STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
SITE
EVALUATION
COMMITTEE
Docket No. 2013-02
Re: Application of
Atlantic Wind, LLC for a Certificate of Site and Facility for a Renewable Energy Facility Proposed to be Located
in Danbury, Merrimack
County and Alexandria,
Grafton County,
New
Hampshire
January 13, 2014
ORDER
DETERMINING APPLICATION
TO BE INCOMPLETE I. Procedural
Background
On December 12, 2013, Atlantic Wind,
LLC, a subsidiary of Iberdrola Renewables, LLC (Applicant)
filed an application seeking a certificate of site and facility for the siting, construction,
and operation of
a 75.9 MW wind energy facility (Application)
to be located
in the towns of Alexandria (Grafton County) and
Danbury (Merrimack County).
The facility as proposed
(Facility) consists of 23 turbines
with a nameplate capacity of
3.3 megawatts each. The Facility includes 13 turbines
oriented generally in a southwest to northeast direction
along
Tinkham Hill and Braley Hill
in Danbury. Two
turbines would be located on the
area known as
the Pinnacle in Danbury.
Eight turbines would
be located on Forbes Mountain and
Pine
Hill in Alexandria. A connector
road is proposed to be
constructed
between Tinkham
Hill and Forbes
Mountain. The Facility would
also contain overhead collector lines
and an operations
and maintenance building
in Danbury and a substation
in Alexandria.
The
proposed facility appears
to be bounded by Washburn Road in Alexandria to
the north, Carr Mill Road in Alexandria to
the east, Ragged Mountain
Highway in
Alexandria and Danbury to
the south and Wild Meadows
Road
in Danbury to the south and the west.
Upon receipt of
the Application
the Committee retained counsel. Counsel to
the Committee provided
notification of
the filing to the relevant state agencies,
municipalities and regional planning commissions and requested
that each agency conduct
a preliminary review as described in RSA
162-H: 6-a, I and RSA
162:7, IV. The agencies
were asked
to advise in writing whether the Application
contained sufficient
information for each
agency to review and consider the
issuance of permits, conditions
or licenses under the jurisdiction of
each agency. Between January 7
and 10, 2014, counsel to the
Committee received substantive responses
from six state agencies.
Counsel’s letters to state agencies and
state agency responses
are available to the
public at the office of the Department
of Environmental Services
and on the Committee’s
website.1
A. Department of Resources and Economic Development,
Division of Forests and Lands
The
Department of
Resources and
Economic Development, Division of Forests and
Lands, advised counsel
by email,
that the Application contains sufficient
information
for
the Natural Heritage Bureau to
conduct its data checks
for
the existence of rare and endangered species within the project area.
B. Department of Transportation
The
Department of
Transportation
responded by email and
by
letter. The Department of Transportation
noted that driveway permits
for
the Facility would not be required as
the ingress and
egress points appear to
be located on town roads. Likewise, the
Department
of Transportation advised
the
Committee that the
plans accompanying the Application suggest that the
lay down yard and other construction areas will occur within the project
boundaries and did
not require permission to use state lands.
The Department of
Transportation
noted that once construction
has begun the project
will require more than
180 oversize/overweight deliveries, each
of which will require a permit
from the Department of
Transportation. However, those permits are normally applied for by the shipping
contractor once selected. The
Department of Transportation
also advised the
Committee that if the Application
were granted the
Applicant would be required to cooperate with the
District Maintenance Office to
arrange for the removal
of signage during transport of some of the turbine components. Finally, the Department of Transportation
advised the Committee that if the Facility requires
new transmission poles within the state’s right-of-way the Applicant
would be required to obtain a permit for upgraded transmission
poles within said right-of-way.
C. Department of Safety
The
Department of
Safety responded to counsel’s request
on January 8, 2014.
The Department of Safety clarified
its regulatory authority regarding blasting activities, noting that the agency does
not issue blasting permits but does regulate the sale,
storage, handling,
transportation,
inspection, administration and
use of explosives and
certifies competency of those
engaged
in blasting activities. The
Department of Safety did
not find the need
for
clarification
to be a basis to find the
Application to be incomplete.
D. Department of Cultural
Resources, Division of Historical Resources
The
Department of
Cultural Resources,
Division of Historical
Resources, responded
to the notification. The Historical Resources
Division advised the
Committee that its authority
stems from RSA 162-H, RSA
227-C: 9 and Section
106 of the National Historic Preservation Act.
The Historical Resources
Division advised the Committee that the
Application does not
contain
sufficient information
for
the division to consider a finding of the Facility’s effect
on historical resources under state or federal law.
The
division reports that
the Application fails to contain
the appropriate archaeological
site inventory forms. In addition,
the Historical Resources Division noted that the phase 1 archaeological survey contained within, appendix 37
of the Application contains sensitive information and
failed to be
prefaced
with a required statement
of confidentiality. The failure to
maintain the confidentiality of the location
of archaeological
sites can result in vandalism
and ransacking of sites.
E. Department of Environmental
Services, Water Division
The
Water Division of the Department
of Environmental
Services has
jurisdiction to issue or deny three permits:
an alteration of terrain permit,
a wetlands permit and
a 401 Water Quality Certification under Section 404 of the federal
Clean
Water Act. The Water Division has advised the
Committee that the
application contains sufficient
information for the consideration
of the alteration
of terrain permit
and to begin review of the request
for
a Section 401 Water
Quality Certification. However,
the Water Division
advises the Committee that
it has deemed the wetlands
permit application to be
incomplete.
Specifically, the
compensatory mitigation proposal contained
within the wetlands permit
application failed
to identify a qualified easement holder
for
the proposed conservation easement
on the 223 acre parcel known as the “Patten
Brook
parcel.” The Application identifies
the Department
of Resources and
Economic Development as
the easement
holder. However,
the Department
of Resources
and
Economic Development
has
declined the opportunity to hold the conservation easement. Therefore,
the wetlands application
is incomplete due to the
failure to provide appropriate compensatory mitigation.
F. Department of Safety, Office of the Fire Marshal
The
Department of
Safety, Office of the Fire Marshal responded to counsel’s letter on
January 8, 2014. The Fire Marshal
asserts that
the Application is incomplete because Section
D1 of the Application fails to
identify the Fire Marshal
as having authority to regulate any aspect
of construction. The Fire Marshal points out that the Application also
fails to identify the Fire
Marshal as having
authority to enforce the International
Building Code 2009,
NFPA
1 and NFPA
101 which are the minimum
building, fire and life safety codes in the
State of New
Hampshire. The
Fire Marshal
asserts that
neither Alexandria nor Danbury provides a code enforcement
mechanism as referenced in
RSA 674:51 and therefore notification
must be provided to the Fire
Marshal of the construction type prior to commencement
of construction.
In addition the Fire
Marshal asserts
that his office is responsible for enforcement of
all laws relative to
the protection of life and property from fire hazards and
related matters. In this context
he requests the Committee to
adopt a series of building and
fire safety conditions as part of any certificate of site
and facility.
II. Analysis and Consideration of State Agency
Determinations that the Application is
Incomplete
A. Division of Historical
Resources
The
Division of Historical
Resources has informed
the Committee that
the Application fails to provide
sufficient information
for
the Division to consider the effect
of the proposed project on historical resources under federal and state laws. The
Application does not include archeological site
inventory forms. In
addition the Division of Historical Resources
indicates that the
Application as filed discloses
sensitive archeological
data that should remain confidential.
As a result the Application reveals information to the public that could
jeopardize the integrity of
potential archeological sites
while failing to provide the Division with appropriate information
to evaluate the relevant
sites.
Review
by
the Division of Historical Resources
is typically an
iterative and consultative
process. In
prior cases this process has
often extended beyond the
granting of a certificate of site and
facility. However, in those cases
the ongoing consultation
involved above-ground historical resources.
Here,
the Division of Historical
Resources
considers the Application to be incomplete because it fails to provide necessary data regarding archeological sites.
While the effects
of a
new
facility on above-ground historical resources may not
be completely known until after construction is complete, the same cannot
be
said for archaeological
resources. Archaeological resources
are likely to
be encountered early in
the construction
phase of the project.
Therefore, the
concerns expressed
by the Division of Historical
Resources are sound and
do not contradict the position taken by the Division in previous cases.
The Application is deemed incomplete for
the reasons identified by the Division
of Historical Resources.
B. Water Division
The
Water Division of the Department
of Environmental
Services has
informed the Committee that the
wetlands permit application
is incomplete because it fails to provide a complete compensatory mitigation program. The
application proposes a conservation
easement
over a 223 acre parcel of land known as the “Patten Brook parcel.” The Application
identifies the Department of
Resources and Economic Development
as the easement
holder. However, the Water Division reports that the
Department of
Resources and
Economic Development
has since withdrawn its consent
to hold the easement
for the parcel and the
wetlands permit application, therefore, is incomplete. The Applicant has
filed a letter with the
Committee explaining that,
at
the
time of the filing of the Application, the Department
of Resources and Economic
Development had,
indeed, indicated its consent
to hold the easement.
The
Applicant was advised of the withdrawal
of that consent
on or about December 31, 2013. The Applicant’ s
letter highlights the
conservation values of the parcel and
suggests that a complete compensatory
mitigation plan, including
a substitute easement holder, can
be
achieved well
in advance of May
14, 2014.
The
timing of the withdrawal of
consent by the Department
of Resources and Economic
Development may account
for
the misstatement regarding the easement
holder. . Nevertheless,
the result is that the
wetlands permit application
is presently incomplete.
The Application
is deemed incomplete for the reason
identified
by
the Water Division.
C. Fire Marshal
The
Fire Marshal’s correspondence asserts
that the Application is incomplete because it fails
to identify the Fire Marshal
as an agency with jurisdiction over the regulation of
any aspect
of the Facility. The Fire Marshal identifies
the applicable minimum building, fire and life safety
codes
that would apply to
the construction and operation of the Facility and reports that
Fire
Marshal notification of
the type of construction is required.
While the Application
contains substantial information
concerning the construction
of the Facility, the Fire Marshal is correct that
Section
D-1 of the Application
fails to identify the Fire Marshal
and his authority to regulate
the Facility.
The Application is deemed incomplete for the reason
identified by the Fire Marshal.
D. Effect of a
State Agency Determination of Incompleteness
Pursuant to RSA
162-H:6-a, I and
RSA 162-H: 7, IV state agencies with authority to issue
permits, certificates and licenses are asked
to conduct a preliminary review
of the relevant
portions
of the Application to determine if the Application contains sufficient information
for
the purposes of the state agency. If the Application does
not contain sufficient information
for
review
by
any state agency the Applicant should be notified
seasonably in writing of the deficiencies. RSA
162-H: 7, IV and the
application deemed not to be “accepted.”
In
this docket seasonable notice of the state agency determinations
of incompleteness has
been provided to the Applicant. The
determinations made by the Water Division, the
Division of Historical Resources and the Fire Marshal were provided
via email to counsel
for
the Applicant on January 9,
2014 within two days
of
receipt by counsel.
The
Application cannot be accepted
due
to the preliminary determinations made by the Division of Historic Resources,
the Water Division
and the Fire Marshal.
The Application is deemed to be
incomplete for failure to
provide sufficient information
to satisfy the application requirements
of each
state agency with jurisdiction.
III. Independent Preliminary
Review by the Chair
In addition to state agency preliminary review
the Chair of the Committee or his
designee must also
review the Application
to determine if it contains sufficient
information to carry out
the
purposes of RSA 162-H. The
review by the Chairman or his
designee is independent
of the preliminary review
conducted
by
the state agencies. See, RSA
162-H: 6-a, II,
and
III; RSA 162- H: 7, II and III. By order dated
December 17,
2013, Chairman
Thomas Burack designated Vice- Chairman Amy
Ignatius
to serve as presiding officer in this proceeding and to conduct the preliminary review.
In this case the Application
is currently incomplete because it fails
to include information
required by three state agencies. Additionally, after an independent preliminary review,
the
Presiding Officer deems the Application
to be incomplete because it
does not contain sufficient
information to carry out the purposes of RSA 162-H
in an efficient
manner.
A. Independent Agreement with the Reasons
Expressed by
State Agencies
In reviewing the Application to determine
if it contains sufficient information to carry out
the purposes of RSA
162-H,
I deem the
application to be
incomplete for the reasons
expressed
in the correspondence from Department
of Environmental
Services, Water Division, the
Department
of Cultural Resources, Division of Historical
Resources and the
Fire Marshal.
RSA
162-H:
6-a, VIII requires the consideration of an application
for
a certificate of site
and facility to be commenced and concluded within 240 days of acceptance of an application.
This is to assure that “undue delay in the
construction of
needed facilities
be avoided” and that
the Committee makes
a “full and timely consideration of environmental consequences.” RSA 162-H:
1.
In order for the compressed time
frame to be effective it is necessary that the Committee be provided with complete information
and have timely cooperation
and input from state agencies. The
effect of the project on wetlands, archeological sites
and public safety are all
concerns of this process. See RSA
162-H: 16. Therefore I independently find
that the Application is incomplete due to
the failure to provide necessary archeological
data,
the failure to submit a complete compensatory mitigation
program as part of wetlands
consideration and
for
failure to address the
issues raised in
the Fire Marshal’s
correspondence.
In addition to the foregoing I independently find
that
the Application is incomplete for
the following reasons.
B. Outstanding
Raptor and Game Camera
Surveys/Studies
I
have independently determined
that the Application is incomplete because there are
ongoing raptor studies
and
game camera studies
which
have not yet
been
reported
and are not contained
within the Application. A portion of
the project area, Forbes Mountain, has
not been surveyed
and these ongoing surveys/studies
are
relevant to raptors and
other wildlife within the previously un-surveyed area. See Testimony, Adam Gravel, p. 1-2.
The
prefiled testimony of
Adam Gravel indicates that his testimony and the
Bird and Bat Risk
Assessment filed
with the Application are based in substantial
part on five field study reports
that have also been submitted along with the
Application (Fall 2009 Radar and
Acoustic Surveys [Stantec 2011a],
Spring 2010
Avian
Bat
Survey Report [Stantec 2011b], 2010 Spring and Fall
Raptor Migration
Surveys
[Stantec 2011c], 2011 Mist
Net Survey Report [Stantec 2012a], and
2011 Northern Long-eared Bat
Habitat Assessment
[Stantec 2012b]) and one
literature review (Northern Long-eared Bat Habitat
Requirements
– Literature Review
and Annotated Bibliography, Revised
2012 (Appendix 43). The
Bird and Bat Risk
Assessment is based
on a qualitative weight of the
evidence methodology.
See,
Appendix 40, p. E.1, 2; Testimony,
Adam Gravel, p. 10. Mr. Gravel asserts that
the selected
studies and the individual
methodology used in each
study
was the result
of a consultative effort
with the New Hampshire Fish and
Game Department
and the United States Fish
and Wildlife Service.
As a result of those consultative
efforts additional
studies (presumably the 2013
Raptor Study and game camera study) continued into 2013
and appear to
be ongoing. See Testimony,
Adam
Gravel, p. 6 (“Communication
with the agencies regarding
methodologies for additional
wildlife surveys
for
the Project has
continued into 2013.”) The
weight
of evidence approach used
by
Mr. Gravel
in analyzing each
study finds on-site surveys
to
have the overall
highest strength of association with
the measurement
endpoints
concerning collision
fatalities. See, App. 40, Table 3-2, 3-4, 3-6, 3-8.
On-site studies play an
important role underpinning
the conclusions in the Bird and Bat Risk Assessment and
in Mr. Gravel’s
opinions.
The
results of the ongoing 2013 raptor
and game camera studies would appear to be important and relevant to whether the Facility will
have an unreasonable adverse effect on the natural environment. See RSA 162-H:
16, IV (c). This finding is a core finding that is required
for
the Committee to serve the purpose of its enabling statute –
“to maintain a balance between the environment and
the need for new energy facilities
. . .” RSA 162-H: 1. Because the ongoing studies
may
impact the ultimate determination of
the effect on the natural
environment I find
the Application to be incomplete.
In the past the
Committee has accepted applications where studies
have been ongoing.
This has proved difficult, as
the late filed reports
cause delays
in the adjudicatory process. See Application
of Groton Wind, NHSEC 2010-01, Order on
Pending Motions
and Further
Procedural
Schedule Issued
December 14, 2010
(late consideration of
an alternative transmission route caused
additional discovery and delay in proceedings). The statute requires strict time frames and
deadlines. See, RSA
162-H: 6-a, and 7. Late filed reports
and studies frustrate the discovery process,
cause delays and
undermine the orderly process of
the proceeding and
ultimately, the
purpose of the statute.
The Application is incomplete until
the
2013 raptor study
and the game camera study are included. Upon completion of
the studies “the applicant
may choose to file a new
and
more complete application or
cure the defects
in the rejected application
within 10 days of receipt of
notification of rejection.” RSA
162-H: 7, VI.
C. Legal
Relationship
The
Application fails to clearly describe the legal
relationship between the Applicant
and the site or facility. NEW HAMPSHIRE CODE
OF ADMINISTRATIVE
RULES Site 301.03 (b)(6) requires an Application to include information
about “[w]hether the applicant is the owner or lessee of the
site or facility or has
some
legal or business
relationship to it.” Section B.6
of the Application states
that the Applicant will be
the owner and
operator of the Facility.
That
statement also
asserts
that the Applicant “has leases
with the owners of the land where the project
is proposed to be built.” However,
a review of the entire Application, including the site plans
filed
with the Application, brings
that statement
into question. The Overview Plan Sheet Layout, Sheet
C1.2 identifies an
area within
the “lease boundary line.” See General
Notes, Legend,
Site
and Road Design Criteria,
Sheet
No. 1.3. A large portion of
the overhead electric line proceeds outside the identified
lease boundary area. The Application
does not specify the legal
relationship of the Applicant to that portion
of the site and, if the plans
are
accurate,
that portion would not appear
to be leased by the Applicant.
The Application is thus deemed
incomplete for failure to
clearly
identify the legal relationship
of the Applicant to the parcels
implicated by the Facility. The Applicant
shall identify the legal
relationship of the Applicant and all
parcels
of land within the project site
whether that relationship
be as owner, lessee,
or by way of easement or
right of way. If a legal
relationship
is not established, the Applicant shall
include in the Application
a detailed
description
of the progress
toward obtaining a legal
relationship
with the property and all alternatives to the
configuration of the Facility as contained in the
Application.
D. Lack of Clarity regarding Location of Residences or
other Structures
Our administrative rules require certain
specific information
that we have deemed necessary to a
complete application.
See NEW HAMPSHIRE CODE OF ADMINISTRATIVE RULES Site
301.03. The rule requires an
applicant to provide: “The location of
residences, industrial buildings, and
other structures and
improvements within or
adjacent to the site.” NEW HAMPSHIRE CODE OF ADMINISTRATIVE RULES, Site 301.03
(c)
(3). Typically this
portion of the application requirement is satisfied
by
providing a list of
abutters identified either by street address or
tax map. The Application,
in Section
C.3 provides some information
in this regard but does so in a confusing manner. There is
no identification of the location of
residences or other structures,
but instead a generalized “contextual” description of the structures
in the overall area. Further, Section C3
references Figure 4. However, Figure 4
does
not identify the location of residences
or other structures
as required
by
the rule. While the generalized contextual description of structures in the
area is helpful, the
Committee requires
the identification and
locations of all structures within and
adjacent
to the project area. This is necessary for the Committee to
understand the effects
of the project on the
development of the region and
the environmental, health
and
safety impacts of
the project and adequately inform the
public regarding the potential impact
of the Facility. See RSA
162-H: 16. A list of abutters
and
a tax map from which
the abutter’s locations
can
be determined
is contained within the
Application as an
attachment to Appendix 1 as
part of the Standard Dredge and Fill
Permit
Application (Wetlands
Application). However,
this list is not cross referenced
from
within the Application causing
confusion.
In the future,
the abutter’s lists,
tax
maps and other relevant documents contained
within the state agency applications
or appendices
to the applications shall
be cross
referenced if they are relied
upon to support a portion of
an application.
While I do not find this a basis to find the
application incomplete,
the Applicant shall supplement
the Application within
10– days of receipt of
this order or with
any new filing.
IV. Motions Filed During the Pendency
of Completeness
Review.
During the pendency of completeness review the Committee has
received a variety of correspondence and
pleadings purporting to argue or litigate against
the completeness
of the Application or the process that
the Committee should
follow. The Committee received a letter dated January 6,
2014 from Lisa Linowes and
April
Frost Dugan asserting deficiencies in the application for a wetlands
permit rendering the Application to be incomplete.
On January 7,
2014, the Committee received a copy of a letter from
the Wild Meadows Legal
Fund (WMLF) to the
water division of the Department of
Environmental Services asserting deficiencies
in the wetlands permit application. In addition WMLF has
filed
a motion urging the Committee to
find the Application to be incomplete.
The Applicant has objected to the
motion. On January 10,
2014, NHWindWatch
filed a motion
to join in the motion filed
by
WMLF. On
January 10, 2014, the Society for the Protection
of New Hampshire Forests
(SPNHF) filed
a motion
requesting that the
Committee suspend all
deliberation on the Application
pending the adoption
of
administrative
rules containing specific criteria for the siting
of energy facilities.
It has
not been
the practice of the Committee to
entertain litigation over its review
of completeness of
an application. The statute delegates completeness review solely to
the Committee Chair, his designee, or the Committee depending on
the type of facility. RSA
162-H:
6-a, II (renewable energy facility), RSA
162-H: 7, (energy facility).
Nothing in RSA 162-H
requires the
Committee to entertain litigation over completeness. Neither the statute nor our
administrative
rules contemplate or require litigation over the completeness determination. In
fact all
times frames pertaining to the
issuance of a certificate of site and facility commence only upon the acceptance of an
application as complete. See generally RSA 162-H:
6-a
and 7. The time frames set
forth in the statute render fair litigation
over completeness to be
impossible. The completeness
review for a renewable energy facility must
be completed within thirty days. See RSA
162-H 6-a. In
this case the letter from
Ms. Linowes and Ms. Frost Dugan and
the motions from WMLF and
NHWindWatch were filed with less
than six days left in the
period in which completeness must be reviewed
by
the Committee truncating the period
of time for any effective response by the Applicant. The motions
filed
by WMLF and NHWindWatch
pertaining to completeness review
will be denied because they are out of
order. They will
be filed with other public comment
in this docket.
SPNHF
moves the Committee to
suspend all consideration of the Application
pending the adoption of administrative rules
containing specific siting criteria. RSA
162-H:10, VII, requires
the Committee to adopt
administrative rules “pursuant to RSA
541-A, relative to
criteria for the
siting of energy facilities,
including 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.” The rules
must be adopted no later than
January 1, 2015.
RSA 162-H: 10, VII.
Prior to the
adoption of such rules the
Office of Energy and
Planning (OEP) is
required to
conduct a public stakeholder process to develop recommended
criteria. Id. This
section of the statute is relatively new
and was adopted in the
2013 legislative session where the amendment
to the statute was referred
to by its bill number as SB 99.
SPNHF argues that the public interest
requires suspension of deliberations
until specific criteria are in
place.
The
SPNHF motion must be denied
because there is
no basis upon which I can
find that the public interest
is served by such
a delay. At this point it is impossible
to know the contents
of the rules to be adopted or what
the OEP stakeholder process may
yield.
There is no basis
or data to support a finding that
it is in the public interest to delay consideration of
an application once it
is determined to be complete. Moreover, one of the purposes
of the statue is to avoid undue delay. See RSA 162-H:
1.
Notably absent
from the amended
statute is any requirement
that the Committee refrain
from considering applications
filed
before January 1, 2015. The legislative history of SB 99
reveals
that amendments seeking to impose
a moratorium on applications filed with the Committee pending the adoption of administrative rules
were defeated both in
committee and on the floor
of the Senate.
Therefore the motion of SPNHF seeking suspension
of deliberations is denied.
All motions to intervene in
this docket will be held in abeyance pending supplementation
or re-filing of the Application and
acceptance thereof.
V. Conclusion
The
Application is incomplete because it fails
to provide sufficient
information
for
the Water Division, the Division of Historical
Resources
and the Fire Marshal to
satisfy the application
requirements of
each state agency,
under state or federal law,
to regulate any aspect of the construction or
operation of the proposed
facility.
The
Application is also incomplete because it
does not include the ongoing 2013 raptor
survey and game camera study which are necessary for a complete and
timely review of the
Application within
the time frames expressed in RSA162-H: 6-a and 7 or a clear identification of the legal relationship between
the Applicant and the property
proposed to comprise
the Facility.
The Applicant
may supplement the Application with the missing
information within ten days
of receipt of this order or may thereafter file a new application containing the missing information. If a new application is filed, it shall not be necessary
for the applicant to undergo the expense
and time to duplicate the materials previously submitted. Instead, clearly identified insertions supplementing or substituting for previously filed
information shall be acceptable.
The motions
filed by WMLF and NHWindWatch are out of order and therefore denied.
The motion of SPNHF is denied.
All motions
to intervene in this docket shall be held in abeyance until such time as a complete
Application has been accepted.
So ordered by the Site Evaluation Committee
on this 13th day of January, 2014.
Am L. Ignat s, V1ce-Chmr
No comments:
Post a Comment