STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
SITE EVALUATION COMMITTEE Docket No. 2013-02
Application of Atlantic Wind, LLC for a Certificate of Site and Facility for the Wild Meadows
Wind Project
PARTIALLY ASSENTED-TO MOTION
OF SOCIETY FOR THE PROTECTION OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
FORESTS TO SUSPEND
DELIBERATIONS
AND TIME FRAME PURSUANT
TO RSA 162-H:6-A, IX
The
Society for the Protection of New Hampshire
Forests (the Forest Society), by and through
its attorneys, BCM Environmental & Land Law, PLLC, moves for suspension
of further proceedings with respect
to the New Hampshire Site Evaluation Committee's
consideration of
the
Application for Site and Facility
("Application") of Atlantic
Wind, LLC, until after completion of the Senate Bill 99 process
and that, upon resumption of its
deliberations, the subcommittee apply the resultant
administrative rules to the Application, as follows:
1. On December
12, 2013, Atlantic
Wind, LLC, filed an Application with the New Hampshire Site Evaluation Committee (SEC) for a Certificate of Site and Facility ("Certificate") to build an energy facility,
known as the Wild Meadows
Wind Project, in the Towns of Danbury and Alexandria, New Hampshire.
2. The central
part of Atlantic Wind's proposal is the construction of 23 wind turbines on ridges in Danbury and Alexandria; each turbine would be approximately 492 feet in
height.
3. All or most of the wind turbines are expected to be visible
from Newfound Lake and Cardigan
State Park, among other places of at least statewide
importance.
4. In addition
to the 23 turbines, according to the Application, the Wild Meadows Wind Project
would also include the construction of access roads, turbine foundations, crane pads, electrical collection systems, a maintenance building, a permanent meteorological tower, a connector
road, an overhead
collector line, an interconnection substation, utility poles, approximately two miles of overhead lines, and a voltage step-up
substation. See Application at
V.
5. Pursuant to RSA 162-H:6-a, IX, the subcommittee is authorized to "temporarily suspend its deliberations and enlarge the time frame ... to issue or deny a certificate."
6. The subcommittee may exercise this authority "at
any time" if it deems
a suspension "to
be in the public interest." RSA 162-H:6-a, IX.
7.
The subcommittee's suspension of its consideration of the Wild Meadows Wild
Project would be in the public interest
for the following reasons.
8. Senate Bill 99 (SB 99), enacted
in 2013, acknowledges that the siting process as set out currently in RSA 162-H is inadequate to its statutory
task of balancing the energy needs and environmental quality
of New Hampshire, and so does not best serve the public interest.
(SB
99 attached as Attachment A.)
9.
For this reason, through
SB 99, the legislature tasked
the Office of Energy and
Planning (OEP) with commissioning a comprehensive study of the SEC.
10. One of the primary
purposes of the OEP's
study is "to better ensure that the review
of energy facility
applications serves the public good." SB 99.
11. Significantly, SB 99 requires
that the SEC adopt administrative rules no later than
January 1, 2015 that include "specific criteria
to be applied in determining if the requirements of
RSA
162-H:16, IV(b) and (c) have been met by the applicant
for a certificate of site and facility." See RSA 162-H:lO,
VII (codifying SB 99).
12. RSA 162-H:16,
IV(b) concerns the "orderly development of the region" and is the section of RSA 162-H:16 that requires the SEC
to give "due consideration" to the views of the town governing
bodies, among others.
13. RSA 162-H:16,
IV(c) contains many of the critical findings
that the SEC must find in order to issue a Certificate.
14. Currently, neither
RSA 162-H nor the SEC's administrative rules provide any guidance whatsoever with respect to the findings
required by RSA 162-H:16, IV(b) or (c).
15. The adoption,
by January 1, 2015, of rules containing
specific criteria to make these
critical determinations will help ensure that a decision on whether to issue a Certificate to Atlantic Wind is made in the public good.
16. Therefore, suspending consideration of the Wild Meadows
Wind Project until after the
SB 99 process is complete
would be in the public interest because
it would ensure that the specific criteria to implement
RSA 162-H guide the determinations of whether Atlantic
Wind has met the statutory
requirements.
17. Further, employment
of specific criteria
will greatly increase
judicial economy, not only for the benefit of the
SEC itself, but also for the public,
Atlantic Wind, and future applicants.
18. The specific
criteria required by SB 99 and RSA 162-H:lO, VII will serve to define
the contours of the requirements that applicants must satisfy, and will narrow the issues, resulting in a more efficient, streamlined process overall, including
with respect to public participation and the demands
of the hearing.
19. The legislature's concern for public input in the process of siting energy facilities is evident in the manner by which it required OEP to study the SEC process.
20. Finally, specific
criteria will also yield
predictability to Atlantic Wind and other applicants, as they will know what they must do to satisfy the rigorous, yet not well defined, requirements of RSA 162-H:16. See SB 99 (citing "clarity to potential energy
project developers" as one of its primary purposes).
21. The purposes
of RSA 162-H itself also strongly support
the conclusion that suspension is in the public interest.
22. In enacting
RSA 162-H, "the
legislature [found] that it is in the public interest
to maintain a balance between the environment and the need for new energy facilities in New Hampshire."
RSA 162-H:1.
23. This professed need for new energy facilities in New Hampshire
is underscored by the statute's conclusion that all of the legislature's findings are for the purpose "to
assure that the state has
an adequate and reliable supply of energy in conformance with sound environmental principles." RSA 162-H:1 (emphasis added).
24. Thus, the central purpose of the statute is to assure that energy facilities are sited in New Hampshire, so that New Hampshire has enough energy, and in such a way that New
Hampshire's environment is protected.
25. On information and belief, the energy generated
by the Wild Meadows Wind
Project will not be used in New Hampshire.
26. Iberdrola has signed a fifteen-year contract
under which all of the energy generated by the Wild Meadows Wind Project will be sold to Massachusetts utilities, and all or
most will be used to satisfy
the requirements of the Renewable
Portfolio Standard (RPS)
in
Massachusetts, not New Hampshire.
27. At the same time that New Hampshire will not consume the Wild Meadows energy, New Hampshire will bear all of the environmental, economic,
and other impacts
of the Wild Meadows Wind Project, primarily in Danbury, Alexandria, and the Newfound
Lake Region.
28. This does not strike the balance contemplated in the purposes of RSA 162-H.
29. In light of this striking
imbalance, as well as the currently absent,
but
forthcoming, specific criteria regarding the statutory findings
most critical to the public, it would be in the public interest for the subcommittee to temporarily suspend
its deliberations and
enlarge the time frame to issue or deny a Certificate for the Wild Meadows Wind Project until after the SB 99 process is complete.
30. Pursuant to Site 202.14,
counsel for Atlantic
Wind, LLC does not assent to this Motion, Counsel for the Public has not responded
to a request for assent to this Motion, and Counsel for Wild Meadows Legal Fund assents to this Motion.
WHEREFORE, for the foregoing
reasons Society for the Protection of New Hampshire
Forests respectfully requests:
A. Suspension of deliberations and time frame pursuant
to RSA 162-H:6-a, IX until after the conclusion of the
SB 99 process;
B. Upon resumption of deliberations, application of the administrative rules resulting from the SB 99 process; and
B. Grant such further relief
as it deems appropriate.
Respectfully
Submitted,
SOCIETY FOR THE PROTECTION OF NEW HAMPSHIRE FORESTS
By its Attorneys,
BCM Environmental & Land Law, PLLC
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
docket.
No comments:
Post a Comment