AUGUSTA, Maine — The Maine Board of Environmental Protection voted Wednesday to uphold state regulators’ decision to grant a permit for a 50-turbine wind farm in Oakfield that would be the largest single wind energy project built in Maine to date.
By unanimous vote, the BEP rejected opponents’ requests to essentially rescind the permit issued in January by the Department of Environmental Protection and instead hold public hearings on several issues.
The developer, First Wind, has said the $360 million project could generate as many as 400 jobs during construction. Company officials said Wednesday it was too early to say when work on the project could begin.
“We are looking to move forward as soon as we can,” said Matt Kearns, First Wind’s vice president for development in the Northeast.
The group Protect Our Lakes and Island Falls resident Donna Davidge had appealed the permit, arguing the department failed to consider all evidence on potential impacts to wildlife, including bald eagles, and on the area’s scenic character. They also questioned whether First Wind had demonstrated the necessary financial capacity to complete the project.
Samantha DePoy-Warren, spokeswoman for the Department of Environmental Protection, wrote in an email that the unanimous vote affirms the staff’s six-month review of the project and “is yet another confirmation of the quality of our process.”
The board’s backing of the department means opponents will have to take their concerns to the courts if they choose to continue fighting the project.
Attorney Lynne Williams, who represented the appellants, said she will discuss the issue with her clients but that she is inclined to take the appeal to the state supreme court. Williams said she also was encouraged by board members’ substantive questions and the discussion about the lack of guidance on visual impacts from projects under the state’s expedited permitting process.
“I think we take baby steps forward with every appeal,” Williams said.
Located in the Aroostook County town of Oakfield, the project would feature 50 turbines — each standing more than 400 feet tall from base to blade tip — capable of generating up to 3 megawatts of power each. The project enjoys strong support from local residents who voted overwhelmingly to endorse agreements with First Wind that will produce $26.7 million in tax revenues and community benefits for the town over 20 years.
Kearns said the Oakfield project is unprecedented in Maine among wind energy facilities in terms of the scope of the benefit package to the local community and the potential for job creation.
“The great thing about where we are with the wind business in Maine is that Maine businesses know how to do this work,” Kearns said.
First Wind initially had intended to erect 34 smaller turbines in the Oakfield area but later sought regulatory approval for the larger configuration, which would locate turbines along the ridge lines of Sam Drew Mountain and Oakfield Hills.
But opponents suggested that the massive turbines would spoil views from Pleasant and Mattawamkeag lakes, which are important to the local tourism economy. They also suggested the turbines could harm bats and eagles.
Williams said that while she was disappointed with the outcome of Wednesday’s meeting, she was heartened by the discussion of visual impacts from wind projects. Members of the Land Use Regulation Commission have expressed frustration about the lack of standards or guidance for considering visual impacts under the expedited permitting system.
“I think there is a sense that the BEP is finally getting to the point where LURC has been for some time,” Williams said.
Dear bangor daily… please use more accurate scientifically accurate statements. A Generators power out put is a function of time vs instantaneous power generation. where wind turbines are not as consistent as say a coal generator it has an average power output over a seasonal time period. So I assume you mean 3 megawatts a year? for a grand total of 150 mega watts. Which might run a walmart and a few house but as a state we generated and used 18,843,978 Megawatt/Hours last year. Maybe run some comparative data in your articles. I mean if you have trouble finding information try google thats what I did and found http://www.eredux.com/states/state_detail.php?id=1150
your welcome.
Hmmm.. sounds like the capacity of the turbines are 3 MW. So, using math, if it generates 3 MW for a continuous hour.. it has generated? Yup. 3 MWh. So if it generates 3 MW for a continuous year (not going to happen) then that is 3 MW x 8760 hours, or 26,280 MWh. 50 of them can produce 1,314,000 MWh. Since we all know, having done our reading, that a well sited wind farm gets a capacity factor of around 35%, then 1,314,000 x 35% = 459,900 MWh. That is a decent chunk of power. That is the output of a 52.5 MW fossil fuel generator if it produced 52.5 MW every hour, of every day, for a year. Again, that is not likely either since they take 2 months off every year for maintenance.
I have always liked math. It has always made more sense to me than hyperbole.
35%? how about the 11% recorded at UMPI. What are the REAL statistics for various Maine locations; not your dubious 35% probably supplied by the vendor….and I bet your car gets the manuf. rated MPG too! :)
you go girl……….tell them what is…..thank you
BDN=Biased, Do Nothing rag
Um, you forgot one thing.
A wind turbine reaches its capacity factor when the wind blows at about 28mph; the 35%—generous, since most are at 30%, factor incorporates this into it. So under ideal conditions, a wind turbine only produces a quarter of its faceplate output, and much of it may be when there is no demand for the output and it is sold at a lower amount.
So you are assuming that UNLESS the wind is 28 mph they produce nothing? Having used the Google machine to look up the power curve of a typical turbine, I see that they produce energy all the way from 3.5 m/s on up… reaching maximum at about 14.5 m/s. At 8 m/s they make about 1/2 of their rated output. Now, what YOU are not taking into consideration is that they are mounted at high elevations for a reason. Better wind. So what they weather channel tells you the wind will be is no where near what the turbines are seeing.
For those saying this is just a tax shelter and not a viable business, remember, here in New England there are renewable standards. So it makes more sense to have them here where they can take advantage of those policies. Where are the most turbines? Texas. Do they have a renewable standard? No. However, they have the largest density of wind farms. It works.. both scientifically, and financially.
I can appreciate people being opposed, and many of them have great reasons. However, the math behind may people’s reasons doesn’t make a lick of sense. My numbers aren’t made up. Thanks to the good folks on here, I have done FAR more research on wind power than I would like to think I ever would have to.. but I did anyway. The facts and figures many people repeat on here as “fact” just do not pass the sniff test. Interestingly enough, there are some really good PRO wind power sites out there that make some sense. Fact is, you read both and then make your own deductions about the benefits vs. detriments. But reading one hack site (pro or con) does NOT enlighten you at all. Use logic and reason. This sort of polarized thinking is EXACTLY what is bringing this country to it’s knees. Be it politics, religion… wind power.. you name it. Every issue today has become black or white. The reality is that most everything is a shade of gray. It’s thought provoking, but that is why we have this big brain.
Texas has had renewable portfolio standards since 1999. You are mistaken. Maine has poor to fair wind potential with the midwest and offshore having the best. Windsprawl cannot replace baseline power and Maine should not sacrifice the ridges and hills to careless developers from away.
Every MW of wind power requires ‘instant on’ backup and without hydro Maine is on a binge of fossil-fueled(NATURAL GAS) generation close to demand.
My guess is that the actual cost of wind farms is much larger because of this requirement for backup power.
Overproduction of wind power off peak is another grid problem that is getting expensive to resolve. With residential wind, either the turbine is shut down or there is a load dump, usually to make hot water.
You are correct. I was under the belief that it expired in 2009. It’s 2019. I stand corrected. I wonder the REC pricing in the various regions is like. I am sure that is a large driver behind where the development teams survey. I may have to take a look at the various state REC markets just out of curiosity, if that information is available.
Here’s a great web site w/all current info on RECs and other renewable energy incentives in each state: http://www.dsireusa.org/
Since you like math, here is some for you. China has surpassed the US and will double its own emissions by 2030 even with big investment in renewables. The US C02 has risen last year by 5.9%. How come those wind turbines are not even slowing climate change? You mention Texas, but remember where Enron started. Windsprawl is another get rich quick scheme just like Enron. 17 suits were settled in Mars Hill for a reason. The wind co. was not just giving out money , even though it was tax freebies. The people had real complaints from the noise and infrasound. The developers do not care. The pro wind sites you mention like the AWEA are PR sugar coating orgs. whose purpose is to deceive and mislead the public. Every time in the media wind projects are mentioned they are quick to point out the jobs created, community bribes , and homes lit up. (if the wind blows). It is not worth the erosion from wide roads over mtns., the nuisance from noise and infrasound, distraction while trying to hike or paddle, etc. Windsprawl is bad for ME. The 1A and 1B lakes deserve protection everywhere in the state from rapacious developers. The DEP and BEP are failing .
Where was the math in that statement? Math generally involves real numbers followed by some sort of operation. You basically regurgitated stats gleaned from an anti-wind site.
China develops coal plants faster than any other source.. they have to due to their quickly increasing demand.. which is the result of us sending all of our manufacturing jobs over there. Coal is the cheapest and quickest solution for energy production. I think as we all know though, cheapest and easiest is not always the best. Generally, just the opposite.
Enron’s downfall was their high risk accounting practices. Had absolutely NOTHING to do with any actual production of energy. I am not sure what you are trying to convey there. Not relevant.
The point about Texas was that without the benefit of renewable energy credit sales, wind companies STILL develop and thrive there. That is one form of subsidy that people are always pointing to when talking about wind… even though biomass, hydro, solar, garbage burning, etc all qualify for the same credits.
The big problem is that the naysayers point to something negative as if wind power is the ONLY form of generation that said problem applies to.
“Only generates when the wind blows” Really? Huh. Do you mean hydro only produces when there is water run-off.. or solar only when the sun shines? And fossil fuel plants will only generate as long as? As long as they have FUEL. Wind, sun and water are pretty much free last I knew. Fuel is the largest driver behind the price of energy.
“Wind hasn’t brought the price down yet” How can it? It’s such a tiny segment of the market. That’s like saying “I bought one package of Ramen Noodles this week and my grocery bill STILL didn’t do down”. Besides, it is a business still and they take the market price.. which is set by the largest source of generation. Probably natural gas, but I am not sure on that. There is a huge amount of Hydro imported into the New England region as well. Why? So they can take the natural gas price, that’s why.
Like I said, the economic argument is just garbage. It’s simple business logic. You talk about these companies being on the take, but I bet you bank at an institution that benefited from the largest government “take” of all time. Or you drive a car that was built by a company largely owned by the same government. If government corruption is your cross to bear, at least fight the battles worth fighting.
Being from Southern Maine, I can’t for the life of me grasp how the Northern Maine folks cry and whine about lack of development in their region.. and then when development comes knocking on their door, they hide in the closet and pretend it’s a burglar.
from a southern mainer
I’ve known you long enough to grin and bear it when you get on a soapbox about something, and that’s how I kind of took it whe…n you started posting and speaking out about this anti-wind project stuff. Of course, I can easily shake my head and guffaa from over a hundred miles away, because I live in an outlying semi rural area close to Portland, and the biggest complaint I have is the surreal tax bill since the town of Cumberland greedily rezoned everything along Route 100 as “Residential/Commercial” instead of leaving it residential. They have pushed our house payment out of reach, and we are facing foreclosure.
But after watching and listening, and seeing the pictures, my little inconvenience is a joke compared with the greed and destruction brought by these wind projects. You weren’t on a soap box at all – you saw it before any of the rest of us did. The wanton greed behind the PERMANENT destruction of entire portions of local ecosystems, the displacement of wildlife habitat, the perversion and scarring of the landscape of what is arguably the most beautiful state in the nation besides Alaska in the name of one thing: GREED.
Seeing those turbines standing there, seeing the acres of mountaintops simply bulldozed away without a care in the world, knowing that not a single component of those monstrosities came from the United States of America, and not one of them has or will produce a SUSTAINABLE American job… I am flummoxed. I am saddened. I am outraged.
I am ashamed to live among people who lower themselves to such recklessness and destruction, the unabated raping of Mother Earth, in the name of the almighty dollar bill.
I see it now, plain as day. I want to drive my 17mpg gas guzzling SUV right up those hills and let it idle with the air conditioning on while I look up and ponder how anyone would do such a thing. And if I stand there for hours and cry at all of the natural wonder and animal lives lost or displaced and burn a whole tank of fuel, I wont be doing one billionth of the damage to the environment that these dispicable blights have, are, and
There is more destruction and displacement of wildlife during the construction of a golf course. I am quite certain there are more acres of destruction from golf courses in this state than there are wind farms. It’s just what people choose to hold dear to their hearts…. and I happen to hate golf. Malls too. Hate them. Wal-mart? No place for them in this state either. It’s all about what we choose to hate.
Have you read any of the DEP and LURC permits for the wind farms? Have you seen the stipulations put on these companies that are developing wind? They seem to have a good handle on how they think these companies need to conduct themselves. Hate them because they are letting them build, but don’t hate them because you think they are giving them a free pass. That just is not true.
Each step exposes the problems with the expedited wind law.
Dr. Palmer asked if members of BEP have visited a GRID scale WIND turbine site? Half of them had not.
Dr. Palmer suggested intercept surveys be conducted at the site. We all know the photo simulations, especially on a web site, are illusional. Chair lessard said the clouds in the photo-sim were distracting. She never asked for a photo of the red flashing lights that cause an “electric lake” effect at night.
I think all Lakes in Maine are open to the public, if there is a launch.
Lessard said 2.2 miles away is not looming.
Dr. Palmer hinted that the Office of Energy independance is asking for a re-map of expedited Maine.
This map needs re-drawing and input from the property owners with-in sight of turbines.
DEP will claim an exhaustive process but they do not involve property owners until the application has met (or will meet) all compliance. We, the people need to change the compliance protocols.
Everyone in Maine, ask for a new map from your government.
I am familiar with the DEP and LURC permits. There seems to be a lot of leeway for the developers. Yes, there will be erosion, but it is “not unreasonable”. Yes there will be bird and bat kills, but again it is “not unreasonable”. Wetlands? Yes, more of the same but they will pay a “mitigation fee” and promise not to develop other wetlands which they had no intention of developing anyway. Deer yards? The roads go right thru 2 of them on Rocky Dundee. Makes access easier I suppose for poachers. On and on ad nauseum. There can be malls and Wal Marts and golf courses but they do not belong all over the ridges and mtns. which is where the turbines will be, covering the state until the tax freebies run out. It used to be a lot of Mainers held the outdoors near and dear. I hope that has not changed.
The DEP stands for department of ENVIRONMENTAL protection and to clear cut 5 acres for each huge turbine when even logging has all sorts of regulations and to blast into the tops of hills and ruin thousands of years old pristine nature is NOT regulating wind or protecting the environment (not to mention transmission lines)..how can you regulate a thing moving 150 mph from NOT destroying the birds and bats? the bat lungs burst even nearby them-the wind companies are given a free pass -f you really want to know more please visit wind watch, save the eagles or wind task force; the ecosystem and human health have been badly affected and no “economics” can ever replace that..the low frequency noise drives the wildlife away..if you love Maine you better research the damage these are doing. I am an environmentalist and believe in preserving life. The wind companies act like they are but believe me that is simply not the case. For ex the Oakfield permit has NO stipulations on sound levels..what other stipulations do you think they have? Fabricated at best…I also suggest you see the movie Windfall made in 2007- since then even more proof has come out about the harm of these things but the movie tells it well enough in documentary format and is award winning. The media should show the other side but all they talk about is economics..well in Island Falls I can tell you it will not help the golf course or the other tourist related businesses and even the local grocery store will lose..for the lack of visitors from May – Oct.
also sad that companies that Audobon, NRCM and Sierra Club support the lies and act like there are regulations..how can that work> they should too stand up for the environment and the birds..
The stats were from Nat Geo mag and several sites easily googled. Nat Geo is accurate and not biased. Google Baiyun Obo if you have some time. That is interesting. Imagine the C02 emissions from rare earth in the ground to a set up turbine. It would be tough to accurately figure. So we agree about China and the emissions? Good. The Enron link was just to show the common thread of Texas business. There was deregulation pushed thru by Ken Lay and W. Bush which led to shell companies and the book keeping games. They manipulated the price of energy which cost Cal. 30 billion. Enron also was involved in wind turbines. Read the book “Smartest Guys in the Room” and see the TV special of the same name. Anyway, I just made the connection to show Texas might not be the torch bearer for business models. (if the wind blows) was an add on to the basic claim I made that whenever the media mentions a turbine project, they seem obligated (or told) to hit the same topics, the amount of homes which might be lit up, the jobs created, and the MONEY the community might have to blow. You may have read too much into it. I didn’t mention wind and prices but since you did, I may add I do not expect wind turbines to bring prices down. Quite the opposite. You claim to fight the battles worth fighting. I agree. The Maine outdoor heritage is well worth fighting for, and all development is not good development. Remember the nuke dump the gov. wanted to put under Bottle Lake? That was another bad idea like windsprawl. Maine can do nicely without either.
Not my assumption at all ~stares at a power curve for a SKYSTREAM and a site assessment for hill top in Standish~!
Power output follows wind speeds and that varies considerably….too much wind and a turbine could shut down. Tower height is a critical variable in reaching ‘clean’ wind free of ground turbulence. The Midwest wind farms were shut down for the duration of the recent spate of tornados, and there was damage and erosion of leading blade edges which is still being evaluated—climbs and inspections are a skyrocketing expense not being calculated accurately.
Thus the need to monitor power output over an annual wind cycle for each model of turbine; esp. if we are going to subsidize them. AND THIS NEEDS TO BE PUBLIC AND TRANSPARENT, unlike the UMPI fiasco.
I was merely stating that that 50 wind turbines is going to be a drop in the bucket. I think wind power has great potential as well as solar but the equipment and materials haven’t reached a point where they are cheap enough to mass produce and replace or even begin phasing out combustible fuel generators.
As well as jabbing @ BDN for not adding enough relevant scientific data to the article and instead relying on readers like you and I to fill in blanks for the masses.
50 3.0 MW wind turbines @ 35% capacity factor will generate enough electricity for approx. 46,000 households (see my reply to your earlier comment if you’re wondering how I came up with that). Wind power is quite competetive with all conventional power generation except natural gas (the price of natural gas has fallen 60% since 2008, due to the recent increase in hydraulic fracturing, or “fracking”. Now, if we want to talk about environmental impact, THERE’s a practice that needs much more scrutiny).
Check the production for the UMPI turbine. I think it is at 11 %. The 35% you quote is fiction. The real numbers are between 19 and 25 % according to the FERC website. How about the uproar about the Bald mtn. mining in A. County? The NRCM (wind huggers) is against that, but where is all the metal going to come from to build all these wind turbines they dearly love? China? I agree with you about fracking. There needs to be tough regs. for ALL energy developers or they will act like BP . (sorry tea partyers)
Dear Tom Brown III and the 13 people who liked your comment,
Let me help you with your math. One 3 MW (MegaWatt) turbine operating with a 35% capacity factor (typical) will produce (3 MW) X 0.35 X 8760 hrs/yr = 9,198 MWhours/year. The entire 50-turbine project will therefore produce 459,900 MWhours/year, which is enough electricity for about 46,000 households (assuming each household consumes 10 MWh per year). Please be careful not to confuse POWER (Watts) and ENERGY (Watt-hours).
Dear Tom Brown III and the 13 people who liked your comment,
Let me help you with your math. One 3 MW (MegaWatt) turbine operating with a 35% capacity factor (typical) will produce (3 MW) X 0.35 X 8760 hrs/yr = 9,198 MWhours/year. The entire 50-turbine project will therefore produce 459,900 MWhours/year, which is enough electricity for about 46,000 households (assuming each household consumes 10 MWh per year). Please be careful not to confuse POWER (Watts) and ENERGY (Watt-hours).
We were terribly disheartened that the BEP and the State do not consider the full time residents that live in the Oakfield area and the spring-summer and fall residents that make up 70% of the tax income of Island Falls as counting. From what I was told the BEP said that areas of small population can handle the destruction to scenic highly ranked lakes that will destroy the topography, create run off and kill birds and bats in numbers in areas which are like sanctuaries for wildlife..the Wind companies and their lawyers cry global warming and it is all a lie (not global warming but that wind will make a dent in helping it) to fill their pockets..while throwing a little $ at the people of Oakfield who do have a golf course, yoga retreat and resorts like Birch Point and Vacationland. Granted, we are not Bar harbor but the 704 comments to the BEP included people who searched all over the country and chose these lakes because of their scenic value. The travesty goes on with no regard to life and in an area where wind, if it were effective, is known not to be. When will the real facts come to light? and..oh, Angus King’s son works for the company creating all this havoc. were the efficiency figures manipulated too?
YOU MAKE ME CRAZY BDN..overwhelming support from 80 people? Come on- manipulate your words like the wind companies do..the 20 that were opposed had not even been exposed to all the negative impacts by the town..they must have done their own homework- when will people think longterm? In 20 yrs the money will be dried up, the area will be ruined and there will be no jobs ..I am so sick of hearing how this is helping the economy- for whom???
go see Windfall and what wind is and does – ask the people who had to sign off their rights to complain should they get cancer of heart disease from these low frequency sounds…and have the wind executives live under their flashing red lights with bird carcasses in their yards,.,.,
Maine you have been noted as corrupt and you have sold your soul trading in thousands of years of pristine beauty and killing wildlife along the way..congrats..
I like you! :-p
It seems that wherever you go, the wind industry seeks to get four groups in its pocket:
– the media
– the environmental groups who then provide greenwashing
– colleges
– polticians
Are we going to let them get away with this?Those four groups can be instantly squashed by an informed, awakened and organized citizenry.The time is now.
If you can find a cheap form of power to heat homes and put fuel in our tank, I am up for suggestions. I am about protecting animals and the land but I am pretty sure coal, oil, or nuclear not only are polluting our environment but kill every type of species that comes into contact with their chemical waste. Instead of spending all that money on fuel flying around taking pictures of the wind turbines, put it towards a local animal shelter or food bank for the people who can’t find a job and their family can’t eat.
Looks like the Maine Department of Environmental Protection should be renamed the Maine Department of Environmental Destuction!
These 500 foot tall wind turbines will overlook 2 of Maine’s more pristine wilderness lakes and will forever destroy their Natural Beauty. What is Maine without its Natural Beauty? Its just a massive wind farm blighting its landscape resulting in far fewer tourism dollars, much higher electric rates to Mainers, and known throughout America as a state that puts a higher priority on meeting the needs of greedy wind developers and their corrupt politicians – who they hire after they leave political office.
Maine used to be known as an honorable state with forward looking people. Now its known as a politically corrupt state with backward looking people.
Shame on the PUC Commissioners. They ignored their own staff recommendation and the office of the public defenders office. They are a disgrace to the state of Maine. Shame!
We might as well put up billboards too! I hardly see the damn difference…Their both ungodly and a waste of precious space!
Massachusetts-based First Wind is a stain on Maine soil and must be removed. It is time for Maine to decommission extant wind projects and reclaim sovereignty over our mountains, wilderness places and natural resources.
“Like” a billion times over!!!
What ever has happened to the honored decendents , and volunteers, of Joshua Chamberlain?
A definite charge is needed to remove this wind slime in Maine.
It has boiled down to this, in straight forward terms.
Maine=corrupt
First Wind = High level corrupters
DEP= Corrupted
BEP= A farce
PUC= Mainers will pay for the corruption
Maine citizens- too few, too passive.
The result…good bye Maine ,as it was known to many
and the reason Mainers stay poor!
Hello Industrial Wind Sprawl, for no good reason.
The Maine” plantation” destroyed by self–serving scammers, like Angus King
Amen! the more windmills the more I like it! Cha ching for Maine!
Did you consider that people cannot sell their camps because they face the turbines? That realtors will not even take the listing? Do you have any appreciation for the outoors without industrial litter? Did you think about anyone except yourself?
well water front camps have become unaffordable for average mainers anyhow so boo who. I will by a camp on a lake facing a windmill if it is reasonable price.
When I was in highschool I helped survey a .2 acre camp with a 1 bedroom 300sq/ft cabin with no other developments on schodick lake. The cabin was 100ft from the water on a semi maintained camp road. It sold for 220,000. seriously… Throw a windmill up facing the camp on the otherside of the lake and I will buy that sucker for 50,000.
The correct spelling is Schoodic and I believe you. I disagree that all waterfront property is unaffordable. Schoodic is pricey but look around to the warm water lakes or river and stream front and it is still in the ballpark. You claim you would buy facing a turbine? Where is there only one turbine? Many views have up to 25 turbines . One could be ignored, but be realistic. Stop at the public landing in Lincoln and see 10 blinking red lights reflecting off the lake surface. That makes for a distracting paddle I am sure you will agree. Even if you just want to camp out a 7 mile long string of lights takes the fun out of the trip . Thankfully the Bowers project was DENIED!!! Boo Hoo !!! Those are tears of joy!!!
thanks for correcting my spelling professor. Considering you can no longer develop within 250 feet of the water now prices for anything will continue to sky rocket. Yeh you can find property out in the boondocks undeveloped for “reasonable” but they will cost you four fold to actually make them into something. Ok a view of 25 turbines… Doesn’t change my feeling.
A distracting paddle? maybe if you have the attention span of a yellow lab…
Any convictions lately?
Why don’t you disclose that you profited directly from the development of First Wind’s Rollins Project in Lincoln? Failaure to disclose this makes you a dishonest scoundrel like the rest!
He has a record.Look him up
This breaks my heart. I thought Mainers had more sand and more brains. Where are all the environmentalists? Where is the NRCM? Where is Maine Audubon? Where are all the Mainers who love this grand state of Maine? How can our own legislative body sell us down the river? Have they ALL been bought off by these developers?
Because they HAVE TO (in order to appear to give SOME consideration to comments from the public) DEP solicited Maine citizens’ opinions on the expansion request made by First Wind, last fall. As is the case every single time–citizens’ concerns were completely ignored by the DEP.
November
3, 2011
Jessica
Damon
Dept.
of Environmental Protection
Augusta, ME 04333
Jessica.Damon@maine.gov
Dear Ms. Damon;
I am
submitting this letter as ‘public comment’ in regards to the expansion of the Oakfield
wind project proposed by First Wind of Boston (Evergreen Wind LLC).
Due to
the massive scope and scale of this expansion (i.e. “Revised Oakfield Wind
Project”) it is unsettling to realize that a Public Hearing was not scheduled by
DEP immediately after receipt of the permit application. The original Oakfield
project, which received approval almost 2 years ago, in January of 2010, was
far less impactful than this new proposal.
According to BEP’s June 16, 2011 minutes:
“First
Wind–Oakfield: The Department has received an application
from First Wind for construction of Phase II of the Oakfield project. The second phase of this project will
increase the megawatts from 50 to 150 and increase the number of wind turbines
from 30 to 50 turbines. Additionally, 52
miles of tie line will be added south to connect to the New England Power Pool
“NEPOOL” grid in the Chester area.”
To “increase the megawatts”, First Wind
proposes a significant increase to the size
of the turbines as well as the number
of turbines. It appears, based on
DEP’s Project Description (see attached “Oakfield Expansion Description”) that
the developer intends to ‘change out’ the previously approved turbines, which were
GE 1.5-MW with a 77-meter rotor
diameter and an 80-meter tower, to Vestas V-112 3.0-MW turbines, with a 112-meter rotor diameter and an 84 meter
tower. Those GE turbines approved in the
original permit would have been 389 feet
tall, fully extended. The Vestas
turbines in the new application state that the Oakfield turbines will be 459 feet tall, fully extended.
First Wind has
not merely submitted an application to build onto or extend a previously
permitted wind development; they are expecting to be allowed to alter the original
Oakfield project which was approved via DEP’s comprehensive and meticulous application
process. First Wind seems to assume that
such drastic alterations should slip by unchallenged. Maine citizens who participated in the
original Oakfield procedure dealt with data which was completely different than
that in the ‘phase two’ application.
The original turbines
were one-half the size of the new Vestas.
The proposed modification amounts to an enormous change; and the differences
in the impacts of noise and vibration between the first turbines and their
replacements are not comparable. The
potential noise and health impacts alone warrant a public hearing and closer
scrutiny.
In addition,
the replacement turbines will be 70 (seventy) feet taller than the turbines
which were initially proposed by First Wind–and originally approved by DEP. Seventy
feet taller. This is not
insignificant. Seventy feet is the height of the Monument Rocks in Kansas (see
attached photos). Seventy feet is the
height of a seven story office building. Seventy feet is the additional height which will be added to the turbines formerly
approved by DEP. And those original
turbines were already almost twice as
tall as the tallest building in the city of Portland—and in the whole state
of Maine.
Unless First
Wind intends to build the Oakfield project as
permitted; their application for “Phase Two” constitutes a whole new industrial wind development, including
the original Oakfield project previously permitted. The developer must not be allowed to amend or
modify the original permit without being required to comply with the permitting
procedures set in place for any new permit application for a grid-scale wind
energy development. Rather than consider
modification to the permitted project, DEP must revoke its original permit (DEP#L-24572-24-A-N/L-24572-TF-B-N)
and begin the process for approval from ‘scratch’.
In addition to
the massive changes to the generating facilities, themselves– we cannot ignore
the impact of 52 (fifty-two) miles of new transmission line, which is an
integral part of this project. This quantity
of new high-voltage transmission line build-out is very significant. There are many concerns which must be
addressed pertaining to visual impact, effect on the environment due to
clear-cutting and herbicide usage (necessary to keep foliage from regenerating)
and the health impacts of electromagnetic fields on those who live in the
vicinity. Fifty-two miles is extensive. That
is the approximate distance from Portland north to Augusta, or from the Quebec
border at Coburn Gore south to Kingfield.
It is
important that DEP consider the cumulative
impact of adding more (and larger) turbines to the approved Oakfield
project, as well as adding a 52 mile transmission line. When Stetson I and Stetson II and the Rollins
wind developments are taken into consideration, it is clear a project of this
magnitude will substantially alter the “quality of place” of this region. A drive along Route 6 from Lincoln to
Danforth will substantiate that statement, as there are already turbines
visible on summits for miles and miles.
First Wind
proposes ‘compensation’ for these impacts through preservation of a 2,100 acre
parcel in Drews Plantation. This parcel is adjacent to the existing
Mattawamkeag River Wildlife Management Area (WMA), managed by the Maine
Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife (MDIFW). While preservation of this parcel is
desirable, it is not possible to
mitigate visual impact. The proposed
Oakfield expansion is massive and turbines will be seen from 80% of
Mattawamkeag Lake. The scenic impact to
this beautiful lake will be tremendous.
Taxpayer
dollars (i.e. Land for Maine’s Future) were used to acquire lands and a
conservation easement surrounding the southern end of Mattawamkeag Lake and the
West Branch of the Mattawamkeag River southeast of Island Falls. The land and easement was purchased by the
State for the price of $756,200. From
the website of the Maine Department of Conservation we read:
“Through this purchase, we have assured that Lower Mattawamkeag Lake
will forever retain its wild character
and guaranteed future public access to these lands for fishing, hunting,
boating, and camping,” stated Conservation Commissioner Patrick McGowan.
I repeat: the scenic impact to this
beautiful lake (as well as others, such as Pleasant Lake) will be tremendous. And visual impact cannot be mitigated. During the application process for the Bowers
Wind project just a few miles away, First Wind suggested that “(f)ishermen can orient their
boats away from the turbines or situate themselves in one of the many coves if
views of the turbines become undesirable. They may also recreate at other
nearby and comparable lakes with fewer or no views of turbines, if preferred.”
I ask DEP to consider how many private and wild coves
will be left if turbines will be visible from 80% of Mattawamkeag Lake? And, if lake after lake and pond after pond eventually
has views of wind turbines—what “nearby and comparable lakes” will there be
which “forever retain… (their) wild character”?
The scope and scale of phase two of the Oakfield
project is simply too enormous, and has impacts which are far greater than any
benefits it might bring. I urge DEP to
respect the intent of Land For Maine’s Future and deny this project. I urge DEP to think long and hard about this
proposal and reconsider allowing the public a hearing. Maine citizens deserve to have a say and be
heard. This will be the largest wind
development in Maine, thus far. To rush
through without due process would be a grave mistake.
Thank you for your consideration. Please feel free to contact me with any
questions.
Sincerely,
Karen Pease
The PUC is a disgrace to the State of Maine. By ignoring their own staff recommendation and the State public defender’s office, they show themselves to be a law unto themselves without regard to anyone else. Who made them Kings and Queens of the State of Maine! When the utility rates for Maine rate-payers skyrocket, will they pay for the increase rates out of their own pockets? No – because they are disgraceful and likely corrupt like many of the other Maine politicians! Shame!
Does anyone think that the mob is somehow involved?
Look folks, there are no surprises here.
This decision on an appeal of First Wind’s Oakfield project
was already made long before the Board of Environmental (BEP) met today to
ostensibly hear the appeal.
When it comes to wind power development, nothing has changed
from the corrupt practices of the Baldacci administration as far as the DEP and
BEP are concerned.
The bias in favor of wind power within these state
organizations runs very deep and strong.
Their rubber stamp procedure is completely familiar to those
who have observed the wind power appeal process before.
The DEP staff who approved the permit being appealed
typically write up the decision for the “Independent Citizen Board” or BEP,
days ahead of the actual meeting and even post it on the BEP
website.
On the day that the Board meets to hear the appeal, their
political handler briefs the members of the so called “Citizen Board” ( BEP) on
what decision is expected from them.
After the arguments are presented, some Board members will
make statements and ask questions which seem to indicate that they have some
understanding of the issues and some sympathy with those making the
appeal.
In the end however a majority and usually all board
members dutifully vote against any wind power appeal, exactly as they have been
coached and instructed by their political handler.
Do you think that the mob is involved behind the scenes somewhere?
I attended this meet and inclined with Lynne Williams. Each step exposes the problems with the expedited wind law. Dr. Palmer asked if members of BEP have visited a GRID scale WIND turbine site? Half of them had not.
Dr. Palmer suggested intercept surveys be conducted at the site. We all know the photo simulations, especially on a web site, are illusional. Chair lessard said the clouds in the photo-sim were distracting. She never asked for a photo of the red flashing lights that cause an “electric lake” effect at night. I think all Lakes in Maine are open to the public, if there is a launch.
Lessard said 2.2 miles away is not looming.
Dr. Palmer hinted that the Office of Energy independance is asking for a re-map of expedited Maine.
This map needs re-drawing and input from the property owners with-in sight of turbines.
DEP will claim an exhaustive process but they do not involve property owners until the application has met (or will meet) all compliance. We, the people need to change the compliance protocols.
Everyone in Maine, ask for a new map from your government.
I wonder if they have seen the pics of Upper Pond? They are negligent if they have not investigated thoroughly.
Both the Maine Department of Environmental Protection and the Public Utilities Commission are a digrace to every Maine citizen who loves Maine’s great Natural Beauty and wants to avoid much higher electric rates.
These two public semi-governmental departments act like Kings and Queens with no accountability and should be ashamed of themelves for selling out to greedy wind defvelopers whose only purpose in life is to rape the forests, pristine wilderness lakes and mountain ridges of Maine for tehir own greedy self-serving purposes.
The apparent corruption in the State of Maine is becoming more obvious with every passing day.
Shame on these so-called public servants! They are only serving the needs of the nature destroying, greedy, corrupt wind developers!
Hopefully the Supreme Court in the Great State of Maine will show more wisdom and foresight than these two agencies.