Democratic gubernatorial candidate Gaye Symington set up the debate with her simple proposal to drive the use of wind power in Vermont from 0.2 percent to 20 percent in 10 years. A far-fetched goal that's just too simple to realize? The response was swift from David O'Brien, the state Public Service commissioner. He used one word to define Symington's idea: "irresponsible." Symington's suggestion may in fact be "irresponsible." Yet we're all adult enough to probe probabilities ...

The [New England] region's power system has had a long history of dependability, but electricity costs have been an issue for businesses and residents for decades. As the region plans ahead, New England's policymakers face a series of decisions that will have an abiding impact on our energy future. ...Economic, reliability and environmental goals are not always perfectly aligned when it comes to electricity generation and transmission. Whatever path policymakers choose to take will require trade-offs. How New England officials balance these sometimes conflicting goals will demonstrate our priorities, impact the regional economy and determine which objectives we can realistically achieve.

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.

In the ongoing debate about Vermont Yankee's role in the state's energy future, those for and against the continued operation of the nuclear power plant have something to prove. Nuclear energy opponents must come up with a reliable and affordable alternative to the power Vermont Yankee supplies. ...Yet no one has come up with a reasonable alternative for the reliable power provided by Vermont Yankee. Conservation and efficiency efforts are insufficient to reduce the state's energy demand by a third within five years. Nor can Vermont develop wind and solar capacity to provide the base load power to make up for Vermont Yankee's output. Powering down Vermont's economy is not an option, nor is a dramatic increase in electricity rates.

Recently, the Public Service Board made history. With the stroke of a pen, three men reversed a century of work by Vermont citizens to preserve this state's historic landscape. Chairman James Volz, David Cohen, and John Burke opened the door to the largest industrial ridgeline development project in our state's history. Unfortunately, this will become their legacy.

Vermont Yankee is also a valuable and vitally important resource that should not be wasted. Unlike wind power, Vermont Yankee provides low cost, round-the-clock generation that, when combined with the Hydro Quebec contracts, gives Vermont one of the lowest carbon footprints in the country. Vermont and Entergy Nuclear, the owner of Vermont Yankee, should work together to jointly develop Vermont's future energy plan. The ongoing political battle between the Entergy and Vermont helps no one.

Unfortunately, the most important issue at hand has been conspicuously glossed over in these debates. Our immediate need is to begin securing baseload power sources, which will provide economical electricity 24 hours per day, 365 days each year after the current agreements with Vermont Yankee and Hydro-Quebec expire. Make no mistake, all Vermonters need to find opportunities within their own homes and businesses to switch to more energy efficient technology and reduce consumption by adopting conservation practices for all energy usage. Additionally, where economically viable without massive government subsidies, all in-state renewable energy sources should be developed. Local sources tend to be more reliable, provide greater economic benefits and facilitate fuel and supply source diversity. But, renewables, (excluding large hydro), efficiency and conservation will never to be able to meet fully Vermont's electrical energy needs. Nor do they eliminate the need for baseload supply.

But there is an answer for Vermont's energy future, with or without nuclear energy, and it would help keep Vermont the number one least polluting state in the country and the number sixth most desirable tourist location in the world. The answer is hydropower.

With arbitrary enactment of the Shumlin tax, Vermont would send a negative message out to all businesses considering expansion or relocation to the state, while jeopardizing the amount of no emission carbon power it receives, at attractive prices. This would be both unfortunate, unnecessary, and clearly not the Vermont way. Shumlin should end the shakedown of Vermont Yankee now.

A truly "bold," environmentally conscious state would go nuclear even more. Burlington will only really be the "best of" Green Places when local postcards show its charming leafy streets, with a view of Lake Champlain -- and a nuclear power plant looming in the background.

Industrial wind turbine facilities are not only a visual insult, they degrade and fragment wildlife habitat, they threaten bats and birds, they open up wild areas to sprawl with roads and transmission lines, and, as wind energy consultant John Zimmerman has said, "wind turbines don't make good neighbors."

What are your thoughts on wind power in Vermont and how it affects recreation? Local authors and outdoor enthusiasts Kirk Kardashian and Stephen Gorman make the arguments for and against windpower in Vermont.

Industrial wind turbines capture the imagination because they are a visible symbol that we are doing something about the environment. But in fact they are a boondoggle. They have a negligible effect on the environment, while wasting money that might be better spent elsewhere, damaging Vermont's rural landscape (itself a significant economic asset) and transferring a ton of money from the pockets of Vermont taxpayers to the bank accounts of the developers.

The current craze for wind towers is just that--a craze. Understandably, we are concerned about carbon emissions and energy security. Wind towers are a visible symbol that we are attempting to do something. Unfortunately, they are a hollow symbol. Like Don Quixote, we are obsessed by windmills, except that instead of attacking them, we are building them. Fifty miles of wind towers crowning Vermont's ridgelines will cost residents and taxpayers a fortune, but they will do nothing to reduce carbon emissions or secure energy supplies. We should put our money and our effort into less damaging and more productive solutions, such as conservation and the development of clean coal technology.

As a writer, I am deeply indebted to the Northeast Kingdom, from which I’ve drawn inspiration for almost 50 years: its woods, fields, ponds, hills, its people, its other creatures. Like most of my neighbors, I favor conservation and renewable energy. The fear of climate change has been with me for many years, ever since I felt the early, subtle signs of it. But I do not support the proposed UPC industrial wind facility.

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.

In the midst of next summer, when the demand for electricity is nearly off the scale, the residents of Vermont will expect reliable reserves of power. Given that demand, are our wind power advocates willing to wager on next summer's average wind speed?

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.