Because of the above investigation and because we believe the Sheffield project will have a strong negative impact on tourism, property values and housing starts, economics, and our environment, many of us supported a town plan revision that would exclude large-scale industrial wind development on Barton's ridge lines. Our revision, however, does encourage small-scale wind turbines as well as other forms of renewable energy such as hydro, biomass, solar, and energy conservation. While the town plan cannot regulate energy producing facilities since the Vermont State Public Service Board issues commercial wind turbine permits, the Public Service Board will look at our town plan and try to honor its goals.

The state, through a series of workshops, is enlisting opinions for shaping choices of electricity sources. Opinions should not shape policy. Educated, thoughtful planning and research should be operative. Jane and John Q. Public are not qualified to shape policy on such a complex matter. Nor are state-level planners, it would seem, since they are the ones who are asking, "What shall we do?" ...I've also heard that the workshop materials are biased toward wind power, citing exaggerated benefits and unrealistic capacity factors. ...The cost of these useless, wasteful workshops and "deliberative polling" ($500,000) is being passed on to each and every one of us. I want my money back.

The PSB attached a number of conditions to their approval of the project. As the Ridge Protectors, a group of people who have opposed the project for years, say, the attached conditions contain potential deal breakers and they intend to fight the actual project to the bitter end. We are with them. The Sheffield voters, when they approved the project for an entirely illusory tax benefit, sold the Northeast Kingdom's birthright for a mess of pottage. Assuming The Ridge Protectors prevail and the project is stopped, these same voters, when they discover the taste of pottage, will be thanking them.

Vermont's magnificent ridgelines already are a power source that fuels our state's second largest industry: recreation and tourism. Wind turbines cannot be labeled a "clean" fuel source because they pollute the ridgelines in the process. A better approach to meeting our state's electrical needs would be a program to help Vermonters place the new energy-efficient light bulbs in homes and businesses across the state to reduce Vermont's electrical need. The Vermont ridgelines do a wonderful job of fueling our state just the way they are and they need our protection.

Vermont has a long history of protecting its undeveloped ridgelines. Previous legislatures have struggled to protect this beautiful landscape for us and we hope this legislature will be just as vigilant in protecting it for those who will follow.

What the department’s new approach fails to recognize is that UPC’s wind towers — at 420 feet tall on top of ridgelines in Sheffield — will be the most prominent feature on the ridgelines for miles around for residents and visitors of numerous locations, not just Sheffield and Sutton. The compromise might show respect for the decision-making process, but it fails to respect the real impact of these industrial giants on Vermont’s Northeast Kingdom. We need leadership and clarity on this divisive issue. Before we’re at the stage where wind companies are seeking approval from the Public Service Board to build their individual projects, the state needs an overall energy plan, a vision. The state should follow up on its promise of a public engagement process on energy to educate and inform Vermonters about energy choices and tradeoffs.

Although the approach is too late for projects that have already begun a federal review process, a dozen New England congressmen and senators have asked for help from the Department of Energy in coordinating a regional approach to siting liquefied natural gas facilities. Reps. Tom Allen and Mike Michaud have both signed on to this request, which makes sense for future energy projects.

With this overwhelming mandate from the voters and our town plan to defend, our selectmen did the proper thing by hiring an attorney to fight these out of state developers who would exploit our Town and the NEK for their own gain. Allowing this development of go ahead, right in the middle of the NEK, would be shortsighted and inconsistent with our Town Plan and the values Vermonters have shared about their landscape for centuries. Come on Nov. 8 and vote to support our selectmen and protect our town.

People have different takes on the wind tower controversy. Some will tell you it's all about global warming; others see it as a property rights issue. We tend to see it as a set of questions about the nature and future of small communities like our own. For instance, can they survive in the age of global corporations? Can they develop their own resources and plan their own destinies, or do they have value only when they can be developed by someone else and as part of someone else's agenda? And do they deserve to survive? Are they republics in miniature or merely the pocket-sized fiefdoms of a few good old boys? Do they hold together through ties of common interest and mutual affection, or must they inevitably be pried apart by any outsider who knows how to locate the fault lines of old resentments? If the pessimistic answers to the questions above are the true ones, then perhaps small towns ought to go the way of the dodo bird. In that case, UPC may truly be an instrument of progress. We happen not to think so, which is why we're betting on Sutton, and voting to keep the lawyer.

Would the PSB or any sane person allow any type of efficient base load generating facility to be built on these high elevation ridge lines? Obviously not. Then how could anyone allow an inefficient unreliable generating facility, visible for miles and close to residences and wetlands, to be built there?

The day after the Nov. 7 election, residents of Sutton will be asked to participate in another vote. Members of this Northeast Kingdom community will be asked to decide whether the town should continue to pay a lawyer to oppose the UPC Wind project proposed for the mountains around their town. Residents should vote yes.

UPC’s claims to the board and to the media, that they have worked with the community in making these changes, are a lie. They are attempting to divide and bankrupt the opposition with these tactics, and in so doing are undermining the 248 process by making it too expensive for a small poor town or opposing group to participate. If they are successful and get their foot in the door, they will surely try to put in more towers here in the future, and the rush of wind developers in the NEK will begin. Hopefully the board will see the arrogance and duplicity of UPC’s ploy, and dismiss this case as soon as possible.

Since the PSB alone cannot change the system, I hope that it will work with the legislature to change the law, to develop a process for independent review of all the evidence. Conflicting claims should not be adjudicated in an adversarial forum.

While it is true that the Public Service Board (PSB) is the decision-maker, it is a disservice to suggest that the town is powerless before the board or that zoning and Act 250 have no bearing.

Editor's Note: This letter was submitted to the Rutland Herald

We oppose the construction of industrial wind power turbines on Vermont's ridgelines.

"It's important that people realize the scope of them, the number and the size," (Gov.) Douglas said. "We need to slow down. This is a very important decision."

A Massachusetts wind developer has met his match in the Northeast Kingdom, where people are rallying against his plan to industrialize their ridgeline with massive turbines.

It's not easy to strike a balance, and that's where the friction arises. In Vermont, it is playing out as the U.S. Forest Service is faced with delivering a new management plan for the Green Mountain National Forest, a 400,000-acre parcel of public land in central and southern Vermont.

Every decision must be guided by one overriding principle -- to safeguard the uniqueness that is Vermont.