U.S. Senate Candidate Angus King's Own Words--at Odds With Mr. King''s Own Words

For several years, Mainers have been listening to the rhetoric concerning ‘industrial wind’ churned out by former governor and U.S. Senate candidate, Angus King.  

Because it is important to deal in facts, let’s take a look at Mr. King’s own words.

When making his point about Maine’s dependence on ‘foreign’ oil, Mr. King said this in May, 2010: “I haven't talked to anything about global climate change… but the bottom line is--we've gotta stop burning-- and we particularly have to stop burning stuff we have no control over and that we depend on.  It just strikes me as not very sensible to be so totally dependent on other people, particularly people who don't like us very much.”

When promoting his recently published book; Mr. King said this about his 15,000 mile cross-country trip in a luxury motorhome.  Note the contrast between his former policy of not ‘burning stuff’ and his new mantra.

“"It's amazing the number of people I talk to who get kind of misty about the idea of traveling across the country with their family…  It seems to be a fantasy many Americans have, and part of the purpose of the book is to encourage people to do it. If I can learn to back up a bus, believe me, anybody can."

King said he was also going to the Family Motor Coach Association's annual convention in Madison, Wis., where he’d present a slideshow and try to 'sell a few books'.

These ‘motor coaches’ burn inordinate amounts of fossil fuels—at a rate of 4-8 miles to the gallon.  Surely Mr. King doesn’t mean to recommend that every American fulfill his or her fantasy of driving across America while burning ‘stuff’ provided by people who ‘don’t like us very much’?

In Wells, Maine, Mr. King said, "It's a new world we're in, and the solution is electricity.  We can heat with it and cars can run on it, and the wire delivery system already exists."

And yet, the PUC (Docket No. 2010-180) stated that Mr. King’s company, in collaboration with CMPC, wished to build 39 miles of new transmission lines to accommodate the wind generated electricity which might be produced by his Highland wind project.  This multi-million dollar line (now built) will be paid for by CMP rate-payers--not by wind developers such as Mr. King. 

Referencing the Highland project, Mr. King said: "There's not a sound issue, there's not a health issue, there's not a bird issue, there's not a wildlife issue-- if you want to see the effects of wind turbines on wildlife... on animals... go to... google image...put in 'wind turbines cows' and you'll see hundreds of pictures of wind turbines and cows sitting around underneath them... completely unconcerned, doing whatever it is cows do..... No issues of wetlands.... we're not 'removing' anything-- we're MOVING...when you build a road…you cut out the high spots and fill in the low--we're moving a lot of earth, but nothing's being taken away from the mountains.”

Impact from a simple met tower, erected to gather 'wind data'...a precursor to a 39 turbine industrial wind project

Mr. King’s permit application for the Highland project states that 1.5 MILLION cubic yards of earth and granite ledge will be blasted and excavated on Highland’s mountains.  He’s correct--it’s not being taken off-site.  However, it’s disingenuous for Mr. King to behave as if there will be no impact to those high-terrain regions due to his ‘moving’ of 90,000 dump-trucks full of earth. 

This is a quote from the Maine Dept. of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife ‘Agency Review” comments submitted to LURC in April, 2011:

“The passage rates of nocturnal migrants and diurnal raptors through the project area are among the highest reported for projects in Maine. Furthermore, a high proportion of nocturnal migrants and diurnal raptors pass the project area at altitudes equal to or less than the maximum turbine heights, greatly increasing the risk of collision….

“MDIFW has provided technical assistance and consultations to this project since 2007. Despite considerable discussions and previous project modifications, an array of concerns remain unresolved and are evident in the application now before LURC. As proposed, we feel the project in Highland Plantation is not an appropriate site for this development and consequently poses a significant adverse impact for wildlife resources.”

And yet, Mr. King states “there’s not a bird issue, there’s not a wildlife issue’.  Really?

This is a quote from Mr. King’s Inauguration video in 1995.

"We certainly can do tourism better. Just to our south, to the north, and across the ocean are millions of mobile, affluent and time-pressed individuals who would love Maine if we could get them here, first.  But we must think strategically about tourism-- spreading out the seasons and the locations where we welcome visitors.  In the process of rebuilding Maine, we must never compromise our environment... Our final natural resource is our QUALITY OF LIFE.  We have what the world wants... creative and hard-working people, an unspoiled natural environment and a civil society that works..... We share a common heritage.  We share a common stewardship of the land.  We share a common pride in an extraordinary place called Maine....and the best of Maine-- a land of deep woods, jagged coasts and people of integrity--will endure and flourish."

Windtoons by John Terry in support of the Highland Mountains

Years later, Mr. King had this to say:

"So-- it's all about the view.  And the view is important because the AT goes over Bigelow....Stop by Mars Hill!  It's cool!  It really comes down to-- are we going to say 'no' to a half-billion dollar infrastructure project producing renewable energy because of the view? 

"I suspect that there may be people who say, "I don't want to see a wind turbine when I'm hiking up the Appalachian Trail.  I think there will probably be people who say, 'I DO!' … So the idea that this is somehow going to kill tourism... I don't buy it.  As I say, some people won't like them and some people will say they think they're pretty cool.”

Windtoons by John Terry in support of protecting Maine's Appalachian Trail

I will concede that, as long as industrial wind turbine developments are still a novel feature on our landscape, some people may be drawn to them—may take the drive to see what all the fuss is about.  But a second trip, or a third, or a tenth?  How thrilling will the sight of turbines be once they dominate the horizon in every direction? 

On the other hand, how many people return to Maine year after year to experience the wonders of nature and to absorb the peacefulness and tranquility and beauty that gives Maine its renowned “Quality of Place”?  Once more than 300 miles of our ridges are strewn with 400-500’ tall turbines which can be seen from distances of 20 or more miles away, will they be an anomaly that is worthy of making a special trip to Maine in order to view them?  Is it realistic to believe that tourists 'to our south, to the north and across the ocean' will come  to see mountaintop after mountaintop littered with industrial machines?  Or will there come a time when most nature-loving tourists (currently contributing to our $10billion tourism industry) seek out those few remaining wild places, like those which Maine once had, before the proliferation of mountaintop turbine facilities?

Mainers DO share “a common stewardship of the land and a common pride in an extraordinary place called Maine”.   But based on Mr. King’s contradictory words, I’m not sure he shares much of anything with me.

The Voice of a King

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You’re welcome, Mr. King.

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

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

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

Clearing My Throat

Welcome to VOW-- Voices On the Wind.

I first became interested in the subject of mountaintop industrial wind in October of 2009, when Independence Wind, owned by former Maine governor Angus King and Rob Gardiner, former president of Maine Public Broadcasting, came to neighboring Highland Plantation with a proposal to build a large-scale industrial wind facility atop these pristine ridges.

I've learned alot between then and now, as is evidenced in some of the early letters, columns and blog postings I wrote about this development--and about Maine's wind energy plan, in general. A year and a half ago, I never dreamed that 'wind' had anything to do with corruption, or power, or lies. I once believed the sales pitch: that wind was 'green' and good, that it would 'get us off foreign oil', reduce carbon emissions, counter the effects of global warming, bring American soldiers home, and enhance national security. Yes, those are all claims which the wind industry has made-- although they don't do so much of that anymore. And that's because people who have taken the time to research this topic have discovered that those claims simply don't hold water.

We said 'Prove it!'

They can't.

So, now (at least, here in Maine) it's all about 'jobs'. The wind lobby uses our poor economy as their rallying cry.

'Look!' they say. 'We're the only game in town, right now! We've employed workers who wouldn't have had jobs, otherwise!'

Ah, but is it intelligent or fiscally responsible to subsidize temporary jobs with tax-payer money to build projects with very little value?

Nope.

On VOW, I will begin by posting some of the many letters and articles I've written over the last eighteen months. With permission from other 'wind warriors', I'll post some of theirs, too. If you are late in coming into this, I encourage you to study the issue of mountaintop industrial wind. Don't believe me. Don't believe what the wind developers and their supporters say. Believe in YOURSELF, and your ability to separate the wheat from the chaff.

The truth will blow you away.

For my first entry, I'll share a letter I wrote to Angus King in March of last year. He never responded, although I know he received it, because he told me so when I spoke with him at a LURC meeting in Bangor the following month. Writing this letter took me completely outside my 'comfort zone', as so many things have in the last year and a half. It's not always easy to stand up for what you believe in, but if everyday citizens like myself aren't willing to do that, then everyday citizens like myself can't complain when we see our rights taken away or our freedoms stomped on. I don't enjoy being involved in controversy. In fact, I hate it. Ironically, I've always been considered a 'peacemaker'.

But I am convinced this wind energy plan is a disaster-in-the-making, so a 'comfort zone' is a luxury I can't afford.

As Mainers join with other Americans--and citizens around the world--to shed some light on this high-impact, low-benefit energy plan, please feel free to be one of the Voices On the Wind. And I welcome dissenting opinions, too. This is America, and this is my blog. Both promote free speech. All I ask is that you be respectful, and try to back your words up with truth. Lies, distortions and rhetoric are partly responsible for the mess we're in. Let's work together to do things a bit differently, this time.

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

March 5, 2010
Angus King
PO Box 457
Brunswick, ME 04011

Dear Mr. King,

I had the pleasure of meeting you at the LURC Commissioners’ Meeting in Bangor on Wednesday, March 3rd. If you’ll remember, I came over to you as you were sitting with Jody and introduced myself to you as your opponent in the Highland Wind LLC project. I’d like to take this opportunity to speak with you candidly, as I did on Wednesday. This letter is a personal one, and does not reflect any views of the Friends of the Highland Mountains. It is simply one woman speaking to one man.

Please allow me to give you a bit of background information about myself, so that you will see me clearly. I am a Maine native, and have never lived anywhere else. I was born in Aroostook County, the daughter of a Maine State Game Warden (retired) and a stay-at-home mother. In 1967, Dad was transferred to the Kingfield district, and I grew up in the shadow of Mt. Abram. As a child, I roamed the woods of Maine; hiking mountains such as Abraham, Sugarloaf and Borestone. I swam in Chesuncook, Caucomgomac, Seboomook, Tufts, Onawa and Greenwood. My family members were baptized in the Carrabassett River and in Wilson Stream. I hunted the western woods with Dad, and fished the rivers and glacial ponds of the north woods with Mum. I cared for orphaned creatures such as white-tail fawns, raccoons, owls and hawks. I was raised to love and care for this land and its inhabitants. As a mother for the past twenty-seven years, I’ve tried to instill that same caring and stewardship in my three children.

As I stated, I am opposed to the development of the five mountain ridges in Highland Plantation. Not only that, but I am against the industrialization of any and all of Maine’s mountain peaks. The reasons are many and multi-faceted. After months of research, after speaking with experts on wildlife, and with environmental engineers, soils scientists, sound engineers and actual Mainers living in the vicinity of industrial turbine developments, I have determined that Big Wind on the ridgelines of Maine’s peaks is a disaster in the making.

I am not opposed to harnessing the power of the wind. I am convinced that our carbon emissions are doing great harm to our environment. I believe that human beings have to take bold steps alleviate or even eradicate the crisis that is ‘global warming’. To many, the fact that I attest to those statements and yet, protest the Highland Wind LLC development makes me a NIMBY. Someone whose words are hollow when confronted with something that will inconvenience me, or affect the quality of my life. Because of sentiments such as those, the decision to openly oppose your project was a daunting one. However, I was raised to fight fairly and with integrity—but to FIGHT–when I strongly believe in something. I strongly believe these mountaintop wind turbine developments are a very poor idea for the state of Maine.

Mr. King, I could fill page upon page with the concerns that I have about these projects. They range from economic to environmental and from quality of life to quality of place. They have to do with wildlife habitat and soil erosion and water quality and quantity. Birds and bats, herbicides, wide swaths cut through pristine forests, the altering of ancient ridgelines which were shaped by Mother Nature–these are but a few of the concerns which I have. I am disturbed by the maladies associated with turbine noise and shadow flicker. I am irritated that these complexes are touted as ‘green’ when there is much to that equation that is contradictory to conventional thinking. And I am angered that my tax dollars and those of my fellow Americans–which we could well use here at home–will go to support the economies of foreign countries such as Denmark and China, where these turbines are manufactured. However, I know you’ve been reading the newspapers and online forums, so you already know what those arguments are.

In all honesty, there are many pointed questions to which you have not given forthright answers. You seem to mock or invalidate honest citizens’ very real complaints of health issues associated with wind turbines. You’ve told Highlanders that they will not hear the turbines, and yet, Rob Gardiner stated in a recorded meeting that the 500 KWHs of free electricity given to those townsfolk would be in mitigation for any sound those residents might hear. You’ve twisted phrases in order to skirt the statement made in your own application whereby 1.6 million cubic yards of earth and ledge will be dynamited or excavated, saying it will not be ‘removed’ from the mountains. In all honesty, money and/or ‘tangible’ benefits have changed hands or been promised to individuals and entities if they do not oppose these developments. Some see this practice as simply ‘doing business’. I’m not so sure that would pass the litmus test in my home or my establishment. My standard line when a child or an employee asks me if they ‘should’ do something is this: If you have to ask, the answer is ‘no’. Have you ever, just once, honestly asked yourself if these mountaintop turbine developments are the best plan for Maine?

I believe you do have a desire to contribute to a healthy environment. Your personal and political history supports my belief. But I contend that the driving force behind your efforts to erect these massive turbines in our unspoiled regions is money, pure and simple. There are billions of dollars in stimulus funds waiting to subsidize these projects, and that is an incentive that is hard to resist. But Mr. King, I ask you, please. Please reconsider your plans. We only get one shot to do this right. Forty-story turbines on the pristine peaks of Maine cannot be what is right for a state which is known world-wide for its unspoiled wilderness regions.

I am enclosing a copy of my novel, Grumble Bluff. It is a gift to you, and I hope you will find and take the opportunity to read it. It won’t take much of your valuable time, I promise; perhaps three hours, cover to cover. In Grumble Bluff, you will discover the Maine of my childhood and of my children’s childhoods. I hope my grandchildren can find that same peace and serenity which has always been an integral part of the Maine experience. Grumble Bluff is a tale in which Maine’s ‘quality of place’ is, in fact, a very tangible benefit.

Thank you for allowing me to say my piece.

For the Mountains,

Karen Bessey Pease