New England States

Connecticut:

NOTE NEW TIME — 10am (not noon) tomorrow!!

Please plan to attend if you can!  The time for our Appeal at the CT Supreme Court HAS BEEN CHANGED TO 10AM (not noon) tomorrow, Friday, Feb. 21 in Hartford.

Oral arguments will be presented in FairWindCT’s appeal of the CT Siting Council’s approval of BNE Energy’s petitions for six 492-feet-tall industrial wind turbines in residential neighborhoods in Colebrook — Colebrook South on Flagg Hill Road (Petition 983) and Colebrook North on Rock Hall Road (Petition 984). Attorneys for each side are allowed 30 minutes to speak and the members of the Supreme Court will ask questions.

Seats for the public are available at the Supreme Court. Allow time to go through the security check as you enter the building. If you would like to carpool from Colebrook or Winsted on Feb. 21, please email Joyce Hemingson at jchemingson@aol.com. Thank you for your continuing support!

If you would like to make a donation towards our expenses, use PayPal at www.fairwindct.com, or send a check to FairWindCT, PO Box 225, Colebrook, CT 06021. Click here for directions to the Supreme Court at 231 Capitol Avenue, Hartford, and parking lot information:  http://www.jud.ct.gov/directory/directory/directions/supremecourt.htm

Here’s a RECENT STORY from the Hartford Business Journal in which Melanie Bachman, attorney for the CT Siting Council, accuses FairWindCT of having too much influence on the Regulations Review Committee. I wonder why is it so difficult for the Siting Council to pay attention to the public and its elected officials? —— [1]

http://www.hartfordbusiness.com/article/20140217/PRINTEDITION/302149978/1002

Rescheduled due to storm to the 21st
Our Appeal will be heard by the CT Supreme Court on Friday, February 21st at 12:00 Noon in Hartford

Oral arguments will be presented in FairWindCT’s appeal to the CT Supreme Court on Friday, Feb. 13 at Noon in Hartford. We are appealing the CT Siting Council’s approval of BNE Energy’s petitions for six 492-feet-tall industrial wind turbines in residential neighborhoods in Colebrook — Colebrook South on Flagg Hill Road (Petition 983) and Colebrook North on Rock Hall Road (Petition 984). Attorneys for each side are allowed 30 minutes to speak and the members of the Supreme Court will ask questions.

Seats for the public are available at the Supreme Court. Allow time to go through the security check as you enter the building. If you would like to carpool from Colebrook or Winsted on Feb. 21, please email Joyce Hemingson at jchemingson@aol.com. Thank you for your continuing support!

Click here for directions to the Supreme Court at 231 Capitol Avenue, Hartford, and parking lot information: http://www.jud.ct.gov/directory/directory/directions/supremecourt.htm
http://fairwindct.com/
http://www.saveprospect.com/

Massachusetts:

Infrasound Measurements of Falmouth Wind Turbines

https://www.wind-watch.org/documents/infrasound-measurements-of-falmouth-wind-turbines/

The Alliance for Responsible Siting

On September 28th, Tanya Trevisan and I met with Mr. Josh Cutler, State Representative – 6th Plymouth District, to discuss the issues involving the siting of alternative energy installations, particularly industrial wind turbines.  At this meeting we delivered an information package that describes the matter in great detail, utilizing the situation here in Scituate as the case study for all of the issues that result from industrial wind turbines inappropriately sited in close proximity to residential areas.
Our presentation to Representative Cutler included the following policy position:
1.      The Commonwealth of Massachusetts should pass legislation designed to develop and implement retroactive state wide siting criteria for alternative energy installations.  This will ensure the protection of the health, safety and property rights of Americans in communities hosting alternative energy installations by eliminating existing and future inappropriate siting of alternative energy projects
2.      Until these standards are legislated and implemented, there should be no further government support for the industrial wind turbine industry.  Beacon Hill should eliminate all financial tools and incentives benefitting the industrial wind turbine industry, including tax credits, as well as state initiatives like Green Community Acts and “As of Right Siting” provisions.
3.      Concurrently, Bill H.2919 189th (Current); An Act relieving the adverse effects of wind energy must be dealt with up by the Telecommunications, Utilities and Energy Committee as soon as possible.  The petition (accompanied by bill, House, No. 2919) has been brought forward by David T. Vieira and others, relative to establishing energy relief funds to provide relief for detrimental health effects and property losses caused by wind energy generation.
We will continue to reach out to other State Representatives and Senators to discuss this very important issue.  We will also soon be reaching out to Governor Baker to arrange a meeting to discuss this issue and our policy position, as well.
It is also our intention to contact the Chairman of the Telecommunications, Utilities and Energy Committee to push for a hearing date regarding  Bill H.2919 189th (Current); An Act relieving the adverse effects of wind energy, along with a request to present testimony at this hearing.
As we stated to Representative Cutler, we are prepared to partner with all responsible State representatives and Senators to advance our proposed legislation to protect the health and safety, as well as the private property rights, of the residents of the Commonwealth Massachusetts to ensure that no one is negatively affected by alternative energy installations sited too close to neighborhoods and shorelines.
The Alliance believes that government must embrace the highest levels of ethics and transparency when developing, adopting and implementing an energy policy that includes alternative energy and be held accountable by and to the American people when the conduct of government does not meet this very high standard.
We have a well-designed game plan ready to execute to continue to advance the mission of the Alliance, and particularly to focus on government accountability regarding this issue, as it is clear that the conduct of government has not even come close to meeting the standards of ethics, transparency and accountability that we should all demand.
The Alliance is ready to go as financial resources permit.*
  *The Alliance is recognized as exempt from federal income tax under section 501 (c) (3) of the Internal Revenue Code and is registered under statutory laws in the United States.
Warmest regards,
T.S. (Tom) Thompson
Executive Director
ARSAEI-Logo-lowres

Hoosac Wind Fails Noise Test >>

Judge orders limited use of wind turbines – Read article at:
http://www.itemlive.com/news/judge-orders-limited-use-of-falmouth-wind-turbines/article_03eabee0-539e-11e3-9977-0019bb2963f4.html

Environmental group sues state for going easy on wind-power company that cut down trees in state forest – See more at: http://www.raisinghale.com/2013/11/07/environmental-group-sues-state-easy-on-wind/#sthash.hcF7OxwT.dpuf

Technology that would shut down the machines when shadow flicker is detected: http://www.patriotledger.com/topstories/x1069223819/Scituate-resident-seeks-state-regulations-on-turbine-shadow-flicker

Public Health Disaster Rolling Across Massachusetts:  https://www.wind-watch.org/alerts/2013/10/23/public-health-disaster-rolling-across-massachusetts/

 Boards vote to shut turbines down at night; Give developer 30 days to fix noise >>

DEP takes wrong side in Fairhavenhttps://www.wind-watch.org/news/2013/06/03/dep-takes-wrong-side-in-fairhaven/

Waiting on wind project sound testinghttps://www.wind-watch.org/news/2013/06/03/waiting-on-wind-project-sound-testing/

Studies show land-based wind turbines cause property values to plummet; Health, economic, and environmental factors are cited as major issues

Wind turbine noise complaint predictions made easy

Falmouth may spend millions to remove turbines

Wise Choices for Lee

Falmouth Board of Health asks state to study effects of wind turbines

Science of Industrial Wind in MA and the Eastern US

Wind energy panel recommends against Lenox Mountain turbine

http://greenberkshires.com/

Maine:

WOW! This guy hits every nail square on the head. Why aren’t these guys running our energy policy?

http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blog/show?id=4401701%3ABlogPost%3A66943&xgs=1&xg_source=msg_share_post

Ellsworth American Editorial Blasts Wind Power Development in Maine http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blog/show?id=4401701%3ABlogPost%3A65759&xgs=1&xg_source=msg_share_post

 

Citizens’ Task Force on Wind Power –

Maine: http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blog/show?id=4401701%3ABlogPost%3A58632&xgs=1&xg_source=msg_share_post

Citizens’ Task Force on Wind Power – Maine

Posted on June 26, 2014 by

Anti Wind ads hit Portland Press Herald

Saving Maine’s ad campaign has expanded to the Portland Press Herald, with two ads on different pages in the National section.  The ads which started today are this one here and, two pages later, the “Saudi Arabia of Wind” ad that I posted a few days ago that had run in the “Forecaster”.

View Article

VICTORY FOR NEIGHBOURS OPPRESSED BY WINDTURBINE NOISE IN VINALHAVEN!
Read about it: http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blog/show?id=4401701%3ABlogPost%3A54260&xgs=1&xg_source=msg_share_post

High court overrules agency OK of multi-million-dollar wind energy deal:
https://www.wind-watch.org/news/2014/03/05/high-court-overrules-agency-ok-of-multi-million-dollar-wind-energy-deal/

Exporting Maine’s Wind Energy

Maine Legislature’s energy docket set for full slate in 2014:
http://bangordailynews.com/2013/11/17/politics/maine-legislatures-energy-docket-set-for-full-slate-in-2014/

Regulators Approve Maine Wind Contract But Connecticut To Miss Some Benefits:  http://www.courant.com/business/hc-renewabale-energy-approval-20131024,0,2700919.story

GIANT Maine wind farm announced – by Connecticut!
http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blog/show?id=4401701%3ABlogPost%3A51838

Maine ratepayers paying for the wind barons and… windpower , the grid operator nightmare

“Never reported by the Maine media: Maine’s wind potential is 89% below the national
average” on Citizens’ Task Force on Wind Power – Maine:  Read the Article >>

Court tells DEP to lower nighttime noise levels on Saddleback wind farm

Maine’s Wind Power Goals: Is the Medicine Worse than the Illness?

Folks, this is the wind industry’s miserable track record of production in Maine. It is their own data. They cannot hide from this failure, unless we allow them to do so. Look at those capacity factor numbers for the particular projects and aside from Mars Hill, we can truthfully and forcefully say this unreliable, unpredictable, non-dispatchable source of electricity produces less than 25% of its installed capacity. Make this known to everyone. Challenge wind power supporters with the truth and ask how this can possibly be justified as economic sense?  —- Maine Wind Sites Production for entire year 2012read article >>

News report misses fact on true costs of Vinalhaven industrial wind turbines

Citizen Task Force on Wind Power – Maine:  http://www.windtaskforce.org/

http://www.windtaskforce.org/

Maine adopts better standards for wind turbine noise emissions
www.fiwn.org
www.EastbrookWind.org
http://highlandmts.org/

New Hampshire:

New England anti-wind farm groups oppose development:  Read article

County disputes amount of wind farm’s Payment in Lieu of Taxes

Vermont:

THANK YOU. WE WON!

Vermont’s Attorney General issued a press release on Monday closing the investigation into my work. This is great news, but the over-reach of Vermont’s state government has awakened people. — Annette Smith

Click below to watch Annette Smith’s press conference at the VT State Capitol after hearing from the Attorney General that the short investigation of her for allegedly acting as a lawyer had ended. The complaint had been brought by a law firm that represents one of the wind companies in Vermont.
https://www.gofundme.com/vce-org

Vermont’s energy siting struggle hits crescendo

MONTPELIER, Vt. — What started as a letter from Rutland regarding a lack of local control over renewable energy siting has culminated in an 86-town strong “Vermont energy rebellion.”
On Wednesday, more than 100 protesters gathered at the Statehouse to demand local control for energy siting.
Leading the demonstration were state Sen. John Rodgers, D-Essex/Orleans; Karen Horn, policy director for the Vermont League of Cities and Towns; and Don Chioffi, a member of the Rutland Selectboard. Together they argued the energy project siting process as it now stands oversteps the will of ratepayers.
“I would like to acknowledge those here today whose homes and lives have been sacrificed by our state’s energy policy, those of you who have been encroached upon and bullied by energy developers, and those of you who have lost not only property values but the health of your families to industrial wind plants. The process that we use to site energy in Vermont is broken and it’s long past time to fix it,” Rodgers said, opening the event.
According to Rodgers, renewable energy developers, with rubber-stamp support from the Public Service Board, have been given unrestrained power over land use in Vermont to the detriment of cities, towns and the environment, adding that the process had become “anti-environmental and anti-democratic.”
His two-part solution was also the largest applause line of the day: “First, I propose that we ban the development of industrial wind in Vermont. … Second, I propose that we require land use decisions related to energy generation to go through Act 250.”
To that end, Rodgers is sponsoring S 210 and a slew of of other bills to ban industrial wind and subject the Public Service Board’s energy development certification process to stipulations found in Vermont’s strict land use and development law.
Other community leaders, including Chioffi, offered comments about the problem.
“You may as well throw selectboards and planning boards out the window if you are going to operate the state this way. They are being treated as if they are nonexistent and useless,” Choiffi told Vermont Watchdog. “… There has never been a solar projected rejected by this Public Service Board — there’s the proof in the pudding.”
Mark Whitworth, board member of Energize Vermont, a pro-renewable energy group, attended the event to protest the manner in which renewable energy projects are being implemented.
“They’re industrializing wildlife habitat, they are fragmenting forests,” Whitworth said. “They are developing our ridgelines, which is going to result in a loss of flood resiliency, and they’re converting farm land for meager energy production — so we are jeopardizing our food security. We think that these guys are just worsening the very problems that they claim they are helping us to avoid.”
Vermonters from across the state traveled to the Statehouse to have their voices heard as well.
“There aren’t any constraints on where they put them up or how big they are,” said Rachael Carr, of St. Albans. “If they don’t get some legislation to put some restrictions on these projects, it’s going to be too late.”
Her young son, Alex Carr, added an imaginative twist on the problem: “I’m here to protect the state from these huge monsters,” he said. “People think they are good, but they are not.”
Giselle Chevallay, a Newark resident dressed up as a displaced Vermont bear, said, “We want to help make sure we are more careful about our siting choices, whether it’s solar, wind, nuclear, hydro or anything.”
Given such urgency and backing by 86 towns, Rutland’s 2014 letter seems almost prophetic: “We are attempting, through this resolution, to form a coalition of Vermont communities which will support reasonable legislation to restore local community input to the regulatory process when addressing the issue of solar citing in our state.”
Whitworth explained what it means for a town to be part of the rebellion.
“These towns have either signed onto the Rutland resolution or they’ve adopted town plans which have explicit language regarding energy citing or certain energy technology,” Whitworth said, adding that his town of Newark has a town plan that says industrial wind turbines are inappropriate.
Currently, energy projects are exempt from Act 250 requirements. These requirements include adhering to regional municipal plans not unlike those of Newark. Rodgers’ bills attempt to make energy development subject to the same requirements other commercial developers face.
The plan is certain to hit resistance, largely because of the money involved. Chioffi said public money, including federal subsidies of 30 percent and state subsidies of about 8 percent, is what drives these projects. He argues that a 40 percent up-front return is also fueling the green energy rush.
“The best kept secret in the world is that these are really, really big cash cows,” he said. “There’s a lot of money to be made in these things. I’ve always been told if you ever want to get to the bottom of any argument on this kind of stuff, follow the money.”
Whitworth said the state’s renewable portfolio standards — which require every municipality to periodically increase its percentage of renewable energy sources — is another driving force. “It really lit a fire under this,” Whitworth said.
He added that while there are no current calls to freeze or repeal Vermont’s RPS, he thinks if legislators don’t respond to the pushback from communities, that will change. At least four of 29 states with such standards have halted or repealed them.
When asked about the status of Vermont’s RPS, Rodgers expressed concern about the economics of renewable energy. “There are a huge number of manufacture and installation jobs with solar today — I think it’s like 16,000 jobs,” he said. “The problem is, after the construction, we have basically set up a pipeline of our cash out of state because most of the owners of the big installations are out-of-state people or corporations.
“So it’s basically taking the tax credits out of state and the ratepayer money out of state. If we were building more on Vermonter’s homes and businesses, the tax credits and savings would stay more in Vermont” Rodgers said.
###

Montpelier’s 90 percent solution>>

Don’t miss this recently-released booklet on Wildlife Habitat: http://vce.org/Wildlife_Habitat_of_Vermont.pdf

We wish you all a more peaceful 2014. Thank you for your support of VCE!
As we have each year, we close with a seasonal greeting:

The Grand Mystery in Action
The tree exhales
I inhale
I have come to a new understanding
Of our deep relation

This I celebrate
And as I do
I know that I am singing your praise
Ancient One, the newness of
Your name is written in the sand
A thousand times over
In every language ever uttered

I look up at the stars
And I know I am made of you
You have a center in me
And I am centered in you
I pray to remember to remember
So that in my words, thoughts and deeds
I move from the center

The tree exhales
And I inhale
The simplicity of this exchange
Brings me life

I pray to see clearly
The individual snowflakes and the snow
Knowing this as the Great Mystery in action

Cosmic Beingness
Gift me with Sight and Wisdom
To see the Divine Spark
And the ability
To nurture it

May these words be as primordial star dust
Creating life

~Amen

And let it be so

by Reverend Dr. Rosemary Partridge, from “Sacred Words, A River of Prayers”

Vermont’s Public Service Board issued an order on Monday opening an investigation to consider the development of sound standards.

A prehearing conference will be held on January 8, 2014, 1:30 p.m., Pavilion Auditorium, Montpelier, Vermont (basement of building that houses the Governor’s office, next to the Supreme Court building which is next to the Statehouse).

Interested entities and individuals are encouraged to file written comments and recommendations on these topics in advance in order to facilitate discussion at the prehearing conference, no later than close of business on Dec. 31, 2013.

IF YOU ARE LIVING NEAR A WIND ENERGY FACILITY IN VERMONT AND EXPERIENCING NOISE PROBLEMS, PLEASE MAKE EVERY EFFORT TO ATTEND THE PREHEARING CONFERENCE.  IF YOU CANNOT ATTEND, PLEASE BE SURE TO FILE WRITTEN COMMENTS.

IF YOU ARE OUTSIDE VERMONT AND HAVE EXPERIENCE WITH SOUND STANDARDS FOR ENERGY PROJECTS, PLEASE PROVIDE YOUR WRITTEN COMMENTS TO THE VERMONT BOARD BY THEIR DEC. 31, 2013 DEADLINE.  WE CAN ALL BENEFIT FROM YOUR EXPERIENCE.  THANK YOU

Vermonters for a Clean Environment currently is working with citizens on three open dockets before the PSB on wind turbine noise.  It seems that our persistent efforts have gotten their attention.  Now it’s up to those of you who are living with these big machines as neighbors, or are threatened by them, to tell the Board directly what it is you want them to do.

Annette Smith
Executive Director
Vermonters for a Clean Environment, Inc.
789 Baker Brook Rd.
Danby, VT  05739
office: (802) 446-2094
cell: (802) 353-6058
http://www.vce.org/
vce@vce.org

_________________________________________

Testimony to Vt. Senate Committee for Health and Welfare

How to Meet Renewable Energy Goals Without Industrial Wind Turbines

Certificate of Public Harm Issued Pursuant to the Public Trust and Social Fabric of the State of Vermont

Letters to Senator Bernie Sanders

Wind farm construction on Vermont ridge lines:  Photo Gallery

February 2012 Update

Vermont’s Energy Options >> Utility Scale vs. Community Solutions from Energize Vermont on Vimeo.

News & Events around Wind in Vermont (October 24, 2011)

Opponents of wind power:  http://fairwindct.com/?p=1061

The not-so-green mountains:  http://fairwindct.com/?p=1063

http://vermontersforacleanenvironment.wordpress.com/

Lowell Mountain decision tragically flawed

Whoa! to wind energy development in Vermont

It is not too late for Vermont to stop and take a serious look at wind turbine development on our mountains.

In fact, now is exactly the right time to step back and evaluate what we know, and build on experience.

When polled, most Vermonters say they support wind energy. Imagining the Searsburg turbines, I answered “yes, even near my house.” They are only 197 feet tall, unlighted, not too many, not very visible. I thought they were beautiful when I saw them in 2001.

When Vermonters started calling VCE in 2009 seeking assistance with wind proposals, I quickly learned the technology has changed.

Today’s machines are “big. They’re very, very big,“ said Jeff Wennberg, while promoting the Ira project. Vermont’s Public Service Board (PSB) has approved four projects with turbines ranging from 410 to 459 feet tall. Vermonters have not been asked what they think about anything that big.

Vermonters who live near mountains where wind turbines have been proposed have learned about all the issues associated with the technology. Call them NIMBYs or wackos, yell at them if they use the word “industrial” instead of “utility scale,” call them a vocal minority or a fringe group, they now number in the thousands and have had to become educated by reason of location.

If you live in the “sacrifice zone” of wind energy development (draw a circle with a radius of two miles from the ridgeline — you get the impacts but no compensation), you learn that wind turbines:

a) collapse, catch fire, throw ice, throw blades,
b) kill birds like raptors, and endangered bats
c) require cutting bear-scarred beech trees and fragmenting wildlife habitat
d) destroy songbird habitat
e) require hundreds of thousands of pounds of explosives to blast miles of new roads
f) require impervious road construction on highly erodible soils
g) require filling headwater streams and degrading water quality, resulting in fewer fish
h) make noise extending over a mile that can interrupt sleep and make people sick
i) are being permitted less than 200 feet from property lines
j) have blinking lights and industrialize the landscape
k) divide communities; turn neighbors, family members and towns against each other and more, with issues unique to ridgeline development in Vermont.

One large project is under construction in Sheffield, with 16 turbines 420 feet tall and seven miles of new roads. This kind of development is new to Vermont, and has the potential to change the face of the state. With more than a dozen communities targeted for proposals, this subject deserves more thoughtful consideration than is provided by two lawyers and one businessman in Montpelier who are making decisions on a case-by-case basis without any statewide planning.

Questions have been raised about PSB-approved wind projects that will be answered soon, once the Sheffield project goes on line and operates through a winter. We have the perfect opportunity to evaluate the performance of First Wind’s project.

Will the stormwater control design protect the high quality water resources and control the volume of water coming off the mountains?
Will noise be a problem for neighbors?
Will the technology withstand brutal winter conditions?
Will lights be an issue?
Will wind turbines inhibit or enhance tourism and the second home market?
How many permanent jobs with benefits will be created?
What will the capacity factor be?
How many birds and bats, and what type, will be killed?
What happens to the wildlife whose habitat is changed?
Will the PSB enforce its conditions?

We are in a fragile economy, with a glut of electricity available in New England at low cost for the foreseeable future. The price of solar energy is declining every day. More than 90 percent of Vermont’s greenhouse gas emissions are from heating and transportation.

With so much at stake for Vermont, the prudent thing to do is stop, look and listen. Wind developers and our political leaders owe it to all Vermonters and our wild creatures to make sure we get this right.

On Friday, former Gov. Jim Douglas was on Vermont Public Radio and was asked about big wind turbines. He said, “…the natural beauty of Vermont is our strong suit, and to put these big machines on our precious ridgelines is not something that’s in the state’s interest…. I think it’s the wrong choice for Vermont.”

We have a lot to lose. Getting it wrong will be a very expensive mistake. For those people living near Vermont’s big wind energy proposals, it already has been.

Annette Smith is executive director of Vermonters for a Clean Environment.

###

New Hampshire:
http://vimeo.com/16397824

Rhode Island:

Towns battling noise after wind turbines installed >>

Charlestown Citizens Alliance:  May 13, 2013 -The Steering Committee of the Charlestown Citizens Alliance has taken a position on the Whalerock proposal for two utility scale wind turbines since it was first proposed in 2009.

We continue to oppose the process devised by members of the (2008-2010) Town Council who worked in consultation with the developer to create an ordinance that would meet the needs of the developer rather than the environment and people of Charlestown.

In 2010, we opposed the partnership agreement between the (2008-2010) Town Council and the developer because it was not in the financial interest of Charlestown and because it undermined the roles of the Planning Commission and the Zoning Board authorized by the Town Charter for review of all applications for development. More specifically,

We opposed the 2010 decision of the (2008-2010) Town Council to exempt the developer from Site Plan Review and application for a Special Use Permit.

Recent History: Legal and regulatory actions of the two Town Councils elected since November 2010 have eliminated the flawed Partnership Agreement and now at least the Superior Court will require that the developer seek a Special Use Permit from the Zoning Board.

Zoning Board’s Decision:  In their decision to grant a Special Use Permit, the Zoning Board must make positive findings as outlined in the Standards for Large Wind Energy Systems and the general findings for a Special Use Permit in the Zoning Ordinance. More specifically, that the proposed project will not result in adverse impacts to the welfare of the community, will not alter the general character of the surrounding area, and will not disrupt the neighborhood.

We do not believe the Zoning Board can make these positive findings and we urge the Board to acknowledge the negative findings by rejecting the application for a Special Use Permit.

Documents explaining our position in more detail are available at our website. The first of these is: Zoning Board must make positive findings that there will be no adverse environmental impacts resulting from the two Wind Turbines We will have additional documents explaining our positions in coming days.

Wind energy may become a significant part of American energy production. Where turbines are sited is critical to the success of the industry. The size and type of turbine is also an important component. Putting turbines where they conflict with people and wildlife creates resistance to the industry and may indeed harm neighbors and the environment. The land where the Whalerock turbines are proposed is not an appropriate site for very large scale wind turbines.

Residents who cannot attend the Zoning Board hearing should send your thoughts and testimony to the Zoning Board by email at building@charlestownri.org or by postal mail to:

Charlestown Zoning Board,4540 South County Trail, Charlestown, RI 02813

Tell your neighbors and friends about our email list, forward them this email or our web site address and let them know we are a free service!!

http://www.wpri.com/dpp/target_12/wind-power-will-cost-ri-taxpayers

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *