Thursday, October 4, 2012
Saturday, September 1, 2012
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.
Think Mainers Support Industrial Wind? Think Again!
A Few of the Maine
Towns Which Have Written and Passed Wind Ordinances
Appleton
Avon
Brooksville
Buckfield
Cambridge
Caratunk
Clinton
Cushing
Deer Isle
Dixmont
Eddington
Farmington
Frankfort
Hope
Jackson
Montville
Moscow
New
Portland
Newry
New Vineyard
Penobscot
Peru
Phillips
Portland
Prospect
Rockport
Rumford
Sedgwick
Stockton Springs
Sumner
Temple
Thorndike
Unity
Wilton
Some Maine Plantations, Unorganized Territories and Communities
Which Have Gone on Record Opposing Industrial Wind Development in their
Communities
Brighton
Plantation
Concord
Township
Highland
Plantation
Lexington
Township
Peaks
Island
Maine citizens are choosing this:
 |
| Sunset behind Mt. Abram-Lexington Twp., Maine |
Over this:
 |
| Sunset behind Sheffield Wind Project |
And this:
 |
| Stump Pond, New Vineyard, Maine |
Over this:
 |
| Lowell Mountain (VT) blast |
Spruce Mountain Wind Project (Woodstock, Maine)
 |
| Spruce Mountain...before (L. Ballweber photo) |
Spruce Mt. Wind neighbors complain of "aircraft"
sound
By ALISON ALOISIO
Jul 26, 2012 12:00 am
Woodstock property owners near the Spruce Mountain Wind
turbines – particularly camp owners on Shagg and Concord ponds - said at a
public informational meeting last week that noise from the towers is louder
than expected, because it carries over water and bounces off nearby hills.
Its effects, some said, include sleepless nights and
headaches, as well as general annoyance.
As for documenting the noise produced, one camp owner said
he was told by the Maine Department of Environmental Protection that there is
little hard data available from a noise-monitoring device maintained by the
wind project owners, because the wires were chewed through by mice.
The 10 towers on Spruce Mountain have been operational since
last December.
SMW’s state permit calls for noise limits of 55 decibels
during the day and 45 at night, at either the property boundary or 500 feet
from a residence (or "receptor").
Because Woodstock does not have a wind ordinance, a town
committee was established last year to craft an ordinance for townspeople to
consider to guide future wind projects.
The committee held a public informational and feedback
meeting last Thursday, to present information and receive comment. About 20
people attended.
Chairman Bob Elliott, noting that the committee was
considering a recommendation of a one-mile setback for properties near future
wind turbines, displayed a topographical map on which he had plotted a one-mile
distance from most of the existing towers.
The line ran through the middle of Shagg Pond.
Several people said based on their experiences, one mile was
not enough, at least not at the currently allowed decibel level. They likened
the sound to a passing aircraft.
A woman with a camp on Shagg Pond said that on the Friday
before July 4th holiday, “The noise was so horrific at my camp that I couldn’t
stay outside,” she said, saying she had suffered headaches. “It sounded like an
airplane that never left the top of my house.”
She added that she had driven five hours to attend the
meeting because “I love this town, and I don’t want to see this happen to
someone else.”
She said she was not formally notified of the pending
project because she was not an abutter.
Elliott also read several letters submitted by camp owners
and residents near the ponds.
Craig Urquhart, an electrical engineer who owns a camp on
Shagg Pond, said the sound resembled the low, deep rumble of a freight train in
combination with a passing jet aircraft.
He said that before the towers were built, when the review
process for the project was getting underway, “I read everything available,
including the noise propagation study, to prepare myself for the coming shift.
I am a retired paper mill electrical engineer, so technology is something I understand and appreciate.”
But when the turbines came online, he said, he felt
“discouraged.”
The noise has disturbed the tranquility of the pond, he
said, and while he said he must accept the project, he favors an ordinance to
provide protection in the future.
A homeowner near Shagg Pond, Eric Black, wrote that after
watching construction of the towers last fall, “It must have been one day in
late November or early December of 2011 that my wife and I were inside the
house and she asked me if I heard something.
After listening, I replied that it was a jet plane. We didn’t think much about it until
the next day when one of us heard what we thought was
another jet. But this time we kept listening and the noise never went
away. We realized it couldn’t be a jet
unless it was circling the area. We went
outside and listened. It was
constant. It took a few moments and then
it dawned on us that the sound was the wind turbines.
“Having lived with the turbines now for several months, it
has become clear that the noise is loudest to us when the turbines are faced
Northwest and the wind is coming from that direction. Our home is in that path and I guess that’s
why. The wind comes over the blades
directly toward us. What is most interesting
to me is that they seem
loudest on the calmer days.
That is, if the wind is barely existent, I can really hear them
roaring.”
Elliott said the committee had received more than a dozen
letters of concern about the impact of the project.
Monitor problems
Concord Pond resident Bob Moulton said he had requested data
from a permanent noise monitor placed near the turbines by SMW, in compliance
with a Department of Environmental Protection permit requirement.
According to DEP, the monitor is about 2,000 feet away from
the last turbine on SMW’s eastern property boundary, between the last two
turbines, a cluster of houses and Shagg Pond.
It was placed downwind of the turbines, in the direction of the
predominant wind.
But, Moulton said, he was told it had not been working
because a mouse chewed the wiring.
He also said SMW had applied to DEP to have the
permanent-monitor requirement removed, and be replaced by a plan to simply send
out an acoustical expert with a monitor in response to specific complaints.
After learning the current monitor was not functioning, on
July 15 Moulton requested DEP provide one at his home. A technician arrived
July 17.
“Somehow between Sunday and Tuesday, they determined the
wind and turbines would be identical to Sunday evening at 5:30,” he said. But
the noise during the test, said Moulton, “was not even close to what it was
Sunday,” and the measurement was within the required limits.
And, according to Moulton, the technician told him they
would not come back if they did not hear from anyone else.
Ordinance ideas
Elliott said the committee is considering an ordinance
requirement for future projects for an escrow account arrangement, to provide
funds for the town to hire its own independent experts and specialists for each
phase of the project, such as acoustical engineers, construction engineers,
geologists, or others as needed. The ordinance could also stipulate that
information from a wind company’s own monitor be provided to the town
periodically.
And given the feedback from property owners, he said, the
committee’s idea to use a one-mile setback would need to change, to either a
greater setback or lower decibel requirement, or a combination of the two.
The committee has been looking at ordinances, ranging from
less to more restrictive on decibel levels and setbacks, from other towns.
A straw poll conducted at the end of the meeting offered
choices of no ordinance (use state law only); moderate ordinance; mid-level
ordinance; and strict ordinance. Of 17 responses, 16 favored mid-level or
strict. Two comments favored taking terrain into account, and a 2-mile setback.
Elliott said he had joined the committee to prevent further
negative impacts on property owners.
“To me it’s unconscionable what’s happened to these folks,”
he said.
After the meeting Elliott said the committee is now working
on a second draft for an ordinance, “which we hope to have done by mid-August.
It will still need work. We'd like to have the finished product to the
Selectmen by the end of September, but finishing it
might take a little longer than that.”
Townspeople are expected to vote on it at the 2013 town
meeting.
The committee meets the second and fourth Tuesday of each
month at 6 p.m. at the town office.
DEP response
Dawn Hallowell, DEP’s Licensing & Compliance Manager for
the region, responded Friday to some of the issues discussed at the meeting:
“Earlier today, SMW withdrew its minor amendment application
to remove the condition for permanent sound monitoring at the facility. As such, SMW is still obligated to operate
and maintain the sound monitoring equipment per the Department’s permit.
“To set the record straight, the department hired
TechEnvironmental to investigate a complaint filed by Mr. Moulton on July
15. As required, SMW submitted the
complaint to the department, when I asked for the monitoring data SMW said it
could not provide it because a mouse had chewed through the wires. The department determined that in this instance it was appropriate to send its expert to Mr.
Moulton’s property (with his permission) to monitor sound under similar
conditions (which happened to occur July 17th).
SMW cooperated in that it provided TechEnvironmental with SCADA data for
both July 15 and July 17 so that TechEnvironmental could do an analysis. “TechEnvironmental wrote a report for the
Department analyzing the data and the sound monitoring it did on July 17 and
found that the project was operating in compliance with its permit.
The wind conditions on the ridge were slightly stronger on
the 17th than the 15th and the turbine data shows that they were
operating at a slightly greater power on the 17th. Wind was blowing in the same direction and
the conditions were favorable for the monitoring. The data was analyzed to omit for background
noises like barking dogs, construction crews and birds. And it was determined that the project is
operating in compliance with its permit (55 dBA during the day and 45 dBA at
night). There are no further planned
efforts to monitor sound other than the permanent sound monitor that SMW will
maintain.
“Testimony from noise experts at the Board of Environmental Protection’s hearings on Chapter 375 (10)(I) Noise Regulations http://www.maine.gov/sos/cec/rules/06/096/096c375.doc indicated that at distances greater than 1 mile, the sound
heard from the turbines will be in compliance with the regulations. Mr. Moulton’s camp is 1.5 miles away from the
turbines. Part of the reason the
department authorized the investigation was to see if the pond and terrain
could be reflecting sound, making it louder.
“As part of its mission to protect the environment, the
Department takes all complaints seriously.
There is a procedure in place to file an official complaint, the Hotline
number is 1-800-854-4990. SMW is
obligated to inform the department when it receives a complaint and provide the
Department with the data. The department
will determine what actions are necessary to follow up on that complaint.
“SMW’s annual compliance data indicates that the project is
operating in compliance. To date
investigation into the two complaints
filed have indicated that the project is operating in compliance. Considering
this information, the department will not require the placement of a second
sound monitoring device on Concord Pond.
(The first complaint was filed for Feb. 17 – 19 from a
residence near the project’s eastern property boundary and Shagg Pond
Road. The department hired its
consultant to review the data from that time period and determined that the
project was operating in compliance, according to Hallowell.)
SMW on the weather
As for the effect of weather conditions, in the conclusion
of SMW’s original project permit application to DEP, the applicants addressed
the subject in this way:
“Operation of the project may result in periodically audible
sound at receptor locations under certain operational and meteorological
conditions. Specifically, the project will be audible at the closest receptors
in relation to the project, when background sound levels are low, and wind
speeds are high enough for WTG operation on the ridgeline. Residents outside
their houses and with a direct line of sight to an operating WTG may hear a
gentle swooshing sound characteristic of wind energy projects. At more distant
receptor locations, during meteorological conditions favorable to sound
propagation and very quiet background ambient sound conditions, WTGs may be
periodically audible but will be well within the criteria limits to avoid the
potential for adverse noise impacts on public health and safety.”
Disenfranchised (but not Powerless) in Lexington Township
 |
| Lexington Mountains Threatened by Iberdrola Renewables/Plum Creek proposed wind development |
I’m a Maine citizen trying to bring ethics, civil rights and fairness back into the equation concerning the lives of my family, friends and neighbors.
I live in an Unorganized Territory. There is no recognized ‘town government’
here. We’re too small for that.
But we’re still American citizens-- and Mainers. We believe that our voices and our wills
should not be disregarded simply because we live in rural Maine.
More than 80% of the citizens of my community (Lexington
Township) have signed petitions opposing Iberdrola Renewables’ proposed
industrial wind facility planned for the mountain summits which rise above our
homes and properties. But because of the
2008 passage of LD2283 (which became former Governor Baldacci’s ‘Wind Energy
Act’) rural citizens in the ‘expedited wind permitting zone’ are not allowed to
have any real influence in the future of our communities.
In any other situation, an 80% vote would be considered a
landslide. The Peoples’ will would have
carried the day. Why is this not the
case, for us?
We have told the wind developer and the land owner (Plum
Creek) about our collective decision.
We’ve asked them to abandon their wind development plans. Instead of respecting our resolve, they have
continued move ahead with their plans, continued to contact locals…asking them
for private ‘meetings’ (while refusing to hold public meetings), asking them
for easements to cross their properties, telling them that property-owners have
the right to use their land however they see fit.
If sight, sound, smell or other pollution or environmental
impacts stopped at property boundaries, this conversation might be different.
But everyone in Lexington stands to bear the impacts if this huge industrial
facility is built in our peaceful, natural setting.
If we lived in neighboring New Portland, this wouldn’t be an
issue.
But…we don’t.
So…it is.
 |
| New Portland (Jack Bailey photo) |
Saturday, April 7, 2012
Maine Voices DO Make a Difference
First WIND ’S BOWERS Mountain Wind Project to be Denied
Grass roots opposition defeats Maine
The Land Use Regulation Commission (LURC) voted today not to allow First Wind Holdings, LLC of Boston to withdraw its application for the Bowers Mountain Wind Project. The project would have erected 27 forty-three story tall turbines on prominent ridgelines in Carroll and Kossuth, adjacent to the headwaters of the
The Partnership for the Preservation of the Downeast Lakes Watershed (PPDLW) has led the broad-based opposition to the project. The Maine Professional Guides Association, the Maine Sporting Camp Owners Association, and the Grand Lake Stream Guides Association also opposed this project.
“I could not be happier.” says PPDLW member Gary Campbell. “It’s been a long arduous battle, but the natural beauty of the Downeast Lakes Region is well worth fighting for. Today’s vote shows that Maine
After a long and well documented process that included a site visit, lakes tour, three days of formal public hearings, and three deliberation sessions, a straw poll taken in October showed the Commissioners in unanimous agreement that the project would have an unreasonably adverse scenic impact on a number of significant paddling and fishing lakes, and consequently the numerous sporting camps, lodges, professional guides, and ancillary support businesses that are the lifeblood of the area. The Commission instructed LURC staff to prepare a denial document.
Facing an imminent denial, the applicant, through lead counsel Juliet Browne of Verrill Dan a, filed a request several weeks later that they be allowed to withdraw the project application. After much deliberation, the LURC board tabled the request to withdraw, but did agree to give the applicant some additional time to reconfigure the project. Interveners in the case argued that the applicant was simply venue shopping. In the end, the LURC Commissioners awarded the applicant an additional 90 days to reconfigure the project in hope of mitigating the project’s scenic impact, while expressing serious reservations that it could be mitigated at all. The applicant assured the Commission that 90 days would be enough time and that they would bring back a formal outline of a reconfigured project by March 9th.
Twenty minutes prior to expiration of the deadline, the applicant submitted a letter stating that “[First Wind] is not able to present a particular reconfigured project to the Commission at this time.” The letter then repeated the earlier request that they be allowed to withdraw the Bowers application. At today’s meeting LURC voted to officially deny First Wind’s request to withdraw and directed its staff to resume preparation of the application denial document. The denial is now scheduled to become official by Commission vote on May 4, 2012 .
The Scenic Downeast Lakes Region encompasses more than two dozen lakes including Pleasant, Shaw, Scraggly, Junior, West Grand, Pocumcus, Bottle and Keg Lakes Maine Pleasant Lake West Grand Lake
PPDLW’s President, Kevin Gurall explains, “The Scenic Downeast Lakes Region has a long, rich history of providing a wilderness experience to visitors and sportsmen from all over the world. Celebrities from Ted Williams and Jimmy Doolittle, to Presidents and foreign heads of state, as well as multiple generations of families have been coming here for well over 100 years to enjoy this network of clean, largely undeveloped lakes. The guiding tradition on this watershed can be traced back to the 1850’s. We have 2nd, 3rd, and even 4th generation professional guides who stitch together a living providing sportsmen with an outdoor experience that leaves them with memories for a lifetime. Never mind that this type of experience is becoming rare in Maine, there aren’t many places like this left in the entire continental U.S… and that’s why it’s so important that we protect it so future generations will have the opportunity to make their own memories of the wilderness character and scenic magnificence that is the Downeast Lakes Watershed. He added, “Those memories need not be ruined by an industrialized landscape… there have to be better solutions to our energy issues than defacing our treasured lake shore landscapes and our mountains. Tourism is our largest industry in Maine
“Although PPDLW sounded the initial alarm, this was a grassroots effort by more than 300 citizens. People from the immediate area, from all corners of Maine
# # #
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)