"NO" TO HORSESHOE SOLAR (HSS) IN RUSH

DEFICIENCIES IN THE HORSESHOE SOLAR APPLICATION

Horseshoe Solar (HSS) filed its application on July 2, 2020 at the NYS Dept. of Public Service Document and Matter Master website (NYSDPS-DMM: Matter Master).  

The Chairman of the Siting Board for the NYS Dept. of Public Service wrote that there were deficiencies in its application which must be addressed before the Application could be further considered. One of the major deficiencies concerns the lack of protection for the rich cultural Seneca resources in Caledonia and Rush.

• One deficiency issue is clearly that of lack of protection for unmarked graves, village sites and other cultural resources in Rush and Caledonia that HSS seeks to incorporate in its proposed industrially sized solar power plant.
• The cultural resources at Golah are noted in Rush’s Comprehensive Plan and are one of the principal points of contention that the Town and Residents United jointly oppose in HSS’s proposed industrial solar installation in Rush.

DEFICIENCIES IN TYPICAL INVESTIGATIVE APPROACHES

A bone was discovered in a Phase IB archeological search at Golah this fall. The archeological expert for the Seneca Nation says the bone is from the toe of an adult male. HSS experts say the bone is that of a bear or a heron.   [Please see: “BIRD, BEAR OR HUMAN BEING?” @ www.Rush-Solar.com]  NY State’s Historical Preservation Office (SHPO) requires that Indigenous cultural resources be protected and recommends several kinds of explorations when unmarked graves are suspected or encountered. 

SHPO requires studies to determine the presence or absence of cultural resources in a project's potential impact area and maintains records of known gravesites and villages from previously documented archeological explorations.[1]

• Phase IA: Literature Search and Sensitivity Study - Evaluates overall sensitivity of the project area for the presence of cultural resources.
• Phase IB: Field Investigation - Determines presence or absence of cultural resources in the probable impact areas. Subsurface testing often the major component of this level of survey.
• B. Phase II: Site Evaluation - Detailed evaluation of an identified cultural resource(s) that cannot be avoided by reasonable modification to the project.
• C. Phase III: Data Recovery - If an eligible resource cannot be avoided, some form of mitigation is necessary. A data retrieval plan will ensure adequate resource mitigation.

Typically, exploratory studies involve excavation and subsurface intrusion at the site.

Dr. Joe Stahlman, a Tuscoraran, is the Tribal Historical Protection Officer and also Director of the Seneca Iroquois National Museum at Salamanca, spoke at a recent ZOOM meeting for members of the NYS Archeological Association. [Access to the recorded meeting is available at NYS Archeological Association Zoom Meeting / PASSCODE: 0f6#0CDC]

• He noted that NYS is woefully behind in its regulations for what happens when unmarked graves are discovered or suspected.   
• He noted that archeologists by virtue of their scientific training want to dig up, measure, photograph and then house materials discovered in unmarked graves in museums, but that this is a violation of Indigenous culture beliefs that spirits continue to inhabit these bones and materials.  Disturbing them interrupts the ancestors’ journey to the afterlife.  
• The Nations have resources and documentation that probably exceed the records at SHPO and should be contacted.  
• State agencies are currently required to immediately notify SHPO and the Nations of unmarked grave discoveries, but private entities, like HSS, are not.  
• Current regulations say nothing of protecting graves of others- African Americans, Hispanics, paupers and marginalized groups.  
• More complicated archaeological explorations that SHPO might require to address the cultural deficiency could involve disrupting the ground which is unacceptable to the Senecas.  

Matthew Pagels, President of the Seneca Nation, supports renewable energy but not at the expense of "irreversible cultural cost", further diminishing “the voice of Indigenous communities whose opinions have been pushed aside for too long.”

ALTERNATIVE, NON-DISUPTIVE TECHNOLOGIES

LiDAR is a non-disruptive, remote sensing way to explore this disputed land; it is an acronym for light detection and ranging or laser imaging, detection and ranging.  A drone with specialized equipment flies above the land producing an image of undisturbed materials under the earth, a kind of 3-D X-ray.  For example, LiDAR made possible amazing discoveries of mounds in Iowa leading to the creation of Effigy Mounds National Monument Park.  Effigy mounds (in the shape of) date from First Peoples of the Woodland Culture who constructed these mounds in the shape of various animals and birds important to their culture.  No destructive excavation occurred to reveal these amazing cultural masterpieces.

Another potentially applicable non-disruptive remote sensing technology is Ground Penetrating Radar (GPR) that uses high-frequency radio waves to investigate the subsurface, yielding data with very high resolution in a short amount of time. It provides the ability to survey a site without having to break ground to discover the likely locations of buried evidence or artifacts. GPR investigations are conducted on the surface typically with hand-held or wheeled imagers.

Either of these two technologies could provide necessary information on cultural materials beneath the ground without disturbing the ground and the spirit-laden materials below.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
   

The preamble to our local solar law states “The intent is to both encourage the use of renewable energy systems based on sunlight while at the same time protecting the health, safety and general welfare of the residents of the Town of Rush.”

This is about risk assessment when there are possible, highly consequential risks to our soil, water and eventual bioaccumulation in the food chain.   This is about risk assessment when PFAS compounds proliferate faster than EPA and state health departments can identify, test, assess toxicity over time and regulate.

It’s possible that solar panels proposed to be installed in Rush will have coatings containing perfluorinated alkylated substances (PFAS) that will contaminate water and soil and threaten the health and safety of Rush residents.

We simply do not know enough to be able to assess this threat because there are so many PFAS compounds; we’ve seen estimates that there may be 4000-5000 compounds classified as PFAS, and the EPA and state departments of health have not investigated most of them.  According to the International Association of Environmental Professionals, concerns associated with PFAS include:

- hormone interference and lowering chance of pregnancy
- increased cholesterol
- impacts to thyroid, pancreas and liver
- impacts to growth, development and learning
- cancer
- impacts to the immune system

We do not know if the solar panels coming into Rush will contain these coatings. We do not know the extent to which such coatings will leach into our air, soil and water; however, cracks, bubbles and mechanical failures in the coatings have been documented. 

Little is known about PFAS other than as a class of fluorinated compounds they make slippery coatings.  Solar panels coated with slippery surfaces shed water, dust and to a lesser extent snow because of the surface treatments.  Therefore, the panels are more efficient and do not need as much labor and/or chemical mechanisms to remain clean.  Older panels were coated with inert glass.

Out of an abundance of caution, we ask that you examine the information in the references and pay close attention as the Town of Rush welcomes the Tier 3 solar installations made possible by our local solar law. Of course, the looming threat is the proposed 600,000 solar panels associated with HSS.

What are these PFAS compounds? PFAS containing materials are everywhere; these surface treatment, coating materials have consumer names like Teflon, Scotchguard, GenX, etc.  DuPont, 3M, Saint-Gobain and Chemours were or are presently major producers of PFAS materials, if not the ones already EPA-regulated (PFOA, PFOS), then analogs of the regulated ones.  Industrial chemical spills have occurred in multiple states, including Hoosick Falls, NY.  NYS regulates PFOA and PFOS at the level of less than 10 parts per trillion in water.

DuPont, 3M, Chemours and Saint-Gobain hid the evidence they had collected on the compounds’ production, toxicity, it’s bioaccumulation in soil, water, and thus the food chain and the ultimate uptake in humans.  These companies and manufacturers in other countries change the chemical formulation so that the PFOA/PFOS regulations do not block production of new, shorter-chain PFAS compounds; these new analogs circumvent regulations. However, shorter chain PFAS are more soluble, might be more likely to transition to an aqueous phase, and tend to persist in the environment – so they are still of concern.  The National Wildlife Federation diagram and the NPR video explain the concerns surrounding PFAS containing materials.

- https://www.nwf.org/-/media/Documents/PDFs/NWF-Reports/2019/PFAS-cycle.ashx?la=en&hash=5F6E99069005E603F3541776AFC74D2AD0E1F72D

- https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2019/04/22/708863848/scientists-dig-into-hard-questions-about-the-fluorinated-pollutants-known-as-pfa

The mid-state California Central Valley Clean Water Association states that solar panels contain PFAS. California is #1 in installed solar. Two members of the dangerous PFAS compounds (PFOA and PFOS) are no longer produced in the U S but are still produced in other countries and are imported into the US. 

- https://www.cvcwa.org/hearing-a-lot-about-pfas-lately/

The EPA announced that solar panels in North Carolina are coated with Gen X, a PFAS material, and produced documentation of PFAS uses in and on solar panels from Chinese and other researchers.  NC is #2 in installed solar.

- https://nsjonline.com/article/2018/02/solar-panels-could-be-a-source-of-genx-and-other-perflourinated-contaminants/

- https://nsjonline.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/perfluoro-and-solar-panels-Reference_02_15_2018_120238-002.pdf

Dr. Annick Anctil from the University of Michigan’s Graham Sustainability Institute states that:
PFAS are not customarily used in solar panels because safer, effective alternatives have already been developed and commercialized. Moreover, no studies have shown the presence or leaching of PFAS from PV panels—either while they are in active use or at the end of their life (e.g., in a landfill).

- http://graham.umich.edu/media/pubs/Facts-about-solar-panels--PFAS-contamination-47485.pdf

The EPA is now seeking comments from importers and others about products brought into the US that contain PFAS materials. Solar panels are specifically enumerated. 

- https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2020-12/documents/draft_lcpfac-snur_surface-coating-compliance-guide_2020-12-09.pdf

Among those responding to this EPA request for comments is an April 17, 2020 letter to the EPA from NYS’s Attorney General and 17 other Attorneys General which states:
The Attorneys General are concerned about ALL perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances (collectively “PFAS”).  PFAS are pernicious “forever chemicals” that pose serious adverse risks to health and the environment at extremely low levels-e.g., parts per trillion in drinking water. . . The Attorneys General support EPA’s proposal. . . However. . .the final rule should be broadened to more effectively serve the goals and mandates of the Toxic Substance Control Act to prevent exposure to harmful substances BEFORE they are introduced into the marketplace.   [ALL and BEFORE emphasis added]

Given the time for comments and then for study and then for regulation writing, western New York could be covered in solar panels, some of which might have dangerous coatings.  What manufacturers’ solar panels will be installed in our town?  Will the panels have PFAS coatings and if so, is the particular PFAS coating a dangerous one?

The Steering Committee of Residents United to Save our Hometown recommends that the Town of Rush require installers of Tier 3 and HSS to provide full documentation as to panel components.  No PFAS materials should be permitted in/on panels installed in Rush unless the EPA or the NYSDofH has researched the material and its use.  Further, installers should pay for baseline soil and water studies before panel installation and regular studies thereafter.  The Town would select the laboratory and supervise the study protocols.

Please attend Town Board meetings to stay informed about our welcomed Tier 3 installations.  And remember, that Horseshoe Solar seeks to install solar panels on residentially zoned, prime agricultural land including the culturally significant Golah site if their incursion into Rush is permitted by the Siting Board.

HSS has asked the Siting Board to waive major portions of our local solar law.

Please send your questions to information@RUSH-solar.com. We will attempt to answer them.

Several members of Residents United to Save our Hometown were invited to attend the August 2nd meeting of the Tonawanda Historical Society at their Reservation in Buffalo to discuss HSS and its proposed use of land at Golah- land sacred to the Seneca Nation.  At that meeting, many attendees asked to join our membership list to receive HSS updates. An announcement of a presentation on HSS by Invenergy at a future Rush Town Board meeting sparked their interest.

At the August 12th meeting of the Rush Town Board available on You Tube, you can see and listen to some of the Tonawanda and Tuscarora Seneca who attended and asked questions of Ms. Millar, the current HSS Project Developer, Renewable Development.

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCgzemm9WkmhOOrNun9p3ffA

Among the queries of Ms. Millar were several about HSS and trees.  During the first public comment period, a caller reported that he had seen girdled trees while driving through lands proposed to be part of HSS.  After her presentation, Ms. Millar was asked about “old growth trees”, huge trees that might be infields.  Ms. Millar responded that HSS has no plan to touch them in any way, that HSS understands they may have cultural significance.  Ms. Millar specifically referenced these large, old growth trees, some called Geneseo Oaks.

Trees in the middle of fields covered in solar panels or along borders of solar installations cast shade and diminish the already poor efficacy of solar panels in the Rochester region’s very cloudy environment.

Tree girdling is the practice of cutting through the bark (or cambium layer) around the entire circumference of the tree thus preventing the phloem tissue layer from carrying food produced in the leaves by photosynthesis to the roots.  When the roots die, they stop sending water and minerals to the leaves; then theydie. Of course, trees die for all sorts of reasons- insect and animal infestation, lightening strikes, etc.  However, oak trees, as a species, have also lived for centuries; certainly these Geneseo Oaks are centuries old.

The pictured tree is dying, perhaps from other causes but now certainly because it has been girdled, the bark deliberately sliced around the entire circumference. Notice the sawed ring girdling the tree close to the ground. This tree, in an open field on River Road in Caledonia will never reach the awe-inspiring size of the beautiful trees we frequently see in meadows and tilled fields here in Rush and Caledonia. 

Trees in open fields, or oak openings, can reach enormous size because their growth is unfettered by the lack of sunlight and nutrients in closed canopy forests. (Please see the information on oak openings on this website in material titled Trees and the Seneca’s.)  To fully appreciate the size these trees can reach, you can visit the Livingston County Historical Museum in Geneseo where a portion of a mammoth oak tree trunk is now protected.The oak’s trunk is displayed in a room surrounded by descriptive information about   Jo’nehsi:yo:h , the Beautiful Valley of the Seneca’s.     A video on the Museum’s website demonstrates the reassembling of this enormous oak’s trunk.

https://www.livingstoncountyhistoricalsociety.com/ 

How ironic that in order to turn sunlight into energy with solar panels, one might girdle trees to prevent photosynthesis from doing the very same thing.

The U.S. Corn Belt spans much of the Midwest U.S., and for a few months of the year is the most  agriculturally productive area in the world, including the Amazon, and provides more than one third of the  global supply of corn for food and fuel.1,2 

Climate change related predictions vary dramatically and include increased temperatures across the Corn  Belt and severe drought3 as well as dramatically increased precipitation4, and more. Such potentially  conflicting predictions indicate that we really cannot definitively predict how climate change might actually affect this incredibly productive agricultural land. Since it is known that this is indeed the most productive  land on the entire planet, it can be surmised that any significant change in the climate will have an adverse  impact on its productivity and thus result in a worldwide impact on food supply. 

“The proposed 180-megawatt Project [i.e., the proposed Horseshoe Solar Facility Site] encompasses approximately 3,800 acres; almost entirely comprised of rotation cropland in  the Town of Caledonia, Livingston County, and Town of Rush, Monroe County. . . . a majority  of the land included in this project is comprised of farmland and constitutes some of the most  productive agricultural land in both counties.”5 NYS Department of Agriculture and Markets 

Considering that the Town of Rush contains land that has been identified by the NYS Department of  Agriculture and Markets as some of the most agriculturally productive in the area, it is logical, in view of  the upcoming global climate change disruptions, to ensure that the value of this agricultural land is  protected. The NYS Department of Agriculture and Markets “recommends other alternative sites be  explored and identified which are not flat, productive, well-drained farmland comprised of Prime Farmland  soil or Farmland of Statewide Importance.”6 

1 Dr. Ursula Vera, Union of Concerned Scientists, Mar 3, 2020. 

2 Aronsohn Marie Denoia, “A Climate Change Double Whammy in the U.S. Corn Belt,” State of the Planet, Earth Institute,  Columbia University  

3 Ting, Mingfang, Michael Puma, “The 1930s Dust Bowl and the Corn Belt’s Future,” Center for Climate Systems Research, Earth  and Environmental Sciences, Columbia University 

4 Climate Change and Agriculture, A Perfect Storm in Farm Country, Union of Concerned Scientists, Mar 20, 2019 

5 New York State Department of Agriculture & Markets (NYSDAM) Staff Comments on the March 2019 Preliminary Scoping  Statement (PSS) for Horseshoe Solar Energy, LLC, April 16, 2019 

6Ibid.

“Peaking Power Plants,” which are also called, “Peaker Plants” or just “Peakers,” supply power to the grid only during periods of highest (i.e., “peak”) demand. 

Physicians, Scientists, and Engineers for Healthy Energy (“PSE”) recently published a report on Peaker Plants stating the following: 

Across New York, peak electric demand is met in part by 50 oil- and gas-fired peaker power plants and peaking units at larger plants. . . . More than one-third of New York’s peaker plants primarily burn oil and three-quarters are over 30 years old⁠— resulting in numerous inefficient plants with high rates of greenhouse gas and health-damaging pollutant emissions for every unit of electricity generated. Some of these plants are in dense urban areas: more than a million people live within three miles of ten of these plants. A third of the plants are located in areas the state considers to be environmental justice communities, where vulnerable populations typically experience high levels of health and environmental burdens.1 

Even though they do not run all day long, peaker plants emit 30 times more nitrogen oxide than do modern plants. They account for more than a third of these emissions across the state and can cause breathing problems for vulnerable populations.2

The largest peaker plants in NYS is Oswego Harbor Power, located in Oswego. It is 72 years old. Its primary fuel is oil and it generates 1.8 GW of electricity. As we move away from fossil-fuel fired plants toward the generation of more of our electricity using intermittent technologies such as solar and wind, our need to accommodate peak demands will increase.3

The performance of these peaker plants need to be considered and addressed. 

1 https://www.psehealthyenergy.org/our-work/energy-storage-peaker-plant-replacement-project/new-york/#MapEJ 

2 https://nylcv.org/news/cuomos-new-regulations-on-peaking-power-plants/#:~:text=The%20proposed%20regulations%20include%20restrictions%20on%20emissions%20and,their%20air%20conditione rs%20and%20demand%20for%20electricity%20peaks

3 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peaking_power_plant 

This is the 3,857 acres proposed by Invenergy for its Horseshoe Solar Project. About 3,000 acres (79%) are located in Caledonia and 838 acres (21%) proposed to be located in the Town of Rush.

The Rush Town Board did the best job possible given what was known at the time, and it was successful in getting a complete Town solar law on the books. Now, it is time to take a second look at our law with the objectives of strengthening its defensibility with respect to the HSS proposal and Article 10 and to also better align it with the character of the community and the will of its citizens.

In recognition of this fact, the Rush Town Board has unanimously declared its opposition to the Horseshoe Solar Project. At the Town Board meeting on June 26, the Town Attorney briefly presented a concept for an alternative approach to regulating Tier 3 solar in Rush. The R.U.S.H. Solar Law Subcommittee has also been developing enhancements to the existing law.

Invenergy has been moving right along and has a reputation for moving quickly and scheduling its progress to coincide with spring breaks, summer vacations and other activities when residents are occupied with friends and family.

So, time and paying attention are of the essence!

Article 10, administered by New York State Department of Public Service (NYSDPS), provides for the siting review of major electric generating facilities in New York State through the Board on Electric Generation Siting and the Environment. According to Article 10 and New York Home Rule Policy, Town law is binding, and the applicant needs to abide by it. Ultimately it will be the NYSDPS that decides whether Invenergy is appropriately accommodating our Town law.

Invenergy has prepared approximately 30 exhibits as required parts of its NYSDPS application. Article 10 specifies what needs to be addressed in these exhibits.

• 1. General Requirements
• 2. Overview and Public Involvement
• 3. Location of Facilities
• 4. Land Use
• 5. Electric System Effects 
• 8. Electric System Modeling
• 9. Alternatives
• 10. Consistency w/Energy & Planning 
• 11. Preliminary Design Drawings
• 12. Construction
• 13. Real Property
• 14. Cost of Facilities
• 15. Public Health and Safety
• 17. Air Emissions
• 18. Safety and Security
• 19. Noise and Vibration
• 20. Cultural Resources
• 21. Geology, Seismology and Soils
• 22. Terrestrial Ecology and Wetlands
• 23. Water Resources and Aquatic Ecology
• 24. Visual Impacts
• 25. Effect on Transportation
• 26. Effect on Communications
• 27. Socioeconomic Effects
• 28. Environmental Justice
• 29. Site Restoration and Decommissioning
• 31. Local Laws and Ordinances
• 32. State Laws and Regulations
• 33. Other Applications and Filings
• 34. Electric Interconnections 
• 35. Electric and Magnetic Fields
• 38. Water Interconnections 
• 39. Wastewater Interconnections 
• 40. Telecommunications interconnections