# New York’s  Wind Permitting Scandal

- Link: https://climatescience.press/?p=457909
- Published: 2026-07-26T04:18:22-07:00
- Author: uwe.roland.gross

![](https://i0.wp.com/climatescience.press/wp-content/uploads/2026/07/0-New-Yorks-
Wind-Permitting-Scandal.jpg?resize=840%2C564&ssl=1)

From [Watts Up With That?](https://wattsupwiththat.com/2026/07/24/new-yorks-wind-permitting-scandal/)

By Roger Caiazza

I am convinced that implementation of the [Climate Leadership & Community Protection Act](https://climate.ny.gov/)(
Climate Act) net-zero mandates will do more harm than good if the future electric
system relies only on wind, solar, and energy storage because of reliability challenges,
affordability risks, and unacceptable environmental impacts.  While I have written
numerous articles here about my reliability and affordability concerns, this is 
my second post describing New York’s horrible wind and [solar permitting](https://wattsupwiththat.com/2026/05/27/new-york-state-renewable-permitting-scandal/)
process.

**New York Renewable Generation Permitting**

New York’s renewable siting framework has shifted through three major regimes in
just over a decade, each one stripping away more local control and speeding approvals
for utility‑scale wind, solar, and transmission lines. Under Article 10 of the Public
Service Law (2011–2020), large electric generating facilities were reviewed case‑
by‑case by a Siting Board in what was nominally a quasi‑judicial process, with intervenor
funding, evidentiary hearings, and some room for host communities and expert witnesses
to test developer claims on issues like noise, visual impacts, and wildlife mortality.
In 2020, the Legislature and Cuomo Administration declared that Article 10 was too
slow for Climate Act timelines and replaced it for most renewables with the Office
of Renewable Energy Siting (ORES) under Executive Law 94‑c, creating a streamlined,
highly prescriptive permit system that pre‑empted most local laws, compressed schedules,
and shifted the burden to communities to show why a project should not be approved.
Most recently, the Hochul Administration and Legislature doubled down with the 2024
RAPID Act, folding siting of generation and major transmission into an even more
centralized “one‑stop” process explicitly designed to accelerate Climate Act build‑
out, further marginalizing traditional environmental review norms and local land‑
use authority in favor of hitting megawatt and mile targets on paper.

Invenergy’s [Alle-Catt Wind Energy Center](https://allecattwind.invenergy.com/) 
is a 340-megawatt wind power generation facility in Allegany, Cattaraugus, and Wyoming
Counties, New York.  It is a scandalous example of the environmental impacts I am
concerned about.  In the rush to permit the project New York agencies have created
a monster.  It creates significant adverse environmental impacts and delivers meager
climate benefits. The agencies allowed the developer to construct most of the 83
4 MW wind turbines. However, it cannot be legally commissioned or operated until
it proves compliance with a 40 dBA nighttime noise limit at all non‑participating
homes.  The rest of the article summarizes the issues.  Readers interested in the
details should check out [my post](https://pragmaticenvironmentalistofnewyork.blog/2026/07/23/alle-catt-a-climate-act-project-doing-more-harm-than-good/)
on my blog.

**How the permit got broken**

Under Article 10, Condition 68(d)(vi) required Alle‑Catt to submit a Pre‑Construction
Noise Impact Assessment (PNIA) at least 60 days before “Commencement of Full Construction,”
proving that the final design would meet a 40 dBA annual nighttime sound level at
all existing non‑participating residences.

Cattaraugus County Legislator Brenda Hanson notes in her [June 24, 2026 letter](https://documents.dps.ny.gov/public/Common/ViewDoc.aspx?DocRefId=%7b50EA189F-0000-C490-B512-6802C7871A9A%7d&DocTitle=Request%20for%20Information%20Regarding%20Enforcement%20Decision%20Denying%20Amendment)
that Alle‑Catt’s own December 3, 2025 PNIA predicts that noise at “most receptors”
will exceed the 40 dBA Lnight (annual nighttime level) goal. The [Coalition of Concerned Citizens’ attorney](https://documents.dps.ny.gov/public/Common/ViewDoc.aspx?DocRefId=%7b702E039E-0000-C961-B490-6FD110F607B6%7d&DocTitle=Coalition%20attorney%20comments),
Gary Abraham, points out that Alle‑Catt’s later, March 24, 2026 PNIA—filed in redacted
form—also shows annual nighttime noise above 40 dBA at many non‑participating homes,
even after the applicant’s modeling tricks.

Independent acoustician [Robert Rand](https://documents.dps.ny.gov/public/Common/ViewDoc.aspx?DocRefId=%7B702E039E-0000-CC7A-8926-8F72341F1D9C%7D&DocTitle=RandAcoustics_Alle-Catt)
goes further. Using the methodology the Siting Board actually approved in prior 
wind cases, he reconstructs Alle‑Catt’s long‑term nighttime source power and propagation
and concludes that restoring the project’s 2 dB “discount” from an improper ground
absorption factor shows the 40 dBA Lnight goal cannot be met at 19 non‑participating
residences and 36 non‑participating properties. In addition, there are hundreds 
of acoustic paths from turbines to residents with concave topography, where the 
receptor is in a line of sight to the turbine and little or no ground absorption
occurs to dampen the noise. Alle-Catt acknowledged this problem in earlier PNIAs
but avoided analyzing it in its latest one. In short, under valid assumptions, Alle‑
Catt is not designed to  meet the noise condition the developer accepted when it
took the certificate.

Despite that clear condition, the Public Service Commission approved “full construction”
in April 2026 before any compliant night‑noise PNIA was approved, allowing foundations
and turbines to go up while the core protective condition remained unresolved.  
Later in April the Siting Board’s own order simultaneously states that Alle‑Catt“
cannot commission or operate any wind turbines” until several conditions, including
the 40 dBA PNIA, are approved, creating the current situation of erected but non‑
operable turbines.

**Environmental and health impacts**

There are numerous environmental impacts.  The Article 10 record anticipates 480–
515 bird deaths per year, including six state‑listed threatened or endangered species,
and at least 41 bald eagle fledglings killed or nest failures over 30 years, with
most turbines located in “High Mortality Risk to Eagles” zones.

For bats, Alle‑Catt is expected to kill 26,000–39,500 individuals over 30 years,
including two threatened or endangered species, and even the developer’s own Exhibit
22 admits that local bat populations will not survive the project’s mortality levels.
The project will clear about 1,550 acres of interior forest and fragment another
1,686 acres out of approximately 5,900 acres of interior forest, degrading habitat
for birds and bats through lost cover and disrupted movement, roosting, and nesting
behavior.

However, since certification, Alle‑Catt reduced turbine count from 116 to 83 but
kept total capacity at 340 MW by shifting to larger Vestas V150‑4.5 machines instead
of the previously modeled GE 3.6‑137 units.  The swept area of each V150‑4.5 rotor
is about 17,671 m², roughly 20% larger than the 14,741 m² swept by the GE 3.6‑137,
increasing blade area moving through air and thus collision risk as well as expanding
the noise footprint.  Low‑frequency “thump” from blade‑tower interaction becomes
more pronounced with these larger machines, compounding concerns already raised 
by the State Department of Health about public‑health risks from turbine noise and
shadow flicker.

**Meager climate benefits**

[GHG emissions](https://pragmaticenvironmentalistofnewyork.blog/2024/02/27/update-climate-act-emission-reductions-in-context/)
are less than one half of one percent of global emissions and global emissions have
been increasing on average by more than one half of one percent per year since 1990,
so the numbers do not support that premise.  On [May 7, 2026](https://documents.dps.ny.gov/public/Common/ViewDoc.aspx?DocRefId=%7b702E039E-0000-C961-B490-6FD110F607B6%7d&DocTitle=Coalition%20attorney%20comments)
Coalition of Concerned Citizens’ attorney, Gary Abraham filed a letter that showed
that Alle‑Catt’s claimed climate benefits are non-existent.  The developer’s analysis
reliesy on assumed downstate emissions reductions that, in turn, depend on transmission
upgrades that do not exist and are not planned.  The project is located in a grid
region that is already largely low‑carbon, meaning its output will mostly displace
other low‑carbon resources rather than fossil generation, and it cannot retire upstate
fossil plants because those are needed to backstop intermittent wind.  In effect,
rural communities bear irreversible habitat loss and health risks for a project 
whose net emissions benefits are “meager” at best—hardly the transformative climate
win touted in Climate Act rhetoric.

**Cumulative Environmental Impacts**

I have long held the position that the Hochul Administration has not properly accounted
for cumulative environmental impacts.  In my comments presented on the [draft Energy Plan](https://pragmaticenvironmentalistofnewyork.blog/2025/09/03/rochester-hearing-personal-comments-on-the-draft-energy-plan/)
I noted that the last update of the cumulative environmental impact assessment of
the transition to net zero was completed in 2020.  Onshore wind projected capacity
is 145% higher than previously analyzed, offshore wind is 62% higher, and solar 
is 241% higher than the maximum scenario expectation in the latest cumulative assessment.
Last year’s State Energy Plan’s Net Zero scenario calls for about 15,700 MW of onshore
wind, which translates to roughly 3,800 turbines similar to Alle‑Catt’s; if impacts
scale proportionally, statewide wildlife and habitat impacts would be roughly 46
times those documented for Alle‑Catt’s 83 turbines.

**Now What?**

Cattaraugus County Legislator [Brenda S. Hanson](https://documents.dps.ny.gov/public/Common/ViewDoc.aspx?DocRefId=%7b50EA189F-0000-C490-B512-6802C7871A9A%7d&DocTitle=Request%20for%20Information%20Regarding%20Enforcement%20Decision%20Denying%20Amendment)
filed a letter on June 30, 2026 requesting information regarding the current permitting
situation and lays out a layered enforcement framework that now hangs over Alle‑
Catt.

 1. PSC has already ordered that Alle‑Catt cannot commission or operate any turbines
    until a compliant PNIA under 68(d)(vi) is approved.
 2. Certificate Condition 10 gives DPS staff authority to issue stop‑work or stop‑operation
    orders wherever construction or maintenance violates the certificate or a DPS order.
 3. The certificate spells out a non‑compliance remediation timeline: within 60 days
    of a non‑compliance finding, Alle‑Catt must file operational and physical minimization
    options; within 90 days, it must implement operational mitigation; within 150 days,
    physical mitigation—and if those are not timely implemented, the non‑compliant 
    turbines “must not be operated” until compliance is shown.
 4. Certificate Condition 17 allows the Board to seek penalties not only against the
    certificate holder but its contractors, and 16 NYCRR 1000.16(e) preserves the Board’s
    jurisdiction to suspend or revoke the certificate at any point before the final
    compliance filing is approved. Finally, Public Service Law §168(5) requires DPS
    to “monitor, enforce and administer” compliance with certificate terms. Hanson 
    asks DPS to confirm in writing that it will use these tools if Alle‑Catt attempts
    to operate without meeting the 40 dBA Lnight condition.

From a New York renewable permitting perspective, that enforcement puzzle is telling.
Either DPS enforces its own orders and certificates, which may leave Alle‑Catt as
a stranded, non‑operating monument to bad siting and unrealistic transmission assumptions,
or it loosens protections and quietly tolerates non‑compliance to keep the project
on the books as “renewable capacity” helping to meet goals. Neither path protects
the environment, and tolerating non‑compliance is not protective of public health.

On July 23, 2026, Cattaraugus County and Abraham’s Coalition of five environmental
groups [filed petitions](https://documents.dps.ny.gov/public/Common/ViewDoc.aspx?DocRefId=%7bD0B88F9F-0000-C819-9118-FC7F3618F7E7%7d&DocTitle=Petition%20for%20Rehearing%20and%20Declaratory%20Ruling)
requesting that the Siting Board declare what Alle-Catt’s obligations are in light
of the Board’s refusal to remove the night noise goal, and Alle-Catt’s inability
to demonstrate it can comply. The petitions note that permission to proceed with
operations must still be obtained. We will have to wait and see how the Board resolves
this mess.

**Conclusion**

Alle‑Catt shows what Climate Act renewable energy implementation looks like when
you strip away the aspirational language and press releases. A rural region loses
interior forest, critical bird and bat habitat, and landscape integrity to hundreds
of megawatts of industrial turbines. Neighbors face unacceptable nighttime noise
and shadow flicker that the State Department of Health has already flagged as public‑
health risks, while the developer cannot even demonstrate compliance with a noise
limit under valid modeling assumptions. 

Most importantly, advocates may argue that these impacts are acceptable, but the
lack of a comprehensive cumulative environmental impact assessment prevents us from
knowing the full impacts of the projected build‑out of wind and solar projects necessary
to meet Climate Act goals.

---

Roger Caiazza blogs on New York energy and environmental issues at [Pragmatic Environmentalist of New York](https://pragmaticenvironmentalistofnewyork.blog/).
This represents his opinion and not the opinion of any of his previous employers
or any other company with which he has been associated.

### Like this:

Like Loading…

### _Ähnliche Beiträge_