The statement that the project "is expected to begin moving forward soon" is incorrect, unless the reporter knows something I do not. The Public Service Board's decision is pending this fall but a number of interveners are currently fighting the project before the PSB, including Save Vermont Ridgelines. Should this project be approved, one of the largest bear habitats in Vermont will be destroyed. As this is the first wind project proposed on national forest land, it will pave the way for similar projects in other national forests, such as those currently proposed in Virginia, West Virginia, and Michigan.

While the proposed turbines are located in Searsburg and Readsboro, their impact on neighboring Wilmington would be substantial, particularly for residents living in the viewshed of the ridgeline. Should we not be compensated as well? What about the potential decline in the value of our real estate? ...Perhaps more important, aside from the monetary value, what about the decreased enjoyment of our property because of the turbines?

This installation will require high-intensity aircraft beacons to be located on top of each of the towers. The turbines would each be twice as tall as the existing turbines, 110 feet taller than the Bennington Monument, and be visible from the Woodford State Park all the way through Searsburg, Wilmington and into Marlboro. A large number of people who choose to live in these towns because of the remoteness will have their enjoyment of the area spoiled by having this industrial generating station placed along the ridgeline. Over 60 properties nearest to the turbines will be subject to noise levels exceeding that recommended as fit for human habitation by the World Health Organization. Is this how we want to preserve that National Forest for future generations - by making it unfit for humans to be in it? ...For the sake of the affected people and the future of the forest, let's hope the permit is not granted.

Here at home, the Vermont Supreme Court heard arguments about the only new wind project in Vermont with permits from the Public Service Board. The company, recently renamed FirstWind, won permission to erect 16 turbines on a ridgeline in Sheffield. The permit was appealed by local opponents organized as Ridge Protectors. As far as I can tell from an internet search, only the Barton Chronicle covered the session. ...The Chronicle story quotes Justice Reiber as asking the attorneys, "How could they measure economic benefit without the contracts?" Of course it takes two to tango, so who knows whether it's First Wind or the Vermont utilities that are reluctant to reach a power-sale deal. No telling when the Supreme Court will decide the appeal, but First Wind said recently it doesn't expect to start putting up the turbines (assuming the permit stands) this year.

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.

I read last week's article "Forest Service buys Handle Road parcel" with trepidation. It is important to realize that the United States Forest Service no longer protects forest lands, even national forests, from development. Their 2006 Final Environmental Impact Statement for Vermont's Green Mountain National Forest identifies 37 sites, for a total of 19,700 acres, as "potentially both viable and suitable" for wind power development. As quoted in their report on Page 3-298 ...

While being a multi-state resident for decades now, I have grown to appreciate Vermont much more than Connecticut, so much so that I have started a new business here in hopes of permanently moving here soon. But while the controversy rages about ridge lines, and wind mills, I can't help but wonder why the state of Vermont has banned all billboards from the interstates, and disguises the cell towers along the interstates to look like trees as not to offend the local character, but now it seems as though we will have no problem building 30-story tall structures on the most visible and scenic areas of the state, all with the flashing navigation lights so all can see for miles around in the once silent and dark scenery of the last great 'Kingdom' in the east!?

Far from being "environmentally friendly," the proposed project would effectively destroy one of the largest, if not the largest, bear habitats in Vermont. The Vermont Agency of Natural Resources stated in recent testimony that the project "would result in significant adverse impacts to black bear habitat" and would "cause long-term harm to the bear population in southern Vermont." The Vermont Natural Resources Council has stated that the wildlife habitat in the western project area could not be mitigated. In other words, once destroyed, that habitat cannot be repaired or replaced.

...in the zeal to capture a perceived new market advantage, Vermont businesses need to be careful. In this evolving green marketplace lies legal risk, along with the potential to harm Vermont's green brand that has served the state so well. Many consumers have become informed about green claims such as recycled, biodegradable, natural and organic. Recently, the call for action to address global warming has led manufacturers and service providers to add new terms to their marketing, such as "carbon neutral" and "carbon offsets." Considering existing law and the potential for new regulatory oversight, it is essential for Vermont businesses that currently rely on and harness Vermont's green brand to ensure that the green claims made by them and others are accurate and supportable. Moreover, any business considering simply hopping on to the "green" marketing bandwagon should recognize that doing so has some considerable risks.

But in recent years VPIRG has been, in reality, little more than a lobbying enterprise for special interests which, in large measure, fund it -- primarily corporate wind power and alternative energy interests. Ironically, these are heavily taxpayer-subsidized corporate projects of the type public interest groups used to advocate against. In this role, VPIRG appears to have the Democratic Party firmly under its thumb. It comes, then, as no surprise that that party's agenda is tightly linked, not to the most pressing concerns of the people of Vermont, but to the personal agendas of VPIRG's board of directors. ...For instance, David Bittersdorf and Mathew Rubin, two men with active wind power enterprises in Vermont, are trustees of VPIRG, as is Dave Rapaport, who worked for five years for Mathew Rubin's East Mountain Wind Tower Co. Trustee Leigh Seddon founded Solar Works Inc., a renewable-energy design and contracting firm. VPIRG's five registered lobbyists work the state Legislature tirelessly for more taxpayer funding for renewable energy.

About "getting used to the turbines," I live under the existing eyesores. I have not, nor will I, get used to them. They are noisy, with constant whirring and intermittent clunks that I first mistook for gunshots. I can hear this inside my house with the windows shut. The proposed expansion will, by the developers' estimates, put the average noise level at my house at 44.9 dBA. The World Health Organization defines 45 dBA as unfit for human habitation. Several acres of my property, and that of dozens of neighbors, will be above this limit. I doubt that I would get used to that. Would you? ...There are better alternatives for electricity production. One is located right in Somerset. Vermont leads the nation (by a large margin) in percent of energy consumption from renewable sources. Adding more wind turbines would not alter that ratio, for reasons stated above. The turbines will not help our energy needs and don't belong in the National Forest. Let's keep it a forest.

Where is the responsible-or even logical-ethic in dynamiting, clear cutting and fragmenting scores of miles of some of the rarest, most picturesque mountain habitat in Vermont to install 200 sky-scraper sized wind turbines to produce less than 100MW of sporadic energy in a state that generates virtually no CO2 to obtain electricity- with no assurance these wind projects will abate carbon emissions and with certainty they will not supplant any conventional generation, including nuclear? Since unreliable, highly variable wind energy provides no capacity, it cannot obviate the need for conventional generation. ...Of all people, environmentalists should embrace the skepticism of science, rather than be seduced by deceits of fashion.

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.

In the town of Searsburg the private citizens own about 20% of the land and the rest belongs to the power companies,the state, and the National Forest. That extremely limits our growth as a town, yet they continue to destroy more forest land in the name of public good. ...This project is expected to cost over $60 million to build and destroy 80 acres of prime pristine forest land. How can you justify the cost with the return? Is there a price on our National Forests? Is there a price on the people's lives that live nearby that will surely be changed by the noise and lights? Is there a price on the many others who will see the nine to 12 red flashing lights from a distance in the night sky? They paint a rosy picture, but is it? I ask you all, Is this in the public good?

There may be places for wind turbines in the New England hills, but so far developers have been going at the thing willy-nilly, with very little careful study involved. And the effect on the fossil-fuel industry, even with thousands of turbines erected, would be next to nothing. Don't these people have any bridges they want to sell us? Those we could use.

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.

Too bad the Public Service Board approved UPC Wind's application to construct 16 420-foot-tall wind turbines in Sheffield, where people all over the Northeast Kingdom will have to see these monsters. (Remember, they're bigger than the Bennington Battlefield Monument.) The economics are lousy. The threat to our tourism industry is real and substantial. It strikes me that the folks who would put such things on our ridge tops would probably also spray foam insulation on the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel to increase its R value.

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.