Substantive Review of the Petition to Remove Milton Township from the Expedited Permitting Area for Wind Energy Development

Comment

Comment by Art Brigades on December 14, 2016 at 8:09pm

Yes Penny -  it certainly stinks.  But on the bright side, if Milton's petition gets rejected by LUPC, it'll be the only one out of about 40 opt-out petitions that the bad guys won.  On balance, the opt-out law with its six month opportunity was good. 

Comment by Thinklike A. Mountain on December 14, 2016 at 7:00pm

Organizations that promote leftist ideals and worldviews in the media and the arts:

• The American Prospect, Inc. is the owner and publisher of The American Prospect magazine, which tries to “counteract the growing influence of conservative media.”
• Free Press is a “media reform” organization co-founded by Robert McChesney, who calls for “a revolutionary program to overthrow the capitalist system” and to “rebuil[d] the entire society on socialist principles.”
• The Independent Media Institute aims to “change the world” via projects like AlterNet, an online news magazine calling itself “a key player in the echo chamber of progressive ideas and vision.”
• The Nation Institute operates synergistically with the far-left Nation magazine, which works “to extend the reach of progressive ideas” into the American mainstream.
• The Pacifica Foundation owns and operates Pacifica Radio, awash from its birth with the socialist-Marxist rhetoric of class warfare and anti-capitalism.
• Media Matters For America: For a number of years, the Open Society Foundations gave indirect funding―filtering its grants first through other Soros-backed operations―to this “progressive research and information center” which “monitor[s]” and “correct[s] conservative misinformation in the U.S. media.” In October 2010, Soros announced that he would soon donate $1 million directly to Media Matters.
• Sundance Institute: In 1996, Soros launched his Soros Documentary Fund to produce “social justice” films that would “spur awareness, action and social change.” In 2001, this Fund became part of actor-director Robert Redford’s Sundance Institute. Between 1996 and 2008, OSI earmarked at least $5.2 million for the production of several hundred documentaries, many of which were highly critical of capitalism, American society, or Western culture generally. In 2009, Soros pledged another $5 million to the Sundance Institute.

http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/viewSubCategory.asp?id=589

Comment by Thinklike A. Mountain on December 14, 2016 at 6:22pm

Several newspapers have recently announced that far left leaning, non-profit foundations such as The Ford Foundation have given them hundreds of thousands of dollars to cover "the news." Many wonder if this "coverage" is being programmed by these left-wing moneymen. Others note that the tax-exempt, left-wing foundations are essentially lending U.S. government subsidies once remove to both newspapers and NPR. Is this all merely a way to "save" the news gathering industry, or are left-wing organizations just buying the news and pushing their far left narrative through stealth?

http://www.chicagonow.com/publius-forum/2012/08/left-wing-non-profi...

Comment by Thinklike A. Mountain on December 14, 2016 at 6:20pm

Soros Clones: 5 Liberal Mega-Donors Nearly as Dangerous as George Soros
http://www.mrc.org/special-reports/soros-clones-5-liberal-mega-dono...

Comment by Thinklike A. Mountain on December 14, 2016 at 6:18pm

Why Don't We Hear About Soros' Ties to Over 30 Major News Organizations?
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2011/05/11/dont-hear-george-soros-ti...

Comment by Thinklike A. Mountain on December 14, 2016 at 6:13pm

Soros Spends Over $48 Million Funding Media Organizations

https://www.mrc.org/commentary/soros-spends-over-48-million-funding...

Comment by Penny Gray on December 14, 2016 at 5:11pm

Not a surprise, really.  Just seems as if we Mainers should be getting smarter, not working so hard at perfecting the art of being fleeced, but I guess that's what the wind industry is banking on. I blame the media for not doing their job and presenting the people with the facts.  The facts are out there.  Why are they being so complicit in this pointless destruction of Maine's quality of place, her environment, wildlife and residents?  Baldacci's flawed expedited wind law might be the excuse that our legislators use for allowing this farce to continue, but the media could be the force that illuminates the whole sordid picture right back to it's Enron origins.  At the very least they should report on this travesty objectively.  Milton should be removed from the EA, and so should all of Maine.

Comment by Art Brigades on December 14, 2016 at 3:14pm

Yes, Penny, but not a surprise, right?  

Doubly discouraging is that irrespective of whether the propaganda you cited is fact or fiction, it does not matter in this process.  

Milton citizens petitioned to get out of the Expedited Area (EA). Despite silly state energy policy, under the opt-out law LUPC is supposed to grant that request unless two criteria are met:  1. Removal of Milton from the EA will have an unreasonably adverse effect on the State's ability to reach its statutory wind goals.  2.  Removal of Milton from the EA will be inconsistent with the CLUP.  

Neither criterion can possibly be triggered by Milton's opting out of the EA.

The wind company that hired Juliette Brown to overturn the Milton citizens' opt-out request threw the whole AWEA talking-point manual at LUPC, and the Commissioners heads were spinning, (jobs, global warming, getting off oil, community benefits, sustainable unicorns...blah blah blah...) but none of it mattered because none if it triggered the two criteria.

The wind developer even had the audacity to threaten LUPC that if Milton is removed from the EA, they will not proceed with their beneficent wind project application; they will pick up their blades and their nacelles and stomp their petulant fee all the way back to Pennsylvania.  Laugh at that threat or not, and regardless of whether another wind developer stands ready to swoop into the void, it has no bearing on the two criteria.

Even if Milton could somehow ban the building of any wind project, what is the total capacity for wind in that tiny hamlet, maybe 40 megawatts?  40 megawatts lost toward the state goal is not adverse impact, never mind unreasonably adverse impact.

In fact, removal of the ENTIRE state from the EA cannot be proved to impair Maine's ability to reach the wind goals.  Why?

Because as Big Wind always reminds us, being located in the EA is no guarantee of a permit.  Inversely, being outside the EA has never stopped a Maine wind project from being built.  (Before there even WAS an Expedited Area, every permit was granted readily at Kirby, Mars Hill, Freedom, Vinalhaven, and even Redington, despite Redington's horrible location on the AT, at sub-alpine elevation, in endangered species territory... and its bush-league application, which was later overturned on appeal after initial approval.)  

Bottom line, the wind lobby has unleashed its customary smokescreen on LUPC -- and the Commissioners and Staffers are lost in it.  Kangaroo court in a banana republic.  

Comment by Penny Gray on December 14, 2016 at 1:20pm

30. There is credible testimony and evidence in the record on wind power’s beneficial effect on air and climate resources through reduction in greenhouse gas emissions. In particular, the Maine Renewable Energy Association provided data from the Sustainable Energy Advantage on reduced CO2, SOx and NOx emissions from wind farms operating in Maine. Additionally, wind power’s beneficial effect on air and climate resources through the displacement of fossil fuel based energy generation and reduction in greenhouse gas emissions is well known. The CLUP acknowledges those benefits and recognizes wind power as “the most significant renewable source of electricity that is economically viable at the utility scale” (CLUP at 187). 

Seriously???  This is very discouraging.  A state energy policy based on wind industry propaganda.