LOCATION/TYPE

NEWS HOME

[ exact phrase in "" • results by date ]

[ Google-powered • results by relevance ]



Archive
RSS

Add NWW headlines to your site (click here)

WHAT TO DO
when your community is targeted

Get weekly updates
RSS

RSS feeds and more

Keep Wind Watch online and independent!

Donate via Stripe

Donate via Paypal

Selected Documents

All Documents

Research Links

Alerts

Press Releases

FAQs

Campaign Material

Photos & Graphics

Videos

Allied Groups

Wind Watch is a registered educational charity, founded in 2005.

News Watch Home

PSC comes up short on wind turbine details 

Thank you for Friday’s article on the PSC hearing in Garrett County on the Criterion Power Partners LLC industrial wind turbine project. (“Garrett countians sound off on plans for Clipper turbines,” March 7 Times-News, Page 1A)

I think it is important that the public be made aware of some additional and very important facts that I presented to the PSC and to the People’s Counsel at the hearing, issues that did not fully come out in your news article. These facts speak to the highly irregular procedure that the PSC and Criterion are using to affect, if not improperly influence, public comment in this matter.

Since Criterion’s filing with the PSC on Jan. 23, there have been at least three different versions of the application circulated by the PSC for public review. One was posted on the PSC website as a .PDF document that could be downloaded and read. That version contained absolutely no information or map showing the location of the project, even though the document states that it does so. Another version posted at the Ruth Enlow Library contains a topographic map of the Loch Lynn Heights area, but there are no turbine locations identified, again contrary to the statements in the application.

No document has ever been posted by the PSC showing the location of Criterion’s 28 industrial wind turbines.

The PSC’s own instructions for these applications state, “Every effort will be made to process and approve your application expeditiously. The Commission will not, however, consider incomplete applications. The single largest cause of delay in processing applications is due to incompleteness”. For some reason, the PSC is ignoring its own requirements and processing an application that any reasonable person would find incomplete.

What is most worrisome is that Criterion has submitted this application so as to be exempted from the usual rules of public and government scrutiny that come with the CPCN (Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity) process. This new “fast track” exemption provides an end run option to utilities that allows them, and the PSC, to avoid the responsibility for identifying and evaluating the harmful effects of an industrial wind turbine project. Further compounding the problem is the limited information and opportunity that fast tracking gives citizens, severely limiting our scrutiny of a potentially harmful industrial development. For the PSC to compound the problem and participate in denying public information is absolutely outrageous.

These serious irregularities were brought to the attention of the People’s Counsel, PSC Chairman Larsen, and PSC Executive Secretary Romine’s attention, long before the hearing was held. There has been absolutely no response from these people – complete and absolute silence on the matter. Knowing that Criterion’s incomplete application raises serious questions as to what exactly they are planning to do, I personally requested Chairman Larsen and the People’s Counsel to move to intervene and reject Criterion’s application, require them to reapply with complete documentation, and to reschedule the hearing. That never occurred.

The PSC’s silence and lack of response is even more troubling than the project itself, especially when citizens are denied their fundamental right to be fully informed.

Paul Durham
Oakland

Cumberland Times-News

11 March 2008

This article is the work of the source indicated. Any opinions expressed in it are not necessarily those of National Wind Watch.

The copyright of this article resides with the author or publisher indicated. As part of its noncommercial educational effort to present the environmental, social, scientific, and economic issues of large-scale wind power development to a global audience seeking such information, National Wind Watch endeavors to observe “fair use” as provided for in section 107 of U.S. Copyright Law and similar “fair dealing” provisions of the copyright laws of other nations. Send requests to excerpt, general inquiries, and comments via e-mail.

Wind Watch relies entirely
on User Contributions
   Donate via Stripe
(via Stripe)
Donate via Paypal
(via Paypal)

Share:

e-mail X FB LI M TG TS G Share


News Watch Home

Get the Facts
CONTACT DONATE PRIVACY ABOUT SEARCH
© National Wind Watch, Inc.
Use of copyrighted material adheres to Fair Use.
"Wind Watch" is a registered trademark.

 Follow:

Wind Watch on X Wind Watch on Facebook Wind Watch on Linked In

Wind Watch on Mastodon Wind Watch on Truth Social

Wind Watch on Gab Wind Watch on Bluesky