FRANKFORT, Maine — Does a new land use ordinance that has halted three landowners’ efforts to have a wind energy company construct several turbines atop Mount Waldo break state and federal laws?
A civil lawsuit filed in Waldo County Superior Court this month against the town of Frankfort and its residents alleges that the answer is yes.
Bernard Madden, Kermit Allen and Wayne Allen are asking the court to issue a judgement that the wind ordinance is null and void and order the town to compensate them for the “regulatory taking” of their property rights.
“There is no justification for the enactment of the illegal land use and zoning ordinance, given the town lacks a comprehensive plan,” wrote Portland-based attorneys David Silk and Benjamin Leoni in a complaint that was filed on Jan. 3. “Nor is there any justifiable public interest or rational planning objective for singling out wind energy facilities in a town that does not regulate any other land use activity on private property.”
Efforts Tuesday to interview attorney Mark Franco of Portland, who will be handling the town’s response to the lawsuit, were unsuccessful. Efforts to reach five of six members of the committee that wrote the town’s wind ordinance also were unsuccessful.
Allan Gordon, Jr., the chairman of the town’s board of selectmen, said he had no comment when asked about the lawsuit and referred questions to town attorney John Carver. Carver referred questions to Franco.
Gordon did say that some residents last week had submitted a petition to have the town vote to repeal the wind ordinance at the annual town meeting in March. The Board of Selectmen have not yet taken any action on the petition, he said.
Madden and the Allens in 2010 leased their parcel of land on the mountain to a small, New Hampshire-based wind developer, Eolian Renewable Energy.
Frankfort is a town that had been without land use or zoning ordinances.
In the 30 years since the landowners purchased the property, three radio towers were erected and they harvested trees and allowed the recreational use of snowmobiles and all-terrain vehicles on the land. But when Eolian presented the town in December 2010 with its plan for a small wind farm on the mountain, the community’s laissez-faire approach to development took a sharp turn, according to the allegations in the lawsuit.
Some residents began to advocate for an ordinance that would regulate wind turbines in Frankfort, and a moratorium was proposed in March.
The lawsuit alleges that the moratorium process was unfair from the beginning, stating that anti-wind activists misled residents when they drafted a moratorium petition. By voting for a moratorium on development, residents also were voting for a predetermined committee of people who would draft the ordinance.
According to the suit, at the special town meeting held May 23 to vote on the moratorium, residents asked who would be on the committee.
“Four of the preselected members walked to the front of the meeting and represented that ‘we have no bias’ and that they were not opposed to a wind project on Plaintiffs’ property, they just ‘want[ed] to slow it down’ to do more fact-finding,” wrote the attorneys.
But that wasn’t the case, the suit alleges. Committee members were all “anti-wind energy activists” who had a vested interest in writing an ordinance that is “unreasonable, excessive and [has] no genuine relation to public health, safety, or welfare of the state,” the lawyers wrote.
But the residents approved the ordinance on Dec. 1 by a narrow margin — 244 to 222.
Madden and the Allens believe that the wind ordinance is an illegal land use regulation that acts as a “regulatory taking” of their property in violation of the constitutions of Maine and the United States, the lawsuit states. They believe the committee members kept them from seeing all the information used to draft the wind ordinance.
“The wind ordinance was drafted and voted on in bad faith with the sole discriminatory purpose of preventing Plaintiffs from directly or indirectly operating a [Wind Energy Facility] on their property,” the attorneys wrote.
“Therefore, the wind ordinance is an irrational, arbitrary and capricious exercise of police power in violation of state and federal law.”
Paul Emerson, a Frankfort landowner whose property was not located close to the site of the proposed wind turbine facility and who did not serve on the wind ordinance committee, said Tuesday that all along, his concern has been property rights.
“It’s the landowner’s land. A person should be able to do what they want. That’s the way I feel,” he said. “But the town voted. They voted for the ordinance. There’s really nothing anybody can say about that.”
These wind developers apparently will stop at nothing in their quest to ruin our state’s mountain tops while padding their pockets with truckloads of Federal subsidy dollars and huge profits from selling their carbon credits to gross industrial polluters. You can bet your bottom dollar that Eolian is paying for the cost of this groundless lawsuit one way or another. They know no shame. They will destroy the fabric of small towns pitting brothers against brothers, and fathers against sons in search of the big Federal pay off.
Eolain is breaking new ground here. Even though the majority of the town’s citizen’s got behind a strong town ordinance that basically says “No thanks, we’ve seen the results of the wind power projects in other towns in Maine and we choose to say NO to your offer”, Eolian is bound and determinded to build this project despite what the towns citizen’s want. Greed at an unprecedented level.
If you care so much about Maine’s mountain tops, why don’t you buy them?
Because I don’t need to own something to appreciate it.
I believe that a landowner should be able to do anything he/she wants with their property AS LONG AS it doesn’t depreciate their neighbor’s property. There have numerous studies that have shown that homes or camps in rural areas who’s natural views are corrupted by these 44 story tall wind turbines, suffer 25-40% value depreciation.
To me, having these industrial eyesores dominate the natural landscape is not much different than having a commerical pig farm next door.
And let’s not forget about the coming significant drop off in sporting tourism that will occur. Many people come here for a remote wilderness character vacation. They appreciating seeing our wildlife who’s habitat is being fragmented by these projects. They appreciate the inky black sky and to view the skyscape that they never get to see at home. Now that skyscape is dominated by a several mile long string of red flashing lights 440 ft. above teh ridgeline. If these people didn’t care about doing all this in the shadows of industrial energy projects that dominate the entire landscape with their out of scale size, chances are they could save a lot of time and money be recreating nearer home. Let’s not foget that tourism in this state is our largest industry, and it employs at least 170,000 people in full or part time jobs. Let’s not bite the hand that feeds us.
I’m so glad you appreciate the mountain. I own part of it but live out of town. Would you mind going up there for me once in a while and pick up the trash, the empties and clean up the graffiti for me? Some residents do not respect my property.
“And let’s not forget about the coming significant drop off in sporting tourism that will occur…”
This is laughable. 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 have increased during the time that turbines have been constructed in Maine, in spite of the recession. The claim of tourists abandoning Maine over windmills is like claiming that “nobody comes here because it’s too crowded.” If the wall to wall people, ozone alerts and hour-long traffic jams to visit Acadia don’t keep tourists away, then how many people will stay away due to windmills? Just more hysteria from the anti-windys.
you know what? i did 20 years ago…nice southern exposure, springs running under ground.
Our 60 acres was our dream scape. We still spend weeks and months up there while we can.
Now…because town and WIND have an agenda all civil rights are twisted.
Yep, you guessed it. My acreage is 2000-3500 feet from planned GRID scale turbines (3mw).
I was told a done deal. Then some very visionary people had me looking at Europe and California and all the problems of subsidized energies. GRID scale WIND will fall and your GRID rates will sky..sky rocket… GOod luck to Mainers.
windtaskforce.org
“Even though the majority of the town’s citizen’s got behind a strong town ordinance that basically says “No thanks…”
Actually, the ordinance passed by a slim margin of 244 to 222, which means that a significant percentage of Frankfort residents wanted to allow the possibility of windmills in town. What do you care, anyway, Big Wind? It’s not your town and it’s not your land.
The Constitution of the United States
Amendment 4 – Search and Seizure.
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects (Property), against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Amendment 5 – Trial and Punishment, Compensation for Takings. Excerpt
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; .
. . . nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself,
(as in “pleading the 5th”)
. . nor be deprived of life, liberty, or PROPERTY, without due process of law;
NOR shall Private Property be Taken for Public Use, Without Just Compensation.
Meaning that one may not exercise their property rights when their actions deprive others of their rights. Private property is not being taken, it remains the owners’. They may continue as in the past. They may not have wind turbines. Do towns have to regulate ALL development? No. If towns did regulate all development, at some point some new unheard of thing would come along and point out that they were not included in the original regulation and therefore they are exempt. It is a stretch to think because all dev. is not regulated by a comp. plan that one specific type cannot be.
Constitution of The State Of MAINE
Article I. Declaration of Rights.
Section 1. Natural Rights.
All people are born equally free and independent, and have certain natural, inherent and unalienable rights, among which are those of enjoying and defending life and liberty, Acquiring, Possessing and Protecting Property, and of pursuing and obtaining safety and happiness.
Section 21. Private Property, when to be taken.
Private property shall not be taken for public uses without just compensation; nor unless the public exigencies require it. (Only in an Emergency)
Section 24. Other Rights Not Impaired.
The enumeration of certain rights shall Not impair Nor Deny OTHERS (other rights) Retained by the people.
The wind industry is all about crushing citizens’ rights. They whine like babies when something doesn’t go their way.
I think when it comes to the wind scammers, you are confusing the Constitution with Cons in Institutions – which is what they deserve to be.
Patten Pete, the ultimate whiner, whining about other whiners. That’s rich.
Then let’s leave no room for you to analyze what I say with a more simple statement of fact.
Game over.
Your simplistic arguments (“they whine like babies when something doesn’t go their way”) don’t require “analysis.”
Property rights cut both ways. These so called landowners do not live in Town, let alone anywhere close to the proposed six, 450 foot plus tall wind turbines. They will not have to live with the effects of 24-hour noise disturbance, flicker and reduced property values. Perhaps the reporter found no one to talk to from the ordinance committee, because of her obvious pro-wind reporting bias from past articles. It sure looks like the wind company, absentee landowners and a small minority of pro-wind backers are working together on this. I sure hope the Town attorney takes note of this.
This so called owner has a bonafide legal deed to Mt. Waldo, do you? This so called landowner pays property taxes to pay for things she does not use, such as police, roads, snow plows, and schools. But you get to benefit from my taxes. Ive been to Frankfort, I doubt the wind towers will be an eyesore. As for ruining tourism, Frankfort doesn’t even have a lodge! Just what do tourists do there? So you don’t want to look at wind towers, yet you already see radio towers? It is not your land and it really does not hurt anyone who lives there. No one lives close enough to even hear it. If I want to invest in “an obsolete energy” that is my business, not yours and when YOU buy the mountain, then you can do with you want with it
Put it up for sale!
I just researched land for sale in Waldo county. An 85 acre parcel in Searsport with water views is listed for $599,000.00. That is $3328 per acre. Our parcel is somewhere around 600+ acres and as you know has amazing views. If you want to buy it for 19,966,666.00 it is yours. Until then, I should be able to decide what I do with it.
We need to get off from foreign oil….but to do that we cannot have wind mills because they are ugly and loud and we cannot have hydro dams because it interferes with fish spawning. So that leaves us with solar power…which is ok…as long as the panels are small, not ugly and don’t reflect the sun too much…because that would be just annoying.
If you knew anything about this subject at all, you’d know that these massive wind projects in Maine have absolutely no chance of “getting us off foreign oil”. In the state of Maine there is only one , yes ONE, oil fired electric generating facility, and it’s only used sparingly at times of peak power demand. The amount of power that facility generates as a portion of all of our power is totally negligable. So you can plant 10,000 of these turbines into the landscape and it won’t make a tinkers damn of difference in the amount of foreign oil Maine uses. Do some reading on the subject, don’t just continue to regurgitate the wind lobbies sound bite PR campaign.
“If you knew anything about this subject at all, you’d know that these massive wind projects in Maine have absolutely no chance of getting us off foreign oil.”
Because of the fact that your fiddle plays only one note, Northwoods, you can’t seem to figure out that electric heat could replace Maine’s massive dependence on oil for heat. In that way, new sources of domestic electricity production could have a massive impact on Maine’s dependence on heating oil. Of course, I suspect you’d be happy to remain beholden to OPEC for energy.
Do you have any numbers for how much wind power would be required to heat New England’s homes with electricity? We’ll have to have a tremendous increase in conventional electricity generation to pick up the slack when it’s cold and the wind’s not blowing. So, what fuel would you propose for the generation of electricity when the wind isn’t blowing?
The engineering department at the University of Maine is actively researching these problems as we speak. Their thoughts on the topic are well publicized, and beyond that, you can ask the researchers themselves about their theories and plans. Why don’t you talk to them?
Look at you quick to respond with such hostility. Obviously these wind mills are completely useless and generate zero energy. Since these wind mills generate zero energy, they are obviously just attempting to put these up to enrage people like you….
Give me a break. Read Lifetime_Mainah’s comment below and educate yourself, because you obviously know nothing about the subject at all.
Do you have any idea how much New England electricity consumption would increase if everyone converted to electric heat? When the wind wasn’t blowing, we’d have to start firing up the oil burning generators that have mostly been sitting idle. Just swapping out oil for electric heat is nowhere near as simple as its promoters let on.
If switching to electricity is such a terrific idea, why isn’t it already being done? Our electricity supply is already much cleaner than oil. What are we waiting for? Do you have electric heat?
If we’re going to switch to electric heat, let’s start with a discussion of the cascade of peripheral problems and expenses that will result. We can start with where all that extra electricity is going to come from when the wind is not blowing.
And of course, we haven’t even addressed all the oil used for transportation. Let me guess – electric cars – right? Same question. Where does the electricity for those cars come from when the wind isn’t blowing? New fossil fuel generators, maybe?
It’s not that we shouldn’t be looking at all of our alternatives. But, if we’re seriously considering a switch to electric heat, let’s have the full discussion, not just the promotional soundbites.
Much has been spoken by engineering experts about these challenges. Yes, just swapping out oil for electricity isn’t simple. But what would you have us do? Accept the status quo indefinitely, which has Maine totally and dangerously reliant on heating oil? Already, at the whims of OPEC and other speculators, Mainers can be faced with either heating their homes with expensive oil or putting food on the table or medicine in the cabinet. The full discussion is already underway. For instance, engineering researchers like Prof Dagher at UMaine say that electric cars have the potential of serving as a massive pool of batteries that absorbs renewable energy while conditions are ripe for production. I say, “give them a chance.”
I would love to see Mainers abandon fuel oil for heating, though I think that characterizing the use of heating oil as a “dangerous” dependence is a bit over the top – something I expect in campaigns from special interest groups. Most people having problems buying fuel oil to heat would probably also have trouble buying electricity to heat. I don’t know if you’ve ever heated with electricity or not. I have, in a cheaper market than Maine. The electric bill will take your breath away. So, unless you have a guaranteed, uninterrupted cheap source of electricity, get ready.
If you really believe that the dependence is dangerous and that people will starve or freeze to death, then you should probably be advocating for natural gas heating. It’s many times cleaner than oil, likely to be cheap for a long time and can be deployed in a shorter period of time than the enormous amount of wind power it would take to heat New England. Maine’s current offshore wind capacity goal is still 18 years away and probably inadequate to heat too terribly many homes – and of course, that would be intermittently available.Actually, I think the offshore wind situation has, so far, been handled much better than onshore. At least there, the process seems to have been more thoughtful and deliberate. I wish that Dr. Dagher would be a little more open with some of his calculations and assumptions, though. So far, it seems he’s speaking publicly only in broad concepts. Offshore wind still has to legitimately report the expected impacts on marine life and those who make their living on the ocean. We’ll have to be vigilant to be sure that doesn’t get glossed over as it has with onshore wind development. And, of course, it has to prove that it’s financially feasible without permanent taxpayer funding.
I have spoken with an engineer, an economist and three wildlife biologists, each a faculty member at the University of Maine, as well as an economist in private practice (who was formerly on the U of M faculty.) All six are strong skeptics of Maine’s current approach to wind development. Dr. Dagher, notwithstanding, there is not uniform agreement at the U of M that wind power is everything it’s cracked up to be.
So, in summary, I think giving them a chance is a good idea. But, that’s not what we’re doing with onshore wind development. We’re barreling ahead with rapid development with no real certainty that much is actually going to be accomplished. Not only are we barreling ahead, now we have the NRCM and other special interests wanting to step on the accelerator and increase our commitment to onshore wind development with a referendum. I don’t think they’re interested in working through the problems before committing our states irreplaceable resources to wind development.
If Lifetime Mainah is your refernce to intelligence on this topic then I won’t bother trying to get you to do some research into the matter to get a better understanding of the subject matter. He’s a blowhard knwo it all who frequents these threads just to argue.
The plaintiff’s lawsuit states “the wind ordinance is a
regulatory taking of Plaintiffs’ property in violation of the constitutions of
the state of Maine and the United States.”
I respectfully submit that the plaintiffs have it
backwards. If they could install a wind
energy plant on their property without affecting others, there wouldn’t be a
problem. But an industrial plant’s
sounds and smells and appearance do not stop short at a property line. A blazed line or corner post doesn’t restrict
or contain the impacts of a development with the scope and scale of industrial
wind.
All
around the world, innocent people who are NOT receiving large sums of money for
wind leases are experiencing a ‘taking’ of their properties. Certified real estate expert and appraiser
Mike McCann has undertaken several studies regarding property values in
proximity to wind energy plants.
He
states, “The approval of wind energy projects within close proximity to
occupied homes is tantamount to an inverse condemnation, or regulatory taking
of private property rights, as the noise and impacts are in some respects a
physical invasion, an easement in gross over neighboring properties, and the
direct impacts reduce property values and the rights of nearby neighbors.”
This
issue is difficult. No one wants to deny
a landowner a large profit from a lease.
But grid-scale wind facilities aren’t benign, and townspeople have the
right to protect their health, quality of life, and property values from an
adverse taking.
I remember when there was talk about building a nuclear power plant in Sandy Point on the Penobscot River. Any objections???
New nuke tech is different from the half century old stuff that is falling apart and needs to be replaced. It should be considered on the science and not by politicians who are bribed by the lawyer/lobbyists or deliberately misled like by the wind cabal.
You’ve still gotta do something with the spent radioactive fuel… and that’s an extremely expensive proposition, not even mentioning the potential harm to the environment.
Dear Abby:
I suugest you call the Maine State Planning Office and ask them whether a Town may enact an ordinance without having a comprehensive plan. I think they will tell you that the Town may pass an ordinance without a comprehensive plan. Now that would be some real journalism!
New license plate “Maine – The Opposition State”.
Great to see that someone is finally taking a stand against the unlawful results of emotional reactions to wind turbines.
The property owners are not building anything. They are LEASING their property so they do not have to be anywhere the turbines when operating. Silk and Leoni must realize that wind turbines are not like any other form of development and therefore should not be treated like just another shed being built or an addition to one’s home. That they are INDUSTRIAL STRUCTURES, they spin and make objectionable noise and emit infrasound and hurt other peoples’ property values makes the town well within its’ rights to regulate them. Might Silk and Leoni be paid for by another big wind developer with ties to the legal community in Portland? The lack of a comprehensive plan is meaningless as many towns do not have such a capricious and arbitrary plan. So what?
Isn’t this an interesting development, the wind developers pursuing an alleged illegal regulatory taking case?
The only real “illegal taking” is that being conducted by the wind power developers with full concurrence from Maine DEP and expedited by a Maine legislature still intoxicated with Al Gore “renewable” Kool Aide.
Making homes near wind power developments uninhabitable because of noise and shadow flicker has occurred in Freedom, Mars Hill and Vinalhaven and will soon be repeated in Oakfield.
Can we expect a class action lawsuit in the future to recover loss of property and loss of property value as a result of industrial wind development near homes?
Industrial eyesores and hazards that drive down the value of people’s property, rob them of their livelihoods, degrade their preferred way of life, jeopardize their health, sometimes even put their lives at risk — these are common enough modern day horrors operated by huge rapacious corporations of almost unimaginable wealth and power. We must do what we can to oppose them. That starts with understanding what these corporations are.
If, as the jurisprudential prostitutes on the U.S. Supreme Court so torturously define it, a big corporation really is a person, then that person is a cunning and extraordinarily wealthy sociopath who in the single-minded pursuit of still greater wealth stops at nothing legal and where sufficiently thwarted by law expends vast sums to ensure the law is changed or hobbled.
I personally don’t believe in corporations being persons. They’re just incredibly complicated intellectual instruments gone awry. It is, however, useful when real human beings employed by these corporations offer promises and tell us lies to remember that as far as truth and trust are concerned we might as well be listening to people like Ted Bundy amiably explain why he’d love to go out with our sister.
My heart goes out to the people of Frankfort. I hope you prevail in maintaining your democratically determined choice of saying no to Maine’s current windmill scam.
What you folks are up against is also something people in my area of upper Penobscot Bay must once again deal with. We call it Big Tank and we say no thanks. This is a $40 million plan by ConocoPhillips and the gas spinoff of Duke Energy to build a $40 million marine terminal at Searsport for liquefied propane gas. Remember the concerns about LNG? This is the same thing only volume for volume it packs about twice the potential energy. When you fill up a tank the height of a 14-story building with 22.7 million gallons of liquefied propane that necessarily must always be kept refrigerated to 44 degrees below zero F. and then something goes wrong, the potential blast and thermal energy that could be abruptly released is equivalent to some two or three dozen atom bombs such as the one that destroyed Hiroshima.
The company’s Ted Bundys have been telling us about $80,000 jobs that some lucky Searsporter just might snare. Yeah, right, for pumping fuel into 100,000-pound tanker trucks at a rate of up to one every 5 minutes around the clock. No, we’re thinking of all the jobs that would be lost. After all, our economy is almost entirely centered on what makes Searsport attractive now, what makes it a magnet for tourists, for antiques shopper, for retired people and for small business and entrepreneurial people. These are not generally people who choose to recreate in and retire to and make a living in Bayonne, N.J.
To learn more, check out thanksbutnotank.org. We’ll be giving a presentation this evening, Jan. 25, at 7 p.m. at the North Searsport Christian Center on Mount Ephraim Road in North Searsport. To broaden your perspective still further, come the following day to our own Town Hall within the Big Tank blast zone in downtown Searsport at what for working people is an awkwardly scheduled 5:30 p.m. That’s when you can hear from some of Ted Bundy’s stand-ins from Big Gas as they deliver their special dog-and-pony show about why a propane terminal unnecessary to Maine (the propane may very well be going in the opposite direction) is a terrific idea to locate looming immediately over our residential and commercial neighborhoods. We’ll also be there for the Q and A trying to sort out the truth. Join us.
Taber, if you keep driving out industry you are going to run out of hard working tax payers that the state depends on to write checks to people like you to stay home and crusade.
Ignore the message, attack the messenger. I thought better of you, Frankforter. By the way, I’m truly blindsided to learn from you that some taxpayers, hardworking or not but presumably in the pay of big industrial firms, are sending me checks so I can, as you say, stay home and crusade. Wonders will never cease!
So, that’s one reason why one wonder I’d love to believe in is more people waking up to how much we are all manipulated by corporate power.
Peter I realize big buisness is not directly sending you or anyone else money. My point is every state relies on taxes and income to keep the show on the road. There seem to be an abundance of people in our state that dont feel the need to work and pay taxes. They seem to have plenty of time to run around and protest every company or buisiness that comes along. You clearly dont want wind, propane, lng, or oil. I guess i would love to know your answer. Back to the tax issue, you will never have enough gift shops scattered around to run our state economy and keep up with all of social our services the afford people to stay home rather than work. I bet none of your type would stand for someone showing up and telling you what you can do with your property you have taxes on all of your life and depend on to making a living and employ people. Then again probably none of you own land, pay taxes, or employ yourselves or people. When we have finally gotten rid of the all of these filthy tax paying buisinesses in our state I will look forward to hearing your solution on where we go from there. Dont worry the way we are going you wont have to wait long.
They can have the wind towers only if they abide by the ordinance.
I find it funny the people that find the time to hang out at the town office and question every move made by selectpersons and land owning tax paying citizens and sit down and write up the ordinance as they see fit are now unable to be reached for comment. Im sure its not because they are busy working to help with tax base.
Folks, we’re talking about the Top of Mt. Waldo here! Not downtown Bangor and not downtown Frankfort.
I’ve hiked to the top of Mt. Waldo on more than one occasion and I didn’t see any homes there. It’s pretty much barren ledges and a few cell phone towers. I question whether anyone actually lives close enough to be subjected to 24-hour noise disturbances, flicker and reduced property values. (Reduced property values? On top of Mt. Waldo??)
If I’m wrong about the homes then these are all laudable reasons for not putting the towers there, but I think the real issue here is “visual pollution”. Lots of people don’t want to see the pristine enviroment disturbed.
That’s great. I don’t either. The problem is, sooner or later someone is going to have to step up and say, “It’s OK in My Back Yard”. When I think of the alternatives to wind power I think of oil, coal, and nuclear power plants, hydro-electric dams, and solar power, and I see wind power as being the least offensive to the environment. I, like many other people, don’t want to see half a dozen wind towers on Mt. Waldo but if we’re going to continue our current lifestyles we’re going to have sources of electricity. So I’m willing to put up with it.
And yes, Mt. Waldo is visible from Heagan Mtn.
Yes, there are many residents within a mile of the propsed site and some, much closer. Subsidies for wind are 49% greater than conventional sources of energy. There is only one oil fueled generator that produces electricity in the entire State. All forms of so called green energy combined have a 6% greater level of subsidy than conventional energy sources.
“All forms of so called green energy combined have a 6% greater level of subsidy than conventional energy sources.”
Your figures are ridiculous, according to the Environmental Law Foundation, which points out that US subsidies for fossil fuels totaled $79 billion between 2002-2008, while subsidies for ALL forms of renewable energy amounted to $29 billion during the same period (a period, by the way, when the fossil fuel industry reaped massive record profits). A relatively small percentage of $29 billion is not astronomically larger than $79 billion, despite anti-windy claims. Furthermore, we aren’t even factoring in the trillion dollar subsidy for keeping a US military force in the Middle East for the past decade to protect the oil supply.
BTW, Prospect, where Heagen Mountain is located, passed a very restrictive wind ordinance last spring. Ya might want to find out what is going on in your own Town prior to telling others what is good for them!
Ya, this is a very “iffy” topic with me in that I support a landowner’s decision to do what they want to do with their own land. OTOH, as I said, I’m not crazy about the windmills either. My only point was saying that sooner or later someone has to stop saying Not In My Back Yard and IMO that should happen with the least intrusive/least harmful to the envrionment method of generation.
It ain’t [sic] a pretty choice.
As to the subsidies, nobody likes government subsidies except the people getting them. The problem is that research and development of non-traditional energy sources is expensive and the traditional energy companies have no incentive to put the $$ into R&D that’s necessary to develop anything other than what they’re selling. So if the gov’t doesn’t, who’s going to? Or do we just continue to allow the current energy companies to continue their stranglehold on the people of this country?
As one of the so called owners (I possess a legal deed), I still have to pay the taxes on the land even though I don’t use the fire department, the plows, the police, the schools. Don’t you residents benefit from my taxes?
Wind power will send Maine’s high energy costs FAR FAR higher.
Wind power is just a scam that lines the pockets of Baldacci cronies like his former Chief of Staff Kurt Adams who took over $ 1million in stock options from future employer First Wind while Chairman of the PUC! While there, Adams greased the skids for the $1.5 billion CMP transmission upgrade. It is needed solely for Balacci’s wind friends who without it are dead in the water with their big plans to fleece us. Yet Baldacci and company said it was needed for reliability because our lines were old. BULL. They were and are fine and if Baldacci ever paid a CMP bill he’d know we all pay a monthly charge for maintenance.
Of course when Kurt Adams, who had been interviewing with First Wind for months while running the PUC was hired by First Wind, he comes aboard as Director of Transmission. Is there no shame?
Meanwhile, Baldacci tells us not to worry for we only will pay our 8% share of the ISO-NE grid on the $1.5 billion. But he neglects to tell us that we will also pay the same 8% on the $30 billion of similar wind-required transmission across the New England grid. That is an extra $4,500 per Maine ratepayer!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
BULL, that wind power does not increase costs.
Read all about this Kurt Adams tale at the Maine Center for Public Interest Reporting
http://pinetreewatchdog.org/20…
and
http://pinetreewatchdog.org/20…
and
http://pinetreewatchdog.org/20…
Glad Governor LePage is cleaning things up in Augusta.
“… it was needed for reliability because our lines were old. BULL. They were and are fine…”
Once again, Pete, your “facts” are dubious. Here’s what the American Society of Civil Engineers says about our electrical infrastructure:
The U.S. generation and transmission system is at a critical point requiring substantial investment in new generation, investment to improve efficiencies in existing generation, and investment in transmission and distribution systems. The transmission and distribution system has become congested because growth in electricity demand and investment in new generation facilities have not been matched by investment in new transmission facilities. This congestion virtually prohibits outages required for proper maintenance and can lead to system wide failures in the event of unplanned outages. Electricity demand has increased by about 25% since 1990 while construction of transmission facilities decreased by about 30 percent. While annual investment in new transmission facilities has generally declined or been stagnant during the last 30 years, there has been an increase in investment during the past 5 years. Substantial investment in generation, transmission, and distribution are expected over the next two decades and it has been projected that electric utility investment needs could be as much as $1.5 to $2 trillion by 2030. Some progress in grid reinforcement has been made since 2005, but public and government opposition, difficult permitting processes, and environmental requirements are often restricting the much-needed modernization.