Speaking from Experience--A Voice of Freedom

What follows is a Letter to the Editor which appears in the May 28, 2011 editions of the Morning Sentinel and the Kennebec Journal. Steve and Judy Bennett, along with many of their friends and neighbors, have lived with the effects of industrial wind turbines for approximately three years. They can't get any relief, and few have stood up for their rights. Their health and quality of life have been adversely impacted, and their properties have lost value due to the intrusive sound and shadow flicker which has resulted from the placement of three 40 story turbines near their homes. Please consider contacting your Legislators and asking them to stand up for these citizens. The 'powers that be' haven't helped them, so it's time that everyday citizens (like you and me) take a stand.


MAINE COMPASS:

Freedom wind site neighbors 'not entitled to equal protection'
by Steve Bennett

Steve Bennett of Freedom is a retired teacher. He owns an insurance
and financial services business "Freedom Financial Group" in Unity. At
one time or another, he has been a town selectman and a member of the
town's budget committee and planning board.

Beaver Ridge Wind in Freedom is the only non-regulated industrial wind
site in the state of Maine and the only one not approved by the
Department of Environmental Protection.

In 2008, the DEP decided, I believe, that a three-turbine project in
Freedom was too small to be concerned about. We tried many times to
get the DEP and the state of Maine to do their jobs, but it seemed as
if we were up against too much money and the influence that is gained
by that money.

I continued trying to get someone at the state level to pay attention,
however, and on a sunny September day last fall, I convinced Dr. Dora
Mills, who at the time was director of the Maine Center for Disease
Control, to visit Freedom.

Mills, along with Andrew Fisk of the DEP and John Piotti, our state
representative at the time, came to listen to about 20 Beaver Hill
neighbors talk about our experiences living with the noise from the
turbines and the blade flicker that invades our homes.

Sitting on Jeff and Stacey Keating's front lawn about of 1,700 feet
from the turbines, they also experienced the noise firsthand.

Before that visit, Mills had repeatedly been quoted by wind developers
as saying that because no peer-reviewed reports regarding the ill
effects of industrial wind exist, concerns about the health impact of
noise from wind turbines were greatly exaggerated.

At this legislative session, Rep. Ryan Harmon, R-Palermo, at my
request, submitted L.D. 711, which would have required the noise
control rules within the Site Review Law be applied to Beaver Ridge
Wind. These are the same noise rules that have been in effect in Maine
for more than years, and the same noise rules that apply to every
other wind site in Maine.

At least 20 people from Freedom and elsewhere in the state testified
in favor of the bill at the hearing before the Energy Committee. Many
others, including Mills, testified in writing. Her testimony, in part,
reads:

"While I believe wind power adds an important and needed
diversification of our energy resources, I feel that state noise
regulations should be the statewide minimum for all wind power
projects."

When she visited the site last fall, she said, several homes appeared
to be within 1,700 feet of the turbines, and "from reported
measurements and from the experience we had visiting there, it
appeared the state noise standards, as set by Maine DEP regulations,
are often exceeded." Because of the project's small footprint and lack
of a municipal ordinance, " a simple building permit was all that was
required of the wind project developers."

Mills said she had "visited other wind project sites that are in
compliance with state regulations" and studied the issue. She said, "I
believe all wind projects, no matter how large or small their
footprint is, should be in compliance with the minimum standards as
set by state DEP regulations. I believe L.D. 711 tries to address this
issue. I also hope that the Beaver Ridge project can be included
retroactively."

I thought, given the testimony, that L.D. 711 had a chance. But then
Beaver Ridge Wind requested a behind closed-door meeting, first with a
member of the administration and then with the co-chairman of the
Energy Committee. Pressure apparently was applied, and L.D. 711 was
the first of the committee's wind measures that was killed.

So, once again, we are told that the people in the Beaver Ridge
neighborhood are not entitled to equal protection. Once again, it's
apparent to me that money, not people, has the deciding influence in
Augusta.

***********************************
Top photo: Tina Shute
2nd photo: Rick Harris
3rd photo: Kaz
Bottom photo: Steve Bennett

Voices from Downeast...As Appeared in "Maine Voices", Portland Press Herald

The article below appears in today's (May 28, 2011) Portland Press Herald . Kevin is a friend of mine-- a wonderful man I never would have met if it were not for our involvement in the effort to protect Maine's special regions from industrial wind development. Please read his fascinating and informative op-ed, and then consider writing to LURC, attention Fred Todd (fred.todd@maine.gov)to ask that they deny First Wind's permit for the Bowers mountain wind development. Consider speaking up at the Public Hearing at Lincoln High School on June 27 and 28 at 6 p.m. Every little bit helps. And those little bits add up.

Thank you.

Maine Voices: Downeast Lakes watershed needs protection
A forest of wind turbines would forever change the pristine woodland
into an industrial site.

SPRINGFIELD - It's not hunting season, but there's plenty of "shots"
being fired in the ongoing battle to save one of the state's most
historic and significant watersheds from irreparable and permanent
damage.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Kevin Gurall of Springfield in Penobscot County is president of The
Partnership for the Preservation of the Downeast Lakes Watershed

Their scenic character and wilderness setting is the lifeblood of the
traditional businesses in the entire Downeast Lakes watershed.

First Wind LLC of Boston is going through the LURC permitting process
right now to build an industrial wind turbine project that would
consist of 27 forty-three story tall turbines overshadowing such
pristine lakes as Pleasant, Scraggly, Junior, Lower Dobsi, Pocumcus,
West Grand and several others that total over 17,000 surface acres.

This watershed's significance goes back well over 100 years, to when
the state of Maine realized the value of what today is still the
purest strain of landlocked salmon anywhere in New England, and built
a hatchery in Grand Lake Stream in 1877.

This watershed hosts the highest per capita concentration of
registered Maine guides in the state. It also has the highest
concentration of Class 1A and 1B lakes in the state, which means they
are rated to be "of statewide or national significance" in the state's
Wildlands Lake Study.

It also hosts such storied lodges such as Weatherby's, Leen's, The
Pines, Grand Lake Lodge, as well as more than half a dozen others
throughout the watershed.

These lodges are unique not only because the likes of Calvin Coolidge,
Ted Williams, Norman Mailer, Jimmy Doolittle and Curt Gowdy frequented
them, but also because they cumulatively are one of the biggest
employers in the region.

The scenic impact assessment study submitted by First Wind says very
arrogantly, that the fishermen who come to this watershed can orient
themselves away from the turbines when they fish, or go fish in a cove
that hides you from that view. Can you believe the arrogance of this
Boston-based company!

People from literally around the globe have been coming to this
watershed for more than 100 years to vacation in an area that combines
the serene scenic character of a wilderness setting with some of the
best fishing the state has to offer.

They spend their hard-earned vacation time and money on gas, food,
lodging, license fees, and much more to be able to sit in the front
end of a guide's Grand Laker canoe and take in the very best that
mother nature has to offer.


But all that will end if this project gets approved by LURC. Sportsmen
are going to be a lot less likely to fly or drive 10-12 hours to come
fish and enjoy themselves in the shadow of an industrial energy site
-- chances are they can save hundreds, if not thousands, of dollars by
staying much closer to home if they don't mind recreating in an
industrial environment!

If this subject interests you, please submit written testimony to LURC
denouncing the Bowers Mountain project, or come to the LURC public
hearings at the Lincoln High School on June 27 and 28 at 6 p.m. Anyone
can speak at these public hearings.

Save the Downeast lakes! Say "no" to the Bowers Mountain project and
others like it.
****************************
Photos courtesy of The Preservation of the Downeast Lakes Watershed.

Maine: Open for (Wind) Business...

Maine is at a cross-roads. This weekend marks the beginning of our summer tourist season. Tens of thousands of people from the metropolitan centers in the northeast and beyond will be traveling to Maine to experience "the way life SHOULD be". As the cost of manufacturing has driven many Maine businesses to locate elsewhere, we have come to rely more and more upon our tourist industry. It is an important source of income. In addition, those who travel here to experience all we have to offer are the best source of free advertising we could hope for.

This is copied from a blurb put out by Maine's tourism industry: "Neither our executive nor legislative leaders can ignore the $530 million that the industry contributes annually to the general tax fund. Nor con they overlook the more than 170,000 jobs the industry provides to Maine families statewide. And they cannot be anything other than ecstatic by the state accounting that shows Maine tourism to be a more than $ 10 billion industy. In 2009, for instance, astonishingly we welcomed more than 34 million visitors, and through September of this year (2010), more than 22 million guests have visited our state..."

Will the industrialization of 300-400 miles of Maine's iconic summits dampen the enthusiasm of those who travel here "from away" to spend their hard-earned money so that they can enjoy Maine's natural resources? Can Maine afford to cater to one industry--which provides a product which is unreliable and intermittent, and which will cause Maine rate-payers to pay higher electric bills, while only bringing a handful of permament jobs?

Is our leadership doing the citizens of Maine an injustice by their support of the industrial wind lobby? Have we sacrificed something irreplaceable in our rush to swallow the propaganda that the wind lobby feeds us?

Would scientific and economic studies show that 'wind' looses on a 'cost vs. benefit' analysis?

Maine may be "open for business", but if that business is wind at any cost, how many nature-based enterprises will fail? How many sporting camps, guide services, family campgrounds and the like will take a hit when our natural resources are devalued and compromised?

We all hope such a day never comes. But if it seems imminent, what will we do to prevent it?

It's something to think about.

I wish you a peaceful and relaxing Memorial Day weekend. God Bless those who have sacrificed so much for our freedom.

Kaz

A Voice on a Canvas

Do the mountains of Maine occupy a special place in your heart?

How about the mountains of Highland Plantation, at the gateway to the Bigelow Preserve and the Appalachian Trail? Have you viewed their beauty from atop Avery Peak, or marveled at their splendor as you traveled up the Long Falls Dam Road?

The Friends of the Highland Mountains has received a generous gift. One of our members, local artist Nora West, has completed a painting of the Highland mountains, as seen from the Long Falls Dam Road in Lexington Township, just south of the Highland Plantation town line. In the shadow of the mountains is the Burbank farm, and everyone who has traveled this route on their way to the Big Eddy, Cobb’s Pierce Pond Camps, the Carry Ponds, or to Flagstaff Lake and the Bigelow Preserve, will recognize this view. So, too, will the locals who call this wonderful place “home”.

Nora has donated 3 Giclee prints of this painting, which will be signed and numbered. The size of each print is the same as the original (12” x 24”) and this is a limited edition. A total of only 5 prints of this painting have been made.

The Friends of the Highland Mountains are offering these prints for a donation of $125.00 each. It is our greatest hope that this vista will be preserved for future generations, and we are working hard in our efforts to protect and preserve this unique place. This is a wonderful opportunity to memorialize this special scene captured by a local artist from the valley of Highland’s mountains.

If you would like to support our efforts and acquire one of the three prints available, please contact me by calling (207) 628-2070 or (207) 340-0066, or email me at roomtomove@tds.net. Once we have received your check or verified funds received though our Paypal account at www.highlandmts.org, we will deliver your print.

This is a rare opportunity to commemorate the “Quality of Place” that FHM is working hard to protect.

Heartfelt thanks, Nora.

And thanks to those who have supported--and continue to support--our efforts.

Sonar Voices

Please read the press release from Maine's Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife, and then consider the impacts which 1800 wind turbines will have on Maine's bat population.

Bat Disease, White-Nose Syndrome, Confirmed in Maine; Not Harmful to Humans, but Deadly to Bats

AUGUSTA, Maine – The Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife has received confirmation that white-nose syndrome, a disease that has killed more than one million bats in eastern North America, now is in Maine.

Until this year, Maine appeared to be insulated from white-nose syndrome while states and provinces outside its borders were not. However, during surveys conducted by MDIF&W biologists this spring, bats at two sites in Oxford County displayed visible signs of white-nose syndrome fungus on their wings and muzzles. Carcasses collected from one of the sites were sent to the U.S. Geological Survey-National Wildlife Health Center in Madison, Wisconsin, for diagnostic evaluation for the disease, and MDIF&W recently received confirmation of the disease in Maine.

White-nose syndrome is associated with a newly discovered fungus, Geomyces destructans, and was given this name because, when first discovered, infected bats had white fungus on their muzzles. WNS was first documented in New York in 2006 and has since spread throughout the Northeast and Canada. Between 90 and 100 percent of hibernating bats in some hibernacula – or caves and mines where bats hibernate in the winter – in the Northeast have died from WNS.

With the addition of Maine, white-nose syndrome has been confirmed in 17 states and four Canadian provinces.

“We are saddened by the discovery of white-nose syndrome in Maine, the final New England state to confirm the presence of this devastating disease,” said Jeremy Coleman, National White-Nose Syndrome Coordinator for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. “We will continue to work closely with the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife and our other partners to support research and management of the disease in Maine and across North America.”

Bat species that hibernate in mines or caves are susceptible to WNS. In Maine, those species are big brown bats (Eptesicus fuscus), little brown bats (Myotis lucifungus), northern long-eared bats (Myotis septentrionalis), tri-colored bats (Pipistrellus subflavus), and eastern small-footed bats (Myotis leibii).


The disease is not harmful to humans, but scientists believe it is possible for humans to transport fungal spores on clothing and gear. In 2009, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service advised cavers and researchers to curtail caving activities and implement decontamination procedures in an effort to reduce the spread of white-nose syndrome. The fungus cannot be killed simply by washing clothing.

“Scientists are still learning about WNS, but the fungus lives in cold, damp environments and we know of no risk to humans from contact with infected bats,” according to MDIF&W Wildlife Biologist John DePue.

According to DePue, Maine has only a few hibernacula, or places where bats hibernate for the winter, potentially delaying the infestation of some bats in Maine. However, the fungus associated with WNS may be passed from one bat to another even in the summer, especially when bats gather in maternity roosts. “It is possible that bats that winter in Maine spent the summer in contact with bats from WNS-infected sites in other states, and then carried the fungus back with them to their winter hibernaculum in Maine,” according to DePue.

Bats play a critical role in maintaining healthy ecosystems and have an enormous impact on pest control. Therefore, bats benefit the economies of forestry and agriculture in the United States. For example, the one million little brown bats that have already died due to WNS would have eaten between 660 and 1,320 metric tons of insects in one year. A recent study published in Science estimates that insect-eating bats provide a significant pest-control service, saving the U.S. agricultural industry at least $3 billion a year.


MDIF&W is partnering with other state and federal agencies, tribes, and non-governmental organizations to monitor bat populations through pre- and post-pup rearing surveillance, and maternity emergence counts.

To help reduce the spread of white-nose syndrome, people are asked to follow these guidelines:

· Do not handle alive or dead bats.
· Do not enter caves or mines in Maine during the winter hibernation months.

Disturbing bats during hibernation causes them to use limited fat reserves and could cause mortality in already health-compromised bats.

· For the most up-to-date cave and mine closures and decontamination procedures, visit the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service White-Nose Syndrome web site: http://www.fws.gov/whitenosesyndrome·

If you have bats roosting in domestic structures, allow them to rear their pups and exit the structure at the end of the summer before closing off any entrance holes. Provide bats with a bat house for when they return next year.

For more information on white-nose syndrome in Maine, visit the MDIF&W website at www.mefishwildlife.com or send an email with your questions to

ifw.webmaster@maine.gov. Or visit www.fws.gov/whitenosesyndrome or www.nwhc.usgs.gov/disease_information/white_nose_syndrome.
Photos on Flickr: http://www.flickr.com/photos/usfwshq/sets/72157626665235455/

Deborah Turcotte
Spokesperson, Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife
SHS 41 284 State St.
Augusta, ME 04333
C: (207) 592-1164

**********************************
Top photo: Bat with white-nose syndrome, Nancy Heaslip, New York Dept. of Environmental Conservation

Voices in Dispute--From the Huffington Post

What follows is an article from the Huffington Post regarding the ongoing controversy on Vinalhaven Island, Maine. As I've watched this story unfold, I have been shocked and saddened by the actions of Fox Island Wind and George Baker, as well as the behavior of a few of the islanders who have gone out of their way to belittle and demean the residents who are suffering from the unexpected effects of the turbines. It is my sincere hope that this community will come together and not let this issue further divide them.

I believe that the time is up for the developer. FIW has had months to comply with the DEP. FIW has refused. FIW has thumbed its nose at the DEP and taken blatant steps to create controversy on the island, pitting neighbor against neighbor.

If you or I did not comply with the law, we'd be arrested and thrown in jail. Are industrial wind developers above the law?

Maine citizens deserve to know the answer to that question.


Wind Power Noise Dispute On Tranquil Maine Island Intensifies

A three-turbine wind farm on the island village of Vinalhaven in Maine has caused a multi-year rift that recently intensified.

While thousands of wind power enthusiasts and industry representatives gather in Anaheim Calif. for Windpower 2011, the American Wind Power Association's popular annual conference and exhibition, some 3,300 miles due east, wind power is tearing a tiny island community asunder.

In the latest turn, an attorney representing several homeowners living closest to a three-turbine wind installation on the tiny island of Vinalhaven in Maine's Penobscot Bay filed a formal complaint with the Maine Public Utilities Commission on Monday.

The complaint charges that the Fox Island Electric Cooperative, the local utility, and Fox Island Wind, the developer of the wind installation which is owned by the utility, have engaged in repeated harassment of the homeowners, who have argued since shortly after the turbines came online in late 2009 that the machines have been in violation of state noise ordinances. That assertion was subsequently supported by the state Department of Environmental Protection.

The developer has repeatedly disputed those findings, and the majority of the island's residents support the wind farm, which is seen as a source of eco-pride and sensible thrift, ostensibly saving the island from the need to import pricier power from the mainland.

But Monday's complaint states that the residents nearest the turbines have legitimate concerns that have long gone unheeded, despite multiple attempts to resolve the issue through negotiation, and that instead the local utility has recently upped the rhetorical ante by placing two separate "inserts" inside all islanders' utility bills. The inserts claim that legal expenses associated with the neighbors' noise complaints were costing the cooperative hundreds of thousands of dollars, and that as a result, a 5 percent increase in utility rates was needed.

The announcement caused the neighbors, perhaps not surprisingly, to suffer "retribution, harassment and hostility" from fellow Vinalhaven residents who are not within earshot of the turbines, according to the complaint. The utility's tactic also amounted to what the complaint called "intimidation and an abuse of the powers of a utility."

Vinalhaven became a flashpoint last year for a small but persistent backlash against industrial wind power, as residents living nearest the spinning behemoths became vocal about their experiences.

Like nearly all residents of the island, they supported the idea of a wind farm at first. Yet the Fox Island Wind Neighbors, as the loosely knit group of a dozen or so residents dubbed themselves, said they soon began to worry about the noise, being within a one-mile radius of the project site.

Representatives of Fox Island Wind assured them the noise would be minimal. But as Art Lindgren, one of the neighbors, told this reporter last year, their worst fears were confirmed once the turbines were switched on.

“In the first 10 minutes, our jaws dropped to the ground,” he said. “Nobody in the area could believe it. They were so loud.”

Lindgren's lament has been echoed in jurisdictions across the land, as an increasing number of communities come to weigh the innumerable collective benefits of wind power -- clean, non-toxic, no emissions, climate-friendly, water-friendly, renewable, sustainable -- against some of the downsides experienced by those living nearby.

Indeed, proximate residents around the country have cited everything from the throbbing, low-frequency drone to mind-numbing strobe effects as the rising or setting sun slices through the spinning blades:

Others have gone so far as to describe something called "wind turbine syndrome," arising from turbine-generated low-frequency noise and "infrasound," and causing all manner of symptoms -- from headache and dizziness to ear pressure, nausea, visual blurring, racing heartbeat, and panic episodes -- though the science on these claims is still thin.

And there are still lingering and long-standing concerns over hazards presented by turbines to migrating birds and bats.

At Vinalhaven, for example, a 28-month study conducted by ornithologist Richard Podolsky, who was hired by Fox Island Wind, the project's developer, recently declared the turbines' impacts on local eagle and osprey populations to be negligible.


But in March, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service sent a letter to attorneys representing the Fox Island Wind project, lambasting those conclusions. The letter questioned the study's methodologies for studying eagle, bat and bird collision assessment and mortality, suggesting that they needed to be more rigorous and better-defined and described.

The wildlife regulators asked that new studies be conducted before a permit necessary to allow the project to proceed -- despite the potential for incidental harm to bald and golden eagle species in the area -- is issued. Both are protected by federal legislation.

Meanwhile, the complaint filed on Monday asks the Maine Public Utility Commission to sanction the Vinalhaven utility and Fox Island Wind for the utility bill inserts, and urges them to prevent any similar communications with ratepayers in the future.

It also asks that the state commission prevent the island utility from attempting to raise rates to cover expenses from its dispute with the affected homeowners going forward -- characterizing such expenses as "the product of mismanagement, and reckless conduct."

Queries sent to officials at Fox Island Wind and the Vinalhaven electric cooperative were not immediately returned Tuesday morning. This report will be updated if they respond.

Voices from Germany

Below is the summary of "Economic impacts from the promotion of renewable energies:
The German experience".

Isn't it time we learned from others' experiences? Others' mistakes? Surely, that is the common-sense thing to do.

**********************************

3Summary and Conclusion

Although renewable energies have a potentially beneficial role to play as part of
Germany’s energy portfolio, the commonly advanced argument that renewables
confer a double dividend or “win-win solution” in the form of environmental stewardship and economic prosperity is disingenuous. In this article, we argue that
Germany’s principal mechanism of supporting renewable technologies through
feed-in tariffs, in fact, imposes high costs without any of the alleged positive impacts on emissions reductions, employment, energy security, or technological innovation.

First, as a consequence of the prevailing coexistence of the Renewable Energy
Sources Act (EEG) and the EU Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS), the increased use of
renewable energy technologies triggered by the EEG does not imply any additional
emission reductions beyond those already achieved by ETS alone. This is in line with
Morthorst (2003), who analyzes the promotion of renewable energy usage by alternative
instruments using a three-country model. This study’s results suggest that
renewable support schemes are questionable climate policy instruments in the
presence of the ETS.

Second, numerous empirical studies have consistently shown the net employment
balance to be zero or even negative in the long run, a consequence of the high
opportunity cost of supporting renewable energy technologies. Indeed, it is most
likely that whatever jobs are created by renewable energy promotion would vanish
as soon as government support is terminated, leaving only Germany’s export sector
to benefit from the possible continuation of renewables support in other countries
such as the US. Third, rather than promoting energy security, the need for backup
power from fossil fuels means that renewables increase Germany’s dependence on
gas imports, most of which come from Russia. And finally, the system of feed-in
tariffs stifles competition among renewable energy producers and creates perverse
incentives to lock into existing technologies.

Economic impacts from the promotion of renewable energies

Hence, although Germany’s promotion of renewable energies is commonly portrayed
in the media as setting a “shining example in providing a harvest for the
world” (The Guardian 2007), we would instead regard the country’s experience as a
cautionary tale of massively expensive environmental and energy policy that is
devoid of economic and environmental benefits. As other European governments
emulate Germany by ramping up their promotion of renewables, policy makers
should scrutinize the logic of supporting energy sources that cannot compete on the
market in the absence of government assistance. Such scrutiny is also warranted in
the US, where there are currently nearly 400 federal and state programs in place
that provide financial incentives for renewable energy (DSIRE 2009).
History clearly shows that governments have an abysmal record of selecting economically productive projects through such programs (Kahn 2009).

Nevertheless, government intervention can serve to support renewable energy technologies through other mechanisms that harness market incentives or correct for market failures. The European Trading Scheme, under which emissions certificates are
traded, is one obvious example. Another is funding for research and development
(R&D), which may compensate for underinvestment from the private sector owing to
positive externalities. In the early stages of development of non-competitive technologies, for example, it appears to be more cost-effective to invest in R&D to
achieve competitiveness, rather than to promote their large-scale production.
In its country report on Germany’s energy policy, the International Energy Agency
recommends considering ‘‘policies other than the very high feed-in tariffs to promote
solar photovoltaics’’ (IEA, 2007:77). This recommendation is based on the
grounds that ‘‘the government should always keep cost-effectiveness as a critical
component when deciding between policies and measures’’ (IEA, 2007:76). Consequently,
the IEA proposes policy instruments favouring research and development.

Lesser and Su (2008:986) concur with this viewpoint: ‘‘Technologies that are theoretically promising, but unlikely to be competitive for many years, may be best
addressed under other policies, such as publicly funded R&D’’. This reasoning is
particularly relevant for solar cells, whose technological efficiency is widely known
to be modest and, hence, should be first increased substantially via R&D.
Instead of a policy instrument that aims at pushing technological improvements,
however, Germany’s support scheme of renewable energy technologies resembles
traditional active labour market programs, which have been demonstrated in the
literature to be counterproductive (Kluve, 2006:13). It bears particular noting that
the long shadows of this economic support will last for another two decades even if
the EEG were to be abolished immediately.

Blown Away by Wind Accidents

Below is a link to a report about 'wind' accidents which have happened around the world. And within that report are dozens of links to the stories which prompted it.

http://www.caithnesswindfarms.co.uk/fullaccidents.pdf

The Voice of a Wind Developer

If you follow the progress of the wind energy plan for Maine, you will recognize the name of Rob Gardiner. He is president of Independence Wind of Brunswick, and the business partner of former governor Angus King. These gentlemen are building a grid-scale wind facility on Record Hill in Roxbury, and have twice submitted permit applications to LURC requesting permission to build an industrial-scale wind development in Highland Plantation.

On May 2, 2011, Mr. Gardiner and Mr. King withdrew their permit application for the Highland project, citing the need to supply additional data to "government review agencies". Maine's Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife had, two weeks prior, submitted Agency review comments, wherein they cited the unsuitability of the Highland mountains for a project such as the developers were proposing. (The MDIFW has stated publicly that they've consulted with the developers since 2007 on this same project, so it is hard to believe that they were caught unawares by that Agency comment.)

If you've followed this topic, you'll also know that Friends of the Highland Mountains argued the issue of completeness regarding both their applications. After the first one was accepted as 'complete' by the LURC staff on January 29, 2010, and after we submitted a formal objection to that status, the LURC Commissioners suspended the application in April of 2010. They agreed that Highland Wind LLC did not have Title, Right or Interest to all the land necessary to get their product to market.

Below is a copy of an email secured through the Freedom of Information Act, sent from Rob Gardiner to Catherine Carroll, director of LURC, on January 14, 2010. The 'federal program deadline for initiating construction' Mr. Gardiner refers to is most likely the "1603 Cash Grant" program, an initiative of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. (This program was set to expire in December of 2010, but has since been extended.) According to the Treasury Department's website, "The 1603 program offers renewable energy project developers cash payments in lieu of the investment tax credits (ITC).1 The value of the awards are equivalent to 30% of the project's total eligble cost basis in most cases."

The estimated costs for the original Highland project were in the neighborhood of $260Million. That cash grant the developers were chasing was valued at approximately $70Million. $70,000,000.00 CASH. GRANT. Not a loan, but a GRANT. Paid for by you and me. It's no wonder Mr. Gardiner was in a hurry to have LURC staff declare 'completeness' on their application. If LURC granted a public hearing to the People of Maine, the time-frame mandated by the Wind Energy Act for review would jump from 185 days to 270 days.

That didn't leave much wiggle room, did it?

****************************
From: Rob Gardiner
Sent: Thursday, January 14, 2010 11:42 AM
To: Carroll, Catherine M.
Subject: process

Catherine,

We'd like to discuss with you the process and timetable for our Highland Wind Project application which is currently under review by Marcia for completeness. We know that LURC has already received numerous requests for a public hearing on this application. We recognize that it is quite possible that LURC will ultimately decide to hold a public hearing, and this additional step in the process is likely to make it take up most of calendar 2010 for LURC review. Like most developers, we'd like the process to move along as swiftly as possible, but in our case there is an important federal program deadline for initiating construction that makes it particularly important for us. Because you are the link between LURC staff and the Commission and the key process decisions rest in part with the Commission, we'd like to discuss the alternatives with you.

I am writing to see if we can schedule a brief conference call with you to discuss the timetable that you anticipate and any measures that we might take to expedite things. I'd like to include Jon Ryan of Stantec, as he coordinates our LURC application work. Please let me know if we can schedule this soon. Thank you.

Sincerely,

Rob Gardiner

***************************
Top Photo: The Highland Mountains
Bottom Photo: View from HW LLC's met tower site on Stewart Mountain in Highland Plantation

Tardy Voices

Since the beginning of this legislative session in January, citizens from across Maine have been working to promote common-sense bills which will protect Mainers' heath, their finances, their quality of life, and this state's unparalleled "Quality of Place". We've encountered stiff opposition from some Legislators, and amazing and courageous support from others. But many members of the 125th Legislature are confronted with a large learning curve, and haven't yet had the opportunity to research the facts about mountaintop industrial wind facilities, or the wind energy plan for Maine. Others have already been lobbied-- and lobbied hard-- by the wind industry. They don't want to listen to us.

As you can see by the letter below, not everyone has turned a deaf ear. But the representative who wrote this letter, Rep. Tardy, is no longer a member of Maine's House of Representatives. As a member of the Joint Standing Committee on Energy, Utilities and Technology, he was in a good position to assist our efforts. Now, many of our efforts must be repeated--ARE being repeated--and we must speak up, again. We only hope that members of the 125th Legislature and the EUT Committee will listen.

Listen, and act accordingly.
*************************************
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
2 STATE HOUSE STATION
AUGUSTA, MAINE 04333-0002
(207)287-1440
TTY: (207)287-4469

Joshua A. Tardy
P.O. Box 381
Newport, ME 04953
Residence: (207) 368-5858
E-Mail: tardylaw@adelphia.net Ma rch 5, 2010

Ms. Heidi Emery
46 Sandy Stream Road
Highland Plantation, Maine 04961

Dear Ms. Emery:

I appreciate your taking the time to write and express your concerns with wind energy developments, specifically LD 2283, "An Act To Implement Recommendations of the Governor's Task Force on Wind Power Development." This bill was passed during the 123rd Legislature and was signed as an emergency measure by the Governor on April 18,2008.

Your letter clearly points out your apprehensions with regard to the expeditious nature of these developments and I am sympathetic to your situation, i.e. your son's medical condition and the fact that you live in a valley where sounds are very much amplified. Although it does not seem likely additional legislation will be permitted this session to address a moratorium on development, let me assure you that I will speak with my colleagues on the Joint Standing Committee on Utilities and Energy, the committee with jurisdiction over these matters, about the need for more comprehensive and restrictive noise testing and standards.

Nearly a dozen bills were introduced this session dealing with wind power, demonstrating this topic is one that is gaining momentum in the public's eye and validating the need for careful regulation and oversight. For more information, I would direct you to the Land Use Regulation Commission website, Highland Wind LLC Development Pending Actions, to follow any developments with this project:

http://www.maine.gOv/doc/l urc/projects/Windpower/HighlandWind/Highland_DP4862.s html.

Also, I am sending along a site I have come across from other inquiries regarding the Highlands Mountains: http://highlandmts.org/.

Thank you for writing. Please do so again should other matters of interest arise.

Joshua A. Tardy, State Representative

Sincerely,


District 25 Corinna, part of Corinth, Exeter, Newport and Plymouth
Printed on recycled paper

*****************
Bottom Photo: Rep. Larry Dunphy, District 88-- a true representative of the People

CO2 Facts--Wind Farms are Redundant

A DETAILED ANALYSIS OF THEIR ALLEGED FUEL AND CO2 SAVINGS

The rationale behind our politicians´ enthusiasm for wind power and other renewable energies is not rooted in an objective analysis. We shall not speculate here on political agendas or corrupt behavior, but simply explain why wind farms serve no useful purpose.

In Western countries, public energy policy is based on this fundamental premise: wind farms are a mature technology for producing green energy, and are competitive. But, if they are competitive, why do they need enormously expensive subsidies, direct or indirect?

The wind farm industry routinely replies to this question by pointing to the “external costs” of producing energy with fossil fuels. These external costs are, in a nutshell, pollution, CO2, and global warming. The flaw in this line of argumentation is that the external costs in question equally apply to wind farming, as I shall now endeavor to demonstrate in easily understandable language.

I) – Wind farms cause conventional power plants to burn more fossil-fuels per KWh produced.

It is an undisputed fact that anyone driving in city traffic spends considerably more fuel than he would on the motorway. There are two reasons for this:

- An engine burns fuel more efficiently when running at its optimal cruising speed (about 100 kph for most cars).

- An engine burns fuel with low efficiency and produces more harmful gases when it accelerates. Who hasn´t noticed the blue smoke coming out of exhaust pipes when cars accelerate? (black smoke in the case of poorly-tuned diesel engines).


In city traffic, cars accelerate, come to a stop, accelerate again, stop again, etc. This causes more fuel consumption and more pollution. And we must add to this the burning of fuel for nothing when cars are stopped at red lights, of stuck in traffic-jams.

The same happens with fossil-fuel power plants: they consume and pollute more when accelerating and stopping frequently. And the crux of the matter is that wind farms force these plants to operate that way.

Here is how:

A) - When the wind is blowing, fossil-fuel power plants (FFPPs) must curtail their productions because electricity produced by wind farms enjoys priority on
the grid. As there are no batteries large enough to absorb electricity produced in excess of demand, the FFPPs are thus ramped down to lower levels of production. This is necessary in order to maintain the required frequency of 50 Hz on the national grid, failing which there would be crippling black-outs, something a modern economy cannot tolerate.

The optimal efficiency of FFPPs being when they operate at about 95% capacity, this ramping down causes them to burn more fuel, to emit more CO2, and to pollute more for each KWh produced.

B) - Conversely, every time the wind speed goes down, whether or not temporarily, FFPPs must ramp up their production rapidly to avoid black-outs. This ramping up is comparable to the acceleration of an automobile in that it burns fuel quite inefficiently and emits more gases.

As this ramping up and down occurs frequently during a single day due to the high variability of wind speed, fuel consumption, CO2 emissions, and pollution
increase greatly for each KWh produced by the FFPPs. And wind farms are responsible for it.

C) - Finally, when one or more FFPPs must stop producing altogether because an increased quantity of wind-generated electricity has entered the grid, they must continue to spin in stand-by mode, burning fuel and emitting gases but not producing any electricity. This is necessary because wind is unpredictable, and these power plants will be required to ramp-up again at a moment’s notice when wind speed will go down.

Coal-fired power plants need several hours to produce electricity from a cold start. Closed-cycle gas turbines (CCGT) can respond quicker, but not at the flick of a switch. Nuclear plants cannot ramp up rapidly. Hydro power can, but is kept in reserve for emergencies (e.g. a FFPP breaking down). Flick-of-a-switch open-cycle gas turbines (OCGT), which are relatively expensive to operate, are being kept in reserve like hydro or used for peak loads only, i.e. at the time of day when electricity demand is at its highest. In the circumstances, a number of coal-fired or CCGT plants must be kept operating in stand-by mode when the wind is blowing, just in case it would abate rapidly.

A, B and C cause fuel to be burnt for nothing. This is caused by the existence of windfarms, whose "non-dispatchable" (uncontrollable) production must be "balanced", or "backed-up", by dispatchable FFPPs.

The higher the installed capacity of windpower in a country, the higher the number of FFPPs that must be kept running in back-up when the wind is blowing, balancing the erratic production of windfarms; and the more fuel is burnt for nothing.


An example will help understand these constraints of electricity production:

- Suppose a country has 20,000 MW of installed capacity in wind power.

- Suppose that, on a windy day, these wind farms are producing at 95% capacity, i.e. 19,000 MW (there will always be a few turbines in need of repair).

- Now suppose that the wind abates rapidly, and that within 2 hours only 10,000 MW of wind power capacity are actually being used. All things being equal, e.g. the demand for electricity, the grid manager will have to ramp up 9,000 MW into the grid. If he doesn´t have at that moment a dozen or so FFPPs spinning on stand-by, he will not be able to avoid a black-out, or at least a brownout (this is when electricity supply is being cut to certain customers, generally industries that use a lot of electricity). Brownouts already occurred in California and Spain, and a black-out in Germany. Although wind farms were not made officially responsible for these costly disruptions (political correctness oblige), they did play a substantial role.

Recapitulation: extra fuel burnt to back-up wind power

1) More fuel is burnt by FFPPs spinning in standby, assuring against the risk of wind abating.

2) More fuel is burnt per KWh produced when FFPPs are ramped up every time the wind speed inches down.

3) More fuel is burnt per KWh produced when FFPPs are forced to ramp down and operate at a lower level of efficiency when the wind is blowing.

All in all, there is considerable suspicion that wind farms may be saving next to nothing (if at all) in fuel, pollution, and CO2 when their detrimental effects on the operation of FFPPs are considered. Yet these plants are needed to back-up wind power: without them there would be black-outs every time there is a change in wind speed, for the electricity´s frequency on the grid must remain steady at 50 Hz. To achieve this, the grid operator has to match supply with demand at all instants, with temporary variances in grid frequency not exceeding 1%.

Several papers, and a book, have been published on this matter, addressing some of the points raised above:

“The hidden fuel costs of wind generated electricity” - K. de Groot & C. le Pair

“Subsidizing CO2 emissions via wind power - the ultimate irony” - Kent Hawkins

Institution of Engineers and Shipbuilders in Scotland

Wind Power Important Questions And Answers

There are more papers and articles, all raising important questions, all calling for a comprehensive study on the unproved claim that wind farms save on fuel, pollution, and CO2. Unfortunately for taxpayers, consumers, and wind farm neighbors, who all pay dearly for this unreliable energy, no such study was ever made. Arguably, the results would be embarrassing for those governments that have been destroying so much landscape for nothing. This lack of transparency causes a growing number of people to think that wind farms are in fact useless, and just a means for a few to get rich quick at the expense of the many.

Internet is full of warnings from independent engineers, economists, and environmentalists. But the mainstream media ignores them, having abandoned investigative journalism long ago. Political correctness is so much more rewarding for them, and easier to follow than ethics.

The Quiet Voices of Gilman Pond

I wrote the following Letter to the Editor in April of 2010. At that time, Highland Wind LLC's original project application was suspended by LURC, due to incompleteness. They submitted a revised application, reducing the number of turbines to 39, in December of 2010. HW LLC withdrew that application on May 2, 2011, with 'intent to refile' at a later date. We don't know when it will be refiled, and we don't know what aspects will change, this time. All we know is that special places such as Gilman Pond are still at risk.

*************************************

For one brief summer, I was a camp owner on Gilman Pond in Lexington Township. My husband and I purchased a ramshackle cabin with a scant 50 feet of frontage on the water. We really couldn’t afford to keep the property; it was an investment. We worked away on it nights and weekends, and our two youngest children scrabbled on the rocks with their life jackets on, feeding bread crumbs to the pickerel and skipping rocks across the gentle swell of water.

Steven and I worked hard, but we made a point of enjoying the lake-front experience, too. From the camp’s deck we watched the resident loon family… gazed in awe as papa loon caught fish and swam over to mama who carried junior on her back. Watching the family share a meal was a touching experience and listening to their mournful call was the stuff of dreams. We were also treated to an ‘up close and personal’ view of bald eagles as they fished the waters of Gilman. No matter that the iconic raptor is no longer classified an ‘endangered’… seeing such a mighty bird on the wing gave an instant high.

The view from the pond is fantastic. The mountains of Highland rise above the north end and give completeness to the notion of a pristine and quiet western Maine pond. Often, we would be treated to the sight of moose as they waded the shallow north shore, dredging the pond for succulent reeds and weeds. Seeing them framed against the backdrop of our hills perfected the image.

The camp was sold, and we made a little money from the investment. But we miss those precious stolen moments with the soothing lull of the waves lapping the shore and the best of our native wildlife just a snapshot away. Now, however, that beautiful view and that feeling of communing with nature are about to be taken away. Highland Wind LLC has submitted a permit application to erect 48 forty-story industrial wind turbines along the crest of each of Highland’s mountains.

Forget that Maine already produces more energy than we need. Forget the fact that intermittent wind power is not nearly the ‘green’ product it’s touted as being. Never mind that the turbines are manufactured in Denmark and China, and that our hard-earned subsidy dollars are supporting those nations and not ours. Disregard the economic impacts created by gigantic turbines replacing firs trees as the sentinels of our Appalachians. Ignore the fact that huge and permanent roads will replace wetlands, or that precious habitat will be fragmented. Never mind that water quality may be affected and quality of place and quality of life will be forever altered for the residents living in the vicinity of Big Wind. Forget all that.

A perfect, small pond in the shadow of Highland’s mountains… if we do nothing to stop industrial wind, we might as well forget that, too.

***************************
Photos: Top, young bull moose in Lexington Twp.
Middle, Josie and Eli enjoying a quiet Maine pond, nine years after we sold the Gilman Pond camp
Bottom, Canada geese on Gilman Stream, the outlet to Gilman Pond

Talking to Taxation

On Monday, May 9th, the Taxation Committee voted “Ought to Pass” for LD 1157, “An Act to Protect Property Tax Revenue in the Unorganized Territories”.

I wrote to the esteemed members of the Committee and thanked them for their vote, and for supporting those of us who live in UT's.

And then, "today" happened. Actually, it was yesterday. I arrived in Augusta on Thursday, prepared to attend the work session for LD 1366, "An Act to Amend the Maine Wind Energy Act..." in the Energy, Utilities and Technology Committee room, and was told by Rep. Larry Dunphy that the Taxation Committee was reopening the work session for LD 1157 that very moment after being told by a member (or members) of the EUT Committee that (save Dunphy) they didn't support Taxation's stance. Since there were other concerned citizens at the EUT work session who had driven to Augusta to observe, I ran to the State House for the 're-do' work session on LD 1157. Upon arriving, the Taxation clerk, a very personable young woman, told me 1157's work session had been postponed. They would be reopening the record this morning at ten a.m.

So... back to the Cross Building... only to find that, due to a scheduled three p.m. session in the State House, the EUT's work session on LD 1366 was ALSO postponed... this time, until Tuesday, the 17th.

Today, I drove back to the Capital to attend Taxation's 're-do' work session. I witnessed Rep. Stacey Fitts lobbying the members in the hall outside the Committee room for an hour before LD 1157's work session began. I suppose that is how this works... that our Legislators make every attempt to promote their pet projects to Committee members whose votes might affect those projects. Still, it seemed unethical. The Taxation Committee had ALREADY voted... and here was a ranking member of the Legislature trying to convince them to change their votes.

To a small degree, that tactic worked. Two members who'd voted "Ought to Pass" on Monday, changed their votes. But six members chose to stand by their earlier votes, and stand by their constituents, and held fast. The Taxation Committee voted OTP, by a vote of six to three.

I've done really well in containing my emotions on this roller-coaster ride. After all, I'm a strong country woman who has faced some of the worst that life has to offer, without backing down. But, as tough as I am, I admit to tearing up when I witnessed those two Representatives giving their reasons for changing their minds. I couldn't help but wonder what argument the "Wind" supporters used to sway them. One representative claimed that he didn't think it was fair to target one industry (wind), and yet... LD2283, which became the Wind Energy Act (a.k.a. the Expedited Wind Permitting Law) gave FAVORITISM to that one industry. In my humble opinion, the corporate wind lobby can't have it both ways. End of story.

What changed my tears to a smile were the words of Rep. Knight, who said that he'd received "dozens and dozens" of emails and phone calls over the last few weeks from citizens who wanted him to support LD 1157; but he'd only heard from the wind lobbyists in the last two days... since Representatives Fitts and du Houx called for them to reconsider their "OTP" votes.

Rep. Knight, along with five other conscientious men, showed us that our voices ARE being heard, and our desires DO matter. Thank goodness.

Thank the members of the Taxation Committee!

And thank YOU, the Maine Citizens who are working so hard to 'have a say' in this important issue!

Below are the email addresses of the members of the Taxation Committee; should you wish to thank them for their vote, today.

dptrahan@roadrunner.com
dhastings@hastings-law.com
Dick.Woodbury@legislature.maine.gov
LGary.Knight@usa.net
RepPaul.Waterhouse@legislature.maine.gov
bick0585@aol.com
bennettco2000@hotmail.com
dburnsy12@gmail.com
ryan.harmon82@yahoo.com
seth@sethberry.org
RepMarkBryant@yahoo.com
elsie.flemings@gmail.com
dpilon@maine.rr.com

Disillusionment and hope.

Tears and a smile.

Yep, this is a roller-coaster ride. But I have faith that there are members of our Legislature who are truly committed to doing the right thing, no matter what pressure is exerted from a corporate lobby. All in all, there are worse ways for a country gal to spend her day off. Thank you, esteemed members of the Taxation Committee!!

***********************
An aside... a friend informed me this afternoon that a post from Tuesday night had disappeared from this blog. It was a 'thank you' to the Taxation Committee, combined with the text of the testimony I gave before the Members on April 26th. I didn't believe him... thought he hadn't looked in the right 'spot'. But upon arriving home, I checked the archives of VOW... and that posting is gone.

Very strange. I can't imagine what happened to it. I'll re-post my testimony as soon as I'm caught up on my tasks and obligations. And we'll see what happens, this time...

Meet the Moores--Voices from Lincoln

Richard and Betty Moore live at an idyllic spot, so typical of the rolling hardwood ridges and lakes that are the northeastern uplands of Maine. They have a small farm, raising sheep and llamas, on Transalpine Rd. in Lincoln, Maine on a hill overlooking Upper Cold Stream Pond and the ridges of Rocky Dundee. They worked hard to live the life they chose on the outskirts of town, on the edge of the vast unsettled country stretching from Lincoln to the Canadian border. So quiet at night they can hear the call of the loons from the lake below and the howls of the coyotes on the ridges above them. So quiet that the rumble of an early morning logging truck coming down the hill echoes across the valley as they begin their day.

The idyll for the Moores is being shattered, as during the winter the Rollins Project of First Wind has been built out. “The blasting was terrible”, says Betty. “I think I was one of the first ones to call 911. Nobody informed us about the blasting. It scared the daylights out of the animals”. She points out the ridgeline where a seeming endless string of turbines peek above the tree line and wonders aloud about how much noise they will be subjected to when the project starts up. Richard enthusiastically tells the story of how the llamas bravely protect the sheep from the coyotes, but wonders what effect the noise of the turbines will have on the animals.

First and foremost, Richard Moore points out he is a Lincoln native and a proud patriot. He is the Commander of the local VFW post. Like many people from Maine, he has worked hard to make a living and stay in the familiar rural area where it isn’t built up and hunting and fishing are right at the doorstep. Before the construction of the Rollins Project, he just accepted what he had heard about wind power development as a good thing. The more he learned about wind, the more skeptical he and his wife became. He is particularly rankled that although the couple is severely impacted by the Rocky Dundee portion of First Wind’s project, nobody ever came to speak to them about it.

The Moores have already decided to move and have found a quiet spot near the Passadumkeag River in nearby Burlington “away from the turbines”. They will soon list their farm with a realtor, though they don’t believe their prospects are good. “It just stands to reason”, says Richard, “that the view is ruined by all the turbines. I don’t know how much the value of the property will drop if the noise is anywhere near what some say it might be.” Indeed, noise may very well be a problem at the property, with 18 turbines all within a mile. The closest ten are on the ridge about a half-mile to the north of them; the furthest are across the deep valley of Upper Cold Stream Pond. Acoustics expert Robert Rand confirms that people like the Moores in the Lincoln Lakes will have problems with turbine noise. There are over 800 properties on the lakes or overlooking the lakes that are likely to be affected by noise from the forty GE 1.5 MW turbines. The 389-foot tall turbines spread across seven miles of ridges that rise above the thirteen Lincoln Lakes.

The Moores are particularly disturbed by the impact of the project being so pervasive when the area doesn’t seem to have the wind to support viable generation of electricity. “It seems like a waste of taxpayers money to me”, states Richard. His wife adds “I understand First Wind will get a big check from the government just for building this project. We don’t want it. We don’t need it. Taxes are high enough without wasting money on wind power. Government meddling to push wind power is causing us to sell this farm with this great view and move. That’s just not fair.”

Richard notes that not only will the Rollins Project not produce much power, but also the power isn’t even used in Lincoln. “We don’t need to destroy our area here in rural Maine for sending power to southern New England. If they want wind power, let them build the turbines down there”. He notes that the Rocky Dundee ridges were rich in wildlife, having a good reputation as a deer hunting area. He can’t see that the wind turbines and wildlife can be compatible. It also worries him that he hears about other nearby areas that are being targeted for wind power development, such as Oakfield, Bowers Mountain and Passadumkeag Mountain. “Before you know it, all we will have is wind turbines. Then where is the wildlife going to live? Where will we be able to find peace and quiet and the views that make this area so special?”

The Moores reflect emerging opinion of many Mainers in the areas that are targeted for wind power development. The same issues are raised in every area: noise, visual impact, loss of property value, violation of citizen’s rights to determine whether a wind project should be in their town, and an ever-increasing knowledge base that wind power’s negative issues far outweigh the touted benefits.

The Rollins Project in Lincoln Lakes will be replicated dozens of times in the northeastern Uplands of Maine and along the spine of the Longfellow Range in western Maine. Rollins is a medium size project, with a trend toward using larger turbines with greater height emerging as more plans are announced. A number of projects with fewer turbines are being proposed as “Community Based Power” but with the exception of Vinalhaven, these projects have not been well received. In quite the opposite trend in the past year, a number of towns across Maine have adopted stringent wind ordinances to protect all citizens. This is a point not lost on Richard Moore, who notes that the Rollins Project was built in a Rural Residential 2 zone. He feels the Town of Lincoln cared more about First Wind than its own citizens.

Wind Power development becomes more controversial with every new project, as more people become aware that the small amount of electricity gained and the effort to offset carbon and the effect on climate change are not worth the local impacts on communities. Wind Power divides communities, with some people gaining at the expense of others. People are hurt by having lives dis-rupted and property value lost. We must not allow wind power to so greatly disrupt Maine’s “Life as It Should Be.”

***************************
Photos courtesy of Friends of Lincoln Lakes
Interview conducted by Bradbury Blake

Words of Wisdom on the Wind

This "Letter to the Editor" was written in April of 2010 by Greg Perkins, a licensed soils scientist and Highland Plantation tax payer, in response to an op-ed published in the Waterville Sentinel. Greg and his wife are owners of the cabin which will be closest to the Highland Wind project, if built.
*******************************
The truth is that logging roads and skidder trails are nothing like the roads that are actually being built to haul each turbine (3 MW - nearly 390 tons of metal) to the mountaintop - or what is left of the mountaintop. These roads are not like narrow skidder trails where protective organics are left in place and no fill is required.

A road to support loaded turbine transport trucks needs to be designed and built to support at least 90 tons of weight and is typically over 50 feet wide (width of two lanes of I-95). A road system in a typical industrial wind development in the western Maine mountains may be a long as 15 -20 miles and requires hundreds of thousands of yards of aggregate material to be installed on the mountain side to conquer the 30%-50% slopes and switchbacks. Where the slopes are too steep, the mountain is blasted away.

A devastating impact created by climate change is the removal and/or destruction of the plants and animals that exist in a habitat or ecosystem, essentially destroying it. This is the very same impact generated by an industrial wind development on a fragile mountain ecosystem, only the wind development takes much less time to do its destructive work – it is immediate.

The author ends his letter by asking. “If anyone can come up with a cleaner source of power than wind, I'd like to hear it.” After thinking about all the carbon that is pumped into the atmosphere to build, transport, and site just one industrial turbine, I can come up with several cleaner sources – hydro, solar, wood, natural gas, oil…just name one.

Are Wind Turbines Really "Green"?

This is a letter to the editor written on April 22, 2010, by Dave Miller (US Navy, Retired) from Lexington Twp., Maine.
*****************************
A Copenhagen News Paper reported that an increase in the demand for coal, needed to plug the gap left by underperforming wind farms, resulted in Danish carbon emissions rising by 36 percent in the year 2006. The Danish are leaders in wind energy, but their experience suggests that wind energy is inefficient, expensive, and not even green. Denmark has now restricted wind energy projects to off shore development only.

Der Spiegel reported that despite over 20,000 wind turbines in Germany, their CO2 emissions haven’t been reduced by a single gram. And our own Wall Street Journal said that in order to cover inconsistencies of the wind power on the German grid, their gas consumption for power generation has more than doubled between 1990 and 2007.

So I ask: Why we should make the same mistakes they have?

"Put Yourself in my Shoes"-- A Voice from Highland Plantation

PUT YOURSELF IN MY SHOES
Heidi Emery, Highland Plantation

Imagine finding out a potential development in your area is being planned and when you so some research on it, the information you find is that it will make you and your children sick.

Imagine people not listening to your pleas to stop it.

Imagine that the information you found was from highly educated people who had received several degrees from Yale, Harvard, and other pretigious colleges and yet no one cares and the developers try to discredit these highly educated people for the sole purpose of protecting their own greed.

That is my reality.

I live in Highland Plantation where they (Highland Wind, LLC) plan to place 48 industrial size wind turbines on the mountains that surround the valley my family and I live in. We are in danger of becoming extremely sick.

Wind turbine developers don't want people to know about the health issues the high-intensity, low frequency noise creates. They don't want you to know because they want to continue receiving money from the federal government to build these so-called green projects. If you search the internet, you can find many stories in the U.S. and many other countries about people living with health issues caused by wind turbines. You'll also find many lawsuits taking years and years to resolve. You'll find people who have abandoned their homes with no financial gain just to escape the wind turbines they have been forced to live with.

Imagine waking up every night several times a night with the overwhelming feeling of danger, like something is wrong and your heart is pounding, you're sweating, anxious, and nervous. You are sleep deprived and have a hard time coping with things you do day to day.

Imagine feeling a pulsating, vibrating feeling in your chest, sternum, and all over your body.

Imagine feeling irritable and angry for no reason.

Imagine suffering with headaches day after day.

Imagine feeling nauseated and sick.

Imagine watching your children and spouse go through the same things. You can't concentrate anymore, your memory is bad and your children's grades are dropping and they have behavioral problems never once experienced. These are symptoms of Wind Turbine Syndrome. These symptoms can lead to more dangerous health problems over time.

There are certain people more at risk of getting these symptoms than others.

Imagine three in your family that have those risk factors, and you know that they could put those wind turbines in anyway, regardless of your family's health concerns.

This is my reality.


**************************
Heidi at home in Highland Plantation
Heidi and father at FHM press conference in Portland, Maine

An Echo from Bigelow Mountain

Here we have a letter from a former BPL employee, written in February, 2010. Dan spent most of his adult life protecting and preserving that which makes Maine so wonderful and unique.
***************************

In June of 1976, the voters of Maine made the extremely wise decision to protect and preserve the natural treasure that is the Bigelow Mountain Range located in both Franklin and Somerset Counties. At that time, this incredible area was threatened by a development plan that would have transformed it into an "Aspen of the East" type of ski resort.

What, thereafter, became the Bigelow Preserve, owned by the people of the State of Maine, is now, in my opinion, once again in great jeopardy. Today that threat exists in the form of the proposed construction of a massive forty-eight turbine wind project that would be located just a few miles from the southeast corner of the Bigelow Preserve, on the very front doorstep of the east end of Little Bigelow Mountain.

Wind turbine structures that rise over four hundred feet above the mountain and ridge tops of Highland Plantation would be starkly visible from one of the most spectacular stretches of the Appalachian Trail. This section of trail runs along mountain tops, east to west, from Little Bigelow, Avery Peak, West Peak, the Horns to Cranberry Peak.

Thirty-five years ago this spring, Mainers exhibited the incredible foresight in realizing the value and wisdom in protecting this unique and dramatic mountain range for future generations, and acted upon that realization to create the Bigelow Preserve. It is a gem not only of great significance to the State of Maine, but of national significance, as well, being a highly valued segment of the Appalachian National Scenic Trail, better known to us as simply the Appalachian Trail, part of our National Park System.

My concern is not about debating the pros and cons of wind energy, and its future in Maine - - that can be done another day. Right now, the issue is about opposing one wind project that has been proposed for a site where it should not be placed.

If you wish to learn about efforts being made to protect and preserve the Highland Mountains, please go to: www.highlandmts.org.
Daniel Bell
*************************
Top Illustration compliments of Windtoons
Bottom Photo taken by Franklin Savage, Highland Plantation

Voices on the Value of Real Estate

Below is a presentation I made to the residents of Dixfield, Maine in August, 2010. Residents in the River Valley are facing the same predicament we in rural Somerset County are: The mountains surrounding their valley have been targeted by wind developers, and approximately 100 turbines are slated for those ridges.

A topic which is rarely mentioned, but which is of tantamount importance, is the effect which industrial wind facilities will have on our property values. For many of us, our homes are our major investment. Those investments must be protected from for-profit corporations which give claims of property value loss little credence. And the reason they do that, I believe, is because they know the truth. And the truth, if told, would reduce the likelihood that townspeople would be willing to approve their developments.
****************************

Good evening. My name is Karen Bessey Pease, and I am a resident of Lexington Township, where I live on a 70 acre homestead with my husband and children. I am a native of Maine. I am a newspaper columnist, an author, a humorist and the owner of a small business in Kingfield. I’ve been a real estate broker for twenty-two years, and I have owned Narrow Gauge Realty for the past nine.

I’m going to speak for a few moments about industrial wind and its potential impact on real estate values. While I am not an economist, I am an experienced real estate agent who listens to her customers and clients and who pays attention to and is directly impacted by the market.

Because Industrial Wind is a fairly new phenomenon in Maine, real estate agents and appraisers do not have access to the standard resources which we use when we address the topic of value. Usually, we can look at things called ‘comps’… comparable sales. When asked for an opinion of value on a property, we research recent sales of similar properties, adjusting for their slight differences in acreage, location, amenities, etc. Based on that information, we make a reasonable determination of a property’s current market value. Here in Maine, we do not currently have a database of homes sold in the vicinity of industrial wind developments from which to obtain comparable sales data.

In the absence of such a resource here in Maine, I’ve had to look further afield. I’ve had to trust in the research of real estate experts in other parts of the country, and on anecdotal reports from actual homeowners who have been impacted by wind turbines.

Certified appraiser Michael McCann has written a comprehensive report on this very topic and I am going to share with you some of the excerpts of testimony which he gave to the Adams County, Illinois Board in reference to the impact of industrial scale wind energy development on residential property. Mr. McCann is a well-qualified individual, and the report is thorough and detailed. His testimony provides a detailed explanation of the impacts he has found and his recommendations to avoid harm to adjacent property when siting wind projects. For any of you who are interested in reading the full report, please see me after this forum, and I will be happy to provide it for you.

Mr. McCann not only addressed the financial impacts of industrial wind on residential properties, he investigated and reported on the effects wind developments had on one’s use and enjoyment of their real estate. For many of us here, our homes represent our biggest investment of not only our money--but our time, labor and even, our love. This article gives insight into each of these areas.

Here are some of the findings and recommendations listed in the report’s summary. In the interests of time, and because I know you are going to ask questions about industrial wind on the mountains of Maine, I will keep these short and to the point.

McCann found that:
1. Residential property values are adversely and measurably impacted by close proximity to industrial wind turbine projects, with value losses measured up to 2-miles from the nearest turbine(s), in some instances.

2. Impacts are most pronounced within the "footprint" of such projects, and many ground-zero homes have been completely unmarketable, thus depriving many homeowners of reasonable market-based liquidity or pre-existing home equity.

3. Noise and sleep disturbance issues are mostly affecting people within 2-miles of the nearest turbines and 1-mile distances are commonplace…

4. Real estate sales data typically reveals a range of 25% to 40% of value loss, with some instances of total loss as measured by abandonment and demolition of homes, some bought out by wind energy developers and others exhibiting nearly complete loss of marketability.

5. Serious impact to the "use & enjoyment" of many homes is an on-going occurrence, and many people are on record as confirming they have rented other dwellings… for use on nights when noise levels are increased well above ambient background noise and render their existing homes untenable.

6. Reports often cited by industry in support of claims that there is no property value, noise or health impacts are often mischaracterized, misquoted and/or are unreliable. The two most recent reports touted by wind developers and completed in December 2009 contain executive summaries that are so thoroughly cross-contingent that they are better described as "disclaimers" of the studies rather than solid, scientifically supported conclusions. Both reports ignore or fail to study very relevant and observable issues and trends.

7. If (governing boards) approve a setback of 1,000 feet, 1,500 feet, or any distance less than 2- miles, these types of property use and property value impacts are likely to occur to the detriment of… residences and citizens for which the nearest turbines are proposed to be located.

8. The approval of wind energy projects within close proximity to occupied homes is tantamount to an inverse condemnation, or regulatory taking of private property rights, as the noise and impacts are in some respects a physical invasion, an easement in gross over neighboring properties, and the direct impacts reduce property values and the rights of nearby neighbors.

9. In the county for which McCann completed the study, he estimated that a market value reduction of $6.5 million was projected for the residential property located in the footprint and within 2-miles of the pending project.

Recommendations

Mr. McCann gave recommendations for a governing board which was considering allowing a permit for an industrial wind development. Since I know many of you are from towns where just such a thing is occurring, I’ll quickly go over the high points.

1. A Property Value Guarantee should be required of the developer. A fund or “developer bond” should be required to guarantee no undue delay in payment(s) to legitimately affected homeowners, and/or to buy out homeowners located within 2-miles of any turbines if they elect to relocate away from the turbine project(s) and cannot sell for the pre-project market value of their properties.

2. An alternative to the bonding element would be to require that the developer(s) obtain a specialized insurance policy from a high risk insurance carrier such as Lloyds of London. If Lloyds was unwilling to provide such insurance, however, that should be compelling to the (governing board) that professional risk-management actuaries find such projects too risky for even them to insure. Under those possible circumstances the burden of risk is fairly placed with the developer, rather than the residential occupants who are being surrounded or otherwise directly impacted by close proximity of the projects.

4. If (a governing body) decides to permit projects, they should require developer funding and a plan to constantly monitor not only sound levels in decibels, but also in low frequency noise emissions from the turbines utilizing the best available technology, or at least homeowner reports and logs. There is significant evidence and personal accounts confirming that low frequency sound/noise is “felt” by nearby occupants, and… cannot be measured by decibels as audible noise is typically measured.

Disclosure of the owner’s actual experience to prospective buyers is necessary from both an ethical perspective and potentially under the Real Property Disclosure Acts, as a “known” defect or detrimental condition. Thus, documentation should be created at the cost of the developer(s), to insure that appropriate disclosures can be made to any prospective buyer(s) of homes within the 2-mile zone.

As an aside, this—in and of itself, will directly and immediately impact sellers of property within 2 miles of an industrial wind development, and—in my opinion, create a liability for sellers and real estate brokers if such defects are not made known.

5. McCann states that appropriate (sound) devices should be installed at the developers expense at all occupied dwellings and property lines within a 2-mile distance of any turbines, and the (governing body) should retain the ability to immediately enforce the shut-down of any turbines exceeding a level of 10 decibels or more above ambient background noise levels. The proximity of constant or frequent noise sources is an adverse impact to the use and enjoyment of a residential property, and indicates a basis for loss of property value.

6. An alternative would be to place a limit on hours of operation, requiring turbines within 2 miles of any occupied dwelling be shut off during normal sleeping hours.

7. If the (governing body) finds that the wind energy projects are desirable… property owners should be afforded the opportunity to sell to either the developer or the (governing body) (at current [pre-wind] value).

8. A bonding requirement or escrow for decommissioning and reclamation of wind turbine pad sites (should be) a condition. To demonstrate solvency companies should pay the bond requirements before starting construction. (This is something Maine does not currently require. In some cases the developer may request to wait until year 11 to begin paying into its decommissioning fund.) It’s basically insurance in case the company goes bankrupt or otherwise abandons the wind project without taking down the turbines and reclaiming the land.

9. (There should be ) an aesthetic landscaping requirement for wind project developers to plant mature trees or groves to shield the view between residential properties and turbines.

10. McCann further states that (Governing bodies) should consider a moratorium on wind energy project development(s) until such time as:

* A thorough and complete Wind Energy Ordinance is developed and adopted…which incorporates all the protection and authority of zoning, building and health codes.

* Appropriate Conditional or Special Use standards are developed and adopted, to insure wind developers carry the burden of their for-profit projects rather than the hosting jurisdiction(s) and/or neighboring property owners.

* The actual experiences of numerous existing turbine neighbors is documented thoroughly by an impartial group of professionals with appropriate qualifications in the various relevant fields of expertise, i.e., acoustic engineers, medical sciences, valuation professionals, etc.

********************************

These are paraphrases from an incredibly well-written and comprehensive report by an experienced real estate professional, and we here in Maine are lucky to have access to it. Adams County was proactive. They requested this study BEFORE allowing industrial scale wind developers their permits to build. The state of Maine has not provided a similar resource for its citizens, so I hope you will make good use of this study until such a time as our government does the same.

It is important that we also hear from those who are experiencing industrial wind first-hand. Here are a few words from a young man who is building a home on Vinalhaven Island, and whose people have lived on the Maine coast for 12 generations:

“I have succeeded this year in erecting a comfortably small structure. The design is passive solar. The load bearing structure is a timber-frame, hand carved by myself and a good friend, made of island spruce. … My goal, beyond providing for myself a comfortable and affordable home, was to model for people an alternative to the traditional, chemically and energy intensive, way that most modern homes are built.”

“And then this fall the Fox Island Wind turbines began to turn…. Since they've begun turning I have experienced sounds/feelings that are unlike anything I could have previously imagined and ones that I find extremely disturbing. The intensity of the effect varies according to turbine rpm speed... The faster the rpm's the more pronounced the effect. The effect is that of a steady rhythmic low pulse. It is perceived by my ear as a whoosh followed by a whump that I feel in my sternum and head. I am finding the experience overwhelming and am sincerely concerned for my health and well-being. This is not just a sound that a person should "get used to".

"I have.. discovered that there is no spot on my property that I can go to take a break from the stress created by the sonic bombardment I receive during their operation. I am fortunate that my father has a home in town that I can retreat to for the night. My neighbors who live within a close proximity of the turbines are not so fortunate and have had to endure night time noise levels and rhythmic sonic pulsations that have made it difficult for them to rest.

"Three nights back I stayed the night in my home for the first time. I could not sleep and spent the night in restless repose. The rhythmic pulsing from the turbines was overwhelming and I found it impossible to ignore. After two nights in my home spent without any good rest I retreated to my father’s place. I am greatly concerned that this home that I've worked so hard to build will be unlivable and that all of my work will be for not. All of my wealth is invested in my land.”
*************************

Wind developers come into our towns promising economic boom due to job creation, an increase in valuation due to the infrastructure they build, and a host of other advantages to locals termed ‘tangible benefits’. What they don’t mention are the effects their developments have on our properties and their individual valuations. They don’t talk about how state and county subsidies decrease once that tax base increases. They say nothing about the high cost of loss of ‘quality of place’. They don’t promise to immediately set aside money to decommission the turbines, and they don’t promise to compensate us if our investments depreciate due to their for-profit developments.

Many will argue that a land owner has rights, and that other citizens can’t protest over what use their real estate is put. As a real estate professional and an owner of real property, I am very much in favor of land-owner rights. But we have zoning ordinances all across this country. We have them because sound, and sight, and smell and contamination do not recognize property borders. What we do quite often adversely affects our neighbors, and we do not have the right to do that. When I purchased my home in 1994, there were pages and pages of restrictions on what I could and couldn’t do. I couldn’t build higher than a certain number of feet. I couldn’t put a septic or a new structure near a brook or a seasonal run-off or an intermittent stream. I even had to have the driveway culvert inspected before installing it. I joked with the LURC employee at one point.

“Can I paint my roof hot pink?” I asked.

“No”, was the response.

Due to the aesthetic quality which needed to be maintained in Maine’s wild places, hot pink would not be acceptable. Seeing something like that which would not fit harmoniously into the environment would impact my neighbor, I was told.

We all have to live together. We all need to look out for our neighbors. And we all deserve the ability to enjoy our homes and benefit from the equity we’ve earned without fear of loss. I urge you to take advantage of the growing amount of information available on the subject of land-based industrial wind. I have access to articles and studies on this subject, and if you would like to see me after the forum, I’ll take your contact information and make that available to you. Become knowledgeable… for with knowledge, comes power. The power to make decisions for yourself, for your neighbors, and for Maine--this beautiful state which we call ‘home’.

Thank you.
********************************
Top Photo: The village of Burlington, Maine, under the turbines of Rocky Dundee, a First Wind project
Second: From Upper Cold Stream Pond--Rocky Dundee turbines above lakefront cottages
Next: A home in Mars Hill surrounded by First Wind's industrial wind turbines
Then: Caribou Pond un the shadow of First Wind's Rollins project
Finally: One of the Beaver Ridge, Freedom turbines (Patriot Renewables) dwarfing a farm