The Assembly of New York State Comments Re: Article 10

Published on November 2017 | Categories: Documents | Downloads: 30 | Comments: 0 | Views: 385
of 5
Download PDF   Embed   Report

Comments

Content

RECEIVED PUBLIC SER'IICE

THE ASSEMBLY

COMHISSIOIi EXEC-FILES- ALBANY

STATE OF NEW YORK ALBANY

1011 HAY 31

PH 3:31

May 31. 2012

Jaclyn A. Brilling, Secretary Public Service Commission 3 Empire State Plaza Albany, NY 12223-1350 Dear Secretary Brilling: We are writing about the "Regulations Implementing PSL Article

10

Governing Applications to Construct Major Electric Generating Facilities" recently proposed by the Public Service Commission (PSC) (Stale Register

1.0. #PSC-15-12-00006-P). These rules add a new Subchapter A to 16 NYCRR Chapter X to implement the new streamlined permit process provided for in the "Power NY Act" (Chapter 388 of the Laws of 2011). We previously commented (copy enclosed) on a related rule proposal by the Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) entitled "Analysis of Environmental Justice Issues Associated with the Siting of Major Electric Generating Facilities" (State Register 1.0. #ENV-03-12-00010-P).

We

advised DEC that additional regulatory provisions were needed to ensure the process for siting major electric generating facilities fully effectuates the commitment we made in the Power NY Act for enhanced review of environmental justice (EJ) issues under the new Article X. Severa! of the recommendations we made to DEC are equally appropriate for consideration for inclusion in the regulations of the Board on E!ectric Generation

Siting

& the Environment.

The

Board

has

incorporated

numerous provisions in its proposed regulations to facilitate meaningful involvement by the public as a whole (e,g., intervenor funding, the public information coordinator),

However,

nothing in

these regulations or

proposed Part 487 provides for specific outreach or assistance to the affected members of EJ communities.

It is well-recognized that members

of these communities face additional barriers to active and informed participation that require affirmative efforts to overcome.

2

We recommend that the Board review DEC's EJ policy (Commissioner's Policy CP-29) and ensure that the Article X rules include appropriate provisions needed to ensure meaningful participation by members of impacted EJ communities. Dublic

participation

stakeholders in

a

plan

Among these are requirements for a targeted that

potential

actively

EJ

area,

seeks

to

identify

the conduct

of

and

periodic

involve public

information meetings at locations and times convenient to EJ community stakeholders. the establishment of document repositories in or near the EJ community, and periodic progress reports to ensure that the enhanced public participation plan is successfully implemented on an on-going basis. The Board should also ensure that when an application involves an EJ community,

local parties within such

community are

included

in any

allocation of intervenor funds. We hope these comments are helpful in developing the final verSlon of these regulations. Please feel free to contact us if you require any further information on these comments. Very truly yours,

Jf.

Kevin A. Cahill

~



Robert K. Sweeney

Chair

Chair

Assembly Standing Committee

Assembly Standing Committee on Environmenta! Conservation

on Energy

Charles D. Lavine Assembly Chair Administrative Regulations Review Commission

THE ASSEMBLY

I

STATE OF NEW YORK ALBANY

March 14, 2012

Melvin Norris NYSDEC Office of Environmental Justice 625 Broadway Albany, NY 12233-1500 Dear Mr. Norris: We are writing about a recent rule proposal by the Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) entitled "Analysis of Environmental Justice Issues Associated with the Siting of Major Electric Generating Facilities" (State Register I.D. #ENV-03-12-0001O-P). These rules add a new Part 487 to Title 6 NYCRR to implement the commitment made in the "Power NY Act" (Chapter 388 of the Laws of 2011) that a streamlined permit process for electric generating facilities would not diminish the review of environmental justice (El) issues, but would in fact provide for enhanced EJ reviews.

While there may be other improvements that could

be made to proposed Part 487, these comments focus on one significant omission in the proposal that we believe would render the analysis of EJ issues under Article X much less meaningful than those undertaken under the provisions of the State Environmental Quality Review Act and DEC's own EJ policy. The proposed rules establish standards for determining whether the impact study area includes one or more EJ communities.

If so, the

preliminary seoping statement must include a preliminary evaluation of any

potentially significant and adverse

proposed

measures to

avoid,

offset

disproportionate

or minimize

these

impacts,

the

impacts,

and

describe any additional studies or program of studies the proposes in support of its final EJ analysis.

applicant

The proposed rules also set

forth lhe process for completing all required studies and require the application

to

include

a

statement

of

environmental

justice

issues

discussing why the remedial measures it proposes were chosen and how lhey can be verified.

2

,I

An of the above requirements omit a key element of environmental justice: nowhere is there

any

affirmative requirement

involvement of the EJ community in the process.

to

ensure meaningful

While it is true that the

statute contains several provisions to facilitate meaningful involvement by the

as

public

a

whole

(intervenor

funding,

the

public

information

coordina lOr), nothing in the statute or proposed Pa rt 487 provides for specific outreach to the affected members of EJ communHies. Office

of

Environmental

Justice

well

knows.

one

basic

As the tenet

of

environmental justice is that government must work actively to overcome barriers that have all LOO often resulted in decision-making without the active

and

informed

participation

of

minority

and

low-income

communities. 1S

not something that is "done to" or even "done

an EJ community,

To be effective, it must be done with the

Environmental justice for"

community members.

DEC's own EJ policy. Commissioner's Policy CP-

29, recognizes this by requiring an enhanced public participation plan that actively seeks to identify stakeholders in a potential EJ area; provides for information to be distributed to the EJ community that is written in an understandable manner, including in other languages where appropriate: calls for holding periodic public information meetings at locations and times convenient to EJ communi[y stakeholders; establishes document repositories in or near the EJ community; and requires progress reports

ensure

that

the

enhanced

public

implemented on an on-going basis.

participation

plan

is

to

successfully

With the exception of the provision

for appropriate translation of documents (and a plain language requirement that only applies to the final EJ analysis), none of these very important components of the EJ process would be required to occur in an analysis under Part 483. Requirements

for

meaningful

public

involvement

and

broad

public

participation are necessary and important, but such requirements extend to not only EJ community members, but also to other residents of the impact study area and of any alternate location, and to other residents of the affected municipalities. Outreach and engagement of EJ community stakeholders is necessary so that their voices are not subordinated to those of other affected communities with more resources, and also to ensure that the analyses and recommended mitigation measures are not developed in dry studies that are detached from their knowledge and insights on the needs of their community.

3 •

We urge DEC to include provisions in the rules for meaningful outreach to stakeholders in EJ communities potentially impacted by an Article X application,

to

maXimize

their

ability

to

participate

meaningfully

throughout the process. We also encourage you to consider incorporating some of the newer tools currently under review by the US Environmental Protection Agency, such as community-based participatory research, to maximize the benefits of EJ community involvement. We hope these comments are helpful in developing the final version of these rules. Please feel free to contact us if you require any further information on these comments. Very truly yours,

Sr6

Kevin J. Cahill

RObe

Chair

Chair

Assembly Standing Committee

Assembly Standing Committee on Environmental Conservation

on Energy

C_'_

O y?_

Charles D. Lavine Assembly Chair

Administrative Regulations Review Commission

Sponsor Documents

Or use your account on DocShare.tips

Hide

Forgot your password?

Or register your new account on DocShare.tips

Hide

Lost your password? Please enter your email address. You will receive a link to create a new password.

Back to log-in

Close