Maine Citizens Overwhelmingly Say “NO!” to First Wind’s Bowers Mountain Industrial Wind Proposal

Maine Citizens Overwhelmingly Say “NO!” to First Wind’s Bowers Mountain Industrial Wind Proposal

In one of the most hotly disputed industrial wind development proposals to come before Maine’s Land Use Regulation Commission, citizens of this state spoke out in opposition to the Bowers project by a margin of 9:1.

Champlain Wind LLC, one of the many limited liability subsidiaries of First Wind of Boston, is proposing to build a grid-scale wind facility on Bowers Mountain in Carroll Plantation and Dill Hill in Kossuth Township. The proposed development would site 22 wind turbines, each approaching 500 feet tall, on a ridge overlooking the Downeast Lakes Watershed.

Based on LURC’s Wild Land Lakes Assessment study of over 1,500 lakes, this watershed has the highest concentration of Class 1A and 1B rated lakes in the state. In order to achieve that rating a lake had to exhibit “outstanding values of statewide significance.” There are at least six lakes in this watershed that have a “1A” rating, three that have a “1B” rating and numerous others that are rated as a “2”.

During the application process, Maine citizens requested and were granted a public hearing. An astonishing 374 citizens gave oral or written testimony about this project. Three hundred thirty-seven (337) or 90.1% of those testifying were opposed to First Wind’s Bowers Mountain project.

Due to concerns that such massive industrialization would seriously damage the area’s
extraordinary scenic value; more than two dozen professional guides and many of the local sporting camp owners took precious time away from their businesses during peak tourist season to come to Lincoln to testify in person. Three prominent organizations, representing nearly 1,000 Maine business owners who are familiar with the watershed, publicly came out against the Bowers project:

* The Maine Professional Guides Association, 900 strong, which has representatives on committees such as Tourism, Conservation, Land Access, Landowners Relations, River Trust and others, voted unanimously to oppose the Bowers project.

* The Maine Sporting Camp Association, which represents more than 50 sporting camp owners.

* The Grand Lake Stream Guides Association, representing 50 full-time professional
guides who make their livelihood on the Downeast Lakes Watershed, voted unanimously to oppose the Bowers project.

Maine citizens have faith that LURC will listen to the will of the people and deny First Wind/Champlain Wind a permit to industrialize Bowers Mountain and Dill Hill.  Please consider attending the final deliberation session to be held at 11:00 a.m. on Wednesday, October 19th, at the Waterfront Event Center, 8 Prince Street, Lincoln, Maine.  Local residents, business owners, tax payers and tourists will be there.  I hope you will be, too.

ANGUS KING WITHDRAWS HIGHLAND PERMIT APPLICATION

On December 18, 2009, Highland Wind LLC (HW LLC) filed a permit application with Maine’s Land Use Regulation Commission (LURC) to build a 48 turbine grid-scale wind energy facility in Highland Plantation. Due to the inappropriateness of the site and due to the negative impacts such a development would have to the local ecology and environment, to the nature-based economy, to the health and quality of life of the area residents, and to scenic qualities of the area near the Bigelow Preserve, the Appalachian Trail and the Arnold Trail, Friends of the Highland Mountains (FHM), along with the Maine Appalachian Trail Club (MATC) and others, requested intervenor status.

Upon analysis of the application, FHM filed a motion to suspend the review process until such time as HW LLC provided the necessary documentation to meet the completeness standards set forth by LURC. On April 7, 2010, LURC ruled in FHM’s favor, and the review of the permit was suspended.

On December 29, 2010, HW LLC submitted a revised permit application for a 39 turbine wind facility, acceding, in part, to the concerns about the project’s impacts to the Appalachian Trail and the Bigelow Preserve. The application was deemed complete and accepted for processing on February 23, 2011, initiating commencement of the expedited review process once more. Again, upon examining the application, FHM determined several areas wherein the applicant had not provided sufficient documentation for a comprehensive review (including complete Title, Right or Interest; make, model and size of turbines proposed for the project; and sufficient proof of financial capacity) and we once again petitioned LURC to suspend the review process. This time, LURC ruled in favor of the applicant, HW LLC. In keeping with the statutes, FHM and the other intervenors submitted documentation and filings by the deadlines set forth.

On April 13th and 20th, 2011, Agency review comments were submitted to LURC. The comments submitted by the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife (IFW) stated unequivocally that Highland “is not an appropriate locality for an intensive wind energy installation such as that currently proposed by Highland Wind Power.”

On April 26, 2011, the 3rd Procedural Order, including a schedule of events and deadlines, was sent to all parties, and intervenors provided witness lists, as well as the issues they would be addressing at the Public and Technical Hearings, to the LURC staff and the applicant, HW LLC.

On May 2, 2011, Angus King, a principal of HW LLC, submitted a letter to LURC withdrawing his application, with “intent to re-file at a later date”, and stated that those government agency review comments “suggested that additional data would be necessary to satisfy agency concerns.”

The IFW did not suggest that additional data would satisfy their concerns. The IFW stated that Highland was “not an appropriate locality”. "Additional data" will not change the fact that Highland’s mountains are an inappropriate site for a grid-scale wind energy development. In fact, the IFW stated that they have “provided technical assistance and consultations to this project since 2007. Despite considerable discussions and previous project modifications, an array of concerns remain unresolved…”

Highland Wind LLC must permanently withdraw their development permit application to build an industrial wind turbine facility in Highland Plantation. The IFW’s report, in conjunction with the many other issues raised by the intervenors, provides ample reason to abandon all plans to develop the mountains of Highland Plantation.

FHM has conformed to all the standards and restrictions set forth in the so-called “Expedited Wind Permitting Law”. The applicant has pressed for an expedited review, as evidenced in letters obtained through the Freedom of Information Act between Rob Gardiner, President of HW LLC, and LURC. Now that the developers have realized that their project, as submitted, was destined for denial, they are gaming the system. HW LLC has had several years in which to study and ascertain the appropriateness of their proposed development, and has ignored all concerns except those which they determined had the greatest ability to hinder the approval of their project. The Agency review comments submitted by the IFW, an unbiased party, corroborate some of the many concerns which FHM has presented as reasons why approval of this project should be denied. By abandoning their plans to industrialize Highland’s mountains, HW LLC has the opportunity to save Maine tax-payers and individual citizens additional expense.

Mr. King and Mr. Gardiner should publicly and permanently cancel all plans to build an industrial wind facility in Highland Plantation.

Wind, Work, and Winning....

It’s been an interesting few days in the world of wind. (And in case you're wondering... I just like that photo, okay? Hehehe....that what my teenage son looks like when I ask him to fold laundry and there are 'unmentionables' in the basket...)

Sunday saw a large gathering of Mainers at the New Portland Community Library for our regularly scheduled Friends of the Highland Mountains meeting. We had some new attendees, which shows that ‘word’ is getting out about the true impacts these industrial-scale wind projects will have on the surrounding areas.

We ‘tended to business’ and also finalized plans for our latest fund-raising effort, to be held at Webster Hall in Kingfield on April 23rd. We are excited to announce this latest family-friendly event. Derek Small, owner of Granite State Zoo, will be bringing some of his exotic animals for an interactive and educational show. Wow. What a great opportunity for locals who are used to communing with moose, black bears, coons and white-tailed deer! Instead, we’ll be introduced to… well-- things like what you see in the photos below!

This is Medusa. I’ve promised our members that if we raise $750.00 from this event, I’ll drape Medusa around my neck. (If that's against some kind of 'zoo rule', it won't be my fault, right?) And if we raise $1,000.00, I will also hold something large and hairy and tarantula-ish. Those of you who know me, know that I HATE spiders. And that’s all I’m going to say on the matter.

Since April 24th is Easter, we thought we’d combine this event with a food sale, so that people don’t have to do as much cooking on the holiday. If you’ve a hankering to learn something new, interact with some exotic creatures, and pick up some delicious food for Easter, please join us at one p.m. on Saturday, the 23rd.

On Tuesday, several of us drove through the pouring rain to Augusta to testify in support of a bill sponsored by Senator Tom Saviello: “LD 793-- An Act To Protect Ratepayers While Enhancing Energy Independence and Security.” It is hoped that the members of the Energy, Utilities and Technology Committee will come to the conclusion that Maine should pull out of the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative and the ISO NE, and no longer allow the PUC to commit us to long-term energy contracts.


Today, FHM experienced a victory. We were on LURC’s agenda for the first time since Highland Wind LLC resubmitted their wind development permit. We’d put forward a motion for LURC to review the ‘associated facilities’ under their traditional scenic standards as allowed by law, rather than those less stringent standards which the ‘generating facilities’ must be reviewed under.

Highland Wind had submitted a written objection to our motion. Today their representatives, along with an attorney for the Conservation Law Foundation, argued long and hard in an effort to convince the Commissioners to deny our request. Attorney Bill Plouffe, representing the MATC, spoke in support of our motion. After careful consideration, the Commissioners voted unanimously in favor of our request.

In the coming days, I’ll explain in more detail what this means for the Highland Wind project and our opposition. But for now… I’ve got to prepare for the ‘pre-conference hearing’ scheduled for nine a.m. tomorrow morning in Augusta.

One thing I will say: the people who have come together to fight for what they believe is right are a source of inspiration to me. Twenty-five members of FHM drove all the way to Bangor to attend today’s meeting. I sat in the audience and looked around me, and I realized I was surrounded by friends. By goodness. By dedication and integrity.

We’ve already won.

In the Words of a King-- "It's all about the View"

Former governor Angus King and his partner, Rob Gardiner have once again submitted a permit application to LURC for a 39 turbine grid-scale wind energy plant on Highland’s mountains, at the gateway to the Bigelow Preserve and the Appalachian Trail. Maine’s Land Use Regulation Commission determined Highland Wind LLC’s application was complete on February 23, 2011, even though that application is NOT complete, as evidenced in news articles in Friday’s Kennebec Journal and Portland Press Herald.

Mr. King is wasting our tax-payer money by continually submitting permit applications which fall short of the requirements for completion. LURC staffers have already spent countless hours reading each of his applications. The Commissioners have already had to rule that HW LLC’s first application be pulled and the ‘expedited clock’ stopped. If ordinary citizens can read an application and determine that it is lacking, I assume that Mr. King, Mr. Gardiner and their attorneys know the same thing.

I suppose the applicants hope to have the missing data and documentation and road crossing permits in hand before LURC rules on whether or not to grant them a permit for their project—but that’s not the way this works. The burden of submitting a completed application rests with the applicant. Not with the LURC staff. Not with the interveners in the case. Not with the citizens of Maine. And yet, it is we who are paying the price while this limited liability development company tries to get its ducks in a row. The Section 1603 cash grants for these projects will expire in December, and those no-strings-attached grants are huge. Mr. King and Mr. Gardiner will lose out on millions of free tax-payer dollars if they do not receive approval, and soon.

So they play games and waste our resources in the hopes that it will all work out okay for them in the end.

I predict that it won’t. I believe that Mainers are waking up to the realities of this scheme to line over 350 miles of our mountain ridges with expensive and intrusive industrial turbines which produce power that is unreliable, intermittent, cannot be stored, and for which our grid was not designed. I believe that the people of Somerset County have the courage and the strength of character to stand up and make common sense decisions. Sound science and economics do not support the notion of mountaintop industrial wind in Maine.

The following quotes are from Angus King, taken from his video, “A Vision for Maine—Inauguration 1995”.

"We certainly can do tourism better. Just to our south, to the north, and across the ocean are millions of mobile, affluent and time-pressed individuals who would love Maine if we could get them here, first. But we must think strategically about tourism-- spreading out the seasons and the locations where we welcome visitors. In the process of rebuilding Maine, we must never compromise our environment... Our final natural resource is our QUALITY OF LIFE. We have what the world wants... creative and hard-working people, an unspoiled natural environment and a civil society that works..... We share a common heritage. We share a common stewardship of the land. We share a common pride in an extraordinary place called Maine....and the best of Maine-- a land of deep woods, jagged coasts and people of integrity--will endure and flourish."


The former governor wanted to encourage tourism. “We have what the world wants,” he said. I urge Mainers to visit First Wind’s ongoing destruction of Rollins Mountain and Rocky Dundee in Lincoln, in the shadow of Mt. Katahdin. Then picture the same thing happening all across this state. Estimates for this little rural corner of Somerset County are for upwards of 300 turbines. Everywhere we look, there they will be. Huge. Unnatural. Inefficient, intrusive, foreign-made machines. In every direction, we will see evidence of greed. Evidence of folly. Evidence of corporate-run state policies, rather than common-sense rule by the People. A tourist attraction? No.


This is another quote from Angus King, recorded in a meeting last May in Skowhegan.

"There's not a sound issue, there's not a health issue, there's not a bird issue, there's not a wildlife issue… No issues of wetlands.... we're not 'removing' anything-- we're MOVING...when you build a road, as I say, when you build roads, you cut out the high spots and fill in the low--we're moving a lot of earth, but nothing's being taken away from the mountains…”

This is an excerpt from the Highland Wind LLC permit application, submitted to LURC in December, 2010.

“A total of approximately 3.1 miles of existing logging roads are being rebuilt, and
approximately 15.1 miles of new roadway are being constructed. In addition, turbine sites must be graded to approximately level with no more than three percent cross slope. Table 12-1 below outlines the cut and fill requirements for the different portions of the Project. Roadway construction along with the 39 turbine pads results in the earthwork volumes listed below.”

Those turbine sites which must be ‘graded to approximately level’ are on the tops of Stewart, Witham and Bald Mountains, and Burnt and Briggs Hill. The total ‘cut’ from the project is estimated at 1,518,000 cubic yards. That’s more than 90,000 dump trucks’ worth of earth excavation for this one project. The ‘fill’ is listed as 1,438,900 cubic yards. It’s being blasted and excavated from the mountains, and then used to build 18 miles of slope-side roads and turbine pads. But, no. It’s not being ‘taken away from the mountains’.

And again from Angus King last May, when speaking about the Highland project:

"So-- it's all about the view. And the view is important because the Appalachian Trail goes over Bigelow....Stop by Mars Hill! It's cool! It really comes down to-- are we going to say 'no' to a half-billion dollar infrastructure project producing renewable energy because of the VIEW? I think that's the question. The interesting thing about this project--we're involved in some others-- the others have some different issues, but this one is really the view. And, you know...people throw in a lot of other stuff, but it's really about the view. What will the impact be? Well, it'll be visual--you judge.”

Mr. King, despite his continual assurances that this project is ‘all about the view’, knows better than that. His patronizing attitude is intended to gain him some support for his project. He hopes that if he repeats that tag line often enough, Mainers will look upon those of us who are opposing his project as selfish elitists who would put our ‘view’ before anything else. We who care about the big picture, and who have spent months researching the facts about industrial wind, oppose this project—and others—for a variety of reasons related to economics, the environment, residents’ healthy and quality of life, and Maine’s unique ‘quality of place’.

I once thought former governor King cared about those same things.

Blatant Bribery--"Maine-- the way life SHOULD be"???

I grew up in a home where we Bessey children were expected to conform to a certain set of principles. My parents were strict, but not unreasonable. They accepted the fact that as their children developed and grew--we would occasionally feel the need to ‘buck the system’. It’s only natural to rebel against authority. But even though Mum and Dad gave their children some leeway and practiced a bit of forbearance, there were some things which were not tolerated. Period.

Lying was not allowed. It was far better to have broken a rule and admitted to it, than to have lied about it. Neither was stealing acceptable--or unkindness, or swearing, or breaking the law. Disrespect was not looked upon favorably, but I think Mum and Dad recognized that young adults didn’t always display the best judgment, and once in awhile, we could rebel against them (and them, only--and somewhat respectfully) without suffering any grave consequences.

But that was when we were adolescents. Our brains--and our personalities--were still expanding and being cultivated. It was always taken for granted that—as adults—we would ‘know better’. That the foundation given us of morality and propriety would serve us well and guide us into adulthood.

I’ve been reviewing the revised permit application which Highland Wind, LLC submitted to Maine’s Land Use Regulation Commission two weeks ago; on December 28, 2010. For those of you who follow this blog, you will know that the original permit application was submitted one year ago. It was deemed ‘complete’ by LURC at the end of January, 2010 and the Friends of the Highland Mountains worked feverishly for the next two weeks to gather enough petition signatures to convince LURC to grant us a Public Hearing on this wind development proposal.

In March 2010, at the first LURC Commissioners’ meeting wherein HW LLC’s permit application was part of the agenda, we learned from the Commissioners that the permit application was NOT, in fact, complete--and we lodged a formal complaint requesting that the ‘expedited permitting clock’ be stopped, and the permit set aside until such a time as the developers met the ‘completeness’ standard. At the April 2010 meeting, the Commissioners agreed to pull the application, citing the fact that Highland Wind, LLC, did not have sufficient title, right or interest (TRI) in a parcel of land which they needed to cross in order to transmit their wind-generated power from Highland Plantation to Wyman Station.

Yesterday, I began to review Highland Wind LLC’s revised permit application. What I read should deeply trouble every Mainer. Every American! For in this permit application, Highland Wind LLC offers what I consider to be a blatant bribe to a government agency.


This is a quote taken from the permit application submitted by Angus King and Rob Gardiner, the principles in Independence Wind, of which Highland Wind, LLC is a subsidiary. I took it from the ‘tangible benefits’ section of the application…

For the Maine Department of Conservation, Bureau of Parks and Lands: Highland Wind will provide $1,040,000 to the Maine Department of Conservation, Bureau of Parks and Lands (BPL)over a twenty year period, as a “donation for land or natural resource conservation” pursuant to 35-A MRSA §3451 (1-C) (C). This land or natural resource conservation will be comprised of two
Elements:

A. Permanent protection for Stewart Mountain from the development of wind turbines. On or before the triggering date, Highland Wind shall execute or cause to be executed a legally sufficient document that will extinguish in perpetuity all rights of any current or future landowner to site wind turbines on the land comprising approximately 572 acres on Stewart Mountain that was previously proposed by Highland Wind as the location for eight wind turbines. The current fair market value lost for extinguishing these wind turbine development rights is $253,000.
B. Payments for Additional Bigelow Preserve Viewshed Protection. Highland Wind will made twenty annual payments of $39,350 to BPL, to be used for protecting the viewshed from trails in the Bigelow Preserve. Over 20 years, BPL will receive $787,000 in total annual payments. The initial annual payment from Highland Wind is due on the triggering date. In the alternative, and at the request of BPL, Highland Wind is prepared to make the entire 20-year value of these twenty payments available to BPL as a single, lump-sum payment due at the triggering date, with the
lump-sum amount calculated as a net present value of this twenty-year income stream.
All payments owed to BPL would be distributed by Highland Wind to an agreed-upon third-party escrow/disbursal agent and placed in a segregated, separately invested and administered Bigelow Preserve Scenic Viewshed Fund. (Viewshed Fund). BPL will be granted the authority to use the monies in the Viewshed Fund to acquire in fee or easement properties that it deems to be valuable for protecting the viewshed from trails in the Bigelow Preserve. At BPL’s choosing, a modest percentage of these funds (e.g., 10-20%) could be used for viewshed trail maintenance activities in the Preserve.
(The statute quoted therein may be found in the Expedited Wind Permitting Law.)

Okay. If you’ve read this far, then you probably know where I’m going with this. But in case you don’t, I’ll spell it out.

The Bureau of Parks and Lands is a State agency which operates under the Maine Department of Conservation. The BPL is also listed (as is the Friends of the Highland Mountains, the Maine Appalachian Trail Club, and many others) as an ‘intervenor’ in the original Highland Wind, LLC permit application which was submitted one year ago.

The approval or denial of a permit for this wind turbine development will be decided by the Land Use Regulation Commission. That agency (LURC) is also an agency under the direction of the Department of Conservation.

I’ve spoken in the past about the ‘tangible benefits’ and the ‘mitigation’ which is allowable under the ‘Expedited Wind Permitting Law’. I’ve openly called this practice ‘State-sanctioned bribery’. Wind developers have been allowed to go into towns wherein they hope to construct these developments and offer ‘cash incentives’ to people and businesses in the hopes that they will support their projects. In fact, Maine law compels them to spend money in these communities. I have always believed this allowable practice is corrupt and morally wrong.

But here, in this revised application, the developers have descended to new depths. In an open and public document, Highland Wind LLC is blatantly offering a bribe of more than three-quarters of a million dollars to an agency of the State of Maine. They are offering an inducement to the same agency which will be deciding its fate—deciding whether or not to consent to their permit--the approval of which will allow Highland Wind, LLC to acquire millions of dollars of tax-payer subsidies.


This is illegal, is it not? Is this not immoral? To my way of thinking, it is unconscionable! The Maine Attorney General’s Office should—no, it must--investigate this. And then—the AG should prosecute to the fullest extent of the law.

Mum and Dad would have warmed my rear--at the very least--if I’d ever tried to pull off something so despicable—no matter what the scope. I call upon the Attorney General and the People of the State of Maine to take a stand.

This type of corruption has been over-looked and tolerated for far too long. Wind developers are desperate to acquire their cash rewards, and it has become apparent that there are no depths to which they will not sink.

I’m not willing to sit back while this great State goes down with them. It's time that we, the People, stood up and condemned this type of practice.

********************************
A friend just told me that--while it SHOULD be illegal--this type of payoff is NOT illegal, because the state of Maine allows it. Wind developers are required to pay a 'community benefit' of $4,000.00 per turbine per year (not each and every year, necessarily, but annualized) when they build a wind facility. I do not change my stance on this issue. That three-quarters of a million dollars is not being offered to Highland, or to a private organization which could invest the money in conservation or natural resource protection. That money is being offered as an inducement to the very State Agency which is deciding whether or not to grant Highland Wind LLC's permit. That is wrong. And if LURC takes this application under consideration, they will have a huge conflict of interest. I don't care if Maine has 'allowed' this type of thing in the past, or not. It's wrong.

It's wrong.

The Essence of Maine

In the January 2011 issue of DownEast Magazine, there is a section called “Maine In Your Words”. People from every corner of the country and every walk of life described their perspective of this state—they told what Maine means to them. The myriad responses were touching, and telling. Maine is simply unique. We already have what so many others are craving.

I feel blessed to be interwoven into the fabric of this wonderful region.

The DownEast article coincides with the submission to Maine’s Land Use Regulation Commission of a revised permit application for the Highland Wind project. Just hours ago, I read the press release provided by Angus King and Rob Gardiner, the two principals of Highland Wind, LLC, the developer for the project. The statement is everything I thought it would be; pure public relations fluff.

The interveners and interested parties in this project have attempted to be factual when speaking to the public and the press about industrial wind’s huge impacts and negligible benefits. The developer, however, has continued to mislead the public.

As pertains to mountaintop industrial wind energy facilities, our exposure of many of the original ‘selling points’ as being deceptive has caused wind developers to change tactics and revamp their rhetoric. In addition, I believe efforts to educate the public have resulted in some of the changes in Highland Wind LLC's revised proposal.

The major difference to the application--outlined in the press release--is that 9 of the original 48 turbines have been removed from the project, which also results in a reduction in the amount of access road construction and permanent clear-cutting which will be necessary if the permit is approved. While I oppose--and will continue to oppose--this project in its entirety, I believe this is a victory for those Mainers who have been working to preserve our natural resources and quality of life, and promote common sense, economical decisions regarding our energy future. Before we ever went to public hearing to present our case, the developers recognized that their project was flawed. Make no mistake: It still is. But this is an indication that the developers acknowledge that fact.

I do, however, find it very ironic that Highland Wind LLC now proposes to forever protect the Stewart ridge from industrial wind turbines, when just a few short months ago, they were prepared to fight tooth and nail to have the original project approved in its entirety. Theirs is certainly a professional public relations campaign.

In the coming days and weeks, the permit application will be reviewed by the LURC staff, and the public. And when the time comes we will show why, based on sound science and economics, this project should not be approved. We are ready, and we are resolved. More importantly, we have the truth on our side.

Here is another irony. Former governor Angus King, project developer for Record Hill in Roxbury and the mountains in Highland Plantation, was quoted in that DownEast article. “Define the essence of Maine in a sentence.” Most people could not comply. Maine’s ‘essence’ is multi-faceted, whether speaking about its majestic ocean and mountain vistas, its pragmatic yet generous inhabitants, or its abundant and diverse wildlife. Some who responded to that question simply went on and on. And others, like Mr. King, managed to define Maine’s essence in two or three succinct sentences.


"It’s common sense, independence, understatement, and values. It’s one of the few places left that you can rightly say has character, both in its land and its people." Angus King

In this instance, I agree with Mr. King’s words, if not with his actions.

Here are a few more quotes from that article. The ‘Maine’ these people speak of is the Maine which those common-sense, independent and value-infused citizens our former governor spoke of are trying to preserve.

“A state that beckons us through serene natural beauty, rather than manufactured attractions.”
Bill and Jean Steer, Flat Rock, North Carolina


“Pappy’s description of Maine: ‘Son I have seen the whole world and thank almighty God for bringing me home again.’ ”
Thomas M. Gaubert, DeSoto, Texas

“It is where the toxicity of modern life washes off, and I recharge. I get to breathe air and hear sounds that are still as our maker intended. In Maine, life still makes some sense.” John Blankinship, Cornwall, New York

As a writer, defining the essence of Maine should come easily. I love this state, and I have an incredible affinity with my fellow ‘natives’, and with those who came here ‘from away’ because this state and her people are incomparable. But as I sit here digesting the new information in the Highland Wind LLC permit application, and as I recognize that life here in Maine will never be the same for me, whether we succeed in our opposition to this misguided plan for our mountains, or not, I am kerflummoxed. The ‘essence’ of Maine is too far-reaching, too remarkable, for me to define it in a sentence or two. But for tonight, I think one word will suffice.

Maine is….home.


************************************
Photos:
Sunflowers and a tire swing in Lexington Township, Maine
Borestone Mountain from the Onawa Trestle, Elliotsville Township, Maine
Kayaking in Greenwood Pond, Elliotsville Township, Maine
Snow at first light--Lexington Township, Maine
Bigelow Mountain, 1950's (Franklin Sargent photo)
Peace at Pease Brook (home) Lexington Township, Maine

Civil but not Silent

When I began to research the topic of industrial wind on the mountaintops of Maine, it was with one purpose. Last fall, Angus King and Rob Gardiner came to Highland Plantation and told locals of their planned development for Highland’s five mountains. The largest proposal for the state at that time, I believed it warranted looking into, even though--to my uneducated mind--I supported the concept of producing electricity from something as benign as wind.

It did not take me long to realize that a grid-scale wind energy plant was not a good plan for these ridges, nor for any others in this state. The environmental consequences, the health risks, the questions surrounding decommissioning, and the ratios of benefits vs. negative impacts convinced me that the development was a disaster in the making. I, along with other concerned Mainers, formed a citizens’ group dedicated to opposing the Highland project.

We knew it was an uphill battle. We knew our opponents had power and influence and money--while we were a simple band of people who came together with nothing but a desire and a conviction to do what we believed was right. We also knew that to oppose the plan in light of the promises made to Highlanders by Mr. King and Mr. Gardiner might very well cause hard feelings in the community. The Plantation was hurting after suffering through years of incredibly high taxes. The ‘tangible benefits’ offered to tax-payers would be hard to refuse.

I’ve never been one to cause a fuss. I’ve always been a peacemaker--a woman who avoided conflict when possible and helped others do the same. In the early days of our opposition, I tried desperately to smooth the waters whipped up by industrial wind. I laid out my motives for opposing the project, and listed those reasons in a personal letter sent to Mr. King. I asked him to withdraw his permit application from LURC. Asked him to do the right thing, instead of the thing destined to earn him a plethora of hard-earned tax-payer subsidies.


In the weeks and months since that time, I have listened to Mr. King speak in public about this project. I was a guest during one of those forums, so I was compelled by a sense of propriety to remain quiet while he spoke. And one of those times, all non-Highlanders were asked at the beginning of the meeting to remain silent. I respected that request.


In both recorded meetings, Mr. King misled his audience. He knowingly or unwittingly made some grave misstatements. Either way, the choice is clear. If Highlanders put their faith in the owner of Independence Wind, they are choosing to trust a man who either knowing tells untruths, or who doesn’t know enough about his subject to speak with any degree of expertise.

It’s easy to spread misinformation when no one challenges you on it. It’s easy to spread feel-good propaganda when your listeners are easily led. But those days are over. The people of Maine are leaders, not lambs. The people of Maine are intelligent, hard-working, thrifty and proud. The facts about industrial wind are coming to light and citizens are working diligently to see that their neighbors are armed with the truth.

Wind turbine developments on the mountains of Maine? No. The negative impacts—and there are many—far outweigh the negligible benefits. It doesn’t make sense from a scientific or an economical standpoint. So, while I intend to remain respectful if possible, I won’t remain silent anymore. Bullies feed on those who appear powerless, but Mainers are arming themselves with facts. Mainers are regaining their authority to shape the destiny of this state. We won’t be lied to. We won’t be bullied.


We will try to be civil, but we won’t be silent anymore.

For factual information about mountaintop industrial wind, see www.highlandmts.org or www.windtaskforce.org

****************************
Photos of Angus copyrighted by Kaz Pease.
Photo of sweaty, chubby Kaz hated with a passion. However, my point was that while I will try to be civil (notice the smile) I will NOT keep quiet (notice the microphone). Lordy, lordy... the things I put myself through...

Unbelievable! (Sadly... No, It's Not!)

On Tuesday, August 3rd, I got wind of a motion filed by Trans-Canada, the industrial wind developer who is attempting to get a permit to extend its Kibby Mountain project over to Sisk Mountain, in Chain of Ponds Township. This is the letter I wrote in response... and I sent it to each of the state's daily newspapers, asking them to please publish on Wednesday morning.

To the best of my knowledge, no one did.
*********************************************************

At their July meeting, LURC commissioners took a ‘straw vote’ to see how the board stood on Trans-Canada’s permit application to develop Sisk Mountain. After a 5-2 vote to deny, they ordered LURC Staff to prepare a decision document to that effect, with their official vote due to be made at the August 4th meeting in Bangor.

Since that time, the Wind Industry and its supporters have been scrambling, doing their utmost to influence the commissioners’ decision. People and entities such as Professor Orlando Delogu, who prepared reports for the Governor’s Task Force on Wind Power, Jay Wyman, a selectman in the town receiving the most ‘tangible benefits’ from Trans-Canada for the Boundary Mountains project, and Alison Hagerstrom of the Greater Franklin Development Corporation have been inundating the media with commentaries designed to sway the Board’s decision. Like schoolyard bullies who resort to unsavory tactics to make sure their will prevails, the Wind Industry called in its gang.

It was a mistake for the LURC Commissioners to take that straw vote. They opened themselves up to the castigation of industrial wind proponents. In addition, they provided Trans-Canada with a month-long grace period in which they could try to develop a new strategy to compel LURC to vote in their favor.

They certainly were not idly waiting for that official decision. On Friday, July 30th, in an 11th hour move, Trans-Canada submitted a motion to table the vote on the Denial decision and re-open the record so they can introduce an amendment to reduce the number of turbines in the Sisk project from fifteen to eleven, claiming such a change would significantly reduce environmental and scenic impacts.

In reality, such a change will simply reduce by a small amount the millions of tax-payer dollars with which Trans-Canada can line their pockets if their strong-arm tactics are successful and they convince LURC to sacrifice that high-terrain peak which casts its shadow over the unique and beautiful Chain of Ponds.

LURC must hold firm, stand up to the bullies, and do what’s right. They must stand by their decision to deny Trans-Canada’s permit application for the development of Sisk Mountain. ‘Might’ must not triumph over ‘right’.

**************************************************************

And THIS is what will be in this morning's Bangor Daily News!

Canadian firm to scale back Kibby Mountain wind project8/4/10 08:37 pm Updated: 8/4/10 08:40 pm
By Kevin Miller
BDN Staff


BANGOR, Maine — A Canadian energy firm is scaling back its expansion plans for Western Maine’s Kibby Mountain wind farm after state regulators made clear that they could not support placing an additional 15 turbines in the area.

TransCanada officials told the Land Use Regulation Commission on Wednesday that they plan to file a revised application removing the four southernmost turbines in the 15-turbine project. The project is proposed for Kibby and Chain of Ponds townships, approximately two miles from the second phase of the Kibby wind farm now under construction.

TransCanada’s attorney outlined the proposed changes on the same day that LURC was poised to deny the company’s permit request at its Bangor meeting. Despite opposition from the project’s critics, commissioners voted unanimously to table the issue in order to allow TransCanada to revise its application.

“This proposal is not lightly made,” said Juliet Browne, who represented TransCanada before the commission.

During a meeting last month, commissioners largely agreed with concerns raised by opponents that the proposed wind farm expansion would harm views from nearby lakes and trails.

In its written recommendation to the commission, LURC staff noted that while both the original Kibby project and the proposed expansion would “significantly compromise views,” the southern seven turbines within the proposed expansion would have “unreasonable adverse impact to the scenic character of the Chain of Ponds and of the Arnold Trail.”

Commissioners also voiced serious concerns that the southern half of the project would have unacceptable effects on the subalpine fir forests and the Bicknell’s thrush, a bird dependent on subalpine fir forests that the state lists as a “species of special concern.”

Several commissioners had indicated last month that they likely could support a project containing just the eight northern turbines because they had fewer effects on scenic views or subalpine forests. Browne said Wednesday that the eight-turbine project was not economically viable, however.

“We think this is very responsive to the commissioners’ concerns about reducing the subalpine impacts, reducing the impacts on Bicknell’s thrush and reducing the visual impacts on Chain of Ponds,” Browne said.

Critics of the 15-turbine project argued unsuccessfully against allowing TransCanada to revise its application so late in the process.

The most forceful statements came from Bob Weingarten, president of the organization Friends of the Boundary Mountains, who criticized TransCanada for seeking to revise and delay the project now after working hard to keep the project on the fast-track for so long.

Weingarten said the company’s inflexibility caused hardship to his small group of volunteers as they tried to share their views with the commission.

“TransCanada had months and months to change their proposal while the record was still open,” Weingarten said. “TransCanada had months and months to listen to the other side.”

The first 22 turbines of TransCanada’s Kibby wind farm are already operating, and the company is building another 22 turbines at the site.

Last month, three protesters with the group Maine EarthFirst! were arrested while blocking the road leading up to the company’s construction site. Maine EarthFirst! and other critics of industrial wind power contend that projects such as TransCanada’s destroy mountaintops and do little to offset the use of fossil fuels.

**********************************
Unbelievable! And yet, sadly... it's not.

The 99th Post in the 11th Hour...

Wow. It was almost one year ago that I created Grumbles and Grins on the advice of my marketing coach. In the last 11 1/2 months I've written almost 100 articles to post to GAG. Some of them were simple, foolish, silly things designed to bring a smile to my readers. And a few of them were serious, and were intended to make people think about issues which are important in today's world.

In August of 2009, I was not yet embroiled in the effort to stop mountaintop industrial wind. Truthfully, I knew little about it. And when I was first told that Angus King and Rob Gardiner were going to put a "wind farm" on Highland's mountains, I thought it was most likely a good idea. After all, I believed what I'd heard and read in the media-- those words which the administration and the wind developers hope the public will take to heart and accept as truth. Words like 'renewable' and 'green', and phrases like 'reduce our dependence on foreign oil', 'strengthen our national security' and 'help reduce global warming'. What was not to like?

And then, in October, I went to a meeting at the little one-room schoolhouse in Highland Plantation and listened as Rob Gardiner outlined Independence Wind's plans for Stewart, Witham and Bald Mountains, and Burnt and Briggs Hills. More importantly, I listened to the questions asked by those in attendance. And I recorded the forum, too, so that I could have a record of all that was said.

I began to have concerns about the wisdom of such a development. So did many others. Folks began to read up on the problems surrounding other wind developments, both here in Maine, and around the globe. One month later, the Friends of the Highland Mountains was formed in a small living room in Lexington Township; the tiny community adjacent to Highland Plantation. For me, this was a 'first'. I've never been officially involved in any 'activism', per se. I've always voted. And I've always made an effort to educate myself on that which was to be decided in the voting booth. I had always encouraged others to exercise their right and responsibility to 'have a say', and I'd written a few editorials when an issue seemed to warrant a bit of extra attention. But I'd certainly never waged an all-out campaign like the one in which I am now involved.

Why am I doing this? It's certainly not because it's enjoyable. I sometimes think I'd rather get a poke in the eye with a sharp stick than to be doing what I'm doing. This type of effort is all-consumming, because the opposition has money, power and influence. They also have very few scruples. But scruples are something which the Friends of the Highland Mountains DO have. It's easier for us in that regard. Because, you see, we have the FACTS on our side. In order to even scratch the surface of this important issue and get the facts of the matter out to the people of Maine, it takes a tremendous amount of time and resources, and committments from many, many people. We've been so fortunate with our human resources. Many folks from around this state have joined together to protect our natural resources, as well as our wildlife, our quality of place and life, our economy... and our right to 'have a say'.

As an American, I was incensed when I realized how much information was being kept from me and my fellow citizens. I was enraged as I discovered the amount of corruption that is imbedded in my government. And I was appalled at the amount of disinformation and downright lies which were being floated to THE PEOPLE in the hopes that we would accept those lies and roll over quietly. Our administration and the Wind Industry do not want THE PEOPLE to have the cold, hard facts about the misguided and expensive plan to erect 350+ miles of massive wind turbines along Maine's beautiful and unique high-terrain areas.

For if THE PEOPLE knew the truth, they would stop their plan in its tracks!

So, that's what we've been trying to do-- tell the truth. We've written letters to the editor, and articles for magazines. We've gone out into the surrounding towns and given out written information, DVD's and links to other resources.



We've also spoken with some of the gubernatorial candidates and three out of four of our congresssional delegates. We've been trying to educate the general public on the science and economics of Industrial Wind. The facts say: IT DOESN'T WORK. The facts say there are very few redeeming qualities to industrial wind, and that the negative impacts far outweigh the positive benefits. You've heard me say it all before. Ad nauseum. But because our opposition spreads half-truths and sugar-coated tales of the salvation of our planet through wind energy plants, we have to work even harder to debunk those standard tag lines. We have to be tenacious. We have to be committed to being in this for the long haul. And we have to be brave.

This isn't a game. And we aren't selfish people. If anything, I am convinced that our membership is made up of many selfless people who give up their time and money-- and sometimes, their peace of mind-- to do what we believe is RIGHT. What we are is a group of people who are fighting to spread the facts-- the TRUTH-- about this and other industrial wind projects, before our mountaintops are altered and our way of life is gone.

If you are not yet convinced that industrial wind development is a mistake for Maine, I encourage you to contact me at roomtomove@tds.net or call me at (207)628-2070. I would be happy to share what I've learned from experts in every field pertaining to this topic. Rest assured, there will be no pressure. I believe-- and have found-- that every citizen who has been empowered with the facts agrees that the governor's plan is a colossal mistake for the state of Maine. Only those with some kind of a financial stake hold out for 'wind'... and I understand that. I don't like it, but I understand it. Whichever way you lean, you have the right to factual information, and I encourage all citizens to make up their own minds, from a position of knowledge.

My next posting will be my one-hundredth. How wonderful it would be if it was an article announcing that LURC had denied Trans-Canada's application to develop the high-terrain ridges of Sisk, in our Boundary Moutains, which cast their wild and unspoiled shadows over western Maine's Chain of Ponds!


***************************************
Cartoons courtesy of Windtoons.
Photos courtesy of ME.

Kill a Baby, but Build an Orphanage

Kill a baby, but build an orphanage…

In the murky world of Industrial Wind permitting, it’s referred to as “mitigation”.

At forty-six, you’d think I would have “seen it all”. That I would be cynical, hardened, and wiser than I am. But I’m not. I’m still naïve; still believe in the innate goodness of all mankind... still believe that there are some things which money can’t buy. Yep, I’m naïve…

But I’m growing out of it fast.

Today, to show support for the citizens opposing the development of another of Maine's beautiful and rugged mountains, I attended the Land Use Regulation Commission’s technical hearing for the Sisk Mountain/Trans-Canada proposal. Three environmentally-minded agencies were opposing a part of the development… not all of it, but a section. Each representative stated their agency’s reasons for opposing the placement of 400' tall turbines on the south end of Sisk Mountain; one of the Boundary Mountains between Maine and Canada, along the historic Arnold Trail. One wanted to protect a rare tree; another, a rare bird; and the third… the wilderness experience in a remote-feeling outpost. After their testimony, Trans-Canada’s razor-sharp attorneys cross-examined them. These same three entities had endorsed the Kibby Mountain project just a few miles away, and the wind developer’s lawyers quoted their testimony given at those hearings back to them.

They made them look like fools.

You know what, though? Those red cheeks and shuffling feet were well deserved. These agencies are each charged with protecting a segment of Maine’s natural resources. In my opinion, they shouldn’t have endorsed the Kibby Project in the first place. They should have been taken to task, should have had their words thrown back at them! And when the Trans-Canada fire got a little too hot, what happened?

Oh, man. I was mad enough to spit nails...

One expert attempted to clarify his agency’s position on the Kibby project. He stated that they never actually ENDORSED the wind turbine development that is being built there… they simply withdrew their opposition because Trans-Canada had enabled them to purchase a large parcel of land elsewhere to put into a conservation easement. They had received “mitigation”, and so they withdrew their opposition. And then that gentleman--that expert--went one step further. He stated that if Trans-Canada wished to offer similar “mitigation” for the Sisk proposal…

Oh, hell.

Before the cross-examination was over, another of the three agencies admitted to the same thing… that they had sacrificed that which they are duty-bound to protect in exchange for something else of value. That the natural resources of Kibby had been important, but not so important that they couldn’t be forfeited if that agency received something bigger and better. It was justified, you see…

It was all for the greater good.

That saddest part of this whole thing? Our government endorses this practice. After all, “mitigation” is written into that misguided Expedited Permitting Law, LD 2283. I believe our administration may even encourage it, since if the opposing parties can reach a “meeting of the minds”, then the desired development is approved that much quicker, LURC is saved the trouble of having to agonize over a decision, and our governor gets closer to reaching his goal of 2,700 megawatts of land-based wind power by 2020.

Mitigation. Kill a baby, but build an orphanage. I guess that makes it all okay.

*******************************************
Top photo is of the Boundary Mountains, Maine

Canada Lynx and Industrial Wind

It was almost two years ago that I saw my first Canada Lynx in the wild. You cannot imagine the thrill that gave this game warden’s daughter, who has spent her whole life enthralled with the wildlife of Maine.

If their permit application is approved, Trans-Canada plans to build a grid-scale industrial wind turbine development on Sisk Mountain, one of the Boundary Mountains along the Chain of Ponds, between Quebec and western Maine. The permit states that 17.5 miles of new roads and 17 miles of corridor will have to built and maintained in order for the 15 massive turbines to be brought onto the site, erected, and maintained. These aren’t simply country lanes or skidder trails, either. These roads will permanently fragment prime wildlife habitat.

That big cat had been hunting. She had a rabbit in her mouth and she was running for home. I imagined a litter of lynx kittens waiting in the den, scuffling with each other as they practiced their own hunting and social skills while waiting for their mother to return with their lunch. I was humbled and in awe.

This is the Maine I dream about, and the one in which I was raised. It’s the Maine I now share with my children; the one in which I hope they can rear my grandchildren. If LURC grants Trans-Canada’s permit to place industrial wind on Sisk Mountain, the low and ultra low frequency sound, the shadow flicker, the criss-crossing of hunting trails by 60-150 foot wide roads, and the intrusion of man and his foreign-manufactured machines will devastate the rich habitat that the Canada Lynx has reclaimed as its own.

She had a rabbit in her mouth, and she was taking it home to her babies.


**************************************

Please add your voice of opposition to the industrialization of Sisk Mountain by attending the public Hearing on May 11th and 12th at Sugarloaf Mountain. For more information, please go to lurc@maine.gov.

Guidelines for Municipal Regulation of Wind Power

What follows is rather long, but it provides an excellent guide for municipalities who are facing potential wind turbine developments.

Municipal Regulation of Wind Power
(from Maine Townsman, March 2010)
by James N. Katsiaficas, Esq., Perkins Thompson

The combination of volatile oil prices and the need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions is leading consumers, business and government to seek alternatives to fossil fuels to generate electricity. One resource Maine has as an alternative to fossil fuels to generate electricity is wind. The Governor’s Task Force on Wind Power issued a report in 2008 identifying the significant land and offshore wind resources in the state. This report notes that wind power will be an important contributor to the state’s energy mix, and establishes wind-energy generation goals of 2,000 megawatts of installed capacity by 2015 and 3,000 megawatts of installed capacity by 2020, with approximately 300 megawatts from offshore wind and coastal waters. (By comparison, an average nuclear power plant generates about 1,000 megawatts.)
While the greater use of wind power to generate electricity may seem a viable alternative to fossil fuel electrical generation in Maine, as with any use, commercial wind power energy presents issues for Maine municipalities to address. The term “commercial wind power project” as used in this article means what the Governor’s Task Force Report refers to as “grid-scale” wind power development -- development that is large enough to trigger review under Maine’s Site Location of Development Act (“Site Law”), because it is a development that occupies 20 or more acres or has disturbed area, including structures, of three acres or more. Another definition of “commercial wind power project” would be a project that generates 100 kilowatts or more of electricity for sale or use by another party.

Some issues, such as whether commercial wind power is a desirable use at all, whether it is a cost-effective alternative to oil and to other alternative energy sources (such as hydropower) and whether the location of wind power projects near scenic vistas in western and eastern Maine is consistent with the preservation of Maine’s natural environment and surroundings and with the branding of Maine’s “sense of place,” are more global policy issues that are better addressed at the state and federal government levels.

Other, more site-specific issues are appropriately addressed at the municipal level. Assuming that wind power is a lawful use that has its place among the various land uses that might occur in Maine communities, this article focuses upon the more site-specific issues that are within the scope of municipal land-use review. For example, the movement of the sun through rotating turbine blades as seen from a nearby dwelling or business can produce the effect of alternating sunlight and darkness -- the phenomenon called “shadow flicker” -- for a period of time each day. Rotating turbine blades and the turbines themselves generate noise, both audible and low frequency (which may be felt as vibration). Snow and ice can be thrown from rotating turbine blades. In the unlikely event that a tower would fall, the site would need to accommodate its length in order to avoid harm to adjoining users, structures and properties. Also, there are impacts on the environment, from the development of large land areas for commercial wind power systems and from the effects of turbine blades on birds and bats. In addition, there is the impact of commercial wind power development on adjoining scenic and recreational resources.

As with the potential adverse impacts of any use, these are not reasons to prohibit commercial wind power development entirely from a community, but instead are reasons to responsibly regulate this use to ensure that it is compatible with other land use activities and uses in the municipality. This article reviews current federal and state regulation of commercial wind power and, as to municipal regulation, outlines potential local concerns, municipal regulatory authority and the planning, zoning and land use tools that can be implemented by exercising that municipal regulatory authority.

Federal and state regulation

Before discussing the details of municipal regulation of commercial wind power, it may be helpful to review regulation at the federal and state level.

There are several ways in which a commercial wind power development might be subject to federal regulation. Wind power projects on federal lands (and perhaps offshore projects) may require U.S. Environmental Protection Agency National Environmental Policy Act review, in the form of an environmental assessment or impact statement. Concerns about endangered species and migratory birds may require a U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service review; this agency has issued interim guidelines to protect wildlife resources and to streamline permitting. The Federal Aviation Administration requires approval for structures greater than 200 feet in height above ground level in order to avoid or minimize obstruction to navigable air space; its regulations also require appropriate lighting. If fill or dredging is necessary as part of a project, a U.S. Army Corps of Engineers permit may be required.

Please note that at present, nothing in federal law preempts or limits municipal regulation of wind power development. This is an important consideration. In many ways, the land use concerns regarding wind power are similar to those associated with cellular telephone towers but, while federal law bans municipal regulation of wireless facilities that prohibits or has the effect of prohibiting wireless communications, there is no such federal prohibition or restriction on municipal regulation of wind power development.

On the state level, several statutes and regulations might come into play with regard to commercial wind power projects. The Site Law most likely would be triggered by such a project. This would require an applicant to comply with the Site Law and the corresponding Maine Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) rules, including Chapters 375(10) (“Control of Noise”), 375(14), (“No Unreasonable Impact on Scenic Character”) and 375(15) (“Protection of Wildlife and Fisheries”). The Natural Resources Protection Act (NRPA) also can be triggered by development in fragile mountain areas, over or abutting stream crossings and abutting or near wetlands. In addition, if an area of an acre to more is disturbed by a project, a stormwater management permit may be necessary.

Also, Maine’s Legislature enacted a bill in 2008 implementing recommendations of the Governor’s Wind Power Task Force (P.L. 2007, c. 661) which streamlines review of wind power projects. In particular, it creates “expedited permit zones” which include virtually all of the organized areas of the State and that area of the unorganized and deorganized territories which LURC has zoned (approximately 1/4 to 1/3 of the townships in the unorganized and deorganized territories). Decisions by DEP and/or LURC generally are issued within 185 days of application (270 days if a public hearing is held). In these expedited permit zones, LURC and DEP review standards are amended, particularly with regard to protection of scenic resources and fitting harmoniously into the existing natural environment. This law explicitly provides that “This act is not intended to limit a municipality’s authority to regulate wind energy development.”

Municipal Regulation

What concerns does a commercial wind energy project raise that a municipality might want to regulate?

Many potential local concerns involve the location of commercial wind power projects. These include safety of uses and activities on the same and on adjacent property, fall-down zones, shadow flicker, wind access and conflicts between incompatible uses. Failure to appropriately site projects and to provide adequate setbacks from adjoining buildings and properties may result in adverse impacts on neighbors. Here are some of the local concerns that may arise:

Turbine blades can be up to 100 feet in length. Therefore, moving blades can throw ice great distances. Also, severe weather conditions may cause catastrophic turbine failure and in the event of turbine failure, blades may be thrown great distances. Therefore, turbines should be equipped with automatic and manual emergency shut-offs, grounded to avoid lightning damage. Turbines should have appropriate ground clearance and, because they may be attractive to would-be climbers, they should not be climbable. Turbine doors should be locked and fencing or other measures should be considered to limit access to the site. Certification of safety of structural, electrical and rotor components by a qualified engineer may be required before operations can commence.


A falling tower could cause damage to the same or adjoining property, thus requiring “fall down zones” equal to or greater than the combined length of tower and blades.

A municipality may require tower owners/operators to obtain and maintain general liability insurance.

Regulations may specify tower structure type, such as monopoles.

Shadow flicker can be disorienting to neighbors. DEP is working with a nationally recognized limit of no more 30 hours of shadow flicker per year (assuming the same period of sunlight and shadow flicker occurs each day). Shadow flicker also may be minimized by specifying minimum distances between turbines and dwellings.

Wind access is necessary to the proper operation of a wind tower and turbine, but may be impaired by buildings and structures constructed by adjacent landowners.

There also are concerns about the aesthetics of towers, turbines and blades. Turbines may impair scenic views if improperly located.

Regulations may require towers, turbines and turbine blades to be painted a non-obtrusive, non-reflective color such as white or gray to avoid or mitigate negative visual impacts.

Wind tower projects can generate noise as well as power. Some of this is audible noise, and some is low-frequency noise that is felt as vibrations. Many variables can affect noise impacts on nearby residents; impacts may affect areas for several thousand feet or even several miles.

Regulatory limits might address general audible noise as well as “low frequency” or “infrasound” noise and might set noise limits at the boundary of adjoining properties. Turbine noise may be minimized by specifying minimum distances between turbines and dwellings

Possible solutions include: noise modeling in advance and/or post-construction impact studies; establishing a noise complaint-resolution program; shutdown of turbines or restrictions on maximum turbine speeds during certain times; or, other mitigating measures, if post-construction noise studies show unreasonable adverse impacts.

Municipalities might seek to avoid unreasonable adverse impact on wildlife.

To minimize bird collisions, projects may be sited to avoid nesting, feeding and roosting areas and located away from migratory bat and bird habitat.

Applicants may agree to post-construction impact studies to monitor any negative impacts on wildlife and follow up actions, such as operational changes, to address these negative impacts.

Towers may be abandoned at some time in the future. Municipalities may wish to require turbine removal and site restoration upon facility abandonment, and may require a tower owner/operator to post a performance guaranty (bond, cash escrow or irrevocable letter of credit) to ensure funds for the same.

Local regulation could prohibit the location of signs and lights on towers (except as required by the FAA).

The cost of municipal project review of these projects may be substantial. Therefore, any municipal regulations should include appropriate application fees, as well as the standard engineering/consulting/legal peer review escrows to ensure sufficient funding for adequate expert review of applications.

Finally, a proposed commercial wind power project may raise the same land use issues and concerns as any other commercial or industrial land use, including: vehicular access; buildings and accessory structures; stormwater; solid waste; septic; and, general compliance with municipal zoning and shoreland zoning ordinances.

What regulatory authority does a city or town have to address these commercial wind power project concerns?

Three basic sources of municipal authority in Maine permit local regulation of commercial wind power development: zoning ordinance authority, police power authority and home rule ordinance authority. State law specifically authorizes a municipality to enact zoning ordinances, which allow it to divide the municipality into districts and to prescribe and apply different regulations in each district. Such ordinances must be consistent with the comprehensive plan. In addition, municipalities have the inherent police power authority to regulate activities to protect the public health, safety and welfare. Finally, Maine municipalities enjoy statutory home rule authority to enact ordinances to “exercise any power or function which the Legislature has power to confer upon it, which is not denied either expressly or by clear implication, and exercise any power or function granted to the municipality by the Constitution of Maine, general law, or charter.” The typical municipal “Site Plan Review” ordinance is an example of a common home rule land use ordinance.

How can municipalities address their concerns?

Comprehensive Plan Zoning/Planning Ordinance Enactment or Amendment. A municipality can take the proactive step of locating appropriate areas where commercial wind power projects fit in the community by amending the comprehensive plan, zoning ordinance and zoning map accordingly. It then can enact reasonable regulations in the zoning ordinance to allow commercial wind power project review, either by performance standards to be applied in site plan review or by a separate wind power section. This is a complete approach that would give the municipality the greatest latitude in regulating the location of and standards for such development.

As part of this complete approach, a municipality could amend its comprehensive plan and zoning ordinance to provide for the use as: (1) a permitted use within specific zoning districts; (2) a conditional use or special exception use within certain zoning district(s); or (3) within overlay district(s), which would allow the municipality to designate places in municipality where development of wind projects is deemed appropriate, regardless of existing zoning district boundaries. Because existing zoning ordinance height limits may prohibit all wind power turbines within the municipality; ordinance height restrictions may need to be amended for wind projects.

In addition to addressing the location of wind power projects, a municipality also could amend its zoning ordinance to include performance standards for commercial wind power uses and facilities in order to address specific land use concerns. The ordinance might require these performance standards to be addressed through site-plan review or special exception/conditional use review, or might include these standards as part of a commercial wind power review section.

Also, whether the commercial wind power use is a permitted use, a special exception or conditional use or one allowed only in overlay districts, a municipality can amend its zoning ordinance to require site plan review for wind energy development, to address general development concerns that might apply to any development. These general concerns may be vehicular access, stormwater management, solid waste disposal, septic systems and compliance with general zoning dimensional standards.

Stand-Alone Site Plan Ordinance. Alternatively, a municipality simply can enact a stand-alone site plan ordinance or commercial wind power ordinance to regulate such projects without having to enact a comprehensive plan, zoning ordinance and zoning map. The Maine State Planning Office has prepared a Model Wind Energy Facility Ordinance (available online at http://www.maine.gov/spo/landuse/docs/ModelWindEnergyFacilityOrdinance.doc) that may be enacted on its own or may be integrated into an existing zoning ordinance. However, enactment of a stand-alone wind power ordinance without also enacting a comprehensive plan, zoning ordinance and zoning map means that a commercial wind power project could be located anywhere within the municipality, so long as it meets the standards in the wind power ordinance. Thus, this form of regulation may not provide the desired level of local control over the location of a wind power project.

Moratorium. Finally, in the absence of any land use ordinances to regulate a commercial wind power project, a municipality can enact a temporary moratorium ordinance if it finds that the municipality’s current ordinances are inadequate to protect the public from serious public harm from such development. However, this is only a temporary remedy that allows the municipality time to develop and enact the necessary ordinances, and a moratorium ordinance should not be used to prohibit or indefinitely delay a proposed commercial wind power project.

(This article is based on a presentation made by the author at Androscoggin Valley Council of Government’s Planning Day, Nov. 5, 2009.)