Comments for: First Wind: PUC position would harm state’s economy

Posted Jan. 24, 2012, at 3:25 p.m.
Last modified Jan. 24, 2012, at 7:09 p.m.

A Maine Public Utilities Commission staff recommendation to reject what could be an $880 million partnership between First Wind and two other companies would deny “a massive boost to Maine’s economy” while hindering First Wind’s ability to help the state meet its aggressive wind energy goals, the company said Tuesday. …

Guidelines for posting on bangordailynews.com

The Bangor Daily News encourages comments about stories, but you must follow our terms of service.

  1. Keep it civil and stay on topic
  2. No vulgarity, racial slurs, name-calling or personal attacks.
  3. People who harass others or joke about tragedies will be blocked.
The primary rule here is pretty simple: Treat others with the same respect you'd want for yourself. Here are some guidelines (see more):

  • Really?  Cape Wind is doing well, UNH is being heated by methane gas from the dump a few miles away but Maine is incapable of doing these things? Sounds like a CYA for the PUC to me.

    • Anonymous

      Cape Wind hasn’t even been built, so how is it “doing well,” and we are not talking about methane gas here.  We are talking about destruction of rural communities, which only folks in rural communities seem to care about.  The PUC’s analysis is exactly correct here.  Theire charge is to look out for the ratepayers, and that is what they are doing.

    • Anonymous

      Why don’t you actually do some research before you make such obviously ill-informed statements such as what you just said about Cape Wind.   

      • Anonymous

        The courts recently ruled that Cape Wind offers significant benefits to society and therefore is allowed to proceed.

      • tough shat, will it block your view, hater? TFB

        • Anonymous

          You probably should change your screen name to ” talks like a drunken sailor”.   Someone suggests you do some research and you rant back with expletives.  Very nice, I’m sure you family would be proud. 

  • hasacluemaine

    Good for the PUC! Finally, someone standing up to “big wind” and the folly of their economic model. Wind subsidies are 49% greater than any subsidies for traditional energy sources. All forms of green energy subisidies are 6% greater than conventional sources.

    • Anonymous

      And……what is your idea of an alternative?     Having towns entering into Tif’s and subsidizing the gas industry?        Guess what property owners get when the towns do this?   They get a tax break,   and who gets the money,    The Gas Company!,    And then when the TIF is expired,  9 times out of 10,  their property taxes go UP!       Le Page wants the property tax owners to pay for his little plan, and offer nothing in return for their investment. But, of course, he will claim credit.

      And guess what the gas company is going to do if they don’t get a return on their investment……yup, raise the rates. I’ve, never, ever,….known a utility company to make it’s rate payers pay for a failed plan…….have you!!!! Almost every failed plan by CMP, and there are lots of them, have been paid for by the rate payers. What makes anyone think that this is any different? How about road construction, sewer lines, how about fracking…..what happens when something goes wrong? Boom!

      • Anonymous

        Boom?  I grew up in a house heated with natural gas.  We heated our water and dried our clothes with it too.  I lived to talk about it like millions of other people.  A large part of our country uses natural gas in their homes every day.  Driving to WalMart is probably many times more dangerous than using natural gas.

      • Anonymous

        Come on, Rusjan, how can you possibly write the term TIF without including immediately the name First Wind.  This subsidy sucking company is also the biggest local welfare Queen in Maine.  First Wind emphatically states it will not do a project without a TIF.  They have TIF in every town and county where they put up their sprawling environmentally devastating array of useless wind turbines.

        If you want to speak of stranded costs which eventually are paid for by ratepayers, the collapse of the wind industry will dwarf all others for economy killing costs.  This will happen when Congress finally smartens up and eliminates the subsidies and when mandates for RPS get declared unconstitutional.  Yessah!

      • Anonymous

        Energy companies are crooks.

  • Anonymous

    The Headline Should Read…………..

    First Wind: PUC position would harm First Winds economy.

    Nothing like a blood sucking company that makes money twice off the taxpayers/ratepayers…….get free money from the government then get to charge those same sources of income a rate for their electricity……..It’s “wind wind” for First Wind!

  • Anonymous

    For all the reasons that First Wind says, I am thrilled that the PUC staff is making this recommendation.  First Wind has received a free ride without any benefit whatsoever to the people of Maine.   This is an untrustworthy company that has gotten away with wrong doing because of the naive beliefs or greed of others.

    • honey777

      It’s only because the PUC members don’t have stock in First Wind.  I suspect that a look at the stock portfolios of current and former PUC Board members (including retired head Dennis Ketschl) would show they have financially benefited from Maine’s artificially high electricity rates.

  • Anonymous

    Awwww….poor Mr. Kearns and his band of government suckling theives and trolls…our hearts are just bleeding for ya buddy!

  • Anonymous

    The PUC is right on track here! Thanks for watching out for the ratepayers for once!

    • Anonymous

      Yeah, not like what they did for us with Fairpoint!

  • Anonymous

    By going to the Maine PUC web site, copies of filings are available for review.  I found 330 filings when I searched the website.  In order to accomplish this task, enter into the virtual case file and enter (search) case Number — 2011170.  It is hard to find the specific filing referenced in the BDN article.  It would be nice if BDN attached the file for review.  I was unable to find the specific 13 page report filed today.  As a non-lawyer, I assume that individuals have the capacity to submit filings under the assumption that there is a deadline date.  Staff from Maine PUC have been very helpful in providing assistance in navigating their website.

    So, how will the commissioners vote on this proposal?  Supposedly, Gov. Lepage is trying to protect the consumers and has control of two commissioners.  I am not sure what it would take to overturn staff recommendations; however, I am sure that a great deal of inside pressure is being mounted to emphasize the importance of economic development.  Please recall that Kurt Adams was once PUC director and now works for First Wind.  All very interesting and emphasizes the role of lobbyist and lawyers to support their clients.

  • Guest

    People, reading the article the enacted law required the selling of dams and power plants in order to eliminate the creation of a monopoly. How many of these dams and power plants are in operation. By the way I do recall the PUC being involved in some sort of deregulation in order to allow other carriers to provide you with electricity in order to create cheaper electricity transmission rates. I’ve yet to see that. My bill keeps climbing with no choice of carriers. No wind, no dams, no power plants, no tidal, hmmmmmmmmm. What other options do we have?

    Other than those that oppose the site of the wind towers it is a fact that the wind industry has created numerous jobs within the state. Those of you quick to oppose them and quick to list the subsidy figures are lacking in listing the figures in job creation. Plus these projects have created a large tax base for areas that do not have much tax revenue to rely on anyway. Plus the income the landowners receive for lease of their land.

    To name a few that benefit:

    Electricians
    Contractors ( sitework, erection, welding, etc)
    Lawyers
    Surveyors
    Fuel suppliers
    Engineers
    Concrete suppliers
    Aggregate suppliers
    Forestry operations
    Cargo ports
    Trucking
    Security
    Hotels/motels
    Restaurants
    Convenience stores

    No I don’t have figures to go along with this, but it is factual.

    • Anonymous

      These jobs were “created” with subsidies paid by the taxpayer and by fiat money printed by the fed.  We need industry and jobs that are created by the entrepreneurs in the private sector.  There is no wealth in fluff.

      • Anonymous

        “There is no wealth in fluff” no matter how sweet they make it.

      • Anonymous

        I’d rather spend taxpayer money on local jobs than on royalties for foreign oil.

    • Patten_Pete

      Strreetwalkers and wind companies are both prostitutes, with streetwalkers the far more honest about what they do.

      • Anonymous

        “…with streetwalkers the far more honest about what they do.”

        I’m curious to know how you have so much inside information about streetwalkers, Pete.

        • Patten_Pete

          So we get extra nasty when we know the handwriting’s on the wall. Put a fork in wind and go get some honest work.

          • Anonymous

            I have to chuckle… you call people you don’t even know “prostitutes” and then you have a little hissy fit about “nastiness” when someone calls you on it.  Get over yourself.

    • Anonymous

      ….. and of course you conveniently forgot to mention the fact that these jobs have gone primarily to out of staters who have the required skills to do this work, and the fact that these jobs and the local economic stimulous only last 6 months.  Then you’re left with 2-3 full time maintenance jobs that are filled by those from out of state who are hired by the turbine manufacturers because of the special skills needed.   We need good paying permanent jobs, not 6 month long jobs staffed by out of staters.  

      • Guest

        Yes construction jobs are temporary but play a major role in stimulating the economy. These construction jobs have not gone to out of staters. Reed & Reed, Cianbro and Sargent Corporation are all in state companies and have been the major players in all the wind projects in the state. I will agree that the maintenance and operations permanent jobs have primarily gone to out of staters but that is why the state has now incorporated a technical program at NMCC to train people to maintain them. Also is it a bad thing to have out of staters move into our state, setup in a community, build a house and participate in paying their share of taxes to the community?

        For the record I did not conveniently forget that these jobs have a local stimulous for only six months. Like I said, you can consider all construction jobs as temporary.
        I’m not afraid to admit facts. Your statement that the only people that are qualified to construct these are out of staters. The fact is that 99% of the wood clearing, sitework and tower erectors have been in state companies. These are companies that pay well, offer excellent benefits and employ all levels (laborers up to accountants, engineers, lawyers).
        I’m just stating facts and not throwing out bogus information.

        • Anonymous

          I’m guessing that you’ve never actually visited one of these sites in Maine while the project was being built.  You need to do that sometime.  When you do, please take note of the license plates on all the vehicles on the job site.  You’ll find a small majority are from Maine.  While there may be Maine contractors involved, the license plates on the workers’ vehicles tells the true story. 

          You say, ” is it a bad thing to have out of staters move into our state, setup in a community, build a house and participate in paying their share of taxes to the community?”

          Do you have any proof that these subcontracted employees from out of state are all moving here and buying properties?  That’s ridiculous.  Ask the real estate brokers, ask the merchants in a town that has hosted a project.  The workers stay in the cheapest lodging available, often utilizing their own camping trailers if the project is built in the warmer months.  They often cook their own meals, but occcassionally do go out for an inexpensive meal.  About the only thing they spend any significant amount of money on locally is gas and beer.  On Friday afternoon, they all head to their out of state homes with their paychecks.  Not only have I personally witnessed this and heard it from merchants in a town near me where one of these projects has been completed, but my dad and his 4 brothers all worked in the construction trades and the pattern I’ve described above fits what they did to a “T”.  These folks have families to feed and mortgages and car payments to pay.  The overwhelming portion of their paychecks go straight home with them.  They’re not spent locally. 

          • Anonymous

            “About the only thing they spend any significant amount of money on locally is gas and beer.” 

            Northwoods, we’ve heard your little spiel about your construction family, ad nauseum.  Just because your family “cheaped out”  in the communities where they worked doesn’t mean it’s happening on these windmill jobs.  Show us proof of your dubious claims, rather than fabricated colloquialisms.

          • Anonymous

            Very interesting response there Lifetime Mainer.  Especially since it’s the very first time I’ve mentioned anything about my family’s past regarding their construction background in theses discussions.   So everyone here can see that this is just one of your typical responses meant to do nothing but discredit the commentor, even though it’s based strictly on lies and deception.  

      • Anonymous

        Easy for you to pooh pooh six months of good paychecks…. many of which ARE going to Mainers who otherwise would be wondering where their next paycheck is coming from, no matter what anecdotal myths to the contrary you might conjur up.  So, “we need good paying permanent jobs, not six month long jobs…”  What’s your idea for producing even one job?

    • Anonymous

      A lot of dope was sold at the bars too. Let’s not forget that…

  • This is a perfect case of what the PUC is supposed to do. It’s supposed to be looking out for the taxpayer, not the business. First Wind’s position is that unless the PUC caves in, they are going to be in trouble as far their windmill financing goes. Well guess what ? Get over it ! First Wind got into the Maine windmill business on the premise, and got a whole lot of VENTURE CAPITAL, on the presumpiton that the windmill’s would be making electricity that they could sell to the local power grid, Bangor Hydro or whoever. That it didn’t work out is the nature of the free enterprise system. That First Wind counted on Adams to be the ‘hole card’ in the event they got into trouble, using his time as the PUC Chairman, is another glaring example of the Conflict of Interest that is so prevalent here in New England. Adams is now finding himself on the ‘out’s’, and given the current feeling toward First Wind, is not very likely to find a friendly ear. So you folks on the PUC stick to your guns. It is long past time that some kind of integrity is practiced in Maine. Set the example or be the ‘roadkill’. We’ve already seen where Blaine House is going to wind up.  

  • Anonymous

    Stop these thieves!

    • Anonymous

      You look at someone else’s mountain and claim it is yours.  I think you are the thieves.

      • no I am a nimby along with 34 other “receptors” with-in a turbine zone.  My land is 2000 feet from turbine soooooooo DEP does not protect me.   butttttt we know from sound modeling maps that 35 decibles are at the 2 mile line.

        • Anonymous

          If you are in line to have a windmill put up within 2000 feet of your home against your will, then I agree with you that this is unfair, and I would defend your right to speak out against such a project.  I don’t agree that windmills on a distant and secluded mountain that someone else owns is subject to the whims of every trail hiker that comes down the path.

  • Penny Gray

    Stick to your guns, PUC.  Tourism is this state’s biggest economic engine, bringing in ten billion annually and providing 170,000 full time jobs to Mainers.  We don’t need what First Wind is offering.  We need to protect the ratepayers and our scenic viewsheds.  Our mountains are an economic treasure well worth protecting.

    • Anonymous

      Add to that, Conoco Phillips dreadful plan to stick a 23 million gallon tank right next to route 1 in Searsport. Pen Bay and the surrounding towns lose the tourism that drives our local economies. Once homeland security decides the propane ships need extra security the sailing and fishing will be greatly impacted. Air noise and added pollution are all that Conoco Phillips will bring.  Filth and tourists don’t mix. 

    • Anonymous

      There is no proof whatsoever that wind turbines have harmed Maine tourism.  In fact, the latest figures (released by the Maine Office of Tourism in July of 2011) show that the number of tourist visits has increased during the time that turbines have been constructed, in spite of the recession.  The claim that 170,000 tourist jobs will be lost due to windmills is nothing but more hysteria from the anti-wind side.

      • gee  maybe Penny has polled her out of atate guests.  Maybe over 300 lodge owners, guides and camp owners of Down East Lakes area that testified against Bowers mountain do not count…

        • Anonymous

          You’re free to check the Maine Office of Tourism yourself for the facts.

    • Anonymous

      I have no stats, but having worked in the tourism industry in the past my guess would be 150,000 of those jobs pay minimum wage, how is that an economic treasure?

  • Anonymous

    Send First Wind back to MA. Mountain top industrial wind is bad for Maine and the Mainers who love this state.  Increased electric rates, mountain top destruction, expensive, unnecessary power line upgrades and the health issues associated with living close to turbines are not good for Maine. Get real BDN, the people of  Maine are behind the PUC on this!

    • Anonymous

      Like you speak for the people of Maine.  

  • Anonymous

    Hold fast, PUC. Hold fast.

    • Anonymous

      The staff has made an intelligent analysis of the situation, and have made a recommendation that benefits the rate payers.  Now we need to encourage the PUC commissioners to adopt what their staff has recommended.  PLEASE, log on to http://www.maine.gov/mpuc/ and click on the “contact us” buttons and encourage them to adopt their staff’s recommendation.

      • Guest

        Thanx for the link; I did just that!

  • The wind industry has not created “numerous jobs through-out the state”- and I do not agree it benefits restaurants etc..after the people come in for the year to contract and build these monsters the area is left
    forever changed- this is like solandra and all the other energy programs that have been WAY too rushed, not researched and for SURE should NOT be in the pristine  (low wind, by the way- proven to be)parts of Maine where, for so many reason other than the electricity prices ( a good enough one) changing upward – the workers leave and the tourists that have enjoyed this State for as long as it was possible to get here ALSO leave ( TR up Oakfield way in Island Falls at State site Bible Point circa 1875) Motels and stores? I can tell you our stores will suffer in the summer when people no longer come here for highly ranked lakes, peace ,quiet birds and beautiful scenery-forestry operations? by clear cutting 5 acres per turbine how does that help forestry? I do not get it unless it is by leasing the land from the foresters so they no longer have to forest the trees? WHY BDN do you always ACT like this $ that could dry up and go away will do us any good in the long run? How are you SO sure when you never cover its others aspects of LOSS? and why do you NEVER mention that FW “energy goals” are not for Maine at all but to be transmitted to other parts of New England?

    • Anonymous

      “forever changed….”
       
      More drama and hysterics from the anti-windys.  If there is anything resembling “eternal change” brought to the environment by power production, it would be the 25,000 year radioactivity of spent fuel rods from the nuke industry.

  • Anonymous

    There is a growing body of evidence that the claims of jobs created was speculative and exaggerated.  This evidence is finally making its way into public policy decisions and even the Maine PUC is no longer immune to these facts.   

  • streamweaver

    “First Wind is not confident that it can aggressively pursue future wind
    power development in Maine if the First Wind Transaction is rejected.”

    That’s good news for Maine.

  • streamweaver

    Here are some facts regarding all the jobs First Wind creates:

    Wind developers are required BY LAW to provide the permitting authority
    with specific information regarding how many fulltime permanent
    operation & maintenance positions their proposed project will
    create.  Blue Sky East/First Wind’s initial application for the Bull
    Hill project did not include this specific information. One would think
    that with all the wonderful green jobs they were going to create that
    they would be anxious to shout that information from the rooftops!
    Apparently not.

    In his prefiled testimony, First Wind’s Matt
    Kearns made all the typical vague promises. He emphasized that the
    project will result in direct benefits to the local economy. He said it
    will create approximately 850 jobs representing millions of dollars in
    wages. He maintained that wind power developments typically result in
    wages of approximately $182,000 per megawatt installed.

    Then he predictedthe project would create “three to eight full-time employees during the operational lifetime of the project”. THREE to EIGHT jobs!! What’s going on here? That’s not much.

    This
    reference to three to eight jobs was too vague for the LURC
    Commissioners and they demanded more detail. They had to resort to a
    formal procedural order demanding “the number of on-going full-time
    employees, separate from periodic maintenance work which would be hired
    by Blue Sky East for the operational phase of the project.”  Left
    without any wiggle room, First Wind responded on 06/15/11 that they
    “anticipate hiring three permanent, full-time employees to operate and
    maintain the facility”.

    Wait a minute… what happened to Matt
    Kearns’s three to eight jobs? Now it’s down to only three?? Under
    questioning First Wind admitted that five of those eight were going to
    be maintenance people provided by the turbine manufacturer for the 3
    year warranty period.

    Pretty darn sneaky of Matt Kearns to count those as local hires in his sworn testimony, eh?

    But wait! There’s more!

    During
    the LURC deliberations this matter was raised again. One of the
    Commissioners commented that First Wind has other projects near the Bull
    Hill site. There’s Stetson I, Stetson II, Rollins and maybe soon there
    will be Bowers Mountain. The Commissioner asked if there wasn’t any job
    sharing going on among the various projects. First Wind answered with a
    very reluctant and sheepish “yes”. The Commissioner then asked if a more
    accurate figure for the total number of operational jobs created
    wouldn’t be two. First Wind agreed.

    So there we have it. It was
    like pulling teeth but the truth is now on the record. All of this is in
    the documents and transcripts available on the LURC website for all to
    see. Let the world know once and for all that:

    First Wind’s Bull Hill project will, by First Wind’s own admission, create exactly TWO permanent full-time operational jobs!

    We
    have to ask ourselves: Are two jobs a fair trade for defacing Bull
    Hill? For polluting the scenic value of the lakes, mountains and hiking
    trails in that area? I think the answer is obvious.

    • Anonymous

      Actual facts instead pro wind propaganda, what a refreshing change. People are finally doing a little of thier own research and realize what’s really going on.

    • Anonymous

      That is still two new jobs for the state, two jobs that will not be here otherwise.  Again, I will say, given the choice which would you have, say 25 windwills across the hilltop or a coal plant spewing its toxins into the air…..I would hope given the choice you would take the windwill every time.

      • Anonymous

        Textbook example of a false choice.

        Coal plants will be replaced by natural gas, not wind, according to ISO New England.  So, the coal argument is null and void.

        • Anonymous

          Although better, natural gas plants still put out high amounts of toxins into the air, given the choice I would still rather have a windmill in my backyard.

          • Anonymous

            Natural gas is far from perfect, as most things are.  However, its pollutant emissions are far, far less than coal – no mercury, virtually no particulates, and about half the CO2 of coal.

            I agree that we should be working away from fossil fuels when we can, starting with the dirtiest ones.  But, too many people are under the impression that wind power in Maine is going to get us off of coal and that simply is not true.  

      • 25 wind(wills) is the right word……..25 x 3mw =75 mw x .25 = 18.75 mw.

        now subtract transmission loss and the required sucking from the GRID to make the windwills run (elevators, hydraulics, etc.)

        You have almost 2 mw of maybe power…….so lets talk thousands of windwills not 25

        • Anonymous

          I have driven by the project in Sheffield in Vermont quite a few times and they are delivering 40megawatts with 16 turbines so how about you put out real numbers.  The 40 megawatts is after calculated 30% effeciency, not 25%, many studies were done to come up with that number.

          In Lowell, where my brother lives, they are going to put up 17 towers that will put out 63 megawatts, that is a far cry from what you are talking about.

          Between just these two projects they will be making power for 39,000 homes.  Vermont has 240,000 households, so with a total of 12 projects or another 10 they could power Vermont.

          They obviously will need to buy some power from Hydro Quebec to make up during peak periods or when the turbines aren’t at full output.

  • Anonymous
  • Anonymous

    FIRST WIND: Sheffield Project Exceeds Projections

  • Anonymous

    Is First Wind really this shameless?  If their business plan is so weak they can’t find financing for their projects, then that’s just the market at work, isn’t it.  Investors love good investments and shun bad ones.  Guess what, First Wind?

    First Wind’s sense of self-importance and entitlement is astounding.  

  • Anonymous

    FirstWind does not have an excellent reputation anywhere, especially in Maine. How can they say such BS after recently settling 17 lawsuits in Mars Hill? Good job PUC. I wish other agencies would look at the facts and make rational decisions, like the DEP, LURC…

    • streamweaver

      First Wind? Excellent reputation?  Does not compute! Ask the people of New York State.

      After New York’s Attorney General Cuomo completed an investigation of First Wind’s business practices, he required them to sign a Code of Ethics.

      Sure, First Wind signed the document, but they then stopped future projects in New York.

      Apparently they don’t know how to conduct business if they can’t provide gifts and favors to small town selectmen, if they can’t require citizens to sign promises not to bad mouth First Wind, if they’re not allowed to lease land from politicians, etc.

      • Anonymous

        I haven’t heard my brother mention any of this to me and we talk quite a bit about it.  He had to sign no agreement to not talk badly about them.  Yes, the town is getting quite a chunk of money each year to have the windwills in their town, can you explain to what exactly is so bad about that?

        If the deal is structured correctly windmills can be extremely good for a town.

        Also, none of the selectmen owned the land where they are building the towers in Lowell, Vermont.

  • Anonymous

    First Wind says that the PUC staff recommendation would hinder “First Wind’s ability to help the state meet its aggressive wind energy goals.”
    Of course, these would be the arbitrary goals that were established in the law that First Wind lobbied for and helped create.

    • Anonymous

      The renewable standard in Maine has been in existence since the 90’s.  The purpose of the law was to attract renewable energy investors.  I would say that the mission has been accomplished.

  • Lol…it’s too bad everyone will vote FOR it for the simple reason that LePage has urged them not to…nobody trusts him and it will reflect in everything he does now. Remember there’s more people on welfare in Maine than working people…but guess what Paul ? They can vote. : )

    • yes they can….and they pay no tax dollars…..but they pay electric bills….yeah heap helps in the winter but poor people do not want their electrical rates to go up either.

  • Anonymous

    So what business IS Maine open to ? 

    • Guest

      None! so apparent by these posts. Nobody wants what is offered, yet nobody has anything else to offer.

  • Guest

    I have to laugh, where is all of this wind energy going?  I have yet to be able to find a source of how much energy has been created by these wind turbines. 
    I did find an article about UMPI’s wind generator in the first year it created 680,000kwh, it was a $2,000,000 project.  Now the math:  680,000kwh times residential rate of .08kwh (electricity only)= $54,400/yr   (but according to UMPI it created $100,000 in energy savings the first year)
    now $2,000,000 / $54,400= 36 years  just to pay off the initial project

    http://www.umpi.edu/wind

    As usual I’m confused.

    • Anonymous

      They also don’t have to pay the transmission fee because the power is made on campus so you can add in the transmission fees as well so their claim of saving $100,000+ is correct.

      Also remember that they take down the turbine more in the first year to finetune it and ensure it is running correctly.  By using the industry standard a 600kw turbine should generate 1500Mw per year, that is 600kwX24(hours in day)X365(days in a year)X.3(effiicieny factor for wind)=1,576,800kw.

      So in theory this turbine has the potential to help save over $200,000 each year.  So that should take around 10 years to pay off, not a bad investment in my mind.

  • Anonymous

    Why is First Wind making its case to the press? Are they trying to taint the PUC’s proceedings?  Their conduct is illegal or at least unethical.

  • Guest

    You know this could have never happened if the Democrats were still in power.  The type of cosy relationship the First Wind enjoyed is the result of Democratic empowerment and 1 party rule of the last 35 years.  Incesteous.

  • Maine is open to the the business that has always set it apart..why people go not only to Ogunquit and Bar harbor but also to the lakes and mountain..TOURISM, pristine nature..

    • Anonymous

      That is laughable, tourism jobs pay crap.  I had a job at Basin Harbor in Vermont during a summer when I was in college.  I worked 50-60 hours a week for two different departments, saved every penny I could but when you only make $7.00/hr you can’t save much money.  I also served drinks there 5 nights a week, the only way you made out was to get lucky and have somebody leave you a big tip for drinks.

      I also worked at both Sugarloaf & Sunday River with similar pay, the pass is nice but when do you use it if your only days off from school are the days you are working at the mountain?? 

      Tourism jobs are a joke.  If you want to talk about greed talk about the owners of companies that prosper because of tourism, they pay their people crap and take home all the money.

      • Anonymous

        Pardon the tourism businesses.  As a college student I’m sure you were entitled to earn at least $20. per hour!   Why did you take the jobs if they paid way below your expected rates?   What a joke.  Just another entitlement monger. 

      • Do you think the managers of those Hotels at Sunday River make $7.50 an hour?

  • Anonymous

    Good job PUC.  Thank you for sticking up for Maine.  First Wind put up wind mills across from my home in Lincoln.  There was 0 economic benefit for anyone but themselves and the landowners.  Wow…maybe 6 months of construction jobs for people from Canada!  Or maybe the fact that they ate at some local restaurants while they were here.  Big Deal!

    The company is bleeding money badly and they use OUR tax dollars to operate and just completed a round of raising money from foreign banks.  The environmental destruction they are creating are not offset by the little bit of electricity they create.

    Bill Gates even called wind power a “cute idea.”

    They come in and bull doze local residents during community meetings.  When anyone has an objection they say “after the presentation, you are welcome to meet with people individually to address your concerns.”  This is not a way to run a community meeting.

    They are crooks, and am glad someone is taking them on.

    As for alternative energy, as a country we would be better off using domestic sources of oil, insulating our homes, using solar, and tidal power.  This is for all the folks who say “Got any better ideas?”

    Stop First Wind, stop the destruction of Maine, stop us from being surrounded by 400 foot tall turbines with blinking lights.

    BTW, the energy produced locally gets sent to Canada and Mass.  So we are getting no benefit!

    • Anonymous

      So… here in the land of the free… people are not allowed to develop their own private land how they chose to?  This is not public land, as far as I know, these are private landowners deciding to work with the developers of these wind energy companies.  

      Solar in Maine?  Do some reading.

      Tidal?  Same naysayers as the wind NIMBYs.

      Oil is a finite resource, no matter how to cut.  When you burn an gallon of oil, it becomes heat and particles that do NOT turn back into oil.  This is FAR from a solution.

      Energy efficiency like insulating.. now you are on to something that makes sense.  If energy was as expensive as people claim it is.. then we wouldn’t be as wasteful as we are with it.  We waste it on a minutely basis, then complain about the fact that we need to find new sources.  It’s like taking a bath in your camp drinking water supply, then complaining that it’s all gone.

      • Anonymous

        “So… here in the land of the free… people are not allowed to develop their own private land how they chose to?  This is not public land, as far as I know, these are private landowners deciding to work with the developers of these wind energy companies.”  

        According to this comment, I should be able to knock my house down and put a transfer station, or a cell tower, or a nuclear generator, or anything else to make money on my property without regards to zoning or the rights of my neighbors.  These were put up without meaningful input by abutters that are impacted by this project and the rest of the residents of the town.  Zoning is in place for a reason.  They protect our RIGHTS as a property owners and residents.

        First Wind and their projects are partially funded by my tax dollars as well.  Again, in the land of the free, what about MY RIGHTS?  I guess they do not count.

        You and I agree about insulation.  This is a solution which does produce jobs, and does not impact neighbors like windmills do.  I am not saying I have all the answers, but the impact on direct abutters by the construction of windmills cannot be disputed.  Also, the company itself is in hundreds of millions in debt.  What happens when they go out of business?  Our tax dollars again will be used to support them.

        • Anonymous

          You grand-parent’s tax dollars helped put oil where it is today…..your parent’s tax dollars helped nuclear…..it also made them as cheap as they are today, so why not let wind have the same ability to become a cheaper resource…..plus, how cheap is coal, oil, or even gas with all the polution it creates, how high are your medical bills, why does the NE have the highest asthma rate in the nation, it couldn’t be because the fumes from all the power plants in Ohio, Kentucky, Michigan, Tennesee and other states comes right through the NE could it?? Nope, and I can tell you I would rather look at a windmill than a coal plant….

          • well guy, it wont be 1 GRID scale WIND turbine you will be looking at.  It will literally be thousands of them..as far as the eye can see.  I can’t wait for all the death to bugs, bats, birds and animals.  No more forest….no more clean air.

          • Anonymous

            huh? really, you just made that argument?? seriously, that is funny…..

          • what is funny about destroying ice-age eco systems?

          • Anonymous

            Coal plants, natural gas plants, hydro plants all do more harm than a windmill farm, that is why it is so laughable…

          • wrong..Maine foresters are supposed to leave some canopy to help absorb acid rain before it hits water.   If all the trees are gone because GRID scale WIND needs it, then erosion will come about and run off runs rampant.

          • Anonymous

            The mercury emissions from coal-fired power plants are doing more to harm bugs, bats, birds and animals than windmills are, according to a recent article in the New York Times:

            “Songbirds and bats suffer some of the same types of neurological disorders from mercury as humans and especially children do, says the study, “Hidden Risk,” by the Biodiversity Research Institute, a nonprofit organization in Gorham, Me., that investigates emerging environmental threats.

            Methylmercury, the most toxic form of the heavy metal, was found to be widespread throughout the Northeast — not just in lakes and rivers, as had already been known, but also in forests, on mountaintops and in bogs and marshes that are home to birds long thought to be at minimal risk.

            The new study found dangerously high levels of mercury in several Northeastern bird species, including rusty blackbirds, saltmarsh sparrows and wood thrushes. Previous studies have shown mercury’s effects on loons and other fish-eating waterfowl, as well as bald eagles, panthers and otters. In one study, zebra finches lost the ability to hit high notes in mating songs when mercury levels rose, affecting reproduction.”

          • Anonymous

            Uh, so what does this have to do with wind power in Maine?

            ISO New England says that coal plants will be replaced by natural gas plants, not wind turbines.

          • Anonymous

            The engineers at UMaine have a different view.

          • Anonymous

            The engineers at UMaine don’t operate the New England electrical grid.

        • Anonymous

          “Zoning is in place for a reason.  They protect our RIGHTS as a property owners and residents.”

          The thing is, you believe you should tell people what to do with land that is as remote as it gets…a mountain could be miles away from any other resident and you would still object.

          • Anonymous

            Those turbines are built right on top of people’s homes in Lincoln, Lee, and Burlington.  You would know this if you actually understood projects like these instead of being a shill for the wind industry.  This happened after First Wind responded at a public hearing in Lincoln to the question “What did you learn about your experience from Mars Hill?” by stating “we learned that the turbines were located too close to where people live.”   Then they smugly assured the gullible people of Lincoln that the Rollins site was far better for turbine setbacks.

            Anybody, like me or “Lakefronttwo” could look at the flawed noise impact maps and predict that people on Lee Rd, Half Township Rd, and Rocky Dundee Rd. in Lincoln, North Rd. in Lee, and Madagascal Pond in Burlington, along with scattered others were going to be hammered by noise and so they are, just like in Mars Hill, Freedom, and Vinalhaven.

            In Lincoln, the Planning Board and the Town Council twisted the interpretation of Rural Resdiential 2 zone to approve First Wind without even doing a contract zone or amendment because it would have been an opportunity for people to get involved and object.  It is unbelievable that normal utility lines intended to be allowed for reaching peoples’ homes could be morphed into justification of detroying the area for a sprawling industrial site in RR2 zone.

          • Anonymous

            Having followed the Oakfield situation a bit here in the BDN, it seems as though the residents of Oakfield have done MORE than ample homework and are still good to go with the proposed wind farm.  Kudos to them.

            As far as taxpayer money goes… I don’t get this one.  Are you talking about subsidies they get to manufacture electricity?  Or are you talking about subsidies they get to build the wind farms?  They are 2 different financial instruments…. but they are 2 different financial instruments that ALL forms of power production can take advantage of.  Coal, nuclear, natural gas… and ESPECIALLY petroleum production.  If you are so concerned with saving tax dollars, go on a tirade about schools and police departments since that is where most of it is going.  Low hanging fruit right there.  OHHHH… those things benefit you directly.  My apologies.  When it comes to entitlements, it seems we only go after the ones that don’t benefit us directly.  

            Take a look back at biomass.  If you were to read up on the history of how the biomass plants survived in Maine, it was because of a guaranteed rate of payment for their power.  They received somewhere in the neighborhood of $80/MWh at a time when the going rate was less than $30.  The power was then sold to utilities and suppliers at the market price, and the difference was passed on to the ratepayers.  What it did was create the biomass sector of power generation.  Without those subsidies, biomass would  have never happened, it’s not a competitive technology since the cost of fuel became too high to operate.  Why?  Because the lumber mills, etc, all decided that they should be getting paid for this stuff and not just be happy that they were not having to deal with what was considered a hazardous waste (sawdust is hazardous waste… highly explosive).  So now, we have a deregulated market where those financial tools do not exist.  SO.. wind is somehow doing this mainly through private equity.  How I do not know, but I suspect they are heavily financed.  Whatever the case, the piece they are missing is the cost of fuel, which is the main driver behind the cost of energy.  So, without that overhead cost, they can compete when the market dips down as a result of low natural gas pricing, which is what is happening now and has driven biomass off the grid.  I can see how it works, although I am not sure what the cost to develop and construct a wind farm would be in comparison to, say, a coal plant.

            We as members of planet earth need to decide if we are just going to trash this place because we only have so long to stay here and prefer to carelessly spend our money… OR.. do we look out for future generations and try to leave the place as nice, or better, than when we found it.  I opt for the latter… but it is clear that I am in the minority.

    • Anonymous

      Boo Hoo, “i saw a blinking light in the middle of the night, five miles away.”  I’ll bet you totally freak out when a car drives by your house.

      • have you not seen the photos of Lincoln Lakes at night?

        • Anonymous

          The photos I’ve seen have been doctored by long exposure times to exaggerate the effect of the lights.  I’m sure you know what I’m talking about.

          • I have not gone to Roxbury Lake to see the whole project blinking but a drive up “Scenic Route 17” in Mexico is a far cry from one blinking light.  I t is almost like they are calling in close encounters of the third kind.

  • Anonymous

    “If we assume that those kilowatt hours will sell to First Wind’s wholesale customers at, say, an average of 10.5 cents a kW hour, the gross revenue would be $11,376,000.” Saudek said. “I have no idea what the annual expense of running the machines will be, but I regret having said $8 or $9 million, thereby bringing the net down to about $2 million. I think a more likely expense number would be in the $3-$4 million range. If we use $3 million, the net would be more like $8 million.”

    So $8 in net profit, that isn’t too bad for 3 turbines I believe.  They are also going to now put some up on Lowell Mountain in Vermont, which is suppose to be one of the windiest places in the northeast.  Lowell was smart to turn down First Wind the first time around because they were offering almost nothing to the town, but this time around they offered much more.  It took First Wind three tries the time, Sheffield was not their first or second choice, but after the first two towns turned them down they offered Sheffield a much better deal, learned their lesson and came back bearing gifts to Lowell.  I can tell you first hand it has helped out Lowell emensely, as my brother lives there, and as he does quite a bit of business in Lyndonville/Sheffield area as well the economic boost has been good for that part of the state as well.

    I don’t know what the details are for this deal, but it does sound like First Wind needs to rethink the proposal a little.  Overall though Maine would be stupid to not work with them.

    Also, I have driven past these towers a few times, they look much nicer than a coal plant would and I would much rather see them scattered around our mountain tops than to continue breathing in the air produced by the already operating coal power plants.

    • Anonymous

      Textbook example of a false choice.Coal plants will be replaced by natural gas, not wind, according to ISO New England.  So, the coal argument is null and void.

      • Anonymous

        We have yet to see if natural gas is truly the fuel of the future, or if it has been over-hyped by the industry to increase the value of natural gas companies and to make it easier for natural gas companies to secure government subsidies… as has been reported by the New York Times in recent weeks based on whistle-blowers within the industry itself and surveys of thousands of wells.

      • Anonymous

        They still look much nicer than a natural gas plant, still an easy choice to me.  Just drive by the Rumford Paper mill and see all the crap spewing out of their towers, oh wait, just look at the towers even when they are not spewing anything else….a wind turbines looks elegant in comparison to that…

        • the mill employs almost 1000 people and  generates it’s own electricity………your 25 turbines employ how many?

  • Anonymous

    I wouldn’t say that wind shouldn’t be part of Maine’s energy mix, but would like to see a little nuclear added – not located on an earthquake fault, and not where dangerous weather is likely to occur on a low lying area on the coast.

  • Anonymous

    I think it would be good if “First Wind” just shut down. We already export half the energy produced here in Maine, why dirty the landscape with more production? Obviously glad the PUC is making the recommendation….gettem by the throat.

    • Anonymous

      We also export most of our seafood, timber and agriculture.  Should we slow production of those products as well?

    • Anonymous

      Exporting means money coming into the state, what is wrong with that?

      • no!!   Mass builders sell to Mass towns that are mandated to procure “green” so they pay…$100 kwh.

        • Anonymous

          so you would turn away all the money that towns like Lowell and Sheffield are getting in Vermont??

          • yes….because all that money will be gone soon.  look at Freedom.
            My town is poor yet it doubled in value in 10 years.  Cabins sold. Cabins built.  10 new cabins on my self sustained,no services delivered, road in last 5 years.  Tax base will grow because out of staters love Maine.
            Your only hope is that the turbine pads are replaced with McMansions and the tax base that goes with it. 
            Jay Cashman of Patriot Rnewables is in the real estate business now as of his last purchase in Maine of the Moscow radar station.
            Cashman buys his land yet only promises 15 years on his turbines.  Go figure.
            Mainers and American citizens are paying for Cashman’s infrastructure of roads and electrical lines.

          • Anonymous

            The agreement both Sheffield and Lowell got was that the towers, pads, and lines would be taken down if new towers were not put up….the roads will be gone in 20 years if nobody maintains them, or they become nice walking trails….you do have to be smart about the deal you sign onto…

          • Anonymous

            Those towns are also getting the money as long as the towers are there, like you would with any business.  How is this any different?

  • Anonymous

    Finally , thank you PUC, someone is standing up to the “Wind” people. Wind is a very inefficient way to make power, and a blight on our landscape. Wind Machines are ok in the middle of some desert, but not on top if our beautiful hills and mountains.  And, once again, I say,  “no one yet knows the cost to maintain these huge machines”. This is BIG money talking. They care nothing about our State of Maine.

    • Anonymous

      So you would rather have a coal plant anywhere in the state….

      • Anonymous

        Textbook example of a false choice.

        Coal plants will be replaced by natural gas, not wind, according to ISO New England.  So, the coal argument is null and void.

        • Anonymous

          Like I responded to elsewhere, I would still rather have a wind turbine in my backyard to look at than a natural gas plant.  How much do people from Rumford enjoy living there, or any other place that has a paper mill.  Those places are disgusting even when they aren’t spewing toxins into the air.

  • Anonymous

    Find wind should give stock to the PUC then they would be OK!!

  • Anonymous

    If you want renewable engery who don’t they put the Dicky-Lincolin dam in? It would create jobs and now all the deer are gone so it will not hurt anything; that was the excuse before.

  • Anonymous

    Let’s not start a war over wind power, we’ve already fought too many over oil.

  • Anonymous

    Please, no more wind power!

  • Anonymous

    Maine citizens have been waiting for this.  For too long, these T&D companies have used loopholes to skirt the law and generate power, also.

    So thank you, PUC, for finally taking this legal stand and thank you for protecting rate-payers instead of corporations.

    Next–lets make sure Iberdrola Renewables doesn’t try the the same thing.  It is, of course, a subsidiary of the company which owns CMP.

    Respectfully,
    Karen Pease
    Lexington Twp., Maine

    • Anonymous

      “Maine citizens have been waiting for this.”

      There’s the self-annointed spokesperson for Maine, Karen Pease, telling us all what Maine citizens think.  Actually Karen, the latest Critical Insights poll still shows overwhelming public support for wind power generation in Maine.  This is the same polling team that accurately predicted Governor LePage’s photo finish win in the elections.

      • Anonymous

        Hey, Lifetime. 

        As always, I appreciate a differing opinion.  And perhaps I should have written with less ‘assumption’ on my part, ay?  I am certainly not a spokesperson for Maine and I should have said “Many Maine citizens have been waiting for this.”  Thank you for picking that up.  Again.  I appreciate it.

        I am curious about the rest of your comment, and I wonder if others are, also.  This CI poll you quote…who paid for it?

        And what was the actual wording of the question which was asked that gives you such confidence?

        I’d love to see your reference for that fact.  Is there a link you will share?

        One final thing– while I am always up for a civil debate, I prefer to spar with someone who has the courage to put his name behind his (or her) statements and his (or her) sarcastic and demeaning comments.

        Would you also care to share your identity?

        Respectfully,
        Karen Pease
        Lexington Twp., Maine

        • Anonymous

          Hey Karen,

          The poll I refer to is done by Critical Insights two times a year, and is not underwritten by anybody, as far as I know.  Feel free to examine that claim further if you like. In any case, Wind Power was specifically addressed in the May 2010 sampling.  Here is what the poll said. :

          Attitudes Regarding Maine Wind Power
          •  Maine residents very much favor the harnessing of wind power in the state, with more than 8-in-10 residents polled for Critical Insights on Maine saying they would support the development of wind power in Maine as a source of electricity.
          –  Although support for wind power is down 7 percentage points from the Fall 2009 results, 6-in-10 respondents say they “strongly support” the idea, and only 10% oppose it.
          •  Support for wind power in Maine is high across all demographic and economic groups, but Democrats and Independents are significantly more likely than Republicans to indicate support.
          •  Given support for wind power, it is not surprising that only 13% of respondents believe that Senators Snowe and Collins should vote against legislation aimed at both reducing the threat of climate change and promoting clean energy development.
          –  Indeed, nearly three-quarters of residents polled believe that Maine’s Senators should vote FOR the legislation – down 5 percentage points from Fall 2009 – while 15% say they don’t know or have no opinion.
          –  Democrats and Independents are again more likely to say that their Senators should vote FOR the legislation, but more than half of Republicans (58%) agree.

          Here is the link to the data: 

          http://www.criticalinsights.com/assets/CriticalInsightsTrackingSurveySpring2010.pdf

          The 8-in-10 figure has been duplicated in numerous polls since May of 2010 right up until the end of 2011 by Critical Insights and other pollsters, although those surveys seem to have been underwritten by organizations that favor wind power, which detracts somewhat from their findings in my opinion (although bias can’t necessarily be inferred simply by whomever is seeking the information, do you agree?  In other words, say the anti-wind side hires a reputable pollster to find out what the truth is about public support of wind.  If the scientific answer comes back that wind is hated by the public, can we necessarily infer that the poll is rigged?)  Even still, there has been no objective statewide polling that I know of that has described less than overwhelming support for wind power development in Maine.  If you know of such an anti-wind result in objective statewide polling, I’d be open to reviewing it.

          As for your insistence that putting one’s name to an opinion is somehow critical to a public debate, please allow me to offer a little historical and constitutional context, courtesy of IT Law Wiki:

          “Inherent in the panoply of protections afforded by the First Amendment is the right to speak anonymously in diverse contexts.  This right arises from a long tradition of American advocates speaking anonymously through pseudonyms, such as James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, and John Jay, who authored the Federalist Papers but signed them only as “Publius.”

          The U.S. Supreme Court has stated that “an author’s decision to remain anonymous…is an aspect of the freedom of speech protected by the First Amendment.”  This is because “the interest in having anonymous works enter the marketplace of ideas unquestionably outweighs any public interest in requiring disclosure as a condition of entry.”  The Supreme Court has also held that there is “no basis for qualifying the level of First Amendment scrutiny that should be applied to…(the Internet) medium.”  Accordingly, it is clear that speech over the internet is entitled to First Amendment protection and that “this protection extends to anonymous internet speech.”

          With regard to “sarcastic or demeaning comments,” you don’t seem to have the same outrage toward sarcastic and demeaning comments that come from your anti-wind colleagues.

          Also, I am always willing to spar with you or to discuss your views.  I will admit that while, at times, I find your attitude to be patronizing (the spokesperson role for all of Maine being one of the most egregious examples), you still have a certain civility (which many of your anti-wind allies don’t share) that I appreciate in the course of the discussion.

          Having said that, feel free to pick my arguments apart, and I will return the favor.

          • Anonymous

            Heh…

            Okay, Lifetime…this was one of your better responses, and I will be happy to have this discussion.  But, tomorrow, okay?  I’ve got all I can do to digest ‘inherent in the panoply’, tonight…

            :o)

            Before I go to bed, I want to say this.  I do not begrudge anyone the right to speak anonymously.  What I object to (no matter which ‘side’ it originates from) is the propensity many of you have to be rude, sarcastic, demeaning or downright abusive when there are no consequences.  I’ll bet that if most of those (including you) who comment online had to post their names and addresses (the way I post mine), this debate would be much more civil. 

            And I think that if it were–we would be better able to educate our fellow citizens. 

            I also stand by my belief that to hide behind a screen is a cop-out.  That doesn’t mean I don’t think y’all have the right to do that– but it means I have less respect for you when you do.

            That’s the way I feel, for right or wrong, or better or worse.

            Good night.
            Karen Pease
            Lexington Twp,. Maine 

          • Anonymous

            You are entitled to your opinions about cop-outs, etc.  I happen to disagree with you. You will find that I have nothing rude to say about anyone who is not first rude themselves.  In fact, the thing that keeps me coming back to comment on this issue is the arrogant, demeaning, abusive way that the anti-wind side speaks of people who support wind when it’s clear that the anti-wind side does not have a monopoly on the truth or on wisdom, and also clear that many honest, decent and bright Mainers support wind power.  I believe I have read just about everything you’ve ever posted on the issue, and you (yes, even you) have also had a demeaning thing or two to say about people you don’t even know (your past personal attacks on the FIW posters coming to mind).  Secondly, what’s good enough for Madison, Hamilton and Jay is good enough for me.  I suppose you figure they were cop-outs?  To be honest, I think you are rather foolish to use your name and the location of your home in a world filled with nut cases who might just take a deep personal dislike to your opinion, and might show up at your door someday to avenge themselves on you or your family (although, again, I think you’ll find that the majority of the hateful, angry, abusive ranting comes from the anti-wind side).  If you respect me less for my choice to exercise my First Amendment rights, I suppose I’ll just have to try to live with that fact.

          • Anonymous

            Okay, now you’re getting creepy.
             
            I have NOT read everything YOU’VE ever written, but can see from this one article that you are extremely prolific.  One would hope you are bored and not obsessed.
             
            And I find it interesting that you point out potential danger for me from the pro-wind advocates.   I’ve already been made aware that I’ve been profiled and my effectiveness ‘rated’ by the ‘renewable’ lobby, but you’ve introduced a new level of darkness to the picture.   Perhaps the industry won’t appreciate the fact that you’ve tipped their hand?
             
            No, Lifetime…I shan’t allow you or your ilk to make me cower and hide.  There’s been enough corporate bullying already.
             
            I was prepared to grant you the respect due another citizen, but I think we’re done here.  The moderators might be interested in what appears to be an oblique threat from an anonymous source. 
             
            Karen Pease
            Lexington Twp., Maine 

          • ah.. I have lost all my contacts and folders with them……go figure….
            but, I would love BDN to show us the raw questions again and who paid for them.

          • Anonymous

            Okay, now you’re getting paranoid, which is precisely the chilling effect on freedom of expression that the Constitution guards against with the granting of anonymous speech.  Thank you for illustrating my point so vividly.

            Let me assure you that you have nothing to fear from me, other than the prospect that I will send some of your arguments down in flames during a debate.  You seemed intent on characterizing yourself as somehow more courageous than everyone else who uses a screen name on a blog.  Fine.  You will think what you want.  I merely pointed out why I thought your choice is rather foolish, and why your path is not for me.  From that, you have somehow concluded that there is some massive conspiracy to silence the great Fountain of Truth that is Karen Pease.  Puh-lease, Ms. Pease.  Even though I might attempt to read all of the many postings that you labor to create on this blog, I do so merely to learn what foolishness (and occasional bits of truth) the anti-windys are putting forth now.  That doesn’t mean that I believe your “facts” are so critical to life on earth that I will have to send the Boogey Man out to get you.  

            There is one thing you have deduced correctly:  I do have many, many more important and enjoyable things to do with my time than to argue petty points with “your ilk”  (nice, respectful characterization there, Ms. Pease, especially after the scolding and sermon you gave me yesterday about civility).  It’s just that the arrogance, and self-righteous baloney of some of the anti-wind arguments draws me in like a moth to the flame.  “I shan’t allow you or your ilk to make me cower and hide.”  Your healthy ego is quite visible in your words, as if the entire future of renewable energy in Maine will rise or fall based on whether Karen Pease is still on the battlefield with her Red Badge of Courage wrapped around her forehead to lead the charge.  How can I resist the desire to offer some easily produced counterpoints to deflate your views?

            “I was prepared to grant you the respect due another citizen, but I think we’re done here…”  Another self-produced tribute to your ego.  Well, since you’ve decided I’m unworthy of your respect, I suppose I’ll just go off to work and earn my day’s pay and try to figure out how I’m going to cope with your low opinion of me.  It’s a funny thing — I actually thought you might be one of the more reasonable anti-wind activists, someone who might be able to have a reasonable discussion on the issue.  As it turns out, you’re just like the rest of your colleagues who are capable of wild (and unfounded) accusations of criminality, ridiculous (and false) presumptions, and the willingness to throw civility aside to promote your views.

      • Anonymous

        Based on the wording of those polls, of which I have copies, it’s no wonder that the results came in as they did.  It’s proof that you can get any result you want in a poll if you word the questions right.  Kind of like referendum initiative petitions.

        If I’d been contacted to respond on the Critical Insights poll you mention, I would have been counted as one of the supporters – and I think the state is critically wrong in its current approach to wind power development.

        So, enough with the justification of policy and statute by citing polls contracted by special interest groups.

        • Anonymous

          Enough of your anecdotal claims that “Mainers across the land are finally waking up” to the demonic wind industry, without any sort of data to back up your accusations.  Many bright and reputable Mainers, including the engineers at the University of Maine, believe that wind power has an important place in the state.  Support of wind in Maine is not merely about poll numbers.

Similar Articles