yes, but two are due to long-term PPAs with MA utilities. Is not the 3rd with RI and the 'most egregious' for land-grab and mass, as opposed to godly vistas, will be No. 9 Mtn for CT. We tinier states really have less than anything for siting industrial wind in places less productive than UMaine or for smaller (good site - exposed and high - tech school gave equiv of 13 trees in 2 years or so). MANY northeast states have 1.1 times height as adequate setback, with possibilities of 'easements' to reduce that totally inadequate distance. In CT, I am pretty sure that a nationally registered historic place and business did not prevail. In Massachusetts, we define 'noise-sensitive receptors' meriting the protection of law or noise policy to be ONLY full-time voting residents. In some towns that means seasonal mobile home parks, owned and taxed, can be 400 ft from about 400 ft towers. No deference to taxpayer/owners who contribute also to seasonal economy. None to Camps or guides.

I do think that our best hope is to fix Maine first. It is where the mess began. There is so much to fix.