Steve Thurston's Posts - Citizens' Task Force on Wind Power - Maine2024-03-29T09:08:50ZSteve Thurstonhttps://www.windtaskforce.org/profile/SteveThurstonhttps://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/1548422855?profile=RESIZE_48X48&width=48&height=48&crop=1%3A1https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blog/feed?user=2ei46mr2m3k7e&xn_auth=noRobert Bryce testifying before US Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee 11/16/21tag:www.windtaskforce.org,2021-11-21:4401701:BlogPost:2289792021-11-21T14:02:07.000ZSteve Thurstonhttps://www.windtaskforce.org/profile/SteveThurston
<p> Please share widely!</p>
<p><a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VJaDbZWOqlw">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VJaDbZWOqlw</a></p>
<p> Please share widely!</p>
<p><a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VJaDbZWOqlw">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VJaDbZWOqlw</a></p>LePage considering a run for Governortag:www.windtaskforce.org,2021-04-09:4401701:BlogPost:2152202021-04-09T18:21:03.000ZSteve Thurstonhttps://www.windtaskforce.org/profile/SteveThurston
<p>Send him your thoughts. </p>
<p><a href="https://mainegop.com/lepagemessage/">https://mainegop.com/lepagemessage/</a></p>
<p>Send him your thoughts. </p>
<p><a href="https://mainegop.com/lepagemessage/">https://mainegop.com/lepagemessage/</a></p>Why Renewables Can't Save the Planettag:www.windtaskforce.org,2019-03-01:4401701:BlogPost:1608292019-03-01T16:24:30.000ZSteve Thurstonhttps://www.windtaskforce.org/profile/SteveThurston
<p>This needs to be a conversation at every energy committee in every state legislature - </p>
<p></p>
<p><a href="https://quillette.com/2019/02/27/why-renewables-cant-save-the-planet/?fbclid=IwAR3pUfjG7_mQBtXZDPx3Oc1e_6Y_fAVm4YgWlhF_MYQOgrE78fWT7wE_Rng">https://quillette.com/2019/02/27/why-renewables-cant-save-the-planet/?fbclid=IwAR3pUfjG7_mQBtXZDPx3Oc1e_6Y_fAVm4YgWlhF_MYQOgrE78fWT7wE_Rng</a></p>
<p></p>
<p>This needs to be a conversation at every energy committee in every state legislature - </p>
<p></p>
<p><a href="https://quillette.com/2019/02/27/why-renewables-cant-save-the-planet/?fbclid=IwAR3pUfjG7_mQBtXZDPx3Oc1e_6Y_fAVm4YgWlhF_MYQOgrE78fWT7wE_Rng">https://quillette.com/2019/02/27/why-renewables-cant-save-the-planet/?fbclid=IwAR3pUfjG7_mQBtXZDPx3Oc1e_6Y_fAVm4YgWlhF_MYQOgrE78fWT7wE_Rng</a></p>
<p></p>FMM and Chris O'Neil mentioned in this article about wind opposition in the US.tag:www.windtaskforce.org,2018-02-21:4401701:BlogPost:1254242018-02-21T02:34:47.000ZSteve Thurstonhttps://www.windtaskforce.org/profile/SteveThurston
<p>"In Maine, plans to erect turbines atop ridges have outraged people worried about marring the rugged landscape and hurting tourism. The group Friends of Maine's Mountains has been fighting wind-energy developments in the state Legislature, before regulatory panels and in the courts. It has managed to slow or stop nearly all of the proposals.</p>
<p>Group spokesman Christopher O'Neil said he knows wind farms remain popular with many people in distant, more populated areas near Portland or…</p>
<p>"In Maine, plans to erect turbines atop ridges have outraged people worried about marring the rugged landscape and hurting tourism. The group Friends of Maine's Mountains has been fighting wind-energy developments in the state Legislature, before regulatory panels and in the courts. It has managed to slow or stop nearly all of the proposals.</p>
<p>Group spokesman Christopher O'Neil said he knows wind farms remain popular with many people in distant, more populated areas near Portland or elsewhere in New England.</p>
<p>"Lots of folks in Portland in their BMWs and fine dining restaurants are OK knowing those country bumpkins are getting those wonderful wind turbines so we can have a clean, green conscience," O'Neil said."</p>
<p></p>
<p><a href="http://https://hosted.ap.org/standardspeaker/article/32d2d41199c842af9d7a467246af58be/new-rebellion-against-wind-energy-stalls-or-stops-projects" target="_blank" rel="noopener">http://https://hosted.ap.org/standardspeaker/article/32d2d41199c842af9d7a467246af58be/new-rebellion-against-wind-energy-stalls-or-stops-projects</a></p>Vermont Public Service Board adopts 35 dBA nighttime noise level for wind turbines.tag:www.windtaskforce.org,2017-03-03:4401701:BlogPost:940762017-03-03T23:35:24.000ZSteve Thurstonhttps://www.windtaskforce.org/profile/SteveThurston
<p>The PSB just issued its new rule, which has been submitted to ICAR. See this section, excerpted from the rule, below. This is a huge victory for us!! They adopted the German nighttime standard of 35 dBA and the highest standard in Denmark for daytime of 42 dBA, plus a setback of 10x the total height which is what Poland requires and the Cape Cod Commission recommend. The wind industry just sustained a huge loss. This comes as a big surprise, and we will have to defend this through the…</p>
<p>The PSB just issued its new rule, which has been submitted to ICAR. See this section, excerpted from the rule, below. This is a huge victory for us!! They adopted the German nighttime standard of 35 dBA and the highest standard in Denmark for daytime of 42 dBA, plus a setback of 10x the total height which is what Poland requires and the Cape Cod Commission recommend. The wind industry just sustained a huge loss. This comes as a big surprise, and we will have to defend this through the public hearing process that remains to get this rule fully adopted. DECLARE VICTORY!!</p>
<div><div><blockquote><div class="m_2623033770231593282page" title="Page 2"><div class="m_2623033770231593282layoutArea"><div class="m_2623033770231593282column"><p><span>Facilities with a plant capacity of greater than 150 kW. Operation of facilities with a plant capacity of greater than 150 kW shall not result in: (1) audible prominent discrete-frequency tones pursuant to the latest revision of ANSI S1.13 Annex A at a distance of 100 feet from the residences of non-participating landowners; and (2) <b>sound pressure levels in excess of 42 dBA between the hours of <span class="aBn"><span class="aQJ">7 A.M. and 9 P.M.</span></span> and 35 dBA between the hours of <span class="aBn"><span class="aQJ">9 P.M. and 7 A.M.</span></span> at a distance of 100 feet from the residences of non-participating landowners.</b> Each sound-producing element of such facilities shall be<b> set back horizontally no less than ten (10) times the turbines’ height,</b> as measured from base to the tip of a blade in the upright, vertical position, from the residences of non-participating landowners. </span></p>
<p><span> </span></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>The latest renewable integration study covers the entire Eastern Gridtag:www.windtaskforce.org,2016-09-18:4401701:BlogPost:825962016-09-18T14:11:22.000ZSteve Thurstonhttps://www.windtaskforce.org/profile/SteveThurston
<p>A study led by wind developers, AWEA, turbine and solar panel manufacturers, and other renewable advocates paid for by our tax dollars through NREL/DOE concludes that renewables can supply up to 30% "penetration" in the Eastern US and Canada. Not included in the study is the cost of generation, transmission, or market rule changes needed for this to happen - which would of course be immense. The study does highlight the relatively clean ISO-NE grid compared to the other grids serving the…</p>
<p>A study led by wind developers, AWEA, turbine and solar panel manufacturers, and other renewable advocates paid for by our tax dollars through NREL/DOE concludes that renewables can supply up to 30% "penetration" in the Eastern US and Canada. Not included in the study is the cost of generation, transmission, or market rule changes needed for this to happen - which would of course be immense. The study does highlight the relatively clean ISO-NE grid compared to the other grids serving the Eastern half of the US, many of which are highly reliant on coal (black color in charts) and will remain so regardless of the proliferation of highly subsidized wind turbines and solar panels. It also shows that NY imports significant electricity from Hydro Quebec (light blue color), something New England could and should be doing.</p>
<p style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/1561546116?profile=original" target="_self">NREL%20ERGIS%20Executive%20Summary.pdf</a></p>
<p></p>
<p><a href="http://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/1561549611?profile=original" target="_self"><img width="652" src="http://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/1561549611?profile=RESIZE_1024x1024" width="652" class="align-center"/></a></p>Public Workshop on the Wind Energy Act Standards for Scenic Character, Shadow Flicker, Public Safety, Tangible Benefits, and Decommissioningtag:www.windtaskforce.org,2016-09-15:4401701:BlogPost:826472016-09-15T02:22:45.000ZSteve Thurstonhttps://www.windtaskforce.org/profile/SteveThurston
<p><span>Public Workshop on the Wind Energy Act Standards for Scenic Character, Shadow Flicker, Public Safety, Tangible Benefits, and Decommissioning - Wednesday September 21</span></p>
<p></p>
<p><span><a href="https://content.govdelivery.com/accounts/MEDEP/bulletins/164394c">https://content.govdelivery.com/accounts/MEDEP/bulletins/164394c</a></span></p>
<p><span>Public Workshop on the Wind Energy Act Standards for Scenic Character, Shadow Flicker, Public Safety, Tangible Benefits, and Decommissioning - Wednesday September 21</span></p>
<p></p>
<p><span><a href="https://content.govdelivery.com/accounts/MEDEP/bulletins/164394c">https://content.govdelivery.com/accounts/MEDEP/bulletins/164394c</a></span></p>Plant Trees not Solar Panelstag:www.windtaskforce.org,2016-03-26:4401701:BlogPost:756792016-03-26T14:12:35.000ZSteve Thurstonhttps://www.windtaskforce.org/profile/SteveThurston
<p>Solar Panels are a Waste of Taxpayer and Ratepayer Money for the Environmental Benefits Achieved.</p>
<p>Solar proponents (<a href="https://solarpowerrocks.com/vermont/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">https://solarpowerrocks.com/<span class="highlightNode">vermont</span>/</a>) advertise a 9.9% annual rate of return over the life of a 5 kw solar project, which costs about $20,000. Investors can claim a first year tax credit of 30%, or $6000. The electric utility is required to credit 5.4…</p>
<p>Solar Panels are a Waste of Taxpayer and Ratepayer Money for the Environmental Benefits Achieved.</p>
<p>Solar proponents (<a href="https://solarpowerrocks.com/vermont/" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">https://solarpowerrocks.com/<span class="highlightNode">vermont</span>/</a>) advertise a 9.9% annual rate of return over the life of a 5 kw solar project, which costs about $20,000. Investors can claim a first year tax credit of 30%, or $6000. The electric utility is required to credit 5.4 cents per kw in addition to 100% of the cost of any excess electricity produced <span class="text_exposed_show">by the panels not consumed by the owner. The utility also must credit 100% of the cost of providing poles, lines, transformers and maintenance for the transmission system, which is then passed on to other ratepayers. Renewable Energy Credits (RECs) provide about 4 cents per kw. Towns are not allowed to charge property taxes for the panels even though they add $20,000 to the value of the property. The state charges no sales tax for the roughly $15,000 worth of equipment.</span></p>
<div class="text_exposed_show"><p>These subsidies add up to profits which are tens of thousands of dollars more than the value of the electricity produced by the solar panels. Its free money for the investors, so who can blame them for taking advantage of such a windfall? However, as the above mentioned website inadvertently points out, there is a much cheaper and simpler way of accomplishing the same environmental benefit.</p>
<p>According to the above mentioned website a 5 kw solar installation will have the same environmental benefit as planting 106 trees each year. The Nature Conservancy's Plant a Billion Tree program plants trees for $1 each on average.</p>
<p>Let's stop littering <span class="highlightNode">Vermont</span>'s high value landscape with solar panels. Let taxpayers and ratepayers keep their money instead of subsidizing solar panels and instead encourage the legislature to allow people to take a tax deduction for $106 through the Nature Conservancy's Plant-a-Billion Trees program? (<a href="http://l.facebook.com/l.php?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.plantabillion.org%2Ffrequently-asked-questions%2F&h=WAQHl7fhrAQEiPtBspoxN5tbzOCSyUa4osVMocEMsitXp1Q&enc=AZNBcmLfzc_79lEFFavsBKeON3n_GWSPJcHGwiLmt3HWMajnnGyb8_hQHEmmYdML191S1YcsopSKGjW4Ld_bNAEAzhtaNMvpmq2fOxArOlhE2Lcr0jWX2J6r32bB_JYvZbvvje9EzdOPXWFos-ULW2opnh3_ZSGP-W_EpNs5B6Yix6ixyeffq8Hzsdz5vxf_njbLAXRXjPF3awY7IOIa0-MC&s=1" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">http://www.plantabillion.org/frequently-asked-questions/</a>)</p>
<p>Of course, if you want to buy solar panels to reduce your own dependence on the grid, that's your choice. But the rest of us should not pay for it.</p>
</div>Why wind is a bad deal for taxpayers and ratepayers.tag:www.windtaskforce.org,2016-03-16:4401701:BlogPost:756162016-03-16T01:41:45.000ZSteve Thurstonhttps://www.windtaskforce.org/profile/SteveThurston
<p><span>Renewables advocates constantly imply that wind and solar are becoming “competitive” but they fail to include the cornucopia of subsidies, which add up to much more than the value of the electricity produced. When challenged they talk about the “social cost” of fossil fuels, as if fossil fuels provide no benefit to society, and imply that these social costs justify the high cost, human suffering, visual blight, habitat destruction, environmental degradation, loss of local control,…</span></p>
<p><span>Renewables advocates constantly imply that wind and solar are becoming “competitive” but they fail to include the cornucopia of subsidies, which add up to much more than the value of the electricity produced. When challenged they talk about the “social cost” of fossil fuels, as if fossil fuels provide no benefit to society, and imply that these social costs justify the high cost, human suffering, visual blight, habitat destruction, environmental degradation, loss of local control, etc., so that wind developers and investors can back their trucks up to the US Treasury and say “fill her up”.</span></p>
<p>A clue to the wind power scam is the appearance of "negative pricing" in the ISO-NE wholesale market. When the wind is blowing and there is little demand, wind developers actually bid less than $0, or in other words, pay the grid to take their electricity. <span> In order to get paid for its RECs, worth about $40/MW, and take advantage of the $27/MW PTC it has to sell its electricity to someone. Assuming a percentage of its electrons are sold under a PPA at $80/MW (some PPAs are higher and some are lower), and the rest could be bid into the real time market, the real value of its electrons would be $40+$27+$80 = $147/MW, so the wind developer could bid negative -$100/MW and still make $47. See the chart below from the ISO-NE system monitor on 3/13/16. </span></p>
<p>Another good indicator of the negative impact of renewables on consumer prices is the rapid increase in ISO-NE capacity payments relative to energy payments. Capacity payments are made to generators for just being there, whether or not they are producing power. Baseload and other dispatchable generators that have the ability to ramp up and down with demand are essential for grid reliability. Wind and solar receive minimal capacity payments because they are not dispatchable and do not add to grid reliability. As more intermittent sources come online we are seeing that capacity payments are skyrocketing and may soon eclipse energy payments. Capacity payments have gone from $1 billion to $4 billion in the past 5 years, while demand has been stagnant and wholesale prices have fallen. In the same 5 years wind turbines have spread over 100 miles of Maine's scenic mountain ridges, with no end in sight - unless the legislature acts. </p>
<p></p>
<p><a href="http://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/1561535971?profile=original" target="_self"><img src="http://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/1561535971?profile=original" width="403" class="align-center"/></a></p>
<p></p>STILL TIME TO ACT! LD 1513 Work Session carried over to tomorrow Wednesday 3/9/16tag:www.windtaskforce.org,2016-03-09:4401701:BlogPost:752212016-03-09T00:52:39.000ZSteve Thurstonhttps://www.windtaskforce.org/profile/SteveThurston
<p>EUT Committee Co-Chairman Representative Mark Dion's bill to allow generators to be owned by affiliates of T&D utilities was given a sound thrashing at today's work session. Witnesses representing utilities, consumer groups, generators, and the conservation of Maine's landscape all emphasized that there could be no "Code of Conduct" written that would prevent Iberdrola from profiting from its ownership of both CMP as the transmission company and Avangrid as the generation company in…</p>
<p>EUT Committee Co-Chairman Representative Mark Dion's bill to allow generators to be owned by affiliates of T&D utilities was given a sound thrashing at today's work session. Witnesses representing utilities, consumer groups, generators, and the conservation of Maine's landscape all emphasized that there could be no "Code of Conduct" written that would prevent Iberdrola from profiting from its ownership of both CMP as the transmission company and Avangrid as the generation company in CMP's service area. Ratepayers and competitors would be at risk, just as the Law Court decided in its first review of the appeal of the First Wind/Emera merger in 2012. </p>
<p>Dion was unwilling to take no for an answer, and other committee members groped for suggestions to make the bill palatable, so tomorrow we can expect a further behind the scenes re-write of the bill and for Dion to do his best to get his committee members in formation behind the bill. </p>
<p>It is not too late to send the committee members your thoughts about enabling CMP and Avangrid, both owned by parent company Iberdrola, to work together on transmission interconnect agreements, which would be very difficult if not impossible for the PUC to scrutinize or regulate effectively. Utilities and generators were separated in the best interests of competition and rate payer fairness in 1998. Nothing has changed that dynamic. The law should not be "tweaked" to provide "clarity", instead the legislature should await the verdict of the Law Court and, if inclined to consider changing the law afterward, they should then give this issue the in depth study that it deserves, instead of shooting at a moving target as is happening now. </p>
<p>EUT Members' Legislature Email Addresses - all in one place</p>
<p>david.woodsome@legislature.maine.gov<br/>garrett.mason@legislature.maine.gov<br/>dawn.hill@legislature.maine.gov<br/>Mark.Dion@legislature.maine.gov<br/>Bobbi.Beavers@legislature.maine.gov<br/>Chris.Babbidge@legislature.maine.gov<br/>Deane.Rykerson@legislature.maine.gov<br/>Jennifer.DeChant@legislature.maine.gov<br/>Martin.Grohman@legislature.maine.gov<br/>Nathan.Wadsworth@legislature.maine.gov<br/>Beth.O'Connor@legislature.maine.gov<br/>Norman.Higgins@legislature.maine.gov<br/>Larry.Dunphy@legislature.maine.gov</p>
<p></p>CALL TO ACTION - Work Session on Amended LD 1513 to continue next Tuesday, March 8tag:www.windtaskforce.org,2016-03-04:4401701:BlogPost:751372016-03-04T02:11:27.000ZSteve Thurstonhttps://www.windtaskforce.org/profile/SteveThurston
<p>The work session on LD 1513 introduced a completely re-written bill which has not yet been published on the EUT website. Co-Chairman Dion, one of the sponsors, defended his role in allowing only proponents of the bill to work with the EUT's policy analyst to draft the "amended" bill. The EUT will allow opposition to this bill to be heard at its next work session on Tuesday. Please email the Committee members if you cannot attend the work session in person. </p>
<p>According to Mitch…</p>
<p>The work session on LD 1513 introduced a completely re-written bill which has not yet been published on the EUT website. Co-Chairman Dion, one of the sponsors, defended his role in allowing only proponents of the bill to work with the EUT's policy analyst to draft the "amended" bill. The EUT will allow opposition to this bill to be heard at its next work session on Tuesday. Please email the Committee members if you cannot attend the work session in person. </p>
<p>According to Mitch Tannenbaum, counsel for the PUC, the issue at stake boils down to this: Can affiliates of T&D utilities own generation assets in the service area of the T&D, and if so, what sort of "Code of Conduct" can the PUC impose on the utility to insure that affiliate ownership of a generation asset does not cause the utility to make business decisions that profit the utility or parent company by showing favoritism to the affiliate's generators. Tannenbaum admitted that no Code of Conduct could guarantee compliance.</p>
<p>Not to be dissuaded by that fact the PUC has nevertheless agreed to draft a Code of Conduct. One of the elements of the Code of Conduct that has been discussed by the PUC is that employees cannot be shared between the T&D and the affiliate. When then Governor Baldacci hosted CMP's parent company Iberdrola's CEO Igatus Galan in 2009 the CEO made it clear that owning wind generation in Maine was its goal: </p>
<p><span>"If Maine signals that it’s no longer friendly to wind power, he said, the global energy company will expand elsewhere.“We will be involved in this state once the transmission line is completed,” Galan said, “if the framework is here.”Galan made his comments to The Portland Press Herald before a news conference and celebration to kick off CMP’s Maine Power Reliability Project". </span></p>
<p><span><a href="http://www.pressherald.com/2010/09/28/cmps-parent-wind-power-development-hinges-on-maine-policies/">http://www.pressherald.com/2010/09/28/cmps-parent-wind-power-development-hinges-on-maine-policies/</a></span></p>
<p>As Long Islander has mentioned in previous blog posts, it is pretty obvious that the CEO of Iberdrola, who presides over CMP as well as Avangrid (formerly Iberdrola Renewables), is an employee who is shared between these two entities, and therefore an inescapable conflict of interest exists. The EUT would be negligent if it ignores this plain fact. Likewise the PUC should see this conflict as a showstopper for its proposed "Code of Conduct". </p>
<p>Underlying this issue is of course the insane policy that is allowing wind turbines to spread throughout Maine's landscape. None of the current EUT members voted for the Wind Law in 2008, so they should not feel any sense of ownership or loyalty to this atrocious piece of legislation. Hopefully independent thinking will enable the EUT to do the right thing. </p>
<p></p>
<p align="center"><span><strong><span>EUT Members' Legislature Email Addresses</span> - all in one place</strong></span></p>
<table border="0" cellspacing="0" width="282">
<colgroup><col width="282"></col></colgroup><tbody><tr><td height="20" width="282"><span><a href="mailto:david.woodsome@legislature.maine.gov" target="_blank">david.woodsome@legislature.maine.gov</a></span></td>
</tr>
<tr><td height="20"><span><a href="mailto:garrett.mason@legislature.maine.gov" target="_blank">garrett.mason@legislature.maine.gov</a></span></td>
</tr>
<tr><td height="20"><span><a href="mailto:dawn.hill@legislature.maine.gov" target="_blank">dawn.hill@legislature.maine.gov</a></span></td>
</tr>
<tr><td height="20"><span><a href="mailto:Mark.Dion@legislature.maine.gov" target="_blank">Mark.Dion@legislature.maine.gov</a></span></td>
</tr>
<tr><td height="20"><span><a href="mailto:Bobbi.Beavers@legislature.maine.gov" target="_blank">Bobbi.Beavers@legislature.maine.gov</a></span></td>
</tr>
<tr><td height="20"><span><a href="mailto:Chris.Babbidge@legislature.maine.gov" target="_blank">Chris.Babbidge@legislature.maine.gov</a></span></td>
</tr>
<tr><td height="20"><span><a href="mailto:Deane.Rykerson@legislature.maine.gov" target="_blank">Deane.Rykerson@legislature.maine.gov</a></span></td>
</tr>
<tr><td height="20"><span><a href="mailto:Jennifer.DeChant@legislature.maine.gov" target="_blank">Jennifer.DeChant@legislature.maine.gov</a></span></td>
</tr>
<tr><td height="20"><span><a href="mailto:Martin.Grohman@legislature.maine.gov" target="_blank">Martin.Grohman@legislature.maine.gov</a></span></td>
</tr>
<tr><td height="20"><span><a href="mailto:Nathan.Wadsworth@legislature.maine.gov" target="_blank">Nathan.Wadsworth@legislature.maine.gov</a></span></td>
</tr>
<tr><td height="20"><span><a href="mailto:Beth.O%27Connor@legislature.maine.gov" target="_blank">Beth.O'Connor@legislature.maine.gov</a></span></td>
</tr>
<tr><td height="20"><span><a href="mailto:Norman.Higgins@legislature.maine.gov" target="_blank">Norman.Higgins@legislature.maine.gov</a></span></td>
</tr>
<tr><td height="20"><span><a href="mailto:Larry.Dunphy@legislature.maine.gov" target="_blank">Larry.Dunphy@legislature.maine.gov</a></span></td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>My letter to the EUT Commiteetag:www.windtaskforce.org,2016-02-04:4401701:BlogPost:740342016-02-04T00:55:17.000ZSteve Thurstonhttps://www.windtaskforce.org/profile/SteveThurston
<p><span class="font-size-4" style="font-family: verdana, geneva;"><font face="times new roman, serif" size="4">February 3, 2016</font></span><span style="font-family: 'times new roman', serif; font-size: large;"> </span></p>
<p><span class="font-size-4" style="font-family: verdana, geneva;"><font face="times new roman, serif" size="4">Honorable Members of the EUT Committee,…</font></span></p>
<p></p>
<p><span style="font-family: verdana, geneva;" class="font-size-4"><font face="times new roman, serif" size="4">February 3, 2016</font></span><span style="font-family: 'times new roman', serif; font-size: large;"> </span></p>
<p><span style="font-family: verdana, geneva;" class="font-size-4"><font face="times new roman, serif" size="4">Honorable Members of the EUT Committee,</font></span></p>
<p><span style="font-family: verdana, geneva;" class="font-size-4"><font face="times new roman, serif" size="4">I am writing to express my dismay and outrage at the proliferation of wind turbines in Maine. Since the passage of the Expedited Wind Act in 2008 wind turbines have negatively impacted the viewshed of literally thousands of square miles of Maine. Dozens of turbines are visible from the top of every mountain in Western Maine. And for what???? To save Maine from global warming? To be a leader in fighting climate change? To replace heating oil with electricity because heating oil would become unaffordable? These were the reasons given by then Governor Baldacci and former governor and would be wind developer Angus King for imposing this unimaginable travesty on Maine’s landscape.</font></span><span style="font-family: 'times new roman', serif; font-size: large;"> </span></p>
<p><span class="font-size-4"><span style="font-family: verdana, geneva;"><font face="times new roman, serif" size="4">Since 2008, when Gov. Baldacci</font></span> </span><span style="font-family: verdana, geneva;" class="font-size-4"><font face="times new roman, serif" size="4"><span style="font-family: 'times new roman', times;">(</span></font><span style="font-family: 'times new roman', times;">who is now a highly paid executive in the wind industry he imposed on Maine while in office) rammed through the Expedited Wind Law as a Governor’s Emergency Bill, the weather in Maine has exhibited no warming trend. On the contrary, 2013 and 2014 were the coldest winters since 2008. (See charts 1 and 2 below) The cost of heating oil has plummeted (see chart 3) while wind turbines require subsidies worth as much as the value of the electricity they generate, subsidies without which the industry would not even exist. </span></span></p>
<p><span style="font-family: 'times new roman', times;" class="font-size-4">Maine has become a prostitute to the electricity demands of other New England states, and while the wind developer pimps are taking our tax dollars, Maine is getting raped. It is insane public policy to allow this desecration of Maine's landscape to continue. I implore you to vote <b>OUGHT NOT TO PASS</b> on <b>ANY LEGISLATION</b> that will increase opportunities for wind turbines to be constructed in Maine. Preferably, you will place a moratorium on wind turbines while you work to restore the environmental protections that were removed to grease the skids for this industry.</span><span style="font-family: 'times new roman', serif; font-size: large;"> </span></p>
<p><span style="font-family: verdana, geneva;" class="font-size-4"><font face="times new roman, serif" size="4">Sincerely,</font></span><span style="font-family: 'times new roman', serif; font-size: large;"> </span></p>
<p><span style="font-family: verdana, geneva;" class="font-size-4"><font face="times new roman, serif" size="4">Steve Thurston</font></span></p>
<p><span style="font-family: verdana, geneva;" class="font-size-4"><font face="times new roman, serif" size="4">Ferrisburgh, VT and Roxbury Pond, ME</font></span></p>
<p><span style="font-family: arial, helvetica, sans-serif;"><font face="times new roman, serif" size="4"> </font></span></p>
<p><span style="font-family: arial, helvetica, sans-serif;"><font face="times new roman, serif" size="4">PS: To see the impact of turbines on what had been described by an LL Bean Outdoor Adventure Leader as "a jewel of the western mountains" click this link: </font><a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EjXERhHmuP8"><font face="times new roman, serif" size="4">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EjXERhHmuP8</font></a></span></p>
<p> </p>
<p> Chart 1.</p>
<p><a href="http://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/1561536350?profile=original" target="_self"><img width="600" src="http://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/1561536350?profile=RESIZE_1024x1024" width="600" class="align-full"/></a></p>
<p><a href="http://www.weatherdatadepot.com/" target="_blank">http://www.weatherdatadepot.com</a></p>
<p></p>
<p>Chart 2.</p>
<p><a href="http://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/1561536494?profile=original" target="_self"><img width="600" src="http://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/1561536494?profile=RESIZE_1024x1024" width="600" class="align-full"/></a></p>
<p><a href="http://www.weatherdatadepot.com/" target="_blank">http://www.weatherdatadepot.com</a></p>
<p><br/> </p>
<p><a href="http://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/1561536831?profile=original" target="_self"><img width="600" src="http://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/1561536831?profile=RESIZE_1024x1024" width="600" class="align-full"/></a></p>
<p><a href="http://maine.gov/energy/fuel_prices/archives.shtml" target="_blank">http://maine.gov/energy/fuel_prices/archives.shtml</a></p>
<p></p>VERMONT AG’S OFFICE INVESTIGATING COMPLAINTS AGAINST ANNETTE SMITH, ANTI-WIND ADVOCATEtag:www.windtaskforce.org,2016-01-23:4401701:BlogPost:732732016-01-23T14:47:46.000ZSteve Thurstonhttps://www.windtaskforce.org/profile/SteveThurston
<p>The state attorney general’s office has opened an investigation into criminal complaints against a prominent champion of Vermonters who are adversely affected by renewable development.</p>
<p>The attorney general’s office is investigating whether Annette Smith, executive director of Vermonters for a Clean Environment, has practiced law without a license — a charge with penalties left entirely to the court’s discretion.</p>
<p>Smith says the complaints that prompted the AG’s investigation are…</p>
<p>The state attorney general’s office has opened an investigation into criminal complaints against a prominent champion of Vermonters who are adversely affected by renewable development.</p>
<p>The attorney general’s office is investigating whether Annette Smith, executive director of Vermonters for a Clean Environment, has practiced law without a license — a charge with penalties left entirely to the court’s discretion.</p>
<p>Smith says the complaints that prompted the AG’s investigation are politically motivated.</p>
<p>Attorneys who have argued against Smith’s clients say she gives bad advice, unconstrained by the sanctions licensed attorneys would incur for similar behavior.</p>
<p>Smith says the AG’s investigation “is very intimidating.”</p>
<p>“I don’t know what to do. I think our work’s being shut down,” Smith said. “I believe this has the potential to shut down my organization of 16 years. It clearly falls under the definition of harassment.”</p>
<p>Residents who live near planned and existing renewable projects have claimed she’s their only advocate.</p>
<p>Smith said she represents people who too frequently have nowhere else to turn. Renewable energy developers hire talented attorneys against whom landowners near project sites have no other way of successfully representing themselves.</p>
<p>Many of these cases involve people who can’t afford a lawyer, and who didn’t want to become involved in legal proceedings to protect their interests, she said. Lawyers know it’s impossible to fight renewable energy developers, Smith said, and won’t take on affected landowners’ cases anyway.</p>
<p>“Anybody who does this with a lawyer has wasted tens of thousands of dollars,” she said. </p>
<p></p>
<p>Read more:</p>
<p><a href="http://vtdigger.org/2016/01/23/ags-office-investigating-annette-smith-advocate-for-anti-wind/?utm_source=VTDigger+Subscribers+and+Donors&utm_campaign=5907b0d1bf-Weekly+Update&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_dc3c5486db-5907b0d1bf-405579585">http://vtdigger.org/2016/01/23/ags-office-investigating-annette-smith-advocate-for-anti-wind/?utm_source=VTDigger+Subscribers+and+Donors&utm_campaign=5907b0d1bf-Weekly+Update&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_dc3c5486db-5907b0d1bf-405579585</a></p>The IPCC's poster child for Climate Change - Bangladeshtag:www.windtaskforce.org,2015-12-09:4401701:BlogPost:717652015-12-09T22:30:00.000ZSteve Thurstonhttps://www.windtaskforce.org/profile/SteveThurston
<p>The IPCC lists Bangladesh as the country most at risk from climate change. But guess what? Bangladesh is shifting its electricity generation from expensive imported gas to cheap domestic coal in order to increase its GDP. “Bangladesh’s short-term economic and political costs resulting from not using its coal for the generation of electricity are far higher than the longer term costs resulting from climate change. This also explains why there are no specific plans for using the more…</p>
<p>The IPCC lists Bangladesh as the country most at risk from climate change. But guess what? Bangladesh is shifting its electricity generation from expensive imported gas to cheap domestic coal in order to increase its GDP. “Bangladesh’s short-term economic and political costs resulting from not using its coal for the generation of electricity are far higher than the longer term costs resulting from climate change. This also explains why there are no specific plans for using the more costly renewable energy at any significant level for the publicly generated electricity,..” In other words, Bangladesh is more concerned about being able to exploit its coal than it is about climate change. Same goes for India and China come to think of it.</p>
<p>“<a href="http://www.bangladeshstudies.org/files/WPS_no10.pdf">http://www.bangladeshstudies.org/files/WPS_no10.pdf</a></p>
<p>So we are supposed to worry about what climate change might do to Bangladesh, and agree to change our landscape with thousands of wind turbines, increase our cost of living subsidizing wind developers, accept deep divisions in our communities as wind projects pit neighbor against neighbor, and see government take over ever increasing aspects of our lives, while Bangladesh mines its coal, sells most of it and generates its electricity with the rest, because <strong>not doing that would be worse than climate change!!!</strong> The reason given for this is that lower GDP growth will lead to faster population growth, since less developed countries have higher birthrates.</p>
<p>Guess what else? I’m done worrying about climate change, Bangladesh, sea level rise and the rest of it and I’m happy if I can grow ripe tomatoes here in comparatively frigid New England. How about we send John Baldacci, Angus King, Peter Shumlin, Dylan Voorhees, and Juliette Brown over there with a boatload of condoms? Maybe that will help reduce the real problem facing humanity – too many of us. Bangladesh has 158 million people, half the population of the US, in a country the size of Florida! </p>
<p>Steve Thurston 12/9/15</p>
<p></p>Nuclear versus Windtag:www.windtaskforce.org,2015-09-19:4401701:BlogPost:677482015-09-19T14:03:48.000ZSteve Thurstonhttps://www.windtaskforce.org/profile/SteveThurston
<p>At the moment ISO-NE's is using about 15,000 MW of electricity. 35% of that electricity is coming from 4 nuclear generators with a combined capacity of 4000 MW that consistently operate at a 90% capacity factor year after year. On the opposite end of the efficiency spectrum, 104 MW is coming from over 800 MW of installed capacity of wind turbines that occupy over 80 miles of New England's ridges. That has been the story all summer long - the time of peak demand on the…</p>
<p>At the moment ISO-NE's is using about 15,000 MW of electricity. 35% of that electricity is coming from 4 nuclear generators with a combined capacity of 4000 MW that consistently operate at a 90% capacity factor year after year. On the opposite end of the efficiency spectrum, 104 MW is coming from over 800 MW of installed capacity of wind turbines that occupy over 80 miles of New England's ridges. That has been the story all summer long - the time of peak demand on the system.</p>
<p>Developers have submitted queue requests for an additional 4000 MW of wind mostly in Maine. So we will have nearly 5000 MW of wind generating during peak demand at about a 10% capacity factor, and contributing only about 5% of the sum total of each one of our requests for electricity. </p>
<p>We would only need to build 2 more nuclear reactors, making a total of 6 in New England, to supply as much electricity as all of the wind turbines and solar panels that can be squeezed into our mountains and meadows. </p>
<p>Today's reactors are safe, produce very little radioactive waste since the spent fuel can be recycled, and provide clean dependable electricity 24/7. What are we waiting for? If we are serious about reducing fossil fuel consumption there is only one source of electricity that will replace it. Destroying the landscape with wind turbines is nothing short of insane. </p>ISO-NE real time "fuel mix chart" shows dismal performance of wind powertag:www.windtaskforce.org,2015-07-07:4401701:BlogPost:659582015-07-07T22:00:00.000ZSteve Thurstonhttps://www.windtaskforce.org/profile/SteveThurston
<p><a href="http://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/1561535681?profile=original" target="_self"></a>I have been checking the ISO-NE website regularly for the past few weeks, since they announced the addition of the "real time fuel mix chart". The chart is on the bottom of the <a href="http://www.iso-ne.com/isoexpress/" target="_blank">"ISO Express"</a> page. Today's fuel mix has been typical. Total demand follows a curve from low during the night to high during the day. …</p>
<p><a href="http://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/1561535681?profile=original" target="_self"></a>I have been checking the ISO-NE website regularly for the past few weeks, since they announced the addition of the "real time fuel mix chart". The chart is on the bottom of the <a href="http://www.iso-ne.com/isoexpress/" target="_blank">"ISO Express"</a> page. Today's fuel mix has been typical. Total demand follows a curve from low during the night to high during the day. Renewables, mostly waste and biomass make up 6% of total generation. 885 MW of wind turbines, occupying about 80 miles of New England's mountain ridges, more than half in Maine, are generating a mere 22% of renewables, or about 1.3 % of total grid demand. The first picture is the total fuel mix chart. The second picture is the renewable fuel mix chart. When will policy makers realize we are on a fool's errand with wind power?</p>
<p></p>
<p><a href="http://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/1561535773?profile=original" target="_self"><img width="750" class="align-full" src="http://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/1561535773?profile=RESIZE_1024x1024"/></a><a href="http://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/1561535681?profile=original" target="_self"><img width="750" class="align-full" src="http://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/1561535681?profile=RESIZE_1024x1024"/></a></p>
<p></p>
<p></p>
<p></p>MAINE'S WIND FUTUREtag:www.windtaskforce.org,2015-06-12:4401701:BlogPost:652302015-06-12T21:32:57.000ZSteve Thurstonhttps://www.windtaskforce.org/profile/SteveThurston
<p>ISO-NE prepared a forecast in 2011 which outlined several scenarios for wind development in Maine. This picture taken from slides from that report shows what may happen if nothing is done to prevent it. Wind developers will continue to build wind projects, and ratepayers will share the costs of transmission, as long as there are mountains or fields on which to build turbines. The upper left shows potential wind project locations, the upper right shows the transmission needed to support…</p>
<p>ISO-NE prepared a forecast in 2011 which outlined several scenarios for wind development in Maine. This picture taken from slides from that report shows what may happen if nothing is done to prevent it. Wind developers will continue to build wind projects, and ratepayers will share the costs of transmission, as long as there are mountains or fields on which to build turbines. The upper left shows potential wind project locations, the upper right shows the transmission needed to support these projects, and the lower left shows the transmission system upon completion of the ongoing MPRP transmission project, which is still several years from completion. </p>
<p></p>
<p>Maine's legislatively established goal of 2700 MW of wind by 2020 is not a limit. Nothing prevents developers from exceeding this goal. As the maps show, Maine may see a total of 7000 MW (7 GW) of wind. At a rate of 10 MW per mile, this will require 700 miles of turbines. Right now there are 440 MW and over 40 miles of turbines on Maine's ridges. The amount of new transmission required by this build out of wind is substantial, as can be seen by comparing the upper right and lower left maps. </p>
<p></p>
<p>Only by legislative action can this scenario be prevented. Good progress has been made in softening the public and the legislature's support for wind. Congratulations to all the wind warriors who have made this possible. If you don't like the plans that are on the drawing board for Maine, further action will be necessary. Keep your legislators informed about your opposition to the destruction of Maine's beautiful landscape.</p>
<p></p>
<p><a href="http://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/1561531341?profile=original" target="_self"><img width="750" class="align-full" src="http://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/1561531341?profile=RESIZE_1024x1024"/></a></p>Vote for Wind Warrior and Maine Guide Dave Corrigan in the Appalachian Trail photo contesttag:www.windtaskforce.org,2014-07-14:4401701:BlogPost:564162014-07-14T17:59:53.000ZSteve Thurstonhttps://www.windtaskforce.org/profile/SteveThurston
<p>He running a close second to a picture of a rainbow. Let's put him over the top!</p>
<p><a href="http://a.pgtb.me/gJlj03?app_data=entry_id%3D58128486">http://a.pgtb.me/gJlj03?app_data=entry_id%3D58128486</a></p>
<p></p>
<p> </p>
<p></p>
<p>He running a close second to a picture of a rainbow. Let's put him over the top!</p>
<p><a href="http://a.pgtb.me/gJlj03?app_data=entry_id%3D58128486">http://a.pgtb.me/gJlj03?app_data=entry_id%3D58128486</a></p>
<p></p>
<p> </p>
<p></p>Eagles on Roxbury Pondtag:www.windtaskforce.org,2014-07-05:4401701:BlogPost:559892014-07-05T03:28:18.000ZSteve Thurstonhttps://www.windtaskforce.org/profile/SteveThurston
<p><span class="font-size-4">I took the accompanying pictures on Roxbury Pond two weeks ago. A pair of eagles have been raising their young on an island in the pond for several decades. Most eagles hatch 2 or 3, but only one survives to fly. These eagles have rebuilt their nest in the same tree and successfully parented 2 chicks to fly from the nest year after year. The value of their DNA to future generations of eagles is enormous. But with the coming of the turbines, and Obama giving free…</span></p>
<p><span class="font-size-4">I took the accompanying pictures on Roxbury Pond two weeks ago. A pair of eagles have been raising their young on an island in the pond for several decades. Most eagles hatch 2 or 3, but only one survives to fly. These eagles have rebuilt their nest in the same tree and successfully parented 2 chicks to fly from the nest year after year. The value of their DNA to future generations of eagles is enormous. But with the coming of the turbines, and Obama giving free reign for wind developers to kill eagles, its only a matter of time before these magnificent creatures meet up with a turbine blade traveling at 200 mph at the tip. All in the name of saving the planet....</span></p>
<p><a href="http://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/1561534239?profile=original" target="_self"><img width="500" class="align-left" src="http://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/1561534239?profile=RESIZE_1024x1024"/></a><a width="300" href="http://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/1561537720?profile=RESIZE_320x320" target="_self"><img width="500" class="align-full" src="http://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/1561537720?profile=RESIZE_1024x1024"/></a><a href="http://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/1561542588?profile=original" target="_self"></a></p>
<p><a href="http://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/1561540071?profile=original" target="_self"><img width="500" class="align-full" src="http://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/1561540071?profile=RESIZE_1024x1024"/></a></p>
<p><a href="http://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/1561547140?profile=original" target="_self"><img width="500" class="align-full" src="http://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/1561547140?profile=RESIZE_1024x1024"/></a></p>
<p></p>
<p></p>
<p></p>
<p></p>Landscape architect Walter Cudhohufsky blasts wind turbines on New England's ridges in the VT Diggertag:www.windtaskforce.org,2013-05-13:4401701:BlogPost:478802013-05-13T21:42:31.000ZSteve Thurstonhttps://www.windtaskforce.org/profile/SteveThurston
<p><span class="font-size-4">Cudnohufsky: The devastation of ridgeline turbine installations in New England</span></p>
<p></p>
<p><em>Editor’s note: This op-ed is by Walter Cudnohufsky, <a href="http://www.wcala.com">a landscape architect and land planner</a>, and <a href="www.cudnohufsky.com">landscape artist</a>. He has served on the Ashfield (Mass.) Planning Board and Wind Advisory Committee.</em></p>
<p>As a landscape architect, I am concerned about and cherish deeply our expansive and…</p>
<p><span class="font-size-4">Cudnohufsky: The devastation of ridgeline turbine installations in New England</span></p>
<p></p>
<p><em>Editor’s note: This op-ed is by Walter Cudnohufsky, <a href="http://www.wcala.com">a landscape architect and land planner</a>, and <a href="www.cudnohufsky.com">landscape artist</a>. He has served on the Ashfield (Mass.) Planning Board and Wind Advisory Committee.</em></p>
<p>As a landscape architect, I am concerned about and cherish deeply our expansive and natural New England landscape. My concern for our highly visible and long protected ridges in particular, was increased in 2009 when Blue Sky Wind Developers made a presentation to Ashfield, Mass., citizens. They were requesting to locate up to twelve 400-foot-tall industrial wind turbines on Ridge Hill above Ashfield Lake.</p>
<p>During the presentation, a slide was shown and claim made that the roads when complete will be 12- to 15-foot wide gravel paths winding gently through a replanted native forest. They were characterized to be perfect walking trails.</p>
<p>I was compelled to challenge that assumption and assertion publicly, already then having a good sense of the size and nature of equipment needed to install and maintain large turbines and also knowing a good deal about road design. I suggested to my fellow citizens that the area of devastation would be many magnitudes larger than our presenters stated.</p>
<p>I did not know the half of it! Since then more ridgeline turbine installations have happened locally, Hoosac Wind and Brodie Mountain in Massachusetts; Lempster, Groton and Coos County in New Hampshire; and Sheffield, Georgia and Lowell Mountain in Vermont. The reality of the devastation has opened my eyes, generated horror and much sadness.</p>
<p><a href="http://lowellmountainsnews.wordpress.com/">Lowell Mountain News website</a> identifies these roads correctly, “An interstate highway on a mountain ridgeline.”</p>
<div class="pullquoteContainerLeft"><div class="pullquote"><p>The average width of the constructed Lowell Mountain turbine clearing and cut has been calculated averaging at least 120 feet. Some vertical bedrock cuts and fills at Lowell exceed 45 feet and their residual exposed blast rock will not host vegetative growth for decades, if ever!</p>
</div>
</div>
<p>For reference I begin with the familiar Interstate Route 91. The lane width is 12 feet, inside and outside shoulders another 12 feet making a total paved of 36 feet (in each direction). This 36 feet is exactly the tread width required for the crane used to erect the turbines. For safety 40-plus feet of road bed is required.</p>
<p>When the drainage swales, cut and fill embankments down to and up from the road are added, the clear cut width will range from 100 feet to well over 200 feet. This is because of the more rugged and steep ridge top terrain all specifically avoided by Route 91.</p>
<p>The average width of the constructed Lowell Mountain turbine clearing and cut has been calculated averaging at least 120 feet. Some vertical bedrock cuts and fills at Lowell exceed 45 feet and their residual exposed blast rock will not host vegetative growth for decades, if ever! Essentially these sensitive areas have been turned into giant rock quarrying operations. Do know that the shallow depth to bedrock landscapes such as Lowell Mountain, Hoosac and Brodie are exceedingly fragile, erosion prone and support unique and often rare vegetation.</p>
<p>The exposed rock runoff which has a coefficient of nearly 100 percent (think city street), the frequent stream and wetland crossings all add up to uncontrolled runoff that make the ever more frequent devastating storms, such as Irene of August 2011, an increasing certainty.</p>
<p>All trees, but native woodland trees in particular, with necessarily shallow and widely dispersed roots, cannot tolerate cut or fill. Most will die if grading takes place on their roots. The clear cut will increase over time with substantial incremental tree death well beyond the 120-200 feet.</p>
<p>The interstate (Route 91) design criteria are stringent, with a 6 percent maximum slope, broad curves and gentle transition grades. Up to 10 percent slopes and occasional short lengths of 16 percent slopes are allowed on turbine roads, but the limiting design criterion are otherwise surprisingly similar.</p>
<p>The absurdity of adding the equivalent of a roughly calculated 1,000 miles of additional New England interstate system on New England’s precious ridges is unconscionable. The reality is the current 2020 onshore wind energy goals for Massachusetts and the five New England states is exactly that, approximately 1,000 miles.</p>
<p>Additionally sobering are the additional clearing for access roads to the ridges, and the necessary clearing for new transmission lines, in total equal to or exceeding the cost and area of disturbance of the ridgeline turbines themselves.</p>
<p>Next, these 2020 goals are about to be dramatically increased fortuitously with no additional ridges to accommodate them. These goals will necessarily mutilate the visible New England landscape and change it to a dramatically industrial persona. I find it difficult to apply the term “sustainable” knowing this scale of consequence on a fragile esteemed and highly visible resource. This is especially true when I learn of the predictable small amount and proven shortfall of energy that must be expected from these barely function machines.</p>
<p>Why do so many of our longstanding environmental organizations, governmental and planning agencies embrace industrial wind? Why when it so antithetical to their conservation and community building efforts, do they not see these clearly devastating impacts? Why do many other organizations become complicit by remaining silent on this planned devastation when they could be exhibiting true conservation leadership?</p>
<p>Naomi Klein gives us the answer, in The Nation article “Time for Big Green to Go Fossil Free,” May 2, 2013. The answer is not a surprise. It is the money!</p>
<p>I express a loud no to ridgeline interstate highways in New England! Please join me!</p>
<p></p>
<p class="entry-meta"></p>PLEASE TAKE A MINUTE TO SIGN THE PETITION TO DENY THE BOWERS MOUNTAIN WIND PROJECTtag:www.windtaskforce.org,2013-04-19:4401701:BlogPost:474722013-04-19T19:50:46.000ZSteve Thurstonhttps://www.windtaskforce.org/profile/SteveThurston
<p>The Expedited Wind Law voted by the Maine Legislature in 2008 specifically calls for protection of Scenic Resources of State or National Significance (SRSNS). <br></br>Maine's Downeast Grand Lakes region is a national treasure that contains multiple lakes that are SRSNS which will be unreasonably affected by the presence of 16 nearly five hundred feet tall industrial wind turbines. The turbines will dominate the horizon with miles of monstrous machines by day and destroy the dark night sky with…</p>
<p>The Expedited Wind Law voted by the Maine Legislature in 2008 specifically calls for protection of Scenic Resources of State or National Significance (SRSNS). <br/>Maine's Downeast Grand Lakes region is a national treasure that contains multiple lakes that are SRSNS which will be unreasonably affected by the presence of 16 nearly five hundred feet tall industrial wind turbines. The turbines will dominate the horizon with miles of monstrous machines by day and destroy the dark night sky with red strobe lights, drastically altering the wilderness character of the area.</p>
<p>PLEASE CLICK ON THE LINK BELOW TO SIGN THE PETITION.</p>
<p><a href="https://www.change.org/petitions/maine-dept-of-environmental-protection-deny-the-bowers-mountain-wind-project?utm_campaign=mailto_link&utm_medium=email&utm_source=share_petition">https://www.change.org/petitions/maine-dept-of-environmental-protection-deny-the-bowers-mountain-wind-project?utm_campaign=mailto_link&utm_medium=email&utm_source=share_petition</a></p>How to Meet Renewable Energy Goals Without Industrial Wind Turbinestag:www.windtaskforce.org,2013-02-01:4401701:BlogPost:450032013-02-01T17:37:08.000ZSteve Thurstonhttps://www.windtaskforce.org/profile/SteveThurston
<p align="left" style="text-align: left;">Following is the Executive Summary Energy Plan unveiled yesterday by Energize Vermont, which has been leading the fight against ridge top wind projects. It shows how Vermont can achieve the legislated goal of 90% renewable energy use by 2050 without destroying the landscape, and citizen's well being, with industrial wind turbines. The complete plan is…</p>
<p style="text-align: left;" align="left">Following is the Executive Summary Energy Plan unveiled yesterday by Energize Vermont, which has been leading the fight against ridge top wind projects. It shows how Vermont can achieve the legislated goal of 90% renewable energy use by 2050 without destroying the landscape, and citizen's well being, with industrial wind turbines. The complete plan is <a href="http://energizevermont.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/EnergizeVermont_CleanEnergyPlan2013_small.pdf" target="_blank">here</a>.</p>
<p style="text-align: left;" align="left"> </p>
<p style="text-align: center;" align="left"><span class="font-size-4"><strong>Energize Vermont</strong></span></p>
<p style="text-align: center;" align="left"><span class="font-size-4"><strong>CLEAN ENERGY PLAN</strong></span></p>
<p style="text-align: center;" align="left"><span class="font-size-4"><strong>Executive Summary</strong></span></p>
<p align="left"> </p>
<p align="left">Overview</p>
<p align="left">The goal of the Energize Vermont Clean Energy Plan<a width="347" href="http://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/1561535628?profile=RESIZE_480x480" target="_self"><img style="width: 300px;" class="align-right" src="http://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/1561535628?profile=RESIZE_320x320" width="300" height="278"/></a><a href="http://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/1561535628?profile=original" target="_self"></a></p>
<p align="left">is to offer the state a pragmatic path forward for</p>
<p align="left">electricity generation that reduces the overall impacts</p>
<p align="left">of generation.</p>
<p align="left">The Plan offers a reasonable balance of resources</p>
<p align="left">and does not unreasonably depend any one resource.</p>
<p align="left">Additionally, it emphasizes increased utilization of</p>
<p align="left">resources that help us achieve the following three</p>
<p align="left">goals:</p>
<p align="left"> 1. Reduce greenhouse gas emissions</p>
<p align="left"> 2. Utilize the lowest impact, highest resource</p>
<p align="left"> potential renewables</p>
<p align="left"> 3. Meet Vermont’s clean energy goals affordably</p>
<p align="left"> </p>
<p align="left">Plan Assumptions:</p>
<p align="left">The Plan makes the following assumptions, many of which match those in Vermont’s</p>
<p align="left">Comprehensive State Energy Plan (CEP) from 2011.</p>
<p align="left"></p>
<p align="left"> • <font size="3" face="ArialMT"><font size="3" face="ArialMT">The Goal of the CEP is to have 90% of our energy use from renewables by 2050. To</font></font></p>
<p align="left"> accomplish this we must move our electricity generation sources to non-CO2 emitting</p>
<p align="left"> sources.</p>
<p> • <font size="3" face="ArialMT"><font size="3" face="ArialMT">Vermont’s demand for electricity is relatively steady. The Plan starts with usage at</font></font></p>
<p align="left"> 6,000GWhs annually at present and grows to 6,500GWhs in 2030.</p>
<p align="left"> • <font size="3" face="ArialMT"><font size="3" face="ArialMT">The Plan assumes continued investment in efficiency that will limit demand growth</font></font></p>
<p align="left"> over time. Moving our electricity generation to renewable resources is important, but</p>
<p align="left"> we need to first focus on efficiency in our homes and buildings.</p>
<p> • <font size="3" face="ArialMT"><font size="3" face="ArialMT">Vermont’s grid capacity can handle most estimates of plugin electric vehicle (PEV)</font></font></p>
<p align="left"> adoption rates if the PEVs are charged at night. Energize Vermont estimates 110,000</p>
<p align="left"> PEVs in Vermont by 2030, and this falls within UVM’s estimates of acceptable grid</p>
<p align="left"> capacity. The Plan offers additional recommendations should demand grow further</p>
<p align="left"> due to the adoption of plugin electric vehicles.</p>
<p align="left"> • <font size="3" face="ArialMT"><font size="3" face="ArialMT">Generation technology will improve, but it is impossible to know how or by much. As a</font></font></p>
<p align="left"> result the Plan uses no assumed increase in technological efficiency over present day.</p>
<p align="left"> </p>
<p align="left">Resource Recommendations:</p>
<p align="left">The Plan recommends an overall reduction of CO2 emitting (market) resources of 73% over the next 20 years. It achieves this goal largely by ramping down the State’s dependency on market sources and migrating to local renewable sources. It makes the following recommendations by source to achieve this goal:</p>
<ul>
<li><div align="left">Hydro Quebec - Honor existing contracts, increase if needed for growth.</div>
</li>
<li><div align="left">Nuclear - Honor existing contracts, ramp down over time. </div>
</li>
<li><div align="left">Solar - Support aggressive build-out, achieve 400-500MW in 2030.</div>
</li>
<li><div align="left">Wind - 3-year moratorium on further ridgeline development, add no additional ridgeline wind with current technology.</div>
</li>
<li><div align="left">Local Hydro - Add capacity through retrofit and new plants. Adopt DPS estimate of 90MW of new potential capacity.</div>
</li>
<li><div align="left">Biomass - Expand smaller co-gen opportunities as appropriate. Explore one larger (25MW), high efficiency plant with sustainable forestry practices and safe operations as technology permits. </div>
</li>
<li><div align="left">Methane - Expand to maximum potential in Vermont. Build out technology for smaller Vermont farms. Add 15MW of capacity from smaller farms by 2030.</div>
</li>
<li><div align="left">Market Power - Decrease over time to achieve 75% reduction by 2030.</div>
</li>
</ul>
<p align="left"> </p>
<p align="left">Policy Recommendations:</p>
<p align="left">The Plan makes several important policy recommendations to help achieve the above</p>
<p align="left">resource goals, including:</p>
<ul>
<li><div align="left"><font size="3" face="ArialMT"><font size="3" face="ArialMT">the expansion of Group Net Metering by removing utility cap and creating better</font></font> financing opportunities</div>
</li>
<li><div align="left"><font size="3" face="ArialMT"><font size="3" face="ArialMT">encouraging small-scale and community based projects with better financing</font></font> opportunities</div>
</li>
<li><font size="3" face="ArialMT"><font size="3" face="ArialMT">creating state sponsored ownership models for community projects, similar to those in</font></font> Germany</li>
<li><font size="3" face="ArialMT"><font size="3" face="ArialMT">creating technology siting standards to ensure all projects are “done right</font></font></li>
<li><font size="3" face="ArialMT"><font size="3" face="ArialMT">placing a three year moratorium on utility-scale wind to allow for impact studies and</font></font> technological improvement</li>
<li><font size="3" face="ArialMT"><font size="3" face="ArialMT">encouraging the State and local governments to lead by example through renewable</font></font> projects and PEV adoption</li>
</ul>
<p align="left">Conclusion:</p>
<p align="left">Vermont can meet our clean energy goals and reduce our GHG emissions without sacrificing</p>
<p align="left">our ridgelines.</p>
<p style="text-align: center;" align="left">Contact Information:</p>
<p style="text-align: center;" align="left">Energize Vermont</p>
<p style="text-align: center;" align="left"><a href="http://www.energizevermont.org">www.energizevermont.org</a></p>
<p style="text-align: center;" align="left">info@energizevermont.org</p>
<p style="text-align: center;"><font size="3" face="FuturaLT-Book"><font size="3" face="FuturaLT-Book"><font face="Lucida Sans Unicode">802</font>-</font></font><font size="3" face="FuturaLT-Book"><font size="3" face="FuturaLT-Book">778</font></font><font size="3" face="FuturaLT-Book"><font size="3" face="FuturaLT-Book">-</font></font><font size="3" face="FuturaLT-Book"><font size="3" face="FuturaLT-Book">0660</font></font></p>
<p align="left"></p>
<p align="left"> </p>
<p align="left"> </p>
<p align="left"> </p>
<p><a href="http://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/1561535628?profile=original" target="_self"></a> </p>
<p><a href="http://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/1561535628?profile=original" target="_self"></a></p>
<p><a href="http://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/1561535628?profile=original" target="_self"></a></p>
<p><a href="http://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/1561535628?profile=original" target="_self"></a></p>
<p><a href="http://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/1561535628?profile=original" target="_self"></a></p>
<p><a href="http://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/1561535628?profile=original" target="_self"></a></p>
<p><a href="http://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/1561535628?profile=original" target="_self"></a> </p>
<p><a href="http://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/1561535628?profile=original" target="_self"></a></p>
<p><a href="http://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/1561535628?profile=original" target="_self"></a> </p>PLEASE MAKE ONE MORE PHONE CALL TODAY!! END THE PTC!tag:www.windtaskforce.org,2012-12-29:4401701:BlogPost:442782012-12-29T16:00:00.000ZSteve Thurstonhttps://www.windtaskforce.org/profile/SteveThurston
<p>Folks,</p>
<p>The AWEA wind lobby is broadcasting a plea for phone calls to Senate members today in a last ditch effort to get the PTC extended. We need to counter with phone calls of our own. Please call:</p>
<p><strong>Senator Susan Collins : </strong>(202) 224-2523</p>
<p><strong>Senator J. Olympia Snowe:</strong> (202) 224-5344</p>
<p><strong><u>Urge them to allow the PTC to expire as scheduled, and not to include an extension in the lame duck session. </u></strong></p>
<p>Thanks for…</p>
<p>Folks,</p>
<p>The AWEA wind lobby is broadcasting a plea for phone calls to Senate members today in a last ditch effort to get the PTC extended. We need to counter with phone calls of our own. Please call:</p>
<p><strong>Senator Susan Collins : </strong>(202) 224-2523</p>
<p><strong>Senator J. Olympia Snowe:</strong> (202) 224-5344</p>
<p><strong><u>Urge them to allow the PTC to expire as scheduled, and not to include an extension in the lame duck session. </u></strong></p>
<p>Thanks for taking the time to make this call!</p>
<p>Monique and Steve</p>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>PRESS RELEASE - CITIZENS URGE CONGRESS TO STOP THE WIND ENERGY PRODUCTION TAX CREDITtag:www.windtaskforce.org,2012-12-27:4401701:BlogPost:440732012-12-27T20:20:48.000ZSteve Thurstonhttps://www.windtaskforce.org/profile/SteveThurston
<p align="center"><b>CITIZENS URGE CONGRESS TO OPPOSE THE EXTENSION OF <br></br>THE WIND ENERGY PRODUCTION TAX CREDIT</b></p>
<p><b><i><u>Maine residents join nearly 6,500 others nationwide in saying no to the wind PTC</u></i></b></p>
<p align="center">Oquossoc, December 27, 2012</p>
<p align="center"> </p>
<p> More than 200 Maine residents have joined nearly 6,500 citizens in 25 states in signing letters urging Congress to oppose any extension of the wind energy production tax credit (“PTC”) due…</p>
<p align="center"><b>CITIZENS URGE CONGRESS TO OPPOSE THE EXTENSION OF <br/>THE WIND ENERGY PRODUCTION TAX CREDIT</b></p>
<p><b><i><u>Maine residents join nearly 6,500 others nationwide in saying no to the wind PTC</u></i></b></p>
<p align="center">Oquossoc, December 27, 2012</p>
<p align="center"> </p>
<p> More than 200 Maine residents have joined nearly 6,500 citizens in 25 states in signing letters urging Congress to oppose any extension of the wind energy production tax credit (“PTC”) due to expire at the end of this year. More than 200 U.S. Senators and Members of Congress received the letter.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>"We are very much aware that Congress is under pressure from the recipients of these subsidies to renew the PTC. We are asking our elected Representatives to resist that pressure and let the PTC end on schedule, " said Dr. Monique Aniel, a member of the <a href="http://www.windtaskforce.org/">Citizens Task Force on Wind Power</a>, who coordinated the letter campaign in Maine. "Renewing the PTC would cost billions that our nation simply cannot afford, without any material benefit to the economy."</p>
<p>It has been evident for years that government support for wind energy development is very costly, and has utterly failed to establish industrial-scale wind as a self-sustaining contributor to meeting our energy needs. </p>
<p> </p>
<p>These letters emphasize that since the PTC was first introduced in 1992, the federal government has provided $40 billion to the industrial wind energy industry in tax credits and cash grants, with these costs increasing dramatically in recent years. This government money which is drawn from other taxpayers and, of course, borrowed in domestic and international government bond markets, exacerbates the already-excessive cost of wind energy to consumers and the public. Policies in many states now compel utilities to use renewable energy at prices significantly above market price and, in addition, provide extensive local tax breaks.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Like so many communities across the United States, large areas of Maine are being targeted by the wind industry following the passage in 2008 of Governor Baldacci’s Emergency Bill, known as the Expedited Wind Power Act. The bill spent only 15 days in the legislature, with “suspension of the rules” every step of the way, and did not receive the scrutiny or debate that such sweeping legislation deserves.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>The EWP Act repealed decades old regulations which protected the mountain tops from inappropriate development. As a consequence of this law, dozens of high value landscapes have been targeted for wind projects while citizens’ voices have been ignored. And as more projects are constructed more families are becoming the innocent victims of noise from turbines placed too close to their homes. </p>
<p> </p>
<p>"There is no plausible justification for continuing this spending, and certainly not when the nation is facing the huge debt and deficits prevailing today," the group wrote.</p>
<p> To read the entire letter (without signatures), <a href="http://www.windaction.org/documents/36867" target="_blank">click here.</a></p>
<p> </p>
<p><b><i>The letter was sent to the following United States Senators:</i></b></p>
<p>AZ: Sen. John McCain Sen. Jon Kyl</p>
<p>CA: Sen. Dianne Feinstein Sen. Barbara Boxer </p>
<p>HI: Sen. Dan Inouye Sen. Daniel Kahikina Akaka</p>
<p>ID: Sen. Mike Crapo Sen. James Risch</p>
<p>IL: Sen. Dick Durbin Sen. Mark Kirk</p>
<p>IN: Sen. Richard G. Lugar Sen. Dan Coats</p>
<p>KS: Sen. Pat Roberts Sen. Jerry Moran</p>
<p>ME: Sen. Olympia Snowe Sen. Susan Collins</p>
<p>MA: Sen. John Kerry Sen. Scott Brown</p>
<p>MD: Sen. Barbara Mikulski Sen. Ben Cardin</p>
<p>MI: Sen. Debbie Stabenow Sen. Carl Levin</p>
<p>MN: Sen. Amy Klobuchar Sen. Al Franken</p>
<p>NC: Sen. Richard Burr Sen. Kay Hagan</p>
<p>NH: Sen. Jeanne Shaheen Sen. Kelly Ayotte</p>
<p>NJ: Sen. Robert Menendez Sen. Frank Lautenberg</p>
<p>NV: Sen Harry Reid Sen Dean Heller</p>
<p>NY: Sen. Chuck Schumer Sen. Gillibrand</p>
<p>OH: Sen. Sherrod Brown Sen. Rob Portman</p>
<p>PA: Sen. Pat Toomey Sen. Robert Casey</p>
<p>RI: Sen. Jack Reed Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse</p>
<p>VA: Sen. Mark Warner Sen. Jim Webb</p>
<p>VT: Sen. Patrick Leahy Sen. Bernie Sanders</p>
<p>WI: Sen. Herb Kohl Sen. Ron Johnson</p>
<p>WV: Sen. Jay Rockefeller Sen. Joe Manchin</p>
<p>WY: Sen. Mike Enzi Sen. John Barrasso</p>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
<p><b><i>The letter was sent to the following United States Representatives:</i></b></p>
<p><b>ARIZONA</b></p>
<p>Rep. Paul Gosar Rep. Trent Franks Rep. Ben Quayle</p>
<p>Rep. Ed Pastor Rep. David Schweikert Rep. Jeff Flake</p>
<p>Rep. Raul M. Grijalva Rep. Ron Barber</p>
<p> </p>
<p><b>CALIFORNIA</b></p>
<p>Rep. Howard L. Berman Rep. Lucille Roybal-Allard Rep. Kevin McCarthy</p>
<p>Rep. Duncan D. Hunter Rep. Jeff Denham Rep. Brad Sherman</p>
<p>Rep. Devin Nunes Rep. Jerry Lewis Rep. Edward R. Royce</p>
<p>Rep. John Campbell Rep. Bob Filner Rep. Tom McClintock</p>
<p>Rep. Wally Herger Rep.David Dreier Rep. Mike Thompson</p>
<p>Rep. Nancy Pelosi Rep. Daniel E. Lungren Rep. Elton Gallegly</p>
<p>Rep. Lois Capps Rep. Loretta Sanchez Rep. Howard P. McKeon</p>
<p>Rep. Darrell Issa Rep. Anna G. Eshoo Rep. Henry A. Waxman</p>
<p>Rep. Dana Rohrabacher Rep. Doris 0. Matsui Rep. John Garamendi</p>
<p>Rep. Jim Costa Rep. Adam Schiff Rep. Gary G. Miller</p>
<p>Rep. Barbara Lee Rep. Sam Farr Rep. Lynn C. Woolsey</p>
<p> </p>
<p><b>HAWAII</b></p>
<p>Rep. Hirono</p>
<p>Rep. Hanabusa</p>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
<p><b>IDAHO</b></p>
<p>Rep. Labrador</p>
<p>Rep. Simpson</p>
<p> </p>
<p><b>ILLINOIS</b></p>
<p>Rep. Schilling Rep. Schock Rep. Johnson</p>
<p>Rep. Hultgren Rep. Kinzinger Rep. Manzullo</p>
<p>Rep. Judy Biggert</p>
<p> </p>
<p><b>INDIANA</b></p>
<p>Rep. Peter J. Visclosky Rep. Joe Donnelly Rep. Marlin Stutzman </p>
<p>Rep. Todd Rokita Rep. Dan Burton Rep. Mike Pence</p>
<p>Rep. Andre Carson Rep. Larry Bucshon Rep. Todd Young</p>
<p> </p>
<p><b>KANSAS</b></p>
<p>Rep. Tim Huelskamp</p>
<p>Rep. Lynn Jenkins</p>
<p>Rep. Kevin Yoder</p>
<p>Rep. Mike Pompeo</p>
<p> </p>
<p><b>MAINE</b></p>
<p>Rep. Chellie Pingree</p>
<p>Rep. Mike Michaud</p>
<p>Sen. Olympia Snowe</p>
<p>Sen. Susan Collins</p>
<p> </p>
<p><b>MARYLAND</b></p>
<p>Rep. Rodney Frelinghuysen</p>
<p>Rep. Steny H. Hoyer</p>
<p>Rep. Elijah Cummings</p>
<p> </p>
<p><b>MASSACHUSETTS</b></p>
<p>Rep. John Olver Rep. William Keating Rep. Richard Neal</p>
<p>Rep. Michael Capuano Rep. Barney Frank Rep. John Tierney</p>
<p>Rep. Ed Markey Rep. Jim McGovern Rep. Stephen Lynch</p>
<p>Rep. Niki Tsongas</p>
<p> </p>
<p><b>MICHIGAN</b></p>
<p>Rep. David Camp</p>
<p>Rep. Dan Benishek</p>
<p>Rep. Timothy Walberg</p>
<p>Rep. Frederick Upton</p>
<p>Rep. Dale Kildee</p>
<p> </p>
<p><b>MINNESOTA</b></p>
<p>Rep. Michele Bachmann Rep. John Kline Rep. Erik Paulsen</p>
<p>Rep. Betty McCollum Rep. Keith Ellison Rep. Tim Walz</p>
<p>Rep. Collin Peterson Rep. Chip Cravaack</p>
<p> </p>
<p><b>NORTH CAROLINA</b></p>
<p>Rep. Virginia Foxx</p>
<p> </p>
<p><b>NEW HAMPSHIRE</b></p>
<p>Rep Charlie Bass</p>
<p>Rep Frank Guinta</p>
<p> </p>
<p><b>NEW JERSEY</b></p>
<p>Rep. Rodney Frelinghuysen</p>
<p> </p>
<p><b>NEVADA</b></p>
<p>Rep. Berkley</p>
<p>Rep. Amodei</p>
<p>Rep. Heck</p>
<p> </p>
<p><b>NEW YORK</b></p>
<p>Rep. Jerrold Nadler Rep. Tom Reed Rep. Chris Gibson</p>
<p>Rep. Carolyn McCarthy Rep. Bill Owens Rep. Kathy Hochul</p>
<p>Rep. Paul Tonko Rep. Richard L. Hanna Rep. Brian Higgins</p>
<p>Rep. Louise Slaughter</p>
<p> </p>
<p><b>OHIO</b></p>
<p>Rep. Bob Latta Rep. Jim Jordan Rep. Marcy Kaptur</p>
<p>Rep. Michael R. Turner Rep. Steve Austria Rep. Dennis Kucinich</p>
<p>Rep. James Renacci Rep. Patrick Tiberi Rep Steve Stivers</p>
<p>Rep. Steve Chabot Rep. Jean Schmidt Rep. Bill Johnson</p>
<p>Rep. Marcia L. Fudge Rep. Betty Sutton Rep. Tim Ryan</p>
<p>Rep. Steven C. LaTourette Rep. Bob Gibbs</p>
<p> </p>
<p><b>PENNSYLVANIA</b></p>
<p>Rep. Lou Barletta Rep. Mark Critz Rep. Tim Holden</p>
<p>Rep. Glenn Thompson Rep. Bill Shuster Rep. Mike Kelly</p>
<p>Rep. Allyson Schwartz Rep. Todd Russell Platts</p>
<p><b> </b></p>
<p><b>RHODE ISLAND</b></p>
<p>Rep. David Cicilline</p>
<p>Rep. Jim Langevin</p>
<p> </p>
<p><b>VIRGINIA</b></p>
<p>Rep. Bob Goodlatte</p>
<p>Rep. Morgan Griffith</p>
<p>Rep. Frank R. Wolf</p>
<p>Rep. Eric Canton</p>
<p><b>VERMONT</b></p>
<p>Rep. Peter Welch</p>
<p> </p>
<p><b>WISCONSIN</b></p>
<p>Rep. Paul Ryan Rep. Tammy Baldwin Rep. Ron Kind</p>
<p>Rep. Gwen Moore Rep. James Sensenbrenner Rep. Tom Petri</p>
<p>Rep. Sean Duffy Rep. Reid Ribble</p>
<p> </p>
<p><b>WEST VIRGINIA</b></p>
<p>Rep. Shelley Moore Capito</p>
<p>Rep. David McKinley</p>
<p>Rep. Nick Rahall</p>
<p><b> </b></p>
<p><b>WYOMING</b></p>
<p>Rep. Cynthia Lummis</p>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
<p><b><i>The following members of the Senate and House leadership also received the letter:</i></b></p>
<p><b><i> </i></b></p>
<p>House Speaker John Boehner Rep. Eric Cantor Rep. Kevin McCarthy Rep. David Camp Rep. Sander Levin</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid</p>
<p>Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell</p>
<p>Sen. Max Baucus</p>
<p>Sen. Orrin Hatch</p>
<p> </p>
<p align="center"> </p>
<p align="center">###</p>
<p align="center"> </p>
<p>For media inquiries, please contact:</p>
<p>Dr. Monique Aniel</p>
<p>Citizen’s Task Force on Wind Power</p>
<p>PO Box 345 Oquossoc, ME 04964</p>
<p>email sherwats2@wildblue.net</p>Update on the CTFWP leadershiptag:www.windtaskforce.org,2012-12-18:4401701:BlogPost:442202012-12-18T22:37:12.000ZSteve Thurstonhttps://www.windtaskforce.org/profile/SteveThurston
<p>Dear fellow CTFWP members,</p>
<p>In November 2009, the Citizen’s Task Force on Wind Power was established at a meeting in Augusta attended by 27 concerned citizens from around the state. The meeting was organized by Dr. Monique Aniel and Steve Thurston, who were appointed co-chairs. Three goals were established at the first meeting:</p>
<p> 1. To influence the legislative and regulatory processes to protect the health and welfare of citizens from the harmful effects of recent laws…</p>
<p>Dear fellow CTFWP members,</p>
<p>In November 2009, the Citizen’s Task Force on Wind Power was established at a meeting in Augusta attended by 27 concerned citizens from around the state. The meeting was organized by Dr. Monique Aniel and Steve Thurston, who were appointed co-chairs. Three goals were established at the first meeting:</p>
<p> 1. To influence the legislative and regulatory processes to protect the health and welfare of citizens from the harmful effects of recent laws favoring wind power;</p>
<p> 2. To advocate in the judicial system for the rights of citizens impacted by wind projects;</p>
<p> 3. To create a repository of wind power information to help citizens respond to the prospect of wind turbine projects in their towns.</p>
<p>During the 3 years since its inception, the CTFWP has grown to 537 members via the website <a href="http://www.windtaskforce.org/" target="_blank">www.WindTaskForce.org</a>. As more wind projects have been approved and constructed, more citizens have become concerned about the impacts to the health of nearby residents and the loss of “Quality of Place” that has accompanied each project.</p>
<p>As a result of testimony by CTFWP members and other concerned citizens, in April 2011 the Maine legislature instructed the Governor’s Office of Energy Independence and Security to thoroughly investigate the problems resulting from the “Expedited Wind Law” of 2008. The final report, released in March 2012, contained many of the recommendations of the CTFWP and awaits action by the incoming legislature.</p>
<p>In September 2011, The Board of Environmental Protection, in response to a citizens’ petition organized by CTFWP, took the unprecedented action of creating a separate section in the state’s noise regulations dealing specifically with turbine noise, and reduced the nighttime turbine noise limit from 45 to 42 decibels. The Maine legislature subsequently approved these changes and they went into effect in June of this year. This revision to Maine’s noise regulations effectively increased the setback distance from dwellings and will help prevent future projects from creating the annoyance and sleep disturbance which have been endemic in Maine and around the world. </p>
<p>During the past three years many towns have adopted protective wind turbine ordinances based on current knowledge about the noise impacts of large industrial turbines. Typically these ordinances are even more restrictive than state regulations. As a result, many miles of ridgeline have been spared from the disastrous effects of deforestation, blasting of roads and turbine foundation holes, and the visual blight of increasingly larger turbines and the accompanying transmission lines .</p>
<p>As a consequence of these actions, the tireless resistance to projects by local groups, and due to the difficulties wind developers are having in financing their projects in the face of low electricity prices and the elimination of federal subsidies, the overall pace of new project proposals and approvals in has slowed down somewhat versus earlier years.</p>
<p>Although significant progress has been made in achieving the goals we set for ourselves, the wind industry remains a serious threat, and the ongoing battle continues.</p>
<p>As the Citizens Task Force on Wind Power begins its fourth year, we believe it is time for new leadership to carry forward the mission. Charter member and Communications Director Brad Blake has agreed to take over as interim Chairman effective immediately until the next organizational meeting.</p>
<p> We are confident that with his comprehensive knowledge, his passion for Maine and dedication to the cause, Brad’s leadership will enable the CTFWP to continue growing as it responds to the challenges that lie ahead. </p>
<p>As for ourselves, although we are stepping down as co-chairs, we are not exiting the wind fight and will continue to help in the overall effort.</p>
<p>We urge you to welcome Brad in his new role and offer him your support. </p>
<p> Your talents and willingness to be involved are crucial to our success. </p>
<p>Sincerely,</p>
<p>Monique Aniel, MD</p>
<p>Steve Thurston</p>
<p> </p>How Independence Wind helped shape Maine's expedited wind lawtag:www.windtaskforce.org,2012-09-16:4401701:BlogPost:420022012-09-16T16:30:00.000ZSteve Thurstonhttps://www.windtaskforce.org/profile/SteveThurston
<p>Angus King's partner in Independence Wind, Robert Gardiner, sent the following letter to the Governor's Task Force on Wind Power's chairman Alec Giffen. Gardiner's suggestions about preventing objections based on scenic impact and the unrebuttable presumption about wind power's benefits were incorporated into the law. At the time King and Gardiner already had their MET towers up in Roxbury, and they needed to bulletproof the project against it's drastic impacts on the scenic character of…</p>
<p>Angus King's partner in Independence Wind, Robert Gardiner, sent the following letter to the Governor's Task Force on Wind Power's chairman Alec Giffen. Gardiner's suggestions about preventing objections based on scenic impact and the unrebuttable presumption about wind power's benefits were incorporated into the law. At the time King and Gardiner already had their MET towers up in Roxbury, and they needed to bulletproof the project against it's drastic impacts on the scenic character of Roxbury Pond which can be seen here: <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EjXERhHmuP8">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EjXERhHmuP8</a></p>
<p> </p>
<p><em>Comments from Rob Gardiner</em></p>
<p><em>December 6, 2007</em></p>
<p><em>Alec,</em></p>
<p><em>Thank you for listening to my opinions on your wind task force's efforts. You have an important mission, and I know you have addressed it with energy and skill. You asked me to put my thoughts in writing. In this memo I'll try to capture only my most important points, and please feel free to share them.</em></p>
<p><em>First, I should say that in the year that I have been a developer I have not yet encountered any problems at either LURC or DEP. We are still six months away from being ready to submit our first project for DEP review, and our second project, which will be in LURC territory, is only at the earliest stages. Nonetheless, I have learned a few things about the regulatory processes and have developed some strong views.</em></p>
<p><em>Assuming that everyone is trying to fulfill the Governor's charge to your task force to facilitate the development of appropriate wind energy in Maine, I think it is most important to identify where there are sticking points that might be improved and where there really are no problems. </em></p>
<p><em>In my opinion, the biggest sticking point is visual impact. Under the standard of "fitting harmoniously into the environment", wind is at a serious disadvantage. Because it involves 250' high structures that are usually on high ridges, the visual impacts are significant. However, visual impact is a very subjective matter. Christo is probably very jealous of wind developers--they get to put very large and beautiful kinetic sculptures on prominent sites. Yet we treat wind projects as if they were blights on the landscape. I acknowledge that there are places where wind farms do not belong--Baxter and Acadia Parks, along the 100 mile wilderness section of the Appalachian Trail, and some other special places. After listening to hundreds of people tell me their reactions to seeing wind farms in Quebec, PEI, Pennsylvania, and Europe, I have been amazed how they find them attractive--even beautiful to look at. But under "visual impacts" rules in Maine's regulatory processes, they are presumed guilty of being offensive. This is wrong. An immediate executive order followed by legislation that specifically removes the presumption of negative visual impact from wind farms would go a long way toward setting the stage for balanced regulatory review.</em></p>
<p><em>A second element of such executive order and legislation should be to declare that reducing air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions is a public benefit, and that wind farms can make a significant contribution toward a more sensible energy mix for Maine. Therefore, any regulatory agency should accept these positions and not waste time receiving further evidence and debating them. To the extent that regulators are charged with balancing the benefits of any project against the negative impacts, these beneficial aspects should be "a given" for wind farms.</em></p>
<p><em> </em></p>
<p><em>Two years ago, I participated in discussions with Harley Lee about mitigation on his project--this was when I worked for Conservation Law Foundation--and I have heard about negotiations between TransCanada and environmental groups on mitigation at Kibby. Both of these projects were in protection zones, so mitigation may have been appropriate. But in MGN zones and other places where there are not exceptionally rare habitat impacts, wind farms ought not to be expected to help purchase conservation lands or do other types of mitigation. Wind farm ARE mitigation for our energy consumption habits and for the impacts of fossil fuel consumption. They should not be expected to pay any other fees "in mitigation" when their major impact is so positive. This principle should be recognized in legislation.</em></p>
<p><em>I understand that preserving Maine's "quality of place" is an important goal for your task force. I fully accept that having wind farms everywhere might ruin that quality. However, when one understands the relative rarity of economically developable wind sites in Maine, this concern should disappear. I estimate that less than 2% of this state has enough wind to justify development. Most good wind sites are offshore and on high mountains. Offshore sites are not economically developable today or in the near future. Maine's ten highest peaks are already under conservation protection, and because of proximity to the most special sections of the Appalachian Trail many other high mountain sites are inappropriate or hard to develop. Of the remainder, the vast majority are too far from transmission lines to be economic. In short, Maine's "quality of place" can only be affected in a very small way by commercial wind projects, even if one dislikes wind farms. I really do not feel that this issue needs any recommendations. There is no doubt in my mind that the impacts of global climate change are many times more threatening to "quality of place!"</em></p>
<p><em>Lastly, I want to address what I understand is the inclination of your task force at this stage of its work: to recommend a reassignment of regulatory responsibility between DEP and LURC and possibly involving the PUC in some way. I fail to see how any change of this type could be of significant benefit. I recognize that LURC feels overwhelmed by the volume of current application with three big wind farms and Plum Creek all at once. This may need attention, but it is a short-term phenomenon. Don't change the rules, provide the necessary resources. The Governor can do that. Perhaps DEP staff can help LURC in the short term. But creating a new agency or shifting responsibilities will, in actuality, make it harder for developers. Now that LURC has had an intensive learning experience with wind power, it should be able to marshal its scarce resources more sensibly and apply them where they are needed most. </em></p>
<p><em>I believe that these recommendations for positive changes would make a difference in wind development while protecting the environment and character of Maine. On the other hand, please do not just rearrange government agency responsibilities and think that any meaningful help has been provided.</em></p>
<p><em>Thanks for inviting these comments. I would be happy to try to help refine my points if you feel that would help your task force. </em></p>
<p><em>Rob Gardiner</em></p>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
<p></p>More questions about the permitting and financing of Angus King's Record Hill Wind Projecttag:www.windtaskforce.org,2012-09-12:4401701:BlogPost:418282012-09-12T02:00:00.000ZSteve Thurstonhttps://www.windtaskforce.org/profile/SteveThurston
<p><a href="http://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/1561529985?profile=original" target="_self"></a><a href="http://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/1416208326?profile=original" target="_self"></a> </p>
<p>The financial capacity requirements of the DEP permitting process are quite clear. </p>
<p class="RulesChapterTitle" style="text-align: center;"><em><strong>Chapter 373: …</strong></em></p>
<p><a href="http://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/1561529985?profile=original" target="_self"></a><a href="http://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/1416208326?profile=original" target="_self"></a> </p>
<p>The financial capacity requirements of the DEP permitting process are quite clear. </p>
<p style="text-align: center;" class="RulesChapterTitle"><em><strong>Chapter 373: </strong></em></p>
<p style="text-align: center;" class="RulesChapterTitle"><em><strong>FINANCIAL CAPACITY STANDARD OF THE SITE LOCATION LAW</strong></em></p>
<p><em> </em></p>
<p class="RulesSummary"><em>SUMMARY:These regulations describe the scope of review of the Board in determining a developer's compliance with the "financial capacity" standard of the Site Location Law (38 M.R.S.A., Section 484(1); the information which shall be submitted, when appropriate, within an application for approval; and, the terms and conditions which the Board may impose on the approval of an application to ensure compliance with the standard. </em></p>
<p class="RulesSection"><em><b>1. Financial Capacity to Meet Pollution Control Standards</b></em></p>
<p><em> <strong>A</strong><b>. Scope of Review.</b> In determining whether the developer has the financial capacity to meet state air and water pollution control standards,, the Board shall consider all relevant evidence to the effect that the developer has the financial capacity to construct, operate, and maintain all aspects of the development, and not just the pollution control aspects.</em></p>
<p class="RulesSub-section"><em> </em></p>
<div><p class="RulesNotesub"><em>NOTE: The Supreme Judicial Court of Maine stated in the case of In re: Maine Clean Fuels, Inc. , 310 A. 2d 736, 755 (1973) that "it is clear that the ability to finance the cost of meeting pollution standards is inexorably a part of the ability to obtain total financing." Furthermore, the Board's experience with developers has shown that air and water pollution control equipment is usually installed after all other aspects of the development are completed. If the developer's funds run low or run out toward the end of development, the pollution control aspects of the development may be slighted. Therefore, in determining financial capacity, the Board requires proof of adequate funding for the completion of a development, including the pollution control aspects.</em></p>
</div>
<p class="RulesNotesub"><em> </em></p>
<p class="RulesSub-section"><em><b>B. Submissions.</b> Applications for approval of proposed developments shall include evidence that affirmatively demonstrates that the developer has the financial capacity to undertake the proposed development, including information such as the following, when appropriate:</em></p>
<p><em> (1) Accurate and complete cost estimates of the development.</em></p>
<p class="RulesParagraph"><em> (2) The time schedule for construction and for satisfying pollution abatement measures.</em></p>
<p class="RulesParagraph"><em> (3) A letter from a financial institution, governmental agency, or other funding agency indicating a commitment to provide a specified amount of funds and the uses for which the funds may be utilized.</em></p>
<p class="RulesParagraph"><em> (4) In cases where funding is required but there can be no commitment of money until approvals are received, a letter of "intent to fund" from the appropriate funding institution indicating the amount of funds and their specified uses.</em></p>
<p class="RulesParagraph"><em> (5) The most recent corporate annual report indicating availability of sufficient funds to finance the development together 'with explanatory material interpreting the report, when requested.</em></p>
<p class="RulesParagraph"><em> (6) Copies of bank statements or other evidence indicating availability of funds, when the developer will personally finance the development.</em></p>
<p> </p>
<p>A standard permit condition is included with all DEP permits:</p>
<p> <em>“Prior to the start of <b>construction</b>, the applicant shall submit final evidence for review and approval that it has been granted a line of credit or loan by a financial institution authorized to do business in this State or evidence of another form of financial assistance determined by the Department to be adequate pursuant to Chapter 373(1) of the Department’s Rules.”</em></p>
<p> </p>
<p>In their application for a DEP permit for their wind project in December 2008, Record Hill Wind LLC represented that a bank named "CoBank" was financing the project, although the letter from CoBank was not a commitment to finance but merely a letter expressing interest in financing if a number of conditions were satisfied including a long term contract for the sale of the project's electricity:</p>
<p> </p>
<p><a href="http://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/1561530111?profile=original" target="_self"><img class="align-full" src="http://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/1561530111?profile=original" width="503"/></a></p>
<p> </p>
<p>When the draft permit was issued in August 2009, it contained the standard condition that <b>construction</b> could not start until evidence of financial capacity was demonstrated.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>When the final permit issued 5 days later someone had removed the word "<b>construction"</b> and inserted "<b>operation" - <em> </em></b><em>“Prior to the start of <strong>operation</strong>, the applicant shall submit final evidence for review and approval that it has been granted a line of credit or loan by a financial institution authorized to do business in this State or evidence of another form of financial assistance determined by the Department to be adequate pursuant to Chapter 373(1) of the Department’s Rules."</em></p>
<p>While reviewing the final permit I did not notice this change, but when RHW sent a letter to the residents of Roxbury a few day after receiving the permit stating that construction was beginning I was curious if RHW had in fact obtained financing from CoBank. I emailed Beth Callahan, the DEP staffer assigned to manage the RHW application:</p>
<p><br/> <em>From: Steve Thurston [mailto:thurston.steve@gmail.com]</em><br/> <em>Sent: Saturday, September 12, 2009 6:02 PM</em><br/> <em>To: Fisk, Andrew C; <a href="mailto:jim.cassida@maine.gov">jim.cassida@maine.gov</a>; Callahan, Beth</em><br/> <em>Cc: Rufus Brown</em><br/> <br/> <em>Subject: Fwd: Letter from Rob Gardiner and Angus King to Roxbury residents</em><br/> <br/> <em>The attached letter indicates that Record Hill Wind has begun construction. Please copy me on the evidence of financial capability that must be submitted to the DEP prior to construction that is a condition of the permit.</em><br/> <em>Thank you,</em><br/> <em>Steve Thurston</em></p>
<p> </p>
<p>In response, she referred me to the altered condition allowing the project to be constructed without financing, but said she would ask the applicant to update DEP about financing:</p>
<p> </p>
<p><em>From: Callahan, Beth <<a href="mailto:Beth.Callahan@maine.gov">Beth.Callahan@maine.gov</a>></em><br/> <em>Date: Mon, Sep 14, 2009 at 8:25 AM</em><br/> <em>Subject: RE: Letter from Rob Gardiner and Angus King to Roxbury residents</em><br/> <em>To: Steve Thurston <<a href="mailto:thurston.steve@gmail.com">thurston.steve@gmail.com</a>>, "Fisk, Andrew C" <<a href="mailto:Andrew.C.Fisk@maine.gov">Andrew.C.Fisk@maine.gov</a>>, <a href="mailto:jim.cassida@maine.gov">jim.cassida@maine.gov</a></em><br/> <em>Cc: Rufus Brown <<a href="mailto:rbrown@brownburkelaw.com">rbrown@brownburkelaw.com</a>>, "Richardson, Marybeth" <<a href="mailto:Marybeth.Richardson@maine.gov">Marybeth.Richardson@maine.gov</a>></em><br/> <br/> <em>Dear Mr. Thurston,</em><br/> <br/> <em>Please refer to Condition #4 on page 48 of 60. This condition of approval which refers to financial capacity states that the condition must be satisfied prior to operation, not prior to construction. However, I will contact Mr. Gardiner and request an update as to the status of finalized financial assistance.</em><br/> <br/> <em>All pre-construction conditions have been satisfied. A pre-construction meeting was held on August 28 and a third party inspector has been obtained. The licensee has also submitted a flagging and signage plan, a construction Spill Prevention Control & Countermeasures Plan, a blasting plan, and a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan.</em><br/> <br/> <em>Sincerely,</em><br/> <em>BETH CALLAHAN</em><br/> <em>Project Manager</em><br/> <em>ME Dept. of Environmental Protection</em><br/> <em>Division of Land Resource Regulation</em></p>
<p>I responded that the condition was a mistake:</p>
<p><em>9/14/09</em></p>
<p><em>Dear Beth, Please refer to Paragraph 1 on page 6 of 60. "Prior to the start of construction, the applicant must submit evidence for review and approval that is has been granted a line of credit or a loan by a financial institution authorized to do business in this State, or evidence of another form of financial assurance determined by the Department to be adequate pursuant to Chapter 373 (1)." Note that this requirement is intended to provide proof that the applicant has the resources to construct the project and implement all pollution control measures, and is not meant to be after the fact... </em></p>
<p><em>It would seem that condition #4 on page 48 or 60 has a typo, and the word construction should have been used instead of operation. Therefore, the developer must provide evidence of financial capacity prior to construction. Please clarify. Thanks for your consideration, Steve Thurston </em></p>
<p> </p>
<p>In response to Callahan's inquiry RHW president Rob Gardiner said they <b>did not have financing</b> but would have it before commencement of operation just as the permit allowed:</p>
<p><a href="http://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/1561530395?profile=original" target="_self"></a> </p>
<p><a href="http://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/1561530697?profile=original" target="_self"><img width="750" class="align-full" src="http://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/1561530697?profile=RESIZE_1024x1024" width="750"/></a></p>
<p>Forced to admit the condition was improper, DEP reversed itself and told RHW the altered permit condition was a "drafting and editing error" and that financing must be demonstrated or the project must suspend construction. In response RHW submitted a letter from Northern Trust Bank in Chicago stating that an unnamed majority partner in the RHW project had more than enough on deposit to construct the project, but the funds were not committed to the project and could be withdrawn at any time:</p>
<p> </p>
<p><a href="http://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/1561534266?profile=original" target="_self"><img style="width: 491px; height: 560px;" class="align-full" src="http://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/1561534266?profile=RESIZE_1024x1024" width="572" height="649"/></a></p>
<p> </p>
<p>This letter was previously sent to DEP Commissioner David Littel, but was not made part of the project record until appellants raised the issue of inadequate evidence of financing.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>The DEP accepted this letter as evidence of financing and appellants appealed that decision as the letter clearly indicates that no commitment to finance the project was intended. In a stipulated settlement with project opponents RHW agreed to stop construction and provide additional evidence of financing prior to resuming construction. Construction ceased in January 2010 for more than a year.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>In November 2010 the town of Roxbury was notified that RHW had applied for a DOE federal loan guarantee. Prior to resuming construction RHW provided the following letter to Maine DEP:</p>
<p><a href="http://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/1416208924?profile=original" target="_self"><img width="750" class="align-center" src="http://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/1416208924?profile=RESIZE_1024x1024" width="750"/></a></p>
<p> </p>
<p>Included with this letter was the following cover letter and statement from Mascoma Savings Bank in Lanconia New Hampshire:</p>
<p><a width="583" height="600" href="http://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/1416204964?profile=RESIZE_1024x1024" target="_self"><img width="583" height="600" class="align-full" src="http://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/1416204964?profile=RESIZE_1024x1024"/></a></p>
<p> </p>
<p><a width="583" height="600" href="http://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/1416204614?profile=RESIZE_1024x1024" target="_self"><img width="583" height="600" class="align-full" src="http://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/1416204614?profile=RESIZE_1024x1024"/></a></p>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
<p>DEP accepted this letter as evidence of financing and allowed construction to resume in the spring of 2011, even though the loan guarantee had not been granted.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>When the DOE announced "conditional approval" of the loan guarantee the Yale Endowment Fund issued a press release saying that it was participating in the financing of the project and that the loan guarantee was critical to its involvement. Yale Endowment Fund owns Bayroot, the landowner and lease holder for the RHW project.</p>
<p>In an <a href="http://www.windpoweringamerica.gov/filter_detail.asp?itemid=3258" target="_blank">interview with Wind Powering America</a> in August 2011, Robert Gardiner admitted that the project never had financing until the DOE loan guarantee was awarded:</p>
<p><em>"We would not be building that project today if it were not for the loan guarantee," Gardiner said. "The economic situation has not improved significantly over the past 3 years. <strong>Two years ago, we started construction because we had our permits and we wanted to get a head start, even though we hadn't finished all of our financing or received our power purchase agreement.</strong> We were in the economic downturn, but we still had optimism, thinking we could do it...."</em></p>
<p><em>"<strong>We spent considerable amounts of money building the access roads, getting the first few turbine pad plates in place, and developing the pads. Then our financial package that we were trying to bring together, which we thought was going to happen, didn't happen.</strong> Then it was basic economics. We actually put those same pieces back together, but <strong>without the DOE support we wouldn't have been able to pull them back together."</strong></em></p>
<p>In my opinion RHW played a "moving shell game" with DEP, and never had anything under any of the shells until it obtained the DOE loan guarantee. Why this circumvention of the law occurred remains an unanswered question today. Would the DEP make this same "mistake" if the applicant had been other than Angus King and Robert Gardiner? Did Angus King and Robert Gardiner believe they were entitled to different treatment than the law required?</p>
<p>When I asked Assistant Attorney General Peggy Bensinger, legal counsel to the DEP, to find out who was responsible for the changed word in the final permit the following chain of emails resulted. Read in reverse order. </p>
<p> </p>
<p><em>RE: Record Hill Wind question</em></p>
<p><em>From: Bensinger, Peggy Peggy.Bensinger@maine.gov</em></p>
<p><em>Apr 5, 2012</em></p>
<p><em> </em></p>
<p><em>Hi, Mr. Thurston. In my attempt to answer your question and determine how the final Record Hill permit decision contained inconsistent financial capacity provisions and different provisions from the draft decision, I have consulted with the Department staff involved, and they have checked their records and notes. I have also consulted with the attorney for the applicant and she has queried the applicant’s consultants who handled the permitting process. As I previously reported, Beth Callahan simply does not remember how or why that change was made. Neither does Jim Cassida, who was supervising her at that time. Beth was able to find a phone note that may have caused the confusion. She apparently received a phone call from the applicant’s consultant, Mr. Ryan of Santec, on August 8, 2009, which was after the draft order had been sent out. </em></p>
<p><em>The note states:</em></p>
<p><em> “receive eagle activity info & Boreas Renewables submission?</em></p>
<p><em> ? on change construction COA to operation COA”</em></p>
<p><em>COA is an abbreviation for condition of approval.</em></p>
<p><em>Mr. Ryan states that he was referring to one of the other Conditions of Approval, and he did not request such a change to the language regarding financial capacity. But it is possible that there may have been some confusion given that the phone log note doesn’t specify which condition of approval it is referencing.</em></p>
<p><em>I’m sorry I haven’t been able to resolve this, but as you know, the Department staff people have an extremely heavy work load. It’s not surprising to me that they cannot remember each change made in the documents they produce and mistakes do sometimes happen. Luckily this error was noticed almost immediately and was rectified.</em></p>
<p><em>If you would like to discuss this further, please feel free to call me at 626-8578. I leave tomorrow for a vacation but will be happy to speak with you upon my return.</em></p>
<p><em>Peggy Bensinger</em></p>
<p><em>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------</em></p>
<p><em>From: Steve Thurston <thurston.steve@gmail.com></em></p>
<p><em>Date: Mon, Mar 5, 2012 at 5:18 PM</em></p>
<p><em>Subject: Fwd: Record Hill Wind question and noise rule amendment timeline question</em></p>
<p><em>To: "Bensinger, Peggy" <peggy.bensinger@maine.gov></em></p>
<p><em>Peggy,</em></p>
<p><em>What is the status of this? Six months have gone by since I asked for an explanation.</em></p>
<p><em>Steve</em></p>
<p><em>------------------------------------------------------------------------------------</em></p>
<p><em>From: Bensinger, Peggy <Peggy.Bensinger@maine.gov></em></p>
<p><em>Date: Mon, Feb 13, 2012 at 3:38 PM</em></p>
<p><em>Subject: RE: Record Hill Wind question and noise rule amendment timeline question</em></p>
<p><em>To: Steve Thurston <thurston.steve@gmail.com></em></p>
<p><em>Hi, Steve. I am still trying to piece together how those two provisions ended up getting changed. I have gotten some phone notes which may help explain it and am trying now to get some other phone log notes to see whether the change might have been the result of comments made in a telephone conversation. I will definitely get back to you once I have gathered everything that may be relevant.</em></p>
<p><em>Peggy</em></p>
<p><em>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------</em></p>
<p><em>From: Steve Thurston [mailto:thurston.steve@gmail.com]</em></p>
<p><em>Sent: Saturday, February 11, 2012 12:28 PM</em></p>
<p><em>To: Bensinger, Peggy</em></p>
<p><em>Subject: Re: Record Hill Wind question and noise rule amendment timeline question</em></p>
<p><em>Peggy,</em></p>
<p><em>As we discussed in the cafeteria, there are serious unanswered questions about the word change in the final permit. For the reasons I have explained in detail in prior emails, Beth Callahan's claim of a "drafting and editing error" is not credible. I am prepared to take this matter to your superiors and to the press if you do not give me a satisfactory explanation for who was responsible and why they intentionally changed the word. </em></p>
<p><em>Steve</em></p>
<p><em>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------</em></p>
<p><em>On Wed, Jan 11, 2012 at 2:56 PM, Bensinger, Peggy <Peggy.Bensinger@maine.gov> wrote:</em></p>
<p><em>Hi, Mr. Thurston,</em></p>
<p><em>I have been working on retrieving the relevant documents to try and figure out how it happened that the final DEP order said in the body of the permit (on page 6) that the applicant was required to submit final evidence of financial capacity “prior to the start of construction, and in the Conclusion (paragraph A, page 47) and the condition (Special Condition 4, page 48) said “prior to the start of operation….” </em></p>
<p><em>While construction did begin prior to the provision of financial capacity, it was ceased once the DEP notified the applicant of the discrepancy and was not resumed until the applicant had fulfilled that condition to the DEP’s satisfaction. As you recall, this conflict in the language was resolved during the administrative appeal to the Board and the language of the Board Order consistently required the provision of final financial capacity prior to the start of construction.</em></p>
<p><em>I have spoken with Juliet Browne, the attorney for the applicant, and confirmed that Verrill Dana did not submit comments on the draft Departmental order. I am now checking to see whether the consultants for the applicant submitted any comments on the draft order on this issue.</em></p>
<p><em>I will get back to you on this shortly.</em></p>
<p><em>With regard to your question about the approval of provisionally adopted amendments to the Noise rules (Chapter 375§10) by the Attorney General’s Office, this office approved the provisional adoption on November 3, 2011. The final version of the rule, assuming one is adopted, will also be sent to our office for review and approval.</em></p>
<p><em>If you have further questions, feel free to call me at 626-8578.</em></p>
<p><em>Peggy Bensinger</em></p>
<p><em>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------</em></p>
<p><em>From: Steve Thurston [mailto:thurston.steve@gmail.com]</em></p>
<p><em>Sent: Wednesday, January 11, 2012 11:54 AM</em></p>
<p><em>To: Bensinger, Peggy</em></p>
<p><em>Subject: Re: Record Hill Wind permitting issues</em></p>
<p><em>I have been too patient. It is time to respond.</em></p>
<p><em>-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------</em></p>
<p><em>On Sat, Dec 3, 2011 at 10:40 PM, Steve Thurston <thurston.steve@gmail.com> wrote:</em></p>
<p><em>Peggy,</em></p>
<p><em>May I remind you about your email to me on October 18th where you said you would get back to me?</em></p>
<p><em>Steve</em></p>
<p><em>-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------</em></p>
<p><em>On Tue, Nov 8, 2011 at 8:50 PM, Steve Thurston <thurston.steve@gmail.com> wrote:</em></p>
<p><em>Peggy,</em></p>
<p><em>I would appreciate an update on this matter. </em></p>
<p><em>Thanks,</em></p>
<p><em>Steve</em></p>
<p><em>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------</em></p>
<p><em>On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 11:03 AM, Bensinger, Peggy <Peggy.Bensinger@maine.gov> wrote:</em></p>
<p><em>Hi, Steve. I will get back to you on this. I’m in the middle of two matters right now and will be done with them in a day or two.</em></p>
<p><em>I appreciate your patience.</em></p>
<p><em>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------</em></p>
<p><em>From: Steve Thurston [mailto:thurston.steve@gmail.com]</em></p>
<p><em>Sent: Sunday, October 09, 2011 9:49 PM</em></p>
<p><em>To: Bensinger, Peggy</em></p>
<p><em>Subject: Re: Record Hill Wind permitting issues</em></p>
<p><em>Peggy,</em></p>
<p><em>I would appreciate some kind of a response to this. </em></p>
<p><em>Thanks,</em></p>
<p><em>Steve</em></p>
<p><em>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------</em></p>
<p><em>On Tue, Sep 27, 2011 at 10:54 AM, Steve Thurston <thurston.steve@gmail.com> wrote:</em></p>
<p><em>Peggy,</em></p>
<p><em>As we discussed at the BEP meeting I believe the final permit for the Record Hill Wind project contains language that is inconsistent with the law, and unsupported by anything in the record. The appeals did not address these issues in any meaningful way. </em></p>
<p><em>The draft permit contained the standard condition that financial capacity must be demonstrated prior to construction. In the final permit, issued 5 days later, the word "construction" was replaced with "operation". (The final permit contained many changes to the language in the draft that benefited the developer, such as "road ways will be revegetated" became "roadways will be allowed to revegetate", meaning instead of topsoil, seed and mulch the developer would do nothing and over time weeds would grow on the gravel road.) The record is empty about who requested any of these changes. </em></p>
<p><em>When Record Hill Wind began construction immediately after the final permit was issued I emailed DEP project co-ordinator Beth Callahan to inquire about updated financial capacity information. In response she referred me to the condition that substituted "operation" for "construction". Obviously she was aware of the condition, relied on it in her response to me, and did not at the time believe there was a drafting error in the final permit. If she had made the "drafting error" wouldn't she have recognized it rather than point me to it as a legitimate condition? </em></p>
<p><em>She also said she would ask the applicant for updated information. Rob Gardiner responded by email (Subject: Thurston) that they did not have financing in place but would have by the time the project became operational, in accordance with the permit condition. Something went on behind the scenes because Callahan responded to Gardiner that the condition Gardiner referred to was a "drafting and editing error" and that DEP needed updated financial capacity information. Gardiner responded with the "Northern Trust" letter that Rufus challenged because it specifically said there was no commitment to finance the project. The project was voluntarily stopped by stipulated agreement before the BEP ruled on whether or not the "Northern Trust" letter met the requirements of the law.</em></p>
<p><em>This has been a matter of concern because there has never been a rational explanation of how these changes from the draft to the final permit were created. In particular the change of one word from "construction" to "operation" essentially removed any burden on the applicant to demonstrate financing until the project became operational which is a serious breach of the financial capacity section of the DEP rules.</em></p>
<p><em>It is a serious matter because the applicant relied on the changed language of the permit condition to begin construction, which should not have happened since the condition was in conflict with the site law. I think your office should investigate all of this and determine why and how these changes were made. The emails I mentioned are all part of the record. I have not asked Rufus or any other attorney to represent me in this issue, so I see no reason why we cannot communicate directly. </em></p>
<p><em>Thanks,</em></p>
<p><em>Steve Thurston</em></p>
<div><div><p class="Default"> </p>
<p><em> </em></p>
</div>
</div>Senate Finance Committee set to push for PTC extension tomorrow - please act nowtag:www.windtaskforce.org,2012-08-02:4401701:BlogPost:408232012-08-02T00:25:12.000ZSteve Thurstonhttps://www.windtaskforce.org/profile/SteveThurston
<p>This Thursday (tomorrow August 2nd) the Senate Finance Committee is taking up a bill that extends the wind production tax credit, a handout for wind energy producers that distorts our energy markets. It’s long past time for Washington to stop using the tax code to manipulate our economy and our energy production. </p>
<p>Thankfully, one of Maine's senators, Olympia Snowe, sits on the Finance Committee and she will have a chance to vote on whether to extend this subsidy.…</p>
<p></p>
<p>This Thursday (tomorrow August 2nd) the Senate Finance Committee is taking up a bill that extends the wind production tax credit, a handout for wind energy producers that distorts our energy markets. It’s long past time for Washington to stop using the tax code to manipulate our economy and our energy production. </p>
<p>Thankfully, one of Maine's senators, Olympia Snowe, sits on the Finance Committee and she will have a chance to vote on whether to extend this subsidy.</p>
<p><a href="http://www.kintera.org/TR.asp?a=9rKJL0PKJjKPJWOLG&s=ekJXKbOLJgKXKgMWJtF&m=cgINJUMxHkKUK9J" target="_blank">Click here to email Senator Snowe's office today and urge a no vote on the Wind Production Tax Credit.</a></p>
<p>This subsidy is actually scheduled to expire at the end of the year. This time it’s easy for Congress to do the right thing: just do nothing, and these wasteful subsidies will expire as planned.</p>
<p>These types of energy subsides are poor policy. Just look at the subsidies for ethanol, which despite decades of preferential treatment is still not self-sustaining. Or look at the hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars wasted on green energy companies like Solyndra, Beacon Power and Ener1, all of which are now bankrupt.</p>
<p>The wind power industry itself said they only needed taxpayer support for a little while to help them get off the ground. That was 20 years ago, and we’re still providing a $5 billion special tax subsidy each year for an industry that supplies just over 2% of our power.</p>
<p>It’s time for this subsidy to end.</p>
<p><a href="http://www.kintera.org/TR.asp?a=9rKJL0PKJjKPJWOLG&s=ekJXKbOLJgKXKgMWJtF&m=cgINJUMxHkKUK9J" target="_blank">Click here to email Senator Snowe's office today and urge a no vote on the Wind Production Tax Credit.</a></p>
<p> </p>Romney comes out against the PTC extensiontag:www.windtaskforce.org,2012-07-31:4401701:BlogPost:409132012-07-31T01:30:00.000ZSteve Thurstonhttps://www.windtaskforce.org/profile/SteveThurston
<p><strong> </strong></p>
<p>Great news today! Mitt Romney released his official position on the PTC -- NO EXTENSION. See the text below.</p>
<p>Big wind is out in force posting on news and blog sites. The main argument cited is that oil and gas are getting subsidies. It would be great if our network could mobilize and do the same. Sen. Alexander may be going to the floor of the Senate tomorrow to welcome Romney's support.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Romney's official statement:</p>
<p>“President Obama’s…</p>
<p><strong> </strong></p>
<p>Great news today! Mitt Romney released his official position on the PTC -- NO EXTENSION. See the text below.</p>
<p>Big wind is out in force posting on news and blog sites. The main argument cited is that oil and gas are getting subsidies. It would be great if our network could mobilize and do the same. Sen. Alexander may be going to the floor of the Senate tomorrow to welcome Romney's support.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Romney's official statement:</p>
<p>“President Obama’s promise to ‘easily’ create 5 million green energy jobs has become a particularly depressing punchline amidst the endless disappointments of the last four years. The President spent $90 billion in taxpayer stimulus dollars, some of which went to his donors and political allies or was sent to create jobs overseas instead of here in America. Now we have American wind and solar energy sectors that combine to produce only one percent of our energy – and our wind industry has actually lost 10,000 jobs.”</p>
<p> </p>
<p>“The President may believe that his economic plan ‘worked’ and that America wants to repeat the experience for another four years, but the facts don’t back that up. Mitt Romney believes it is a time for a new approach to ensure our nation’s energy independence. He will allow the wind credit to expire, end the stimulus boondoggles, and create a level playing field on which all sources of energy can compete on their merits. Wind energy will thrive wherever it is economically competitive, and wherever private sector competitors with far more experience than the President believe the investment will produce results.”</p>OAKFIELD APPEAL IS THIS WEDNESDAY - PLEASE ATTEND AND SHOW YOUR SUPPORT!tag:www.windtaskforce.org,2012-04-07:4401701:BlogPost:380172012-04-07T14:08:25.000ZSteve Thurstonhttps://www.windtaskforce.org/profile/SteveThurston
<p>Folks,</p>
<p>The fight moves from the Downeast Lakes to Oakfield and Island Falls, where First Wind has been granted a permit to destroy the view from two Class 1 lakes - Mattawamkeag Lake and Pleasant Lake with 50 turbines each nearly 500 feet tall. Lynne Williams has submitted a well written appeal, which will be heard by the BEP on Wednesday April 11 at the State Planning Office, Room 110, 19 Union Street, Augusta. The meeting begins at 9 am. </p>
<p>The appeal brief and the staff…</p>
<p>Folks,</p>
<p>The fight moves from the Downeast Lakes to Oakfield and Island Falls, where First Wind has been granted a permit to destroy the view from two Class 1 lakes - Mattawamkeag Lake and Pleasant Lake with 50 turbines each nearly 500 feet tall. Lynne Williams has submitted a well written appeal, which will be heard by the BEP on Wednesday April 11 at the State Planning Office, Room 110, 19 Union Street, Augusta. The meeting begins at 9 am. </p>
<p>The appeal brief and the staff proposed order (to deny the appeal) are available on the BEP's website -<a href="http://www.maine.gov/dep/bep/agenda.htm">http://www.maine.gov/dep/bep/agenda.htm</a> Please consider attending this important meeting if you can be there. If your group has literature bring it along to distribute to the press. </p>
<p>The BEP has rejected every appeal brought against wind projects since the first appeal of the Rollins permit in 2009. Hopefully the unanimous decision by LURC yesterday to deny the Bowers Mt project, the first rejection under the expedited wind law, will resonate with the BEP and Maine's finest lakes will be spared from the visual blight of wind turbines.</p>
<p>Monique and Steve, co-chairs CTFWP</p>
<p> </p>
<p align="center"> </p>
<p align="center"> </p>