[ exact phrase in "" • results by date ]

[ Google-powered • results by relevance ]


Subscribe to RSS feed

Add NWW headlines to your site (click here)

Sign up for daily updates

Keep Wind Watch online and independent!

Donate $10

Donate $5

Selected Documents

All Documents

Research Links


Press Releases


Publications & Products

Photos & Graphics


Allied Groups

News Watch Home

Maine lawmakers poised to diminish agency power to interpret rules  

Credit:  By Steve Mistler, Staff Writer, Sun Journal, www.sunjournal.com 10 February 2012 ~~

AUGUSTA – Lawmakers will soon decide whether judges should give less weight to decisions made by state agencies.

Current Maine law requires justices to give strong deference to departmental rulings on matters such as development permits or enforcement of insurance laws. But that could change if lawmakers approve LD 1546, a bill quietly moving forward that would require judges to review regulatory rulings without historical precedent in the event of an appeal.

Supporters of the bill, including the LePage administration, argue it guards against institutional bias at agencies where departmental culture can lead to rulings that contradict the Legislature’s initial reason for the regulation.

Dan Billings, Gov. Paul LePage’s chief legal counsel, said the proposal also would give those people appealing agency decisions a better chance at a fair ruling. Right now, he said, someone who challenges a departmental ruling is compelled to work with the agency because the state’s deference law gives them little chance of winning in court.

“We think it brings the law more to the center and would give agencies an incentive to be a little more reasonable,” Billings said.

Opponents, meanwhile, say the bill could lead to more lawsuits that could ultimately halt projects such as wind farms and other developments. The bill was originally included as a provision of the Legislature’s regulatory reform package, LD 1, approved last year.

However, according to Sen. Seth Goodall, D-Richmond, the provision was jettisoned by lawmakers after business owners worried it would further slow development by allowing opponents to hold up projects in court.

Goodall said agencies that deal in land-use permitting green-light 98 percent of applications.

“With this bill, you could have developments that are on the verge of putting a shovel in the ground suddenly have to stop because of a lawsuit,” he said. “Decreasing agency deference could delay projects and increase costs. That’s just something we can’t afford when the state is trying to encourage economic development.”

The state’s attorney general also has expressed concerns about the bill. Linda Pistner, testifying on behalf of the attorney general last month, said it could lead to inconsistent interpretation of regulations because judges review appeals on a case-by-case basis. Pistner, in a May 2011 letter to the Legislature’s Judicial Committee, also warned that it could significantly increase costs to the Attorney General’s Office, which is responsible for defending agency decisions in court.

The attorney general originally expressed concerns that the bill would create problems with the separation of powers provision in the Constitution. He has backed off that position since lawmakers on Thursday approved a language change.

The bill, sponsored by Sen. Debra Plowman, R-Hampden, emerged from committee with a 7-5 vote along party lines.

Goodall said the proposal could stifle job development, a concern echoed by the Maine Renewable Energy Association. Dan Riley, representing MREA, testified that the proposal would prompt wind power opponents to pursue litigation and “prolong the already lengthy regulatory permitting process that the industry deals with on a regular basis.”

Goodall echoed the attorney general’s recommendation: If state agencies are not enforcing rules based on legislative intent, then the Legislature should deal with it.

“If there are problems with regulations, they should be addressed by the Legislature either through rule-making or changes to the regulations,” Goodall said.

Pistner pointed to court cases showing that judges often gave agency deference on ruling because the agency had the expertise in administering the regulation.

Pistner, in her testimony last year, said if courts were precluded from giving deference to an agency’s decisions or interpretations of statutes and rules, then the regulated would have “no incentive to be guided by an agency’s interpretation.”

“That, in turn, would give the regulated community every incentive to appeal all agency decisions and to litigate numerous issues, large and small,” she wrote, adding that the bill would “promote a substantial amount of litigation.”

Billings countered that the courts would still give deference to an agency’s statements of fact. It was its interpretation of rules that could be challenged, he said.

Billings said the change reflected Gov. Paul LePage’s philosophy, even if it could result in diminishing his administration’s power. The governor has political appointees to all state agencies. The appointees can can change the culture and goals of an agency.

“This bill gives (LePage’s) appointees less power than they have today,” Billings said.

An analysis provided by the Attorney General’s Office shows that Maine is one of 15 states with laws giving strong agency deference. Billings said LD 1546 would give Maine intermediate agency deference.

The Judiciary Committee vote means the bill will get kicked to the Senate for a floor vote later this month.

Source:  By Steve Mistler, Staff Writer, Sun Journal, www.sunjournal.com 10 February 2012

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 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 Funding
Donate $5 PayPal Donate


News Watch Home

Get the Facts Follow Wind Watch on Twitter

Wind Watch on Facebook


© National Wind Watch, Inc.
Use of copyrighted material adheres to Fair Use.
"Wind Watch" is a registered trademark.


Wind Watch on Facebook

Follow Wind Watch on Twitter

National Wind Watch