What is an appropriate wind-power site? It is understandable that a disappointed wind-power developer would sing the song of sour grapes regarding the rejection of its proposed wind- power project on Black Nubble and the previous rejection of the larger Redington Mountain proposal.

The suggestion that the citizen commissioners of LURC do not understand wind power and that they are basically incompetent to judge such projects is, of course, ludicrous.

It's unfortunate that your editorial staff choruses this tune. They overlook the fact that within the past several months, these same LURC commissioners approved two other large wind- power projects, amounting to more than 100 megawatts. Because they approved two projects but rejected one does not make them incompetent to judge such projects.

It is true that there may need to be some modifications in the regulatory process of approving such projects. But to suggest that the rejection of the Black Nubble proposal is a valid reason for such modifications is questionable reasoning.

Our governor has stated that he approves wind-power projects "where appropriate." This implies that there are inappropriate sites as well. The LURC commissioners within their regulatory process have done just that. They have approved two projects as having appropriate siting and rejected one as being inappropriate.

It is hoped that the governor's wind-power task force will undertake the difficult but necessary task of developing a wind- power siting process, rather than just greasing the regulatory ways for launching every future wind-power project.