|
|
CHAIN OF PONDS TOWNSHIP – The Land Use Regulation Commission board ordered a public hearing for the proposed expansion to a wind power project in northern Franklin County at Wednesday’s meeting.
The board instructed the LURC staff to schedule a public hearing on the 15-turbine expansion to the Kibby Wind Power Project. Today, a staff representative said that the hearing would be set sometime in the next few months. Meanwhile, the developer has petitioned LURC to increase the size of the wind power expedited permitting area by 613 acres near the expansion.
TransCanada, the Canadian-based company that is developing the 44-turbine project located on Kibby Mountain and Kibby Range, filed a development permit application with LURC on Dec. 22, 2009. If approved, the expansion would consist of 15 Vestas V90 turbines on the Sisk Mountain ridge line, located to the west and immediately adjacent to the Kibby project. The turbines would produce 45 megawatts, utilizing a new substation and 325 feet of transmission line to run the power through the Kibby project’s infrastructure.
The 15-turbine expansion proposal is located within the expedited permitting area set aside by the governor’s wind power task force and passed into law in April 2008. This means that TransCanada needs only a LURC-issued construction permit, avoiding the often-lengthy rezoning process, and that LURC must dispense with the application within 270 days of the Dec. 22 filing date.
|
|
Initially, TransCanada had intended to situate the expansion on the edge of the expedited permitting area, which includes the northern part of the Chain of Ponds Township. The northern portion of the Sisk Mountain ridge line is already encompassed within that area but the southern portion, which TransCanada had also intended to utilize, was outside the area.
TransCanada filed a petition with LURC in July 2008 to expand the permitting area by 631 acres, to include the entire ridge line as well as the 3,270-foot summit of Sisk Mountain. However, as LURC began laying out the process and schedule for the alteration, TransCanada decided instead to amend their project and keep all 15 turbines inside the expedited permitting area.
In a letter addressed to the LURC Staff Director Catherine Carroll on Nov. 9, 2009, a Maine law firm representing TransCanada indicated that the company’s expansion was time sensitive.
“…[T]here are critical business decisions that affect the Expansion Project and, in particular, the timing for submitting and obtaining a decision on that project,” the letter, signed by Dana Verrill LLP’s Juliet Browne, reads. “For example, the construction and inservice deadlines established pursuant to the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, require that a qualifying project be under construction in 2010 and in-service by 2011.”
The amended project, which will likely be scheduled for public hearing in the next few months, is moving forward separately from the expedited permitting area expansion petition. A public hearing and panel discussion was held on Dec. 18, 2009, out of which the LURC staff developed a guidance document which details the commission’s requirements for petitions requesting the inclusion of new land within the expedited permitting area.
|
|
There are three broad categories of consideration. First, the expansion must involve a logical geographic extension of the expedited permitting area. The commission indicated, within the guidance document, that an expansion could be proper should a project be proposed on the edge of the existing expedited permitting area. However, the guidance document indicated that “the Commission is unlikely to grant petitions that propose a further expansion tacked on to an earlier expansion (a “leapfrog” effect), farther from the original expedited area boundary set by the Legislature.”
Secondly, the expansion must meet the state goals for wind energy development, which the commission indicated it took to mean that the energy production of the potential project should outweigh the impact. LURC has stated that the impact could include “an identification of important natural, recreational, scenic, archaeological and historic resources” within the proposed expansion area. LURC also intends to seek the opinion of the Public Utilities Commission in developing an assessment of a project’s potential energy production.
Third, the expansion of the expedited area cannot compromise the “principle values and the goals” identified in LURC’s comprehensive land use plan. This is similar to the rezoning process, where the LURC board looks at the plan and determines if the proposal violates it in some way.
The second part of the public hearing on the petition is scheduled for March 17, at the Sugarloaf Inn in Carrabassett Valley. This portion will focus specifically on TransCanada’s request to expand the expedited area.
TransCanada has announced no plans for another wind power project expansion within the 613-acre area. However, in the Nov. 9 letter, Browne noted that the addition of the area into the expedited permitting zone could provide space for future projects.
“…[T]he Expansion Project turbines will be located entirely within the expedited permitting area,” the letter reads. “As such, the petition to expand the expedited area is no longer being proposed to accommodate the Expansion Project. If granted, however, it would provide an important future expansion opportunity.”
