Such future harm is insufficient, as a matter of law, to confer standing upon the petitioners to appeal the PUC’s decision. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal.Complete Ruling
Charlie Arlinghaus has documented Stonyfield's efforts to stop PSNH from burning coal. Installation of the scrubber was mandated by the state, after the very same critics complained about mercury pollution from the coal burning power plant. Once the scrubber was mandated, they shifted their argument from the environmental to the financial, claiming that the pollution controls they wanted made the power plant too expensive to operate.
This is coming from a group of plaintiffs that don't want the United States to burn coal for electricity. I would have more sympathy for their point of view if they were honest about their goals, instead of pretending to stand up for us as ratepayers.