It’s constant, it’s overwhelming, and it’s likely never to go away. What is it?  It’s information overload. We live in an age where everyone has an opinion, everyone wants a voice in the debate, and everyone thinks they’re right. With the Internet at our fingertips and the media hounding us with article upon article, it’s hard to know where to stand on hot topics like renewable energy.

We’ve probably all experienced that moment – eating our eggs and toast in our favorite diner, enjoying our cup of joe, and reading the morning paper – when we come across a letter to the editor arguing that wind power will improve energy security, energy prices, and climate change. Confusion sets in. You’re unsettled, perhaps even bothered. Didn’t yesterday’s article lambast wind power for its inefficiency, its price tag and its destructive scenic impact? Who has the facts right and who has the facts wrong? If wind is supposed to bring energy prices down, why is the electric bill creeping up month after month? If wind integration makes the grid more stable, why do you keep hearing that wind will only cause more power plants to be built? And if wind is so great, why are parts of the West disassembling their wind farms and halting project development? Why, wind proponents, why?

These are the right questions to be asking, and we’re glad you’re asking them.  These very same questions are being asked of wind project developers here in New England, most recently by the Maine Land Use Regulation Commission (LURC) in connection with First Wind’s proposed Bowers Wind Project, a 27 turbine wind power project to be located in the Downeast Lakes area of Maine. Opposition to the Bowers Project stems almost exclusively from the visual impacts the project might have on a portion of the local economy, guided fishing. In all other respects, the project is commendable – Bowers will make use of existing logging roads and transmission lines and anticipated environmental impacts from the project’s construction are expected to be minimal.

CLF supports this project and, anticipating the confusion under which LURC might be working, submitted testimony from two experts to dispel some of the myths that the wind debate has generated. Specifically, Dr. Cameron Wake testified on the impacts of climate change on Maine and New England’s natural resources and how wind power is one tool to be used in addressing that challenge; and Abigail Krich testified on the systemic benefits of integrating wind power into the electric market.

After peppering Ms. Krich with questions, the Commission walked away with two major takeaways from her testimony:

• Wind power does result in cost-savings because it brings the costs of generating electricity down. Unfortunately, those savings are all but wiped out by the increasing cost of transmitting electricity.
• Increasing the amount of wind power generated and used in New England will not require the construction of additional power plants to balance wind’s variability. The New England Wind Integration Study, performed by ISO-NE, concluded that even if 12,000 MW of wind power were integrated into the system, no new power plants would be needed to balance wind’s variability.

While CLF appreciates that the scenic impacts of these projects are, at the end of the day, a highly personal matter (or as my Latin teacher would say, “de gustibus non est disputandum” or “taste is not a matter of debate”), it’s important that objective facts not be obscured by subjective, and ultimately misleading, ones.

Photo credit: CLF

For those of you following Maine Governor Paul LePage’s assault on the state’s environmental protections, check out this op-ed by CLF Maine Director Sean Mahoney, which appeared June 3 in the Bangor Daily News. Here, Mahoney rebuffs LePage’s claim that generating more energy from renewable sources in Maine, as required by the state’s Renewable Portfolio Standard, means higher energy prices for Maine consumers, and rejects his so-called “solution,” a bill entitled “Act to Reduce Energy Prices for Maine Consumers.” Want to hear four reasons why LePage’s Act and attitude are bad for Maine? Mahoney has them here. Read more >

CLF Director of Clean Energy and Climate Change N. Jonathan Peress appeared on an NHPR segment yesterday to discuss the possibility of state energy utility PSNH increasing the price of power for its consumers. He argued that the proposed price increases are the result of PSNH’s struggle to cover increasing costs of their aging facilities.

“The coal-fired power plants that are utilized by Public Service of NH have either passed their useful life or are approaching the end of their useful life,” he said.

If you missed the broadcast, listen here:

Concerned about the cost of coal? Learn more about CLF’s Coal-free New England campaign.

CLF intervened today in proceedings regarding the proposed Northern Pass electricity supply and transmission project in New Hampshire. The proposed project, which involves creating 180 miles of new transmission lines in the state and installing new transmission infrastructure in the White Mountain National Forest, is intended to import 1,200 megawatts (MW) of electricity generated in Canada by Hydro-Quebec, the Canadian public utility. If constructed, the project would have significant impacts on New Hampshire communities and the environment.

CONCORD, NH  December 16, 2010 – The Conservation Law Foundation (CLF) intervened today in the Presidential Permit proceeding recently initiated by the U.S. Department of Energy, for the proposed Northern Pass electricity supply and transmission project.  The proposed project – involving 180 miles of new transmission lines in New Hampshire – is intended to import 1,200 MW of electricity generated by Hydro-Quebec, in Canada.

“This project could profoundly affect New Hampshire’s energy future,” said Jonathan Peress, director of CLF’s Clean Energy and Climate Change program.  “It remains to be seen whether it will help or hinder our efforts in New Hampshire and New England to achieve necessary greenhouse gas reductions and develop a clean energy economy.  Unfortunately, the application is more noteworthy for what it omits, rather than the sparse information it provides.”

The proposed project would include the construction of new transmission corridor in northern-most New Hampshire, as well as the installation of new transmission infrastructure through the White Mountain National Forest. Read more>>