Article X -Issues of Concern
Prepared by:
Melanie Golden
Dorice Madronero
June 6, 2001

We believe that the process of siting major electric generating facilities
through the New York State Public Service Law- Article X places an undue
burden on local communities. The following elucidates areas of concern and
suggestions that may encourage more equitable use of land and natural
resources, without the degradation of local community values and assets.
We believe that there should be a preliminary standard that considers
appropriate sites prior to engaging in the siting procedure. This could be
attained through a two-fold analysis.

First, New York State should set a guideline of standards that qualify
locations by what defines an appropriate site, as part of an overal/master
energy plan. Next, a committee of all interested stakeholders, to include
industry, environmental groups, government, and healthcare should
determine where appropriate sites are within the State and earmark them for
power plant development. Use of existing brownfields should be considered
over greenfields. Also, the State must safeguard watershed protection.

As a result of not defining standards, private industry can now choose any
site that sets in motion a complex proceeding. This engages the applicant
and community in protracted litigation, even when the site is
environmentally inappropriate. As suggested by a justice during the Athens
Appeal, there is nothing to prevent power plant proposals from being
submitted for siting every ten miles along the Hudson River. Surely, lining
the beautiful Hudson River with power plants is not a desirable result of the
current process. And yet, each would have to be considered on its own
merit, enacted through Article X requirements.

A community may be faced with multiple proposals, each requiring a
cumbersome review process and possible litigation. Certainly, that is the
case in Rockland County. Local communities bear the burden of high legal
expenses, personal time from the citizens schedule, also, municipalities must
dedicate workflow to the tasks of preparing for the proceedings. Personnel
of the various State departments should also be factored into the cost of the
proceedings.

The review time given once an application is deemed complete needs to be
extended. Currently, the clock runs against the local communities. The
process is more favorable to the applicant, in that, through the pre-
application process there is time to adjust and fine-tune their proposal.
However, local groups are given insufficient time to review the final
application. In the case of ANP-Ramapo Energy the application was
deemed complete January 2, 2001 with the date of January 19, 2001 given as
the last day for submission of intervenor funding. Clearly, seventeen days is
not ample time to understand the application and submit funding requests
that meet statutory requirements.

The PSC judge suggested that the intervenors had the pre-application
process to study the application. . It is one thing to ask local groups to meet
with the applicant and raise general concerns; it is another matter to ask the
community to conduct a critical analysis of an incomplete application.
Particularly when there is no additional funding available for such a review.
Given their limited time and resources, community groups and local
government should not be prejudiced because they did not review an
incomplete and/or deficient application. Indeed, as in the case of Sithe, an
application may be completely withdrawn and replaced with an entirely new
proposal.

Further putting the local community at a disadvantage is the process of
convening the siting board. The process should not commence until all
stakeholders are notified that a complete board is duly constituted. In the
ANP-Ramapo Energy proceeding an appeal was made to the siting board on
February 14, 2001. As there was not a complete siting board in place to rule
in a timely manner, a decision was not made until May 1, 2001. This appeal
was critical to intervenor funding. The clock pressed on and intervenors
were limited in funding, which certainly influenced the preparation of expert
testimony.

During the Public Hearings both administrative law judges should be
mandated to be present. That was not the situation during the ANP-Ramapo
Energy hearings. Also, at least one local siting board member should be
present at the Public Hearings. While transcripts are available, these
members are charged with understanding local concerns. As such, their
input is a result of reading historical documents rather than the members
bearing witness to expressed concerns of all present.

The title of the Article X indicates that the process considers the siting of
major electric generating facilities. We are concerned that the breadth of the
Bill allows for consideration of nuclear generated facilities. By obviating
home-rule local communities are limited in their ability to rebuke the idea of
a nuclear facility being built.

Demanding that dirty facilities be de-commissioned could more readily
attain improved air quality, when cleaner facilities are sited. The integration
of renewable energy sources and conservation through energy efficiency
should be incorporated in the siting process.

The issues raised are a result of working with the process. While it is not a
finite review, we would hope that input from local groups is to be considered
in the process. The influences of industry directed concerns should not lead
the State standards. We encourage a revision that encompasses greater
equity to all stakeholders.