Bingham Wind Project and MATC
Bingham Wind Project and MATC
BINGHAM WIND PROJECT & MATC by Tony Barrett
Copyright ? Really ? Maybe the publications header or the image. The content was published for public consumption and most likely paid for by a subscriber. The content was sold for profit......
The document that was sourced for the posting is publicly available without any visible copyright notice within the document for the text content nor the image content.
The posting did not establish nor lend to a political overtone as it is my contention that all political persuasions are complicit in this scam.
Moreover if the article itself implies political overtones it is the responsibility of its Editor to better scrutinize the publication that it puts forth for public consumption and what is written by its paid or unpaid source writer, whether copyrighted or not.
As I comply to your request, it will not be without leaving your message in its stead, and relocating the article in its PDF format to another venue as a downloadable document.
Your organization expect freedom of the press and desires the broadcasting of your agenda, but deny freedom to read. Very Oppressive. In the future be careful, there are no more take-backs.
Comment by Doug Dolan
This content extracted from the copyrighted MATC MAINEtainer was reposted here without the express permission of the MATC. It should be deleted immediately. MATC does not expressly support either side of the Wind debate, and as non-profit can not be seen as being complicit with any political activity. Thank you for your cooperation Eric.
Doug Dolan (info@matc.org)
MATC Corresponding Secretatry
MATC is Pro-Appalachian Trail, Not Anti-Wind Power Both the MATC and the Appalachian Trail Conservancy support significant increases in renewable energy including wind power. Its policies are to site projects appropriately, to design them to minimize impacts to the natural landscape near the AT, and to protect the AT experience.
I believe that is a defined position !
But still this is not a political issue, but an issue of Quality of Life for Maine's Citizens and those forced to sacrifice for others that WILL NOT sacrifice or conserve for themselves first.
Views: 328
Comment
-
Comment by Eric A. Tuttle on September 17, 2016 at 9:51am
-
Political Correctness = Social Bigotry Say it one way disguised to / Mean it another way
-
Comment by Penny Gray on September 17, 2016 at 8:21am
-
MATC is Pro-Appalachian Trail, Not Anti-Wind Power Both the MATC and the Appalachian Trail Conservancy support significant increases in renewable energy including wind power. Its policies are to site projects appropriately, to design them to minimize impacts to the natural landscape near the AT, and to protect the AT experience.
This is a very politically correct statement. I'm sick of politically correct behavior. I'm against industrial wind power because it's an illogical waste of enormous amounts of tax payer revenues and none of the industry's sweeping claims have ever been proven. Quite the opposite, in fact. Wind power was a great technology back in sailing ship days but it isn't going to power, or save, the planet, and Paula's comment about how "proper siting" can't ever really be achieved without negatively impacting the quality of life of residents (and wildlife) of Maine or Vermont or Germany or Denmark...is spot on. There's no reason we should be worshipping wind power when there are other, far less environmentally destructive energy sources to be utilized. Straddling a fence on the issue of industrial wind power is a PC cop out. Shoving these projects into someone else's community to preserve their own mountain experience is just plain wrong.
-
-
The testing of the Red strobes of the Bingham project has begun this past week though only a few at a time it seems. A report from the Unity area Questioned what they were and which project was being observed. My friend in Palmyra also noted that 3 of the 13 were being tested the same night or the following night. I observed from Guilford the same night around midnight 4 were active from the Rt 23 terminus on Rt 15/16. Though my observation driving westerly as I came over the hill and to the viewpoint, gave the appearance of vehicle braking tail lights up the road. They appeared so low on the horizon that a person not familiar with the area may assume even but for a moment there could be a traffic problem ahead. Though their thought process may soon realize the difference, if panic set in, a traffic hazard could occur.
-
-
From the MATC wind power policy document:
Wind Power Development in Maine: Recommendations of the Governor’s Task Force on Wind Power Development (Task Force) were adopted by the Maine State Legislature in 2008 (LD 2283). The legislation established specific goals for wind power development in the state, created expedited permit areas, streamlined the permitting process, and eliminated the requirement for rezoning in the unorganized territories. The Task Force concluded that Maine can become a leader in wind power development and that the State should encourage development of at least 3,000 MW of installed wind capacity by 2020. Based on existing technology, 3,000 MW’s of wind capacity will require construction of more than 1,000 wind turbines in the state. As a result of this legislation and other incentives, there has been a proliferation of proposals for wind power development in the state. MATC feels that appropriate wind power siting issues and the environmental costs associated with wind power development were not adequately addressed in the legislation and that wind power development should be limited to sites that contain few to no recognized natural and recreational resources of statewide, regional, or national significance.
I guess what bothers me is the neglect of MATC and others to consider that once you rule out those spots of state, regional and national significance you are left with spots of local significance that don't matter. And once they put WT's on those spots that don't matter, a lot of the significant spots that do matter are destroyed as well. And the people who live in or near those spots that don't matter have no recourse. I don't begrudge towns adopting local ordinances that essentially make WT's within their boundaries impossible. I don't begrudge the MATC trying to protect a valuable natural resource. What I do begrudge is the State mandating an energy policy that sets unrealistic and economically disastrous goals and then allows corporations, foreign investors and swindlers to get rich by impoverishing it's citizens and destroying our quality of life. That doesn't make me anti-environmental and that doesn't make industrial wind environmentally pure. MATC's policy is fine as far as it goes but it fails to recognize and appreciate that if they want to accomplish their goals, then they have to join with others working on similar goals. It only helps the wind industry when we turn on each other and blame each other. Unfortunately the expedited law has turned friends into foes and opened the door to 'getting the best deal for me and mine'. Hard to say if there had been more debate at the time of the law if that would have averted this angst. Would have been nice to give it a shot.
I apologize for my NIMBY comments if they were offensive.
And Penny my bifocals don't help a bit, I'm still squinting at the screen and trying to read it right.
-
-
Thank you for clarifying, Art. Next time I'll wear my reading glasses.
-
Comment by Art Brigades on September 14, 2016 at 1:30pm
-
Let's please discuss this history accurately. AMC and MATC and MATLT and ATC are all separate entities involved to some degree in stewardship of the AT, and their acronyms are routinely conflated. This post is about MATC, which is responsible for the maintenance of Maine's 281 miles of AT within the 1000 foot AT corridor.
MATC (and several other potential opponents -- from small homeowners to large organizations) were approached by First Wind long before First Wind ever submitted its application to the DEP. This was standard operating procedure for First Wind. MATC, most likely seen as a threat to First Wind, was shown and they analyzed the project plans. This is standard operating procedure for any type of development: potentially impacted parties (PIP) are consulted. MATC and other PIPs determined that a significant impact might occur to the AT corridor that is their purview. They pressured First Wind to remove and/or relocate several turbines in the plan. At that point it was mission accomplished for MATC.
MATC obviously had concerns about visual impact from high points (Bigelow, Moxie Bald, Pleasant Pond Mountains, for instance) along the AT beyond the 1000 foot corridor, and in fact, beyond the statutory distance where the law instructs the DEP to disregard visual impact as "insignificant." They also raised concerns about cumulative impact, which then was a relatively new concept in Maine wind siting.
MATC performed an expert legal analysis of the Bingham site location plan, and their lawyers soberly concluded that once an application was submitted, there was no way the DEP could deny a permit.
Additionally, First Wind is required by law to document in its application certain "tangible benefits/community benefits." Among the many tangible benefits that First Wind cleverly sprinkled about the masses were several trail, conservation, and recreation projects. As this MATC newsletter said, some projects that MATC wanted to see completed were selected by First Wind for that funding. At the time, there was some erroneous speculation that MATC accepted money to support the project. In fact they did not support the project, nor did they get money. By altering the turbine location and funding key projects, they did what they could to mitigate the impact on the resource that they are charged to maintain.
Years later, when Friends of Maine's Mountains was the last holdout opposing the project, after the DEP had granted the permit, with no chance of overturning the permit on appeal, FMM extracted additional concessions from First Wind/SunEdison. Among those concessions was a $2.5 million escrow fund for Maine trail and conservation projects. Neither MATC nor specific MATC projects got any of that funding, despite constant needs.
Ideally MATC, AMC and others would be more vocal in direct opposition to wind; surely many individuals among them now regret being agnostic for so long. MATC wrote LD 911 in the last legislature to improve the visual impact and cumulative impact standards in the wind permitting process. The DEP supported the bill, which, if it had been in the original wind law, would have prevented several wind projects. The wind lobby fought hard to kill the bill. Good news is that the very well designed standards in LD 911 are coming up for adoption by DEP rulemaking. With due respect to all here, MATC is to be thanked and supported for that, not criticized.
-
-
I guess we hit a sore spot didn't we. Most non-profit organizations these days just post their newsletters on the web. Aren't copyrights more concerned with profits and plagiarism? I'd think they'd be more glad you posted the whole thing so people could read and make up their own minds instead of just making comments and criticisms on second hand information. I don't blog much or tweet or whatever, but I'm proud to participate on this site. Keep up the good work Eric et. al. (I hope my comments didn't make matters worse for you!)
-
-
A bit of brushing up on spelling for a "Correspondence Secretary" would be in order as well, along with some grammatical checking. Though when in a hurry we often tend to overlook that these days. Anyone in this position should be on top of it. Well if they wanted a job back in the day....... But I guess anything passes as literate these days.
@arthur: I would tend to agree, however it is his right to speak freely, so long as it is truthful and does not conceal from the public (Maine's Citizens) through false claims.
If the publication is truly for subscribers only, there are ways to protect the content such as the PDF file from being distributed, along with ways in Web Script codes to prevent copying. However the Link remains posted to the document. The material was not used out of context, nor does the posting detract from their ability to continue to receive donations or subscribers. It does however serve to increase their subscriber membership to something that many Mainers may not be aware of.
-
-
Very ironic that I had a membership invitation to the AMC sitting in my stack of mail and I'd set it aside as a "I think I'll join" gesture. I've changed my mind about that.
-
-
Get rid of this stooge from the blog.
Maine as Third World Country:
CMP Transmission Rate Skyrockets 19.6% Due to Wind Power
Click here to read how the Maine ratepayer has been sold down the river by the Angus King cabal.
Maine Center For Public Interest Reporting – Three Part Series: A CRITICAL LOOK AT MAINE’S WIND ACT
******** IF LINKS BELOW DON'T WORK, GOOGLE THEM*********
(excerpts) From Part 1 – On Maine’s Wind Law “Once the committee passed the wind energy bill on to the full House and Senate, lawmakers there didn’t even debate it. They passed it unanimously and with no discussion. House Majority Leader Hannah Pingree, a Democrat from North Haven, says legislators probably didn’t know how many turbines would be constructed in Maine if the law’s goals were met." . – Maine Center for Public Interest Reporting, August 2010 https://www.pinetreewatchdog.org/wind-power-bandwagon-hits-bumps-in-the-road-3/From Part 2 – On Wind and Oil Yet using wind energy doesn’t lower dependence on imported foreign oil. That’s because the majority of imported oil in Maine is used for heating and transportation. And switching our dependence from foreign oil to Maine-produced electricity isn’t likely to happen very soon, says Bartlett. “Right now, people can’t switch to electric cars and heating – if they did, we’d be in trouble.” So was one of the fundamental premises of the task force false, or at least misleading?" https://www.pinetreewatchdog.org/wind-swept-task-force-set-the-rules/From Part 3 – On Wind-Required New Transmission Lines Finally, the building of enormous, high-voltage transmission lines that the regional electricity system operator says are required to move substantial amounts of wind power to markets south of Maine was never even discussed by the task force – an omission that Mills said will come to haunt the state.“If you try to put 2,500 or 3,000 megawatts in northern or eastern Maine – oh, my god, try to build the transmission!” said Mills. “It’s not just the towers, it’s the lines – that’s when I begin to think that the goal is a little farfetched.” https://www.pinetreewatchdog.org/flaws-in-bill-like-skating-with-dull-skates/
Not yet a member?
Sign up today and lend your voice and presence to the steadily rising tide that will soon sweep the scourge of useless and wretched turbines from our beloved Maine countryside. For many of us, our little pieces of paradise have been hard won. Did the carpetbaggers think they could simply steal them from us?
We have the facts on our side. We have the truth on our side. All we need now is YOU.
“First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.”
-- Mahatma Gandhi
"It's not whether you get knocked down: it's whether you get up."
Vince Lombardi
Task Force membership is free. Please sign up today!
Hannah Pingree on the Maine expedited wind law
Hannah Pingree - Director of Maine's Office of Innovation and the Future
"Once the committee passed the wind energy bill on to the full House and Senate, lawmakers there didn’t even debate it. They passed it unanimously and with no discussion. House Majority Leader Hannah Pingree, a Democrat from North Haven, says legislators probably didn’t know how many turbines would be constructed in Maine."
https://pinetreewatch.org/wind-power-bandwagon-hits-bumps-in-the-road-3/
© 2024 Created by Webmaster.
Powered by
You need to be a member of Citizens' Task Force on Wind Power - Maine to add comments!
Join Citizens' Task Force on Wind Power - Maine