The Voices of Hope (and Rockport)...

This from a friend on the coast of Maine:

Rockport and Hope, Maine voters approve wind amendments.

At the polls on June 14, Rockport voted 396-94 to support an amendment to the Land Use Ordinance as it pertains to wind development. This Ordinance will now include a 100’ turbine height limit, allow only one turbine per parcel of land and the electricity produced is to be used at that parcel.

Hope voters approved a 180-Day Wind Power Moratorium, 191-131, to allow the town the time needed to draft a specific Wind Ordinance. After six months, voters will have the opportunity to vote for or against that Ordinance. Ordinances are important to protect the health, safety and welfare of a town’s citizens.

The Word from Rumford

On the heels of our defeat in the 125th Legislature came this news report in the Sun Journal. Just when we needed some good news-- it arrived.

RUMFORD — It's official and apparently back to the drawing board for selectmen.

The proposed wind ordinance was defeated by a tally of 696-582, Town
Manager Carlo Puiia said shortly before midnight on Tuesday.

"The people came out and voted and we always have to respect how the
legislative body speaks," he said.

"So the board has to respect those numbers and go from there."

He said he believes the issue will be discussed further at a future
meeting, but when that will be scheduled isn't yet clear.

"Somebody could consider that it is of an urgent nature," Puiia said.

"However, based on the moratorium, which is good through July, it
probably will wait for another agenda."

"And I think the new board will agree to that, that they may not be
prepared to broach that subject," he said.

"So, possibly this will give all the board members ample time to weigh
in and maybe consider what that next step will be, if there is a next
step."

Additionally, he said town officials will now have to wait to hear
from Boston-based wind developer First Wind if Tuesday's defeat kills
their interest in still pursuing a $65 million wind farm on Rumford
hills.

The current moratorium on wind projects expires on July 25.

The first proposed ordinance, largely believed to be a permanent
moratorium on wind farms, was defeated at the Nov. 2 polls by a tally
of 1,339 to 1,048.

Selectmen started work on a second proposal, and then dumped that in
favor of Selectman Jeff Sterling's rewrite in late April of the
defeated ordinance.

The board then held a rare Sunday workshop last month and went through
nearly every page of Sterling's 26-page draft.

At a subsequent meeting, the board then voted everything in, mostly by
3-2 tallies with Sterling, Adley and Selectman Mark Belanger approving
and Selectmen Greg Buccina and Jeremy Volkernick dissenting.

The proposal was expedited onto the June town meeting warrant rather
than wait for a special town meeting or November ballot attempt.

Authors of the first proposal and Buccina and Volkernick claimed the
new ordinance caters to wind developers and wouldn't protect the town.

They asked voters not to accept it, saying it needs to be reworked.

The new proposal's backers said otherwise, that it allows and
regulates such development, and is more stringent than that of the
Maine Department of Environmental Protection.

Whether they had any effect on the outcome or not, there was no
shortage of people or signs all day Tuesday telling residents how to
vote on the proposed wind ordinance.

Throughout balloting hours between 9 a.m. and 8 p.m., people on both
sides of the issue held signs urging Yes or No votes.

They stood on both sides of Memorial Bridge and at the lower end of
Canal Street and Route 108 trying to catch the attention of voters
headed to the polls at the American Legion hall on upper Congress
Street.

Dixfield resident Alice Barnett brought several of her large paintings
depicting area landscapes marked with many stark white wind turbines
and lined the panels along the bridge where she stood holding Vote No
signs.

Wind ordinance supporters J. Arthur Boivin and Kay Rand of Rumford and
a few others held Vote Yes signs for most of the day.

A red van strategically parked along the Route 2 rotary and a pickup
truck parked on lower Canal Street sported large handwritten signs
urging No votes.

Additionally, evidence remained throughout town of last week's rampant
vandalism of First Wind's Vote Yes signs.

Using red paint, the vandal or vandals spraypainted a large NO over
the YES on several of the blue and white signs sometime during the
night of June 7 or early morning of June 8.

That happened the day after someone stole 50 of the signs, Boivin said.

That's why he said he waited until early Tuesday morning to place many
more signs along Rumford roads so they, too, wouldn't be stolen or
vandalized.

Fifty-Two Voices in Augusta

Tomorrow, June 15, 2011, is supposed to be the last day of the current Session of the 125th Legislature. Our Senators and Representatives have been dealing with hundreds (and hundreds) of bills since January. Reading them. Considering them. Listening to testimony, holding work sessions, caucusing… and then debating on the Floor and voting for (or against) them.

One day left.

I wasn’t surprised that the one remaining bill having to do with ‘industrial wind’ was left until the 11th hour. With dozens remaining to be acted on, it only seemed par for the course that our one hope would be dumped into the mix at the end of a very hectic session.

There were twenty common-sense and protective bills submitted, written, testified to and debated on. Nineteen were killed. And only one remained.

LD 1366, “An Act to Update the Maine Wind Energy Act”.

What originally was written as a comprehensive and ‘active’ bill had been reworked into a ‘do nothing’ bill calling for a study. While I’m not opposed to having a comprehensive examination done of the current wind energy plan; the fact is—the FACTS are already in.

Already, approximately eighty Mainers are suffering due to the inappropriate placement of industrial wind turbines. That’s a FACT. Mainers are suffering health effects AND a reduction in their property values, due to the incessant high, low and ultra-low frequency noises—and shadow flicker--produced by these megaliths.

Something had to be done. Mainers deserve protection, and the current noise standards, written before industrial wind came onto the scene, weren’t sufficient. Rep. Larry Dunphy, who has listened to his constituents and made their concerns a priority, proposed an amendment to LD 1366. His amendment called for a 1.5 mile setback from the base of a turbine to residences. It also contained a very important clause. His amendment would allow Mainers the freedom of choice. If those who lived within that 1.5 mile set-back area wished to opt out—they could petition the siting authority for a variance which would allow wind developments to be built at a lesser distance from their dwelling.

Protecting Mainers, while giving them the freedom of choice. You can’t get much fairer than that.

Why, then, did Rep. Dunphy’s amendment get defeated? The vote was 92 in favor of ‘tabling indefinitely’ and 52 opposed to that action—which, in reality, meant the amendment was killed.

But why?

Could it be that the wind industry hammered the Legislature incessantly with their tales of woe and their dire predictions? “If Maine shows an unstable climate for ‘renewable development’, we’ll take our ‘investment’ elsewhere” they warned. “’Wind’ is the only game in town”, they claimed. “A ‘small, vocal minority’ can’t be allowed to derail a plan which had unanimous support in the Legislature” they argued. And always, in the background, were rumblings intended to make citizens feel like they were selfish, planet-killing elitists who only cared about their ‘view’. For, of course, ‘wind’ was a panacea which would save the planet from the looming threat of ‘death by global warming’.

In the end, only two things are worth pondering.

First: What do the FACTS say?

And, second: Who will be strong enough, brave enough, committed enough and ethical enough to help spread those facts, educate the public, stand up to the wind lobby and not back down, even when defeat seems the norm and common-sense the exception?

As to the first: The facts are out there, and easy to find, if citizens are only willing to devote a few hours to researching this critical issue.

As to the second?

We will.

Many thanks to the Fearless, Feisty Fifty-Two. You’ve given us hope. And that is a rare and valuable commodity, these days.

Voices Protecting Bowers Mountain

This is the press release which was sent out in conjunction with a press conference sponsored by PPDLW back on December 16, 2010. As we prepare to help our friends Downeast in their effort to protect Bowers Mountain and the Downeast Lakes Watershed, I thought this would be a good time to post it here on VOW.

PPDLW Contacts: Kevin Gurall, President (kevin@ppdlw.org)
Gary Campbell (gary@ppdlw.org)

Partnership for the Preservation of the Downeast Lakes Watershed (PPDLW) is a nonprofit organization dedicated to the long-term preservation of Maine's Downeast Lakes Watershed through conservation, environmental action and opposition to inappropriate industrial or commercial development. We are currently devoting all our efforts to stopping an industrial wind project in Carroll and Kossuth being planned by Champlain Wind LLC (First Wind). The project, known as Bowers Mountain, will permanently damage the significant recreational economy of the Downeast Lakes watershed. It will threaten the jobs of many guides and the future of many sporting camps.

Today we are joined by the Maine Professional Guides Association and the Maine Sporting Camp Association to voice our opposition to land-based wind projects like Bowers Mountain. We ask Governor-Elect LePage to place a moratorium on grid scale industrial wind projects until scientific cost-benefit studies of the projects currently online can be completed. In addition, we ask that the legislature repeal the Expedited Wind Permitting Law (LD 2283) because it fast-tracks the destruction of Maine’s scenic character and derails the recreational economy that depends on it. We are not against renewable energy, nor are we opposed to wind-generated energy when it is sited intelligently. When industrial wind runs up against the Quality of Place that is Maine’s stated brand, none of us can afford to remain silent.

The Bowers Mountain Project

Although First Wind changes the number of turbines planned from one week to the next, their most recent statement calls for a column of 28 turbines stretching from Bowers Mountain in Carroll to Dill Ridge in Kossuth. Each of these Siemens 2.3MW turbines will rise 428 feet above the ridgeline and weigh 304 tons.

Since the Bowers/Dill ridgeline rises 800’ above the level of the surrounding lakes, these turbines will be more than half again as tall as the ridgeline. They will tower over the entire Downeast Lakes region and become a permanent scar on the horizon both day and night, affecting the greatest concentration of Class 1A and 1B lakes in the State (LURC’s Wildlands Lake Assessment).

PPDLW sees the Bowers Mountain Project as a monumental threat to the Downeast Lakes Watershed:

It will harm the ecology, visual beauty and Quality of Place of the Downeast Lakes Watershed. This will in turn impact the area’s outdoors-based economy: guides, sporting camps, outfitters and all supporting businesses. Visitors who have been coming to the region for generations will simply decide to go elsewhere.

The network of 60’ wide roads, the high and low frequency noise, the use of herbicides, the lights and blades spinning at 190 mph, will all impact the natural habits of wildlife.

The roads, blasting and erosion will silt the brooks that form the headwaters of the watershed that hosts the purest strain of landlocked salmon in the state.

Flashing strobe lights on the towers will punctuate our magnificent dark night sky.

Permanent jobs and a way of life will be sacrificed for a very small amount of electricity that will not even benefit the region.

We call on the incoming administration and the people of Maine to recognize that this region and all the wild lands of Maine deserve to be protected for future generations to enjoy.

PO Box 336, Augusta, Maine (ME) 04332-0336
E-Mail: info@maineguides.org

The Maine Professional Guides Association urges the State of Maine to recognize and address the adverse economic impact that industrial scale wind farms can cause to Maine’s guides. The unspoiled lands, waters and natural character of inland Maine's landscape are what attract clientele to our Association's doorsteps. Without these elements, the livelihood of the Maine Guide and the quality of outdoor recreation in Maine will be irreplaceably lost. Unfortunately, industrial scale wind power projects have far reaching impacts well beyond the actual project site. Their visual and audible impacts, both day and night, can extend far and are in direct conflict with the very characteristics that bring our clients to Maine. Our current knowledge of the impacts that these wind farms may have on wildlife large and small is insufficient to provide comfort to those of us who depend on that resource for our economic survival.

The Maine Professional Guides Association is not philosophically opposed to all wind energy. The rates that our businesses pay for electricity are a heavy burden. However the current government supported model is not economically viable. Improperly placed industrial scale wind farms threaten the traditional sporting economy, employment incomes, and small businesses that make up our Association. We request that the State revisit its current goals for wind power projects and put into place measures that both recognize and protect the guiding profession in Maine.

HC 76 Box 620 Greenville, ME 04441 info@mainesportingcamps.com
The Maine Sporting Camp Association urges the State of Maine to recognize and address the adverse economic impact that industrial scale wind farms can cause to Maine sporting camps. The unspoiled lands, waters and natural character of inland Maine's landscape are what attract clientele to our Association's doorsteps. Without these elements, the livelihood of the traditional Maine sporting camp will be irreplaceably lost. Unfortunately, industrial scale wind power projects have far reaching impacts well beyond their actual project site. Their visual and audible impacts, both day and night, can extend far and are in direct conflict with the very characteristics that attract our guests to Maine.

The Maine Sporting Camp Association is not philosophically opposed to all wind energy. But improperly placed industrial scale wind farms do threaten the traditional sporting economy, employment incomes, and small businesses that represent our Association. Our Association strongly requests that the State revisit its current regulations for wind power projects and put into place measures that both recognize and protect the historic Maine sporting camp industry.

Cows and Their Particular Brand of Wind

The effort to protect Mainers--and Maine--from the negative impacts of mountaintop industrial wind turbine facilities has involved long hours, thousands of dollars, and emotional highs and lows. I’ve been educated, disappointed, angered and shocked. I’ve made many new friends, and thankfully--to the best of my knowledge--I haven’t lost any.

As we’ve watched 19 of our 20 bills get killed in the State Capital, it’s become hard for many of us to smile. The stark reality of the type and amount of power brought into play by the wind lobby is sobering. And so… when something comes along to make us smile, it is certainly very, very welcome.

Please visit this blog, called Kirby Mountain. While it may be somewhat tongue-in-cheek, the math seems to add up. And when it comes to industrial wind; that just doesn’t seem to happen very often. In essence, the article states that the potential environmental benefits (i.e. the oft-claimed reduction of greenhouse gasses) of Vermont’s current wind energy plan could be gained simply by removing 58 cows from the state’s herd of 150,000.

Common sense? Some folks still have it. Let’s hope and pray the leaders in Maine, Vermont and elsewhere learn the science and economics behind industrial wind. More importantly, let’s help to educate them. Fifty eight cows, versus miles of ridge-top and slope-side destruction and incredible expense? Holy cow! If governments and environmental groups are going to tout industrial wind for its value in countering greenhouse gasses, they need to look at the numbers realistically.

Please read “How Many Cows is Wind Energy Equal To?” It’s a very moo-ving article.

Stepping Up To The Plate...

Stepping up to the plate.

I was never much of a ball player. Oh, I could hit a pitch—but it was mostly in self-defense. I didn’t want that fast ball to hit me—so I knocked it out of the way with everything I had. I’ve always had a finely tuned self-preservation instinct. But--when it came to catching a line drive, or throwing with accuracy or strength, or running to beat hell--I was a dud.

Yes, I was one of the last kids picked when teams were chosen for baseball, and I was usually given the position of right or left field. That was okay. Baseball wasn’t one of my strengths, but I had others.

The one thing I learned early-on was that it took courage for me to pick up the bat and step up to the plate. I knew I was a poor player. I knew there was a good chance I’d let my team down, or embarrass myself—or both. But I wasn’t a quitter, and I had pride. If the job of playing baseball had to be done, I’d do it--whether I liked it, or not. Whether it caused a knot of dread in my stomach, or not. Whether I excelled in it, or not.

It’s what had to be done.

Right now, there’s something else which needs doing, and I’ve been amazed at how many Mainers have stepped up to the proverbial ‘plate’. Out of 20 pieces of legislation proposed by citizens in the hopes of bringing fairness and balance to the wind energy plan, and in an effort to protect Mainers’ health, quality of life, and property values--only one bill has survived.

LD1366.

Rep. Stacey Fitts, co-chair of the Energy, Utilities and Technology Committee, proposed an amendment to this bill, after promoting the demise of the others. In an attempt to appear as though our words weren’t “falling on deaf ears”—this amendment offers to move up—from 2013 to 2012—a previously mandated study of ‘wind’.

In essence, this is a “do nothing” bill.

Hearing and responding to the concerns of his constituents, as well as the constituents of many other Legislators, Rep. Larry Dunphy, of District 88, has submitted a “minority report” version of this bill. His version of LD 1366 would establish a set-back of 1.5 miles from the base of industrial turbines to residences. On-the-ground studies have shown that at distances of over 7,500 feet, the deleterious effects of industrial wind’s unique sounds and vibrations are diminished in areas which aren’t mountainous in terrain. This setback would protect hundreds—if not thousands—of Mainers from potential health effects and reductions in real estate property values. At the same time, Rep. Dunphy’s version of the bill would grant to Mainers something which the Wind Energy Act took away. Freedom of choice. If land-owners within that 1.5 mile setback wish to opt out and petition the siting authority for a variance, they can do exactly that.

It’s a win-win, right? Additionally, the need for sound studies would be removed. Rep. Dunphy’s version of this bill will save Maine tax-payers money.

Protect the health of Mainers. Give them freedom of choice. And save them money.

What’s not to love?

Please write to the members of Maine’s House and Senate, and ask them to pass the MINORITY REPORT version of LD 1366. I am pasting in their addresses below, to make the process a little simpler. All you need to do is write a simple note asking that they support the MINORITY REPORT VERSION OF LD 1366… a bill which is NOT anti-wind, but pro-Mainers. Copy and paste the addresses into the ‘bcc’ part of your email. And click SEND.

Your voices should be heard. Your votes and opinions matter. Please support Mainers’ rights and ask that our Legislators pass Rep. Dunphy’s minority report version of LD 1366.

Thanks. You will make a difference, if you take the time to ‘have a say’.

************************
Emails for the Maine House of Representatives and the Maine Senate (just copy and paste)

kent23@myfairpoint.net, RepJohn.Martin@legislature.maine.gov, RepBernard.Ayotte@legislature.maine.gov, pedgecom@maine.rr.com, mikeblackbear@gmail.com, tyleraclark@msn.com, alexander.willette@gmail.com, RepJoyce.Fitzpatrick@legislature.maine.gov, rdl_chief@yahoo.com, clarkhe@beeline-online.net, jeffery.gifford@gmail.com, duchesne@midmaine.com, jdill@umext.maine.edu, RepAdam.Goode@legislature.maine.gov, cdicemom@aol.com, RepSara.Stevens@legislature.maine.gov, jparker339@roadrunner.com, emily.cain@gmail.com, djhouse20@gmail.com, texn77@aol.com, repguerin@gmail.com, richardsond@hermon.net, fwintle@gmail.com, fredlaw@myfairpoint.net, RepDavis@midmaine.com, rumridge27@gmail.com, mcfaddenh@roadrunner.com, gjmaker@gmail.com, dburnsinv@midmaine.com, dtilton@maineline.net, info@crockerhouse.com, elsie.flemings@gmail.com, wkumiega36@gmail.com, chapmanHD37@gmail.com, andre@andrecushing.com, Kurlykim40@aol.com, jgillway@yahoo.com, riouxrep@aol.com, erinherbig@gmail.com, aobrien2008@gmail.com, ryan.harmon82@yahoo.com, joanwelsh08@gmail.com, EdMazurek1@aol.com, cbkruger@myfairpoint.net, wes893@aol.com, danadow2050@yahoo.com, Jon@JonMcKane.com, deb.sanderson@hotmail.com, RepLes.Fossel@legislature.maine.gov, morissette2010@gmail.com, cotta@fairpoint.net, annadblodgett@yahoo.com, maeghanformaine@gmail.com, kdfoster@roadrunner.com, lincoln67@myfairpoint.net, kerrilprescott@gmail.com, bmacdon@roadrunner.com, HL7mike@gwi.net, cpriest1@comcast.net, kimolsendistrict64@hotmail.com, pskentz5@hotmail.com, seth@sethberry.org, mike@mikeformaine.org, bolduc74@yahoo.com, bick0585@aol.com, lajoie1@midmaine.com, mikecarey123@gmail.com, rwagner@bates.edu, mrotundo@bates.edu, Woodysnavy@gmail.com, henry.beck@gmail.com, thomas.longstaff@gmail.com, RepRobert.Nutting@legislature.maine.gov, RepSharon.Treat@legislature.maine.gov, mln@fairpoint.net, LGary.Knight@usa.net, patricksaflood@roadrunner.com, keschl@yahoo.com, jjpicc@gmail.com, jeffmccabe4me@gmail.com, pdcurtis2@hotmail.com, pegilbert@hotmail.com, lanceharvell@hotmail.com, russellblack@juno.com, jarrodscrockett@gmail.com, petersonhouse08@gmail.com, sheryljbriggs@gmail.com, terry@megalink.net, twinsor@megalink.net, jtimberlake_us@yahoo.com, rankin8076@roadrunner.com, RepPaul.Waterhouse@legislature.maine.gov, rwsarty@fairpoint.net, rep.hamp@yahoo.com, RepRich.Cebra@legislature.maine.gov, utumike@aol.com, mmcclell@maine.rr.com, dalecrafts@aol.com, RepEllie.Espling@legislature.maine.gov, dcwebster@comcast.net, melissawalshinnes@gmail.com, meredith@burgessadv.com, apg1@maine.rr.com, RepMarkBryant@yahoo.com, geplummer@aol.com, mpn3@maine.rr.com, pstuckey114@yahoo.com, steve.lovejoy@myfairpoint.net, deniseharlow@hotmail.com, annehask@maine.rr.com, votechipman@gmail.com, RepDiane.Russell@legislature.maine.gov, dillesquire@aol.com, tmorrison16@msn.com, eberleja@earthlink.net, kaenrath@gmail.com, annpeoples116@msn.com, tdrisco1@maine.rr.com, avolk@volkboxes.com, hsirocki@maine.rr.com, knappjanes09@gmail.com, lindafsanborn@gmail.com, huntforlegislature@gmail.com, RepGeorge.Hogan@legislature.maine.gov, dpilon@maine.rr.com, lmvalentino54@yahoo.com, megan.rochelo@gmail.com, acasavant@maine.rr.com, dburnsy12@gmail.com, RepWayne.Parry@legislature.maine.gov, bennettco2000@hotmail.com, sixwings@metrocast.net, RepJohn.Tuttle@legislature.maine.gov, RepJoan.Nass@legislature.maine.gov, libertymom1@msn.com, markweves@yahoo.com, kathydhchase@hotmail.com, bmoulton@localnet.com, wcw63@aol.com, RepDevin.Beliveau@legislature.maine.gov, waymitch10@hotmail.com, Sipayik@midmaine.com, mthibmyrep@aol.com, SenPhilip.Bartlett@legislature.maine.gov, cwrector@hotmail.com, RepStacey.Fitts@legislature.maine.gov, rep.hamp@yahoo.com, dacray@msn.com, skime2@roadrunner.com, RepAaron.Libby@legislature.maine.gov,RepJon.Hinck@legislature.maine.gov,
acornell@alexcornell.org, rbbeavers@comcast.net, mndion@msn.com, RepLouis.Luchini@legislature.maine.gov,


SenDawn.Hill@legislature.maine.gov,
SenRonald.Collins@legislature.maine.gov,
SenJon.Courtney@legislature.maine.gov,
SenNancy.Sullivan@legislature.maine.gov,
SenBarry.Hobbins@legislature.maine.gov,
SenLawrence.Bliss@legislature.maine.gov,
SenJohn.Patrick@legislature.maine.gov,
SenJoe.Brannigan@legislature.maine.gov,
SenStan.Gerzofsky@legislature.maine.gov,
SenRichard.Woodbury@legislature.maine.gov,
SenBill.Diamond@legislature.maine.gov,
dhastings@hastings-law.com,
SenJohn.Patrick@legislature.maine.gov,
senlois@roadrunner.com,
SenMargaret.Craven@legislature.maine.gov,
SenGarrett.Mason@legislature.maine.gov,
SenThomas.Saviello@legislature.maine.gov,
seth@sethgoodall.com,
dptrahan@roadrunner.com,
demccormick@.tds.net,
SenRoger.Katz@legislature.maine.gov,
SenThomas.Martin@legislature.maine.gov,
rodwhittemore@gmail.com,
firewood@tds.net,
SenBrian.Langley@legislature.maine.gov,
Senator@KevinRaye.com,
schneidersenate@msn.com,
rrosen113@aol.com,
nichi@aol.com,
SenDebra.Plowman@legislature.maine.gov,
SenRoger.Sherman@legislature.maine.gov,
SenTroy.Jackson@legislature.maine.gov,

Voices--and Potatoes--in Common

We here in Maine have something in common with our neighbors to the west, in Idaho.

We are both northern states.

We both have low density populations.

We both claim potatoes as a major product/export (I dare say ours might have a slight edge, but I'll not disparage those spuds 'from away'. They're quite delicious, too!).

:o)

AND-- we are both inhabited by no-nonsense folks who dare to ask questions when something doesn't seem to quite... add...up.

The photo above is another advertisement which was run this week in Idaho publications. Bear in mind... this is from Idaho Power Company! Below is the text of the ad:
**************
Something is missing from the conversation about energy.

For nearly a century, Idaho Power has been committed to clean energy. Today, about half the energy in our portfolio is generated from hydro, wind, solar, biomass and geothermal. We are proud of our small carbon footprint and a history of responsible energy that rivals any electric utility in the nation.

How Do You Make Wind Energy Seem Less Expensive?

When special interest groups and wind developers talk about the cost of wind energy, remember that the profits go into their pockets, while the costs come from your pockets. To arrive at their numbers, developers have to resort to the fiction that their wind machines produce energy at the very same rate as more traditional sources like hydro or gas.

But we all know the wind doesn’t blow all the time. By law, electric utilities have to provide fair-priced electricity on a 24/7 basis so, for every megawatt of intermittent energy on the system, additional capacity is needed that’s ready to deploy the moment the wind stops blowing.

In the simplest of terms, special interest groups and wind developers are asking you to pay more for a less reliable product. And that just isn’t right.

Sensible. Dependable. Responsible. It’s the right thing.
getpluggedin.com
**************
Just imagine what it would be like if Central Maine Power Company or Bangor Hydro were raising these same issues. Imagine if they were demanding common sense answers!

Write to your electric company today. Write to your Legislators today.

It's time to put a stop to this foolishness.

Wind. It's expensive. It's unreliable. It's intermittent. It's not 'green'. It causes health problems when sited too close to dwellings. It causes loss of value to real estate within 2 miles. It kills raptors, migratory birds, and bats. It's not able to be stored. And don't forget: it's expensive, unreliable, intermittent and unable to be stored.

Grid-scale wind energy is a fool's plan. Let's take a cue from our friends in Idaho. Let's not be taken for fools.

The Voice of a King

Today is a special day for the citizens of Maine. Today, the Portland Press Herald printed TWO articles written by industrial wind developer and former governor, Angus King. My comments to the first op-ed, 'Energy Choices and the 'No Free Lunch' Principle' are below.

Mr. King says: "Critics of wind power fail to acknowledge that it calls for much smaller economic and ecological trade-offs than any other source."

Mr. King fails to mention: Wind delivers an unreliable, intermittent, unnecessary and expensive product which cannot be stored, and which has not been proven to provide the benefits he touts—that wind will reduce our dependence on those ‘foreign’ fossil fuels, or cause any appreciable reduction in greenhouse gasses. Trade-offs? We expect something of value for the price we'll have to pay.

Mr. King says:”And all the drama about wind power in Maine plays right into their hands”

What Mr. King doesn’t say: That ‘drama’ is called ‘freedom of speech’. That ‘drama’ is what happens when the people of Maine take the time to study the facts about ‘wind’ and realize that the current wind energy plan is a poor one which is the product of influence by a powerful corporate lobby, and not the product of sound science and economics. And as far as playing ‘right into their hands’… Mr. King’s modus operandi is this: more scare tactics, and more attempts to make those who are opposing his get-rich-quick schemes appear as if we are the problem. I suppose we’ve become a problem for Mr. King. He was relying on encountering complacent minions who would accept his every assurance about the benefits of wind without ever asking a single question or demanding proof of the value of his product. Now… when he says ‘their hands’… is he speaking of hands in the Middle East? If so, I think the people of Maine would like to hear Mr. King say that he has never had dealings with Iberdrola Renewables. That he has no intention of selling his developments to them, or partnering with them at some point in the future. Because Iberdrola Renewables is—kind of—“they”, are they not? A Spanish company partnered with the United Arab Emirates and Qatar? If Mr. King has no intention of ever selling Maine wind to a foreign company such as Iberdrola Renewables, then I think Mainers would be relieved to hear him state exactly that.

Mr. King says: “Wind opponents don't seem to realize that if they want to say no to wind, that's OK, but when they do, they are actually saying yes to something else, and that something else will most likely have much greater economic or environmental impacts.”

What Mr. King should not say: Mr. King should not put words in other people’s mouths. And Mr. King should not make vague statements such as this one. Mainers require proof. HIS product—wind--has so few benefits that it is astounding to realize that the wind energy plan has progressed as far as it has without any type of accountability or proof that the energy produced is reliable, affordable, and worth the incredible costs to our pocketbooks, our environment, our health, our Quality of Place, or our energy security. Until such scientific and economic proof is provided, no further wind developments should be built. That is not saying ‘no’. That’s saying, ‘Wait. We can’t afford to proceed with such an enormous plan without having proof that the benefits are worth the costs.’ That is the prudent, common-sense thing to do. Maine already produces more electricity that we consume, so there is no emergency. Let’s make sure this is the right thing to do. Show us the proof.

Mr. King says: “Almost 80 percent of all the energy used in Maine (for electricity, heating and transportation) comes from oil.”

Mr. King has a way with words. He is a master at obfuscation. How much of that 80% is used for electricity generation, Mr. King? Two percent or less? That statement is like saying “Almost 80 percent of all potatoes used in Maine (for potato guns, mashing, and baking) come from Aroostook County.” Sheesh.

Mr. King says: “we'll be that big national park many of the wind opponents seem to want.”

Mr. King is doing it again. Trying to create divisiveness, and putting words in others’ mouths. I oppose the current wind energy plan, but I am not in favor of a ‘big national park’. Wind opponents are perfectly capable of speaking for themselves—a fact which Mr. King is well aware of. If we weren’t capable of doing exactly that, there would be no need for the two op-eds Mr. King had published in today’s PPH.

Mr. King says: "There ain't no such thing as a free lunch"

Quaint colloquialism aside, what Mr. King fails to mention is that—in the case of industrial wind—there most certainly is. Free lunch for developers; but very costly to tax-payers. Mr. King says nothing about the 1603 cash grant, a no-strings-attached gift from the federal government for ‘renewable’ projects such as those he hopes to build in Roxbury and Highland. Up to 30% of his projects’ costs could be reimbursed to Independence Wind, the company owned by Mr. King and Rob Gardiner. On a $200MILLION project, that’s a $60MILLION lunch. A bit more caviar for Mr. King than PB&J, I think.

Mr. King says: “Opponents of wind energy often repeat the silly charge that wind power somehow "destroys" mountains. They should go to West Virginia and see what the real thing looks like -- mountains torn right down to the ground to get at the coal.”

We should go to West Virginia, hmmm? With the high taxes Mainers pay, not many of us can afford the luxuries our former governor is accustomed to, such as traveling across the country in a motor home. Mr. King is very skilled at twisting others’ words and sensationalizing them. Coal in West Virginia and wind in Maine have very little to do with each other. Is Mr. King asserting that by building hundreds of miles of sprawling wind developments across our mountains, we will have an impact on coal mining in West Virginia? Prove it, please. With one exception, we do not use coal for electricity production in Maine. Nevertheless, that’s not even the point. Mr. King is again trying to turn the public’s eye away from the many problems inherent in his product of choice and make the issue about something else. He's also attempting to pit Mainer against Mainer, and Mainer against citizens of other states. He is demeaning in his attitude towards those of us who are opposing industrial wind projects based on the facts we discovered when we researched this issue. We all know the damage caused by coal mining. Does that mean Mr. King automatically gets a free ride, because his Highland project called for a mere 1.5 MILLION cubic yards of ledge and earth to be blasted and excavated? To give a visual, that amounts to more than 90,000 dump-truck loads full of mountain granite and soil. And that is based on fact, not speculation—taken from Mr. King’s most recent permit application submitted to LURC.

Mr. King says: Hydro “carries its own set of environmental challenges… New hydro, by the way, is about the same cost structure as wind -- expensive to build but essentially free to operate.”

Mr. King neglected to say that hydro has something of incredible value. It has the ability to be stored. Wind doesn’t. Mr. King also didn’t mention the flood control dams already in place in Maine rivers which could be retrofitted with turbines without new damage being done to the surrounding ecologies. Perhaps hydro would be a wiser investment for Mainers and for Mr. King?

Mr. King says: "Do I have to even discuss nuclear?"

Unless he’s an expert, Mr. King probably shouldn’t discuss nuclear energy. That’s not to say that the topic should be avoided altogether. All energy sources need to be debated, improved upon, and considered. Cost vs. benefit. We have amazing scientists who make advances all the time.

Mr. King says: “And don't forget the necessity of some really big transmission corridors through, you guessed it, Maine's western mountains.”

Let’s look at that statement, while ignoring the ‘you guessed it’ sarcasm. The Maine Legislature voted down a request from Quebec for that transmission corridor he speaks of, citing 'Quality of Place' and the damage to Maine’s scenic natural resources. And yet… the PUC approved the MPRP, a transmission corridor which will cut a 400+ mile long swath through 75 Maine towns. According to former governor John Baldacci, we needed this transmission upgrade to get wind energy to the states in southern New England, where it is needed. And Mr. King himself has applied for permission to build his own series of high-voltage transmission corridors through the Maine woods to get his product to market. Which will be less impactful to Maine’s natural resources? Dozens of transmission corridors criss-crossing the state, connecting 1800 turbines to the grid? Or one transmission corridor which would bring reliable and fairly inexpensive electricity into the state and country? It doesn’t seem reasonable for Mr. King to disparage one transmission corridor because it’s not going to benefit him, but promote those which will.

Mr. King says: “The whole energy world is falling down around our ears, and we're arguing about the occasional view? Give me a break.”

There he goes again. Scare tactics, sarcasm, and putting words in others’ mouths. Who’s arguing with Mr. King? We are opposing, yes. The burden of proof is his. Prove, with a science- and economic-based cost vs. benefit analysis that wind is ‘worth it’, and perhaps the conversation will change. And by the way… we’re not talking about ‘the occasional view’, are we? We’re talking about hundreds of miles of Maine’s mountaintops-- our most prominent feature—being capped by wind towers which are twice as high as Maine’s tallest sky-scraper. We’re talking about those same natural resources Mr. King urged Maine to protect in his 1995 inauguration speech. The Maine Center for Economic Policy agreed—they had this to say: “In recent years, numerous economic strategy reports have urged policy makers to capitalize on Maine’s unique and outstanding quality of place assets as effectively conveyed by the Brookings Institution’s influential report, Charting Maine’s Future: An Action Plan for Promoting Sustainable Prosperity and Quality Places.” The fact is that our storied natural resources and “Quality of Place” are a $10BILLION economic driver. If wind turbine developments were an ‘occasional view’, especially in the urban areas of southern Maine, our nature-based tourist industry wouldn’t be at risk. But 40 story turbines along 300-400 miles of rural summits won’t equate to ‘occasional’. Each development will be seen for miles and miles. Mr. King does his readers a disservice by not stating facts.

Mr. King says: “wind brings with it the first major investment in Maine in the past 15 years.”

Investment: The use of money in the hope of making more money.

Tax-payers and rate-payers in Maine and across the country are investing their money through grants, subsidies, TIF’s, accelerated depreciation, renewable energy credits, tax productions credits, and on and on.

Developers like Mr. King will profit by securing amazing returns on our money.

You’re welcome, Mr. King.

Mr. King says: “that saying no to wind is saying yes to something else -- at the moment, mostly oil -- whether we want to admit it or not”

Again… our former governor-turned-industrial wind developer is taking the liberty of speaking for others. And again; Mr. King needs to PROVE IT. Prove how saying ‘yes’ to Maine’s wind energy plan will say ‘no’ to oil. Facts, sir. Hard data. No computer modeling, no assumptions… prove it!If Mr. King can do that, he won’t have to write anymore sarcastic op-eds in which he takes the liberty of twisting words, he belittles and derides Maine citizens who disagree with what he is doing, he assumes to know his opponents minds, and which avoid the real issues by going off on tangents. Give us proof, please, that the 'presumptions of benefits' on which the Wind Energy Act rests are real. Prove it!

Hearing Voices on the Wind in Augusta

I’ve seen, first-hand, the way the wind blows in Augusta. It’s a Big Wind, and very, very powerful.

Citizens across Maine have looked to our Legislators for shelter from the storm. Once Industrial Wind was given preferential treatment in Maine, the negative effects of these sprawling industrial turbine facilities soon became apparent. Serious health effects, loss to value of real estate, higher electric rates, and loss of potential revenue which might be obtained through increases in property tax bases through the granting of TIF’s are only a few of the negative impacts which have been--or will be--created by the Wind Energy Plan.

And so, finding little recourse, citizens who wished to see measures adopted which would protect health, finances and Quality of Life wrote concepts which would do exactly that. We contacted our Legislators, who sponsored these measures. They were submitted to the Reviser’s Office, and drafted as bills. We were granted Public Hearings, and came out in force from every corner of Maine to testify. As pertains to a dozen of these bills, we were limited to three minutes of testimony… for 3-4 bills at a time.

Yes, that bears repeating.

We were required to testify on bundles of three or four bills at a time—and had a TOTAL of three minutes in which to give our testimony on the whole ‘package’. One minute or less, per bill. Most of these bills went before the Energy, Utilities and Technology Committee, but LD 1157, “An Act to Protect Revenue in the Unorganized Territory”, was heard by the Taxation Committee.

At their work session, Taxation voted “Ought to Pass” by a vote of 9-4. Subsequently, the Committee members were pressured by others (Rep. Stacey Fitts and Rep. Cornell du Houx from the EUT Committee, among others) to reconvene and vote again. Is it unconventional for the members of one Committee to lobby another Committee to re-think and re-cast their votes? Is this not tantamount to saying that the members of the Energy Committee know more about taxation issues than the Taxation Committee members do? I was present for the second vote, and once again Taxation approved the bill by a vote of 6-3 by those present. In the interim, two Representatives had been convinced to change their votes—but their stated reasoning for doing so was weak and not based on fact. Still, I was pleased and relieved that the corporate wind lobby hadn’t been able to change the outcome.

I was shocked when I was informed that the Taxation Committee ONCE MORE came under pressure by the wind lobby to take a THIRD vote! Surely, it isn’t standard for the Senate president and others to try to influence the votes of a Joint Standing Committee!? Such tactics showed the desperation of the wind lobby. This time, however, the Committee stood their ground, refusing to revisit LD 1157.

On Wednesday morning, LD 1157 was debated in the House and voted on. The bill was struck down by a vote of 99-49. Two thirds of the House voted against the Taxation Committee’s recommendation that the bill ought to pass.

Several Legislators told me that the lobbying and the pressure by the wind industry was fierce. I’ve seen and heard it myself, first hand. My naïve vision of what Augusta stood for and how it operates has been shattered by a dozen trips to the Capital. I watched as the wind lobby created theater out of the Public Hearings, pulling in workers dressed in hard hats and reflective vests who admitted to being paid to appear before the Committee to plead for their jobs. I listened as one senior Democrat on the EUT Committee, whose wife is a prominent attorney for wind developers, embarrassed the Representative who was sponsoring some of the protective ‘wind’ legislation. Confident that his apparent conflict of interest will not affect his position of power, he brazenly told those workers that “THAT guy wants to put you out of a job!” as our Representative passed by in the hall.

That statement was untrue. Uncalled-for. And extremely unprofessional. Conduct unbecoming an elected official, and most especially when referring to a colleague sitting on the same Committee. Those are bullying tactics in the highest degree.

But that is what the wind industry does. It is appalling that such behavior is allowed—and even, condoned--in our State capital.

As disillusioning as this process is, I have learned that there are many courageous men and women representing us in Augusta.
Some of them listen to their ‘everyday’ constituents instead of the few corporations with power. Some listen to voices of reason and common sense rather than bow under the weight of intimidation. Some of them even listen to their hearts. In a different world, I would name some of these ethical and brave Legislators, but I fear that to do so would cause them to bear the brunt of subsequent pressure or public disparagement by the powerful wind lobby. That’s how bad it is in Augusta… and how domineering the industrial wind groups have become.

These brave Legislators know who they are, though… and they have my deepest gratitude and respect.

On Friday, June 3rd, Friends of Maine’s Mountains held a press conference in the State House, calling on members of Maine’s 125th Legislature to support Representative Larry Dunphy’s minority report version of LD 1366, “An Act to Update the Maine Wind Energy Act”. Out of more than a dozen measures introduced and voted down by the EUT Committee this session, his version of LD 1366 is the only one remaining which might give Mainers protection. It introduces setbacks for industrial-sized wind turbines, to a distance which should protect Mainers from the unique high, low and ultra-low (infrasound) frequency noises and shadow flicker effects created by the huge machines. It also allows those living within that setback area to sign a waiver, thereby giving individuals the right to choose for themselves how close they want to live to wind turbine facilities. It calls for moving up studies of Maine’s Wind Energy Plan from 2013 to 2012—something the EUT Committee members all approved of—but removed the portion mandating that ‘sound’ be studied. With that adjustment to the bill, Rep. Dunphy’s version will save Maine tax-payers money.

Sounds simple, right? Something every Legislator can get on board with? After all, it saves money, protects Mainers, and gives them a choice, all at the same time. The Wind Energy Act COST Mainers money, did NOT protect them, and TOOK AWAY their right to choose whether or not to live in close vicinity to industrial wind facilities. This is a fair and balanced bill.

It’s not ‘anti-wind’… it’s ‘pro-Mainer’.


Jeremy Payne of Maine Renewable Energy Association ‘crashed’ FMM’s press conference. As if he’d been invited, he marched in and took a seat just as the press conference was beginning. That was okay…. We were on State property, and he is a Maine citizen. Besides… we’ve nothing to hide. We have the truth on our side; truth based on science, economics, and ethics.

Representative Dunphy’s ‘minority report’ hadn’t yet been made public-- so I’m sure, once Mr. Payne ‘caught wind’ of FMM’s press conference, he decided it would behoove him to learn all he could about how his lobbying efforts should be directed. After all, his job isn’t finished yet. To date, the corporate lobby he is a member of has only killed 95% of the legislation we’ve submitted or supported.


As FMM’s Government Affairs Director, Chris O’Neil, outlined details of the minority report for the press, Mr. Payne tapped away at his hand-held computer. After Chris spoke, FMM’s Executive Director, Susan Davis gave a statement. Mr. Payne tapped some more.

And then… Art Lindgren from Vinalhaven Island walked to the podium.


Art spoke of how his life had been ruined by industrial wind turbines. How the “24/7 noise is a killer”. How the investment he and his wife made in their home has been rendered practically worthless. How dreams had been shattered and health impaired. He talked about a gentleman who’d testified for the wind lobby at the public hearing in April—a fellow who’d been homeless and unable to pay his child support payments. This man was picked up while hitch-hiking, and had been offered a job by a subcontractor for a wind developer. This formerly homeless man called wind turbines ‘three hundred foot trophies’.

But Art and his wife and his neighbors don’t see it that way, nor do several families in Freedom and Mars Hill. They see wind turbines--and the developers who built them--as dream killers. As stealers of their health and happiness, and robbers of their investments. Like the rest of us, Art doesn’t begrudge Mainers their jobs… and yet—those wind industry jobs have ruined his life, and the lives of many others.

I don’t get emotional very often, but tears came to my eyes as I listened to his story.

Jeremy Payne didn’t listen, however. Perhaps he felt guilty or ashamed, as most of us would, for promoting something which is proven to negatively impact Mainers’ lives. Perhaps Art’s story struck a nerve. Maybe he was bored by the press statements. Or maybe, Mr. Payne had gleaned the information he needed from the Press Conference, and it was imperative that he scurry off to rally his troops and scrounge up some support, so that he could begin to mount a defense against the minority report.

If WCSH TV’s evening report is any indication; that is exactly what Mr. Payne did. Reporter Chris Rose is seen in the video, interviewing Rep. Stacey Fitts in the corridor of the State House, while Jeremy Payne rests nonchalantly back in a corner, leg bent, one shoe propped up against the wall of that venerable building.

Rep. Fitts told the reporter that our voices weren’t “falling on deaf ears” but that our needs had to be balanced against “the needs of the energy issues for the state of Maine…. For the country and for the region”.

How many times must we debunk the value of ‘wind’? How many times must we point out wind’s negligible contribution, and its negative impacts? Not just to the health and well-being of Mainers, but to the state, the country, and the region?

And then Mr. Payne was interviewed. As has become typical Standard Operating Procedure for the wind industry, he resorted to dire predictions. Threats, almost.

He said that ‘wind’ is the only industry that has been ‘investing in Maine in the last couple of years.’ That as long as we had a predictable and reliable climate for wind, developers would continue to invest… but if there were ‘efforts to derail them and change things along the way’, it would result in grim circumstances. He stated with assurance that the ‘investors will go away’.

Grid-scale industrial wind facilities are not investments. Those hundreds of thousands of dollars which have been spread around Maine by the wind industry and touted as the be-all, end-all for our economic salvation are paid for--in large part--by you and me. Worse, because America does not have a surplus of tax-payer dollars sitting around in the bank, we borrow much of that money. Borrow, with interest due, from countries such as China. And then… we spend the lion’s share of those borrowed funds on turbines. Turbines manufactured in and purchased from countries such as… China. THAT is not investment. That is not a sustainable goal. That is not a reliable way to get a return on our money.

That is a disaster in the making.

If wind facilities were valuable and viable, they would not require that 60-70% of their cost come from subsidizations of one type or another. Subsidies like no-strings-attached 1603 cash grants from the Federal government. TIF’s granted from municipalities or counties. REC’s, carbon credits, accelerated depreciation. And more.

A press conference is designed to call attention to an issue of significance. The hope is that reporters will take what they hear and see, and follow up on those observations by doing some real investigative reporting. That they’ll not blindly believe the group hosting the press conference, nor will they have faith in or promote the agendas of those who speak in opposition to the statements made. The hope is that the press will research the FACTS.

I haven’t yet figured out why the media shows indifference to a topic of such major importance. I’ve yet to understand how dozens of Mainers can complain about significant health issues, but be given little credence. I can’t comprehend why those who have the power to change public policy and institute common-sense plans and procedures are turning deaf ears and blind eyes to a problem that will have long-term impacts on the economy, environment, health and well-being of this state.

What I have figured out, to my consternation, is which way the wind blows in Augusta.

Mainers are seeking shelter from the storm. I hope the members of the 125th Legislature hear us when we ask them to support Rep. Larry Dunphy’s minority report version of LD 1366, ‘An Act to Update the Maine Wind Energy Act’.

Words to our Legislators

In 2008, as oil prices skyrocketed, Maine committed itself to a “wind energy plan.” Believing that adding large amounts of wind energy to our electricity mix would be a good thing for our economy, our environment, and our security, we launched a plan to install 2700 megawatts (name-plate capacity) of industrial wind turbines across hundreds of miles of Maine’s summits.

We’ve learned a lot since that time. Now we know that grid-scale wind is unaffordable, unnecessary, unreliable, and unsustainable. Now we know that grid-scale wind energy has impacts which are far greater than its negligible benefits. Now we have some experience with grid-scale wind, and we know that the laws enacted in 2008 need to be adjusted. Due to what we’ve learned, a well-organized and thoughtful series of reform legislation flooded the EUT Committee this session.

*We know that Maine’s already-clean total electricity generation capacity far exceeds our usage.
*We know wind is unreliable, unstorable, and undispatchable.
*We know the 2700 MW goal will sacrifice hundreds of Mountains for not even 5% more electricity in our grid.
*We know it is incompatible with the grid.
*We know wind needs constant back-up by base-load generation systems.
*We know that wind does not cause a material reduction in greenhouse gas emissions.
*We know that only a small fraction of Maine’s electricity is generated by coal or oil, and that what we do use is obtained in North America, and not from the Middle East.
*We know that in order to get the electricity produced by wind to the Grid, a 450 mile-long high voltage transmission corridor must be built through 75 Maine towns, and that rate-payers will bear a portion of the $1.4 BILLION cost.
*We know that, per MegawattHour produced, the subsidies for wind are many times higher than those for every other energy source; and 50 to 60% of a wind project is taxpayer funded.
*We know that up to 60% of those tax-payer subsidies go overseas to countries like China, Germany and Denmark, where the turbines are manufactured.
*We know that industrial turbines are a threat to migratory birds, raptors and bats.
*We know that Maine’s storied natural resources are a major economic driver.
*We know that Maine’s #1 asset is our unequalled “Quality of Place”, and its foundation rests upon our natural resources, and that thousands of industrial turbines do not fit in this scenario.
*We know that wind developments spend much but invest little.
*MOST IMPORTANT, we know that EVERY multi-turbine, wind facility in Maine that has been sited near people now has significant unresolved disputes over turbine noise and flicker.

Now that we’ve learned all this (and more); what we DON’T know is….Why are we doing this?

LD 1366 proposes moving up the timetable for comprehensive studies of the impacts and benefits of grid-scale wind developments. It is a good idea to examine these issues, and both the minority and majority reports will do so. While these important studies need to be conducted, if passed as currently written, LD 1366 will be a ‘do nothing’ bill. Mainers need protection from the health effects of living in close proximity to wind turbines NOW. They need protection from possible devaluation of their real estate investments NOW.

The minority report which will be proposed by Representative Larry Dunphy will take two important steps. It will order the study recommended by the EUT Committee, while omitting the fiscal note pertaining to sound studies. In addition, his version of the bill will provide protection in the form of safe setbacks for industrial wind turbines—while still allowing property owners who live within those designated area to opt out and allow reduced setbacks. This version of LD 1366 is not only fair to all, but is less costly than the majority report with Rep. Fitts’ amendment.

Please vote in support of Rep. Larry Dunphy’s ‘minority report’ on LD 1366.