State
Baldacci issues statement opposing low-level military training flights
A public hearing on the proposal is scheduled for 2 p.m. Saturday, Nov. 14, in Farmington in the Lincoln Auditorium on the campus of the University of Maine Farmington.
In a letter to the Director of the Air National Guard, Governor Baldacci cites the lack of responsiveness from the National Guard Bureau to questions raised about the proposal to allow the low-level flights, the release stated
"I wish to register my opposition to this proposal," Baldacci wrote. "I do not believe that serious consideration has been given to the impacts on the people of Maine nor has the appropriate level of due
diligence been conducted in this process and in the Draft (Environmental Impact Statement)."
After the public comment period, a Final Environmental Impact Statement will be completed by the Air National Guard and submitted to the Federal Aviation Administration, according to the release.
The FAA will then determine if the ANG has done a complete evaluation and whether to accept the analysis of significant impacts and related mitigation plans.
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png?x-id=58ad0b2e-dc6f-4426-862f-a01fe04e2d03)
Advertisement
Displaying comments, from newest to oldest
You know why they don't go
You know why they don't go to Berkshire county? Because it underlies a major arrival and departure corridor for Boston. Too many planes there already. There are already established military training routes throughout Northern Maine which are used now almost daily. In fact most of Northern Maine is a military training area. The military wants to extend the base of the training areas to 500' AGL throughout the entire training area. Right now they can only drop to 500' AGL if they are on an MTR and then they need to stay within some pretty strict lateral parameters.
If you are worried about giving them the entire airspace down to 500' AGL, why not do what New York did and create some corridors at the bottom of the current military airspace away from congested areas for them to do their training missions away from areas of concern. The planes are already there and they are already flying low over much of the state anyway. One of the training runs stretches from the northern tip of Sebago past the northern tip of Moosehead and a second parallels that one about 30 miles to the north. Why not combine those two shift them a little further north to make a 20 mile corridor for them to drop in and out of instead of having to fly the entire state on their MTRs. How bout finding a solution instead of bitching.
You know why the Mass Guard
You know why the Mass Guard is trying to do this? Because Maine does not have much money that's why. Why do they not go to Berkshire county? It looks like Maine with the mountains, and the population is low. You know why they don't? Because it would destroy tourism that's why!@ And they wont stand for that! Not in Massachusetts! So they come to Crap on Maine! Oh, but it is ok for them to fly out to Nevada for a night out, that they have fuel for!! Look it up.
Good for Gov. John Baldacci
Good for Gov. John Baldacci
We don't need the Mass guard swooping down on little towns, scaring children, disturbing the tranquility and generally ruining the quality of life around here. Why not fly out at sea where fliers attempt to ditch planes when they fail. We don't need these low level war training missions ending up in a fire ball in a neighborhood. If you need to fly over land go west young men where Government blows off the Nukes, plays war games and disturbs nothing but rocks and jack rabbits.
Advertisement
Advertisement
Most Popular Today
verified on "PUC staff: No go for energy firms’ wind deal"
Enron's Bastard Son, First Wind, Caught!
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.
verified on "PUC staff: No go for energy firms’ wind deal"
Enrons's Bastard Son Caught!
see Feb 2 , 2012 docket 2011-170!!!
ELECTRONICALLY FILED ON FEBRUARY 2,2012
STATE OF MAINE
PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
BANGOR HYDRO ELECTRIC & )
MAINE PUBLIC SERVICE COS. )
Re: Request for Exemptions and for )
Reorganization Approvals )
Docket No. 2011-170
MOTION FOR DISMISSAL
AND SANCTIONS WITH
INCORPORATED MEMORANDUM
February 2, 2012
Now come the Office of the Public Advocate, Houlton Water Company, the Industrial Energy Consumer Group (“I7ECG”), and Boralex, Inc. (“Boralex”)(collectively, the “intervenors”) by and through their respective attorneys and move to dismiss these proceedings or to enter judgment against Bangor Hydro Electric Company and Maine Public Service Company (“Petitioners”) based upon the recommended findings of the Examiners~ Report.
I. INTRODUCTION
Petitioners have intentionally and recklessly violated the Commission’s Rules of Practice and the Examiners’ January 19, 2011 Scheduling Order by filing Exceptions tainted by prejudicial non-record information and by assisting and/or encouraging First Wind Holdings, LLC (“First Wind”) and Algonquin Power & Utilities Corp. (“APUC”) to file unauthorized comments doing the same. According to the Examiners, these exceptions have been reviewed by the Commissioners. As described herein, further consideration of the case at this point would violate fundamental principles of due process and would be unduly prejudicial to the intervenors in this case. Of equal importance is the fact that the actions of the Petitioners, First Wind and Algonquin Power have damaged the integrity of the adjudicatory process by intentionally exposing the Commissioners and their advisors to information outside of the record that, even if the Commission can ignore, undermines public confidence in the process. Dismissal with prejudice orjudgment against Petitioners are the appropriate remedies and sanctions for Petitioners’ violations of the Commission’s Rules and the January 19 Schedul
verified on "Lewiston's Bob Stone: New face on MTA board"
Well this was fun to read.
Well this was fun to read.
In order to make comments, you must verify your account.
In order to comment on SunJournal.com, you must use your real name and include the town in which you live in your profile. A member of our staff will call you to verify this information. To join in, fill out your user profile completely and check the box "please verify my status." We'll get back to you within one business day to verify your account.
Login or create an account here.
Our policy prohibits comments that are:
- Defamatory, abusive, obscene, racist, or otherwise hateful
- Excessively foul and/or vulgar
- Inappropriately sexual
- Baseless personal attacks or otherwise threatening
- Contain illegal material, or material that infringes on the rights of others
- Commercial postings attempting to sell a product/item
If you violate this policy, your comment will be removed and your account may be banned.