RE: GALLOO ISLAND WIND, LLC. Case No.

15-F-0327
Date: April 13, 2017
Document title: Clean Energy Plan Siting Standards
Submitted by:
Clifford P. Schneider, pro se
47243 Wood Cliff Drive
Wellesley Island, NY 13640
(315) 215-4019
clif.schneider@gmail.com
April 13, 2017

Hon. Kathleen H. Burgess

Secretary to the Commission
Three Empire State Plaza
Albany, New York 12223-1350
and
Mr. Kevin Casutto
Presiding Examiner
Three Empire State Plaza
Albany, New York 12223-1350

RE: GALLOO ISLAND WIND, LLC. 15-F-0327

Dear Secretary Burgess and Presiding Examiner Casutto:

In its Preliminary Scoping Statement Apex Clean Energy referenced New
Yorks 2015 State Energy Plan to justify and support the siting of its
Galloo Island Wind project1:
The Facility is consistent with State policies designed to
encourage the development of renewable energy projects, fight
climate change, and contribute to the transition of New Yorks
energy markets.
Despite Apexs claims, however, their project is NOT consistent with
important State policies that guide the placement of wind utilities in
environmentally sensitive locations, including Jefferson County.
As a reminder, on May 19, 2016 the Public Service Commission issued
the Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (FSEIS2) for the
proceeding in CASE 15-E-0302 To Implement a Large-Scale Renewable
Program and a Clean Energy Standard. The FSEIS was also used to assess
environmental impacts for several other State energy initiatives and
policies3.
The FSEIS referenced two important documents to guide the siting of
commercial wind projects. The first was a November 2014 study
contracted by the New York State Energy Research and Development

1
Apex Clean Energy, Galloo Island Wind Energy Facility, Town of Hounsfield,
Jefferson County, New York Case No. 15-F-0327June 2016.
2
New York State Department of Public Service, CASE 15-E-0302 - Proceeding on
Motion of the Commission to Implement a Large-Scale Renewable Program and a
Clean Energy Standard, Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement, 14-
2 (2016).
3
The FSEIS was also used to inform the PSC regarding environmental impacts to
other related matters: CASE 14-M-0101 Reforming the Energy Vision, CASE 14-
M-0094 Consider a Clean Energy Fund, CASE 13-M-0412 - Petition of New York
State Energy Research and Development Authority to Provide Initial
Capitalization for the New York Green Bank, CASE 10-M-0457 - In the Matter of
the System Benefits Charge IV, CASE 07-M-0548 - Energy Efficiency Portfolio
Standard, and CASE 03-E-0188 - Retail Renewable Portfolio Standard.
Authority (NYSERDA)4. The contract report was a cooperative effort by
the Nature Conservancy (NC) and the New York Natural Heritage program
(NYNHP) that focused on avoiding and reducing impacts on natural
habitats and wildlife from industrial wind development.
The NC/NYNHP report examined various factors affecting wind
production, i.e., wind production capacity, including elevation,
slope, aspect, surface relief ratio, terrain wetness, distance to
transmission, and land cover (e.g., developed, open, forest, etc.).
5 | Environmental Impacts of Proposed Action
The results are depicted in Figure 1 (left map). This rendering
describes the very high suitability of Jefferson County for
commercial
E X H I B I T 5 - 1 7 . R E S Uwind development.
LT S O F T H E N E W Y O R K N AT U R A L H E R I TA G E P R O G R A M S T U D Y O F W I N D E N E R G Y S I M PA C T S O N W I L D L I F E

Source: Howard and Schlesinger. 2014. Wind Power and Biodiversity in New York: A Tool for Siting Assessment and Scenario Planning at the Landscape Scale. New York Natural
Heritage Program.

Figure 1: From FSEIS EXHIBIT 5-17. RESULTS OF THE NEW YORK NATURAL HERITAGE PROGRAM STUDY OF WIND ENERGYS
IMPACTS ON WILDLIFE

NC/NYNHP then expanded its analysis to identify the subset of lands

suitable for wind development which present conflicts with areas of
significant biodiversity, including the presence of birds and bats,
species particularly vulnerable to adverse impacts from the rotating
turbine blades. An excellent example of such a conflict is Jefferson| 5-32

County. The results shown in Figure 1 (right map) describe Jefferson

County as having below turbine suitability for development, when
potential wildlife impacts are added to the analysis.
The specific, potential negative impacts to bats from wind development
were highlighted in the NC/NYNHF, as well as in the FSEIS. Again,
Jefferson County was noted as one of a few discrete number of areas
in the State where conflicts could arise between bats and wind

4
NYSERDA. Wind power and biodiversity in New York: A tool for siting
assessment and scenario planning at the landscape scale. Report No. 14-16,
November 2014. 100pp.
 lead to higher turbine-related bat fatalities. Curtailing during these times could help to reduce
fatalities.139 For example, several studies have shown that increasing the "cut-in" speed of turbines
during the summer and fall has reduced bat mortalities by 44 to 93 percent, while only reducing
the amount of energy generated by one percent or less.140 In addition, avoiding siting turbines near
areas frequented by bats such as water sources or known cove roosts can help further mitigate the
potential for collisions.141
projects if such projects are sited overlapping or in close proximity
to mapped areas.5. 142
E X H I B I T 5 - 1 8 . N E W Y O R K S TAT E B AT L O C AT I O N S A N D T R AV E L Z O N E S I D E N T I F I E D

Figure 2 FSEIS Exhibit 5-12. Bat locations and Travel Zones within New York State.
Habitat Destruction and Fragmentation
In addition
The second to the direct guideline
State impacts of injury and mortality in
referenced fromthe
collisions
FSEIS withthat
wind turbine
affects wind
development is development
infrastructure, wind the New York State
can also Department
fragment of Environmental
habitat for a range of animals though the
6
Guideline
placement of for siting
the turbines, industrial
access roads, and newwind projects
transmission lines.: In general, populations of
To minimize the potential impacts on birds and bats, NYSDEC
guidelines suggests wind developers site land-based wind projects
at least five miles away from major rivers, a great lake, or the
139
ArnettAtlantic Coast,
et al. 2008. Patterns of Batat least
Fatalities 2 Energy
at Wind miles away
Facilities from
in North anyJournal
America. areaof Wildlife
where special
status
Management birds are known to concentrate and/or 40 miles away from
72(1):6178
140 an identified bat hibernaculum.
Alliance for Clean Energy New York. 2011. Wind and Wildlife.
The
141 NYSDEC
Arnett siting
et al. 2008. Patternsguidelines and Energy
of Bat Fatalities at Wind the Facilities
Natural Heritage
in North report
America. Journal of Wildlifeboth
strongly support the view that industrial wind development in
Management 72(1):6178
Jefferson
142
County is not environmentally compatible with the countys
Howard and Schlesinger. 2014. Wind Power and Biodiversity in New York: A Tool for Siting Assessment and Scenario
unique and valuable natural resources. Both the five-mile buffer from
Planning at the Landscape Scale. New York Natural Heritage Program.
Lake Ontario/St. Lawrence River and 40-mile buffer from the Brownville
hibernaculum would indicate that wind development should be avoided in
most of Jefferson County. Moreover, these NYSDEC guidelines are | 5-35

5
Ibid. FSEIS, Exhibit 5-18
6
NYSDEC. 2009. Guidelines for Conducting Bird and Bat Studies at Commercial
Wind Energy Projects
entirely compatible with the findings from the NC/NYNHF report
referenced in the FSEIS.
The PSC in its FSEIS, NYSERDA in its Natural Heritage report, and the
NYSDEC in its siting guidelines have all tried to influence developers
to avoid sensitive environmental locations for their proposed
projects. Nevertheless, the developers of Jefferson County Article 10
proposals, e.g., Galloo Island Wind, LLC and the Horse Creek Wind
Farm, LLC, chose to ignore these directives and ignore any concerns
for the environment.
Is there enough land with adequate wind resources that is less
environmentally sensitive to wind development? That issue was
addressed in the FSEIS and the answer is YES. The FSEIS analyzed the
land requirements with the build-out projected to meet State 2030
energy goals and found:
These potential land use requirements appear to fall within the
approximately 1.3 million acres that the NYNHP estimates as
economically and biologically suitable for land-based wind energy
development.
Even with adequate land that meets wind resource and biodiversity
needs, some developers seem to think these directives dont matter and
dont need to be considered. Unfortunately, in this case the
developers are right!
The State guidelines, recommendations and suggestions noted above are
all soft and without teeth. There are no specific regulations or
restrictions on land use. The Article 10 siting law gives energy
developers free reign to pick any location in New York for a project,
without concern for avoiding sensitive areas that might have
heightened negative environmental impacts. The biodiversity maps noted
in the FSEIS and NYSERDAs Natural Heritage report should be a
requirement for developers, not a suggestion.
The Siting Board, however, does have the authority to follow those
very same directives that developers have chosen to ignore. The Siting
Board can and should make an example of any project proposal that
fails to consider the message that the PSC, NYSERDA and NYSDEC
policies are promoting - that renewable development and protecting the
environment are compatible, if they are done properly and responsibly.

Respectfully yours,

Clifford Schneider
Pro Se
Wellesley Island, NY 13640