Rockland Council approves six-month power plant moratorium
ROCKLAND — City councilors in Rockland voted 3 to 2 to implement a six-month moratorium on all new applications for grid-scale power generation facilities. The moratorium applies to plants generating 10 megawatts or more, unless they are proposed on the site of an existing business for its own power generation.
“The provisions of this moratorium do not apply to businesses constructing heating or power generation systems to meet onsite heating and/or power needs,” the amendment reads.
Council members voting in favor of the moratorium included William Jillson, Valerie Geiger and Larry Pritchett. Councilor WIll Clayton and Mayor Louise MacLellan-Ruf opposed the measure.
Rockland councilors voted along the same lines they did in December when they first considered the moratorium. They did, however, amend the moratorium Jan. 11 to expand the role of the city’s energy committee, which is to help identify technical experts for the planning board to enlist for assistance.
Amended language shifted responsibility of finding technical help from the city manager to the Rockland Energy Committee.
They also approved spending up to $20,000 on technical consulting. Of that, $5,000 will immediately derive from funds accrued from the real estate agreement the city held with Energy Management, Inc.
(Read the entire moratorium in the attached PDF)
The moratorium says that “properties within the City of Rockland have become a focus for a proposal to construct a gas-fired, combined cycle electric power generation facility,” and “if not properly sited and designed and regulated, grid scale power generation facilities can be a source of considerable air, water and noise pollution that can adversely impact the neighborhoods and communities where these facilities are located, thereby endangering public heath, safety and welfare.”
“A moratorium is the wrong way to do it,” said Clayton.
He said that the city’s existing ordinances lay ample public review processes and application scrutiny opportunities. While he agreed with moratorium proponents that Rockland was currently experiencing business activity, he said none of the recent major projects — including the new hotel on the corner of Main and Pleasant streets, the Starfire building, and the CMCA gallery — had an easy time before the city’s planning board.
Mayor MacLellan-Ruf said after the meeting that she continued to oppose the moratorium because she said the city already had a substantial review process already in its ordinances. She said in December that moratoriums: “are not decided on whether someone likes a person or does not. Nor should a moratorium be selected as an option because some may not like a business proposal.”
Earlier on in the Jan. 11 regularly scheduled council meeting, several citizens spoke in favor of the moratorium, including Atwell, who said that six months was a short amount of time to review the impact of an enormous power plant.
“I don't think our city fathers considered a power plant when they conceived an industrial zone,” she said.
Ron Huber suggested the city enlist the help of the Conservation Law Foundation, a Boston-based nonprofit that has assisted Maine municipalities over the past 40-plus years when confronted with environmental issues.
“They are hardly radicals,” he said. “You could end up with an ordinance that is a model for Maine, something other than a least common denominator.”
During the public hearing on the moratorium ordinance, Rockland citizen Amy Files said the measure, “captures many of the concerns, serious concerns not addressed by ordinances.”
The moratorium will not detract from business activity in Rockland, she said, adding that “it is important that everyone has confidence in the process.”
She urged the council to keep the process open and transparent, and move the development of new ordinance language out of the city manager’s purview.
“Given that he has been a vocal opponent of the moratorium, I don't believe it should be completely in his hands,” she said.
City Manager Chaousis responded later in the conversation that he would support the amendment, and give deference to the energy committee in the process.
“To the statement that I am biased,” he said. “The thing I defend most are city council actions. The city manager's role is largely administrative. The planning board gets to choose its experts.”
Councilor Geiger said: “I don’t think you are biased. This amendment is to provide the public with absolute assurance that the list of consultants is chosen by the energy committee.”
Event Date
Address
United States
