$2.5 million conservation fund set up in Bingham wind pact

Comment

Comment by Eric A. Tuttle on October 10, 2015 at 12:50pm

I am not sure if this is part of a negotiation for the next proposed farms west of the Kennebec or not as a one time settlement, but Somerset County TIF will be losing the county some serious monies with all this destruction. A rate that may be fixed in precedence, of 20% of the tax value by assessment. I wonder how much more or less, the next projects will Conserve or if another payout will even be considered if anything remains, in the lower lands. ( A gag of opposition? ) 

Comment by Jim Wiegand on October 10, 2015 at 11:55am

       

You can not sit at a table and mitigate for impacts that are being hidden behind a wall of fraud. Yet that is what has taken place.  The wind industry along with the USFWS has used rigged research and gag orders to rig the deck.        

 

I was recently told by an industry informant of a great number of eagle deaths coming out of a particular wind farm. I was shown dozens of eagle carcass images found near turbines. I contacted the USFWS to investigate. They have no interest in perusing a real investigation and said that with their forensics lab needed to determine the cause of death.

 

My response to them was that "this lab means nothing. The dead eagles being found near specific turbines are chopped in half, headless, or have massive meat clever type wounds. No expertise is needed to figure this one out."   

 

This is how you rig the deck and avoid mitigating real impacts.

 

                                                                                                                     

Comment by Kathy Sherman on October 10, 2015 at 11:31am

I obviously cannot and should not participate in the bitter discussion here about past history of FMM decisions and "personalities"/personal interests, but:
1) Maybe it was only in Vermont, but it sometimes occurs in Massachusetts too, that the developer, especially wind developer, offsets habitat loss, etc., by funding putting comparable land into protection. The difference is that it is typically done at a much earlier stage and to meet requirements of the regulatory body.

2) FMM has testified, quite cogently in my opinion, to Massachusetts Department of Public Utilities about the mandated long-term contracts with First Wind (and yes that was Bingham as well as First Wind), and then later to the legislature about more such contracts. It did not seem to be testimony against certain projects in Maine.

3) THE biggest contract by a southern New England state's utility for Maine Wind is EDP's Number Nine Mtn. in Aroostook with Connecticut. To refresh memories CT regulators pointed out that any generation from Number Nine was not going anywhere because of the independent grid up there, unless up to the Maritimes. The Maritimes want us to import their wind energy. I don't know if the situation has changed any, but it does seem that the Public Comment period now initiated is an ideal opportunity to increase efforts regarding the Counties left out of the SUNE-FMM deal instead of bickering.

It is a long time since I took a virtual tour of the Number Nine project area, and other than that the project is immense and useless, and very near Mars Hill, I am not sure what the salient objections should be. I don't even know how local residents feel about it -- they might supposedly welcome for the supposed economic benefits. Oakfield was the "poster child" for such a welcoming community at a forum I was "allowed" to attend a few years back called "injecting credibility" as one of 4 critics (one from VT). I hope the new firetruck Oakfield got is not needed too soon at the wind facility.

Part of our efforts in the northeast need to be directed towards the economic desperation of sparsely populated rural areas (especially when there are large landowners such as in No. Nine Mtn who may have nothing to do with the community impacted).

One reason that I am less enthused about Eric's home rule idea than I could be is that I live in a town where the "setback" deemed sufficient is a fallover zone of 1x total height, so 4000 ft. instead of 1.25 miles (Clifton) would sound good; it would sound good to folks in Kingston MA less than 800 ft. from a 2 MW turbine; and would have prevented a lot of misery that many of you have followed in Falmouth, MA. My Selectmen were so enamored of wind energy that they considered a number of avenues to overturn the Planning Board's effective denial.
We have a long way to go in education of the public.

4) What I said above about MA setbacks - the result of a decade or more of pro-wind seeking to permit turbine siting "by-right" with virtually no regulatory review (it's all good regarding renewables) applies to Connecticut as well (Prospect was to be 100s of feet from a residential neighborhood). It is not being NIMBY - it is that we don't have a viable wind resource, period. Maine doesn't either, but it has more land. That, and curtailing the incentives and mandates by southern New England that drive development of wind sprawl in more spacious Maine and New York, should be the focus. When it takes a 120 m rotor stretching 600 ft. to "capture" the wind, it is a sure sign that the wind blows very weakly (and inconsistently creating havoc for the grid). Especially when that 600 ft. is on top of elevation from ridgelines.

5) My basic plea is that this fragmentation of wind critics, whether within Maine or between states, will be far more of a victory for First Wind (and Iberdrola, EDP, et al) than any PR victory. Don't let it happen. It would be worth the millions.

Comment by Eric A. Tuttle on October 5, 2015 at 8:27am

I see no positive in the needless destructions going on in Maine. It is not our lifestyle nor the intended nature of our lands to be industrialized. Nature, forests, clean water, peaceful living, relaxation should not be sacrificed for an entire state to protect even one acre of specificity, determined by so few. Once it is gone, it is gone forever and can never be restored to its fullest. This is unrepairable damages taking place....... Not like minor home grading or parking lots that can be restored back to a natural grade. They are not required to rebuild the mountains, but go 2 feet lower, removing even more of the land.  

Comment by Eric A. Tuttle on October 5, 2015 at 8:16am

My understanding was that the decommissioning funds had to be established and set in reserve prior to the Bingham Approval. Though this may not have actually taken place, as they probably weaseled out or went to a % factor based on work completed. This was reported to Parkman and Abbot citizens, True/False ? but then they never actually have ever been fully truthful especially if it works toward their advantage.

Comment by Donna Amrita Davidge on October 5, 2015 at 7:15am

Yep- I agree, laughing all the way to the next ridge line- this headline is an oxymoron plain and simple!

Comment by Kevin Gurall on September 29, 2015 at 5:27pm

My upfront apology for the insinuated harsh language here:

An open comment to: Bob Hale, Thomas Hinman, Brad Blake, and Gary Steinberg:  As officers and board members your are responsible for the actions of FMM and I want to say that this latest action by FMM has alienated virtually everyone in this state who has a history of opposing industrial energy projects being constructed on our state's mountains and ridge lines.  If any of you opposed that decision or are having serious afterthoughts, you're encouraged to denounce your involvement with FMM publicly.  Get back on the right side of this issue.  FMM has disappointed hundreds of it's (former?) supporters and contributors.  This is the second time in less than a year that your leadership has decided to take the money and run rather than stand their ground.  The same people who publicly chastised Maine Audubon, the ATC, and other conservation minded non-profits, have now taken a page directly from their play book.  File a lawsuit, sell out your constituency, grab some quick cash, ..... repeat. This behavior is reprehensible and does nothing but damage the efforts of those good citizens of Maine who's rural neighborhoods are being displaced by these projects.  All to supply a couple of southern New England states additional energy.  They won't allow these hideous wind turbines in their state, but they'll pay a contractor a huge price to build them in Maine for them. These are the same folks who have a 6,000 sq. ft. McMansion for two adults.  

F___ us once, shame on you

F___ us twice, shame on us

Comment by Richard McDonald/Saving Maine on September 29, 2015 at 4:50pm

It wasn't political assassination Chris it was justice and there's more on the way after you sacrificed us all so you could be a big shot. SUNE is laughing all the way to the next ridgeline. 

Comment by Art Brigades on September 29, 2015 at 3:59pm

Lots of good questions and concerns that directors of any nonprofit corporation must weigh before making big decisions, especially decisions concerning fiduciary duty to the corporation.  As seen in this explanation of the deal:  http://tinyurl.com/ogrjsj4  these and more were all carefully considered.  FMM had long publicly stated that delay was a minor victory if it outlasted the PTC.  Then PTC got extended, and the project already qualified for PTC under safe harbor anyway. If we think it through we realize that there were many considerations like this, all carefully examined. 

Baksheesh???  With all of the public scrutiny that FMM endured in suppressing last year's political assassination attempt, does anyone think for a minute that the parties would enter an agreement that was anything but squeaky clean?  [C.O. is not an employee, but one of many contractors/vendors to FMM.]

Comment by Steve Thurston on September 29, 2015 at 2:34pm

There are several issues that trouble me.  

• Giving SUNE a PR coup obviously works against efforts to educate the public about the preposterous nature of this incredibly destructive industry.  
• Pulling the plug on litigation instead of exhausting all legal remedies obviates any possibility that subsidies will expire and the project will not go forward without them.  No project has begun construction while its permits were still under appeal.  Who knows what might have happened? Record Hill wind was held up for more than 2 years by the appeals process and would probably not have been built without the last ditch effort to get a Federal Loan Guarantee, which was a gift from the Obama administration to King, and came under attack for not meeting the eligibility criteria.
• FMM says it gets nothing from this deal.  But I wish I didn't now have to wonder if down the road there could be some baksheesh to FMM (call it contributions) from these hand picked recipients as a token of gratitude, with the hope of more to come.  Unlike the rest of us who have worked as volunteers against the wind industry,  Chris O'Neil is a paid employee of FMM. The money has to come from somewhere.  

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4
• Next ›
• Page