Demand for power falls with economy

Electricity sales to Central Maine Power Co.’s industrial customers fell 14 percent during the first quarter of the year, a stunning decline that helps illustrate how hard the economic downturn is hitting Maine’s manufacturing sector.

Overall, CMP’s electricity sales were down 2 percent in 2008. The utility declined to release an overall sales figure for the first three months of this year, but acknowledged it is below last year’s total.

Since 2000, CMP’s annual sales growth typically has been in the 1 percent to 3 percent range.

These figures exclude the beleagured paper industry, which generates some of its own power. Factoring in a drop in electricity consumption at paper mills, which have suffered machine shutdowns and factory closings, would magnify the usage drop-off.

Declining sales revenue won’t affect the rates CMP charges to deliver power to customers, however. Rate changes are covered by a plan approved by state regulators that runs until 2013.

Although infrequently cited as an economic indicator, power sales can be a direct, real-time barometer for tracking the state of the economy. When consumers stop buying products, factories slow or shut production. That idles machines. When consumer demand increases, production follows, and power consumption goes way up.

Conservation and energy efficiency can alter the trend, but typically, Maine’s largest utility sees modest year-over-year sales growth. The biggest share of sales is in the industrial and commercial sectors, which grow as businesses expand and factories take on new orders.

CMP had expected sales to be flat or down slightly this year, but the utility didn’t anticipate the double-digit downturn in industrial sales until recently, as news reports of business closings and job cuts began mounting.

“You keep hearing about all these layoffs,” said John Carroll, a CMP spokesman. “And this is where it shows up, in the industrial numbers.”

Maine lost 15,700 jobs from February 2008 to February 2009, according to the latest statistics from the state Department of Labor. One quarter of them – 3,900 – were in manufacturing. They included cutbacks at large electricity users, such as Fairchild Semiconductor, the South Portland chip maker.

But the February figures fail to capture a wave of closures and job losses that is unfolding this spring at other big power users. They include Formed Fiber Technologies in Auburn, which makes trunk liners for cars and is laying off half of its work force; R.R. Donnelley, the Wells catalog printer that’s closing in June; WestPoint Home, which is shuttering its Biddeford blanket plant in June; and National Semiconductor in South Portland, which has been shedding jobs and is shutting down manufacturing for two weeks beginning today.

These actions are bound to lead to a deeper erosion in electricity sales later in 2009. Carroll wouldn’t project declines, but the pattern showing up in Maine is being noticed both nationally and regionally.

Electricity use is expected to fall 1.7 percent across the country this year, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration. That would be the largest drop in consumption since 1982.

Industrial power sales are expected to drop 6.4 percent.

These power figures reflect other, more familiar measurements, said Michael LeVert, Maine’s state economist. The number of hours worked by manufacturing employees fell 5 percent in March compared with a year ago. And wholesale inventories are declining as businesses respond to lower consumer demand.

“If orders aren’t coming in, machines aren’t running and they’re not using electricity,” LeVert said.

In New England, consumption declined 2 percent in 2008, according to ISO-New England, the regional grid operator. Overall power use was down 1.4 percent last year throughout Maine, factoring in utility sales beyond CMP’s service area.

Industrial wind project targets southern Vermont

It was standing room only tonight at the Tinmouth Community Center, as Per White-Hansen, an entrepreuner from Charlotte, Vermont gave a power point presentation showing 60 turbines covering 13 miles of mountain ridges in the towns of Ira, Clarendon, Poultney and Middletown Springs.  The company’s website describes this as the “northern” portion of a larger project that extends as far south as Dorset, which would involve another 15 miles of mountain ridges. The presentation was typical wind industry salesmanship. 

Noise impacts,  the number one complaint of people worldwide living near turbines, were down played by White-Hansen.  Homes within 1/2 mile of the project will experience turbine noise which will be indistinguishable from background noise, according to White-Hansen.  I asked him after the meeting if he was aware of Mars Hill in Maine,  where an entire neighborhood of people, some of whom live more than 1/2 mile from turbines, have been devastated by turbine noise. He said he understood that Mars Hill was a mistake.  I pointed out that other wind projects in Maine have used the same model to predict noise levels and that his comments about noise levels displayed a similar lack of understanding, or perhaps disregard of turbine noise.  He smiled and shook my hand, thanking me for my interest. 

Noise levels in rural communities like Ira and Tinmouth can be described as “dead quiet” on most nights.  Turbines on ridges above communities in valleys below pose a serious risk for intolerable turbine noise at night.  Sleep disturbance is the most common symptom reported by people living near turbines.  Homes in the vicinity of mountain ridges are a nuisance which must be disregarded if the wind industry is to be successful in the deployment of turbines.  

Turbines are huge machines which emit 110 decibels of noise, much of it low frequency noise which carries long distances.  A line of turbines on a ridge in line of sight to homes will produce 50 dB of noise at a distance of 2 miles,  fully 30 dB louder than rural nighttime ambient levels. The World Health Organization recommends nighttime noise sources should not exceed 3 dB above background noise levels to ensure restful sleep.  Sleep deprivation leads to a cascade of deteriorating health effects.  Migraine headaches, anxiety, and depression have also been linked with exposure to turbine noise.  The state of Vermont has no noise regulations.

Questions about the cost of wind generated electricity were evaded, or answered incorrectly. White-Hansen falsely stated that without subsidies wind power would still be the least costly replacement for nuclear if Vermont Yankee shuts downs, or hydro power if the contract with Hydro-Quebec is not renewed.  There is no basis for this statement, since it is not known how much electricity from a new long term contract with Hydro-Quebec would cost.  It is also premature to assume that Vermont Yankee will not be approved by the Vermont legislature and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission for an extension of its operating permit which expires in 2012. 

One thing is clear - 80 MW of installed capacity at a 33% capacity factor will only yield 27 MW of capacity to the ISO New England grid, which operates at a daily demand of about 20,000 MW.  This is less than 1/10 of 1% of the daily requirement of the grid.  The amount of GHG emissions that will be reduced by this project will be negligible.

The 80 MW project is expected to cost “more than 2 million dollars per MW” or more than $160 million.  It is expected to generate at a 32-34% capacity factor for 25 years producing a total of 240 million kilowatt hours per year according to the powerpoint presentation.  I have developed a spreadsheet template that allows an Expense and Income analysis of wind projects.  An analysis of Vermont Community Wind LLC’s proposal can be viewed here:  http://tinyurl.com/c6v59a

According to White-Hansen the necessary environmental, wildlife, feasibility, and noise studies are already in progress, even though as Annette Smith pointed out, the communities involved would have been better served if they had been brought into the process at the outset.  Unfortunately it is too late for that on this project.  Only forceful community action will prevent this assault on the Green Mountain State.

Widespread fear of global warming has driven public policy that penalizes base load fossil fuel generators for burning carbon and rewards the wind industry.  These “Renewable Portfolio Standard” requirements have been employed in Europe for many years.  Europe’s experience, which US policy makers have ignored, is that no amount of wind power will allow base load generation to be reduced.  RPS is merely one of the tools of the wind industry to transfer wealth from ordinary citizen taxpayers and rate payers to the multinational corporations which control much of our electrical delivery system.  Savvy entrepreuners like White-Hansen understand the game and are only too willing to play.  Production tax credits and accelerated depreciaton also play a major role in the subsidy driven scam that allows wind power to exist.

Those pesky turbine contracts: Important questions

By Nancy Murphy

As I prepared for this month’s column, my initial thought was to present brief quotations from industrial wind turbine contracts that had crossed my desk. I quickly discovered that approach would be woefully inadequate and insufficient. Just reading quotes and clauses from these contracts would not fully convey the underlying risks to landowners who choose to enter into such legal relationships with wind developers. I researched further and discovered a wealth of information from qualified legal experts experienced in wind contracts.

The following has been excerpted, with permission, from a document developed by Roger McEowen PhD, Director of the Iowa State University Center for Agricultural Law & Taxation (CALT).

Legal Issues for Landowners

A wind energy agreement should never be negotiated without first having the agreement reviewed by legal counsel. Wind energy agreements are long-term agreements that will impact the land subject to the agreement for many years, likely beyond the lifetime of the landowner who executes the agreement. The following is a list of questions that landowners should ask when analyzing any wind energy agreement:

1. How much of the land will be subject to the agreement?

2. How long will the land subject to the agreement be affected?

3. Based on the property rights that are given up, are the proposed payments adequate for the present time and for the life of the agreement? (Note: The answer to this question requires an understanding of the mechanics and economics of wind energy production.)

4. If the agreement offers an up-front lump-sum payment, is the payment representative of a fair amount for the rights involved?

5. What are the tax consequences of the wind energy payments that will be paid under the agreement? (Note: The answer to this question depends on tax changes at the federal and state levels; the area is in an almost constant state of flux.)

6. Does the developer want to develop the land or simply use a portion of the surface for a term of years?

7. Does the agreement guarantee that a set number of wind energy turbines will be constructed on the land by a specific date and, if not, is the developer willing to guarantee a minimum amount of payments?

8. Are payments under the agreement based on revenues generated by the wind turbines? Can the landowner get information as to how the owner’s revenue will be calculated?

9. Is the developer able to sell or transfer without the landowner’s consent any of the land use rights obtained under the agreement? If so, will the original developer remain liable if the new developer or holder of the easement right does not pay the landowner or otherwise defaults?

10. What events trigger the developer’s right to terminate the contract? Can the developer terminate the contract at any time without cause? If so, how are payments due under the agreement to be handled?

11. What termination rights does the landowner have? How does the landowner exercise those rights?

12. If the agreement is terminated, whether by agreement of the parties or otherwise, what happens to the wind energy structures and located facilities erected on the property? What is the developer required to remove? How soon must structures be removed? Who pays for their removal?

When a wind energy agreement is being negotiated, certain issues are critical to the creation of an equitable agreement. Unfortunately, a common problem with many wind energy agreements is that once they are proposed and submitted to a landowner, the company wanting to execute an agreement tends to refuse to negotiate changes to the terms of the agree¬ment. The company’s ability to refuse to negotiate terms of the proposed agreement will depend largely on whether a landowner has meaningful options and competent legal representation.

1. Is the proposed contract a lease or an easement?  If a lease is involved, it should be long enough for the developer to recoup its investment (probably at least 20 years).  Does the developer have a right of renewal?  If so, does the landowner have the right to renegotiate any of the lease terms?  Any lease should not be perpetual — a violation of the rule against perpetuities might be involved (at least in those states that have retained the rule).

2. If an easement is involved, does the easement include turbine sites, substations, air space, buffer areas, vegetation restrictions, building restrictions, transmissions, and associated rights of way?

3. Is a sale of the land contemplated? If so, how is the selling price computed?  Any sale price should consist of the fair market value of the land plus the wind energy value.

4. What is the amount of compensation to be paid?  Take care to ensure that the definition of “gross revenue” is done properly. Is it defined as the sale of electrons or the sale of green credits, or is it calculated in some other manner?

5. Is the revenue to be a flat amount annually, an annual payment per tower, a percentage of gross proceeds, a payment of a certain amount of kilowatt hours generated annually, or an amount based on the selling price of megawatts per year, whichever amount is greater?

6. Is an inflationary factor built into the contract payment provisions? To protect the landowner’s interest, there should be.

7. Does the agreement cover land that will not be needed for the wind farm and related structures?  From the landowner’s perspective, there shouldn’t be such coverage.

8. An up-front lump-sum payment has tax consequences — make sure they are understood.

9. What are the intentions of the developer concerning the use of the land?  That makes understanding the use provisions of the agreement of primary importance.  The construction clause should limit the construction of wind energy structures to not more than 3 or 4 years with adequate compensation paid to the landowner for restricting the use of the land during that time.

10. Can the developer assign the agreement?  If so, a clause should be inserted that ensures the original developer’s liability if the assignee defaults under the terms of the agreement. (Note: Developers want the ability to assign the agreement and subordination language.)

11. Is the landowner willing to consent to a mortgagee of the developer?  If so, a clause should be included that limits the landowner’s obligations to the mortgagee.

12. Consider including an indemnification clause that indemnifies the landowner for any liability incurred as a result of permissive activities (such as crop tenants, custom harvesters, and subsurface tenants) on the property subject to the wind energy agreement.

13. What are the landowner’s rights concerning usage of the property?

14. Consider the use of a clause that requires the landowner to be treated as favorably as neighbors (consider how to define “neighbor”) executing similar agreements.

15. Include a clause requiring the removal of all improvements the developer makes upon termination (whether voluntary or otherwise) of the agreement.  Relatedly, for developments in the Flint Hills, include a provision specifying which party gets the rock that gets excavated to build the wind energy structures.

16. Require the agreement to be recorded (not just a memorandum of the agreement) to eliminate the necessity of having to locate a copy of the lease in the event of sale or mortgage of the property.

17. Never agree to confidentiality clauses concerning the terms and conditions of the agreement.

18. Have the contract reviewed by the landowner’s insurance agent for analysis of any additional risks created by the wind energy project.

19. Will the agreement violate any USDA land-use restrictions if the subject land is enrolled in a USDA program?  If such a possibility exists, consider including in the agreement a clause requiring the developer to indemnify the landowner for any lost government payments or the imposition of any penalties.

20. Evaluate the agreement with an eye toward the risk faced by the landowner.  That includes environmental concerns, issues that could be raised by neighbors (i.e., nuisance-related concerns), and potential violation of applicable zon¬ing and set-back requirements.

Clearly, wind farming has the potential to provide significant economic benefits for rural landowners. However, substantial peril exists that landowners who don’t carefully evaluate proposed agreements with developers can be taken advantage of significantly. Landowners should have any proposed agreement evaluated by legal counsel and attempt to negotiate any unfavorable terms. Failure to do so could result in many years of dissatisfaction for landowners.

MORAL: NEVER SIGN YOUR NAME ONTO THE PASSENGER LIST OF A ONE WAY PRISON SHIP.

PLEASE NOTE: I emphatically reiterate what all of my sources caution their readers, that the information provided is not legal advice and cannot substitute for a knowledgeable attorney who can review the details of particular agreements, and consider the impact of relevant federal, state, and local laws. All of their cautions apply equally to this column.

List of Sources for the current column:

http://www.calt.iastate.edu/

http://www.calt.iastate.edu/rogerbio.htm

http://www.ofa.on.ca/policyissues/issues/Wind%20Power%20Lease%20Suggestions.pdf (Author unknown)

http://www.kansasenergy.org/KEC/LeasingGuidelines(KEC).pdf
Kansas Energy Council

http://www.house-energy.com/Wind/Wind-Legal.htm
House Energy

http://www.flaginc.org/topics/pubs/index.php#FGWE
Farmers Legal Action Group

Thanks to Windaction.org for this article:

http://www.windaction.org/columns/17312

Smart grid or not, wind power is unwise

There is much discussion these days about how the “smart grid” will even out the supply demand curve by “load balancing”,  thereby allowing intermittent sources like wind power to be efficiently integrated into the electrical delivery system.  The assumption is that if wind power can be accommodated it therefore is justifiable to subsidize the wind industry since it provides “clean” power and will combat global warming.

Missing from the discussion is the enormous cost of building transmission lines to remote wind sites, and the pathetic ability of wind turbines in most inland areas to provide meaningful capacity to the grid, due to the absence of wind when grid demand is high,  which is during the day on a daily basis, and during the hottest days of summer on a seasonal basis.   Wind turbines only achieve 25% of the generator’s capacity to produce electricity on an annual basis due to the absence of wind, yet transmission lines capable of handling 100% of the capacity must be built to absorb peak delivery which is estimated to occur only about 3% of the time.

The combined cost of transmission infrastructure and wind turbine project cost puts the delivered cost of wind generated electricity at over $100 per megawatt.  Electricity sells for about $40 per MW on the day ahead ISO New England market.  The $60 difference is made up in tax payer and rate payer funded subsidies provided by Production Tax Credits, and Renewable Energy Credits, and the ability of wind developers to write off capital costs in less than 5 years with accelerated double declining balance depreciationf, benefits provided to the wind industry that are not available to the base load generators that we absolutely cannot do without.

If wind power was capable of providing all of our electricity today,  the cost of electricity would be more than double.  Due to the volatile nature of wind power the grid cannot accept more than 10% wind power, so no amount of wind turbines will enable a significant reduction in conventional generation, or a decrease in emissions.  Wind power is not the answer,  or even part of the answer, to our need for reliable, high capacity, environmentally benign power.

The electricity turbines generate is constantly fluctuating, meaning the grid,  even if “smart enough” to parcel out the erratic flow of electrons from turbines, cannot depend on the electricity provided by wind and must provide back up generation, often gas jet engine turbines which are expensive to operate, to fulfill the pent up demand when the smart grid turns off water heaters and other household appliances when the wind does cooperate.

The wildcard that wind power advocates point to is the anticipated widespread ownership of electric vehicles, which they claim will be charged when the wind blows and will create a kind of “storage battery” making wind power more easily integrated.  The fact is that grid demand is already low at night.  Vermont studies indicate that 50,000 electric vehicles could be served by the existing grid today even if charged during peak hours.  If all electric vehicles were charged at night the grid could handle 100,000 vehicles with no additional generation capacity.

The hypothetical widespread use of electric vehicles is not certain to happen, and even if it does, wind power will still be more than twice as expensive as other forms of generation, so it would not be an economical source of power for charging.

Smart grid or no smart grid,  wind power does not make economic sense.  At a time when the buying power of citizens has been seriously eroded by the economic collapse, their can be no justification for charging rate payers any more than is absolutely necessary for electricity.  Likewise,  tax payers should not be asked to use their precious dollars to subsidize an industry that is controlled by wealthy investors and multinational conglomerates.

A village of idiots?

The following comment was left on today’s Sun Journal online article about the Maine Medical Association meeting regarding wind turbine health issues.  Mac makes some good points about the noise levels at Roxbury Pond.  I hope he is wrong about his characterization of the citizens of Roxbury.  When the time comes in the near future to reconsider the decision to allow industrial wind turbines on Roxbury’s ridges I am confident that Roxbury’s voters will make the right decision and prove Mac wrong.

Posted By:Mac at March 26, 2009 11:14 AM (Suggest Removal)
As a former resident of Roxbury Pond, I can tell you that noise amplifies over a body of water. I have heard loons from across the lake sound like they’re right in front of me. Logging companies and all the noise that goes with it can be heard clearly from the mountain range across the pond.It’s even louder at night as I have heard clear conversations from hornpout fisherman way over by the inlet! The windtower proposal for Roxbury will disrupt and destroy the wildlife that inhabit those ridges. Angus’s statement of comparing noise from Chicago to Augusta was idiotic. I will give him credit for researching and finding a village of idiots that he knew he could dangle the proverbial carrot. As I have stated before the people that were allowed to vote on this proposal will not be affected by it….or will they?? Sweet dreams citizens of Roxbury village.

“HYSTERIA: Exposing the secret agenda behind today’s obsession with global warming”

The U.N. recently announced global warming is leading inexorably to global catastrophe. Al Gore won the “best documentary” Oscar for his disaster film “An Inconvenient Truth.” The news media beat the drum of “climate catastrophe” daily, all but ignoring scientists who say the threat is overblown or nonexistent. And across America, school children are frightened to death with tales of rising oceans, monster tornadoes, droughts and millions dying – all because of man-made global warming.

However, hidden just beneath the surface of the world’s latest environmental craze is a stunningly different reality, as the March edition of WND’s acclaimed Whistleblower magazine documents.

Titled “HYSTERIA: Exposing the secret agenda behind today’s obsession with global warming,” Whistleblower tells the rest of the story the “mainstream press” will never reveal.

To begin with, those who believe the dire warnings of today’s establishment press should know, as U.S. Sen. James Inhofe has pointed out, that “for more than 100 years, journalists have quoted scientists predicting the destruction of civilization by, in alternation, either runaway heat or a new Ice Age.”

Believe it or not, over the last century America’s major media have predicted an impending global climate crisis four different times – each prediction warning that entire countries would be wiped out or that lower crop yields would mean “billions will die.” In 1895, the panic was over an imminent ice age. Later, in the late 1920s, when the earth’s surface warmed less than half a degree, the media jumped on a new threat – global warming, which continued into the late 1950s. Then in 1975, the New York Times’ headline blared, “A Major Cooling Widely Considered to Be Inevitable.” Then in 1981 it was back to global warming, with the Times quoting seven government atmospheric scientists who predicted global warming of an “almost unprecedented magnitude.”

Today, to cover all their bases, much of the press is changing its terminology from “global warming” to “climate change” or “climate catastrophe.” That way they’re covered either way: If the world gets colder, global warming is still at fault.

But hot-and-cold press coverage is just the beginning. Whistleblower’s “HYSTERIA” issue reveals exactly why so many scientists, journalists and others (even the president’s speechwriters now have him pay lip service to “climate change”) are so gripped by global warming fever.

Here’s a hint: As “Deep Throat” famously told Washington Post “Watergate” reporter Bob Woodward, “Follow the money.”

Whistleblower shows how all the main players – from politicians and scientists to big corporations and the United Nations – benefit from instilling fear into billions of human beings over the unproven theory of man-made global warming. Indeed, just three weeks after the U.N. ratcheted up international fears over global warming, a panel of 18 scientists from 11 countries has now reported to the U.N. that the only thing that can stop catastrophic climate change is a global tax – on greenhouse gas emissions.

That’s right. Global problems, real or conjured up, require global governmental solutions. As Whistleblower explains, environmentalism is nothing less than the global elitists’ replacement ideology for communism/socialism. With communism largely discredited today – after all, 100-150 million people died at the hands of communist “visionaries” during the last century – elitists who desire to rule other people’s lives have gravitated to an even more powerful ideology. More powerful because it seems to trump all other considerations, as it claims the very survival of life on earth is dependent on implementing its agenda.

Thus, while scientists and climatologists who dare to question the rigid orthodoxy of man-made catastrophic global warming are openly ridiculed and threatened with decertification, the movement for global governance, complete with global taxation, is moving into the fast lane.

“Global warming will be one of the most powerfully coercive weapons in the globalists’ arsenal for the foreseeable future,” said David Kupelian, WND managing editor and author of “The Marketing of Evil.” “It’s important that everyone understands the game being played. This issue of Whistleblower provides a powerful antidote to all the hysteria – namely, common sense and truth.”

After 50 years of environment protection MNRC folds it tent

The following announcement from MNRC is a perfect example of how far the organization has fallen from its long legacy of environmental protection in Maine.   My response to this announcement follows:

“Please join us on March 25th at 7:00pm at Bates College for the 2009 Muskie Environmental Lecture.  This year’s talk, “Protecting the Environment: Reflections on the Role of Leadership,” will be delivered by former governor Angus King, with an introduction by NRCM executive director Brownie Carson.”

I hope Governor King will be asked to explain his involvement in the drafting of LD 2283, the “expedited wind power law”, and his partnership with Rob Gardiner called “Record Hill Wind LLC”  which proposes to place twenty two 410’ tall wind turbines in one of the most beautiful areas in the western mountains, all for their own personal enrichment.  

It is the height of hypocrisy for Governor King to support the deployment of more than 1000 wind turbines in inland Maine on over 150 miles of Maine’s pristine mountain ridgelines while speaking of his commitment to protecting the same priceless mountains.  He can’t have it both ways.

Only 5% of Maine’s wind resources are inland.  The vast majority lies offshore,  where the wind is steadier and more reliable.  All of the state’s focus should be on offshore wind, 20 miles out where the turbines are not even visible from the shore.  Destruction of the mountains,  once it occurs, is irreversible.  Blasted roads and foundation pads will be there until the next ice age. 

The amount of electricity generated by inland windpower in Maine will be less than 2/10 of 1% of the daily demand of the ISO NE grid, so claims of GHG emissions reductions and the moderating effect of inland Maine wind power on fossil fuel usage are greatly exaggerated.

The erosion problems experienced at Kibby are the result of the wind power law that MNRC supported.  As more wind power projects are approved more habitat destruction, bird kills, watershed pollution, and destruction of Maine’s most precious asset, its magnificent scenic viewshed will be the inevitable result.  Record Hill Wind is 4 miles from Rumford Whitecap, a beautiful monadnock of granite which the Mahoosuc Land Trust recently spent something like half a million dollars of contributor’s money protecting. What hope will the land trust have of extending its mission when contributors realize western Maine is on the verge of being overrun with turbines?

We understand peak oil, and the need to find alternative sources of energy.  It is not necessary to sacrifice Maine’s treasured “sense of place” to accomplish this.  We support Professor Habib Dagher’s efforts to develop blade building shops at coastal boat yards for use on offshore wind turbines.  Soren Hermansen, director of Energy on the fossil fuel neutral island of Samso, Denmark agrees with us that the tactics and direction of the wind industry in Maine run counter to the community based vision that he embraces and which has been successful on his island.

MNRC’s support of industrial wind moguls such as King and Gardiner and First Wind and the utility oligarchy of Iberdola of Spain is neither environmentally friendly nor leading us down a path of energy independence.  Instead Maine’s magnificent mountains are being sacrificed so that wind magnates can feed at the subsidy trough of Producer Tax Credits, Renewable Energy Credits, ratepayer funded transmission lines and 5 year double declining depreciation schedules that allow write offs unavailable to the base load energy producers that we cannot do without.   The baseload power plants provide energy for $40 per megawatt compared to $100 per megawatt for wind energy.  What is wrong with this picture?

Two questions about MNRC that deserve answers are, how much money does MNRC receive from the wind industry,  and,  if Maine’s mountains are no longer worth preserving, what purpose does MNRC serve?

Saudi Arabia Warns on Rapid Shift to Renewable Energy

2009-03-16 16:20:57.331 GMT

By Tara Patel
     March 16 (Bloomberg) -- Saudi Arabia, the world’s largest
oil exporter, cautioned against falling investment in fossil
fuels and a “premature shift” to renewable energy, which may
leave the world short of fuels when the economy recovers.
     All energy sources have a role in meeting the energy demand
though the fossil fuels of oil, natural gas and coal will remain
the world’s energy “work horse” for many decades to come, Saudi
Arabian Oil Minister Ali al-Naimi said in a speech at the Energy
Pact Conference in Geneva today.
     “The days of easy oil may be over, the days of oil as a
primary source for the people of the world are far from over,”
he said.
     Switching too early to “slowly evolving” alternative fuels
risks lowering levels of investment in fossil fuels and
increasing market speculation on oil prices, he said. “The
consequences can be deeply counter-productive to global energy
security.”
     Saudi Arabia and other OPEC members agreed yesterday in
Vienna to maintain current production quotas, concerned that a
fourth cut since September risked increasing energy costs while
the global economy deteriorates.
     New technologies, such as carbon capture and storage, will
help make fossil fuels more environmentally acceptable, and
advances in understanding oil reserves will help find and
recover more crude, he said.

                          Solar Energy

     The country’s state energy company, Saudi Aramco, hopes to
become the world’s biggest solar energy provider in future years,
taking advantage of the desert kingdom’s plentiful sunshine, the
minister said.
     Saudi Arabia intends to become “the world’s largest
exporter of clean electric energy produced from our abundant
sunlight,” he said.
     Oil reserves in Saudi Arabia, the world’s largest, will last
for about 80 years at current production rates and the world will
rely on fossil fuels for four-fifths of its energy needs for many
decades to come, he said.
     Earlier today al-Naimi, said he was “very happy” with
the outcome of yesterday9s meeting of the Organization of
Petroleum Exporting Countries.

For Related News and Information:
Top energy, oil, gas stories: ETOP<GO>, OTOP<GO>, TGAS<GO>

--Editors: Stephen Voss, Guy Collins

To contact the reporter on this story:
Tara Patel in Geneva at +33-1-5365-5058 or tpatel2@bloomberg.net

To contact the editor responsible for this story:
Stephen Voss at +44-20-7073-3520 or sev@bloomberg.net

Renewable Energy Symposium at University of Maine 3/12/09

Today was very worthwhile.  We participated in 4 different group think tank discussions where we discussed prepared statements on foreign oil,  energy independence,  renewable energy,   government’s role in energy policy, nuclear power.  From these discussions we formulated questions for the morning panel which included off shore wind power advocate, and ocean energy task force member professor Habib Dagher,  Soren Hermansen from Samso, Denmark,  Dave Flanagan,  chair of the ocean energy task force committee on grid stability and transmission capacity, and Greg Shuman, a solar homeowner and financial consultant. 

Habib Dagher gave a short power point presentation on the need for Maine to develop offshore wind and then the panel answered the questions that came out of the group meetings.  There was general agreement on the need to develop renewable energy,  but lots of different points of view about how to accomplish it.   Soren is a “community ownership” advocate,  Greg is a do it yourself advocate,  Habib wants to focus the state’s efforts on the R and D necessary to develop off shore wind,  and Dave is a pragmatist who understands that to develop significant amounts of wind energy will require significant investments in the grid. 

We met again over lunch in the same small groups and talked more about the same basic issues.  The second panel was made up of Senate president Libby Mitchell,   PUC chair Sharon Reishus,  and Former AG Steve Rowe.   Libby Mitchell was totally pro wind saying the legislature had a unanimous mandate to immediately develop inland wind power and the state is ready and able to harness the wind.  She talked about the federal stimulus money which will be like a “steroid injection”  to help Maine insulate,  conserve, and invest in alternative energy. 

Susan spoke of the need to match public policy with infrastructure investment and that Cap and Trade created an opportunity for Maine to become a major exporter of wind energy to southern New England where fossil fuel plants are required to buy Renewable Energy Certificates from wind generators.  I can’t remember anything Rowe said.  This part of the day was more like a pep rally for wind and I was grinding my teeth.

Anne Morin, Greg Perkins and I then cornered Habib and Soren in the hallway.  After listening to our complaints about the way the wind industry is riding roughshod over Maine’s communities, they both agreed that the issues we are dealing with, noise, destruction of viewshed, habitat destruction, bribes with promises of property tax reductions and token payments of electric bills,  and sweetheart deals with elected town officials, will not result in the positive public perception of wind power that they both believe in.  Neither of them were aware of the specifics of wind projects in Maine but encouraged us to continue to oppose the heavy handed tactics being employed.

Soren did say that as far as he knows no one in Norway has had any health problems from turbine noise,  and they have 6000 land based turbines, but he also related that he listens for the noise of the turbines and when the noise stops he runs out to see what the problem is,  because he is the direct beneficiary of the wind turbine’ output and he wants them turning.  He also said that the 11 land based turbines are sited on farm land and only a few farm houses are near them.  They are also only 1 MW turbines - not as loud or as large as today’s behemoths, and the land is flat, so when the turbines are turning the same wind is blowing at homes in the area masking the noise of the turbines.   The 10 offshore turbines are 2.3MW and are owned by local cooperatives and  municipalities.  They are purposely sited on the opposite end of the island from the wetland areas that are rich with bird life and are only visible from a short section of coast line. None of the turbines are on ridges above quiet valleys.  Denmark’s limit of 45 dB has not created any problems but the noise of the wind accompanies turbine noise, unlike our situation,  which he did not understand at first but then agreed could be a problem.  He said that bird kills are not a problem and he was not aware of the worldwide well documented cases of eagle kills except for Altamont.

I spent a lot of time talking to Habib about the cost of wind power,  the subsidies involved,  the greater potential of ocean wind, and the need for Maine to diversify its energy production beyond wind power.  It started off as a contentious exchange but at the end of the day he agreed to oppose land based wind the way its being done, and I agreed to support off shore wind,  if the cost to taxpayers and ratepayers can be justified.  We will continue our dialogue.  He asked to see my spreadsheet of the cost of wind power.   He and King have an acquaintance and I expect him to tell King about our agreement. 

Soren gave a thorough presentation of the Samso project.  He was really entertaining and likeable. He is a reluctant celebrity but feels a responsibility to tell the outside world what has been achieved on Samso.

Denmark is a socialist country with most public policy issues decided at the federal level.  The concept of home rule is considered unenlightened.  Gas costs $6 per gallon, most of which goes to paying for subsidies for renewable energy.   High taxes are accepted in return for  health care,  social stability, and consistent long term planning that yields predictable results.

The main drawback of Samso’s approach is the use of Renewable Energy Credits to offset the continued use of gasoline for transportation, which accounts for about half of Samso’s energy usage.  Samso trades excess wind power to the mainland in exchange for the RECs.  This is of course a ponzi scheme when applied to the world as a whole because at some point there is no one to buy the excess electrical generation so the concept of RECs is based on a false premise, a fact that is becoming increasingly apparent in this country.

Despite this fly in the ointment, Salmso is a great example of how a community can agree to conserve, switch to more local and sustainable methods of energy production, and reap the benefits of its own pro-active planning, decision making, and ownership of the generation facilities.   Soren has a great understanding of the multi-faceted approach that is required to accomplish a community based approach to energy.   He offered his card and a willingness to provide advice or answer questions. 

Except for the wind power tunnel vision of the legislature as described by Libby Mitchell, the other folks exhibited some broad perspectives on our energy issues and a willingness to listen. 

It was great to meet Greg Perkins, whose help has been invaluable in exploring wildlife and site issues, and to enjoy Anne and Barry’s hospitality at Mountain Spring Farm B and B .  Back to Vermont tomorrow and then back to Augusta for the LD 199 hearing next week.  Based on Mitchell’s comments, we have our work cut out for us to get the legislature to see the dark side of the wind story.  All they see is postive benefits for the state.

Steve

Follow the climate change debate going on in NYC…

News

Welcome to the press room for the second International Conference on Climate Change, March 8-10, 2009 in New York. The theme of the conference is: “Global warming: was it ever really a crisis?”

If you are a journalist seeking more information about the conference, speakers or co-sponsors, please contact Dan Miller (dmiller@heartland.org) or Tammy Nash (tnash@heartland.org)  (312) 377-4000.

The complete program, including cosponsor information and brief biographies of all speakers, can be downloaded in Adobe’s PDF format here.

Or you can find more information here: http://www.heartland.org/events/NewYork09/newyork09.html

---

Subscribe to a podcast of speakers previewing their remarks at the conference! http://www.heartland.org/bin/a/s/2009_international_conference_on_climate_change.xml

---

Recent media coverage and reports from the conference

Doomed Planet: Heartland-2: Session One
Bob Carter - March 9, 2009
http://www.quadrant.org.au/blogs/doomed-planet/2009/03/heartland-2-session-one

2009 International Conference on Climate Change: Update #1
March 9, 2009
http://www.heartland.org/full/24843

Global Warming Skeptics Gather in New York City
March 8, 2009
http://www.heartland.org/full/24842/Global_Warming_Skeptics_Gather_in_New_York_City.html

Former Astronaut Says Earth Not in Peril from Global Warming
March 6, 2009
http://www.heartland.org/full/24814/Former_Astronaut_Says_Earth_Not_in_Peril_from_Global_Warming.html

S. Fred Singer will be one of more than 70 elite scientists, economists and political leaders presenting at the second International Conference on Climate Change, March 8-10 in New York
http://www.statesman.com/news/content/news/stories/local/02/19/0219skeptic.html

UN Boosts Heartland Skeptics’ Conference
http://en.cop15.dk/calendar/show+activity?activityid=410

Despite Cooling Temperatures, Liberals Still Sell Global Warming
Rush Limbaugh program, February 16, 2009
http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_021609/content/01125109.guest.html

Former Astronaut Speaks Out on Global Warming
Associated Press
Boston Herald, February 15, 2009
http://news.bostonherald.com/news/national/general/view/2009_02_15_Former_astronaut_speaks_out_on_global_warming/srvc=home&position=recent
Editor’s note: Dan Miller, executive vice president and publisher at The Heartland Institute, is the Heartland spokesman quoted in this article.

Nir Shaviv Joins Skeptics’ Conference
February 10, 2009
http://www.heartland.org/full/24687/Nir_Shaviv_Joins_Skeptics_Conference.html

Heartland’s “Scare” Video Online
February 3, 2009
http://www.heartland.org/article/24636/Heartlands_Scare_Video_Online.html

Antarctic Warming Claims Should Be Greeted with Skepticism
January 22, 2009
http://www.heartland.org/full.html?articleid=24569

Vaclav Klaus Joins Skeptics’ Conference
January 21, 2009
ttp://www.heartland.org/full.html?articleid=24566

Two Events, Two Different Viewpoints
AccuWeather.com
http://global-warming.accuweather.com/2009/01/two_opposing_events_coming_soo.html

Anxiety Grows in Global Warming Alarmist Camp
http://www.heartland.org/full.html?articleid=24532

The Ice Age Cometh: Experts Warn of Global Cooling
http://www.businessandmedia.org/articles/2009/20090114065138.aspx

NASA Moonwalker/”Whole Earth” Photographer Joins Climate Skeptics
January 14, 2009
http://www.climatescienceinternational.org/

Senate Republicans Need to Demand Re-Examination on Global Warming
by Harvey M. Sheldon
American Thinker, January 13, 2009
http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/01/senate_republicans_need_to_dem.html

Aznar to Speak at Global Warming Conference
January 12, 2009
http://www.heartland.org/full.html?articleid=24488

Astronaut Joins Global Warming Skeptics
January 6, 2009
http://www.heartland.org/article.html?articleid=24459

Second Global Warming Skeptics Conference Announced
August 1, 2008
http://www.heartland.org/full.html?articleid=23640

Skepticism on climate change
By Jeff Jacoby
Boston Globe, December 7, 2008 
http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2008/12/07/skepticism_on_climate_change/

---

Heartland’s “Cows” Video Online

Promotes climate conference

The Heartland Institute Thursday launched the second of two videos promoting its upcoming climate change conference by taking aim at the federal EPA’s suggestion it may tax animal flatulence as a way to help control greenhouse gases.

The 47-second video opens with a headline from the Atlanta Journal-Constitution from December 6, 2008, “EPA’s air-pollution target: flatulent cows. Agency may tax livestock farms for greenhouse gas emissions.” With Strauss’s “Blue Danube Waltz” playing in the background, the video connects livestock flatulence with severe weather, while a nearly hysterical federal bureaucrat insists, “there’s global warming everywhere” that must be stopped through taxation.

A high-resolution version of “Cows” on YouTube is available at: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rFMNi-2SrQA&fmt=18. You can also download the video in QuickTime format by clicking here. (29.10 mb)

The video, created by RapidResponse Media, Washington, DC, continues The Heartland Institute’s online marketing campaign to promote the second International Conference on Climate Change, taking place March 8-10 in New York City. The conference is expected to be the largest gathering of global warming “skeptics” ever convened. Approximately 1,000 scientists, economists, policy experts, elected officials, and civic and business leaders are expected to attend.

“Scare,” a two-minute video with a more serious message on global warming and the upcoming conference, debuted last week. See http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UvLt3nU14W4&fmt=18. You can also download the video in QuickTime format by clicking here. (145.5 mb)

“The ‘Cows’ video is edgy and humorous in a tasteful barnyard kind of way,” said Heartland President Joseph Bast. “But it makes the point that alarmists have exaggerated the impact on climate from factors they can’t control, and how attempting to do so will unleash a blizzard of bureaucrats eager to regulate and tax every aspect of our lives.”

The video is available on several sites on the Web, including YouTube, Heartland’s Facebook page, and at www.heartland.org.

For more information, contact Dan Miller, (312) 377-4000 or dmiller@heartland.org.

http://www.heartland.org/events/NewYork09/news.html

More Maine doctors concerned about wind turbines

Wednesday, March 4, 2009

For Immediate Release:

At its monthly meeting held Tuesday, March 3, 2009, the Medical Staff
of Northern Maine Medical Center unanimously approved the release of
the following statement:


Health Concerns and the Need for Careful Siting of Wind Turbines

Members of Northern Maine Medical Center’s medical staff endorse the
use of alternative energies.

We echo the concerns  of the Medical Staff of Rumford Community
Hospital as regards an increasing body of literature and reports from
Canada, the USA, and particularly from Europe suggesting that the
deployment of industrial wind facilities in close proximity to places
where people live, work or attend schools results in negative health
effects, including and especially sleep deprivation and stress.

We know, as physicians, that sleep deprivation and chronic stress can
result in many consequential negative health effects, some of them
serious, over the long term.

These effects arise not only from audible noise frequencies but also
from persistent inaudible low frequency noise waves of a cyclical
nature which are felt, but not heard. There are a growing number of
scientific observations and studies suggesting that people living up
to 2 miles away from these industrial wind farms may be affected.

Many European nations with more than two decades of experience with
industrial wind factories have now implemented regulations stipulating
setbacks of 1-1.5 miles.


In light of these growing, serious medical concerns, we propose a
moratorium on the building of any such “wind farms” until more
research is done on the health impact that such facilities will have
on the communities surrounding such technology. These  communities and
the Maine DEP and Health Services must be allowed time to study and
learn from the European and Canadian experiences, as well as from the
many affected  families in Mars Hill, Maine, and put into place
appropriate regulations and ordinances,  prior to expanding the wind
industry in the State of Maine.

The State of Maine has a vast, unpopulated hinterland. There is little
need to site industrial wind developments in proximity to residential
communities if there is a risk of negative health effects. Quality of
life, quality of place, and a healthful environment should be the
right of all residents of Maine, including those of the rural north.

We also encourage the residents of Fort Kent, Maine, to exercise their
rights and vote ‘YES’ at the next annual Town Meeting on March 23rd to
a proposal to establish a moratorium in Fort Kent on the permitting of
industrial wind development until such time as an ordinance to govern
their siting is in place.


Signed,


Medical Staff, Northern Maine Medical Center

Wendy Todd and the golden rule

Ignorance is bliss. I wish I could go back and find the bubble that I was living in before industrial wind. We grow up here in the states thinking that we are safe and reasonably well protected. If we follow the golden rule that life will somehow be kind and that what is right will prevail. The residents of Mars Hill assumed that their town leaders and the Maine DEP would never let anything bad happen to them. Most of us believed that the developers of the Mars Hill wind project were trustworthy. We were wrong. Now we are caught in a battle to save a way of life.

Wind turbines can be a good way to diversify our electrical future but they are not the answer to stopping global warming. The Mars Hill facility was touted as being capable of reducing carbon emissions by 120,000 tons back when the project was being sold to the town. Last year when the project completed its first year of operations and was so pleased with its 36% capacity rating, it was stated that the Mars Hill facility had reduced carbon emissions by 60,000 tons. Which is correct?? Neither. Be careful, go back and read the fine print “traditional New England power plants would release 60,000 tons of the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide to produce the same amount of electricity”. Now call MPS and ask if power generation in the area has changed since Mars Hill went on line. The answer, from a reliable source, is “NO”. So, if there are no carbon producing plants that have to slow down or stop, there are no carbon reductions for Maine.

The fact that Maine only uses oil for a reported 1-2% of its electrical generation makes you wonder how much foreign oil will be reduced because of “Maine” wind facilities. So why are we sacrificing our ridgelines? Why are we sacrificing residents health, safety and property values? Does it matter that the low frequency repetitive noise, shadow flicker and visual pollution that turbines create make people ill and destroy quality of life and property values? It seems that, for now, it does not.

All that most of us are asking for are meaningful setback requirements that protect the public. Why can’t we strike a fair balance between economic growth and the golden rule?

Offshore windpower is 16 years old in Europe - what’s holding us back?

This is the first in a series of blog posts about alternative and renewable energy that works,  does not destroy precious scenic resources,  degrade wildlife habitat,  or harm communities with turbine noise.  Dong Energy,  Denmark’s largest electric utility does not build land based wind projects, and most of Europe has moved away from the blight of wind farms that have ruined much of the country side for a very poor return in electricity generation.  Offshore wind turbines operate at a much higher capacity credit due to the more dependable and stronger winds found offshore.  It is time to follow Europe’s example while avoiding their mistakes and stop the mad rush to plaster Maine’s mountains with monstrous arm waving machines when these mountains don’t belong to us - they belong to future generations.

Offshore Wind

DONG Energy is one of Europe’s leading wind power generators. We have more than 16 years of experience in building and running offshore wind farms.

In 2007, we produced 2.7 TWh of electricity. Approximately sixty percent of our capacity (369 MW) is from wind farms offshore Denmark and the UK.

While the majority of our wind capacity comes from Denmark, a growing quantity comes from the UK due to current assets there as well as numerous in development.

We are leading within offshore wind power and our assets include:

current

• Nysted (132 MW)
• Horns Rev (64 MW)
• Barrow (45 MW)
• Burbo (90 MW)

developing

• Horns Rev 2 – offshore, Denmark (209 MW)
• Gunfleet Sands I – offshore, UK (108 MW)
• Gunfleet Sands II – offshore, UK (64 MW)
• Walney I and II – offshore, UK (367.2 MW)
• Storrun - onshore – Sweden (30 MW)
• Karnice I, onshore – Poland (30 MW)
• On- and offshore projects in Denmark, UK, Poland, France, Sweden, and Norway

Related content

• Nysted off shore wind farm
• Horns Rev off shore wind farm
• Horns Rev 2 off shore wind farm (Danish site)
• Barrow off shore wind farm
• Burbo Bank offshore wind farm
• Gunfleet Sands offshore wind farm
• Walney offshore wind farm
• Westermost Rough offshore wind farm
• Storrun wind farm (Swedish site)

Where we operate

We have activities all over Northern Europe.
Explore our activities and office locations by clicking on the map.

Maine’s Greatest Lakes survey incomplete, inadequate

This letter was sent to the Maine State Planning Office, the agency responsible for the 1989 Report #90 entitled “Maine’s Greatest Lakes”.   This document is the centerpiece of the expedited permit legislation passed in April 2008 that paves the way for the “wind rush” that is beginning to sweep the state.  Lakes on the list are afforded protection from scenic impacts of wind turbine projects.  Lakes not on the list cannot use scenic impacts as an objection to the project.  Many lakes were not evaluated or were only partially evaluated using aerial topo maps or fly overs.

Sue Inches, Director Policy Development
Maine State Planning Office

Dear Ms. Inches,

I am writing as a 4th generation inhabitant of my family’s home on Roxbury Pond.  Roxbury has been selected by Record Hill Wind LLC to be the site of 22 grid scale wind turbines,  which would sit on a 4 mile long ridge about 1 mile away from the edge of Roxbury Pond.  In 1989  the State Planning Office conducted a survey of Maine’s lakes and issued the results of that survey in Planning Report #90.  This document is referenced in the legislation that created a fast track for wind power developments in Maine.  Lakes on the list are afforded a degree of protection from the visual impacts of wind turbines.  Lakes not on the list cannot be used as a basis for objecting to wind turbine projects, regardless of the impact to the character of the area such projects will have.

We have obtained copies of the data sheets which were filled out as lakes were evaluated.  Roxbury Pond received a rating of “statewide significance”, the highest possible rating, for wildlife,  in part because it was known by the state that bald eagles nested there.  All of the other criteria on the data sheet are blank and there is a notation that Roxbury Pond was a “flyover” and was not visited. 

We believe that the use of the Maine’s Greatest Lakes Survey to determine appropriate siting of wind projects was never the intention of the report,  and that the report is in fact incomplete and therefore inaccurate.  The text of the report mentions that many lakes were not visited and that important features were probably overlooked, and that the report is not to be considered a complete and accurate inventory.  It is a travesty for the state to mandate the use of this report as a way of shoehorning wind projects into pristine mountain communities.  But that is the law and so be it.

Since the report is  being used by the wind industry in its siting decisions, per the emergency legislation passed last April that created the “expedited permit” designation, I believe that every site proposed for turbines should have a completed assessment done on any lake or pond that would receive protection under the expedited permit law were it to receive a rating of “statewide significance” and be eligible for inclusion on the list.  In reviewing the criteria that were used to evaluate Maine’s lakes it is clear that Roxbury Pond qualifies in every category for the highest rating possible. 

I respectfully request that a qualified employee of the planning office visit Roxbury Pond and complete the checklist using the criteria that are contained in the report.  There is no reason that Roxbury Pond should be penalized due to the lack of resources and/or diligence at the time the survey was completed which prevented a site visit and appropriate evaluation. 

Thanks very much for your kind consideration.  I would be happy to provide copies of relevant documents if you are unable to locate them.  I look forward to your response. 

Sincerely,
Steve Thurston

Mountains not Windmills

Portland Phoenix Letters : February 27, 2009

I just read your article (“Transmission Troubles,” by Deirdre Fulton, February 13) in the Portland Phoenix. A great article that points out the fact Maine is not ready yet to dive headlong into the alternative-energy business. Without much more planning, the results will be disastrous for the Maine ratepayer. Other aspects of the current frenzy to build all these wind turbines is the “responsible siting” issue.

There are many areas in western Maine that are dependent on outdoor recreation and eco-tourism for much of their livelihoods. Several wind-power developers are drooling over these western Maine mountaintops — in direct competition with the recreation business. I am sure that people from away don’t travel to the western Maine mountains to look at wind turbines. This is an issue that needs addressing along with the ecological damage to the mountaintops caused by road building and associated activities. It takes a 60- to 75-foot wide road to transport all the cranes and machinery to the top. Building these structures on fragile areas on 30 to 40 percent slopes over shallow soils could do irreversible environmental damage to one of our most precious resources.

The governor convened a task force on wind-power development back in 2007. Unfortunately, the recommendations from that task force sound more like a lobbyist report to the wind-power industry than an impartial and unbiased task force report. Expedited environmental reviews (leaving out the Department of Environmental Protection and the Land Use Regulation Commission) were mentioned for two-thirds of Maine, doing away with visual-impact criteria if turbines are located more than three miles away from a public resource of statewide significance (like the Appalachian Trail), and doing away with re-zoning requirements were mentioned.

The three underlying objectives of the task force were to make Maine a leader in wind power development, protect Maine’s quality of place and natural resources, maximize the tangible benefits Maine people receive from wind-power development.

It appears to me that the task force recommendations only address the first objective . We need another task force to deal with numbers two and three — and the “transmission troubles.”

Greg Perkins
Holden