With Close Contacts, Md. Wind Project Gets Boost

Rogers and Miller share long ties through Democratic politics, and two of Rogers's businesses contributed a combined $8,000 to Miller's campaign committee in 2004, records show. In January, Miller submitted the wind energy bill that Rogers sought.

"What we heard was that wind power was taking a back seat to protecting bats, rats and owls," Miller said.

When the Public Service Commission issued Rogers's Synergics Wind Energy LLC its limited permit, it concluded that the project "would result in significant adverse impacts to threatened and endangered species," citing concerns raised by the state Department of Natural Resources.

C. Ronald Franks, who was then the department secretary, said he advised the agency's scientists to be judicious.

"I said I do not want them stopped for some minor, trivial situation," Franks recalled. "But by the same token, I did not want to give them carte blanche to ruin an endangered habitat."

A frustrated Rogers called opponents of the project "a small band of anti-wind extremists" at a meeting of wind developers, policy experts and state officials in December. He concluded that his wind farm would not be economically feasible with fewer than 19 turbines.

The governor's 21-page transition report on Maryland's energy future echoed those sentiments, lamenting that "not a single utility-scale wind power facility" has been completed in Maryland, "despite years of effort by a number of companies."

Rogers testified in favor of the bill at a hearing, citing many of the policy goals listed in the transition report he helped develop.

The Department of Natural Resources, which had conducted the lengthy environmental review of the Synergics project and opposed the bill, did not provide testimony before the committee. When two of the agency's top wildlife scientists showed up, they were told by DNR's legislative staff member that they could not testify, according to several people who are familiar with the case and spoke on condition of anonymity because of the political nature of the bill. The department's name was crossed off the witness list of opponents, records show.

DNR spokeswoman Olivia Campbell referred questions to the governor's office. Spokesman Rick Abbruzzese said officials submitted written remarks on the bill that were sufficient.

Overall, he said, the governor has made it a priority to find alternatives to coal and nuclear energy. "There's a balancing act that needs to be established between finding those sources of energy and preserving our environment," he said.

The General Assembly approved the measure with little debate. One of the few lawmakers to vote against it was Sen. George C. Edwards, a Garrett County Republican whose district includes Backbone Mountain. Edwards said he supports wind power to help lessen the country's reliance on imported oil. "But I didn't like the way [the bill] came in," he said, alluding to the political clout of Synergics in Annapolis.

With the new law, approval of Rogers's full project appears virtually certain, Jim Boone, the commission's staff counsel, said in an interview. "It seems pretty clear that the law provides an option for a streamlined approval for wind projects that was not available to the company before."

Regulators still are required to consider a proposed wind farm's safety and reliability. But they can no longer deny turbines on the grounds that they damage the environment. And opponents no longer can appeal the granting of a permit, as happened to Clipper Windpower Inc., whose project was tied up in court from 2003 until the challenge was rejected last month. The state has approved a third wind farm in Western Maryland that has not yet been built.

Rogers said the wind power law will benefit future developers and help "rein in an energy crisis" in Maryland. "Everyone benefited from the legislation," he said.

Staff researcher Meg Smith contributed to this report.