Massachusetts’ new wind bills supported by junk science

Massachusetts legislators are again pushing wind through bills that eliminate and erode obstacles, public and environmental laws that protect us, to gain unlimited development and profit potential for gov picked wind turbines.  There will be no public debate.  

The State leans on the Wind Noise Impact Study findings of 2012  This study was a review of literature by the state appointed body of experts and advocates of wind. The state refused to provide a seat on the noise panel to victims of Falmouth’s wind turbines who asked for this.  The state refused invitations by victims to visit theirr homes near wind turbine sites where excessive noise harmed their health.  

Discussiion of wind turbine noise continues to divide turbine invaded towns.  Neighbor against  neighbor, the fight continues that the wind turbines and their promoters have started.  

Falmouth’s debt for 2 wind turbines could exceed $25 miliion.  Hundreds of thousands more are out of pocket expenses incurred by victims funding lawyers to win a “nuisance” determination by the courts.  Damages are now sought generating more revenue for lawyers.  Citizens from 21 communities have bombarded the state with health complaints. 

This scenario plays out town by town, state by state and it’s a world-wide problem. The remedy is inconvenient to the truth.  Eliminating wind turbines from the energy mix will eliminate the graft and greed, crony capitlsists and organized criminals attracted by public subsidies and “legit” businesses through which to launder their illicit gains.  They’ll be gone with the wind if we eliminate the graft and the junk science that keeps the $ flowing.  

As pertains to the 2012 MA Wind Turbine Noise Impact Study evoked to support new wind bills, the evidentiary trail does not indicate a fair, transparent and unbiased review process was conducted, or will be conducted.  The results of the 2012 study arrived before the panel assembled.  No harm was the prediction of then MA energy chief Richard Sullivan, who must have had a crystal ball, or an agenda undermined by Best Science.  

March 8, 2012

Mr. Richard Sullivan, Jr.
Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs
State of Massachusetts

Mr. Mark Sylvia
Department of Energy Resources

Mr. Kenneth Kimmell
Department of Environmental Protection

RE: public comment wind turbine health impact study commissioned by MA DEP and DPH

Dear Secretary Sullivan, Commissioner Sylvia and Commissioner Kimmell:

The Patrick Administration appears to have predetermined the wind turbine health impact study results that favor industry. The science panel was secretly selected, met in secret and wrote their report in secret and outside of the scope of Open Meeting Law. Apparently, aligned with industry against the public, this administration has failed to take actions to provide reliable energy sources that are commercially reasonable and present minimum risk of harm to public health. Wind energy is neither reliable, nor commercially reasonable, but it causes adverse health impacts and property value depreciation, home abandonment and a host of other untenable and unintended consequences.

The DEP and DPH accepted on behalf of their selected science panel Peer-reviewed articles, reports, presentations, scientific papers, media stories, government legislation and proposed legislation, government reports, and other documents provided by Windwise MA to the DEP, along with evidence from sources and experts around the world, that shows health complaints commence with wind turbine operation.

The DEP DPH commissioned study, however, concludes this evidence does not exist. Close observers recognize that MA Energy and Environment Secretary Richard Sullivan foretold the DEP DPH science panel study conclusion in September 2011, when it was initiated.
Cape Cod Times 9/16/11:

“While the panel's work will be valuable in the creation of setbacks and other standards for wind energy projects, the Patrick administration does not believe at this point that there are major health affects from turbines, Sullivan said.

The intent of the study, it appears, is to neutralize the growing opposition and expanding public awareness of health complaints associated with wind turbines.

During the fall of 2011, I met with the DEP and DPH and wind turbine victims from Massachusetts on the issue of “all these calls”, coming into DPH about wind turbine noise and health complaints. The DEP and DPH refused to favorably consider victims’ repeated requests to participate on the panel and in the study. The DEP DPH study excluded first hand witness accounts and direct evidence of adverse health impacts by wind turbines, by excluding wind turbine abutters with health problems that they attribute to wind turbine operation.

What model of wind turbine health impact study excludes direct evidence of adverse health impacts, while rejecting repeated requests made by victims to conduct site visits?

Look no further than your own Department of Environmental Protection for the compelling evidence that wind turbines are harmful to the public health. DEP Advisor UPC First Wind CEO and President Paul Gaynor is an expert on wind turbine noise and health complaints.

The irony is that First Wind subsidiaries build wind projects that fail to produce energy, yet developers continue to collect public subsidies and yet he serves as green policy Advisor.
It’s a travesty that Governor Deval Patrick has appointed UPC First Wind as Advisor on green policies, when DAs from eight counties were bombarded with complaints against First Wind.

Press Republican
July 15, 2008:
"We've had a number of complaints from counties all over the state, from Franklin all the way over to Erie," said John Milgrim, spokesman for Attorney General Andrew Cuomo.”
“Franklin County District Attorney Derek Champagne was among "DAs from eight counties, public officials and citizens" who bombarded Albany with complaints about Noble and Massachusetts-based First Wind, formerly known as UPC Wind, he said"

Paul Gaynor is New England’s largest wind developer. Mr. Gaynor is demonstrably knowledgeable of noise and health problems associated with wind turbines UPC First Wind sells, and has installed, from Italy to New England, from New York to Hawaii.

Either DEP green policy Advisor Paul Gaynor has failed to inform the DEP about noise and health complaints regarding HIS wind turbines, or the DEP has failed to inform the public that noise and health complaints are generated by wind turbines operated by DEP’s Advisor. The public, in either case, is willfully or by malfeasance and negligence, denied the truth, if it is considered reasonable to conclude that First Wind CEO and President has since 2008 known that his wind turbines generate health complaints and he failed to disclose this to the DEP as DEP Advisor.

First Wind Boston-based CEO and President Paul Gaynor is Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick’s appointed Co-chair of “The Climate Protection Advisory Committee” under the Global Warming Solutions Act. First Wind Paul Gaynor is also co-chair of the Mass Department of Environmental Protection Advisory Committee “Low Carbon Energy Supply Subcommittee.”\

As Advisor to DEP on green policy, Paul Gaynor should be compelled to disclose noise and health complaints associated with his wind projects to the DEP and DPH. In turn, the DEP and DPH must be compelled, by the Attorney General if necessary, to disclose to the public that wind turbines deployed by UPC First Wind have drawn health and noise complaints and caused physical illnesses and human suffering.

The DEP and DPH charged with protection of public health and the environment must disclose compelling evidence of harm to humans and their property values by wind turbines operated by DEP’s own green policy Advisor, Paul Gaynor of

UPC First Wind.
Windmills a sound investment?
By Mary Perham
Corning Leader
Mon Apr 06, 2009, 12:11 AM EDT
Bath, N.Y. -
Editor’s note | This is the first part of a two-part look at developing concerns over wind farms in parts of Steuben County.
In early January, the blades in the 53-turbine First Wind project in the town of Cohocton began to spin. It was the first project in Steuben County to generate renewable energy and one of five under consideration in the county.
Within weeks, dozens of Cohocton residents went to the town board in neighboring Prattsburgh to warn that the machines were proving to be noisy and harmful.
“Don’t let (the developers) buffalo you,” Cohocton resident Hal Graham told the Prattsburgh Town Board in late February. “You know, I wanted to do something for the environment. And now I can’t sleep at night.”
Photo by Jason Cox | The Leader
A wind turbine is seen from Hal Graham’s window on Lent Hill in Cohocton.
Graham initially supported wind farm development.
Prattsburgh is the site of two wind farms planned by developers First Wind and EcoGen. Other projects have been proposed in the towns of Hartsville and Howard.
Since wind farms in Steuben County were first proposed in 2002, developers have admitted it’s hard to miss seeing the 400-foot-high turbines, but insisted they sound no louder than a refrigerator’s hum.
The projects have been promoted throughout the largely rural county as a quiet, inexpensive and environmentally-friendly way to provide renewable energy.
Environmental studies for Cohocton and Steuben County led to restrictions of the turbines’ sound to a maximum comfort level of 50 decibels. Setbacks were established to assure both noise and other potential dangers such as shadow flicker and flying debris were lessened.
Yet the promised “refrigerator hum” of the turbines was a falsity as residents began to compare the sound to the roar of a jet engine, according to Graham.
The Cohocton residents are among a growing number of people across the nation complaining the noise made by wind turbines is intrusive and disturbing. Medical professionals have compiled studies showing the noise can pose health hazards.
And the wind industry is beginning to take notice.
In Maine, where the state welcomed renewable energy, the Mars Hill project has been widely criticized for being noisy.
According to a March 26, 2008 report by the Daily News in Bangor, Maine, UPC Wind president and CEO Paul Gaynor said the company would do a better job in the future about letting local residents know what to expect from wind farms.
“I know there was an expectation (in Mars Hill) about what these were going to sound like,” Gaynor told the Daily News. “These are big structures and they do make sound.”
Shortly after Gaynor spoke to the Maine newspaper, the firm changed its name to First Wind. It was formerly known as Global Winds Harvest/UPC.
Local officials said they have relied on the best information available and worked to ensure the safety of residents.
Steuben County Industrial Development Agency Exec-utive Director James Sherron said the agency has regulatory standards based on data from the state Department of Environmental Conservation and state Energy Research Development Agency.
The Steuben County IDA has established minimum distances that wind turbines can be to a residence, called a setback. There are also limits on decibel levels.
But Sherron said he has heard reports of 110 decibels in Cohocton -- twice the accepted limit – and added any violations would go through a process of sound studies to decide the best way to solve the issue.
“We have a responsibility with the developers, they have to meet the criteria,” Sherron said. “They could be asked to slow down the turbines, find alternatives. It could mean the unit would be removed.”
Sherron said another factor in the noise may be the model of machine used in Cohocton.
While SCIDA initially reviewed 1.5 megawatt turbines, the five wind farm developers looking to do business in the county indicated they would be installing 2.3 megawatt turbines. The larger turbines were approved because SCIDA’s consultants said there was no significant difference in their impact, Sherron said.
But all models under consideration are capable of exceeding 100 decibels at a maximum speed of 30 feet per second, according to a report to SCIDA by developer EverPower.
Typically, the blade rotation is reduced to lower speeds.
Yet some sound experts charge the current “acceptable” range of 45-50 decibels is excessive, and twice as loud as some background rural noise recorded at 20-25 decibels.
Acoustical engineer Richard James warned the noise is not only nerve-wracking, but poses health risks now being studied in the U.S. and in Europe, where wind farms have operated for nearly 20 years.
James likened the potential long-term effect of wind farms to the now-notorious region near Buffalo, where officials paved over the toxic waste which later poisoned residents.
“This is like Love Canal,” he said.

April 1, 2009 by Jack Zigenfus
Cohocton, NY permitted First Wind (formerly UPC Wind) to construct two wind energy facilities in the town on private land. Noise complaints started almost immediately after the turbines became operational. has been notified that the below letter was sent by Cohocton's town supervisor to First Wind.

Paul Gaynor as DEP Advisor on "Low Carbon Energy Supply Subcommittee" provides empirical evidence by First Wind's non-disclosure settlement that shows adverse impacts by wind turbines to property owners is confirmed. First Wind "gag order" on their Sheffield settlement has been posted in its entirety, here, with Adobe link to the actual document, names redacted:

To eliminate obstacles for renewable energy developers, noise problems by wind turbines, was the clear objective of this wind turbine health impact study conducted by industry biased panelists, including Dora Mills.
Evidence of strong bias in favor of wind energy, and admitted concern about noise by turbines, is highlighted by a circa 2010 FOIA that revealed Dora Mills of the Patrick Administration science panel that produced the Wind Impact Study worked with the DEP in ME to dismiss health complaints regarding wind turbines. Massachusetts would then be the second state in which Dora Mills worked with the DEP to dismiss health concerns by wind turbines.
Spruce Mtn Appeal (2010 Maine) for specifics on Mill's involvement- see pp. 30-37 of this doc for the most incriminating evidence of industry bias:

Despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary provided in comments to DEP/DPH for this panel’s consumption, the panel was tone deaf to serious health complaints that are repeatedly made by citizens living near wind turbines around the world, with many sold by First Wind.

The victims of wind energy you imply lie or simply do not exist are further victimized by this administration’s apathy, indifference, cruelty and malfeasance. After receiving “all these calls” (DPH) from victims of wind energy; and after your receipt of hundreds of letters, reports, articles and studies on the topic of adverse health impacts by wind turbines, I think it is transparently and embarrassingly shameful for this administration to deny the existence of evidence sufficient to prompt a public safety moratorium on wind turbines by the State.

Alas, public interest is only served by disinterested Public Officials. And unfortunately, Best Science conflicts with this administration’s green agenda of crony capitalism and corporate welfare.

As cited in the US House of Representatives Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan study, ‘Promise of Green Jobs’, “The Costly Consequences of Crony Capitalism” of 11/21/11, subject, PATRICK ADMINISTRATION APPOINTED GREEN POLICY ADVISOR PAUL GAYNOR FIRST WIND--
“First Wind Holdings, received a $117 million loan guarantee in March of 2010. First Wind withdrew its initial public offering in October of 2010, due to a lack of investor demand. According to the Boston Globe, investors shied away from the company because “First Wind owes more than $500 million, loses money on a steady basis, and reports a negative cash flow.”

With a modicum of due diligence on the part of the DEP, DPH and Patrick Administration, the physical suffering of MA residents ongoing by wind turbines could have been averted. This harm to MA residents duplicates events that have caused physical suffering and property value loss by ME residents who have filed suit against First Wind—Patrick Administration and DEP green policy Advisor:

. August 12, 2009 • Filings, Health, Human rights, Maine, Noise, Property values
Mars Hill residents’ suit against First Wind et al.

When all of the turbines became operational for the first time in late March 2007, it became immediately obvious to the Plaintiffs that the noise from the turbines was invasive and caused them loss of enjoyment of life, loss of peace and quiet, loss of their full use of their home and land. Some Plaintiffs required medical treatment and counseling. Many have, and continue to, lose sleep, suffer headaches, suffer considerable stress, and other physical and emotional ailments.

14. The real estate values of the Plaintiffs’ homes have been greatly reduced, as is supported by an expert’s opinion, of their property values before and after operation of the turbines.
Continue reading and download suit:

DEP ADVISOR PAUL GAYNOR OF FIRST WIND IS ALSO THE HAWAII WIND DEVELOPER tied to the Largest-ever asset seizure by anti-Mafia police and wind fraud.

Subject: First Wind:

Monday, March 28, 2011
Hawaii Wind Developer tied to Largest-ever asset seizure by anti-Mafia police

By Andrew Walden :: 4455 Views :: Maui Politics, Maui News, Oahu News, Oahu Politics
Subject: First Wind:

Tuesday, January 24, 2012
Maine PUC Rejects Giant Wind Farm Because of “Risk to Ratepayers”
By Selected News Articles :: 304 Views :: National News, National Politics

Subject: First Wind:
Tuesday, December 06, 2011
Confidential Memo: Wind Turbine Model Installed at Kahuku has Structural Problems
Check out "Wind Farm Doing Nothing!" on Fix Oahu Now! Panos Prevedouros for Mayor of Honolulu

To view this video, visit:

Thursday, May 05, 2011
Video: Kahuku Wind turbines don’t even turn on windy day
By Video :: 154 Views :: Oahu News, Oahu Politics, Hawaii State News, Hawaii State Politics - NewsArticles/Print.aspx?tabid=56&tabmoduleid=74&articleId=4239&moduleId=380&PortalID=0
Got Wind? YES. Got Power? NO
by Panos Prevedouros PhD
The bottom line is that both HECO and government got it wrong. Even when wind is present, the turbines are doing nothing.
[review video and continue reading by link above]

The wind turbine health impact study commissioned by the state is indefensible on moral grounds. The study allows the continuation of wind turbine victims’ suffering and promotes an increase in the population of wind turbine victims.
The interests of citizens’ entitled to protection of their health, private property rights and undiminished property values, would best be served by declaration of an immediate moratorium on wind turbine installations by the State and a shut down of those in operation.

The State should not endorse, or fund with public dollars, industry that threatens citizens’ basic rights to reasonable assurance of health and safety, reliable and affordable energy.

I request that my comments be published online by MA DEP and DPH as offered in response to the Wind Turbine Health Impact Study commissioned by MA DEP and DPH.


Barbara Durkin

Views: 301


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

Comment by Frank Haggerty on April 6, 2018 at 8:34am

Falmouth, Massachusetts Wind Turbine Lethality - USA

How Dangerous Are Falmouth Wind Turbines - 184 Homes Within A Half Mile or 2600 feet. Two Types of Noise, Shadow Flicker, and Blade Throw

Falmouth Massachusetts  Apr 6, 2018 
Wind Turbine Throw 4200.gif

To the majority of Falmouth residents, it is clear that municipal officeholders made an extremely important error when they placed wind turbines as close as 1200 feet from residential homes. Wind turbine debris after blade throw accidents has been documented up to 4200 feet.
The Falmouth situation has been a good example of the pitfalls of siting turbines close to densely populated neighborhoods. Few wind turbines have so many homes so close; at least 184 homes within a half mile, 2600 feet, of these two turbines. The turbines were installed between 2010 and 2012.
General Electric a domestic wind turbine company in 2009 refused to place a single 1.5-megawatt wind turbine in Falmouth because of residential setbacks and ice throw to a nearby highway.
Vestas wind turbine company warned the Town of Falmouth in 2010 prior to construction the turbines generate 110 decibels of noise. The town hid the letter and emails for three years until a FOIA, Freedom of Information Act Request in 2013. The town installed Vestas 1.65 megawatt wind turbines.
In 2011 the Chief Executive Officer of Vestas wind company CEO Engel Ditlev wrote a letter to Karen Ellemann about low-frequency noise. The CEO responded that Vestas does not have the technology to stop the noise. Falmouth, Massachusetts has two towns owned Vestas V-82 type 1.65 megawatt wind turbines.
The "Vestas Confidential Health and safety Instruction manual for a Falmouth MA wind farm" shows company setbacks require 1640 feet for wind turbine blade throw. 
"This is evidenced by the Vestas Confidential Health and safety Instruction manual for a Falmouth MA wind farm. Page 10 of this manual addresses the situation of a free spinning "runaway turbine". In that manual, instructions are for no one to be allowed within a 1640 feet (500 m) radius. (See Exhibit 2)"
Caithness also has documented 221 separate incidences of blade failure, with pieces of blades documented to have flown over 1,300 meters—or 4,266 feet (4/5 of a mile). Blade pieces have gone through roofs and walls of nearby buildings.
A partial database of accidents , injuries and deaths through December 2011 has been compiled at the Caithness Wind Farm Information Forum:
The Cape Cod Commission in 2011 changed a setback of 10 times the rotor diameter of the proposed turbine from the nearest receptor or residentially zoned parcel. This would place setbacks at 3000 feet in the Town of Falmouth to wind turbines for one wind turbine.
Nils Bolgen the program director and facilitator of Falmouth Wind 1 & 2 in May of 2013 changed the setbacks of the commercial wind turbines to 2000 feet statewide. This was partially based on the catastrophic health and property taking issues in Falmouth and other communities.
The Massachusetts Clean Energy Center in 2013 admitted the wind turbines were installed Ad Hoc and "mistakes" were made in the original acoustic noise studies.
Comment by Eskutassis on April 6, 2018 at 8:24am

Thanks Barbara. In spite of the fact that the turbines are noisy and the findings are completely ignored by the politicians and developers that have their blinders on regarding noise, the real corruption comes in when you see that the economics of the projects are what is REALLY tragic for the PEOPLE. The politicians line their pockets with graft and greed, the developers lie about everything from noise to production numbers to bird kills to actual costs and rate increases to real estate declines and to the real corruption of science both modeling and actual facts.

The economics of wind power should be the only thing that completely makes it implausible to use as energy for our future. To provide enough wind turbines to get reliable energy, we would need to cover every square mile of open land with turbines and the power lines would fill in all the rest of the space. And that would still not be viable enough and we would still need gas, coal, oil or nuclear as a backup, running 24/7/365 for all time. 

Recently, the IPCC findings are being questioned more and more, the NOAA fudged facts revealed and judgments are being made against developers. They have no REAL science behind their lies and deception and a real push has to be made to bring in REAL scientists like  Dr. Tim Ball, Ian Clark, Piers Corbyn, Nir Shaviv, Dr. John Christy (former IPCC), Philip Stott, Paul Reiter, Richard Lindzen, Patrick Moore, Dr. Roy Spencer*, Dr. Judith Curry, Patrick Michaels (former IPCC), Nigel Calder, Freeman Dyson, Dr. William Happer, and many others. 

For many of you, go online and look up a few of these scientists and their lectures and writings. They have been doing it for more years than the IPCC, have more data and don't plug it into phony computer models or change the data that does not fit their hypothesis.

Comment by Barbara Durkin on April 6, 2018 at 4:24am

Thank you for your nice words.  Glad you’re actively engaged.  Thanks for taking initiative to raise voices.  I’m interested in your offering. I’ll be in touch.  Thank You, Barbara

Comment by Deborah Andrew on April 5, 2018 at 3:41pm

Thank you for this excellent posting,  As co-founder of a fledgling organization, Citizens for A Wise Energy Policy, I would like to have your permission to send you a list we have created, of all the reasons why Industrial Wind Turbines are not green, clean, benign or sustainable, each with a brief quote and link to original source.  my email:

Comment by Frank Haggerty on April 5, 2018 at 3:40pm

Wind Turbine Fires Signal End of Land-Based Wind Turbines


Falmouth, Massachusetts USA Apr 3, 2018
Hanover, Massachusetts, Oklahoma and Presque Isle, Maine have all seen dramatic wind turbine fires in the last few weeks.
The obvious challenge facing firefighters is the height involved if a fire occurs in the turbine motor.
Due to the risk of falling fire debris over a wide area, approaching a burning turbine usually not an option unless there is a life risk involved. If the turbine is turning, power is being generated and an electrocution hazard will be present.
Typically, a good option for firefighters to consider is to evacuate any endangered areas, set up a collapse zone, and attempt to control any ground fires to prevent the fire from spreading to other units.
In the case of a runaway or over-speed event, rotating turbines can throw debris thousands of feet away during a blade failure. Pieces of blades have been documented in California as traveling over 4,200 feet. Distance and time will fix this problem.
Pre-incident planning and Standard Operation Procedure development are keys to success for safely handling this unique danger.
Between 2005 and 2009 the news media and politicians touted commercial land-based wind turbines. Today your not going to read about the ongoing health, financial fiasco and now mechanical breakdowns resulting in massive fires. The blades can weigh up to seven tons each.
The residents who live near turbines in Falmouth, Massachusetts don't have fires but have reported problems such as sleep disruption, headaches, vertigo, and nausea. Today residents world wide report the same conditions. The wind industry would have you believe these people world-wide all got together like Hollywood actors making up the same story worldwide for the last eight years ?
Proponents of wind energy admit the turbines do make noise regulatory measured in decibels and infrasound a low-frequency noise called a nuisance or human annoyance. In 2011 the Chief Executive Officer of Vestas wind company CEO Engel Ditlev wrote a letter to Karen Ellemann about low frequency noise. The CEO responded that Vestas does not have the technology to stop the noise. The Town of Falmouth owns two Vestas V-82 type 1.65 megawatt wind turbines that produce up to 110 decibels of chest pounding noise.
The Falmouth, Massachusetts local town Zoning Board of Appeals decided the wind turbines are a nuisance and in June of 2017 Barnstable Superior Court Judge Cornelius Moriarty issued the order to shut down Falmouth's town-owned Wind 1 and Wind 2.
Here is the video of the most recent wind turbine fire in Presque Isle, Maine --April 1, 2018
The University of Maine at Presque Isle Wind turbine on fire
Published on Apr 2, 2018 Click link to watch fire 
Subject: Wind Turbine Fires Signal End of Land-Based Wind Turbines


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


(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 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?" 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.”

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."

© 2024   Created by Webmaster.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service