Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Administrative Procedure topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Panel approves amendments to clarify Board of Environmental Protection appeal process
Summary
The committee advanced LD 2210 with amendments from the board and staff to define the record on appeal and limit supplemental filings; DEP and staff said broader changes proposed by NRCM could hinder the bill’s goal of speeding license appeals.
The Environment and Natural Resources Committee voted to pass LD 2210 as amended to clarify procedures for appeals to the Board of Environmental Protection of licensing and permitting decisions by the Department of Environmental Protection commissioner.
Analyst Mr. Tardikov explained that the bill grew out of a statutorily required review of the board and that the boardanalyst submitted a markup recommending additional language for consistency in section 341-D, subsection 4 to clarify what constitutes the record on appeal. The Natural Resources Council of Maine had proposed amendments to expand the definition of "interested person" and to allow interested persons to file written responses on the merits of an appeal. Staff and the department cautioned that expanding written responses could undermine the bills stated purpose of reducing supplemental filings and speeding the appeals timeline.
Commissioner Melanie Loism said she agreed with the staff analysis and with the board analyst that certain suggested changes would "frustrate the purpose of the proposed change to the statute" by inviting an "unlimited volume of material" that would require additional review by the department and board. She also said board analyst suggestions helped address points raised in public testimony.
Senator Stacy Brener moved adoption of the boards suggested (yellow) edits; Representative Campbell seconded. After no further testimony the committee voted unanimously to report LD 2210 out as amended.
Committee members discussed competing priorities: protecting robust public participation vs. speeding appeal timelines. The amendments the committee adopted were intended to keep interested parties notified while limiting the ability to introduce new supplemental evidence on appeal. The committee did not adopt the NRCM proposal to allow broader written responses by interested persons.
