Last Gasp Voices

Led by the Natural Resources Council of Maine, Maine Renewable Energy Association, Reed & Reed Construction Company and the Maine State Building and Construction Trades Council, a ballot initiative campaign is being kicked off, aimed at adding a referendum question to the November 2012 ballot.  According to this "coalition" the initiative, if passed, would “control energy costs, create jobs and cut pollution.” 

The driving force behind this initiative consists of some of the key players who have the most to lose if Maine’s energy policies are suddenly guided by sound science and economics; rather than policies designed to favor energy sources touted as ‘clean and green’.   As long as massive subsidies and incentives at the federal, state and local levels are available, wind turbine facilities built along Maine’s mountain ridges will be a very lucrative investment for the wind industry and its supporters. 

This ‘coalition’ would not be undertaking such an ambitious project were it not for the fact that Mainers are learning the truth about mountaintop industrial wind energy.  The wind industry has increasingly become concerned about upcoming policy changes at several levels in State government. 

On October 15^th, Governor LePage made clear his intention to introduce “common sense reform during the upcoming session” addressing “high electricity rates (which) cost Maine people and businesses millions of dollars per year more than other states and is an impediment to economic growth and attracting private sector investment.”

In September, after a rigorous and extensive public hearing process, the Bureau of Environmental Protection approved more stringent noise regulations for wind energy developments.  In January of 2012, Maine's 125^th Legislature will be charged with approving the BEP’s recommendations, thereby passing a measure which will protect our citizens' health and well-being.

And last June, 52 members of the House of Representatives agreed that the potential for negative impacts to health, quality of life and real estate values caused by industrial wind turbines was significant enough that they voted in favor of a 1.5 mile setback between turbines and residences.

These are significant acknowledgements that changes must be made to a policy which was orchestrated and promoted by the wind industry in 2008. 

The proposed referendum question would ask voters if they want to require that at least 20 percent of Maine’s electricity comes from ‘new’ renewable energy sources by 2020, while also requiring electric utilities to invest in energy efficiency whenever it would reduce energy costs for ratepayers.  Remember: Maine is already one of the cleanest states in the nation in electricity generation, even without wind turbines. Maine ranks first in non-hydro renewable electricity generation per capita, per gross state product and as a percentage of total electricity generation. We also have the highest renewable portfolio standard in the U.S.

Twenty percent (20%) wind energy in New England would not lead to the decommissioning of existing capacity nor would it negate the need to build new generation. While wind might displace fossil fuel (primarily clean-burning and affordable natural gas) it cannot replace fossil fuels. In addition, according to the New England Wind Integration Study, 20% wind in New England would require more than 4,000 miles of new lines at an estimated cost of between $11 and $15 billion (that's BILLION) dollars, added to the $5 billion (yep... that's also BILLION) already approved in New England.  No public discussion has been initiated on who would pick up this enormous tab, but as indicated by the Maine Power Reliability Project (MPRP), that burden will likely be socialized amongst rate-payers. 

The wind lobby, in this instance calling itself "Maine Citizens for Clean Energy" is making a last ditch attempt to keep their gravy train from derailing.  Wind energy has enormous impacts to Maine's environment; in addition to impacting Mainers' health, their pocketbooks and their quality of life.  It is hoped that Maine people will study the facts about land-based wind and come to the same conclusions scientists and economists have arrived at.  Hundreds of miles of industrial development and thousands of massive ridgetop turbines with their attendant high voltage transmission corridors built throughout Maine’s rural lands is not the clean and affordable answer to Maine’s energy challenges.

**Mandating that Maine build unneeded and high impact generating facilities simply to reach a nebulous "new renewables" goal is extremely poor policy.

**Requiring that Maine give preferential treatment to a corporate lobby's favored cash cow instead of allowing a free market to decide what is an affordable and favorable electricity source is not the answer. 

**Refusing to consider hydro as a 'renewable' form of electricity effectively cuts Maine out of a competitive market.  Not only is hydro renewable, it's dependable and it is able to be stored--two components wind does not have.

We can do better than this.  Mandating policies which give huge profits to one industry while leaving Maine citizens holding the bag is not something I can support.  I won't be signing the petition to force the wind lobby's initiative to be placed on our 2012 ballot. 

I hope Maine citizens can see past the rhetoric and propaganda. 

We can do better--much better-- than this.

Stand up.  Speak out.  Be heard.

LURC Voices Decision to Preserve the Downeast Lakes Watershed

Three days ago, approximately 50 people gathered at the Waterfront Event Center in Lincoln to hear LURC Commissioners give their final deliberations on First Wind’s permit application for the Bowers Wind Project.  This has been a long process, with First Wind (Champlain Wind LLC) submitting their application on January 21, 2011.  On March 14^th, it was accepted by LURC staff as complete for processing, and the “expedited wind clock” began ticking.

Under the Maine Wind Energy Act, which designated 2/3 of the state of Maine as an “Expedited Wind Permitting Area”, regulatory agencies such as LURC and the DEP must fast-track wind development permits.  Once an application is deemed ‘complete’, a decision is required within 180 days if no public hearing is granted and within 270 days if the citizens of Maine are allowed the opportunity to participate in the process.

Tick-tock-tick-tock…

The Partnership for the Preservation of the Downeast Lakes Watershed (www.ppdlw.org) a nonprofit organization committed to protecting the beautiful Downeast Lakes region, applied for “intervenor status”, as did the Natural Resources Council of Maine (NRCM) and the Conservation Law Foundation (CLF).  Citizens David Corrigan and Gordon Mott also intervened.  First Wind’s plans for Bowers had been in the works for months, and finally, the wait was over.  The clock was ticking. 

Suddenly there were deadlines to be met and procedures to follow.  But before the intervenors could file any comments or submit pre-filed testimony, the long and complex permit application had to be examined.  First Wind’s consultants and attorneys had had months to prepare the application; but intervenors had only weeks to study hundreds of pages of text and graphs, maps and photos.  Only days to request a public hearing.

Tick-tock-tick-tock...

PPDLW is an all-volunteer organization, supported by locals and by non-residents who recreate in the Downeast lakes region.  The people of the Bowers Mountain area were fortunate to have several dedicated, hard-working and tenacious people prepared to mount a stiff opposition to First Wind’s 27 turbine project which—if permitted--would tower over Junior, Scraggly, Pleasant, Duck, Keg, Bottle and Shaw Lakes, among others.  Pre-filed testimony was filed.  A pre-hearing conference was attended.  The dates for Public Hearings were set.  June 27^th.  June 28^th.  July 6^th.

Tick-tock-tick-tock…

I was able to travel to Lincoln to attend the technical and public hearings, and to go on the site visit, which included bus trips to the targeted ridges and a boat ride on some of the lakes which would be impacted by the project.   The three hours I rode the waves on Junior and Scraggly Lakes were some of the most enjoyable hours of my summer.  Working on ‘wind’ keeps me chained to the computer or on the road traveling, and during the last two years I have missed spending time outdoors and on the water.  The hours spent with friends as we toured those beautiful lakes were well worth the sunburn I received—the only bit of color I got all summer long.

That first evening (Monday) marked the commencement of the public testimony portion of the hearings.  Tuesday was reserved for the technical hearing, with the public testimony concluding that evening.  Citizens spoke overwhelmingly in opposition to the Bowers project.   Most who spoke in favor of the wind development stood to gain financially if the project was approved.  Conversely, many who spoke against the industrial facility believed the project would cause them economic hardship and negatively impact their quality of life.

First Wind’s attorney Juliet Brown (Verrill Dana) spearheaded the company’s defense of their proposed project.  Environmental engineers, consultants, a visual impact expert, survey results…the wind developer pulled out all the stops.  Conservation Law Foundation supported First Wind by speaking in nebulous terms about the positive impact the project would have on reducing greenhouse gas emissions.  They also called an “expert” who attempted to convince Commissioners that wind energy would reduce electricity costs in Maine.

NRCM dropped out as intervenors a few days before the public hearing and on the first night of testimony, Kathy Johnson, North Woods Project Director, testified “neither for nor against” the project.   However, her testimony spoke volumes about the region’s value:

“Both the applicant and Palmer (LURC’s Scenic Expert) underrate the significance of the nine lakes with significant or outstanding scenic resources…The Appalachian Mountain Club…describes this loop as “one of the best quiet-water loop trails in the state, especially when one detours for a few days into Scraggly Lake…””

The PPDLW group, working independently and without legal representation, presented a powerful case; explaining to the Commissioners that the beauty and uniqueness of the watershed was the lifeblood of the region.  Residents’ livelihoods are tied to the lakes, many of which are classified as scenic resources of state or national significance.  Testifying for PPDLW and David Corrigan were local guides and sporting camp owners who live and work in the area.  No others could defend the region with such knowledge and expertise.

Tick-tock-tick-tock…

The public hearing concluded in Bangor on July 6^th, and parties had until July 26^th to respond to the comments submitted.  Closing statements were presented at the October 5^th LURC Commissioners’ meeting in Ellsworth and deliberations began immediately following those statements.  It was decided on that day to continue deliberations in Lincoln on October 19^th and to take a “straw vote” at that time; in order to instruct staff on what type decision document to draft for the December 7^th meeting.  The 270 day window is closing fast.

Tick-tock-tick-tock…

On Wednesday, October 19, 2011, LURC Commissioners voted unanimously to instruct staff to prepare a decision document to deny First Wind a permit to build a wind energy project on Bowers Mountain in Carroll Plantation and Dill Hill in Kossuth Township.  They plan to meet in Lincoln again on December 7^th to take the official vote, but for all intents and purposes, the case has concluded.

The Bowers wind project is the first industrial wind project to get denied since LD 2283 was passed in May of 2008.  We’ve heard LURC commissioners say it over and over again: They feel as though the Wind Energy Act is a directive to approve grid-scale wind projects.  The Legislature created LURC and the Legislature passed the expedited permitting law.  They have stumbled over that fact often in the last several years.  And yet, in March, Department of Conservation Commissioner Bill Beardsley said this to the Commissioners:

“The important factor to me is that your board-- you all can say ‘no’. There is nothing about the expedited process that says it’s easier to get a ‘yes’.” 

What a relief it was on Wednesday to see that they ‘get it’.  That they understand and agree that just because wind facilities have been given special privileges--it doesn’t mean they are suitable to be placed on every horizon in the state of Maine.

LURC Commissioners have indicated they intend to deny the Bowers project, but that doesn’t mean that opponents are resting on their laurels and enjoying a well-deserved respite.  Citizens have witnessed the shenanigans of the wind industry time and again, and they are wondering what will come next.  It hasn’t escaped notice that Ms. Browne was also Trans-Canada’s attorney of record during the Sisk Mountain application process last year. 

In July of 2010 LURC decided to DENY the Sisk Mountain wind project, and instructed staff to draft a decision document to that effect for the August 4, 2010 meeting.

  http://www.maine.gov/doc/lurc/projects/Transcanada/Transcanada_PendingDevel.shtml

But once LURC’s straw vote was taken, Trans-Canada’s attorneys scrabbled to find ways to ‘mitigate’ the damage to the environment that the Sisk wind project would cause and they quickly created a new, revised application which reduced the number of turbines in the development.

Unfortunately, LURC was swayed by the developer’s new arguments and new application and they granted Trans-Canada’s permit for the Sisk Wind project in January of 2011.  (The Friends of the Boundary Mountains have appealed LURC’s decision to the Law Court and their case was heard on September 14^th.  They are currently waiting for the judges to make a ruling.)

The two projects and the issues involved are vastly different and yet, the fact that LURC was convinced to change their vote is troublesome to citizens who spend vast amounts of time, energy, emotion and financial resources to make their case against a particular development.  If a wind company can simply change the game mid-stream by supplying an altered application or paying more ‘mitigation’ funds, where is the due process?  Is that not favoring large and powerful corporations while disenfranchising Maine citizens?

I don’t believe First Wind can salvage the Bowers project.  There are no measures which could be taken which would make the project acceptable in the Downeast Lakes watershed.  Scenic impact simply cannot be mitigated. 

The LURC Commissioners were touring the Downeast Lakes in a pontoon boat on that same late June afternoon when I got my sunburn.  They explored the inlets and coves, viewed the islands and wooded shorelines.  When the flotilla’s motors were off, Commissioners heard the sweet sound of water lapping against the hull and the haunting call of nesting loons.  They felt the warm breeze lift their hair and the hot sun kiss their cheeks.  They watched the clouds scudding through the azure sky and viewed the jagged peaks of evergreens on the horizons. 

There is simply no way to mitigate that.

These are the words Governor LePage spoke in Rockport on June 18^th  when referring to industrial wind projects:

"They are doing an awful lot of damage to our quality of life, our mountains… I don't think it's going to lower the cost of energy.  I think in 10 years we're going to be like Sweden and Denmark and we're going to be swearing at ourselves."

Let’s not wait ten years.  Let’s not suffer regret because we sat back and did nothing.  Let’s take a page from the playbook of the PPDLW and protect and preserve Maine now, before 300 miles of our mountains and thousands of acres forest and shorelines are sacrificed for massive, inefficient, unreliable and extremely expensive wind turbines.  Let’s forge ahead and work to encourage an energy policy based on science and economics.  In doing so, our Legislature will be convinced to repeal that damaging law which set this travesty in motion.  The Wind Energy Act was based on a presumption of benefits—many of which have been shown to be inaccurate or non-existent.  It’s time for facts to drive our policies and not vague assumptions that wind is a panacea for our energy concerns.

LURC Commissioners made a wise decision about a difficult issue.  Their job is not easy and I believe they agonize over their votes each time they must cast them.  I hope that they feel at peace with the verdict they arrived at for the Bowers project. 

I have no doubt that an hour spent on Pleasant or Junior or Scraggly Lake would remind them of exactly what tranquility is all about.

Voices on Bowers Mt. Wind project: Downeast Lakes Watershed

Maine Citizens Overwhelmingly Say “NO!” to First Wind’s Bowers Mountain Industrial Wind Proposal

In one of the most hotly disputed industrial wind development proposals to come before Maine’s Land Use Regulation Commission, citizens of this state spoke out in opposition to the Bowers project by a margin of 9:1.

Champlain Wind LLC, one of the many limited liability subsidiaries of First Wind of Boston, is proposing to build a grid-scale wind facility on Bowers Mountain in Carroll Plantation and Dill Hill in Kossuth Township.  The proposed development would site 22 wind turbines, each approaching 500 feet tall, on a ridge overlooking the Downeast Lakes Watershed.

Based on LURC’s Wild Land Lakes Assessment study of over 1,500 lakes, this watershed has the highest concentration of Class 1A and 1B rated lakes in the state. In order to achieve that rating a lake had to exhibit “outstanding values of statewide significance.”  There are at least six lakes in this watershed that have a “1A” rating, three that have a “1B” rating and numerous others that are rated as a “2”.

During the application process, Maine citizens requested and were granted a public hearing.  An astonishing 379 citizens gave oral or written testimony about this project.  Three hundred thirty-seven (345) or 91% of those testifying were opposed to First Wind’s Bowers Mountain project.

Due to concerns that such massive industrialization would seriously damage the area’s extraordinary scenic value; more than two dozen professional guides and many of the local sporting camp owners took precious time away from their businesses during peak tourist season to come to Lincoln to testify in person.  Three prominent organizations, representing nearly 1,000 Maine business owners who are familiar with the watershed, publicly came out against the Bowers project:

* The Maine Professional Guides Association, 900 strong, which has representatives on committees such as Tourism, Conservation, Land Access, Landowners Relations, River Trust and others, voted unanimously to oppose the Bowers project.

* The Maine Sporting Camp Association, which represents more than 50 sporting camp owners.

* The Grand Lake Stream Guides Association, representing 50 full-time professional guides who make their livelihood on the Downeast Lakes Watershed, voted unanimously to oppose the Bowers project.

Says Gary Campbell of the Partnership for the Preservation of the Downeast Lakes Watershed (PPDLW): "The siting of First Wind's proposed Bowers Wind project runs contrary to what makes Maine, Maine. This project would impact the    magnificent Downeast Lakes region, an area with a long history of    protection by both the legislature and locals. The region's economy is uniquely dependent on its ability to provide visitors with a remote, wilderness experience. Seeing 27 turbines, each the size of    a 42-story building, punctuate the horizon will make that impossible. This region's renowned culture of traditional Maine sporting camps and professional guides, would be lost forever."

And PPDLW's president, Kevin Gural, states:  "The Downeast Lakes watershed from West Grand Lake and Grand Lake Stream to the south, to Pleasant, Scraggly, and Shaw lakes at the north comprise one of Maine's few remaining easily accessible large watersheds that retains it's mostly undeveloped shoreline, wilderness character, and scenic splendor.  The opposition to the Bowers wind project has been steadfast, above board, and unprecedented in size and scope.  It includes a large group of property owners, and recreational users of this resource, but more importantly, it includes those who make their living and are the primary employers in the watershed.  The lodges, sporting camps, guides, and support businesses have all spoken passionately and often against this development application .  The Maine Sporting Camp Association, the Maine Professional Guides Association and the Grand Lake Stream Guides Association have all published posiiton statements against these poorly sited industrial wind projects.  Recreational tourism, whether it be fishing, hiking, canoe and kayak tripping, wildlife photography, or other outdoor pursuits, have been the lifeblood of this historic sportsmen's Mecca for well over a hundred years.  The very basic foundation of the area's businesses is at risk here. 

"In reviewing the testimonies of the 379 individuals and business men and women who testified on this application, 345 or 91% were adamantly AGAINST permitting this project.  We have faith that the LURC Commissioners will follow their mission statement and their CLUP (Comprehensive Land Use Plan) to vote unanimously to deny this development application.  In doing so, they will send a strong message to these wind project developers that Gov. Baldacci's Expedited Wind Permitting Law is meant to afford them a faster permitting process, but is not intended to circumvent LURC's or D.E.P.'s duties as stewards of our Maine's most valuable resource - it's "Quality of Place"."

Maine citizens have spoken up in opposition to the Bowers wind project.   It is our hope that the Maine Land Use Regulation Commission will deny First Wind/Champlain Wind's permit application on Wednesday, October 19, 2011.  Please come to the Waterfront Event Center, 8 Prince Street, Lincoln, Maine at 11:00 a.m. to show your support for the local residents, business owners and tourists who oppose the Bowers industrial wind development in the Downeast Lakes Watershed.