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.

The importance of finding reliable, clean, and economic solutions to our energy questions is paramount to our economy, our welfare, and our way of life. There are good ideas that are being discussed and others that will likely not see the light of day. Before you become a tool to advance the political agenda of the Carbon Coalition, make sure you know what their agenda is and what the footprint of that agenda might be in your town and our region five and 10 years out. You might find the Coalition has not thoroughly vetted its plan. It is best to know that now, before our political leaders feel pressed and grasp at anything to look like they're "just doing something".

Although the approach is too late for projects that have already begun a federal review process, a dozen New England congressmen and senators have asked for help from the Department of Energy in coordinating a regional approach to siting liquefied natural gas facilities. Reps. Tom Allen and Mike Michaud have both signed on to this request, which makes sense for future energy projects.

On Oct. 30 at 7 p.m. at the Goshen-Lempster School in Lempster, the New Hampshire Site Evaluation Committee (SEC) will conduct a public hearing so citizens can question the Lempster Wind LLC industrial wind power plant proposal to place 12 40-story wind turbines along the ridges of Lempster and Bean mountains. This public hearing will be the first time the SEC members have an opportunity to hear how people feel about the exploitation of the state’s mountain ridges for wind power plant development. While you’re reading this, if you glance out your window at a mountain ridge that you’ve grown to love and value, you should think about attending this meeting and voicing your opinion about mountain ridge protection.

Energy efficiency is by no means a permanent solution, but it should be a permanent part of the solution. Sensible energy use, combined with new power resources, is the only workable answer for New England.

I would like to briefly discuss a few of the reasons why some of us, and perhaps the reader, would not want to have one of these power plants in our back yard.

The nuclear industry will pay for a new campaign involving Moore and Whitman. No doubt anti-nukes will accuse them of “selling out.” But that is hard to do here. Both individuals have a strong record of environmentalism.

This is a slightly edited version of a letter sent to Gov. John Lynch by Concord residents William Klapproth, Dana Robinson, John Hardie, Sidney Schoeffler and Ellen Little.

I certainly hope that the residents of Sheffield and Sutton continue to look and listen very carefully to what they are shown and told, ask every question that they can, and consider this plan before allowing it to go forward. Something tells me that UPC will make their money and be gone, leaving NEK residents to live for many years with something they may eventually regret. I truly hope I'm wrong.

What this will take is an Apollo-like program focused on new technologies and renewable energy resources.

A citizen, Lisa Linowes, from New Hampshire testifies for the House Science and Technology Committee on NH Bill 1568 Here are excerpts from that testimony.

Editor's Note: Lisa Linowes is a Director of National Wind Watch.

I am asking all the residents in Lyman who do not wish to see massive mechanical structures ruin Lyman's natural beauty to please get on board and reject these industrial monsters.

My viewpoint was, and still is, that the huge towers (260 feet high), gigantic blades (add another 150 feet), blinking strobe lights, permanent removal of wind-hindering vegetation, and highly visible road and transmission infrastructures are totally inappropriate for wild, undeveloped, scenic and highly visible settings. And I said I thought that opponents should focus on those issues, as well as the small return in electricity for the massive public price paid, aesthetically and otherwise, and should perhaps stay away from the issue of bird mortality caused by the rapidly spinning blades. The jury is still out on that, I said, and conventional wisdom is that vastly more birds are killed by high-rise windows and free-running cats......Well, so much for conventional wisdom.

Editor's Note This opinion piece was written in response to a letter received from Lisa Linowes that is available via the link below.

In your column, you state bird mortality is a subject that wind energy opponents should stand down from. However, there is good reason for us to continue to shed light on this problem. To our knowledge, no commercial scale wind facility in the United States has been subject to pre-construction avian risk assessments that included remote sensing (radar or acoustical).

Editor's Note: Mr. Harrigan's reponse to this letter is available via the link below.

"...Merits of the zoning case aside, there are some important facts about Wind Energy that simply cannot be ignored. Wind has long been promoted as a viable, clean alternative to fossil fuels and people have been conditioned to unconditionally embrace it. In fact, the moral justification for wind as the answer to greenhouse emissions has pitted conservationist against conservationist. And this fight has shamelessly been fueled by the misinformation on wind that the wind developers and their advocates promote."

Letter to the Editor