The lawsuit challenging the town of Frankfort’s Wind Energy Ordinance was brought by three Maine residents who own land in Frankfort in the area of Mount Waldo. Working with a small New England wind energy developer, Eolian Renewable Energy, LLC, the plaintiffs determined that the land in question was suitable for a modestly sized (4-6 turbine) commercial wind energy facility.
Contracts between the plaintiffs and Eolian to begin development of the facility were entered into. These contract plans have essentially been nullified by the town’s passage of a moratorium ordinance temporarily barring the development from proceeding. This was followed by passage of a wind facility ordinance that by its terms bars the proposed facility at its planned location (and almost certainly bars commercial wind energy facilities anywhere in the town).
The plaintiff’s attorney has raised a number of issues (each having considerable merit). For example, the town enacted a zoning-type ordinance without having a comprehensive plan as statutes require. The ordinance, without regard to “equal protection” principles, imposes noise limitations only on wind energy facilities. Other, considerably louder noise producing activities remain unregulated.
The ordinance also imposes setback requirements on wind energy facilities that are incapable of being met. The ordinance in its detail and time consuming burdens (burdens not imposed on other commercial activities) is not a good faith regulation of wind facilities but is, in reality, a prohibition.
These (and more) are pressing issues that Maine courts will ultimately have to decide, as an increasing number of Maine towns whipped up by fears, misinformation, and NIMBY attitudes enact ordinances similar in tone and substance to Frankfort’s. The Waldo County Superior Court, however, may avoid these important issues for now, but only because plaintiffs have laid out even worse flaws in the two ordinances — a pattern of inappropriate behavior by the town in the enactment process — behavior that violates fundamental principles of fairness and constitutionally protected “due process” rights.
The moratorium ordinance (beyond stopping the plaintiff’s proposed development) created a Wind Energy Review Committee charged with drafting a wind energy ordinance for the town. Had these duties been reserved to the selectmen, or delegated to an impartial person or body — the town attorney, the Maine Municipal Association, “due process” problems might have been avoided.
Instead, the committee created in the moratorium consisted almost entirely of strident anti-wind residents of the town. It resisted efforts to enlarge the committee membership. Representatives of Eolian were denied the opportunity to speak at the annual town meeting.
Moving forward, the committee conducted its work from June to October, largely in private and/or by communicating with one another by email. Interested parties were directed to an anti-wind energy website, friendsofwaldomountain.org, for information on the committee’s work. Without consulting the selectmen or the town attorney (using funds from unnamed sources), the committee engaged outside counsel to help shape the ordinance it was drafting.
The committee also resisted all Freedom of Access requests (by Eolian and subsequently by the selectmen) to obtain documents related to the committee’s work.
In September the committee submitted the ordinance to selectmen and the town attorney.
By late September, Eolian and the town attorney submitted comments to the board laying out their substantive and procedural reservations to the draft.
In a further communication in early October, the town attorney bluntly told selectmen that the committee “has been conducting its business and deliberations by email and other means outside of publicly noticed proceedings…” required by Maine law. He further opined that “it is impossible to fix a defective process that has already occurred…” Maine case law supports his views (see Mutton Hills v. Town of Oakland, 1983).
But the committee largely ignored these comments and reservations. It made some minor changes to its draft ordinance. It then pressed selectmen to bring the proposed ordinance to a Dec. 1 vote, and lobbied relentlessly throughout the town for passage of the ordinance. The ordinance was adopted by a vote of 244–222.
This unfair course of conduct by the town and the committee (laid out in the plaintiff’s complaint and supported by countless documents) is now before the Waldo County Court. I fully expect that the court will find this persistent trampling of the plaintiff’s “due process” rights to be unacceptable — and that the product of this misbehavior, Frankfort’s Wind Facility Ordinance, will be declared void. Stay tuned.
Orlando E. Delogu is emeritus professor of law at the University of Maine School of Law.
Professor, Professor, Professor….where to begin in responding to your fantastical account of events in Frankfort. The duly elected wind ordinance committee held numerous publicized meetings prior to crafting the ordinance. These meetings were often attended by a representative of the Eolian wind development company. Eolian spent tens of thousands of dollars and had two full time staff people constantly pressing residents to vote against the ordinance. The State planning office was contacted about the false argument being floated that a Town cannot enact an ordinance without a comprehensive plan. A State planning office staff person has said this is not correct. Eolian representatives had spoken at public meetings, but since they are not Town residents, attendees to a Town meeting where votes were to be taken decided that they only wanted to hear from residents. This case is all about non resident property owners and a neophyte wind development company heel bent on reaping profits from the wind scam. These folks care nothing about residents living within a mile of six proposed, 450 foot tall plus, industrial wind turbines and the twenty-four hour a day noise they will generate and the reduction of residents’ property values.
You’d give a hysterically funny interview. Like Edward R. Morrow used to say, “Good night and good luck.”
Put a fork in Eolian.
There have been nine ordinance around the state put to a vote since November. All went against wind.
So much for the wind industry’s faux polls. The real polls at the ballot boxes overwhelmingly go against the bogus scam of wind. What a joke. What a con.
“Overwhelming” does not accurately describe a vote of 244 to 222, especially in a town that had stacked the deck against wind development.
Nine for nine = 100% = Maine’ s REAL polls are overwhelmingly against this pure confidence game by the special interests.
You’re right, Frankfort was a close vote. However, almost 30 Maine towns (including Portland) have passed local ordinances that will effectively keep grid-scale development out of their communities. Most of the vote tallies have been quite lopsided, some unanimous. Frankfort is an unusual case with its small margin. Most of the small margins have been in votes that accepted wind development.
What’s notable here is that wind promoters keep telling us that polls show Mainers support “wind power”, but arguing that Mainers support any and all “wind development.” Clearly, what’s happened in these 30ish towns, many that were facing imminent wind development, is a signal that Mainers have serious reservations about the State of Maine’s permissive behavior towards wind developers.
Remember, we live in a state where the deck was stacked against the people who would have to live with wind development. These towns have simply been turning the tables in their favor.
On the surface wind sounds as good as motherhood and apple pie. One generally doesn’t scratch below the surface until they have a reason, e.g., wind comes to your town. Virtually all towns of late reject it after studying it.
“Virtually all towns of late reject it after studying it…”
My understanding is that most of the towns who vote on wind power don’t necessarily reject it, but apply certain restrictions that the communities feel are reasonable. That’s not a bad thing. This does not mean that there is not widespread support for wind power in places where siting is appropriate.
There is no widespread support for wind power because there are no places in Maine where siting is appropriate. I say we do the recently approved expansion of the Oakfield project (50 turbines, each 459 feet tall) in Greater Portland and have it sprawl across every available public space from Falmouth to Cape Elizabeth (Mackworth Island, Maaine Audubon’s Gilsland Farm, Back Cove, Deering Oaks, Eastern & Westrn Promenades in Portland, Bug Light Park in So. Portland, and Ft. Williams, Two Lights State Park & Crescent Beach State Park in Cape Eliz.). The end of these sprawling, destructive wind developments would be halted so fast your head would spin faster than the tip of a turbine blade slicing through an eagle (200+ mph!).
How did I know that your answer would be “No place in Maine is appropriate?” Turns out that many landowners and communities feel they have a place that is appropriate, and your wishes aren’t necessarily more important than theirs with regard to their own land.
I would throw in Brownie Carson’s place in Harpswell and Angus King’s on Indian Point in Georgetown.
I don’t recall anyone ever arguing that Mainers support any and all wind development. I certainly don’t advocate that approach. However, it is quite dubious to claim that there is overwhelming opposition to wind power in Maine based on the whims of 30ish towns. That’s in a state that includes 435 towns, 22 cities, 33 plantations, 424 unorganized townships, and 3 indian reservations. Their is no lack of evidence that overwhelming numbers of Mainers support wind power and the revenue benefits that the industry can provide to communities, residents, and workers.
If I had claimed that there was overwhelming opposition to wind power in Maine, I also would call it dubious. But I didn’t say that.
Wind power advocates very frequently use the “overwhelming support” argument to justify development. They do this without making the distinction between supporting wind power as an “ideal” and supporting wind power in certain places, under certain conditions, or perhaps even in very limited amounts.
The commonly cited polls that have been done in Maine were commissioned by the NRCM and made no effort to get into the details of what it means to “support wind power”. I support wind power in certain places and situations. But, if I responded to their poll that I “somewhat support wind power” I would have been counted as a supporter and there would have been no attention given to the fact that I don’t support “any and all” wind development.
The vast majority of towns, townships, etc. in Maine would have little use for a wind siting ordinance that addresses grid scale projects since the vast majority of Maine has marginal to poor wind in terms of commercial viability. Also, remember that people living in the LURC jurisdiction cannot enact ordinances, so all of that area is off limits to ordinances anyway. So, the 30ish number is really only useful when speaking relatively. When you consider only the organized towns that have a realistic chance of seeing wind development, that number becomes a little more significant.
By the way, look for that number to climb this spring.
“If I had claimed that there was overwhelming opposition to wind power in Maine, I also would call it dubious. But I didn’t say that.”
To your credit, armichka, you didn’t say it. But many of your more strident anti-wind colleagues are fond of saying it, and they are the ones who I question.
Not all the polls showing 80 percent support for wind were commissioned by NRCM. The Spring 2010 Critical Insights poll wasn’t commissioned by anybody, and still showed the same 80 percent support. They are the same polling unit that predicted LePage’s photo finish victory during the election, so it seems that their information is at least somewhat valid.
There will be some victories for each side during siting, and some losses…that’s as it should be.
Touche’…..regarding the Spring 2010 poll. My comment was based on my copy of the Spring 2011 poll which indicates that it had been prepared for the NRCM – I was a bit too broad in my statement.
I don’t question the validity of their results. I have no reason to. What the results mean is probably open to varied interpretations, though. I’m just not comfortable with the use of a very general poll question by the industry to describe the opinion of a populace that more likely has very specific individual opinions that aren’t captured by the poll’s very general wording.
It’s a bit like asking: “Do you support world peace?” Who doesn’t? Start adding details about how you’re planning to get there and the numbers will start changing. I think most of us want clean air, water, good economy, and so on, but the how we get there part probably needs to be discussed a little more inclusively.
Starting to get in the weeds here, so I’ll leave it at that.
The wind industry’s polls are cooked. The evidence coming in is OVERWHELMING that Mainer who study wind soon see it for the scam that it is.
See:
http://www.windtaskforce.org/page/ordinances-moratoriums
Eolian was given every opportunity to win. Full time staff, constant phone calls and mailings bombarded Frankfort residents by the wind company. A full day of open polling. Most ordinances have been passed in a Town meeting format, not a day long special election that included absentee ballots. The ordinance passed by about 5%.
52% of the vote is not a close election.
The same people that think 52% means it should be challenged are the same ones that think 61 divided 3 equals more than 39.
Get your facts straight, the was no stacked deck.
“There was no stacked deck…”
Apparently, at least one law professor, several landowners on Mt. Waldo, and 48 percent of Frankfort voters disagree with you.
Again, you weren’t there throughout the process and don’t have a clue. The numbers rebutting your post should tell you that
Maybe the 3 landowners should be sued by the nearby residents? The precedent is the 17 lawsuits in Mars Hill which were recently settled by FirstWind. Should the project be built KNOWING the suits will prevail by abutters? If the people voted the ord. in it should stand. What does Mr. Delogu think about the Rollins mess in Lincoln when citizens were not allowed to appeal a planning board approval of an obviously illegal project?
I say, it is about time the wind companies got the same treatment as the people that have challenged ordinances for these wind projects. Town officials have said, ” this issue is moot” and “having a second vote would be redundant”. So developers of the wind project, this subject is moot and it would be redundant to change the voters minds. To bad, you loose. No federal subsidy for you. Quality of life is more important then federal subsidy and 25% capacity. Wind turbines do make noise, A LOT OF NOISE, AND PROVEN TO MAKE PEOPLE PHYSICALLY SICK.
THANK- YOU RESIDENTS FOR TAKING A RESPONSIBLE STAND.
This is one of those times when it really helps to know a little about the writer of the article.
Mr. Delogu has been a longtime, vigorous supporter of wind power development, writing extensively on the subject. In fact, he’s been critical of the ordinances that Maine towns have been passing to defend themselves from wind developers and has even suggested in past writings that these ordinances should be overturned. It would come as no surprise if I discovered that Mr. Delogu, an attorney himself, had been involved behind the scenes in bringing this case to bear. He seems to know the details quite well.
Mr. Delogu has been trying for years to get Maine’s most undeveloped lands opened to greater development, including, but not limited to wind power. He is a long time critic of LURC and has groused for years about decisions made by LURC that disallowed specific large developments – I’m not sure what his personal interest has been.
Mr. Delogu had access to the Wind Task Force a few years back that the majority of us did not. He was a strong advocate for Maine laws to disregard the people who have to bear the burden of living with wind turbines. He wanted the deck loaded in favor of developers. His writings suggest that he would like to see ALL of the local restrictive wind ordinances overturned.
Mr. Delogu has written in favor of eminent domain seizures of private property followed by transference to other private companies. It seems that his interest in the sanctity of property rights only extend to those decisions that favor him or his view of the world.
Having read quite a few of his published pieces, this is a person about whom it is difficult for me to maintain any decorum when writing.
“Having read quite a few of his published pieces, this is a person about whom it is difficult for me to maintain any decorum when writing.”
Perfectly stated.
Let’s suppose that Mr. Delogu is correct, and that any town without a comprehensive plan is legally not permitted to pass a wind ordinance. What then? Is he suggesting that any town without a comprehensive plan is fair game for wind developers and that there is absolutely nothing that a town may do? Unless Mr. Delogu is crazy, he can’t believe that. Alternatively, maybe he thinks it would be acceptable for a town to maintain a moratorium on wind development while the town develops both a comprehensive plan *and* a wind ordinance, a process that could easily take two years. Given Mr. Delogu’s past support of development at all costs, I can’t imagine that he would support that alternative either.
This lawsuit is the worst sort of example of using the legal system to game the system, attempting to intimidate and wear down an opponent. Besides, in this instance, it’s probably pointless. People voted. Assuming that there is some fine legal point that needs to be resolved, then they can vote again to modify the ordinance and fix whatever needs to be fixed. The only way the ordinance will be thrown out wholesale (as Mr. Delogu seems to want) is if the town rolls over.
Google the author. You’ll find extensive ties to the wind industry, an industry that cannot survive without subsidies that raise your taxes and your electric bills.
Good thing the town will be defended by the Maine Municipal Association’s excellent legal team. I wouldn’t be surprised if the suit is dismissed at its very first hearing.
Industrial scale wind turbine complexes are huge undertakings, and there is no such thing a a modestly sized development as this biased reporter states.
One 469 foot turbine dominates the surroundings, is noise producing at significant levels, (as any 3000 horse power turbine would be ,have you heard a train lately), and is intermittent in nature. Now line up 3 ,5 or 40 of them , and you have a serious community issue, that must be addressed by any knowledgeable community.
The more a community learns, the more communities will protect themselves from this scourge.
It affects property values of abutters within miles, fragments the communities natural environment, and changes the area for potentially generations. It affects the health of many abutters who are within thousands of feet of them with potential deleterious health impacts, as have been well documented.
Frankfort is just ones of dozens of communities now under protective ordinances in Maine from this scourge. Under the Maine State Constitution , Article 1,people have the obligation to protect the well being of themselves and their community by the well established and , indeed, constitutionally mandated principal of Maine home rule.
Just because a developer does not like the regulations imposed by a popular vote supporting home rule in a community via ordinance does not make a legal case of worth.
Hopefully , this will be the start of this legal process to once and for all end this nonsense of frivolous suits, slapping the rights of a duly derived ordinances and votes of a town by the wind lobby in Maine.
Just as LD-199 was stopped by the legislature (in a futile attempt to thwart home rule in 2009), this slap suit will ultimately fail.
The cry babies of Eolian and the three land owners(now drooling in anger knowing their subsidy scheme will never come to fruition) will now be tied up in court for this year and more . Hopefully this case may also be pulled to the supreme court, and stop the potential of this subsidy sucking, law breaking company from any development in the future.
During the year , more towns will exert their home rule as demanded by our Maine State Constitution.
The wind lobby is fuming at this case, as well as the slowing of their steamrolling LD-2283 Expedited wind scam all over Maine.
Sorry, let justice be done.
Years of delay, and the ultimate failure of the wind lobby to prevail over citizens exerting their rights will ultimately occur.
In actuality, there will many more protective wind ordinances in Maine.
This protective process has just begun, and,as the knowledge base of the citizens increases exponentially to the wind threat, more ordinances will pop up where the threat is real ,or perceived.
The coercive and heinous wind lobby that invaded Maine in full force in 2008 , subsidy sicking and perverting Maine’s home rule, is now seeing the beginning of its demise.
As governor LePage stated this week, they (wind power) will have to compete on a fair, economical and legal playing field with other real sources of power, like natural gas and hydro, and that thought sends shivers up their scheming spines.
“As governor LePage stated this week, they (wind power) will have to compete on a fair, economical and legal playing field with other real sources of power, like natural gas and hydro…”
How do you like those huge natural gas subsidies, Arthur? Level playing field… yeah, right. Funny that we never hear about any fossil fuel subsidy that you don’t like.
Also, the fact remains that 48% of Frankfort voters were in favor of allowing less restrictions of wind power in town. You dismiss them as if they amount to zero percent of the voter base.
Natural gas subsidies are a fraction of
the percentage of wind power’s. In addition, gas is a dense 24/7 /365
energy source . Natural gas subsidies are a pittance compared to wind
according to the EIA.
On a per unit basis of energy
production, in 2007, the wind sector got 93 times as much federal
subsidies than natural gas sector even though gas produced 28 time
more electricity that was available , dispatch-able, dense and clean.
Wind will never compete. We should
actually be subsidizing gas (if one believes in such a concept in a
free economy ), at higher levels, because it is much more valuable to
a modern economy. Wind is merely a green farce..
A barrel of gas ,say methane ,is much
more BTU rich than one of air, as we all know, (except I expect you
to refute that as well). Oh well. Now, look up EIA data(Federal
Energy Information Administration) on 2010 subsidization, and the $23.37
MW/hr stat is even worse than the 2007 data!
So, the gas powered sector obtained 227
million in 2007.Wow, but that was subsidized at 25 cents MW/hr! Wind at $23.37 Mw/hr! Wind received 93 times as much in subsidization, but GAS produced 28 times as much electricity, when needed.
Gas produced 900 million MW/hr in 2007! And wind….puff production sometimes.
Wind received 93 times as much of a
subsidy (per/MW produced) even though gas produced 28 times as much
electricity!
Such a deal wind is !! HO HO.
Gas is a bargain, and getting cheaper
every day, killing wind and placing the nails in the coffin, and
LePage knows that.
Don’t you hate the fact that LePage wants to give the consumer choice?
l am sure Mainers will opt for the more expensive electricity , don’t you? It is GREEN!.
As far as the vote in Frankfort, the
victory was most decisive , as you admit. The minority 48 percent did
not get near breaking the majority percentage needed by vote!
And as we know, 1 vote would have been
enough in a democratic election, unless sore losers like Eolian and 3
other stake holders whine.
Was there a recall BTW ? Was the vote
declared fraudulent?
In either case, this is a win win for
the citizens. This project will be delayed by legal actions for
years, and when federal subsidies end this year under 1603, the
project will be dead, because Eolian does not have the financial
capacity required by law to fund the project under the DEP permit
mandate.
And for Eolian Wind, the clock is
ticking, no shovels in the ground for spring yet?
And Eolian will lose, again.
Oh , Give me a barrel of AYAH, Says Mainah, as he passes up the more dense gases..He prefers pay a lot for the breeze from Ayah.
“Natural gas subsidies are a pittance compared to wind…”
79 billion dollars in fossil fuel subsidies between 2002 and 2008 according to the EIA. 29 billion for ALL renewables during the same time period. Only the anti-windys can find a way to say that a small portion of 29 billion is vastly more than all of 79 billion. Anything to protect fossil fuels until the last drop of oil is sucked out of the ground along with the last ounce of coal, which is a day that inevitably will come. These subsidy figures don’t even mention the trillion dollar subsidy paid by the US taxpayer to keep an American military force in the middle east for the past decade to protect the oil supply. Such a deal fossil fuels are… HO HO HO.
“Gas is a bargain, and getting cheaper…”
We’ll see how cheap gas is if the estimates of reserves have been overblown to pad the value of natural gas companies and make subsidies easier to come by, as has been reported by the NY Times in recent weeks, based on whistleblowers within the industry and surveys of thousands of wells. In any case, as gas is depleted, the cost will rise (and it will be depleted even faster if it is not accompanied by a diverse collection of alternative fuel sources), as will happen if fracking creates environmental damage that raises grass roots opposition.
As for the Frankfort vote: yes 52 percent beats 48 percent. But to claim that 52 percent is an “overwhelming” victory for anti-windys is obviously just a lot of crowing. 48 percent of Frankfort voters say you and your anti-wind colleagues are wrong.
Uh oh…look mainah wind shill
Algonquin Power & Utilities Corp. Announces Withdrawal from Minority Interest Wind Investment
OAKVILLE, ON, Jan. 27, 2012 /CNW/
– Algonquin Power & Utilities Corp. (“APUC”) (TSX: AQN) today
announced that it plans not to proceed with the previously announced
investment in First Wind Holdings, LLC’s (“First Wind”) wind portfolio in the North East United States (“Portfolio”). The initial joint announcement with Emera Inc. (“Emera”) (TSX:EMA) in April 2011 had contemplated APUC acquiring a minority interest of approximately 12.5% in the Portfolio, representing an approximate U.S. $83 million investment.
“Although
First Wind is a developer of high quality wind projects, the longer
than anticipated regulatory process in Maine, together with the
transactions we have
announced since April 2011 have contributed to our decision not to proceed with the First Wind investment”, commented Ian Robertson, Chief Executive Officer of APUC.
“Jan. 25 (Bloomberg) — The U.S. probably will extend incentives for the wind energy industry regardless of whether President Barack Obama or the Republicans win the election in November, a former adviser to the Senate Finance Committee said.
Dean Zerbe, managing director at Alliantgroup, a Houston- based tax consulting services firm, said in an interview that the Production Tax Credit probably will be renewed by lawmakers after the vote or early next year. The wind credit, due to expire in December, grants an incentive worth 2.2 cents a kilowatt-hour of power produced.”
One more time, 52 is in fact ,more than 48. And that really does mean that one side won and one side lost. We’re stuck with the worst president in history with the same numbers. Live with it.
One more time: Anybody with a third grade education knows that 52 is more than 48. Anyone with a third grade education also knows that 52 is not “overwhelmingly” more than 48 though strident anti-windys like PenobScot love to say it is. Live with it.
By the way, Obama did send Bin Laden to the bottom of the sea, and that really means one side won and one side lost. That’s an accomplishment that other recent presidents failed to accomplish, despite premature pronouncements of “Mission Accomplished” and “We’re gonna git him, dead or alive.”
Proof positive, liberal non thinking, doesn’t care about facts idealog. Opinions are fine, but unfortunately you aren’t intitled to your own facts. Facts win out over opinion everytime and will this time, By the way has anyone bothered to ask the Allen boys how they voted when the ordinace was passed in the toen they live in. I’d wager they weren’t real vocal over that one.
Put the people before the politics that pad the pockets of the parasites.
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.
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.
Regarding the sudsidies and leveling the playing field…
Wind projects are heavily subsidized at an exorbitant
rate. Not accounting
for state incentives, ratepayer mandates, and various policies, wind generated
electricity is generously subsidized by federal taxpayers. According to the
U.S. Energy Information Administration, wind generators take federal subsidies at
a rate of $56.29 per megawatt hour (MWh). Compare this to the subsidy totals
for reliable generators like natural gas and coal, which receive 64 cents/MWh,
Hydro: 82 cents, Nuclear: $3.14, and Geothermal: $12.85/MWh.
Far more subsidies per MW for an energy source which is unreliable and intermittent and very expensive. Yes, let’s level that playing field.
Wind projects are heavily subsidized at an exorbitant
rate. Not accounting
for state incentives, ratepayer mandates, and various policies, wind generated
electricity is generously subsidized by federal taxpayers. According to the
U.S. Energy Information Administration, wind generators take federal subsidies at
a rate of $56.29 per megawatt hour (MWh). Compare this to the subsidy totals
for reliable generators like natural gas and coal, which receive 64 cents/MWh,
Hydro: 82 cents, Nuclear: $3.14, and Geothermal: $12.85/MWh.
Far more subsidies per MW for an energy source which is unreliable and intermittent and very expensive. Yes, let’s level that playing field.
Thank you Karen for the latest EIA data. Wind is such a costly farce , and , as we see compared to 2007 data, wind’s costs are escalating as time passes.
I myself like getitng my monies worth , and I could never consider costly wind as an option ,evah.
Nor will any Mainah , when given a choice to select their supplier under deregulation.
“Far more subsidies per MW for an energy source which is unreliable and intermittent and very expensive.”
Why should fossil fuels receive ANY subsidy during a time when fossil fuel conglomerates are raking in record profits and should be able to stand on their own? Shall we also toss in the trillion dollar subsidy to send an army to the middle east to protect the oil supply for the past decade? Yet, the anti-windys don’t include those points in their diatribe against absurd subsidies. BTW, there was a time when oil, nukes, hydro, and other emerging technologies, not to mention aviation, the transcontinental rail system, and steel shipping all required subsidies in order to establish themselves. Experts such as the engineers of the University of Maine believe that wind has a place in our energy future. I’d rather be subsidizing their research than spending that taxpayer funding on royalties for foreign oil.
I just guess your blind , non-scientific politically motivated , subsidy seeking , economically non-researched data is superior. You are too funny.In either case, facts will prevail , eventually.
LaPage is right- on concerning energy for Maine,and the non-sense of “renewables”.
The Report the White House Doesn’t Want You To Read:
Neither do Rep. Fitts and Hinck of the Maine EUT ! Nor Eolian for that matter.
———————————-
WASHINGTON D.C.
The Institute for Energy Research released today a groundbreaking NorthAmerican EnergyInventory exposing the decades-long myth that the U.S. is running out of coal, oil, and
natural gas because of inadequate domestic supplies. As a part of
IER’s year long “Energy for America” campaign, the report
details the vast energy resources that could power the nation’s
future, if not for government policy that stands in the way.
“The current administration and its green energy allies in business and in
Washington appear willing to drive up the price of energy for
American consumers by limiting access to our vast resources. For the
past several years, taxpayer dollars have been spent to fund unproven
green energy pipe dreams, while Americans have been denied the
opportunity to utilize the coal, oil, and natural gas that is
literally under our feet,” said IER President Tom Pyle about the
report.
“This energy report should change the conversation in Washington and
promote policies that reproduce nationwide the energy boom in places
like North Dakota, where unemployment is at now at 3.5 percent (the
lowest in the nation) and domestic production on private lands has
more than tripled in the last five years. The Institute for Energy
Research is proud to release this report, the culmination of months
of research and analysis by IER experts. We have drawn from a broad
array of government, industry, and university data to present hard
facts — not myths — about our energy future. The report presents
a clearer picture than the anti-fracking, anti-drilling, and
anti-exploring ideologues in Washington want the American people tos see.
Among the report’s findings are:
– When combined with resources from Canada and Mexico, the total recoverable
oil in North America exceeds 1.7 trillion barrels. That’s more than
the entire world has used in 150 years, and sufficient to fuel the
present needs in the United States for the next 250 years.
-In the last 30 years, the United States produced 77 billion barrels of
oil, which was more than 150 percent of the estimated reserves in
1980.
-The total amount of recoverable natural gas in North America is
approximately 4.2 quadrillion (4,244 trillion) cubic feet. That is
enough natural gas in North America to last for the next 175 years at
current rates of consumption.
– There is more recoverable natural gas in North America, Canada, and Mexico
than the combined proved reserves in Russia, Iran, Qatar, Saudi
Arabia, and Turkmenistan.
-North America has more than 497 billion short tons of recoverable coal, or
nearly three times as much as Russia, which has the world’s second
largest reserves. In fact, North America’s recoverable coal
resources are bigger than the five largest non-North American
countries’ reserves combined (Russia, China, Australia, India,
Ukraine.)
-A scarcity of good policies, not a scarcity of energy, is responsible
for U.S. energy insecurity.
watch a video presentation of the report’s central findings, click
here.http://www.canadafreepress.com…
Attached
PDF from: http://energyforamerica.org/wp…
Oh well, pass your low molecular weight gas. I prefer gas that is dense.
“I just guess your blind , non-scientific politically motivated , subsidy seeking, economically non-researched data is superior…”
Just so you know, Arthur, The Institute for Energy Research which you tout here is a pro-fossil fuel organization funded in large measure by the fossil fuel conglomerates. The Canada Free Press is a right-wing rag which naturally will support any effort to kill renewables. The gobbledygook that you quote from these sources serves no objective purpose other than to illustrate what baloney one can expect to hear from those who will protect the fossil fuel stranglehold on our society at all costs.
Please respond to the issue of cost per MW/hr produced. Or, I guess you buy at any price, to feel good.
Please talk about the trillion dollars spent in the middle east to protect the oil supply (not to mention the countless lives lost), and while you’re at it, talk about how you feel regarding the fact that every lake in Maine, as well as mountaintops, forests, and animal populations are polluted with mercury emissions from midwestern coal fired power production. I guess you’ll support fossil fuel use at any cost.
The mercury emissions from coal-fired power plants are doing more to harm bugs, bats, birds and animals than windmills are, according to a recent article in the New York Times. What meager price do you put on that damage to justify fossil fuel use?
“Songbirds and bats suffer some of the same types of neurological disorders from mercury as humans and especially children do, says the study, “Hidden Risk,” by the Biodiversity Research Institute, a nonprofit organization in Gorham, Me., that investigates emerging environmental threats.
Methylmercury, the most toxic form of the heavy metal, was found to be widespread throughout the Northeast — not just in lakes and rivers, as had already been known, but also in forests, on mountaintops and in bogs and marshes that are home to birds long thought to be at minimal risk.
The new study found dangerously high levels of mercury in several Northeastern bird species, including rusty blackbirds, saltmarsh sparrows and wood thrushes. Previous studies have shown mercury’s effects on loons and other fish-eating waterfowl, as well as bald eagles, panthers and otters. In one study, zebra finches lost the ability to hit high notes in mating songs when mercury levels rose, affecting reproduction.”
Renewables offer some hope of reversing these damaging trends over time. If you won’t believe me, have a conversation with the engineers at the University of Maine.
Economics justifies fossil fuel use. If we did not have it, we would have to invent it. Then again, economics is alien to you.
“…economics is alien to you.”
Given your disregard of the environmental impacts of fossil fuel, which are quite easily supported by data such as the Maine CDC warnings about eating Maine freshwater fish, simple reading comprehension is alien to you.
Every lake polluted ? Too funny, and non-factual.
From the Maine CDC —
“Warning: Mercury in Maine freshwater fish may harm the babies of pregnant and nursing mothers, and young children.
Safe Eating Guidelines
Pregnant and nursing women, women who may get pregnant, and children under age 8 SHOULD NOT EAT any freshwater fish from Maine’s inland waters. Except, for brook trout and landlocked salmon, 1 meal per month is safe.
All other adults and children older than 8 CAN EAT 2 freshwater fish meals per month. For brook trout and landlocked salmon, the limit is 1 meal per week.
It’s hard to believe that fish that looks, smells, and tastes fine may not be safe to eat. But the truth is that fish in Maine lakes, ponds, and rivers have mercury in them. Other states have this problem too. Mercury in the air settles into the waters. It then builds up in fish. For this reason, older fish have higher levels of mercury than younger fish. Fish (like pickerel and bass) that eat other fish have the highest mercury levels.
Small amounts of mercury can harm a brain starting to form or grow. That is why unborn and nursing babies, and young children are most at risk. Too much mercury can affect behavior and learning. Mercury can harm older children and adults, but it takes larger amounts. It may cause numbness in hands and feet or changes in vision. The Safe Eating Guidelines identify limits to protect everyone.”
If you do your research you will find that wind turbines in Maine have no effect whatsoever on the reduction of fossil fuels or co2 emissions because of their intermittence and the fact that the energy cannot be stored. Talking about foreign oil, coal, nukes or any other energy source in this discussion at this point in time is obsolete. I would like to know what happened to the 100mpg Toyota that was developed and tested in 2001?
“you will find that wind turbines in Maine have no effect whatsoever on the reduction of fossil fuels…”
We hear this mantra over and over yet never see any supporting data, only theories that are countered by pro-wind people who have their own theories.
Do your research and you will find it and please don’t worry; if you really want to know you can do it.
I have done the research, Buzz. And what I have found is that for every argument put forward by anti-windys claiming there is no environmental benefit from wind, there are credible counter-claims by pro-windys saying there are many environmental benefits from wind. If you want to put your specific claims on the table, I will be happy to direct you to the counter points one at a time.
First of all; you cannot talk about wind as a one size fits all issue. You have to talk about why wind does not work on Maine’s mountains. Most of the “pro wind” research comes from the corrupt corporations and scientists hired by them. Similar to the tobacco companies that had scientists testify that cigarettes are not harmful to health. The “anti” wind movement has arisen because of the revelations that what has been told by the corporations to the people of Maine is false. Look at the research in that light and I think you will find a different picture.
Regarding the sudsidies and leveling the playing field…
Wind projects are heavily subsidized at an exorbitant
rate. Not accounting for state incentives, ratepayer mandates, and various policies, wind generated
electricity is generously subsidized by federal taxpayers. According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, wind generators take federal subsidies at a rate of $56.29 per megawatt hour (MWh). Compare this to the subsidy totals for reliable generators like natural gas and coal, which receive 64 cents/MWh, Hydro: 82 cents, Nuclear: $3.14, and Geothermal: $12.85/MWh.
Far more subsidies per MW for an energy source which is unreliable and intermittent and very expensive. Yes, let’s level that playing field.
the land may or may not be suitable but if people have made a wind ordinance democratically the issue is mute and most hills in Maine and forests and know NOT to be good for wind power..inefficient at best, if you do the research,,
and wind companies are doing the opposite- which is pushing their agenda on communities who have no wind ordinances..when it affects other communities nearby (NIMBY) and when they have NOT told people of the town the other side of the story (there are MANY other sides which all rob Maine of what it is on so many levels)- THAT to me is also criminal.
As for most hills and forests in Maine, they are exactly 89% below the national average. Please see:
http://www.windtaskforce.org/page/maine-s-wind-is-poor
No one has rights that negatively impact others rights. A “modest” turbine development of 3 or 4 turbines impacts a lot of people in Frankfort not just the landowners whose eyes are big for the money offered by greedy corporate developers. An ordinance comes into being after much research is done from all sides of the issue. It is designed not to keep the developers out but to protect all concerned. It is designed to insure that the developers obey all existing laws, take into consideration human and environmental impacts and to disallow the lies that developers perpetrate on citizens of towns. It takes into account the history of wind turbine development in the past. If the developers cannot function under these conditions then they should get the hell out of town!
Amen!
“No one has rights that negatively impact others rights…”
Yet you claim that your rights to absolute silence and primordial vistas trumps the landowner’s right to develop his or her land.
Absolute silence? Primordial vistas?`You are so unscientific and love to exaggerate.
Jes, 25 DBa is not absolute silence, and I havnt seen any dinosaurs lately. You are too funny!
Have a good evening. You have humored me again, and are of poor entertainment value .
As far as facts, most lacking.
Netflix has a movie on Chicken Little and the Sky that is falling, along with Green Dreams .
It is much more entertaining.
“You are so unscientific and love to exaggerate. 25 DBa is not absolute silence…”
Let’s talk about exaggeration, shall we Arthur? You think 25 decibels should be a reasonable standard for the sounds coming from windmills in order to prevent so-called health effects on humans. A quick search of the web shows that 30 decibels is the amount of background sound allowable in a professional recording studio. 20 decibels is the amount of sound released by a ticking watch. You’re the Chicken Little who claims that sounds slightly louder than the ticking of a watch will cause serious illnesses in human beings.
Again, pro wind has only theory, no facts. Follow the information back and it leads to big wind companies sucking up taxpayer money. No real facts, no results from actual study, nothing but pro wind propagnda all wrapped up to sound all warm and fuzzy. It makes the unthinking feel good about themselves without having to do any real research on thier own. But they convince themselves they are saving the planet and are of course better than the rest of us. It’s kind of like the hybrid owner passing you at about 85 on the interstate. They made themselves feel good buying the hybrid and therefore it’s okay to blow raw gas out the tailpipe.
Another self professed expert. Lets let this play out as it should.Unfortunately BDN will continue to show it’s liberal position and not bother to get objective comments from people that were actually present or involved as the ordinance was written. They will instead continue to spin any information they get in favor of thier own agenda. They will continue to demonize anyone that worked to get the ordinace either written or passed and also continue to state as fact anything anyone they happen to agree with has to say. The commitee was not made up of strident anti wind people and they did not limit the commitee to any number of people. They simply followed the direction of the selectmen. The friendsofwaldomountain website was actually an information website and developed for information purposes only. There was acually pro wind information posted at times. It is however really hard to find pro wind information that can be posted if you’re concerned about having to back it up with facts.
Unfortunately what is happening in Frankfort will more than likely be repeated throughout Maine. These tax payer money harvesters came here thinking they had easy prey and the residents are beginning to wake up. They don’t like that so they are now resorting to the only thing they know. Fear and intimidation .
Why not put them on State or Federal land…like Mt. Katadin or Cadillac Mountain? MMMmmmm that won’t work? Then why would anyone else want them in their backyard?
Thinks the Maine Attorney General should issue an opinion on a Town’s ability to pass an ordinance, without a comprehensive plan. If this really is a legitimate issue, which I doubt, I would urge the Governor to submit emergency legislation to protect a Town’s right of home rule.