Mr. Charlebois is fond of saying that his company "shares local values." Let him demonstrate it by withdrawing his application to build commercial wind towers on Glebe Mountain.

The Wind Forum, held at the Unitarian Church in Montpelier, and hosted by the group Building for Social Responsibility (BSR) was a big disappointment for those of us who came with questions and who expected an informed discussion. Since we, from Windham and South Londonderry, had a two hour drive, we carefully checked the agenda of the forum on the BSR web site before deciding to attend.

We strongly believe energy efficiency has a critical role in Vermont's energy future. And we support increasing the budget for efficiency as long as additional dollars are first targeted to areas of the state where additional efficiency investments help avoid costly expenditures on the state's electrical system.

Now if you are successful in scaring the mountain scenery giant wind turbines, you will help drive away those residents and visitors who value Vermont's treasured scenic resources.

We who voted "no" are not willing to sacrifice the focal point of Londonderry for something that will produce so little benefit and that will create so many problems.

Wind power projects of the magnitude proposed on our ridge lines would drastically affect the character of our state and do little or nothing to alleviate the problems of acid rain and greenhouse warming. Maybe Vince should listen to his colleagues. Some of them might know as much or more than he does.

Please count me among those that vehemently oppose the expansion of this crazed idea of environmentally 'friendly' energy production. Windmills are NOT environmentally friendly when implemented whis way. Please feel free to use my as an example of someone who is DIRECTLY adversely effected by these noisy, UGLY industrial generators.

Editor's Note: This email was sent to Vermont State Representative Rick Hube by Tom Shea, a Searsburg property owner.

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

It is unreasonable to expect wind energy to make a meaningful contribution to reducing CO2 emissions, given wind’s unreliability and the consequent need to meet increasing power needs with reliable capacity. We would be better served by focusing on clean coal. The technology exists to clean coal today and that would make a meaningful difference. The proliferation of wind turbines will not.

Some of us used to think wind development might create useful electricity. But we took time the last three years to learn about how industrial wind really works. We studied Catamount’s “educational material,” we studied the impact of industrial wind development in others countries, and we studied the independent analysis of scientists and economists who show that the benefits of industrial wind are an illusion.

Editor's Note: This letter has been submitted to The Rutland Herald.

Could it be that the confused senator's judgment is clouded by his personal relationship with certain landowners in Lowell who stand to make huge profits at our expense?

But it is just not the right idea at the right time...those mountains are just way too important to too many of us for many, many reasons. In another place and time, maybe. But not now and not anytime soon.

After a tremendous amount of time spent in a collaborative and meetings regarding wind towers, our town's Planning Commission is unanimous in its support of the town plan. The commission is unconvinced that there are benefits of industrial wind power development on this mountain that supplant the principled planning contained in our current and past town plans and zoning ordinances, all of which were based on an historical interest in the preservation of the Glebe Mountain ridgeline.

In that survey, twice as many people said they would find them unacceptable or ugly. That's 2 to 1 against among those who actually had an opinion.

Why Illuzzi thinks that wind energy will "avoid cutting wide swaths through our...countryside..." is beyond me. The footprint for wind is huge.

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

I invite the wind energy proponents living along Vermont's "Great Lake" to pony up and put their money where their mouth is.

In the last couple of years I have watched Illuzzi do his fence jumping on the wind issues. One day he wants to destroy the ridgelines and if you wait a few weeks he doesn’t. It’s a lot like waiting for the wind to blow — you really never know where it’s coming from.

Wind power projects of the magnitude proposed on our ridgelines would drastically affect the character of our state and do little or nothing to alleviate the problems of acid rain and greenhouse warming.

In addition to the issue of scale, there are risks to jobs and the local economy, as well as questions about what a project this size might do to property values. These are reasonable questions that have yet to be answered.