CRITERIA FOR COMPARISON OF STRAW PROPOSALS - 1 of 2
|
Enhances statewide consistency re: process and standards |
Ensures adequate technical and financial resources |
Consolidates state decision making authority |
Relieves burden on BEP and LURC |
Includes consideration of both energy and environmental issues in siting decisions |
Leads to clearer and more predictable decision making process |
Reduces time for decision making |
Improves public confidence in integrity of decision making process |
Improves efficiency of hearing process |
Makes use of existing state agency expertise |
|
|
True-up Existing Framework |
||||||||||
|
Wind Energy Siting Review Board; certification review |
||||||||||
|
Wind Energy Siting Authority; factfinder |
||||||||||
CRITERIA FOR COMPARISON OF STRAW PROPOSALS - 2 of 2
|
Provides for energy and environmental expertise in decision making entity |
Provides for flexibility in applying standards to address wind specific concerns |
May be implemented without significant delay |
Rectifies issues regarding LURC zoning makers |
Facilitates thorough review of energy issues |
Facilitates thorough review of environmental and natural resources issues |
|||||||||||||||
|
True-up Existing Framework |
||||||||||||||||||||
|
Wind Energy Siting Review Board; certification review |
||||||||||||||||||||
|
Wind Energy Siting Authority; factfinder |
||||||||||||||||||||
Note: Under each of the options above, applicants would cover in full all additional state costs.