - Add the words "based upon publicly available information" after the word "facility." The capacity factor of a facility is confidential informati on. The applicant should not be required to disclose it because it can cause economic damage. In t he consultations with the agency staffs provided in the introductory paragraph, the applicant sho uld be accorded the option to develop a reasonable estimated capacity factor without disclosing proprietary information. Again the Siting Board should know what they are granting on behalf of the ratep ayers and local community. The public has a right to know the capacity factor of a facility. Section 1001.8(a)(8) - The information concerning the respective contractual obl igations between cogeneration facilities and their steam hosts are, with limited exceptio n, not publicly available. If they were, it would require an applicant to interpret the legal du ties and obligations of the respective parties, a highly subjective exercise. The required analysis w ill be very difficult to perform, if it could be done at all. That part of the analysis should be dele ted. Since the Siting Board is working on behalf of the public they should know what kind of deals are cooking. This form of transparency will benefit the credibility of the Siting Bo ard and the "required analysis will be very difficult to perform" is an assertion. It is not difficult to say what the relationship is. Capital cost information by major category is highly confidential in the competi tive generation market. The Commission's trade secret regulations, and adopted by the Board, do not offer unconditional protection. Protection could be denied outright or the Board or the presiding officer could eventually allow disclosure. Whether the Board's decision is merit orious or not, once out the competitive damage is done to the applicant. The applicant's compet itors could use the information to undercut the proposed project. The applicant's suppliers coul d use the information to artificially inflate bids. Once out in the public domain, the app

licant cannot collect damages for the economic injury to its business. Thus, the fear of discl osure could deter developers from siting projects in New York. Accordingly, the provision should b e deleted in its entirety. The Siting Board should know about the capital costs of a project since over tim e all of this money plus a profit margin will be recovered from the ratepayers. Sections 1001.36 (a)(6) and 1001.37(d) - There is no requirement in Article 10 f or the Board to make findings on the facility's impact on wholesale gas prices and fuel oil wholesale supplies and prices in the affected region. As to gas, PSL 164. 1 (b)(7) require s information about the facility's fuel supply but not about prices. As to oil, PSL 164.1 (D) also r equires information on the facility's supply, and certainly nothing about prices. Both provisions do not require regional analyses. During the complex negotiations on the drafting of Articlel0, IPPNY's understanding was that provisions on regional supplies and prices were not inten ded to be included in the Article 10 law. This is very important information for the Siting Board to consider on behalf of the ratepayers and should be required. Critique of Beveridge and Diamond PC The Process is Not Adequately Streamlined. The process under Art. X is shortened by many years People take time to learn th ere is an issue/ project and how it will effect them and the environment. People have jobs, famil ies, and obligations which take precedence until a critical moment or mass happens. This happens slow ly. I year, or even 2 years, will leave most people still uninformed until a project is being physical ly constructed. This means the intent of Art. X to involve the public will never actually be realized. To s horten the process any more

would only make it worse. Please disregard this self serving comment from Beveri dge and Diamond PC The Board s Authority With Respect to Local Laws and Construction Codes Must Be Consistent with Article 10. Compared to the working draft regulations, the draft regulations provide greater clarity in relation to compliance with local laws an d construction codes such as the Uniform Fire Prevention and Building Code [16 NYC RR 1001.31]. However, even as revised, the regulations do not appear to be consiste nt with Article 10. The applicant is required to enter into an arrangement with another agency or entity to review and approve construction plans, inspect construction work and d etermine construction code compliance. This undermines Article 10 s goal of providing an efficient, one-stop permitting process. The Board should retain this authority, as envisioned under Article 10. However, if the Board continues to pursue this appr oach, it should either take the lead in establishing the arrangement it envisions in each proceeding or prepare specific guidelines for such arrangements so applicants an d other parties have a clear understanding of the process. Art. X has already stripped municipalities of Home Rule; they should still have some rights and an efficient "one stop" permitting process means many municipalities and agencies a re loosing their rights to administer areas for which they are responsible. They should continue to have some stake and sovereignty over their area of responsibility and expertise. Critique of Iberdrola Renewables Applicants Should Not Be Required to Disclose Proprietary Information such as Ca pital Costs or Meteorological Data. Again this is important information to know the value of a project in terms of e nergy production, meeting GHG goals, and amount of money to be recover from the ratepayers. They should di sclose this information. The fact that all the wind developers want to conceal this informat ion makes the case that they are swindling tax money and producing nothing of value. The Article 10 legislation establishes the standards for project approval.10 Onc e a project meets these standards there should be a low threshold for showing that local laws, whi ch impose additional requirements, are unreasonably burdensome. This is especially true in New York, wh ere numerous wind projects have been approved (some by the Public Service Commission) pursuan t to a fairly uniform set of siting standards. Moreover, PSL 168(3) allows an applicant broad discretion in choosing the approach to make the case for local law override and the Siting Board has broad authority to grant the request. This flexibility is consistent with legislative

intent and the historic approach for justifying an override as established under the prior Article X. Ho wever, the proposed regulations ignore these sensible precedents, adopt standards of proof regarding potential local law overrides that are precisely the opposite of those outlined in PSL 168(3)(e) and establish rigid tests and review standards that are not set forth in the law and undercut and re strict the flexibility otherwise granted to the Siting Board. The intent of the Governor and Legislature is clear in the Power NY Act that the Siting Board will apply the local laws unless deemed "unduly burdensome" and the default position is to apply them. NY has been historically a Home Rule State and this keeps some of that flavor. Requirements for Exhibits 8 and 10 Should Not Exceed the Requirements of PSL 164 (b)(viii), nor Conflict with or Conflate the NYISO Interconnection Process............According ly, the obligations of proposed Sections 1001.8, 1001.10(b) and 1001.10(e), which go beyond the require ments of Article 10, should exempt wind energy facilities, not only because it is duplicative of the NYISO interconnection process capacity resource deliverability studies are performed b y NYISO as part of the Facilities Study Class Year process but because they are unnecessary, costl y, and of limited utility. There is no valid reason to exempt wind energy facilities. If wind is a genuine source of energy this information is necessary to know how it will be delivered. If wind is a joke and actually produces no

power than Iberdrola is correct there need be no studies because wind will have no effect on the grid's deliverability. The Regulations Should Not Impose Unnecessarily Burdensome Application Requireme nts. Section 1001.11(c) of the proposed regulations imposes burdensome application re quirements. The stated information implies the need for final engineering, which is beyond t hat which is required by the statute. Article 10 specifies that applicants provide conceptual engineeri ng plans. 16 The problem with proposed Section 1001.11(c) is that it is burdensome as applied to a wind energy developer. While the information sought may be reasonable for traditional energy developments proposed on a limited num ber of parcels, it is infeasible for the large acreage covered by wind energy development leases. The history of wind development is all about concealed leases/ public officials/ corruption and no one knows the extent of the land under contract. ".....large acreage covered by wind energy development leases" ; the fact that is it "large" does does not make it unreasonable. And if "large " does make it unreasonable than wind projects by definition are unreasonable. The Proposed Regulations Should Not Impose Burdensome Timing Requirements. ............. Similar to the discussion above regarding local laws adopted after an applicatio n is filed,27 one other timing issue exists that should be clarified. The Siting Board should consider i mpacts only to sensitive receptors which are in existence and have all required permits as of the date of the application. This is particularly important given the lengthy Article 10 timing requirements laid out above. The process should not allow for a moving target, nor should it allow illegitimate applications to construct new receptors from being filed in response to an application. Receptors include local laws being updated. Communities all across NY are workin g on wind ordinances and local zoning as the issues of health, safety, sound have bec ome evident because of wind projects proposed in their jurisdiction. The body of information develop ed and the local laws and ordinances crafted should be heard and given priority. The health, safety, e conomic and other effects of a wind project will last decades; to ignore this information because of a time deadline is counterproductive and will in the end give wind a bad reputation Also a bad repu tation to the PSC and

to the Siting Board. Please ignore this appeal from Iberdrola and make sure the Siting Board operates on modern up to date information. Critique of ACE NY's comments ACE NY is a nonprofit organization whose mission is to promote the use of clean electricity technologies and energy efficiency in New York Stat e in order to increase energy diversity and security, boost economic development, improve publ ic health, and reduce air pollution. ACE NY is a wind lobbyist funded by the wind industry. A. Criteria for Override of Local Laws ...........once those standards are met t here should be a low threshold for showing that local laws, which impose additional requirements, are unreasonably burdensome and the burden should fall on the community to show the more restrictive requirements are well founded The burden of proof should fall on th applicant/ developer as intended in the Po wer NY Act. It would cost money from the local municipality to prove their case and be a burden on the loc al tax base, in towns already struggling with unfunded state mandates. C. Sound Studies We have consulted with a nationally

recognized sound expert and others with experience on this issue and have substa ntive comments described here and contained in the attached redline of the proposed re gulations. The "nationally recognized sound expert......... who red lined the regulations " pertaining to sound is Valerie Strauss, Deputy Director of ACENY and former AWEA lobbyist is . Natio nally recognized by the wind industry does not make her credentials worthy. ACE's comments should be ignored as propagating fraudulent information about sound. This is par for the course fo r the wind industry. Fraudulent sound studies go hand in hand with the wind industry. And ACE NY is n o exception. D. Energy Market and Electric System Information........... The studies currently required in the proposed regulations (e.g. Exhibits 8, as well as Exhibit 6 (d) and Exhibit 14) require proprietary information and energy market projections and are inappropriate. Again this information is necessary for the Siting Board to honestly serve the r atepayers' financial well being and the goals of energy production of NY. E. Timing Issues i. PIP and Pre-Application Scope: The proposed regulations require the submission of a public involvement program (PIP) for departmental review 150 days prior to submission of a preliminary scoping document. Genuine public involvement takes time and 5 months is not long in busy peoples' lives. ii. Five-mile Radius Study Area: Wind projects are visible for 40 miles or more, sound travels miles, birds and b ats fly over many square miles; 5 miles is necessary to evaluate impact of sprawling huge projects. iii. Cost and Meteorological Data: Again this information is necessary for the Siting Board to accurately evaluate the merit of a project. The information should be disclosed. Critique of EDP Renewables Pg 7, Section (ar): Study Area. The proposed definition requires a 5 mile study radius around all generating facility components, interconnections and related facilities and alte rnative location sites. For wind facilities in rural areas, this is overly cumbersome. From a logistical standpoint, it would be extremely onerous to require field studies to be conducted on a 5 mile radius su rrounding a project due to land access and the right of entry required in order to adequately perfor m the studies. Certainly, there are instances in which a 5 mile study area would be appropriate such as the Area of Potential Effect as has been used in previous architectural studies for the Stat e Historic Preservation Office, however, extending all studies to this radius would be extr

emely onerous to complete. The cumulative effects of wind projects on noise, migratory bird paths, raptors, property values, view sheds, extend out many miles and these studies should be conducted. 5 miles is a reasonable "buffer" space. Public Involvement Again the genuine involvement of the public and municipal bodies takes time and 5 months is not that long. In fact, 30 days and less for comment periods and applying for intervenor funds is unreasonable. Exhibit 6 Wind Power Facilities, Exhibit 8 Electric System Production Modeling, Exhibit 14 Cost of Facilities At a high level, these sections give us significant problems. The proposed regul ation requires EDPRNA to provide detailed information including confidential work product and t rade secrets as well as confidential information which we are prohibited by contract from disclo sing to third parties and which could allow a competitor could, among other things, reverse engineer a detailed financial model and thus gain a commercial advantage. Additionally, the cumulative informa tion could be used to influence the review of competitive bid processes such as the New York S tate Energy

Research and Development Authority ( NYSERDA ) solicitations for renewable energy. The Siting Board needs to know the actual costs of projects to protect ratepayer s from buying down overly expensive projects.. "The requirement to include a upied structures and areas of public gathering ainly, particularly if we don t have physical access orried about the vagueness of areas of public statement of all occupied structures, barns, unocc is unrealistic and burdensome in early stages cert to the property to perform inspections, and we are w gathering .

Additionally wind projects setbacks should start at non- participating property lines not occupied residences. Otherwise the wind company uses a non- participating property owner' s land as a buffer for their wind turbines' effects. The landowner could not then build a house on thei r back acreage because it would be infringing on the turbines' setbacks. This is theft and should be no ted in the regulations. Cumulatively, these sections require that we provide: Exhibit 6, Pg 52, Section (d). Wind meteorological analyses demonstrating adequa te wind conditions supporting the estimated capacity factor for the facility; Exhibit 8, Pg 54, Section (a)(2). Estimated minimum, maximum, and average annual spot prices representative of all NYISO Zones within the New York Control Area, both with an d without the proposed facility; Exhibit 8, p 54, Section (a)(3). An estimated capacity factor for the facility; Exhibit 8, Pg 54, Section (a)(4). Estimated annual and monthly, on peak, shoulde r and off-peak MW output capability factors for the facility; Exhibit 8, Pg 54, Section (a)(5). Estimated average annual and monthly productio n output for the facility in MWhs; Exhibit 8, p 54, Section (a)(6). An estimated production curve for the facility over an average year; (p 54, Section (a)(6)) Exhibit 8, Pg 54, Section (a)(7)). An estimated production duration curve for th e facility over an average year; and Exhibit 14, Pg 62, Section (a). A detailed estimate of the total capital costs o f the proposed facility, including a separately stated estimate for each interconnection, broken down in a rational manner by the Applicant into major cost components appropriate to the facility. We do not see the need for all of this data for the purpose of the Board. The Bo ard should be able to perform an evaluation of the proposed facility without disclosure of our confide ntial work product and analyses. EDPRNA proposes that the detailed meteorological data be completely ex cluded, and that all additional details mentioned above in Exhibit 8 be either removed, limi ted, or filed under a seal."

Please continue to request this information. It is important for the Siting Boar d to use this informationto make a just rendering of the effectiveness of a project. Exhibit 13 Real Property Pg 61, subsection (b). The Siting Board has requested that Exhibit 13 contain a survey (or map for wind projects) of the facility showing property boundaries; block and lot number s; the owner of record of all parcels; easements, grants and related encumbrances; public and private r oads; and zoning and related designations. The terms easement, grants and related encumbrances coul d be construed to mean all easement, grants, and encumbrances whether of record or no t which encumber the property rather tha n just those held by the Applicant in connectio n with the development of the wind project. This would require the Applicant to obtain titl e searches at an early stage in the development process which will be quite expensive and may cause sig nificant delays due to the challenges in obtaining title for wind projects in rural areas which consist of 50 to 100 landowners on average. In addition, the Applicant has no knowledge as to any eas ements, grants or encumbrances that are not of record. Additionally, i n early stages of developme nt of the project, the Applicant may not have yet entered into lease, license or easement agreements. I t would be more

practical to require that the map contain only the tax identification number of the parcels and ownership of the parcels. This information is necessary to site a wind project in a community. Siting a pr oject requires setbacks from roads, non participating properties, it must protect areas which have been locally zoned of significance or of some importance like schools, sensitive areas, or hospitals. All of this is importance. The fact that wind developers/applicants are continuously trying to sign up more land is something that perhaps should have a cut off date. New leases becomes a self induced hardship t o the applicant because the application has already started. Maybve they should not be allowed t o sign more landowners after the Pre application phase or the project formally becomes a "Re vision". Exhibit 14 Cost of Facilities This information should be known. Local Laws and Ordinances Pg 96, subsection (e): The draft regulations allow the Siting Board to not apply local substantive requirements that are unduly burdensome in the view of existing technology or th e needs of or cost to ratepayers; however, the Applicant must request this review at the time of su bmitting the Application and await a decision by the Siting Board. It would be extremely diff icult for the Applicant to complete the required studies and facility design without knowing if local la ws would be upheld or not. Moreover, the Applicant would spend a great deal of money, time and resourc es completing the studies with the local requirements in place, and then supplement the studies in the event that local laws were overridden. EDPRNA proposes that consideration for the pre-emption of local laws be consider ed prior to the submission of an Application as many of the site-specific studies are entirely d ependent on the Siting Board s decision. This is a moment when the "fast track " aspect of Art. X does not work in the de velopers' favor. Rather than stripping local municipalities of more locally developed laws and ordinance s maybe the developer should craft their project so it fits in the local ordinances instead of trying to force projects which do not fit. Exhibit 34 Electric Interconnection Pg 101: The Board requires information pertaining to all aspects of the facility interconnection. While it is understood that this information is pertinent and applicable to revi ew of the application, it is also duplicative of information shared or determined as a result of the NYISO interconnection study processes.

NYISO does this study at the end of the application period. It could be very lik ely for the Siting Board to get to the end of the application process and then NYISO weighs in with " a new transmission line or upgrade is necessary to carry the power on the grid". The Siting Board needs to know, up front, if the energy facility will require the additional component of a transmission line or upgrade. Transmission lines are not cheap, not scenic, nor welcomed by communities. Ratepayers will en d up paying for not only the energy facility but the transmission lines. The transmission lines are half of the equation of producing energy and must be considered early. Thank you for the opportunity to comment. Hester Chase Cape Vincent, NY