River Valley
Special town meeting set on wind farm moratorium
RUMFORD — Selectmen on Friday afternoon voted unanimously to hold a special town meeting on whether to enact a six-month moratorium on commercial wind development. The meeting is scheduled for 6 p.m. Dec. 3 in the Rumford Falls Auditorium.
The move was prompted by a tentative proposal by First Wind LLC, of Newton, Mass., to site a wind farm on Black Mountain and two adjacent mountains. A citizens petition with 774 signatures turned in to the town last week asked for a moratorium on such development.
The board's vote followed a discussion to move the meeting to a site with better acoustics.
"This is already becoming contentious and people can't hear anything up there," Selectman Rob Cameron said.
Selectmen Greg Buccina said the meeting is to determine whether people want a moratorium or not.
"This isn't an informational meeting. That will come later," he said.
However, Windpower Education Committee member Len Greaney said he believes that limiting discussion is too controlling. He said his group will rally as many people as possible to attend the Dec. 3 meeting.
Town Manager Carlo Puiia said the moratorium will give a soon-to-be established Windpower Committee a chance to guide the town with anything related to wind farms. Options could include writing an ordinance that would provide regulations for such development, a plan to work with a wind farm developer, or other ideas that will be determined by the group.
The committee will comprise two selectmen, a Planning Board member, Puiia, and four members of the public. The deadline for submitting an application for one of the public slots is Nov. 19. Puiia said the board will likely appoint members at its Nov. 23 meeting.
eadams@sunjournal.com
Advertisement
Displaying comments, from newest to oldest
verified Years ago when the River
Years ago when the River Valley was labeled "Cancer Valley", courtesy of the Doctors Aniel and some others, heck there was even an unsubstantiated nationally broadcast documentary, the NOCC was formed by the River Valley Towns. It was made up of citizens who were not Selectmen, Planning Board Members or on any other board but local people interested and willing to served. Candiceanne who is back here doing the Community Pride Project for a year served the entry duration of the project, over three years. The NOCC PROVED WE ARE NOT CANCER VALLEY, thank you very much Drs for the undeserved negative reputation and another very big blackmark blocking economic development we have not been able to escape courtesy of all the national press you got.
When there is an issue of true public interest, people will get involved like they did with NOCC. If people do not sign-up to get involved with this project it would mean there is no interest or concern among the majority or enough by any to get involved or the people are happy with the way things are going so leave it alone and let things progress naturally.
I remember NOCC well and what it took from the hundred or so that worked it through. Three years is a long time to work on something for no pay and those people put in many hours week in and week out tirelessly. If people are concerned about windpower here they will be out abain especially since this will be a very short project.
I have wondered how many of the opponants have visited a wind farm to find out first hand the truth about the noise and specticle of these things? I realize the ones in New England are very small scale compared to elsewhere but then any built here will be as well.
If we could only return to common sense...
Teddy K. you sound like
Teddy K. you sound like someone who should be on this committee. The truth of the matter is, it's very hard to get people to volunteer for these groups and even harder to get them to continue giving input that's useful and not get frustrated at the constant complainers. Lead by example and show them how to be part of the solution and not part of the problem! At least the town wants to talk about it first instead of jumping head first!
Iagree a committee needs to
Iagree a committee needs to be developed.I do not think it should be made up of selectman or others on committees.It should be made up of everyday people.The problem is that when the same people are always connected to the issues of the towns,the interest become special.It's time that the town seeks out other people within the town to get on these committees.The town needs to do a better job in getting people involved.The more town people involved the better.emember a lot of people complain after somethings done
I agree that a committee is needed.I do not think selectman or any other board members on any boards should be on two positions.A committee should be made up of everyday people.Everytime people are on more than one board there are accusations that there is special interest involved.It's healthy to get as many people as possible involved.Hopefully the town goes out of its way to try to get a diversified new committee.Again it gets to political when you keep the same old same old people running the goverment.A lot of ideas are good.Few ideas are not good.I hope the complainers actually get involved as they should.A good argument is always a good argument.Residents should stand up and speak.What ever the outcome is the people have spoke.We need more people to get involved'
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.