A proposal from staff at the Land Use Regulation Commission to change the way the agency handles applications for commercial wind power projects is receiving mixed reviews from groups on either side of the often contentious energy issue.
LURC is trying to find efficiencies in the way staff as well as the commission review projects proposed for the vast areas of Maine where grid-scale wind energy projects receive a streamlined regulatory review.
As part of that process, LURC staff are proposing switching to a process now used by the Maine Department of Environmental Protection that could result in fewer projects being the subject of lengthy, legalistic public hearings while still offering the public opportunities to share their views on the project. LURC is accepting public comments on the proposed changes through Jan. 20, 2012.
Under the LURC proposal, commission members would hold two “public meetings” — one early and one late in the process — near the site of the project to allow the public as well as interested groups to comment. These meetings would be different, however, from the “public hearings” now held during which intervenors and attorneys from both sides testify and then have the chance to cross-examine the other parties similar to a court proceeding.
Samantha Horn Olsen, manager of LURC’s planning division, said commissioners would retain the option of the full public hearing process for more complicated projects that merit the back-and-forth that takes place during cross-examination and rebuttal. But she said the commission wants another, middle-ground option to help reduce the amount of time and energy needed to review less complicated projects.
“This is coming from the commission out of their desire to make sure they can pay attention to the many other important issues in the jurisdiction,” Horn Olsen said.
Jeremy Payne, executive director of the Maine Renewable Energy Association, an industry trade group, said wind power developers support the idea of having identical review processes for projects. LURC now reviews projects located entirely within the Unorganized Territory while the Department of Environmental Protection reviews projects outside the UT.
“In general, we like the concept of consistency from regulatory body to regulatory body,” Payne said. Payne said his organization also supports a proposal that emerged from a LURC reform task force that would have the DEP review all commercial wind power projects throughout the state.
But Lynne Williams, a Bar Harbor lawyer who frequently represents groups that have opposed commercial wind power projects, said the cross-examination and rebuttal portions of the public hearing process are important for exploring all aspects of a project. Williams said she does not believe the same level of scrutiny and exploration is possible during a general public meeting without the opportunity for cross-examination and rebuttal.
“We don’t think that is adequate to get out the facts on these complicated projects,” Williams said. “I think the state would be better served if the DEP adopted the LURC process.”
The full proposal is posted on LURC’s website at www.maine.gov/doc/lurc.
If the project is to be located on a hill or mountain or is around trees then the proposal should be automatically denied.
Are we open business or not ?
We should be open for businesses that can support themselves, not ones that rely on taxpayer subsidies and government mandates that consumers purchase their products. Without these, grid-scale wind power is barely a business.
Close the banks and GM dealers, then get back to me.
Conservatives have nothing if they can’t have things two different ways at once.
I’ll get back to you right now. You’re comparing apples and oranges.
GM and the banks received loans, not grants, during the big bailouts a few years ago. GM and most of the banks have since repaid these. Wind projects are receiving grants and tax credits – no repayment required. Some are getting taxpayer backed loan guarantees – no risk to them and all the risk to the taxpayers.
To the best of my knowledge, no banks or car dealers are benefitting from any government mandates that we buy from them. The wind turbine operators can only survive if some level of government forces utilities to buy their electricity.
This is all about the Federal government using taxpayer subsidies to make the states dance like marionettes. And like many other scams, it hides behind a “higher purpose”, in this case saving the planet from alleged global warming. In fact, these wind merchants like Angus King and Baldacci’s boy Kurt Adams do not give a rat’s a__ about the environment. It’s all about lining their pockets at the little man’s expense while most of the public sleeps and the media stays in the tank for them. I campaigned very hard for Governor LePage and I’m hoping he will not play along as Obama’s marionette.
Bla bla, bla ba, Same old weary s—t!
Yeah sure, whatever you said, but are we open business or not ?
Yes, but grid-scale wind power isn’t exactly a business – unless you call a temporary taxpayer/ratepayer supported, jobs program for a few Maine development companies a business. I’d rather Maine be open to self-supporting businesses that actually have a chance of making it on their own and provide significant numbers of permanent jobs.
“Isn’t exactly a business”? It’s not a business at all. It is a government subsidized project that does not create any long term meaninful Maine jobs other than the temorary employment for Maine construction workers to destroy their own environment. Talk about a Trojan Horse.
NO! Do you get it yet?
MF Global exec chairs EPA financial advisory committee
http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/43553
Note: this article is in The Washington Times but is difficult to access.
More on Bradley Abelow who is the MF Global executive who chairs the EPA financial advisory committee..
http://mba.yale.edu/alumni/alumni_profiles/abelowb.shtml
Prior to joining MF, Brad was a founding partner of NewWorld Capital Group, a private equity firm investing in businesses active in environmental opportunities (alternative energy, energy efficiency, waste and water treatment, and environmental services).
ROTFLOL
Are we open business or not ?
No!
So what is supposed to power your conservative Shanga La ?
It won’t be wind. I wish it could be but it can’t.
You have no idea.
…. so it’ll be wishes and Arab oil, then, huh ?
Why isn’t a war to control the Straits of Hormuz subsidization
paid in both blood and treasure ?
We need to stay away from the Straits of Hormuz.
Anyone for fudge?
In role reversal, US on track to be an oil exporter
By msnbc.com staff
The contentious debate in Congress over the Keystone XL pipeline obscures
one significant detail many Americans don’t realize: In the first three
quarters of 2011, we exported more oil than we imported. This means it’s
highly likely that this year will be the first time in more than six decades
that the United States will be a net exporter of petroleum products, according
to a report in USA Today Monday.
Analysts and scientists who study oil production say the trend is
accelerating. An energy expert cited by USA Today predicts that the United
States’ own production could rise to 2.9
billion barrels annually by the end of the decade.
Texas, Alaska
and California are the top three
oil-producing states; fourth on the list is North Dakota,
where more advanced methods of production unlock the oil in shale beds,
previously thought to be inaccessible. These include controversial extraction
procedures like hydraulic fracturing or “fracking,” which opponents
say can pollute water supplies and cause earthquakes.
Domestic production of crude oil has been climbing for the past three years,
and crude imports have fallen by 10 percent in five years. Last year, the U.S.
imported just under half of the oil it used. Oil imported from Middle Eastern
countries like Saudi Arabia
comprises a shrinking percentage of our total consumption.
More of the oil the U.S.
imports comes from closer sources, primarily Canada.
Last year, nearly half came from the Western Hemisphere.
In the future, scientists predict that growing production in Brazil
will also change the dynamic and reduce the amount of oil the U.S.
imports from the Middle East.
Why would we EXPORT oil ?
Explain the long term strategic wisdom of that, please.
America first, last and always ?
Only an internationalist corporatist traitor would think otherwise.
Then, does that Bush’s wars useless, too ?
Disqusbites wrote in reply
to me 16 hours ago:
“Why
would we EXPORT oil ?
Explain the long term strategic wisdom of that, please.”
—————————————————————
You’re
asking the wrong person. Ask the MSNBC staff. All bush’s major actions were
useful to the GOP. The appointment of John Roberts is only superceded by his
wars.
===========================================
In
role reversal, US on track to be an oil exporter
By msnbc.com staff
19 Dec 2011
11:00am, EST
“The contentious debate in Congress over the Keystone XL pipeline obscures
one significant detail many Americans don’t realize: In the first three
quarters of 2011, we exported more oil than we imported. This means it’s
highly likely that this year will be the first time in more than six decades
that the United States will be a net exporter of petroleum products, according
to a report in USA Today Monday. …”
Less than 1% of New England’s electricity was produced with oil in 2009 – and it has been trending lower.
The “Arab oil” argument in favor of wind turbines died an embarrassing death many months ago.
New argument, please.
Thorium Flouride reactors! Look it up. It’s what we should have been using and would be using now if we hadn’t wanted to build The Bombs.
You are likely right on the mark. Commercial horizontal wind turbine energy is not even a contender in the struggle for determining what our future sources of energy will be. More and more people in Maine are becoming aware that the “wind industry” is nothing more than a subsidy robbing scheme by a few and by the people they have been able to hoax.
As long as the state and its Representatives and Agencies follow the law, and the constitution!
GET IT YET?
We are if we are no better than a common street walker- Oblivious to the destruction of the landscape and gross inefficiency of industrial wind.
A street walkers’ purse swings more than these turbines turn.
Yes, Billy you are correct. My mistake…LOL Poor analogy.
Since the wind power folks refuse to disclose specific production details of their operating facilities (citing “trade secrets”), it’s not easy to ascertain just how much power these machines actually produce. However, Maine has had a turbine installed at UMaine Presque Isle since May 2009, from which real time operating data had been available to the public.
While an original production goal of 19% of rated capacity had been established, during the first two years of operation the turbine languished at somewhere in the order of 11%, roughly half of that less than lofty target. Earlier this year, mechanical problems took the unit out of service for an extended period. As of today, the university’s web site states that: “Immediate repair work has been completed on the UMPI wind turbine and, though there is still further fine tuning needed, it is currently generating electricity. Work continues on restoring the data gathering system for the turbine and the website so live wind data can be displayed. Until then, we will try to provide new generation figures weekly.”
If LURC is so anxious to grease the skids for these subsidy gobblers, then someone in state government should step up and evaluate these projects based on their true economic merit. If there ever was a time to stop throwing good taxpayer and ratepayer money after bad, it’s now. If there was ever an obvious opportunity to cut government waste in the Pine Tree State, it’s this.
Here is wind data for the month of December, 1999 measured at a now developed wind farm in New England. This was measured with calibrated sensors placed at 15 meters and 30 meters AGL. ( I will have to resurrect my old 80286 to provide the 12 months of data I have and apologize that the output is in mph and not metric M/S).
Summary Wind Speed Statistics
Mean Wind Speed: 11.1 mph
SDEV of Wind Speeds: 6.4 mph
Mean Turbulence Intensity: 0.191
Mean Energy Speed: 19.2 mph
SDEV of Energy Distribution: 5.7 mph
Mean Power Density: 156 Watts/m2
Max. 1 hour Wind Speed: 32.9
Assumed Average Air Density: 1.186 kg/m3
Energy Pattern Factor: 2.14
Weibull Shape Factor, k 1.80
Weibull Scale Factor, c 12.5 mph
Speed Data Recovery 99.0
Turbulence Data Recovery 100.0
Direction Data Recovery 92.9Note: This was one of the better months, the wind speed was recorded below 10 mph for a total of 290 hours. Summer average was about 8 mph. This would reflect what would have been expected at several developed sites.
Do you get as disgusted with being lied to by morons as I do? Do you get a nasty feeling in your stomach when you hear what a politician has said? Do you hear about how much the 1% is giving and still see increasing taxes and costs and reduced services for the disabled, elderly, and the very poor and mentally ill? With superpacs in place, none need donate to the GOP. And I’m not anti GOP. Since Democrat John Baldacci and LD 2283, please never construe what I say as pro-Democrat or Independent. And to all those seeking respite in America, please consider and factor-in the constant abuse and trauma that leads to deep Psychiatric depression, unless you are miraculously successful.
“Jeremy Payne, executive director of the Maine Renewable Energy Association, an industry trade group…”
Shorter term – wind industry lobbyist.
Think of all the wonderful things that have been foisted upon our state and country (at our expense) by corporate lobbyists. Wind power is just one more of those things that make sense only for the few who profit from it.
On September 28, 2010, Tux Turkel@mainetoday wrote:
CMP’s
parent: Wind power development hinges on Maine policies
If
Maine signals
that it’s no longer friendly to wind power, he said, the global energy company
will expand elsewhere.
By Tux Turkel tturkel@mainetoday.com
Staff Writer
GORHAM — The parent company of Central Maine Power Co. wants to develop
large wind energy projects in Maine
after the $1.4 billion upgrade of CMP’s transmission grid is finished in five
years.
But any investments will hinge in part on policies that continue to support
wind power development, said Ignacio Galan, chairman of Iberdrola Group.
If Maine signals that it’s no
longer friendly to wind power, he said, the global energy company will expand
elsewhere.
“We will be involved in this state once the transmission line is completed,”
Galan said, “if the framework is here.”
Basically, CMP says:
” When Maine citizens pay for the lines, we can soak them at will.HA! Ha!
Stupid Mainers!”
The entire objective here is to thwart citizens rights and the Maine State Constitution with LD-2283, the Wind Scam Legislation.
Any “streamlining ” is a denial of rights and breach of the constitution of this state.
Plainly and Simply, this is that attempt.
The DEP of Maine has shown itself to be non-representative of the citizenry of Maine.
The mission of protecting health and environmental is being breached daily
by this agency, that should be investigated by the AG for routine
breaches of the law concerning wind turbine placements and resultant
damage to health and environment.
This will only occur because all of them (our rights) are being breached by an overreaching central government which is out of control, with lobbied interests in the drivers seat, because we have let them.
NO HEARINGS ???? This is clearly Un-American, and Kremlinesque!
They don’t listen anyway, and it is high time for this to change!
If you don’t know our rights, please amuse yourself with them below,
Maine State Constitution
Article I.Declaration of Rights.
Section 1
1. Natural rights. All people are born equally free and independent,
and have certain natural, inherent and unalienable rights, among which
are those of enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring,
possessing and protecting property, and of pursuing and obtaining safety
and happiness.
Section 2.
Power inherent in people. All power
is inherent in the people; all free governments are founded in their
authority and instituted for their benefit; they have therefore an
unalienable and indefeasible right to institute government, and to
alter, reform, or totally change the same, when their safety and
happiness require it.
I Urge All Maine Citizens to seize Their
Constitutional rights, defy the wind scoundrels and uphold
the Maine Constitution by all lawful means, even as some agencies and
politicians of Maine break the laws they have sworn to support.
It is clear many of our representatives , LURC and DEP, have never read any of them.
They should be openly held to swear to support the above , at Every Public Meeting.
It seems it is too time consuming and annoying to do any of this , let alone support the mission statements of their respective agencies.
Good post. “…when their safety and happiness require it.” Figuring out just what safety and happiness really mean requires some deliberate thought, doesn’t it? It means the rational brain must trump the reptile brain for a little while at least. It means asking whether entertainment and happiness are synonymous; it means asking whether protecting the individual from physical harm is all there is to safety or whether it involves much more than that.
In our consumer culture, constant diversions and distractions and generally operating on autopilot are such that those deliberations are generally bypassed in the everyday cluster**** which passes for daily life. Nothing we see or hear in the daily bombardment by infotainment deals with it, dedicated as commercial media is to concerns about incontinence, sexual anxieties, old skin, Tom Brady’s passing stats, the cavalcade of campaigning clowns, hype, “buy this widget and get an extra one free,” hype and more hype….
At some point we, or at least most of us ought step back and away from the admen and hustlers to do some serious thinking about what we as a race are up against. True, hard thinking, particularly this kind, isn’t nearly as much fun, hormonal or just plain exciting as venting, raging and pushing one another’s buttons, but is there a useful alternative? Or was Kurt Vonnegut truly right when he wrote that we are put on earth to merely fart around?
Putting industrial wind turbines on forested mountaintops??? Yeah! Right! I don’t think so.
David corrigan wrote:
Hi Folks,
With more and more Industrial Wind Turbines filling up our woods, and
surrounding our homes, when is the State of Maine going to start
taking the fire danger seriously? Just last week we had reports out
of Scotland of yet another turbine fire–a fire caused by too much
wind! Such a fire, on a remote Maine Mountain, during a dry summer,
could be disastrous!
Below is a link to another excellent article about this danger. Please
have a look, leave a comment, and send it on to your Local, State and
National Representatives, and to anyone who cares, or should care, about
the safety of our forests and homes.
http://voicesonwind.blogspot.com/2011/12/voices-that-snap-crackle-and-pop.html
Every Residence (seasonal or not) with-in 2 miles of turbine centers needs to be notified by certified mail of public meets. Mountain people do not get news delivered and many do not own a computer. Out of state land owners need time to redress.
DEP has 2000 feet as the contact line of abutting properties. In reality, sound modeling has 35 dbc at 2 mile range.
Receptors are located in Flicker and Sound modeling maps. Yet not a one was notified of their property being on a “Receptor” list.
The above Map has 34 “receptor” structures. 24 of the 34 “receptors” are very much against this project.
These 24 + people have no recourse
We need to stop government waste and if we are going to advocate againt wind subsidies we should also be advocating for a streamlined application process. Combine the DEP and LURC to have one application process and keep the process that allows the voice of the people to be heard. The DEP process is the poster child for govermnent waste and repressing public opinioin so lets enhance what the LURC already has in place.
Public Hearings ought to be REQUIRED for every wind project.
Back in 2010, before LURC decided to hold a public hearing on the Bowers Mtn project, First Wind hosted a “public open house” at Lee Academy ostensibly to educate the public about the project and avoid the need for a public hearing. At that public meeting, First Wind representatives made the following statements:
1) Turbines do occasionally start fires. But there’s no need to worry because we have donated $25,000 to the Carroll Fire Dept to handle such rare emergencies. (Note: Carrol has no fire dept and relies on a volunteer department in Springfield. This was an absolute, no-doubt-about-it lie.)
2) First Wind employee #1: Yes, it’s true that wind energy requires that there be spinning reserves as back up.
3) First Wind employee #2: No, wind energy does not require that there be spinning reserves as back up.
4) These turbine drawings show the turbines are “only” 389′ tall. (The drawings presented at that open house were for the GE 1.5MW turbines used in the Rollins project. The turbines planned for the Bowers project are made by Siemens and will be considerably taller.)
5) This map shows the distances from the project to each of the area lakes. (The map showed the distance as measured from the turbines to the middle of each lake). When it was clear that the map depicted a lie, the First Wind consultant said “Oh, this map is only intended to give a general idea of distances.”
What’s my point? A public HEARING is a legal forum, a public meeting is not. At a public hearing, both the Developer and the Intervenors are speaking under oath. At a public MEETING like the one First Wind hosted in Lee no one is under oath and the developer is free to spew whatever lies they like… without penalty!
The DEP model being proposed would result in “fewer projects being the subject of lengthy, legalistic public hearings”. In fact, DEP has yet to decide any wind project merits a public hearing! When it comes to wind projects, Public Hearings are absolutely necessary. First Wind has proven this time and again. The impact on Maine’s #1 industry (tourism) is too important to trust it to public meetings which are little more than PR events for the developers.
What the wind lobby needs to understand is that although the (ridiculous) Wind Law allows wind projects, and encourages wind projects, it does not guarantee approval of wind projects.
If the proposed LURC review process is approved, it will be the end of Maine outdoor recreation as we now know it. Monsterous industrial machines will be seen from every hiking trail in the state of Maine. Why? So that “green” power can be sent to the states south of us. When only 1% of the greenhouse gases worldwide are produced from generating electricity, who made the decision that Maine had to be sacrificed for the pittance it will produce? If we allow this to happen, Maine will no longer be called the “vacation state”? A new motto might be “THE WILDERNESS DEGRADATION STATE”.
How much money do the environmental organizations’ managements take under the table?
I wouldn’t accuse management of taking anything under the table, but several of the leading conservations did sell out to the wind industry, and are still openly working publically for the industry on a daily basis. You don’t do that unless you are compensated (the organization) in some manner. These same organizations are turning a blind eye to the massive environment destruction caused to our mountains by wind development. I am sure they were all approached early on to get them on board. These wind power folks have been around for several years working under the radar before anyone here ever heard of a wind turbine . The paper companies were making deals with folks like the Yale and the Harvard endowment funds who purchased much of the the paper company land for sale in Maine to develop wind projects. By the way, I am guessing it is no coincidence that the two largest donors to the Obama campaign were these two universities. I have even heard the wind industry is behind getting dams removed to try to make a better case for wind energy. Unfortunately, they had to get the sportsman’s organization behind this push to make it work. I am sure the good folks who supported and do support SAM and other sportsman’s organizations had no idea what what was going on in the background. They wouldn’t have put up with it (if this is true).
LURC/DEP streamline consideration:
If the wind farm application process is to be
streamlined into the DEP, many if not all of the LURC process’s must be adopted
by the DEP. Protecting the environment
(DEP)and determining appropriate land use (LURC) are two very different missions
and I would implore you that if you are to streamline the application process
to one body that you keep all aspects of public participation when determining
appropriate use of our land. You are
streamlining a process not just to protect the environment (DEP charge) you are
streamlining a process that is designed to protect the one thing that Mainers
value most, their mountains, lakes and homes (LURC). Please keep all LURC opportunities for the
public to be heard. We don’t have to sacrifice freedom of speech to be efficient!
If windfarms in Maine are a reality….Proper siting should be of the highest priority! No one should be the sacred lames for these projects. Line 95 with them, just outside the breakdown lane! Wind resource in most of the area of Maine is rated a 2 on a scale of 7….so whats dif would it make.
Where have you been? The proper siting remains on the other side of the Maine border.
To arms! To arms!
The Spanish are coming!
They are already here…they are known as the Central Maine Power Company.
Central Spain Power.
Just thought we might start with baby steps..at least get them off our beloved mountains and waterways..
The trouble is that the major developers of wind in Maine aren’t Maine
companies. They won’t employ very many Maine workers. And none of
their power generation energy stays here in Maine. So, what? We get
lots of areas impacted visually, environmentally and who knows how else,
with huge wind towers that will supposedly last for up to 20
years….then what happens? What happens with the decreasing capacity
of these wind towers with age? What happens when maintenance is needed
and the dB’s generated exceed the standards set? Who pays for the law
suits which would have to be initiated in order to get these companies
to be proactive about maintenance and sound level generation? And how
long will these suits last, held off by the legal technicalities thrown
in the way by corporate lawyers? In addition, who will be the enforcing
body to follow-through on a successful lawsuit? None of these things
are in place, nor will they be until la crisis generates enough
widespread interest to force action on the part of government.
It’s true that federal incentives to power-generating development
companies covers most, if not all, of the costs for them to put such
things as wind farms in place. This leaves these same companies with
nothing to do but collect profits after the facilities are up and
generating. The same thing’s happening with solar development. Why
isn’t there a clause whereby these companies return the favor by paying
back these subsidies at a low interest rate? Why are they able to have
virtually NO investment of their own behind this development or a reason
to stick with it if equipment failures, etc start to become
non-cost-effective for them?
Once again, the people of this country are letting large corporations
benefit from the largesse of a government too far removed from the
effects of the legislation it generates. Altruism, community benenfit,
and things like doing right by the taxpayer are merely words and
phrases. Capitalism, fueled by major lobbying and campaign donations,
is now our form of government, not democracy.
The trouble is that the major developers of wind in Maine aren’t Maine
companies. They won’t employ very many Maine workers. And none of
their power generation energy stays here in Maine. So, what? We get
lots of areas impacted visually, environmentally and who knows how else,
with huge wind towers that will supposedly last for up to 20
years….then what happens? What happens with the decreasing capacity
of these wind towers with age? What happens when maintenance is needed
and the dB’s generated exceed the standards set? Who pays for the law
suits which would have to be initiated in order to get these companies
to be proactive about maintenance and sound level generation? And how
long will these suits last, held off by the legal technicalities thrown
in the way by corporate lawyers? In addition, who will be the enforcing
body to follow-through on a successful lawsuit? None of these things
is in place, nor will they be until a crisis generates enough
widespread interest to force action on the part of government.
It’s true that federal incentives to power-generating development
companies covers most, if not all, of the costs for them to put such
things as wind farms in place. This leaves these same companies with
nothing to do but collect profits after the facilities are up and
generating. The same thing’s happening with solar development. Why
isn’t there a clause whereby these companies return the favor by paying
back these subsidies at a low interest rate? Why are they able to have
virtually NO investment of their own behind this development or a reason
to stick with it if equipment failures, etc start to become
non-cost-effective for them?
Once again, the people of this country are letting large corporations
benefit from the largesse of a government too far removed from the
effects of the legislation it generates. Altruism, community benenfit,
and things like doing right by the taxpayer are merely words and
phrases. Capitalism, fueled by major lobbying and campaign donations,
is now our form of government, not democracy.
There must be a way to let other electric companies take over CMP and get Iberdrola out of our hair.
Probably a heck of a lot less than the government officials pushing this legislation through.
By now we all know that the industrial wind industry would not exist without the generosity of the American taxpayer. The economics of wind power as currently deployed in Maine are not viable without massive subsidies and outright gifts to the companies involved. In addition, there is no proof of any long-term, direct economic or environmental benefit to the people of Maine. The push by the Baldacci administration to establish a “fast track” for wind projects was nothing more than a giveaway to the wind industry and their extensive lobbying efforts. Now we have one of our important safeguard government agencies (LURC) heading in the same direction. With their new proposal, LURC will further lower the barriers for the wind developers and take away the public’s right to question and debate the value of environmentally sensitive projects in the highly vulnerable and largely underrepresented areas of our state. Implementation of this new proposal would create a dangerous playing field and leave Maine citizens without a proper voice and legal public forum to debate the merits of proposed projects. The well-financed business interests looking to take advantage of our “open for business” mentality will be the only parties benefiting from the proposed changes to the permitting and application approval process. What should happen is for LURC and DEP to call for a moratorium on all wind project applications until it’s factually determined that the long-term environmental and economic outcomes of wind farm development are in the best interest of the people of Maine.
I am with Mainehiker..why are we ruining such an amazing state – for what??
and I would add DEP should give public hearings as LURC has..
LURC and its staff is working very hard to try and ensure that the study commission’s recommendations are meaningless. Nothing like trying to hold onto one’s power.