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.

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.

The defense Mr. Shumlin makes for the bill depends on wildly optimistic predictions about a huge number of jobs to be created by the tidal wave of demand to weatherproof houses. He wraps the flag around the bill and says it will free us from buying oil from countries that hate us. Which countries? Texas? Louisiana? Alaska? He claims that Vermont's energy independence will somehow evolve from a myriad of local wind, solar and hydro projects. Where does he propose to site these wind towers? How many does he think we need to build to have a measurable effect on energy production?

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.

So, to avoid a long and uncertain political and legal battle, Entergy, the state's lowest cost, most reliable energy producer, agreed to pay the state's new Clean Energy Fund as much as $28 million over the next seven years. The state will use the money to subsidize VPIRG's favorite renewable energy projects, chief among which are legions of already-subsidized 420-foot wind turbine towers marching along Vermont's mountain ridges.

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.