Maryland Public Service Commission To Hold Hearing For Public Comments On The Size Of The Wind Turbines Used At Skipjack Wind Farm And The US Wind Project
Maryland Public Service Commission To Hold Hearing For Public Comments On The Size Of The Wind Turbines Used At Skipjack Wind Farm And The Nearby US Wind Project
EDIT … From DSF … Don’t believe the hype from Save Our Beach View or CRI, they are purposely using misconstrued information and surveys to “scare” people. I attended a media round table with the University of Delaware, (Lewes Campus) last week. The information being spouted by the anti wind groups is purposely wrong or skewed. The surveys they tout are the only ones that are so far off from the norm it is shocking, which was explained as well, by the experts.
I will explain in a few days, before this meeting in Ocean City. The more you know.
Accordingly, a hearing to receive comments from the public has been scheduled as follows:
Date and Time Location
Saturday, January 18, 2020 12:00 noon
Roland E. Powell Convention Center also known as Ocean City Convention Center
4001 Coastal Highway Ocean City, MD 21842
Rooms 215, 216 and 217
Written comments may also be filed with the Commission by Friday, January 31, 2020. Written comments by first class mail, or by hand-delivery, should be addressed to Andrew S. Johnston, Executive Secretary, Maryland Public Service Commission, William Donald Schaefer Tower, 6 Saint Paul Street, 16th Floor, Baltimore, Maryland 21202.
Public comments sent electronically must be submitted through the Commission’s Public Comment system, which can be accessed through the Commission’s website at www.psc.state.md.us. Instructions for logging into the Public Comment system are located under the “Tools” section of the Commission’s website under the “Make a Public Comment” tab, which can be accessed through the following link: https://www.psc.state.md.us/make-a-publiccomment.3 All comments must include a reference to the appropriate case: for comments pertaining to U.S. Wind, “Case No. 9268”; for comments pertaining to Skipjack, “Case No. 9629”; and for comments pertaining to both projects, “Case Nos. 9628 and 9629.”