Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Wind Energy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents urge county scrutiny of Rail Tie/ConnectGen wind project amid federal lawsuit
Summary
Public commenters at the Albany County Commission meeting pressed officials to investigate construction activity tied to the Rail Tie (ConnectGen, now Repsol) project and raised claims of inadequate Section 106/110 mitigation; commissioners said county jurisdiction is limited and legal challenges are pending in federal court.
Several residents told the Albany County Board of County Commissioners on the first meeting of 2025 that construction on the Rail Tie wind project appears to be under way and that they are concerned the developer has not complied with required mitigation steps.
“My name is Richard Dow. I do live in Albany County, and I just wanted to ask about the progress of the rail tie wind project. It appears they've begun construction, and some of us are concerned that they have done so without meeting all the conditions that they were supposed to,” said Richard Dow, an Albany County resident who addressed commissioners during the public-comment period.
The session also included a longer statement from Anne, who identified herself on behalf of the Albany County Conservancy and said the group filed a federal petition claiming failures in the federal mitigation process for historic and archeological resources. “They have not been good neighbors … there is a section 106 violation … and a section 110(f) violation, which are listed in the petition,” Anne said.
Commissioners responded by distinguishing county authority from federal responsibility. Commissioner Terry Jones said the county considers the project “in complete compliance, with everything, the county has control over,” and noted that a lawsuit was filed in federal court and will be heard there. The board reiterated it lacks jurisdiction over federal determinations tied to Section 106/110 and U.S. Fish and Wildlife matters raised by commenters.
Anne urged more active county engagement on behalf of constituents and said the Albany County Historic Preservation Board had sent a letter raising concerns that went unanswered. Commissioners present said they believed the county’s process had been reviewed in prior courts: one commissioner noted the process was examined at district and state supreme court levels and said records show extensive testimony during those reviews.
Speakers at the meeting repeatedly differentiated what county officials can control from what is handled at the federal or state level. Commissioners said any further county action would depend on whether project approvals were returned to the county or on outcomes from the ongoing litigation.
The public-comment period concluded with a motion to close public comments; the motion carried without further discussion.
The commissioners did not take formal action on the complaints during the meeting; they recorded the concerns and noted federal litigation was pending.
