Citizens Claims
Dear David,
Citizens for the Preservation of Wainscott consistently states that since alternative routes for landing the South Fork Wind cable were not considered, the Public Service Commission must reject the project.
This statement is false; Deepwater-Orsted did consider alternatives. Public Service Law Sec. 122 requires that an applicant include in its Article VII application a description of any reasonable alternate location. It does not require an investigation of all possible alternatives. Deepwater-Orsted initially considered a North Shore route and a South Shore route. After determining that the South Shore route was preferable, it considered seven different locations as potential landing sites. After careful consideration, all but two were eliminated for various reasons. The remaining two, Beach Lane and Hither Hills, were thoroughly evaluated, and Beach Lane was selected because it will have minimal impact on the environment, non-residential structures, and historic properties. C.P.W. consistently mischaracterizes the impacts and viability of Atlantic Avenue and Hither Hills routes.
C.P.W. stands alone in pushing for Atlantic Avenue and Hither Hills routes. These routes are not preferred by South Fork Wind, nor by the New York State Departments of Environmental Conservation, Transportation, State, Public Service, Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation, the East Hampton Town Board and the Trustees (both of which represent the interests of the general public), Long Island Power Authority, Win With Wind, Montauk United, Concerned Citizens of Montauk, or the Group for the East End.
The record shows that C.P.W.’s Atlantic Avenue route is not a viable route and would negatively affect the reliability of the electric system. The trustees, after reviewing its environmental impact, rejected it. C.P.W. claims the trustees did not do adequate due diligence. The record shows otherwise. C.P.W. does not address how Deepwater-Orsted could obtain the required property rights from at least 59 private property owners. C.P.W. failed to address constructability issues including the 23-kilovolt overhead double-circuit transmission line and the South Fork electric cable crossing of the L.I.R.R. tracks four times. C.P.W.’s own evidence establishes that the Atlantic Avenue route would have greater environmental impact than the Beach Lane route. C.P.W.’s claim that the Atlantic Avenue route has fewer impacts to wetlands than Beach Lane was disproved by its own testimony.
C.P.W.’s claims about emergency response and fire safety hazards on Beach Lane are misleading. Deepwater-Orsted has agreed to act in compliance with applicable regulations while maintaining access to Beach Lane for pedestrians, vehicles, and emergency responders. The record is replete with many such examples of mischaracterization by C.P.W.
I agree with the conclusion of the South Fork Wind reply brief: “C.P.W., Mr. Kinsella and Long Island Commercial Fishing Association’s briefs in opposition of the Joint Proposal rely on baseless claims, bald statements that have no factual basis in the record, mischaracterizations of the record, and in more than a few instances, claims that are patently false and contrary to the record.”
Indeed.
JEREMIAH T. MULLIGAN