Thankfully an informed electorate is telling our powers that be to look elsewhere for answers to our electrical needs.

My advice to Mr. Peskin is accept the voice of neighbors who care enough to vote on the issue ....

As is too often the case we have failed to engage in advance thinking and are therefore slugging it out town by town in the after-the-fact regulatory process. The process is bitter, expensive, stressful and time consuming.

After careful consideration, Mr. Janson decided that the project will not promote the general good of the state. Now enter the rogue representatives and Joint House Resolution J.H.R. 64. The point of this resolution is to help wind developers have their way at ruining the state's ridgelines, while promoting an obsolete technology that can realistically do very little. They hope we will suspend our disbelief long enough to surreptitiously go about their devious plan.

Altogether, having read Mr. Janson's report and compared it with your letter, I would prefer to leave decisions about renewable energy in Vermont in the hands of the Public Service Board, rather than the legislature.

In the meantime Vermont should not sacrifice its chief natural resource--its natural beauty--for the transient and illusory promise of a fundamentally flawed and wastefully expensive unproven technology

Weren't they elected to represent us fairly, honestly and pro-actively?

Given the clear directives of the Town Plan, now reinforced by a decisive Town Meeting vote, and the availability of the funds to carry out the will of the majority, the path of the Select Board should be abundantly clear. Apparently not.

It's time for Vermonters to enter into a reasoned dialog and consider all the options for its energy future. Many other renewable sources are in the pipeline. Let's look at them in a deliberate way. Let's stop rushing into whatever developers are pushing at the moment, because what's good for them may be bad for us.

Our ridge lines are as precious as they are vulnerable. And wind power’s advocates have yet to make a solid case for spoiling them.

After months of careful consideration Janson has decided the project will not promote the general good of the state. Now enter the rogue representatives. They have created Joint House Resolution J.H.R. 64. The point of this resolution is to help wind developers have their way at ruining the state's ridgelines, while promoting an obsolete technology, that can realistically do very little.

So, where are we now? Controversy over the East Haven opinion is hardly a sign that the permit process is broken, but rather a confirmation that it works. Now we need to take the ambivalence out of this by thoughtfully delineating which impacts and tradeoffs are acceptable with wind power development, and which are not. This is a tough balance to strike, but we should rejoice that in Vermont these choices are still ours to make.

I certainly hope that the residents of Sheffield and Sutton continue to look and listen very carefully to what they are shown and told, ask every question that they can, and consider this plan before allowing it to go forward. Something tells me that UPC will make their money and be gone, leaving NEK residents to live for many years with something they may eventually regret. I truly hope I'm wrong.

It gives me hope that a sane assessment of costs versus benefits will prevail over this destructive scheme to industrialize a huge proportion of Vermont’s unspoiled mountain landscape.

I find it intellectually insulting that the assumption be still perpetuated in this age of the Internet access to information, that the "public" is a completely uninformed body requiring being put straight by "experts" (who often have their own agenda to promote).

After all, our landscape is a natural resource as well — true? There are better ways to save energy, save money, and save the environment without ruining the one we have.

Regrettably, environmentalists have become linked to an industry that encourages us to ignore reality.

And we would still need the same amount of generating power from other plants (which would be run less efficiently, i.e., with more emissions) to keep the system running when the wind isn't perfect. With this pathetic outlook, and considering as well the fact that electricity is only a fraction of our energy use, wind looks about as far from a "serious" solution to global warming or decommissioning nuclear plants as one could get.

Janson's plain-speaking decision should serve to remind all Vermonters of the core values that are the foundation of this special state: honoring promises, high standards for development, environmental preservation. There is room for wind power in Vermont's energy mix, but it must be in harmony with other key environmental concerns, such as protecting the state's ridgelines from industrial development.

On Feb. 24, the citizens of Londonderry voted 425 to 213 against support of industrial scale wind on Glebe Mountain......The town has spoken. We hope the state will listen.