Forum to discuss wind projects

Docket 2011-170, feb 2, 2012 (see it all at http://www.windtaskforce.org)

"By filing their coordinated “exceptions” and letter, First Wind and APUC attempted to subvert the intention and effect of this rule. Therefore, the Examiners correctly excluded APUC’s and First Wind’s filings.

The Petitioners’ actions give rise to particular and very serious concerns.

Petitioners have deliberately attempted to inject new evidence into the record “through the back door,” long after the record closed on December 9, 2011 and at that point in the proceeding where other parties are not afforded a chance to respond, test the evidence through cross examination, engage in discovery, present witnesses, or otherwise have the benefit of the procedural safeguards of an evidentiary record Their Exceptions, containing these new facts, were filed in blatant disregard of at least two of the Commission’s rules and in direct violation of the Examiners’ January 19 Scheduling Order, and in an obvious attempt to influence the outcome. The rules violated are rules of integrity, fundamental fairness and substance, not mere housekeeping rules designed to advance administrative efficiency"

GET THEM OUT OF MAINE!

Petitioners violated Chapter 110 section 760-A(a) and (d~ of the Commission’s Rules. The filing of “exceptions” by APUC and First Wind violated the Ex Parte rule under Section 760-A(a) Petitioners’ subornation of these filings, as evidenced by the references to the filings in Petitioners Exceptions, also violates Section 760-A(d) which reads

No party in a proceeding shall request, encourage, suggest, or provide any assistance to any other person to make a communication that would violate subsection (a) of this section.

8Petitioners chose to engage in coordinated, concerted action with First Wind and APUC to assist them in an improper attempt to have a non-party influence the Commission after the date for filing exceptions, and to inject non-record information into evidence, and to couple this with a direct violation by commingling the prejudicial material into Petitioners own Exceptions. Petitioners deliberately cited to, quoted from, and indeed made such filings a part of their own January 23, 2012 Exceptions. Their awareness of procedural issues is revealed by the first footnote in their Exceptions. Petitioners’ actions were willful, ~vith the expectation that opposing parties would have no opportunity to respond,7 and for the primary purpose of influencing this Commission’s decision.