Vinalhaven Island Neighbors Win Round in Superior Court

One of the Fox Island Wind turbines on Vinalhaven Island, seen in the moonlight.  The turbines must be lit with flashing red lights to warn aircraft of their presence.

Neighbors living in the shadow and sound-shed of the Fox Island Wind turbines on Vinalhaven Island have been trying to get relief from the debilitating, near-constant noise for two and a half years.  Almost 2 years ago, Maine's Department of Environmental Protection found that the wind facility was out of compliance with the State's noise regulations--but FIW has not been forced to comply.  The story is complicated, but the issue is simple.  The wind facility (FIW) often operates outside the parameters set by law.  The wind facility has not been made to comply.  FIW has been allowed to thumb their noses at Maine Law and at citizens on the Island.  The DEP has not protected the People who are impacted and who have lost their quality of life.

This week, a Superior Court judge ruled in favor of the Neighbors, who petitioned to review the Conditional Compliance Order which DEP's Commissioner issued last summer.  When their motion was filed, FIW then requested the court dismiss the Neighbors' petition. 

Items of note: DEP had issued a Conditional Compliance Order requiring that FIW regularly demonstrate compliance and shut down operations if they weren't in compliance.  The wind facility was also told to post for the public its data on operations, sound and meterological data.  FIW objected to the DEP's order, and "negotiations continued".

Pardon me for this aside...but,  if "Joe Citizen" broke the law--and especially if the law he broke harmed others--he would NOT be allowed to "negotiate"!  How is it that a wind developer is allowed to arbitrarily decide it doesn't need to comply with a Maine law?

Is the system corrupt, or merely incredibly unfair and biased?

The story gets better.  On June 20th, Patricia Aho became Acting Commissioner of the DEP.  Her most recent job was as a lobbyist for Pierce Atwood, the legal firm representing FIW.  Did she recuse herself from having input on the FIW debate once she was directing the agency charged with forcing FIW to comply with DEP regulations?  Certainly not.  In practically her first official action in the DEP, she issued a final Conditional Compliance Order for FIW, and removed the Appendix which required that FIW affirmatively test for compliance, shut down operations when not in compliance, and post their meterological and operational data for the public, which effectively insulated FIW from any further regulation.  This Appendix, so haphazardly thrown out, had been written/recommended by DEP staffers who had worked exhaustively for months on the FIW issue.  In one fell swoop, their hard work was dismissed out of hand.

So, yes; the Neighbors filed a motion to review the Conditional Compliance Order--and FIW filed a motion to dismiss, stating that the Court lacked the jurisdiction to review.  And on March 20, 2012, the Kennebec County Superior Court Justice denied FIW's motion to dismiss the Neighbors' petition to review the Conditional Compliance Order.

Read the New York Times article on this judge's order here. 

To view the decision and other relevant documents, please visit the Fox Island Wind Neighbors website.

Windfall... the "Other Side of the Story"

 

Maine citizens have been hosting the award-winning independent film “Windfall” in different locations around the state for the last five weeks, to coincide with the documentary’s theatrical debut in New York, Chicago, LA and Seattle.  Film-maker Laura Israel’s “Windfall” records the experiences of residents in up-state New York when wind developers came to their towns proposing industrial wind facilities. 

Of particular interest has been the wind industry’s reaction to this documentary.  “Windfall” is not an anti-wind film; it is pro-education and pro-community.  However, in multiple “Windfall” venues, the wind lobby has attempted to insert itself into the program arranged for and set up by volunteers in towns from Fort Kent to Unity, and Farmington to Bar Harbor.  Crying ‘foul’, some leading wind lobbyists began requesting of the sites’ owners that they be given equal time at “Windfall” screenings, in order to offer ‘the other side of the story’.  They wanted to hang posters on the theater doors.  They wanted the host schools and libraries to allow industrial wind propaganda to be handed out during the screenings.  They even wanted to be allowed to show the film “Islands in Wind” before audiences viewed “Windfall”.

The pro-wind film “Islands in the Wind” has been shown several times in Maine, with much fan-fare.  At those times, the wind industry never believed in telling “the other side of the story”.  Nor has it made it a practice to invite an opposing view every time wind developers moved into Maine towns with sales pitches designed to encourage support for the industrial developments they wish to build on the mountain summits in those towns.

The wind industry has had more than six years to convince Mainers of the value of their high-cost, low-value product.  We’ve heard the rhetoric—wind will ‘get us off foreign oil’, ‘reduce greenhouse gasses’, make us ‘energy independent’.  Those arguments have been debunked by science and economics—but still they persist.  I expect the tag lines will continue to be repeated until sufficient numbers of Maine citizens take the time and opportunity to do independent research about this important topic and discover the deception that lies within.  When there are millions of tax-payer dollars at stake, what else can the wind industry do but continue to repeat the same tired arguments which worked so well in the past? 

But let’s not be disingenuous. Wind developers aren’t interested in educating Mainers. If they were, ‘the other side of the story’ would have been told from the very beginning.  The wind industry would not force Maine citizens to sign gag orders when it buys their properties because the homes in the shadow of its developments have become uninhabitable.  It wouldn’t force property owners to sign away their rights to complain about specific developments when they agree to lease their ridge-top land.  And if it respected ‘the other side’ the wind industry would happily comply with DEP sound standards when its wind facilities are found to be out of compliance.  But here in Maine, none of those scenarios are the reality.

In truth, the wind industry wouldn’t be having such a strong reaction to a simple film like “Windfall” if it didn’t feel defensive of its product and threatened by this honest portrayal of what happened in two rural communities when Big Wind came to town.

“Windfall” will be out on DVD very soon.  I encourage Mainers to watch this film and learn from the experiences of our fellow Americans.  And if you want the other side of the story, I encourage you to watch “Islands in the Wind”, as well.  I will be happy to help you obtain copies of both films.  I will also connect you directly with “Windfall” film-maker Laura Israel and with residents of Vinalhaven; the Maine island community portrayed in “Islands in the Wind”.   Get both sides of the story, and then… take a stand.  Please.  We are on the cusp of losing our storied “Quality of Place”.  The least we can do is attempt independent research into both sides of the story to determine if the prize is worth the price.