Proceedings on Motion to Deem Sunset Energy Fleet's Article X Application Null and Void

U.S. Representative Nydia Velázquez
Public Statement
Case 99-F-0478 -- Proceedings on Motion to Deem Sunset Energy Fleet's Article X Application Null and Void

Before
Judge Gerald Lynch, Administrative Law Judge,
New York State Department of Public Service and
Judge Nicholas Garlick, Administrative Law Judge
New York State Department of Environmental Conservation

Judge Lynch and Judge Garlick, I appreciate this opportunity to make some comments on an issue of great importance to my constituents. I am here in support of the motion to deem Sunset Energy Fleet's Article X application null and void. As the U.S. Representative of the 12th Congressional District of New York, I have been and remain concerned about the concentration of power plants in waterfront communities in my district. Half of the new power plants proposed for New York City over the last two and a half years have been slated for my district. The clustering of these polluting facilities is a serious threat to the community's health and welfare, and is unfairly impacting low-income minority communities.

With Sunset Energy Fleet's (SEF) 520-megawatt power plant proposal, we are faced with the possibility of adding another hazard to an already overburdened community. As we know, the proposed SEF plant will use both natural gas and diesel fuel, which will cause major emissions of nitrogen oxides, particulate matter, sulfuric acid, and other pollutants. The people of Sunset Park and the surrounding communities already bear a disproportionate share of environmental burdens, including the Gowanus Expressway, the Gowanus Generating Station, and the NYC DOT Asphalt Plant. More recently the New York Power Authority (NYPA) hastily sited two turbines at the same location proposed by Sunset Energy Fleet. And this past June, Bay Energy proposed another power plant of 79.9-megawatts for the same pier. This company has the same owners as Sunset Energy Fleet, and is another attempt by the corporation to skirt the requirements under Article X, while disguising the overall environmental impact of its power plants in Sunset Park.

As you know, the federal government delegated responsibility to the states for oversight of the siting of power plants to increase the level of official and public scrutiny. Unfortunately, the Article X process for SEF has resulted in just the opposite. In addition to serious community health concerns regarding the clustering of such plants, SEF has failed to follow proper procedures.

Although the Siting Board's legislative grant of authority and jurisdiction expired with Article X on January 1, 2003, SEF has effectively re-filed its application by submitting piecemeal revisions throughout 2003. The informal submission and revision tactic employed by SEF has entirely removed the public from the application review process.
SEF let over two years lapse since filing its application, and has repeatedly failed to fully inform all interested parties of its revisions to the proposal, including my office. As the highest ranking elected official from this area, I have been closely involved in this process since the beginning, meeting with constituents and testifying at public hearings.
Despite my very public interest in SEF's actions, the corporation has yet to make any concerted effort to meet with me or my staff regarding its proposal. The fact that SEF has failed to reach out to the parties that are clearly concerned about its plan gives me little faith that it has been diligent in efforts to inform all members of the community of its application.

Clearly, SEF's Public Involvement Program has been inadequate, and has prevented due consideration for those most greatly impacted by the proposed power plant. SEF claims that the community-based organization UPROSE interfered with its public involvement process and prevented it from meeting the Article X requirement. This claim is a thinly veiled attempt to divert the focus from SEF's own public involvement responsibilities. In fact, UPROSE has done substantially more than SEF to reach out to the local community and inform them of the power plant proposal and Article X process.

Everyone has the right to a safe clean environment - free from the pollution and health hazards that my constituents in Sunset Park continue to face. SEF has employed measures that may meet the minimum formal requirements, but it ignores the intent of the law to provide meaningful opportunity for public involvement.

SEF's application should be rejected on grounds of both policy and process. I join with members of the Sunset Park Community in urging you to deem the Article X application null and void, and recommend that SEF be required to submit new applications conforming to the current law.

I appreciate your attention to this matter.