Industrial Wind: Is there “a shift in the climate of opinion?”

Posted on February 6, 2010 by morgan

Many readers of Allegheny Treasures point to a significant reassessment of industrial wind’s potential as a reliable source of “clean and green” power.  We note, in a piece by RocNow’s Steve Orr, he writes:  “Some say the shine has worn off an industry that in many communities had been welcomed both for its green image and its ability to pump money into the local economy.”

There seems no question that, provided with accurate information, people begin to question the high cost and poor performance of these gigantic machines that consume such an enormous chunk of real estate and air relative to their “capacity” to produce electricity.  We use the term “capacity” simply because the historic output of industrial wind ranges at 20-30% of rated nameplate capacity.  As noted in Dennis Avery’s piece, A Chill Hits Wind Power, “The Texas power grid’s experience is to rely on no more than 9 percent of the wind farm’s rated capacity.”

The claim that industrial wind will replace fossil fuel power plants and reduce CO2 is challenged by some of the best minds in the country and, when called upon to produce evidence of power plants shut down or evidence (not estimates from industry sources) of CO2 reduction, the reality is this, “With nearly 100,000 huge wind turbines now in operation throughout the world—35,000 in the USA—no coal plants have been closed anywhere because of wind technology. And there is no empirical evidence that there is less coal burned per unit of electricity produced as a specific consequence of wind.”  Even wind developers, when pressed about the CO2 issue tend to minimize industrial wind’s contribution.

The LA Times, in a surprisingly candid piece about the lack of job growth as promised by the wind industry, noted that “even though a record 10,000 megawatts of new generating capacity came on line, few jobs were created overall and wind power manufacturing employment, in particular, fell…”

So, when folks start to realize that industrial wind costs more, provides few jobs, very little and infrequent electricity to the grid and all the while sacrifices our environment and wildlife in the process, there’s bound to be a shift.  The industrial wind folks fight back with their propaganda and call doubters NIMBY (not in my back yard).  Well, as we said here in a previous post, Industrial wind calls it NIMBY. Perhaps! But “this problem runs from the arctic to the tip of South America — and that is one helluva big backyard!”

So, do as we and others have and challenge your political leaders to look past the curtain that is the industrial wind scam.  Reach out to your Governors and legislature to challenge their thinking.  Make them aware that you expect them to invest your tax dollars wisely.

We encourage you to review the links embedded here for your convenience.  We also encourage your respectful comments.

Take the time to read Mr. Orr’s article at RocNow by Democrat and Chronicle, provided here for your convenience:

Opinions shift on Rochester-area wind farms

Steve Orr – Staff writer
Local News – February 6, 2010 – 5:00am

Wind-energy developers, who have flocked to the breezy hills south of Rochester, now are finding parts of the region a less-than-hospitable one.

A cross-border project has been blocked by local officials in Steuben and Yates counties, prompting aggressive lawsuits by the developer involved.

Another wind-energy company just walked away from a planned project in Steuben County.

And most recently, a Wyoming County citizens group has challenged a town board action that paved the way for a new wind project there.

Some say the shine has worn off an industry that in many communities had been welcomed both for its green image and its ability to pump money into the local economy.

“I’m detecting a shift in the climate of opinion,” said Gary Abraham, a Cattaraugus County lawyer who has represented citizen groups in litigation related to wind projects.

The head of a statewide green-energy advocacy group said the public overwhelmingly supports wind energy, but despite that, discord and litigation in host communities has become an unfortunate fact of life.

“Certainly it sends the message that it’s not going to be easy to get something done in New York. That being said, there are still a number of projects going forward,” said Carol Murphy, executive director of the Alliance for Clean Energy New York.

Indeed, the region remains a center of wind-energy development. Wyoming County has four wind farms with 236 turbines, more than any other county in the state. There is a working wind farm in Cohocton, Steuben County, as well.

Those five projects have the capacity to generate up to 470 megawatts, which represents the electricity demand of about 200,000 households.

Those 470 megawatts are a little more than a third of all the wind-generation capacity in the state.

Nearly two dozen other wind-farm proposals in the Finger Lakes and western New York regions remain on the books of the agency that oversees New York’s electric grid, though developers have yet to make formal applications to town boards for many of them.

Of late, though, there has been a spate of controversy over the farms.

A citizens group in Orangeville, Wyoming County, filed suit last month against the Town Board there, asserting it had adopted an inadequate local wind-turbine siting law to make way for a 59-turbine wind project. That case has been assigned to a Supreme Court justice in Buffalo.

  • After supporting Ecogen Wind LLC’s 17-turbine proposal for years, the Town Board in Italy, Yates County, acknowledged growing citizen opposition by voting in October to kill the development. Observers said Italy’s board may have been the first in New York state to vote down a wind project. A suit by Ecogen asking a judge to override the Town Board and allow the project to proceed is pending before a state Supreme Court justice in Rochester.
  • Ecogen similarly sued the board in neighboring Prattsburgh, Steuben County, where the company has hoped to erect 16 more turbines. Pro-wind board members briefly settled the case in Ecogen’s favor before leaving office in December, but after a series of courtroom skirmishes, the newly seated Town Board canceled the settlement and declared a moratorium on wind-energy development in the town. Ecogen’s suit still is pending.

Another wind project proposed for Prattsburgh that had been in planning stages for years was formally canceled at the end of 2009. John Lamontagne, spokesman for developer First Wind, said the project was deemed expendable in light of the shaky economy.

The Massachusetts company, which was given $75 million in federal stimulus aid in partial compensation for the 50-turbine farm it built in Cohocton, will pursue other projects in Erie County, New England, Utah and Hawaii, Lamontagne said.

Abraham, who represents the citizens group suing the Orangeville board, said he believes public opposition to wind developments is growing.

Residents most often cite concerns about noise and the setback provisions that dictate how close turbines can be to homes and adjoining properties.

He said, though, that he thinks elected officials often pay less attention to those concerns than they do to a project’s financial benefit to friends and family members.

“They’re decided based on the importance the town (board) assigns to the money issue. That’s really the deciding factor. It’s not the environment,” Abraham said.

Murphy disputed the idea that people in host communities are turning against wind farms. “It’s the old adage about the silent majority. It doesn’t take more than a few people to stand up at a town board meeting and make a lot of noise and give people the impression there’s no support for it,” she said.

Murphy cited a 2008 public opinion poll in Lewis County — home to Maple Ridge, which at a 322-megawatt capacity is the largest wind farm east of the Mississippi River — that found 71 percent of residents thought the wind farm had had a positive impact. Nearly 80 percent of respondents said they would support more turbines.

“There’s always a lot of apprehension when there’s something new and something people aren’t used to seeing, but once they (turbines) are there we’ve found the level of support continues to grow over the years,” she said.

SORR@DemocratandChronicle.com

AT Note: Allegheny Treasures makes every attempt to be accurate.  Should you find errors, broken links or omissions, please note same in the comment section and we will make the necessary correction.

Posted in John Bambacus, John Droz, Jon Boone, Robert Bryce, Wind Energy Shenanigans | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

In the news – February 31, 2025

Posted on February 5, 2010 by morgan

Washington, DC – February 31, 2025 (Paro – D Wire Service)

The US Supreme Court ruled today that the last known individual in the United States not signed up for a renewable energy credit program, must be permitted to do so.  In an 8-1 ruling, the Court, citing the equal protection clause, found in favor of Ms. Anita Sistance of Reemoat, West Virginia.

Writing for the minority, Justice Al Gore said that the equal protection clause, while perhaps applicable, should not be considered due to the potential for disaster he predicts will befall the nation.  Justice Gore also disagreed with the majority decision to wipe Ms. Sistance’s slate clean.  He reasoned that, in spite of the fact that Ms. Sistance’s $48 Billion monthly electric bill and $3 Trillion past due account may seem excessive, someone had to make up the difference between actual production cost and the reduced government mandated consumer price which citizens have become accustomed to paying for wind and solar – the sole remaining sources of electricity for the US.  Justice Gore also wrote that, in spite of having no phone and unable to see due to poor vision, it was Ms. Sistance’s “duty, as a citizen, to learn about the limited time offer to join the green revolution of the early 21st century, and the rest of the citizens should not be expected to suffer due to the ignorance of one individual!”

Justice Gore, appointed to the Court at the end of the Obama term, further expressed concern that, should Ms. Sistance not be required to pay her outstanding bills, the renewable energy companies may fold.  In his opinion, Justice Gore challenged the notion that the amount due be shared with rest of the citizenry. He wrote that “our citizens have come to expect electricity for a full 4 hours a day, however there was no expectation that they would actually pay for it!” Justice Gore noted that “should the wind and solar plants stop producing due to lost revenue, the nation would be crushed.”  “In these days, facing Global Cooling as we are, it is no time for an energy shortage,” Gore warned.  “As I predicted back in 2011, the coming severe global cooling disaster enveloping the earth due to the limited CO2 in the atmosphere will create extreme demands on our energy grid and, as I suggested then, we should have placed a moratorium on renewable energy, and instead promoted clean coal, nuclear and natural gas.  But NOOOO!  Don’t listen to Al!  Well, you see where that got you people”, he wrote in Times New Roman 24 point – bold!

Writing for the majority, Chief Justice Robert Byrd stated Justice Gore’s argument was insufficient to persuade that Ms. Sistance continue to pay for 95% of the nation’s electricity.  107 year old Chief Justice Byrd, also appointed during President Obama’s final days in what many thought a ceremonial gesture, came out firmly on the side of Ms. Sistance, a resident of his home state.  Justice Byrd agreed with attorneys representing Ms. Sistance that the LLCs “offering green power — defined as renewable energy credits and green electricity” back in 2009 and 2010 had an obligation to caution people not taking advantage of their offer “that they could shoulder the entire burden of the deficit resulting from the discounted consumer price of heavily subsidized Wind and Solar.”  Ms. Sistance’s attorneys noted that these “clean and green” companies, which often used the sales pitch “Usually renewable energy requires an upfront investment, but we’re in a unique situation where you can choose green power and save money at the same time …  it almost never happens,” have moved on to selling time-share weeks on the Moon or refrigerators to the newly frozen state of Florida and, as such, were not available for comment.

“Let us not be remiss in stating that we all erred in protecting Ms. Sistance,” wrote Byrd, the former Conscience of the Senate.  “As I tried to tell my fellow Senators at the time, you just can’t be replacing all the good coal plants with these dadblamed new contraptions. But NOOOO! Don’t listen to Bobby!  Well, you see where that got you people,” he wrote in Times New Roman 24 point – bold!

Asked about the decision that will free her from the stresses of her massive debt, Ms. Sistance, 89, widowed and living on social security, said she was overwhelmed with joy, but also very concerned.  “You don’t know how much hate mail I received from my fellow citizens now that they might have to pay full price,” she said.  “I’m almost afraid to go home!”

Asked to comment on the role Congress will play in reconciling the vast difference in the purchase price and actual production costs of Wind and Solar, Senator Oprah Winfrey D-IL, Chair of the powerful Education, Energy and Entertainment Committee said she would be seeking emergency legislation clearing the necessary funding to retool decommissioned gas fired generators which would, in turn, power huge fans to provide the wind to spin the wind turbines.  Quoting Energy Secretary, Bill Nye the Science Guy she said, “Then we can use the power from the turbines to juice up those massive lamps and generate more than ample light to get those solar panels cooking!”

When asked how quickly this legislation could see President (Bill) Gate’s desk, Senator Winfrey noted that “it is winter after all, and the daylight hours are short.  We’ll have to see how much electricity is available for lighting the Senate chamber.”  “You have to recognize, with the extreme cold reducing wind availability here of late, our evening sessions have been extremely limited,” she said.  “Even adding the extra three days in February hasn’t accomplished what we thought initially and, well, it’s not like we can just run out there and fire up a decommissioned nuclear plant, you know,” hastily adding, “oh, and thank God for that!”

Senator Winfrey cautioned that the public shouldn’t rely on the Supreme Court stepping in every time they have a dispute over an unpaid bill.  “We, in Congress, have always acted in the best interest of professional lobbyists, who clearly understand the people’s needs.  How could they have gotten so rich otherwise?  I remember when many of the same companies used to provide audience gifts on my show and the guests loved them.  They used to pump millions into advertising and hey … I’m rich!  That lady from West Virginia, Anita or whoever, could have put away a few bucks and paid her electric bill and we wouldn’t have this mess to deal with.  If she didn’t know what to do, she should have asked.  When I retire from the Senate I’m going to go back on TV and one of the first shows I do will be about …”

Posted in Wind Energy Shenanigans | Tagged , , | 2 Comments

C’mon Governor Manchin … if you’re too busy to do what you committed, just say so!

Posted on February 4, 2010 by morgan

Governor Manchin,

When I first addressed the (in my mind) urgent issue of the West Virginia State Historical Preservation Office and mitigation of industrial wind’s assault on historic sites, some of my friends suggested I be patient and positive.  I’ve got to admit, after all these weeks my patience has worn a little thin, but I am positive.  I’m positive I got a trip on your SATSTU RR. (Say Anything To Shut Them Up)

Yes, yes!  I know it was actually Ms. Mary Harrison of your office who made the commitment to look into the matter and get back to me way back in November, but you know how that responsibility stuff rolls uphill.  You also know that when these things sit for a while there’s a risk they begin to smell, and this one is like a 3 1/2 month old dead mudcat.  As these things tend to go, even folks who like you, as we do, start to feel a little bamboozled and begin to question your sincerity.  Makes them wonder about what else you might be missing.

Well, unfortunately this post will be a little long, but that’s also the price you pay for letting things fester – sorta like not yanking a tick out right away.

Let me refresh your memory on this issue.

Back on November 17, 2009, we posted an email sent to your office at this link: “Email to Governor Joe Manchin questioning the decision by the WV Division of Culture and History to allow wind installations to negatively impact historic sites.”

Here’s the text of the email:

That’s when Ms. Harrison, of your office sent this reply:

SO GUESS WHAT???  GO ON! TAKE A STAB AT IT!

BINGO!  NO RESPONSE!

Here we are creeping up 3 1/2 months and nothing! nada! zippo!  A few of your constituents took the time to contact you on what seemed an urgent matter; your office responded within three days of receipt, which we took as a sign you thought it urgent as well and what came of it?  Well, staple the stupid sign to my shirt, Governor!  Seems we were shuffled off to that holding tank you place folks in until the issue they’re concerned about evaporates, or in this case, concludes in the very way we thought it would without your intervention.

So, here’s my problem.  It looks to me like you had no plans to deal with what we feel is a state agency operating outside it’s charter, the WVSHPO.  If you were sitting here, what would you think? Our question is why didn’t you just say you weren’t going to do anything?  Why didn’t you say the the WVSHPO was doing a bang-up job mitigating Mineral County historic sites for a few dollars; and allowing Virginia to ignore the visual intrusion of wind turbines on the landscape of Camp Allegheny Battlefield, a shared concern with our friends at Brightside Acres?

Both of these issues, Mineral County historical sites and Camp Allegheny Battlefield, seem now pretty much done deals, with the winners on both – the industrial wind LLCs.  How does that famous phrase go? – “WVSHPO, you’re doing a heck of a job!”

Oh, in case you’re wondering, we did follow up with Ms. Harrison once we got word that Virginia was probably going to to the same thing to West Virginia in the Camp Allegheny Battlefield matter that your WVSHPO did to Maryland in the neighboring Pinnacle Knob wind installation mitigation.  Our note to Ms. Harrison expressed the urgency we felt and the engagement we felt should take place to intercede with Virginia, but there was no reply from her.  In our note, we even acknowledged how difficult these issues are for you, with the push you’re all getting from Washington.  We felt though, that you should take the lead to engage the governors of Virginia and Maryland to at least discuss this separation of states issue regarding viewshed.

Unfortunately, as I pointed out in the email, following for your convenience, the settlement at Camp Allegheny had potential to ignore the West Virginia battlefield issue as not theirs to deal with – aka – West Virginia’s problem!  Sounds like the testimony regarding Maryland at the WV PSC hearing, doesn’t it?

Here’s our December 7 email to Ms. Harrison:

So, where are we?  We’ll the Virginia deal at Camp Allegheny seems to be going as we predicted.  You let us down on Mineral County and Camp Allegheny and the whole industrial wind issue in general.  As I mention in the above Scribd email addressed to your Ms. Harrison, “We are frankly concerned that some agencies are unprepared to deal with issues that have the potential to negatively alter our lands and cultures for decades to come.” and “We respectfully request that, as you assess our concerns regarding the West Virginia Division of Culture and History handling of the mitigation matter, you forward our urgent concern to the Governor regarding Camp Allegheny and ask that he consult immediately with Governor Kaine.  We respectfully request that the Governor also consider suspending all pending construction approvals for industrial wind within West Virginia until such time as a full evaluation of inter- and intra-state protection of historic sites and our ancient lands can be resolved.  As I wrote earlier, it is difficult for the State of West Virginia to request considerations from Virginia when not providing the same courtesy to Maryland.  Citizen groups are cooperating in such fashion and we hope that the Governors in the region will form the same cooperative spirit, under the leadership of Governor Manchin.”

Well, since I’m off the nice bus now, let me clarify what I meant when I said “some agencies are unprepared to deal with issues.”  Relative to industrial wind management in the the State of West Virginia, it appears you’re leading a Dixieland band of legislators and state agencies all playing to different sheet music with the only hope being that they occasionally end on the same note.  I stated in another post that:  The WV PSC decision was, in my view, merely a punch on the free ride ticket to approval wind developers might come to expect from the current political structure in the State of West Virginia.  Perhaps that is why I felt no surprise when the ruling was announced.  So, at least to me, to focus now on the WV PSC would be a waste of energy (no pun intended).  As with all good soldiers, the marching order is determined elsewhere.”

“While this state is not unique in it’s apparent politics over science mentality, one would certainly think it in a unique position to understand what results from the taking of its resources for the gain of outsiders.  The sad history of this state, and in fact the region, is to give away and remain poor.  Steve Earle said it best in his song “Mountain” – “they took everything that she gave now there gone.”  With history repeating itself, many in our current crop of politicians seem to believe somehow, this time will be different.  Perhaps!  But my money is on the huge corporations.  In fact, your money is on the huge corporations in the form of tax subsidies, alternative energy credits and incentives.  My belief is citizens should know how their money is being spent.”

As I wrote to the US Fish and Wildlife, full text of which is included below for your convenience:  “My concern, and my plea to the Committee is that, in making recommendations, they continue to keep in mind the cumulative impact of industrial wind across our lands.    My own state, West Virginia, has established goals for renewable energy, yet my suspicion is that no one in the state legislature has a clear concept of what the goals mean in terms of potential land and air saturation. Unless “land mass and air space consumed” is part of the calculation when establishing renewable energy percentage goals, our migratory flyways may well become so obstructed that species will not be able to navigate the path which they are driven to fly by their ancient instincts.“

Text of email to US Fish and Wildlife – Ms. Rachel London:

Finally, as I’ve stated in many posts:  “Folks who choose to oppose industrial wind are called names. NIMBY (not in my back yard) is pretty popular.  We have some locals in the press who prefer to label us as backward thinking obstructionists with no view of the future.  That will certainly send us running for cover.  Our friends at Wind Concerns Ontario provided an excellent post called “How to Spot Propaganda Techniques of the Wind Industry and guess what number one is?  Yep! “NAME CALLING or STEREOTYPING“  Take a look, you might find the playbook somewhat familiar.

What amazes me is that our detractors believe that we would somehow fight against a truly effective, low cost, reliable, emission free, job creating fountain of revenue that does no damage to the surrounding environment, will not harm bats and birds, will not negatively impact property values, have no adverse effect on our health or quality of life all the while weaning us from fossil fuel and the evil empires that hold us hostage to oil and threaten our children, our children’s children and even their kids kids!  And why?  To simply to agitate them?

No, it’s a lot less complicated than that for me.  The contraptions don’t perform , they don’t reduce carbon emissions, they employ few and they cost the taxpayers a fortune.”

We are not lone wolves howling at separate moons.  The growing dissatisfaction with industrial wind’s poor performance, high cost and lack of resolution to emissions and jobs is creating a ground swell of citizen organizations, forming to educate legislators and federal/state/local agencies.  We encourage you to perhaps look to the many sincere folks, with no financial stake in industrial wind, for another point of view.

In voicing my frustration, I was directed to correspondence at Stop Ill Wind.  Mr. Jon Boone, a very knowledgeable environmentalist residing in neighboring Oakland, Maryland which shares our Allegheny Front migratory flyway, posted this July, 2005 reply to your assistant:

These folks are ready, willing and able.  You simply have to show a personal interest in serious discussion and they will accommodate.

We’re hoping that you’ll prove us wrong and you’ve been working under the radar on these issues all along.  From the results, there’s no evidence of that and there’s been little in the press about the WV Division of Culture and History and its offspring the WVSHPO.  The cases continue to march through the WV PSC and the courts.  The USF&W, the Endangered Species Act and other guidelines seem to be lacking clarity in the application of standards in WV and the region.  All the while, your team is encouraging even more development.  We are asking that you take a breath, step back and allow the other side its fair time.  You’ll be amazed at how articulate, informed and dedicated these folks are on the issues.

If we missed anything, we are very pleased to be corrected and will publish any and all that you provide to us.  To this point, I have no record of a reply from Ms. Harrison and my friends at Brightside Acres have had no contact from your office regarding Camp Allegheny issues.  If there has been some miscommunication, please let us know.

We continue to hope that you will seek out the serious opponents to industrial wind in our state and listen to what they have to say.  By doing so, you will begin to understand our frustration with the invasion of the poor performing, high cost industrial wind plants that mar our our ridges.

Thank you for the courtesy of your time,

Mike Morgan

Keyser, WV

Allegheny Treasures Note:  We make every attempt to be accurate.  Should readers find errors, omissions broken links, please contact AT via the comment section.  We encourage respectful commentary from all sides of the argument and will publish all submissions.

Posted in Allegheny Mountains, WV State Government, WVSHPO | Tagged , , , , | 1 Comment

Cumberland (MD) Times-News: “Wind farm opponents seeking clarification on federal court ruling”

Posted on February 4, 2010 by morgan

Excellent article from the Cumberland (Maryland) Times-News, an increasingly important source of regional issues:

Published: February 03, 2010 11:50 pm

Wind farm opponents seeking clarification on federal court ruling

(Feel recent decision could impact projects in Western Maryland)

Megan Miller
Cumberland Times-News

CUMBERLAND — A recent federal court decision has some Western Maryland wind farm critics pushing state and local officials for increased regulation.

On Friday, a letter signed by the four members of the District 1 legislative delegation was sent to Maryland Attorney General Douglas Gansler, seeking a formal opinion on the responsibility of state agencies “as it relates to the protection of the state’s endangered species.”

The letter, sent at the urging of former state senator and Allegany County resident John Bambacus, asks the attorney general to consider whether Maryland state law prohibits a corporation from building wind turbines if the project could potentially harm endangered species.

The question centers on two issues: the first, a recent federal court decision placing restrictions on a West Virginia wind farm because of concerns it could harm an endangered bat; the second, Maryland legislation that went into effect July 1, 2007, to allow proposed wind power projects to bypass an extensive permit review process if the projects have a maximum capacity of no more than 70 megawatts.

In early December, a federal judge halted the construction of additional turbines at Beech Ridge Wind Farm in Greenbrier County, W.Va., because of concerns that the federally endangered Indiana bat could be harmed by the project. The case reached a settlement that allowed construction to move forward, but will limit the facility to about 20 fewer turbines than originally proposed and restrict operation times to daylight hours during the summer months, when bats tend to be active at night.

D.J. Schubert, a biologist with a group opposing the Beech Ridge project, called the settlement a victory for those who feel green energy companies “have to be held to some standard in terms of ensuring their projects do not harm and threaten the environment,” according to the Associated Press.

“A standard has been set now, and we certainly hope the renewable energy industry takes heed,” Schubert said.

Bambacus and some other Western Maryland residents say they believe the case did set a standard, one they want Maryland to follow by toughening up the Public Service Commission’s review process for wind farm permits.

“Prior to the 2007 legislation, Maryland had one of the strongest and most respected programs in the U.S.,” Bambacus said. “None of us could argue that the process itself was faulty. Now there’s virtually no process at all.”

Previously, wind power developers in Maryland were required to secure a permit known as a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity. Developers had to go through an extensive review process with the PSC, including conducting environmental review studies and making their case for a permit in formal administrative law proceedings. In those proceedings, other parties, including government agencies, environmental groups, and individuals, could file their own testimony and cross-examine other parties involved.

But since 2007, wind developers can apply for an exemption from the certificate requirement. Developers still have to notify a long list of state and federal agencies, including the Department of Natural Resources and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, about proposed projects, but the exemption process cuts down on things like project review time and impact studies, as well as the public’s ability to weigh in on an application.

Both Sen. George Edwards and Delegate Wendell Beitzel filed bills in the 2009 legislative session to repeal all or part of the exemption law, but the measures failed.

Despite the fast-track legislation, and the PSC’s approval of several wind project permits, no wind farms have actually been erected in Maryland to date. But Bambacus said he thinks the 2007 legislation leaves a lot of unanswered questions about the potential impact of such facilities in the state.

For example, wind farms in Western Maryland could also have an effect on the Indiana bat. Dan Feller, western region biologist with the DNR, said Indiana bats haven’t been confirmed in Garrett County since the mid-1990s, but one was found in Allegany County as recently as the late 2000s. Feller said major hibernation spots for the bat are located less than 20 miles from Maryland in West Virginia.

“We know they’re around, and they’re very rare,” Feller said.

Bambacus called the letter to the attorney general “my last gasp” before turning to the courts for an answer.

Kimberly Connaughton, an Oakland attorney and Garrett County resident concerned over proposed wind power development projects at Backbone Mountain near her home, said she, too, sees the Beech Ridge decision as opening up new legal options for pursuing stricter regulation.

Connaughton, along with her husband, Stephan Moylan, and neighbor Eric Tribbey, sent an open letter to the Garrett County Commission at the end of January, requesting it to rescind or put on hold all pending and granted permits related to wind project construction in the county.

“At this point, we’re trying to get the local executive branch to do something,” Connaughton said. “The last thing we want to get involved in is a federal lawsuit. That’s not what we want to be doing, but we don’t want the highest, longest ridge in Maryland to be ruined forever.”

Contact Megan Miller at mmiller@times-news.com.

Times-News article ends!

From Allegheny Treasures 2/2/10 post – Maryland Delegates request AG provide opinion on industrial wind impact on endangered species.

What follows is a brief history posted earlier at AT covering the excellent work of Mr. Bambacus, a resident of Frostburg, which ultimately lead to the  formal request by Maryland State Delegates that the Maryland Attorney General provide an opinion on the matter of state agencies, industrial wind and endangered species.

On the day of Judge Titus’ ruling against the wind developer, Mr Bambacus emailed the Maryland Department of Natural Resources Secretary to advise of the ruling, and its possible impact in the state of Maryland:

In mid-December, Mr. Bambacus again wrote to the Secretary John Griffin, posted here, suggesting that “In light of the fact that work on a nearby WV wind project has been halted by U.S. District Court Judge Roger W. Titus, it is respectfully requested that any and all permits pending or granted for Garrett County wind development projects not be granted or be rescinded until consideration be given to threatened and endangered species as required by the court ruling and the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (Incidental Takings Permit).”

Maryland DNR Secretary Griffin provided this response to Mr. Bambacus’ two inquiries:

Following Secretary Griffin’s response, Mr. Bambacus sent this email to wide distribution in Maryland government:

The result of the efforts by Mr. Bambacus is this important request from Maryland Senator George C. Edwards, and Delegates Wendell Beitzel, Kevin Kelly and LeRoy Myers, Jr. to the Maryland Attorney General, Douglas F. Gansler:

We at Allegheny Treasures applaud Mr. Bambacus for his untiring efforts to protect the Allegheny Mountains.  We also commend Senator Edwards, Delegate Beitzel, Delegate Kelly and Delegate Myers for their efforts.

Related post:  Baltimore Sun: “WV wind farm bows to bats, as issue arises in MD”

Posted in Allegheny Mountains, John Bambacus | Tagged , , , , | 1 Comment

How to Spot Propaganda Techniques of the Wind Industry

Posted on February 4, 2010 by morgan

An excellent post that bears repeating … courtesy of our great friends at WindConcernsOntario.  If you haven’t yet visited their fine site, you’re missing an excellent resource.

How to Spot Propaganda Techniques of the Wind Industry

1.  NAME CALLING or STEREOTYPING:
Giving a person or an idea a bad label by using an easy to remember pejorative name. This is used to make us reject and condemn a person or idea without examining what the label really means.   Example: NIMBY

2. BAND WAGON:
This common propaganda method is when the speaker tries to convince us to accept their point of view or else we will miss out on something really good. The Band-Wagon technique is often used in advertising.    Examples: “This is the wave of the future”, “Your community will be the leader!”

3.  DEIFICATION:
This is when an idea is made to appear holy, sacred, or very special and therefore above all law. Any alternative or opposite points of view are thereby given the appearance of treason or blasphemy.     Example: “Mother Earth”

4. TRANSFER:
Transfer is when a symbol that carries respect, authority, sanction, and prestige is used along with and idea or argument to make it look more acceptable.    Examples: Hired Doctors and Wildlife “experts” paid by the wind industry.

5. TESTIMONIAL:
When some respected celebrity claims that an idea or product is good (or bad). This technique is used to convince us without examining the facts more carefully. Example:  David Suzuki

6. PLAIN FOLKS:
This is a way that a speaker convinces an audience that an idea is good because they are the same ideas of the vast majority of people like yourself.    Example: “Only a small minority are against…everyone else is on our side.”

7. VIRTUE WORDS or GLITTERING GENERALITY:
These words are used to dupe us into accepting and approving of things without examining the evidence carefully.    Examples: “Clean”, “Green”

8. ARTIFICIAL DICHOTOMY:
This is when someone tries to claim there are only two sides to an issue and that both sides must have equal presentation in order to be evaluated. This technique is used to dupe us into believing there is only one way to look at an issue, when in fact there may be many alternative viewpoints or “sides”. Like most propaganda techniques it simplifies reality and therefore distorts it, often to the advantage of the speaker.  Example:   Accusing anyone who questions their claims of being paid by the oil, nuclear or coal industry.

9. HOT POTATO:
This is an inflammatory (often untrue) statement or question used to throw an opponent off guard, or to embarrass them.     Example “Why do you hate the planet?”

10. STALLING or IGNORING THE QUESTION:
This technique is used to play for more time or to avoid answering a pointed question.  Example: “More research is needed…”

11. LEAST-OF-EVILS is used to justify an otherwise unpleasant or unpopular point of view.  Example: ‘”Would you rather have a coal plant in your backyard?”.

12. SCAPEGOAT:
This often use with Guilt-by-association to deflect scrutiny away from the issues. It transfers blame to one person or group of people without investigating the complexities of the issue.  Example:  McGuinty:  “It’s the NIMBY’s fault “.

13. CAUSE AND EFFECT MISMATCH:
This technique confuses the audience about what is really cause and effect. In fact the causes of most phenomena are complex.   Example:  “We will run out of power without wind turbines”

14. DISTORTION OF DATA or OUT OF CONTEXT or CARD STACKING:
This technique is used to convince the audience by using selected information and not presenting the complete story.  Examples: “This wind project will power 500,000 homes”

15. WEAK INFERENCE:
Weak inference is when a judgment is made with insufficient evidence, or that the conclusion does not necessarily follow from the evidence given.  Example: ” Health complaints come from those who don’t host turbines so therefore it is only because they aren’t getting money.”

16. FAULTY ANALOGY:
This is when a comparison is carried too far.   Example: “Wind turbines do not emit CO2 therefore they are completely benign.”

17. MISUSE OF STATISTICS:
Some examples: Average results are reported, but not the amount of variation around the averages. A percent or fraction is presented, but not the sample size as in “9 out of 10 dentists recommend…”. Graphs are used that, by chopping off part of the scale or using unusual units or no scale, distort the appearance of the result. Results are reported with misleading precision.

18. FEAR:
Global warming will destroy the earth unless we get these things up now!!

Posted in Wind Energy Shenanigans | Tagged , | Leave a comment

When a wind energy project is connected to the grid, how much greenhouse gas emission reduction will it really achieve? We’ve got answers!

Posted on February 3, 2010 by morgan

Attempting to answer what the wind industry will not, Mr. Dave Umling offers this:

We haven’t received a direct answer yet, so I have applied my professional planning knowledge of research and survey techniques to identify some of the most frequent responses to that basic wind energy question. Here is the result of my considerable research:

FROM MY HOME OFFICE IN NEW CREEK, WV, Dave Umling’s top 15 responses to the question of how much greenhouse gas emission reductions industrial wind energy can achieve…

15. “Hi, Billy Mays here! Have I got a product for you! It’s the new and improved Oxy-Clean Energy Credits from Enron. It’s guaranteed to clean away the toughest greenhouse gas stains.”

14. A TIE –

Could you please repeat the Question? I couldn’t hear it over all the wind turbine noise;

and

(Groan) I’m sorry, I’d like to answer your question but my mind hasn’t been working at peak efficiency lately. Ever since they built those wind turbines on the ridge above my house, I haven’t been getting much sleep and I don’t know why.

13. Would you PLEASE stop with all the bird and bat mortality crap? Can’t you understand that we’re trying to save the environment?

12. No, not even Tax Masters can get the IRS to reduce the amount of Wind Energy Tax Credits you owe.

11. If Stephen Hawking can’t answer that question, how in heck can you expect me to?

10. I can answer that question with 3 simple words…jobs, jobs, jobs.

9. Okay, let’s just get to the REAL heart of the matter. How much can we contribute to your organization?

8. I would answer that question, but I seem to have forgotten my slide rule. Let me get back to you on that, later.

7. I believe that President Obama best addressed that issue at the 2009 Beer Summit when he burped.

6. What? Do you really mean to say that you don’t believe in Global Warming?

5. A lot, but only on the 3rd full moon of the month.

4. Nine out of ten wind energy developers surveyed agree that wind energy is 99 44/100 percent pure and that it leaves your dishes virtually spotless. I was informed that the tenth wind energy developer choked to death on his bran muffin before he could vote.

3. According to the best minds at the National Renewable Energy Lab, you can calculate that figure by determining the average wind speed in your area, multiplying it by the square root of January, dividing by zero, then just making it up.

2. According to Deep Thought, the greatest computer mind ever created, the answer to the ultimate question of life, the universe, and everything is 49.

1. THE NUMBER ONE ANSWER IS:  VERY LITTLE!  IF INDUSTRIAL WIND ENERGY COULD EFFECTIVELY REDUCE GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS FROM ENERGY PRODUCTION IT WOULD HAVE A CAPACITY VALUE GREATER THAN ZERO!

There!  I hope this lays this question to rest once and for all. By the way, none of the responses below number 1 received more than 14 responses.

Enjoy the ongoing insanity of our wind energy issues.

We thank Mr. Umling for his help and encourage the politicians and government agencies supporting industrial wind, the industrial wind LLCs developing projects and even the industrial wind plants supported by huge taxpayer subsidies to offer their response.  Until then, we’ll just go with Mr. Umling’s number one answer to the question, “when a wind energy project is connected to the grid, how much greenhouse gas emission reduction will it really achieve?” … “VERY LITTLE!  IF INDUSTRIAL WIND ENERGY COULD EFFECTIVELY REDUCE GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS FROM ENERGY PRODUCTION IT WOULD HAVE A CAPACITY VALUE GREATER THAN ZERO!”

Posted in Wind Energy Shenanigans | Tagged , | 1 Comment

Supervisors vote to prohibit tall structures…”Future of Tazewell (Virginia) wind farm looks bleak.”

Posted on February 3, 2010 by morgan

Link referral courtesy of Allegheny Front Alliance:

Future of Tazewell wind farm looks bleak

A proposed wind farm project might be dead in Tazewell County. The future looks bleak for the project after the Tazewell County Board of Supervisors voted 3-2 Tuesday to prohibit development of tall structures on the county’s scenic ridgelines. “I think this proposed tall structure construction carries with it too much public controversy and too little public revenue,” said Supervisor Mike Hymes, who cast the deciding vote on a divided board.

February  3, 2010 by Debra McCown in Bristol Herald Courier

TAZEWELL, Va. – A proposed wind farm project might be dead in Tazewell County.

The future looks bleak for the project after the Tazewell County Board of Supervisors voted 3-2 Tuesday to prohibit development of tall structures on the county’s scenic ridgelines.

“I think this proposed tall structure construction carries with it too much public controversy and too little public revenue,” said Supervisor Mike Hymes, who cast the deciding vote on a divided board.

Supervisors David Anderson and Jim Campbell also voted in favor of the ordinance. Supervisor John Absher, who voted with Chairman Seth White in opposition to the ridgeline ordinance, cited a need to respect property rights.

“I have a hard time telling property owners what to do with their land,” Absher said. “I feel like the government has too much control over that.”

The project is one of two announced in far Southwest Virginia a year ago by Dominion and BP Wind Energy. The other, planned for the ridges of Black Mountain in Wise County, has received enthusiastic support from that county’s board.

Ryan Frazier, spokesman for Dominion, said the company is “evaluating several options” with regard to the Tazewell County project in the wake of Tuesday’s decision.

The ordinance, which prohibits structures taller than 40 feet on the ridgelines and structures taller than 120 feet above a certain elevation, does allow the possibility of building them with a variance.

However, “The odds of that happening are very slim,” County Attorney Eric Young said.

“We are proud of the supervisors,” said Charlie Stacy, a member of the Mountain Preservation Association, which formed to opposed the project. “They saved one of God’s greatest creations tonight from devastation.”

Frazier said the Wise County project is still in the early stages of development and would require state and federal permits, but all the local approvals necessary for the project have been granted.

Other than the two announced projects, Dominion has no plans to develop wind farms in far Southwest Virginia, he said.

The Tazewell County project would have placed up to 60 wind turbines along East River Mountain; the Wise County project would put as many as 100 on Bluff Spur, Nine Mile Spur and Rogers Ridge.

While the Wise County site is fairly remote, the Tazewell County site is “one of the most visible corridors in Tazewell County,” said Ann Robinson, also a member of the Mountain Preservation Association.

“There are some things in this life that you can’t put a price on,” Robinson said, adding that Tazewell County would see little benefit from the sacrifice of its most scenic ridgelines – and she’d support a nuclear power plant for the county instead if it meant jobs.

Robinson said project opponents also take issue with the government subsidies provided for “green energy” projects, with the feeling that it amounts to a form of corporate welfare for technologies that have very little merit on their own.

Alex Payne, a landowner on East River Mountain who could have leased property for the project, said it would have brought benefits in terms of tax revenue, income to landowners, construction jobs and a handful of permanent jobs.

“People don’t like change,” Payne said before the meeting, “and we have to change.”

The project has gone thorough several public hearings in the past year, with comments on everything from the impact on birds and bats to potential negative effects on tourism.

In Wise County, where a proposed project received enthusiastic support, now-chairman of the board of supervisors J.H. Rivers last summer called the wind farm proposed there “a win-win situation for Wise County.”

That project has also gained the support of the Wise Energy for Virginia Coalition, the group of environmental organizations that is fighting a legal battle against the coal-fired power plant under construction in St. Paul.

Web link: http://www2.tricities.com/tri/news/local/article/f…

http://www.windaction.org/news/25426

Posted in Appalachian Mountains, Industrial Wind and Local Governments | Tagged , | Leave a comment

Wisconsin town votes in favor of one year industrial wind moratorium!

Posted on February 3, 2010 by morgan

What ever happened to the concept of home rule?  Seems that all these folks want to do is have a say in their lives.  But the last two lines of this article says it all:  “Glenmore Chairman Don Kittell, who has voiced support for the Invenergy project, said he questioned whether a moratorium would have any effect on state regulators. He also said it likely would prompt Invenergy to file a lawsuit that would cost the town money to defend its actions in court.

“Why go through all the hassle?” he said. “It isn’t going to work — not unless you’ve got any money.”

ARTICLE BEGINS:

From the greenbaypressgagette.com

Brown County town of Holland votes for wind-farm moratorium

Opponents of Invenergy project hope others follow

BY SCOTT WILLIAMS • SWILLIAMS@GREENBAYPRESSGAZETTE.COM • FEBRUARY 3, 2010

Opponents of a proposed wind farm in southern Brown County hope the town of Holland is just the first municipality to set a one-year ban on wind farm construction.

Chicago-based Invenergy LLC submitted an application to state regulators in October for permission to develop the Ledge Wind Energy Project within four neighboring towns in southern Brown County. The plan calls for 54 wind turbines in Morrison, 22 in Holland, 20 in Wrightstown and four in Glenmore.

The Holland Town Board voted 3-0 Monday night to impose a one-year moratorium and increase from 1,000 feet to 2,640 feet — equal to a half-mile — how far any wind turbines must be set back from neighboring properties.

Despite the vote, it’s unclear whether local moratoriums or other potential obstacles will have any effect.

The state Public Service Commission has authority to approve such developments regardless of what local officials want, PSC spokesman Tim Le Monds said.

“It trumps anything at the local level,” he said.

The state has not acted on the application yet and is expected to hold public hearings later this year.

But a leading organizer of the opposition in Brown County said Tuesday he believes moratoriums at least will slow the project, so that residents can study and debate the proposal.

“It does send a message,” said Jon Morehouse, spokesman for Brown County Citizens for Responsible Wind Energy.

The Invenergy development would be Brown County’s first major commercial wind farm. With the capacity to generate enough electricity to power about 40,000 homes, it also would be larger than any wind farm operating in Wisconsin.

Supporters say the project would bring economic development and clean energy to the area, while opponents fear the intrusion and potential health hazards of the 400-foot-tall spinning turbines.

Invenergy spokesman Kevin Parzyck said the company is following a state regulatory approval process that allows local residents ample opportunity to voice their feelings about the project.

Noting that company officials had not yet seen the Holland Town Board’s latest action, Parzyck said company officials believe their proposal has strong support locally. But he also said the company does not dismiss signs of opposition from local elected leaders.

“We are very sensitive to community needs and desires,” he said.

Holland Chairman Jerry Wall said he believes that at least 50 percent of the town’s residents oppose the Invenergy project. The board action was intended to reflect that, he said.

Wall acknowledged, however, that state regulators might not abide by the town’s wishes.

“They can walk right over you,” he said. “There’s nothing we can do about it.”

Opponents are pushing for similar moratoriums in Morrison, Wrightstown and Glenmore, too. None of those town boards have scheduled votes on the issue yet.

Glenmore Chairman Don Kittell, who has voiced support for the Invenergy project, said he questioned whether a moratorium would have any effect on state regulators. He also said it likely would prompt Invenergy to file a lawsuit that would cost the town money to defend its actions in court.

“Why go through all the hassle?” he said. “It isn’t going to work — not unless you’ve got any money.”

Posted in Wind Energy Shenanigans | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

More industrial wind shenanigans from Maine: “Wind backers decry conflict of interest claims”

Posted on February 2, 2010 by morgan

Linked at ICECAP

Allegheny Treasures highly recommends a visit to the comment section following the article which is linked here for your convenience – Wind backers decry conflict-of-interest claims

ARTICLE BEGINS:

Gov. Baldacci and an ex-PUC chief, now a wind developer, are among those who let industry sway policy, critics say.
By TUX TURKEL, Staff WriterJanuary 31, 2010

As Maine rushes to embrace wind power, unnamed critics posting on Internet sites and reader comment pages contend that money and political connections — reaching all the way to the governor’s office — are greasing the skids.

A repeated theme, for instance, focuses on Gov. John Baldacci and Kurt Adams, former chairman of the Maine Public Utilities Commission.

Adams served as Baldacci’s chief counsel. The governor appointed him chairman of the PUC in 2005. Adams left in 2008 to be a top executive at First Wind, the state’s most active wind-power developer. Posters allege that Adams has since benefited from his connections with Baldacci to gain permits and generous taxpayer subsidies for big wind projects.

The charge has become more persistent over the past year, as the pace of energy development has picked up in Maine, fueled by federal stimulus money, efforts to cut reliance on oil and strong support for renewable energy by both Baldacci and President Obama.

But in interviews with the Maine Sunday Telegram, Adams and a spokesman for Baldacci say their conduct has been legal and appropriate, and that organized opponents of wind development are using innuendo to influence public opinion.

The connections aren’t secret, they say, and the charges lack specific — or accurate — accounts of any wrongdoing.

“Opponents are using a modern-day whisper campaign to discredit policies they don’t agree with,” said David Farmer, Baldacci’s deputy chief of staff.

These tactics are defended by Brad Blake, a spokesman for the Citizens’ Task Force on Wind Power, a Maine group fighting industrial wind projects. A Cape Elizabeth resident with a camp near Lincoln, where First Wind proposes a wind farm, Blake last month posted an online comment following a story on wind power in the Bangor Daily News.

“How about equal amount of space to exposing the corrupt relationships that are driving this folloy (sic) in Maine: Baldacci-Kurt Adams-First Wind. Juliet Browne (First Wind lawyer) — her husband, Rep. Jon Hinck — expedited wind permitting law. Larry Summers — D.E. Shaw-First Wind — Obama’s $40.4 million gift to rescue Stetson II. Ad nauseum (sic)!”

Blake’s posting, which he made under his real name, was similar to others circulated on the Internet, chiefly by unnamed commenters. His posting was later copied to another Web site and repeated by another poster.

In a recent interview, Blake acknow-ledged he isn’t able to document any illegal activity. But he said his goal is to draw attention to the wind industry’s ambitions to install hundreds of turbines in Maine, and the officials who appear to be promoting the agenda.

“There’s a lot of I-help-you, you-help-me maneuvering behind the scenes, between people who want to move things in a certain direction,” he said.

DEVELOPER: STIMULUS FUNDS OFFERED TO ALL

Both Farmer and Adams point out that Maine is a small state, where business and government leaders have access to one another and interests sometimes overlap.

Some posters draw the First Wind genealogy more broadly, connecting Rep. Jon Hinck, D-Portland, who co-chairs the Legislature’s Utilities and Energy Committee, and his wife, Juliet Browne, a Portland lawyer who helps First Wind and other developers through the maze of the state’s permitting process.

In interviews, Hinck and Browne defended their conduct and said their actions present no conflict of interest.

Even Lawrence Summers, a former treasury secretary who worked at an investor group that supports First Wind and now is President Obama’s economic adviser, is linked to what some see as the wind industry’s inside track in Maine.

The relationship between Adams and Baldacci has attracted the most scrutiny.

Adams disputes that he has used his friendship with Baldacci to advance First Wind’s projects in Maine. As chief development officer, Adams said, he spends most of his time on new projects in Hawaii and the West.

“First Wind has a Maine team that doesn’t need my help,” he said.

Adams said he took steps to avoid a conflict of interest when he left the PUC in 2008.

The timing was bad. The agency was preparing to consider one of its biggest energy cases — the still-pending Central Maine Power transmission line upgrade request. But Adams and his family live in Yarmouth, next to CMP’s transmission corridor. His wife, also a lawyer, is fighting the expansion.

After receiving opinions from the attorney general and from his personal lawyer, Adams reluctantly concluded he couldn’t stay at the PUC without recusing himself from the CMP case. Long interested in renewable energy, he learned of a management opening at First Wind, was hired and was later promoted to his current position.

Internet posters, he said, string together relationships to draw conclusions that aren’t supported by fact.

For instance: First Wind’s 57-megawatt project on Stetson Mountain in Washington County won $40 million in federal stimulus funds in September. Commenters call it a bailout for a project that’s not economically viable without taxpayer subsidies.

They assume the project benefited through a relationship with Summers, director of Obama’s National Economic Council. Summers previously was a managing director at D.E. Shaw & Co., a global hedge fund that has a big financial stake in First Wind.

But Adams said the stimulus money was available to any wind project that came on line during a certain time period. First Wind has said the $40 million will be reinvested in new projects.

“That’s the way the stimulus act is supposed to work,” Adams said.

The appearance of conflicts of interest is nothing new in Maine, he said, where many of the same people move between public service and private life. But Maine has a very transparent government, in Adams’ view, with a citizen Legislature and a permit process that allows plenty of public scrutiny.

He said he has come to take the online accusations in stride and no longer reads them regularly.

“It’s a price you pay,” he said. “This is what public life in America is today.”

LEGISLATOR’S WIFE HAS WIND CLIENTS

Unproven charges are familiar to Hinck, the Portland lawmaker, and Browne, his wife, who heads the Verrill Dana law firm’s Environmental Law Group.

Browne was appointed by Baldacci to a 2007 wind-power task force. The panel recommended rules that anti-wind activists say were rushed into law by Baldacci and the Legislature to make it easier for wind projects to be approved in certain areas. Hinck, as co-chair of the Utilities and Energy Committee, helped advance the agenda of his wife’s clients, they say.

This scenario ignores reality, Browne and Hinck say.

With 13 years of experience working to gain permits for a natural gas pipeline and, most recently, four major wind-power projects, Browne said she had an important perspective to offer the task force. The panel included lawmakers, environmental groups and state agencies. This balanced makeup is typical of state task forces.

“It was quite transparent,” Browne said. “I said what my experience was.”

Browne’s work typically brings her in contact with the legislative committee that handles natural resource issues, which Hinck doesn’t sit on. In this instance, the resulting bill came before the energy committee co-chaired by her husband.

Hinck said he voted to support the bill but didn’t do any extraordinary lobbying on its behalf. Asked if he should have recused himself from voting, Hinck said that would have been appropriate only if his wife were going to benefit directly.

“I don’t think it came anywhere close to being a conflict issue,” he said.

Either way, Hinck’s vote wasn’t decisive. The bill passed without opposition in both the House and Senate.

Hinck was a co-founder of Greenpeace USA and a former project leader at the Natural Resources Council of Maine. Most recently, he served on a broadly represented legislative task force that studied energy corridors in Maine.

“Opponents seem to have the notion that a task force should be made up of people with no interest in the business at hand,” he said. “I think that’s ridiculous.”

ACTIVIST: TACTICS BORN OF FRUSTRATION

This tension in not unique to small states, only more visible in places where people tend to know one another, according to Rushworth Kidder, president of the Institute for Global Ethics.

Kidder, an author and ethicist who heads the nonpartisan think tank in Camden, said “networks of influence” are unavoidable at high levels of business and government. The solution is to manage conflicts of interest by being as transparent as possible about potential conflicts.

Kidder wasn’t aware of the wind-power cronyism charges. But in general, he said, accomplished people who are busy doing what they think is right in their jobs tend to have a blind spot to potential conflicts.

“The last person to see it’s a conflict of interest is often the actor himself,” he said.

It’s the appearance of these conflicts, real or not, that continues to feed various Web sites, including the Citizens’ Task Force on Wind Power — Maine, at http://www.windtaskforce.org/, and the Industrial Wind Action Group, at http://www.windaction.org.

The sites attract opponents of the noise, visual impact and environmental changes associated with major wind projects.

But even within these social communities, not everyone agrees that “connecting the dots” is productive, according to Steve Thurston, a Vermont resident and co-chairman of the Citizens’ Task Force on Wind Power.

“I don’t think it helps to accuse people of malfeasance, unless you can prove what you’re saying,” Thurston said.

Thurston has a family camp on Roxbury Pond near Rumford, near where a company led by former Gov. Angus King is planning a wind farm.

Frustration leads opponents to connect public officials who seem complicit in a policy that, as Thurston sees it, will destroy the state’s mountain landscapes.

“It feels like a freight train,” he said. “No matter what you do to put the brakes on, it just keeps going.”

Staff Writer Tux Turkel can be contacted at 791-6462 or at:

tturkel@pressherald.com

Copyright © 2010 MaineToday Media, Inc.

Posted in Wind Energy Shenanigans | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

“Biased reporting on wind creates false job impression.”

Posted on February 2, 2010 by morgan

From the Keyser WV Mineral Daily News-Tribune:

Mon Feb 01, 2010, 05:49 PM EST

Keyser, W.Va. – Biased reporting on wind creates false job impression

To the Editor:

I just finished reading the article on the wind technician jobs being bandied about by Wind Force. The “facts” cited appear to be solely based on information from Mr. David Friend, who stands to make a sizable amount of money from this project. That suggests that he is not likely to present an balanced view on anything that pertains to Wind Power. Every article I have seen you print on this subject seems to quote WindForce officials as source of true, factual information despite the obvious self interest that they have. This amounts to the paper being simply a public relations tool or them. I have never seen you seem even a tiny bit skeptical about their pronouncements despite inconsistencies in their statements published in your own paper.

Let’s look at the promised jobs. You report that they will hire six full time technician jobs who “climb several towers a day” for servicing. Again no mention of where these jobs are actually located. For your information these towers are monitored remotely, and the jobs may be in another state, or even California, where Mission Edison is located. Mr. Friend has made earlier comments as to the reliability of these units and that they do not need much maintenance. Which is it? If they need six people for 23 turbines, that equals 3.8 turbines per person. If you extrapolate this ratio to the Ned Power project and Mountaineer in Tucker Co. there should be approximately 40 of those jobs in the area.

Have you ever listed one of these jobs in your paper? Have you ever talked to one of these people? Have you ever checked any of these figures? Why have none of these people spoken up at any of the many wind power meetings that I have attended. The construction people have been at all of them and were quite vocal. I suspect it is because there are actually very few of these jobs, and they are not located in this area.

The interest in the ETC training program, mentioned in your article indicated a large number of people desperate for a good-paying job in the area. I fear that both the college and your blindly unquestioning reporting give false hope to people who might spend a lot of time and money to train for jobs that just are not there. It also makes the paper just look like a PR outlet for the wind industry. It is obvious that you have a strong personal pro wind stance, and that comes out in your reporting. You know that should be in the editorial section of the paper, and not in news stories.

I would love to see at least a tiny bit of effort to verify some of the “facts” that you report. A little balance would be nice too, as there are actually some serious problems with wind power, which you never give any press at all. I know that your paper has been provided much information on negative side. As a newspaper reporter, you have that professional responsibility to this community, to present a thoughtful, balanced, unbiased view, on the things affecting our area. Otherwise your work can be simply a tool to lead, and deceive your readers.

I am a long term reader of the News Tribune.

Gregory Trainor
Keyser (West Virginia)

Related posts:

LA Times: “Despite record growth in generating capacity, the (wind) industry is creating few employment opportunities overall.”

and

Wind turbines: 15 jobs, five votes and a forever altered landmark – Bluefield (WV) Telegraph

Posted in Allegheny Mountains, Wind Energy Shenanigans | Tagged , , | Leave a comment