Wind Power and the Bowers Project – Who’s Right?

Virginie Roveillo and Sean Mahoney

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.

Focus Areas

Climate Change

Places

Maine

Campaigns


20 Responses to “Wind Power and the Bowers Project – Who’s Right?”

  1. Gary Campbell

    CLF supports this project?????

    Why was it that as an intervenor Sean Mahoney told LURC tha CLF was neither for nor against it? I can only assume it was a cowardly stance designed to avoid any real confrontation or debate on the issues.

    Your involvement at the LURC hearings was limited to wasting 30 minutes on an irrelevant presentation about global warming which effectively stole time away from discussion of the real issues that LURC must address.

    I lost all respect for CLF.

    Gary Campbell

  2. Gary Campbell

    CLF supports this project?????

    Why was it that as an intervenor Sean Mahoney told LURC tha CLF was neither for nor against it? I can only assume it was a cowardly stance designed to avoid any real confrontation or debate on the issues.

    Your involvement at the LURC hearings was limited to wasting 30 minutes on an irrelevant presentation about global warming which effectively stole time away from discussion of the real issues that LURC must address.

    I lost all respect for CLF.

    Gary Campbell

  3. Gary Campbell

    CLF supports this project?????

    Why was it that as an intervenor Sean Mahoney told LURC tha CLF was neither for nor against it? I can only assume it was a cowardly stance designed to avoid any real confrontation or debate on the issues.

    Your involvement at the LURC hearings was limited to wasting 30 minutes on an irrelevant presentation about global warming which effectively stole time away from discussion of the real issues that LURC must address.

    I lost all respect for CLF.

    Gary Campbell

  4. Gary Campbell

    CLF supports this project?????

    Why was it that as an intervenor Sean Mahoney told LURC tha CLF was neither for nor against it? I can only assume it was a cowardly stance designed to avoid any real confrontation or debate on the issues.

    Your involvement at the LURC hearings was limited to wasting 30 minutes on an irrelevant presentation about global warming which effectively stole time away from discussion of the real issues that LURC must address.

    I lost all respect for CLF.

    Gary Campbell

  5. even if 12000 MW of wind was intergrated into ISO-NE no new power plants would be needed to balance winds variablity. No? but existing power plants will have to be ramped up and ready…this stand-by mode causes more pollution that if the power plant was running full tilt.
    WIND = 75% does not blow, 5% “parasitic” draw from the grid and 10-30% loss in transmission.
    WIND destroys 10,000 year old eco-systems.

    Rumford Maine has a gas plant waiting to ramp up…this spinnig reserve is why First Wind wants to tap into Rumford area.
    First Wind says Bowers Project will not affect eco-systems because it is low lying and not in the fragile zone…..ok……What is Black Mountain, North and South twin peaks?

    First Wind is a scam and they are destroying wildlife habitat. In Bowers they will be killing 1000’s of jobs…for what? 3 jobs and all the power to the south?

    Keep digging on the internet…you will find truths and it will take a little longer than 3 hours to be an expert.

  6. even if 12000 MW of wind was intergrated into ISO-NE no new power plants would be needed to balance winds variablity. No? but existing power plants will have to be ramped up and ready…this stand-by mode causes more pollution that if the power plant was running full tilt.
    WIND = 75% does not blow, 5% “parasitic” draw from the grid and 10-30% loss in transmission.
    WIND destroys 10,000 year old eco-systems.

    Rumford Maine has a gas plant waiting to ramp up…this spinnig reserve is why First Wind wants to tap into Rumford area.
    First Wind says Bowers Project will not affect eco-systems because it is low lying and not in the fragile zone…..ok……What is Black Mountain, North and South twin peaks?

    First Wind is a scam and they are destroying wildlife habitat. In Bowers they will be killing 1000’s of jobs…for what? 3 jobs and all the power to the south?

    Keep digging on the internet…you will find truths and it will take a little longer than 3 hours to be an expert.

  7. even if 12000 MW of wind was intergrated into ISO-NE no new power plants would be needed to balance winds variablity. No? but existing power plants will have to be ramped up and ready…this stand-by mode causes more pollution that if the power plant was running full tilt.
    WIND = 75% does not blow, 5% “parasitic” draw from the grid and 10-30% loss in transmission.
    WIND destroys 10,000 year old eco-systems.

    Rumford Maine has a gas plant waiting to ramp up…this spinnig reserve is why First Wind wants to tap into Rumford area.
    First Wind says Bowers Project will not affect eco-systems because it is low lying and not in the fragile zone…..ok……What is Black Mountain, North and South twin peaks?

    First Wind is a scam and they are destroying wildlife habitat. In Bowers they will be killing 1000’s of jobs…for what? 3 jobs and all the power to the south?

    Keep digging on the internet…you will find truths and it will take a little longer than 3 hours to be an expert.

  8. even if 12000 MW of wind was intergrated into ISO-NE no new power plants would be needed to balance winds variablity. No? but existing power plants will have to be ramped up and ready…this stand-by mode causes more pollution that if the power plant was running full tilt.
    WIND = 75% does not blow, 5% “parasitic” draw from the grid and 10-30% loss in transmission.
    WIND destroys 10,000 year old eco-systems.

    Rumford Maine has a gas plant waiting to ramp up…this spinnig reserve is why First Wind wants to tap into Rumford area.
    First Wind says Bowers Project will not affect eco-systems because it is low lying and not in the fragile zone…..ok……What is Black Mountain, North and South twin peaks?

    First Wind is a scam and they are destroying wildlife habitat. In Bowers they will be killing 1000’s of jobs…for what? 3 jobs and all the power to the south?

    Keep digging on the internet…you will find truths and it will take a little longer than 3 hours to be an expert.

  9. Interested Party

    Mr. Mahoney,

    As a person who attended the entire two days of LURC proceedings, I take issue with your characterization of the facts. First of all, when you say the Bowers project developers “will make use of existing roads and transmisison lines” you neglect to mention that the current 13-20 ft. wide roads would be widened to 35 ft. and that the roadsides would be CLEARCUT to a width of 95 ft. Funny how you forgot to mention those facts. Saying they’ll use existing roads is pure Mahoney baloney. You also state that they’ll use existing transmission lines. Yes, they will use existing transmision lines from the Stetson project south, but if they’re not going to build new transmission lines how are they going to get the power from Bowers to Stetson a distance of about 12 miles? More half truths from you.

    Secondly. you assert that, “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.” While it’s true that there were many full time professional guides and lodge owners who testified against the project, you again conveniently leave out the negative impact that this project will have on canoe and kayak trippers, hikers, wildlife photographers, hunters, general boating activities, and other activities related to this unique and valuable watershed. How about the Darrow’s Wilderness Canoe Camp for 11-18 year old youths from around the country. This camp has opperated in this area for fifty seven years – but that doesn’t count does it Mr. Mahoney? These lodges, camps, guides and support businesses have depended on the wilderness characterisatics of this unique and valuable watershed resource since the 1830’s to stitch togther a living, but that doesn’t matter to you does it Mr. Mahoney. You are willing to kill off the traditional businesses that have existed in this remote section of Maine for almost two centuries in order to promote one wind turbine project. More than one hundred people in and around the Village of Grand Lake Stream will lose their base of employment (sporting tourism) in exchange for one or two new wind turbine maintenance jobs.

    You also left out the issue of an active breeding pair of LYNX (an endangered species) in the immediate area, as well as the severe 20-40% property devaluation that will be experienced by property onwers in the area and the loss of tax revenue by the Towns of Lakeville and Gran dLake Stream in particular.

    You also forgot to mention that only one of your witnesses bothered to show up to testify in person, and that neither of your witness’ testimonies mentioned anything about this specific project, not a single word. You merely used this meeting as a soapbox from which to grandstand your and Ms. Krich’s own beliefs about wind power in general and had no familiarity with this project whatsoever. If this project was so important to you, why didn’t you spend some time in this area talking to the locals who cherish this resource which is rated as being of “statewide or national significance”. The folks from NRCM spent a considerable amount of time talking the folks in this area and decided not to come out in approval of this project Mr. Mahoney, but I guess you can do all the evaluation you need while sitting at your desk in Portland. Do you have telepathic powers? You couldn’t even be bothered to take part in the site tour which included a boating segment so that everyone could get a first hand impression of how much this project would impact the resources. As an Intervener, you were invited but didn’t show up. I, and every single other person who was invited took advantage of that opportunity Mr. Mahoney, where were you? It’s amazing that someone who feels qualified to write extensively about these proceedings didn’t care enough to participate in the site tour or have both his witnesses show up to testify.

    While I have some respect for CLF and it’s right to speak for or against these projects, I do not respect you for taking an approval stance on this project that will have such a negative impact on the resources and businesses of this area when you couldn’t even bother to be part of the total process like everyone else was. Shame on you Mr. Mahoney.

  10. Interested Party

    Mr. Mahoney,

    As a person who attended the entire two days of LURC proceedings, I take issue with your characterization of the facts. First of all, when you say the Bowers project developers “will make use of existing roads and transmisison lines” you neglect to mention that the current 13-20 ft. wide roads would be widened to 35 ft. and that the roadsides would be CLEARCUT to a width of 95 ft. Funny how you forgot to mention those facts. Saying they’ll use existing roads is pure Mahoney baloney. You also state that they’ll use existing transmission lines. Yes, they will use existing transmision lines from the Stetson project south, but if they’re not going to build new transmission lines how are they going to get the power from Bowers to Stetson a distance of about 12 miles? More half truths from you.

    Secondly. you assert that, “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.” While it’s true that there were many full time professional guides and lodge owners who testified against the project, you again conveniently leave out the negative impact that this project will have on canoe and kayak trippers, hikers, wildlife photographers, hunters, general boating activities, and other activities related to this unique and valuable watershed. How about the Darrow’s Wilderness Canoe Camp for 11-18 year old youths from around the country. This camp has opperated in this area for fifty seven years – but that doesn’t count does it Mr. Mahoney? These lodges, camps, guides and support businesses have depended on the wilderness characterisatics of this unique and valuable watershed resource since the 1830’s to stitch togther a living, but that doesn’t matter to you does it Mr. Mahoney. You are willing to kill off the traditional businesses that have existed in this remote section of Maine for almost two centuries in order to promote one wind turbine project. More than one hundred people in and around the Village of Grand Lake Stream will lose their base of employment (sporting tourism) in exchange for one or two new wind turbine maintenance jobs.

    You also left out the issue of an active breeding pair of LYNX (an endangered species) in the immediate area, as well as the severe 20-40% property devaluation that will be experienced by property onwers in the area and the loss of tax revenue by the Towns of Lakeville and Gran dLake Stream in particular.

    You also forgot to mention that only one of your witnesses bothered to show up to testify in person, and that neither of your witness’ testimonies mentioned anything about this specific project, not a single word. You merely used this meeting as a soapbox from which to grandstand your and Ms. Krich’s own beliefs about wind power in general and had no familiarity with this project whatsoever. If this project was so important to you, why didn’t you spend some time in this area talking to the locals who cherish this resource which is rated as being of “statewide or national significance”. The folks from NRCM spent a considerable amount of time talking the folks in this area and decided not to come out in approval of this project Mr. Mahoney, but I guess you can do all the evaluation you need while sitting at your desk in Portland. Do you have telepathic powers? You couldn’t even be bothered to take part in the site tour which included a boating segment so that everyone could get a first hand impression of how much this project would impact the resources. As an Intervener, you were invited but didn’t show up. I, and every single other person who was invited took advantage of that opportunity Mr. Mahoney, where were you? It’s amazing that someone who feels qualified to write extensively about these proceedings didn’t care enough to participate in the site tour or have both his witnesses show up to testify.

    While I have some respect for CLF and it’s right to speak for or against these projects, I do not respect you for taking an approval stance on this project that will have such a negative impact on the resources and businesses of this area when you couldn’t even bother to be part of the total process like everyone else was. Shame on you Mr. Mahoney.

  11. Interested Party

    Mr. Mahoney,

    As a person who attended the entire two days of LURC proceedings, I take issue with your characterization of the facts. First of all, when you say the Bowers project developers “will make use of existing roads and transmisison lines” you neglect to mention that the current 13-20 ft. wide roads would be widened to 35 ft. and that the roadsides would be CLEARCUT to a width of 95 ft. Funny how you forgot to mention those facts. Saying they’ll use existing roads is pure Mahoney baloney. You also state that they’ll use existing transmission lines. Yes, they will use existing transmision lines from the Stetson project south, but if they’re not going to build new transmission lines how are they going to get the power from Bowers to Stetson a distance of about 12 miles? More half truths from you.

    Secondly. you assert that, “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.” While it’s true that there were many full time professional guides and lodge owners who testified against the project, you again conveniently leave out the negative impact that this project will have on canoe and kayak trippers, hikers, wildlife photographers, hunters, general boating activities, and other activities related to this unique and valuable watershed. How about the Darrow’s Wilderness Canoe Camp for 11-18 year old youths from around the country. This camp has opperated in this area for fifty seven years – but that doesn’t count does it Mr. Mahoney? These lodges, camps, guides and support businesses have depended on the wilderness characterisatics of this unique and valuable watershed resource since the 1830’s to stitch togther a living, but that doesn’t matter to you does it Mr. Mahoney. You are willing to kill off the traditional businesses that have existed in this remote section of Maine for almost two centuries in order to promote one wind turbine project. More than one hundred people in and around the Village of Grand Lake Stream will lose their base of employment (sporting tourism) in exchange for one or two new wind turbine maintenance jobs.

    You also left out the issue of an active breeding pair of LYNX (an endangered species) in the immediate area, as well as the severe 20-40% property devaluation that will be experienced by property onwers in the area and the loss of tax revenue by the Towns of Lakeville and Gran dLake Stream in particular.

    You also forgot to mention that only one of your witnesses bothered to show up to testify in person, and that neither of your witness’ testimonies mentioned anything about this specific project, not a single word. You merely used this meeting as a soapbox from which to grandstand your and Ms. Krich’s own beliefs about wind power in general and had no familiarity with this project whatsoever. If this project was so important to you, why didn’t you spend some time in this area talking to the locals who cherish this resource which is rated as being of “statewide or national significance”. The folks from NRCM spent a considerable amount of time talking the folks in this area and decided not to come out in approval of this project Mr. Mahoney, but I guess you can do all the evaluation you need while sitting at your desk in Portland. Do you have telepathic powers? You couldn’t even be bothered to take part in the site tour which included a boating segment so that everyone could get a first hand impression of how much this project would impact the resources. As an Intervener, you were invited but didn’t show up. I, and every single other person who was invited took advantage of that opportunity Mr. Mahoney, where were you? It’s amazing that someone who feels qualified to write extensively about these proceedings didn’t care enough to participate in the site tour or have both his witnesses show up to testify.

    While I have some respect for CLF and it’s right to speak for or against these projects, I do not respect you for taking an approval stance on this project that will have such a negative impact on the resources and businesses of this area when you couldn’t even bother to be part of the total process like everyone else was. Shame on you Mr. Mahoney.

  12. Interested Party

    Mr. Mahoney,

    As a person who attended the entire two days of LURC proceedings, I take issue with your characterization of the facts. First of all, when you say the Bowers project developers “will make use of existing roads and transmisison lines” you neglect to mention that the current 13-20 ft. wide roads would be widened to 35 ft. and that the roadsides would be CLEARCUT to a width of 95 ft. Funny how you forgot to mention those facts. Saying they’ll use existing roads is pure Mahoney baloney. You also state that they’ll use existing transmission lines. Yes, they will use existing transmision lines from the Stetson project south, but if they’re not going to build new transmission lines how are they going to get the power from Bowers to Stetson a distance of about 12 miles? More half truths from you.

    Secondly. you assert that, “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.” While it’s true that there were many full time professional guides and lodge owners who testified against the project, you again conveniently leave out the negative impact that this project will have on canoe and kayak trippers, hikers, wildlife photographers, hunters, general boating activities, and other activities related to this unique and valuable watershed. How about the Darrow’s Wilderness Canoe Camp for 11-18 year old youths from around the country. This camp has opperated in this area for fifty seven years – but that doesn’t count does it Mr. Mahoney? These lodges, camps, guides and support businesses have depended on the wilderness characterisatics of this unique and valuable watershed resource since the 1830’s to stitch togther a living, but that doesn’t matter to you does it Mr. Mahoney. You are willing to kill off the traditional businesses that have existed in this remote section of Maine for almost two centuries in order to promote one wind turbine project. More than one hundred people in and around the Village of Grand Lake Stream will lose their base of employment (sporting tourism) in exchange for one or two new wind turbine maintenance jobs.

    You also left out the issue of an active breeding pair of LYNX (an endangered species) in the immediate area, as well as the severe 20-40% property devaluation that will be experienced by property onwers in the area and the loss of tax revenue by the Towns of Lakeville and Gran dLake Stream in particular.

    You also forgot to mention that only one of your witnesses bothered to show up to testify in person, and that neither of your witness’ testimonies mentioned anything about this specific project, not a single word. You merely used this meeting as a soapbox from which to grandstand your and Ms. Krich’s own beliefs about wind power in general and had no familiarity with this project whatsoever. If this project was so important to you, why didn’t you spend some time in this area talking to the locals who cherish this resource which is rated as being of “statewide or national significance”. The folks from NRCM spent a considerable amount of time talking the folks in this area and decided not to come out in approval of this project Mr. Mahoney, but I guess you can do all the evaluation you need while sitting at your desk in Portland. Do you have telepathic powers? You couldn’t even be bothered to take part in the site tour which included a boating segment so that everyone could get a first hand impression of how much this project would impact the resources. As an Intervener, you were invited but didn’t show up. I, and every single other person who was invited took advantage of that opportunity Mr. Mahoney, where were you? It’s amazing that someone who feels qualified to write extensively about these proceedings didn’t care enough to participate in the site tour or have both his witnesses show up to testify.

    While I have some respect for CLF and it’s right to speak for or against these projects, I do not respect you for taking an approval stance on this project that will have such a negative impact on the resources and businesses of this area when you couldn’t even bother to be part of the total process like everyone else was. Shame on you Mr. Mahoney.

  13. The CLF is a pro wind propaganda purveyor with zero credibility. When a study is done of the env. impact of the construction costs and the true C02 from mining the rare earth metals, the clean, green turbines will be revealed as the nasty, dirty industrial white trash they really are. The cost of generating electricity is only part of the total cost. Yes the wind is free when it blows. It keeps the coal burning power plants turning because they can buy RECs and continue their C02 emissions. Thank you Mrs. Krich. No new power plants will be needed to balance wind’s variability? The computer controls can shut down the turbines rather than overload the grid. Germany will build 17 new nat. gas plants to balance their wind power if they shut down all their nuke plants. Denmark balances their wind bursts by reducing their hydro power . C02 reductions? Zero.

  14. The CLF is a pro wind propaganda purveyor with zero credibility. When a study is done of the env. impact of the construction costs and the true C02 from mining the rare earth metals, the clean, green turbines will be revealed as the nasty, dirty industrial white trash they really are. The cost of generating electricity is only part of the total cost. Yes the wind is free when it blows. It keeps the coal burning power plants turning because they can buy RECs and continue their C02 emissions. Thank you Mrs. Krich. No new power plants will be needed to balance wind’s variability? The computer controls can shut down the turbines rather than overload the grid. Germany will build 17 new nat. gas plants to balance their wind power if they shut down all their nuke plants. Denmark balances their wind bursts by reducing their hydro power . C02 reductions? Zero.

  15. The CLF is a pro wind propaganda purveyor with zero credibility. When a study is done of the env. impact of the construction costs and the true C02 from mining the rare earth metals, the clean, green turbines will be revealed as the nasty, dirty industrial white trash they really are. The cost of generating electricity is only part of the total cost. Yes the wind is free when it blows. It keeps the coal burning power plants turning because they can buy RECs and continue their C02 emissions. Thank you Mrs. Krich. No new power plants will be needed to balance wind’s variability? The computer controls can shut down the turbines rather than overload the grid. Germany will build 17 new nat. gas plants to balance their wind power if they shut down all their nuke plants. Denmark balances their wind bursts by reducing their hydro power . C02 reductions? Zero.

  16. The CLF is a pro wind propaganda purveyor with zero credibility. When a study is done of the env. impact of the construction costs and the true C02 from mining the rare earth metals, the clean, green turbines will be revealed as the nasty, dirty industrial white trash they really are. The cost of generating electricity is only part of the total cost. Yes the wind is free when it blows. It keeps the coal burning power plants turning because they can buy RECs and continue their C02 emissions. Thank you Mrs. Krich. No new power plants will be needed to balance wind’s variability? The computer controls can shut down the turbines rather than overload the grid. Germany will build 17 new nat. gas plants to balance their wind power if they shut down all their nuke plants. Denmark balances their wind bursts by reducing their hydro power . C02 reductions? Zero.

  17. Sean Mahoney and Virginie Roveillo

    Thank you for your comments. As an environmental non-profit organization concerned with a practical response to climate change that is economically and environmentally sound, CLF promotes the strategic development of renewable energy in Maine and New England. This does not mean, however, that CLF supports every proposed wind development project regardless of location, design or environmental impact. CLF sought intervenor status in the Bowers proceeding for a number of reasons and came to support the project after careful review of the project’s design, scope and impacts.

    The Land Use Regulation Commission must consider the “purpose and the context of the proposed activity” in determining whether there will be “an unreasonable adverse effect on the scenic character.” CLF tailored its participation in the Bowers proceeding to just this one factor: purpose and context. CLF provided no testimony on the visual impacts of the project nor did it question any of the testimony presented on either side of that issue. Indeed, the testimony of Dr. Wake and Ms. Krich submitted by CLF spoke only to the environmental and economic consequences associated with renewable energy projects like Bowers. CLF sought to impress upon the Commission the many benefits that stem from replacing fossil fuels with clean energy and how increased wind capacity will help Maine ratepayers in the long-term. In the increasingly overheated atmosphere in which these projects are reviewed, we believed that such objective testimony would be useful and were gratified that members of the Commission agreed.

  18. Sean Mahoney and Virginie Roveillo

    Thank you for your comments. As an environmental non-profit organization concerned with a practical response to climate change that is economically and environmentally sound, CLF promotes the strategic development of renewable energy in Maine and New England. This does not mean, however, that CLF supports every proposed wind development project regardless of location, design or environmental impact. CLF sought intervenor status in the Bowers proceeding for a number of reasons and came to support the project after careful review of the project’s design, scope and impacts.

    The Land Use Regulation Commission must consider the “purpose and the context of the proposed activity” in determining whether there will be “an unreasonable adverse effect on the scenic character.” CLF tailored its participation in the Bowers proceeding to just this one factor: purpose and context. CLF provided no testimony on the visual impacts of the project nor did it question any of the testimony presented on either side of that issue. Indeed, the testimony of Dr. Wake and Ms. Krich submitted by CLF spoke only to the environmental and economic consequences associated with renewable energy projects like Bowers. CLF sought to impress upon the Commission the many benefits that stem from replacing fossil fuels with clean energy and how increased wind capacity will help Maine ratepayers in the long-term. In the increasingly overheated atmosphere in which these projects are reviewed, we believed that such objective testimony would be useful and were gratified that members of the Commission agreed.

  19. Sean Mahoney and Virginie Roveillo

    Thank you for your comments. As an environmental non-profit organization concerned with a practical response to climate change that is economically and environmentally sound, CLF promotes the strategic development of renewable energy in Maine and New England. This does not mean, however, that CLF supports every proposed wind development project regardless of location, design or environmental impact. CLF sought intervenor status in the Bowers proceeding for a number of reasons and came to support the project after careful review of the project’s design, scope and impacts.

    The Land Use Regulation Commission must consider the “purpose and the context of the proposed activity” in determining whether there will be “an unreasonable adverse effect on the scenic character.” CLF tailored its participation in the Bowers proceeding to just this one factor: purpose and context. CLF provided no testimony on the visual impacts of the project nor did it question any of the testimony presented on either side of that issue. Indeed, the testimony of Dr. Wake and Ms. Krich submitted by CLF spoke only to the environmental and economic consequences associated with renewable energy projects like Bowers. CLF sought to impress upon the Commission the many benefits that stem from replacing fossil fuels with clean energy and how increased wind capacity will help Maine ratepayers in the long-term. In the increasingly overheated atmosphere in which these projects are reviewed, we believed that such objective testimony would be useful and were gratified that members of the Commission agreed.

  20. Sean Mahoney and Virginie Roveillo

    Thank you for your comments. As an environmental non-profit organization concerned with a practical response to climate change that is economically and environmentally sound, CLF promotes the strategic development of renewable energy in Maine and New England. This does not mean, however, that CLF supports every proposed wind development project regardless of location, design or environmental impact. CLF sought intervenor status in the Bowers proceeding for a number of reasons and came to support the project after careful review of the project’s design, scope and impacts.

    The Land Use Regulation Commission must consider the “purpose and the context of the proposed activity” in determining whether there will be “an unreasonable adverse effect on the scenic character.” CLF tailored its participation in the Bowers proceeding to just this one factor: purpose and context. CLF provided no testimony on the visual impacts of the project nor did it question any of the testimony presented on either side of that issue. Indeed, the testimony of Dr. Wake and Ms. Krich submitted by CLF spoke only to the environmental and economic consequences associated with renewable energy projects like Bowers. CLF sought to impress upon the Commission the many benefits that stem from replacing fossil fuels with clean energy and how increased wind capacity will help Maine ratepayers in the long-term. In the increasingly overheated atmosphere in which these projects are reviewed, we believed that such objective testimony would be useful and were gratified that members of the Commission agreed.

Leave a Reply

About the CLF Blog

The views and opinions expressed on this blog do not necessarily represent the opinions or positions of Conservation Law Foundation, our boards, or our supporters.