Lynch Returns Fire on Wind Farm Debate with Gov

Saturday, July 10, 2010

 

View Larger +

It’s round 3 in the latest fight between Gov. Don Carcieri and Attorney General Patrick Lynch over the wind farm.

Yesterday, Lynch, who is also a Democratic candidate for governor, responded to Carcieri’s claim that he was opposing the new wind farm law to boost his campaign.

“The Attorney General is using his office to try to score political points and bring relevance to his campaign, instead of exercising his responsibilities to the State,” Carcieri said earlier this week, after Lynch announced he was challenging the constitutionality of a new law that sends the wind farm project back to the Public Utilities Commission.

GET THE LATEST BREAKING NEWS HERE -- SIGN UP FOR GOLOCAL FREE DAILY EBLAST

Lynch said that his decision was motivated by principle not politics. He said the law ran “roughshod over the 2004 Separation of Powers Amendment which specifically bars legislation from giving special treatment to “a few connected individuals.” The new law requires that the PUC reconsider a contract between Deepwater Wind, the developer of the wind farm, and National Grid—after it already rejected it once.

The Attorney General said Carcieri hadn’t bothered to read his 40-page brief that he filed with the PUC and was misrepresenting his position.

“Perhaps what’s gotten the Governor so steamed is his knowledge that this law, and the backroom deals that produced it, are so rancid that many Rhode Islanders join me in seeing it as an insider deal,” Lynch said.

View Larger +

Carcieri: Lynch Should Defend, Not Challenge State Laws

The governor also accused Lynch of not doing his duty as Attorney General. “His role is to defend state agencies and commissions, not to challenge them or misrepresent the facts of a case,” Carcieri said.

In his seven and a half years as Attorney General, Lynch said he had never challenged the constitutionality of a law—until now.

“Nonetheless, it is the traditional role of the attorneys general throughout the United States to enforce constitutional safeguards against special laws,” Lynch said. “Otherwise, those clauses in state constitutions would be toothless.”

 
 

Enjoy this post? Share it with others.

 
 

Sign Up for the Daily Eblast

I want to follow on Twitter

I want to Like on Facebook