A new wind blowin’?
Maine may have turned a corner this week in its effort to lead New England in the development of wind power.
First, Gov. John Baldacci decided to create a task force to come up with rules, laws and siting standards for attracting wind energy projects to the right places. And second, the company behind a doomed wind farm plan in the western Maine mountains resuscitated the project by scaling back from two mountain ridges to one and moving a couple miles farther away from the Appalachian Trail.
A state task force seemed inevitable ever since plans for 30 turbines on Redington and Black Nubble mountains were effectively rejected in January by the Land Use Regulation Commission. Opposition to the location of that project, as well as a smaller one in Freedom, left the governor and other wind fans looking for ways to get the state back on track and make potential wind developers feel more welcome.
Lawmakers responded with several of their own proposals to promote wind energy, including one to create statewide siting guidelines. Those bills have effectively been dropped to give the new task force time to do its job.
Baldacci’s move could put the state in front.
It turns out Maine is not alone and states across the country are experiencing the same difficulties attacting windmills. A new report by the National Research Council says that’s because states are inexperienced at wind power planning and regulation and often don’t have standards in place for where, and where not, to build them.
States hoping to break out of the holding pattern, the report says, must provide developers and the public with guidelines for planning and evaluating projects and for weighing the costs and benefits of proposals. The governor’s new task force is supposed to put together those kinds of recommendations by Jan. 15.
The decision to downscale the Redington and Black Nubble wind farm also seemed like an easy call.
The Maine Land Use Regulation Commission was expected to kill the project anyway at its meeting in Bangor June 6. Now, the commission will consider whether to give the developer time to change the plan or tell Maine Mountain Power to start over with a new application. Either way, the project will get new life and an improved prognosis.
It won’t get a free pass. The 18 remaining turbines will still be visible from the Appalachian Trail and could still affect birds and other wildlife. Those kinds of potential trade-offs will come with every wind energy plan.
The Black Nubble project, and two other large wind farm proposals before the Land Use Regulation Commission, are probably too far along to be affected by the new task force. But, in the long run, Baldacci’s new study group could help state agencies, local officials and the rest of us decide whether the trade-offs in each case are worth it.
Posted by at 06:44 AM
E-mail this entry to a friend
Just a thought but I'm wondering if perhaps instead of one (or many) giant wind farms if it might be mutually beneficial for the commercial wind energy co's to enlist the aid of people who live in the area(s) by proposing to place 1 turbine (or a small number - based on the amount of property, yet restricted in size enough to not create the problems associated with the very large-scale ventures) on their property, tied into the grid while allowing the homeowner to receive their electricity directly on-site.
There'd not be the "visual" pollution of the large wind farms, nor the excessive noise generated when they're all in one location. The landowner would win by receiving free energy and the utility would win by still getting their turbines online... And the net result would resemble just a larger, more modern looking device than those we used to see quite often pumping water, etc.
I'm not sure if it'd be economically feasible (but I'm guessing it would be if you take into account the cost of purchasing the land for a "farm" and the long term social and environmental effects associated with huge scale wind projects) and I suspect it'd be far more favorably received if those who are most effected by the presence of the turbines were able to directly benefit.
Posted by sensible
May 14, 2007 11:14 AM
JIM...I dislike the adverse positon of mainstream environmental groups have towards alternative energy projects; and have consistently supported a regional policy of energy self-sufficiency.
Giant Corporate windfarms owned by Canadians would be out; small local or even personal wind turbines are in.
Policy needs to be adjusted so he bulk of he power created is used regionally, and not exported. Hopefully, this will temper the mania that seeks giant 300' windmills, huge underwater turbines, and a paper mill sized factory to produce cellulosic ethanol.
I've always believed in the 'small is beautiful' philosophy and want the same for alternative energy development.
I've also believed in pluralistic Democracy' so if a local community wants a wind farm; who is the NRCM, or SIERRA CLUB or the ATC to come along with their millions of dollars and paid agitators to overrule them with a lobbying effort.
Posted by
Frank HellerJune 15, 2007 11:25 AM
Subscribe