The neighbors of the proposed wind turbine project in Freedom are asking the voters of Freedom to reinstate the Commercial Review Ordinance at the June referendum, retroactive to the date of the repeal. This is the only way to put some reasonable standards in force. When the town voted to repeal the ordinance last year, we were told the Planning Board would write a new one. That has not happened. ...Consequently, we have no protection from noise, ice throw, strobe effect, no safety setbacks, no standards of any type. These 400-foot turbines will be located only 350 feet from our property lines. We don't even have a fall zone, much less the safety setbacks recommended by turbine manufacturers.

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.

Putting aside the merits and flaws of a proposal to build three, 400-foot-tall wind turbines on Beaver Ridge in Freedom, we have to ask: What the heck are local officials thinking? On May 1, the town's Board of Appeals heard a request by opponents of the project to revoke a building permit issued to the developers in July 2007. The opponents said work had not "substantially commenced" within the six-month period required by local ordinance. The appeals board ultimately rejected that argument ...But it did so with Dave Bridges, a vocal supporter of wind power, as acting chairman of the board.

Roxbury Selectman Mark Touchette suggested visiting Mars Hill. My husband and I chose a neutral area 400 miles away. The 220-foot windmill towers we visited were overwhelming. It was a reality check. The swooshing and clanging of those industrial machines as they rotated were alarming. There was a persistent humming, strobe light-like and flickering shadows swirling around the cleared land that surrounded each turbine. ... Rob Gardiner of Independence Wind is now going door-to-door peddling his goods, trying to sway residents into his pockets of this big business, money-making venture.

Byron is doing the right thing about wind turbines, by wondering whether it wants to have them at all. It is a discussion more towns in Maine should start. ... Communities that wish to encourage wind power projects should say so. Those that will oppose one should say so too. There's little equity in Maine, which now has expedited reviews of wind projects for all its organized towns, to have more site-by-site fights. ...The irony is, by stopping a wind project, Byron is now showing the right way to approach one.

But, as Angus King knows too well, proclaiming Maine's potential for energy production through wind is easy to say, and near-impossible to achieve. Unless a project is sited in an out-of-the-way, unvisited, unremarkable corner of the state, potential for wind power has gone unrealized. Environmentalists bitterly disagree on projects, as do neighboring towns. King's own firm, Independence Wind, only earned a split decision for its turbine projects in Byron and Roxbury. Yet the state has designated Maine's rural towns as for expedited reviews of future wind power plans, in the interest of meeting lofty energy benchmarks. These forces are on an inevitable collision course. An offshore project would be a supernova.

We all support clean energy - but what if its expectations are unmet? Maine has one windmill project up and running in Mars Hill, with its share of controversy. There are additional projects proposed in other sections of Maine. The governor's wind power task force has proposed at least 2,000 megawatts within seven years, and an additional 1,000 megawatts within five years after that. I was a proponent of clean energy - something must be done for our environment. But after much discussion, a lot of listening and some research, I now have questions that must be answered before I can support any wind power project in Maine.

I'm sorry to inform you that there is an institution in Maine that repeatedly makes promises to the public, but rarely fulfills them. This same entity is also prone to issuing statements containing exaggerated claims about its accomplishments. And when it comes to the financial benefits it bestows on the public, let's just say its veracity is questionable. The Legislature? Don't be silly. The Legislature's veracity isn't questionable. It's nonexistent. I'm talking about the wind-power industry.

By giving organized Maine expedited status for wind developments, the state's task force has invited developers to consider these areas for projects. It's an incentive, plain and simple, to know where planning reviews will have priority, and where they will not. Reaction in Byron indicates towns and cities won't take to this designation, even if they think alternative energies are necessary. The belief somewhere else, or some other energy technology, is more appropriate is just too strong. It was in Byron, and if a reputed repeal effort in Roxbury gains strength, there, too. And these are emblematic of the towns wind companies should target - rural, mountainous and with low populations, and therefore low impact. But it's a choice to accept wind power, as communities and commissions have myriad reasons to reject proposals.

The reason for "little real debate" about wind power is the result of the media's refusal to initiate discussion by supplying the information necessary for a debate ("Maine steps forward, into the wind," Feb. 16). Rather than providing the facts on the issue, we hear and read only the bellowing hype of unsubstantiated promises by the industry and its developers. ... The newspaper would better serve its readers by offering a look at the other side of this coin.

This is a stiff wind turbine, and Kittery is in a low wind speed regime. The committee looked at the cost of the three turbines proposed and almost totally ignored if it would produce the power. Saco has a wind regime that is about 10-15 percent than higher than Kittery's wind. This turbine should be installed at 50 meters - another 35-plus feet higher than the permit calls for. ...A comparison of the three machines was provided in table format by Seacoast Consulting, but the most important piece of data on the three proposals - the cut on wind speed was not in the comparison. The committee chose the machine based solely on the cost. If Kittery were purchasing a boat and a bid came in at a cost of $190,000 and the other came in at $210,000, and the seller of the two boats did not tell you that the first boat would not float but the second boat was sea worthy, it would be a poor choice to buy the cheaper boat. Kittery should do the same with a wind turbine. Buy a turbine that will turn - not one that will sit there for all but two-three months and not turn.

What is an appropriate wind-power site? It is understandable that a disappointed wind-power developer would sing the song of sour grapes regarding the rejection of its proposed wind- power project on Black Nubble and the previous rejection of the larger Redington Mountain proposal. The suggestion that the citizen commissioners of LURC do not understand wind power and that they are basically incompetent to judge such projects is, of course, ludicrous.

This week has been a particularly windy one for government regulators: The U.S. Minerals Management Service also declared that a wind farm proposed off Cape Cod in Massachusetts would have little lasting impact on wildlife, navigation or tourism. This ruling could clear the way for construction of a 130-turbine wind farm in Nantucket Sound, 5 miles from the nearest coastline. ...I say: Before we start defiling shorelines and mountaintops with manmade contraptions, let's spend more energy on conservation. Besides, getting through Wicopessett Passage in a kayak, or climbing to the top of Redington, is hard enough without having to duck beneath a spinning turbine.

Maine's love-hate relationship with wind power will face a big test Monday. Actually, a couple of them. Two wind farm proposals could face up-or-down votes by the Maine Land Use Regulation Commission, the zoning board for northern Maine. All bets are off about whether the projects are in for a warm hug or a cold shoulder. Both projects would be in the hills of Franklin County, and together they would double Maine's wind power capacity.

Can Mainers promote renewable energy, protect natural resources and agree on sites for turbines? Yes -- but it would take some talking. We have a conflict today in Maine between renewable energy development and natural resource protection. Recent debates about several wind power proposals (Kibby, Reddington and Black Nubble mountains) have brought attention to differences between constituent groups. ...Does this mean every wind turbine proposed in adequate-wind areas should be permitted? No. Should most of them be? Perhaps, but today no one can reasonably make such a statement -- the threshold of ecological sensitivities has not been examined closely enough. The regulatory implications of a clear statement to this effect would obviously be enormous. Therefore, formulating the statement should occur only after a concerted consensus- building process among all groups in Maine with a stake in these issues.

Many people, including the editors of the Sentinel, think that the group of neighbors who oppose the wind turbine project in Freedom do so because they do not want it in their backyard. The issue is far more complicated than that. Here are some of the facts that the Sentinel should have researched if it were to write a legitimate editorial.

While Maine Audubon and the Appalachian Mountain Clubs, organizations I belong to, support this project, their own siting criteria do not. Potential soil damage, loss of backcountry recreational potential, habitat fragmentation, view impact and degradation of a valuable sub-alpine spruce-fir community are being ignored. This project creates a precedent of industrial development in delicate, protected habitats, and permanent degradation of a remote, undeveloped resource. All of Maine will feel the impact of industrializing a protected mountain zone.

Imagine that number of turbines, strung along our mountains from the Maine-New Hampshire border, along the spine of the mountains to the Kennebec River and beyond. Roads up steep slopes will have to be built to each grouping of turbines. New power lines will be strung down valleys to reach grid connections. Blinking lights at night will be visible for a hundred miles or more. This scenario is too horrible for most Mainers to believe, or even visualize. Yet it is being proposed.

Kibby Mountain is just far enough off the grid of our conciousness that we, including our environmental defender friends, can apparently afford to sacrifice it for a few extra watts of juice to power our washing machines, stereos and HDTVs. Ain't that nice? Makes you feel all warm and fuzzy don't it? Think I'm gonna pick a nice warm sunny late October day and make the drive up north to Kibby Mountain for a hike. Make it a wake of sorts. To pay last respects to a mountain that will soon cease to exist as we know it.

If we really need "green power" so badly then we might as well rebuild the Edwards Dam across the Kennebec River in Augusta. Sound absurd? Well it is no more absurd than promoting industrial wind-power development in the protected mountain areas of Maine. The Land Use Regulation Commission created mountain protection areas above 2,700 feet in 1972 for the simple reason that industrial development was not environmentally acceptable in the fragile alpine and subalpine areas of the Maine mountains.