"...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."

You'd think Sierra Club would know all too well that sustainable means more than just non-fossil fuels; it means workable, realistic and supporting local community over big global corporations. Apparently Sierra Club forgot about that part of the concept of renewable energy development; that sustainable means community supported and community supporting.

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.

As you can see most green schemes collapse pretty quickly when you apply numbers to them. The problem, of course, is that the media is so politically biased, professionally incurious, and scientifically illiterate that they accept this sort of spurious pabulum without ever engaging their critical faculties.

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.

One would not think it difficult to reconcile support of renewable energy with the love of the environment, yet this summer we found ourselves in exactly this situation. After years of living with conservation as a mantra, we could never imagine being opposed to a "green" energy project, but ironically that's what has happened. ...After months of research, we've learned that wind power is just not the "green" energy source we've all been told it is. If applied on a small residential scale, it can be very effective; however on an industrial level, there are enormous problems.

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.

Granite Reliable's wind farm is not proven, and Granite Reliable is a limited liability company, which provides broad investor protection if the company goes down. What is the justification for risking $135 million in public money, especially on a company with access to so much private cash? Apparently, the justification is that Obama likes "green power" and wants to associate himself with it.

Is wind part of the answer to our need to diversify our energy sources? Yes. Is the Tuttle-Willard ridge the best place for wind power? No. There's too much at stake. Our insatiable appetite for energy shouldn't be a tradeoff for healthy forests and wildlife habitat. As the SEC discusses Antrim Wind Energy's plan, the wind will be blowing on Tuttle Hill. Let's hope the wind keeps blowing through that spruce.

I fear greatly the rush to turn its high ground into an electrical generator for out-of-state interests. I think Gov. John Baldacci is way off base in his unbridled support of this frantic race for government handouts that will enrich a greedy few at the expense of many ... including wildlife that can't speak for itself. Mr. Carter's clear and thoughtful commentary against industrial-grade wind developments should speak loudly to citizens of Maine.

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

Utilities get credits for "green" power they produce, or they can buy the credits from companies that create power from "renewable" sources. If they do neither, they have to pay a fine to the state. Proceeds from the fines subsidize energy conservation projects. Sounds great. But like "cash for clunkers," there are problems. For example, the program already raised electric utility rates by $10.7 million earlier this year. Green power is more expensive. And then there are the windmills.

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.

The federal Energy Department last week reported that wind power could take the place of coal and natural gas for as much as 30 percent of the electricity generation in the eastern two-thirds of the country. There is just one problem: the cost would be huge and the supposed environmental benefit (reduced carbon emissions) small.

A new gold rush is on. Northern Pass is a first example of this opportunism, but it is by no means the only private project that will target New Hampshire if we take no action. ...Don't let New Hampshire become the dumping ground for private, unneeded energy projects that our neighboring states do not allow.

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.

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.

With Northern Pass, PSNH has proposed a project where the negative impacts are instantly and universally obvious. PSNH wants to permanently disfigure the North Country's most valuable economic and natural asset - its unspoiled beauty - to deliver power not produced in the U.S. and not needed in New Hampshire. At seven recent North Country hearings on the project, more than 2,300 people testified eloquently in opposition.

For anyone who hasn't been tuned in, the proposal involves 33 wind-turbine towers 410 feet high with blinking lights on top, strung out over 6.5 miles of ridge-line smack in the middle of the North Country, aided and abetted by nearly 40 miles of construction and service roads and a new 5.8-mile transmission line. The ballyhooed "enough power for 33,000 homes" will go as a drop in the bucket into the massive New England Power Pool -- and this from a state that already generates twice as much power as it consumes. In the end, it will support only seven jobs.

A moratorium on Big Wind Farms in New Hampshire, makes absolute sense. I applaud Representative Harold "Skip" Reilly (R-Grafton) for his forward thinking on this matter. Reilly has proposed legislation calling for a moratorium on all wind power construction until the state updates its energy plan. (HB-580 and HB-484). Get back to basics and start asking important questions.