The Green Mountain National Forest released the Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the proposed Deerfield Wind Project in September and we will accept public comment until Friday. ...I look forward to more feedback on our DEIS. As the final information and opinions flow in, I know this is an important decision and it will weigh heavily on my mind.

In January 2007, Deerfield Wind and Iberdrola Renewables (formerly PPM Energy, a subsidiary of the Spanish energy company Iberdrola) applied for a Certificate of Public Good from the Vermont Public Service Board in order to construct a 34 megawatt (MW) wind turbine project in the Green Mountain National Forest in Readsboro and Searsburg. ...Wilmington voted at a town meeting in December 2007 to oppose the project based on concerns about wildlife habitat, aesthetics and lack of public benefit including the areas of property values and the impact on tourism.

If they are going to "talk the talk," it is time to "walk the walk." The foreign windmill promoters that are covering Montana like a swarm of locusts will be more than happy to sign you up for a giant industrial wind plant (subsidized by taxpayers) that you expect the rest of us to live with.

Now that Ms. Symington says she wants 20 percent of Vermont's electricity in 10 years from windmills, here's how to bring that dream to fruition.

How many miles of once scenic ridgelines will be dominated by towering industrial wind turbines replacing nuclear power? How will they be connected to the power transmission grid? What will be the visible, audible and environmental impacts of spinning blades and mountainside access roads and powerlines? Where will we get electricity when the wind doesn't blow, or blows so hard that turbines have to be stopped? ...Proponents of "clean energy" alternatives are pitching them against nuclear power instead of detailing their feasibilities, risks and impacts. Vermonters deserve much better information as we debate, plan and implement our energy future.

Democratic gubernatorial candidate Gaye Symington set up the debate with her simple proposal to drive the use of wind power in Vermont from 0.2 percent to 20 percent in 10 years. A far-fetched goal that's just too simple to realize? The response was swift from David O'Brien, the state Public Service commissioner. He used one word to define Symington's idea: "irresponsible." Symington's suggestion may in fact be "irresponsible." Yet we're all adult enough to probe probabilities ...

Because of the above investigation and because we believe the Sheffield project will have a strong negative impact on tourism, property values and housing starts, economics, and our environment, many of us supported a town plan revision that would exclude large-scale industrial wind development on Barton's ridge lines. Our revision, however, does encourage small-scale wind turbines as well as other forms of renewable energy such as hydro, biomass, solar, and energy conservation. While the town plan cannot regulate energy producing facilities since the Vermont State Public Service Board issues commercial wind turbine permits, the Public Service Board will look at our town plan and try to honor its goals.

Coal mines always have been big business. Wind farms are getting to be. And when heavy-hitting companies such as North American Coal Corp., Minnesota Power and Florida Power and Light are eyeing an area of real estate, you bet it's consequential. The real estate isn't paltry; it's a lot of acreage in Oliver and Morton counties. Minnesota Power and FPL want to build separate wind farms. But the coal company says, "Wait a minute, we may want to mine where you guys are talking about putting up wind turbines. That won't work."

The statement that the project "is expected to begin moving forward soon" is incorrect, unless the reporter knows something I do not. The Public Service Board's decision is pending this fall but a number of interveners are currently fighting the project before the PSB, including Save Vermont Ridgelines. Should this project be approved, one of the largest bear habitats in Vermont will be destroyed. As this is the first wind project proposed on national forest land, it will pave the way for similar projects in other national forests, such as those currently proposed in Virginia, West Virginia, and Michigan.

While the proposed turbines are located in Searsburg and Readsboro, their impact on neighboring Wilmington would be substantial, particularly for residents living in the viewshed of the ridgeline. Should we not be compensated as well? What about the potential decline in the value of our real estate? ...Perhaps more important, aside from the monetary value, what about the decreased enjoyment of our property because of the turbines?

This installation will require high-intensity aircraft beacons to be located on top of each of the towers. The turbines would each be twice as tall as the existing turbines, 110 feet taller than the Bennington Monument, and be visible from the Woodford State Park all the way through Searsburg, Wilmington and into Marlboro. A large number of people who choose to live in these towns because of the remoteness will have their enjoyment of the area spoiled by having this industrial generating station placed along the ridgeline. Over 60 properties nearest to the turbines will be subject to noise levels exceeding that recommended as fit for human habitation by the World Health Organization. Is this how we want to preserve that National Forest for future generations - by making it unfit for humans to be in it? ...For the sake of the affected people and the future of the forest, let's hope the permit is not granted.

Here at home, the Vermont Supreme Court heard arguments about the only new wind project in Vermont with permits from the Public Service Board. The company, recently renamed FirstWind, won permission to erect 16 turbines on a ridgeline in Sheffield. The permit was appealed by local opponents organized as Ridge Protectors. As far as I can tell from an internet search, only the Barton Chronicle covered the session. ...The Chronicle story quotes Justice Reiber as asking the attorneys, "How could they measure economic benefit without the contracts?" Of course it takes two to tango, so who knows whether it's First Wind or the Vermont utilities that are reluctant to reach a power-sale deal. No telling when the Supreme Court will decide the appeal, but First Wind said recently it doesn't expect to start putting up the turbines (assuming the permit stands) this year.

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.

Small Montana wind energy producers are challenging NWE's proposal to charge them more for "integrating" their product into the portfolio. The wind producers contend that the costs NWE wants them to pay are more than what "integrating" their electricity actually costs. Further, the wind energy producers say NWE's proposed pricing could put them out of business. NWE has said that its customers will have to pay these costs if the wind energy producers don't. In its portfolio proposals, NWE assumes a carbon tax will be implemented in the future, making coal a less appealing source than in the past. The proposed portfolio also assumes the customer will increase energy conservation.

I read last week's article "Forest Service buys Handle Road parcel" with trepidation. It is important to realize that the United States Forest Service no longer protects forest lands, even national forests, from development. Their 2006 Final Environmental Impact Statement for Vermont's Green Mountain National Forest identifies 37 sites, for a total of 19,700 acres, as "potentially both viable and suitable" for wind power development. As quoted in their report on Page 3-298 ...

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!?

These towers will forever change the scenic value of the Musselshell River Valley. They will have a devastating effect on land values, adversely affect wildlife, create high noise levels and block the beauty of the night sky with red strobe lights. Wind power is being "sold" as green power. It is not green power. The United States Department of Energy study completed in 2007 indicates wind farms operate at 21 percent of capacity. That simply means other sources of conventional power, such as coal-fired, nuclear or natural gas, must back up the power generated by these turbines. ...Will we change from the Big Sky Country to The Big Tower Country just so a foreign utility and a couple landowners can line their pockets?

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.