NextEra wants LUPC to expand the expedited siting area so they may install approximately 500 megawatts of wind power to be deliverable to the ISO-NE grid. They have a bid proposal in response to the Massachusetts renewable energy RFP.


MAINE LAND USE PLANNING COMMISSION
Department of Agriculture, Conservation and Forestry
22 State House Station - Augusta, Maine 04333-0022
TEL (207) 287-2631 FAX (207) 287-7439
AGENDA
Meeting Date:
December 13, 2017
Meeting Time:
9:00 AM
Meeting Location:
Spectacular Events Center, 395 Griffin Road, Bangor

Rulemaking, Planning and Zoning Matters 9:20 AM
45 min.
NextEra Energy Resources, review of rulemaking petition to expand the expedited permitting area for wind energy development in Chain of Pond Twp., Seven Ponds Twp., Skinner Twp., and T5 R6 BKP WKR; consideration of whether to initiate rulemaking; Franklin and Somerset Counties

Views: 247

Comment

You need to be a member of Citizens' Task Force on Wind Power - Maine to add comments!

Join Citizens' Task Force on Wind Power - Maine

Comment by Sherwin Start on December 8, 2017 at 5:16pm

I  agree with u DUDLEY- WHY ARE WE ALLOWING THE LUPC/or the Legislature to  DES-SPOIL MAINE  so that  the people down country can have  ALL the Energy  they want ??

The NEGATIVE IMPACT on Tourism in MAINE  as already  HURT the People of Maine  and  will continue to do so  well into the FUTURE !!

Comment by Dudley G. Gray on December 8, 2017 at 7:09am

Nextera's petition to expand expedited siting area for their 130 wind turbine project is intertwined with CMP's proposed 145 mile transmission line from Coburn Gore to Lewiston . They want to get on the gravy train to supply Massachusetts  with power and get their various subsidies and continue the destruction of Maine . once again i say the LUPC must deny the petition and save the 24,000 acres.

Comment by Deborah Andrew on December 7, 2017 at 9:16pm

This is a travesty for all of us, even those like myself who live in Massachusetts.  See attached, I hope it might help.  There was also the success of the Friends of Windham (ck out their website for strategy and great info)  Just realized I cannot attach to this ... if you would like list of reasons why IWTs are non-solution/brief quote & link to original source pls email: deborah.w.andrew@gmail.com

Comment by Sherwin Start on December 7, 2017 at 8:01pm

IF THE RESIDENTS of MAINE  do Not RECIEVE  the MAJORITY of the Power  that is Proposed  under this EXPANSION- then the ANSWER MUST BE  NO  (DENIAL)/Rejection ! I am sick and tired of seeing the PEOPLE of  the State of Maine  BEING CONNED  into allowing the destruction of  our State by  the GREEDY LAND-RAPERS OF  the State of Mass. & Conn. !!

THey are DESTROYING THIS  state -Its People -Its Environment  and its Flora & Fauna - And the MAINE STATE LEGISLATURE Is actually  INCOURAGING THEM to do it !!  SHAME -SHAME- SHAME  on the LEGISLATURE  to allowing themselves to CONNED  into this falsehood/Pack of Lies !! 

THis  is Now happening in the  State of Vermont  right now as well

Comment by Dan McKay on December 7, 2017 at 11:39am

MLUC Staff draft letter denying NextEra petition :

Attachment 4
 
NextEra Rulemaking Petition Expansion of the Expedited Permitting Area Chain of Ponds, Seven Ponds, Skinner, and T5 R6 BKP WKR
 
 
Option 1, Draft Letter Denying the Petition
 
 
WALTER E. WHITCOMB COMMISSIONER
 
NICHOLAS D. LIVESAY EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
STATE OF MAINE DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, CONSERVATION & FORESTRY LAND USE PLANNING COMMISSION 22 STATE HOUSE STATION AUGUSTA, MAINE 04333-0022
 
 
18 ELKINS LANE PHONE: 207-287-2631 WWW.MAINE.GOV/DACF/LUPC FAX: 207-287-7439
PAUL R. LEPAGE GOVERNOR
DRAFT
December 13, 2017
 
NextEra Energy Resources, LLC c/o Dana Valleau TRC 14 Gabriel Drive Augusta, ME 04330
 
RE: NextEra’s Petition to Expand the Expedited Permitting Area for Wind Energy Development;  Chain of Ponds Twp., Seven Ponds Twp., Skinner Twp., and T5 R6 BKP WKR
 
Dear Dana:
 
TRC, on behalf of NextEra Energy Resources (“NextEra”), submitted a petition (the “Petition”) requesting that the Maine Land Use Planning Commission initiate rulemaking to add approximately 24,777 acres to the expedited permitting area for wind energy development (the “Expansion Area”).  The proposed Expansion Area is located within four townships – Chain of Ponds, Seven Ponds, Skinner, and T5 R6 BKP WKR – and in proximity to an operating wind energy facility, Kibby Wind (44 turbines, 232 MW), that is located in Kibby and Skinner townships.
 
As explained in the Petition, the expansion of the expedited area would facilitate development of NextEra’s Moose-Alder Stream Wind power generation facility (the “Project”).  The total Project would span seven townships.  One of these townships, Jim Pond, would contain a generator lead line, but no turbines.  Six townships, including the four in the proposed Expansion Area, would have turbines with a generating capacity up to 460 MW.  NextEra describes the Project as consisting of two sections:
 
• Moose Wind – approximately 71 turbines in the area north of Route 27 in Skinner, Kibby, and T5 R6 BKP WKR townships; and
 
• Alder Stream Wind – approximately 62 turbines in the area south of Route 27 in Chain of Ponds, Seven Ponds, and Alder Stream townships. (Petition at 3.)
 
The proposed location or distribution of turbines within the Moose Wind and Alder Stream Wind sections is not addressed in the Petition.  The Expansion Area, along with the proposed project boundary and location of the existing Kibby Wind project, is shown in Exhibits A and B of the Petition.
 
 
 
NextEra Petition DRAFT December 13, 2017  Page 2 of 5
 
Consistent with the Maine Administrative Procedures Act and the Commission’s Chapter 4 Rules of Practice, any person may petition the Commission for the adoption or modification of any rule. Within 60 days after receipt of such a rulemaking petition, the Commission shall either: (i) Deny the proposed amendment, indicating in writing the reasons for denial; or (ii) Initiate rulemaking proceedings on the proposed amendment.
 
At its December 13, 2017 meeting, the Commission discussed and considered NextEra’s Petition and voted to deny the proposed amendment.  This letter provides the reasons for that denial.
 
Statutory Framework for Consideration of the Petition
 
The 123rd Legislature enacted, “An Act to Implement Recommendations of the Governor’s Task Force on Wind Power Development,” Public Law 2007, Ch. 661, that became effective April 18, 2008 (the “Act”).  Among the purposes of the Act was to identify areas where permitting for wind power development would be streamlined.  To that end, the Task Force recommended, and the Legislature established, the “expedited permitting area.”
 
The expedited permitting area for wind energy development encompasses all of the organized areas of the State and parts of the unorganized and deorganized areas served by the Commission.  As directed in the Act, the Commission adopted the description and map of the expedited permitting area; both are contained in the Commission’s rules as Appendix F to Chapter 10, Land Use Districts and Standards.  The Act also granted the Commission authority, through rulemaking, to add places to the expedited permitting area.  (See 12 M.R.S. § 685-A(13) and 35-A M.R.S. § 3453, both enacted as part of the Act.)  To make such a change, the Commission must determine that the proposed addition to the expedited permitting area:
 
1. Geographic extension.  Involves a logical geographic extension of the currently designated expedited permitting area, . . . ; 2. Meets state goals.  Is important to meeting the state goals for wind energy development established in section 3404; and 3. Consistent with comprehensive land use plan.  Is consistent with the principal values and the goals in the comprehensive land use plan adopted by the [Commission] pursuant to Title 12, section 685-C.
 
35-A. M.R.S. § 3453.
 
Commission Review of NextEra’s Petition
 
The Legislature may draw and redraw the expedited permitting area as it deems appropriate.  The Commission does not have the same latitude.  The authority granted by the Legislature to the Commission to expand the expedited permitting area is limited.  One of the limits placed on the Commission’s ability to expand the expedited permitting area is that any Commission-approved expansion must involve a “logical geographic extension” of the existing expedited area.  For an expansion to be a geographic extension the expansion must be contiguous with and geographically connected with the existing expedited area.  In evaluating whether such a geographic extension is logical, the Commission is required to exercise its judgment and does so recognizing the
 
 
NextEra Petition DRAFT December 13, 2017  Page 3 of 5
 
Legislature’s intent in creating the expedited permitting area and granting the Commission limited authority to add to this area.
 
NextEra’s proposed Expansion Area is not a logical geographic extension of the currently designated expedited permitting area.  For example, in Skinner Township and T5 R6 BKP WKR the Expansion Area includes ridgelines wholly outside the existing expedited permitting area.  The Commission recognizes that ridgelines may be prime locations for wind power development and that ridgelines may run across township boundaries, including township boundaries that also serve to delineate the expedited permitting area.  Expansion of the expedited permitting area to capture the continuation of ridgelines across the existing expedited area boundary involves a logical geographic extension of the expedited permitting area; expansion of the expedited area to capture entirely new ridgelines does not.
 
The Expansion Area is located in Maine’s Boundary Mountains, an area that runs along the MaineQuebec border.  (Petition at 2.)  The potential value of this mountain region as a wind resource is well known.  (See, e.g., the Petition, Attachment 2, Wind Resource Mapping, and similar maps in the Task Force report such as Attachment D, Maine Wind Resources Map.)  Many ridgelines are within the Boundary Mountains.  Some of these ridgelines are within the expedited permitting area; many are not.  A proposal to expand the expedited permitting area to include all the Boundary Mountains would not be a logical geographic extension even though the mountains can be fairly described as geographically connected as a result of being part of the same mountain range or region.  Such an expansion would be broad in scope and beyond the scale the Legislature intended the Commission to make when it limited Commission additions to those involving a logical geographic extension.
 
The example in the paragraph above illustrates that the geographic scope of an area proposed to be added to the expedited permitting area matters when evaluating whether the proposed addition is a logical geographic extension.  In mountainous regions where wind power projects are sited along ridgelines, extensions of the expedited area to include all of a ridgeline currently bisected by the expedited area boundary are logical geographic extensions.  Expansions that add new ridgelines located entirely outside the existing expedited permitting area are not logical geographic extensions under Section 3453.  While NextEra does not propose an expansion that includes all the Boundary Mountains, the scope of the Expansion Area – specifically the addition of entirely new ridgelines – exceeds what the Commission may add to the expedited permitting area under Section 3453.
 
The Commission recognizes that NextEra interprets the logical geographic extension requirement in Section 3453 differently and generally as imposing less of a limit on the Commission’s ability to expand the expedited permitting area.  For example, NextEra claims expansion of the expedited area to include all of a particular bedrock formation or massif is a logical geographic extension.  (Petition at 5.)  When looking at the development of wind power in mountain regions, however, the Commission considers location and existence of ridgelines to be the important geologic and geographic characteristic.  The exact type of underlying bedrock, or the manner or historical timing of the geological development of a ridgeline or mountain range is not material to the siting of wind power development or to whether expansion of the expedited area is a logical geographic extension.
 
 
 
NextEra Petition DRAFT December 13, 2017  Page 4 of 5
 
The Petition also includes, as Attachment 2, a wind resource map for the region.1  The map shows that across the Boundary Mountains there are many areas highly rated for their wind resource potential.  These include areas developed with the Kibby Wind project.  NextEra states the proposed Expansion Area represents a logical geographic extension because the expansion captures highvalue wind areas (Petition at 6) and because the proposed turbines would follow the same northeastsouthwest orientation as the Kibby Wind project and would be located on nearby mountain ridges (Petition at 5).
 
The Commission anticipates that proposed expansions of the expedited area would capture highvalue wind areas; capturing these areas to facilitate the development of wind power projects typically would be the driving purpose of an expansion.  If a desirable wind resource were all that were needed to qualify an expansion as a logical geographic extension, the geographic extension limitation contained in Section 3453 would have little practical effect.  The Commission does not find such an interpretation reasonable.
 
Additionally, the Commission does not find the existence of the Kibby Wind project and the fact that the proposed Project would have a similar orientation evidence that the proposed Expansion Area is a logical geographic extension.  The area encompassing the Kibby project was rezoned by the Commission to a Planned Development (D-PD) subdistrict for the sole purpose of developing the project.  This rezoning occurred prior to the creation of the expedited area.  The expedited area was specifically drawn to include the Kibby project, as evidenced by the small inclusion within Skinner Township that mirrors the D-PD subdistrict.  Notably, the expedited area was not extended farther into this township.2  This decision was made by the Legislature after considering the report of the Governor’s Task Force on Wind Power Development, which included identification of the Boundary Mountain region as containing valuable wind resources.  The existence of one project in the expedited permitting area, such as Kibby, does not automatically mean expansion of this area into the surrounding ridgelines or region would be a logical geographic extension.  Such expansions would be broader in scope than intended by the existing statutory language and could facilitate a leapfrogging of projects.  While there may be valid public policy reasons for incentivizing the clustering of wind power projects, including through the expansion of the expedited area around projects as they are developed, expansion to facilitate regional clustering is not a policy objective promoted by the existing statutory criteria in Section 3453 that the Commission must apply.  Some clustering may occur in conjunction with extensions that fully capture currently bifurcated ridgelines; however, this clustering would occur largely within the existing expedited permitting area.
 
In sum, the Commission concluded the proposed expansion is not a logical geographic extension of the current expedited permitting area and decided to deny the Petition and not to initiate the                                                  1 The Commission notes the proposed project boundary shown on the wind resource map differs from the proposed project boundary shown on the maps in Exhibits A and B.  Additionally, the textual description of the Project location and the Moose Wind and Alder Stream Wind sections (Petition at 3) contains no mention of the Project including turbines in the northeast corner of Chain of Ponds Township.  This textual description is similar to what is depicted on the wind resource map, but different from the proposed project boundary in Exhibits A and B.  These differences or inconsistencies are not material to the Commission’s conclusion. 2 NextEra states that if its Project had been proposed at the time the Legislature originally drew the expedited permitting area it is reasonable to assume the Project area would have been included in the expedited area.  (Petition at 5.)  What political outcome might have been achieved under a different set of facts is not material to the Commission’s consideration of the Petition under Section 3453.
 
 
NextEra Petition DRAFT December 13, 2017  Page 5 of 5
 
rulemaking process.   The Commission recognizes if it initiated rulemaking, which would include receipt of public comments and most likely involve a public hearing, it could complete that process and still reach the same conclusion.  Going through the rulemaking process, however, to consider a rulemaking proposal that is statutorily deficient would not be an efficient allocation of Commission resources, especially given competing priorities,3 and would unnecessarily burden interested members of the public.
 
Alternatives
 
While the proposed expansion of the expedited permitting area does not satisfy Section 3453, there are other options NextEra may pursue to facilitate development of the Project.  NextEra could seek to rezone the portions of the project area outside the expedited permitting area to a Planned Development (D-PD) subdistrict.  As noted above, the Kibby Wind project is located in a D-PD subdistrict.  Another option would be to pursue changes to the expedited permitting area through legislation that would add the four townships in which the Project is proposed.

Comment by Frank Haggerty on December 7, 2017 at 11:21am

Massachusetts had plans to install 1500 commercial wind turbines equal to 2000 megawatts of commercial wind turbines by the year 2020. 

Falmouth, Massachusetts is ground zero for poorly placed wind turbines in the United States. The Massachusetts Superior Courts have shut down the Falmouth town-owned wind turbines. There are 21 other communities in which litigation has stopped the installation of commercial wind turbines in Massachusetts at around 80 commercial wind turbines - The program was a health and property taking fiasco.

Now Massachusetts through the Massachusetts Clean Energy Center wants to use the state of Maine to achieve their agenda that ignores the health and property rights of everyone. 

Time to stop the insanity!

 

Comment by Dan McKay on December 7, 2017 at 11:11am

Details and documents of support from Atwood-Pierce and former PUC Commissioner Welch:

ATTACHMENT 5

http://www.maine.gov/dacf/lupc/projects/moose_alder_stream/NextEraP...

Comment by Dan McKay on December 7, 2017 at 10:51am

Moose Wind – approximately 71 turbines in the area north of Route 27 in Skinner, Kibby, and T5 R6 BKP WKR townships; and
 
• Alder Stream Wind – approximately 62 turbines in the area south of Route 27 in Chain of Ponds, Seven Ponds, and Alder Stream townships. (Petition at 3.)

B. Option 1: Deny Petition Because it Does Not Involve a Logical Geographic Extension of the Existing Expedited Permitting Area
 
As noted above, what constitutes a “logical geographic extension” is something the Commission has previously considered in preparing the Guidelines and reviewing the prior expansion petitions.  Also as noted, neither the Guidelines nor prior actions legally bind the Commission today, but if the analytical framework developed and applied then is applied to the Petition, it appears the proposed Expansion Area is too broad in scope to be a logical geographic extension.  Staff offer this assessment and the following discussion not as an endorsement of the Commission’s historical interpretation and application of Section 3453, but rather to aid the Commission in its review of the Petition should the Commission continue to apply Section 3453 as it has in the past. 
 
NextEra’s proposed Expansion Area, is larger – approximately 24,777 acres – than either expansion previously considered by the Commission.  NextEra calculates that this expansion would accommodate 47 percent of the Project, with a majority of the proposed project area – 53 percent – located in the existing permitting area.  This calculation appears dependent on narrowly tailoring the Expansion Area in Skinner Township and T5 R6 BKP WKR to include only proposed turbine strings and generator lead lines, while more broadly drawing the proposed project area within the existing expedited permitting area, particularly Alder Stream Township.  The project area calculations in the Petition also do not address where turbines will be located.
 
Putting aside whether the balance of the proposed Project would be within the existing expedited permitting area or within the Expanded Area, the proposed expansion would capture new ridgelines currently located outside the expedited area.  This would be the case, for example, with the proposed expansion in Skinner Township and T5 R6 BKP WKR.  The Commission has recognized that ridgelines may be prime locations for wind power development and that ridgelines may run across township boundaries, including township boundaries that also serve to delineate the expedited permitting area.  Expansion of the expedited permitting area to capture the continuation of ridgelines across the existing expedited area boundary has been found to involve a logical geographic extension of the expedited permitting area.  While no expansion has been denied by the Commission because it includes entirely new ridgelines (action has only been taken on a single petition) , such an expansion appears inconsistent with the Commission’s consideration and application of the “logical geographic extension” requirement to date.
 
Should the Commission conclude the proposed Expansion Area is not a logical geographic extension, staff have prepared a draft letter denying the Petition and explaining the basis for such a denial.  This draft letter is included as Attachment 4.  If the Commission decides not to initiate rulemaking for reasons other than those articulated in the letter, staff will revise the letter accordingly.
 
This draft letter also may be helpful to the Commission when considering how to interpret and apply Section 3453.  The letter reflects staff’s application of the logical geographic extension requirement as traditionally interpreted by the Commission.  If the Commission does not find the reasoning in the letter compelling, it may decide to reevaluate its legal authority to expand the expedited permitting area under Section 3453.

 
C. Option 2:  Initiate Rulemaking
 
If the Commission concludes the Petition involves a logical geographic extension of the expedited permitting area, the Commission should initiate rulemaking.  The next step would be for NextEra to submit a proposed rule revision (e.g., draft language identifying the proposed Expansion Area that would be inserted into Chapter 10, if adopted) and any other information needed by the Commission to allow meaningful review of the amendment request.  Commission review would involve consideration of all three standards contained in Section 3453, not just the logical geographic extension requirement focused on in this memo.     
As part of the rulemaking process, the Commission would provide an opportunity for public comment, which likely would include a public hearing.  The Commission may elect to hold a public hearing and would be obligated, under the Administrative Procedures Act, to hold one if requested by five or more interested persons.  Staff anticipate at least five individuals would request a hearing if the Commission did not opt to hold one on its own accord.
 
If the Commission votes to initiate rulemaking, staff recommend that the Commission also direct staff to coordinate with NextEra to identify any additional information needed by the Commission as part of its review.  This coordination would be similar to how staff worked with petitioners who sought substantive review of petitions to remove places from the expedited permitting area.  With complete information in hand, the Commission could schedule a public hearing, if one is to be held, or move forward with review.
 
Finally, while scheduling a public hearing would be premature at this juncture, if the Commission votes to initiate rulemaking and knows it intends to hold a public hearing, the Commission could vote at the December meeting to hold a hearing, designate the presiding officer (typically the Commission Chair), and leave subsequent scheduling of the hearing to the presiding officer.

 

Maine as Third World Country:

CMP Transmission Rate Skyrockets 19.6% Due to Wind Power

 

Click here to read how the Maine ratepayer has been sold down the river by the Angus King cabal.

Maine Center For Public Interest Reporting – Three Part Series: A CRITICAL LOOK AT MAINE’S WIND ACT

******** IF LINKS BELOW DON'T WORK, GOOGLE THEM*********

(excerpts) From Part 1 – On Maine’s Wind Law “Once the committee passed the wind energy bill on to the full House and Senate, lawmakers there didn’t even debate it. They passed it unanimously and with no discussion. House Majority Leader Hannah Pingree, a Democrat from North Haven, says legislators probably didn’t know how many turbines would be constructed in Maine if the law’s goals were met." . – Maine Center for Public Interest Reporting, August 2010 https://www.pinetreewatchdog.org/wind-power-bandwagon-hits-bumps-in-the-road-3/From Part 2 – On Wind and Oil Yet using wind energy doesn’t lower dependence on imported foreign oil. That’s because the majority of imported oil in Maine is used for heating and transportation. And switching our dependence from foreign oil to Maine-produced electricity isn’t likely to happen very soon, says Bartlett. “Right now, people can’t switch to electric cars and heating – if they did, we’d be in trouble.” So was one of the fundamental premises of the task force false, or at least misleading?" https://www.pinetreewatchdog.org/wind-swept-task-force-set-the-rules/From Part 3 – On Wind-Required New Transmission Lines Finally, the building of enormous, high-voltage transmission lines that the regional electricity system operator says are required to move substantial amounts of wind power to markets south of Maine was never even discussed by the task force – an omission that Mills said will come to haunt the state.“If you try to put 2,500 or 3,000 megawatts in northern or eastern Maine – oh, my god, try to build the transmission!” said Mills. “It’s not just the towers, it’s the lines – that’s when I begin to think that the goal is a little farfetched.” https://www.pinetreewatchdog.org/flaws-in-bill-like-skating-with-dull-skates/

Not yet a member?

Sign up today and lend your voice and presence to the steadily rising tide that will soon sweep the scourge of useless and wretched turbines from our beloved Maine countryside. For many of us, our little pieces of paradise have been hard won. Did the carpetbaggers think they could simply steal them from us?

We have the facts on our side. We have the truth on our side. All we need now is YOU.

“First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.”

 -- Mahatma Gandhi

"It's not whether you get knocked down: it's whether you get up."
Vince Lombardi 

Task Force membership is free. Please sign up today!

Hannah Pingree on the Maine expedited wind law

Hannah Pingree - Director of Maine's Office of Innovation and the Future

"Once the committee passed the wind energy bill on to the full House and Senate, lawmakers there didn’t even debate it. They passed it unanimously and with no discussion. House Majority Leader Hannah Pingree, a Democrat from North Haven, says legislators probably didn’t know how many turbines would be constructed in Maine."

https://pinetreewatch.org/wind-power-bandwagon-hits-bumps-in-the-road-3/

© 2024   Created by Webmaster.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service