If the PSC guidelines didn't reflect the state real estate association data on decreased property values, and if the industry cannot guarantee acceptable sound levels prior to construction, then the risk is all mine. As long as there is not a clear and easy recourse to be sure my rights and property values are protected, I will object.

In summary, large-scale wind machines are a bad idea for the Town of Warsaw but great for offshore and remote areas. Large machines greater than (say) 125 rotor diameter should be prohibited. The Town might consider policies to foster small-scale wind equipment, other small-scale "appropriate" energy technologies and energy efficiency. The proposed regulatory framework amounts to a slippery slope. Please don't go there.

After listening to all the comments presented and after reading articles and editorials on the internet, I have come to the conclusion that this process is moving way too fast. ...Please deny this request and force Dan's Mountain Windforce LLC to full, open hearings on the merits of its proposal. If their proposal is viable and safe, then it will withstand "... the interests of the people" and their full inspection of it.

During the past year, several towns in the region have grappled with the issue of wind power, but none perhaps more contentiously than Meredith in Delaware County. Regardless of how you stand on wind power, Meredith has become a great example of townspeople with the legal right to control their fate actually exercising their democratic powers to take charge of their lives. A year ago, Meredith planners were working on an ordinance to regulate industrial wind turbines. After their work was completed, the town board made changes to their proposal, held hearings and passed a law many thought too lenient to wind-power developers. So, in July, when it was time to file to run for town offices in the November election, the planning chairman and others who opposed the town board's action decided to use the ballot box to get the power to rescind the ordinance they opposed.

The surprise that one week before Thanksgiving Massachusetts Speaker of the House Sal DiMasi had thrown a last-minute Mickey into a state energy bill was no surprise at all…just business as usual. Well… maybe not so usual. The obvious beneficiary of this maneuver to allow development of “alternative energy” projects within previously protected state ocean sanctuaries is one Jay Cashman, multi-millionaire construction tycoon and close personal friend of the speaker. Cashman has announced his plans to desecrate Buzzards Bay in the name of renewable profits.

Well now we have it, a local landscape destroyed, wind developers sensing embracement, support, and easy pickings, banging on the planning door, and a council in denial that this local wind rush was not only started by them, turbines are out of control, and they can no longer contain this rural industrial carnage, after all how can you reject what you claim is a "positive contribution" that you fully "support and embrace".

We think the Waldo County Commissioners should convene a high-level forum on wind energy and invite people from all over the area. That way, Freedom residents who have experience with turbines and those from other communities that may well decide to welcome them can confer with both experts and each other. The goal could be a countywide approach to wind energy, though that might be getting ahead of ourselves. After the talk is over, at least we'd all be on the same page.

Would the PSB or any sane person allow any type of efficient base load generating facility to be built on these high elevation ridge lines? Obviously not. Then how could anyone allow an inefficient unreliable generating facility, visible for miles and close to residences and wetlands, to be built there?

Public need is, in fact, one of the principal criteria by which LURC is supposed to judge a project of this kind, and effective measures to reduce emissions are surely needed. But do we need the proposed wind plant on Redington — this particular development? This is the very different and specific question that the commissioners must answer. Their job is not to answer the question, do we need wind power somewhere, but rather do we need it here in this highly sensitive site? Testimony presented at the hearing by Thomas Hewson, an environmental and energy consultant with 30 years of experience, indicates that we do not.

The “Penobscot Wind Park” is clearly an inappropriate and incompatible use of county conservation and recreational land. We support the efforts of the current Bear Creek supervisors as they attempt to bring order to this project, which was given a free reign by the previous township administration. For our part DOW, with our partners from Bear Creek Township, will continue to fight for taxpayers rights in court. Concerned sportsmen, and Luzerne County residents should demand that the majority Luzerne County commissioners begin to protect this property and the rights of the taxpayers who will ultimately pay for it.

Gov. O'Malley's decision to not allow wind turbines to be constructed on state forest lands was certainly good news for Garrett County. However, the fact that destruction of the last remaining bits of wilderness in Maryland was even seriously considered is a sad testament to how crazy the whole debate over wind energy in Western Maryland has become. And let there be no doubt that wind developers will now be redoubling their efforts to construct ever-larger wind turbines on private lands wherever they can find landowners gullible enough to sign away their property forever and severely devalue their neighbors' property, for a few thousand dollars of annual rental income.

More than a year old already, the controversy about how to regulate - or, in effect, even allow - two large turbine projects in one of the most promising areas in the state for wind energy has been hashed over again and again. ...The point is to come up with a plan that can address the concerns of worried residents and the project developers, without it being winner-take-all. Because if they hold out for winner-take-all, everyone's going to lose.

I encourage voters to vote "no" to these changes. By voting "no," voters will say "yes" to keeping these majestic mountains intact, placed there by Mother Nature, God, or whomever people believe had a hand in the Western mountains' design. Nothing is free. There are conditions to the free electricity offer. It is not nice to play with Mother Nature. Disrupting the mountains will plague lives forever.

Who decided they could put this industrial wind project in a residential/agricultural area? We are taxed under a residential rate, but live in an agricultural area. How can the wind company propose measuring distances for safety from noise from the corner of our residence instead of the property line? Nowhere else in any zoning laws does this exception apply. Who gave them that right to use our backyard as their buffer zone? ...The cost of ``free'' wind doesn't figure into it the astronomical cost to upgrade the transmission lines. The utilities passed that cost on to us! We ask that the board study the issues objectively and find their own answers through independent research. There are better choices instead of spending upwards of $200 million for this project. The money could be better spent on education.

Do we really want less public input on how many, and where large wind turbines will be built in our town? The Select Board states that these amendments just make the process for wind turbines the same as for other municipal projects. Wind turbines, however, are not like any other projects.

Economic viability is not a criterion for determining setbacks in siting an energy facility. Setbacks should address only identified public health, safety and individual property rights impacts. The setbacks are inadequate as currently designed. The project is being proposed in the wrong location.

CanWEA, as a lobbyist organization for the multi-national wind industry will make every attempt possible to discount or minimize any potential problems in order to keep government subsidies rolling in to the corporations they represent and get their towers erected. CanWEA is not an environmental advocacy group.

Commercial wind turbines are gigantic machines that distort natural light, sound and space. Their impacts are constant, making them oppressive when situated too near to homes and the places where we live.

The passionate advocacy of wind and solar power cannot change the fact that they are in their infancy and incapable of providing most of our power needs. Neither can the environmental activist's vision of a world in which all live simpler lives without the need for so much power be anything but a fantasy which no developing nation would ever take seriously. The reality is that without our being allowed to discuss all power generation options, the eco-activist's dystopian vision of New Zealand risks coming true.

This whole EFSEC process has only shown how totally corrupted the siting of energy facilities has become in Washington state. If Gov. Gregoire wants to really show that "local sentiment about this project is just as important to her as it was for the Wild Horse Project," then a good first step would be to deny the KVWPP as designed and then appoint a new EFSEC chairperson that will not accept the role of mouthpiece for any special interest business group that may want to make an obscene amount of money on the backs of non-participating land owners. If this project is the precedent for siting renewable energy projects in the future, no one will win. Litigation will become the norm and commercial wind power will become even more economically unviable - if that is even possible.