On March 17, the state Department of Environmental Protection rejected for a third time Gamesa Energy's plan to install industrialized wind turbines on Shaffer Mountain. What part of "no" doesn't Gamesa - and Berwind Corp. - understand? DEP's eight-page "Technical Deficiency Letter" was sent to Timothy Vought of Shaffer Mountain Wind LLC and lists questions that must be answered if the permit application is to be resubmitted.

The Wall Street Journal recently noted that increasing wind power to 20 percent in the next two decades alone would require a $2 trillion investment. Energy costs already strain household budgets, especially those of lower-income families and individuals. This year, U.S. households bringing home less than $50,000 a year - that is, half of households - will spend a quarter of their after-tax income on energy, double the percentage they spent in 2001.

Audubon Pennsylvania and others concerned about bird habitat on the Susquehanna River are relieved that Norfolk Southern Corp. is no longer considering building a wind turbine at its Enola freight yard. It's particularly good news, they contend, for the state's only colony of great egrets on Wade Island north of Enola. ...This is a great example of why Pennsylvania needs a formal windmill-siting process that would include environmental and other research within a legal framework.

In response to your recent article on wind farms in Tioga County, it was with a blatant disrespect for their own Subdivision and Land Development Ordnance, the Tioga County Planning Commission (TCPC) voted unanimously to give AES conditional preliminary approval for AES’ Armenia Mountain Wind Farm at their December 13th meeting. Several specific ordnances were ignored or purposely misapplied ...

As with all new development, there needs to be proper guidelines and regulations that best serve the needs of residents, industry and the environment. That's a daunting task for any agency, especially when you factor in new types of massive developments and changes in technology. It's a good idea for the commission to review the policies impacted by wind turbine development.

I have read Gamesa's Mr. Michael Peck's and Mr. Tim Vought's articles in the Daily American. I would like to comment on a few of Mr. Peck and Mr. Vought's observations. Mr. Peck stated, "Any claim made that Gamesa did not provide accurate information to the Windber Area Authority to review is false." The real truth of the matter is the Windber Area Authority did not receive any useful information concerning this project that anyone could make a qualified decision on given the massive scale of this project until our March 14 meeting, when we got the plans from a private citizen who obtained them from the Somerset Conservation District. If anyone says anything differently then they are speaking with a forked tongue.

Comparing Allegheny Ridge to Shaffer Mountain is like comparing apples to oranges. And these differences are the reason Gamesa's industrialization of this section of Shaffer Mountain will be stopped. It's all about the siting. The siting of these industrial facilities, if not regulated soon, may well doom the ablility of industrial wind to reach its full potential. The people of the Commonwealth are not going to stand for the destruction of the last of our highest quality wild habitats, especially when we have hundreds of thousands of acres of reclaimed strip mines, with great wind, that have already been destroyed.

Also, as I draft this response, I have just received confirmation that the Public meeting and Public Hearing for NPDES Permit No. PA 105560700 1; Proposed Shaffer Mountain Wind Farm, Ogle and Shade townships, Somerset County and Napier Township, Bedford County will be held on Tuesday, Aug. 28, at the Shade-Central City High School. I'll be there - will you? In closing, in regards to your mentioning Newton's third law of motion, I would add this - "Desperate people do desperate things" and so it goes with the industrialization of Shaffer Mountain. Desperation on your and Gamesa's part, Tim Vought! We will "Save The Mountain!"

Gamesa's guest column last week, written by their corporate spokesman, Michael Peck, is an example of spin, half-truths and out and out untruths that Gamesa has tried to use to promote its proposed Shaffer Mountain wind plant. Gamesa starts out by referring to those opposing the Shaffer Mountain wind plant as "anti-wind advocates." Nothing could be further from the truth.

How did Gamesa Corporation, a wind-energy company from Spain, find Shaffer Mountain, a small section of the Allegheny Front in Pennsylvania, which lies in Somerset and Bedford counties? Although we do not know all the details, we do know in 2004, that Gov. Rendell and Kathleen McGinty, secretary of Department of Environmental Protection, enticed Gamesa to abandon plans to build in Texas, by promising Gamesa that it would receive millions of dollars in grants, loans, and tax credits, financed with taxpayers' money. Federal income tax shelters will allow Gamesa to avoid paying taxes owed and thereby recover two-thirds of the capital cost of each turbine - about $2 million each. We also know that Gamesa has received tax-free status through 2018 by locating on land that is a Keystone Opportunity Improvement Zone. Even before Gamesa started construction in our state, the company had purchase agreements and letters of intent to sell 400 megawatts worth of wind-generated power to Pennsylvania utilities. But how did Gamesa find Shaffer Mountain? It's simple: Shaffer Mountain has wind.

Tilting at Windmills" on May 18 may have left some readers unaware that there are factual reasons for intelligent, well-adjusted people to oppose the construction of wind turbine complexes in the county. Conflict lies between those who wish to preserve the natural character of large tracts of undeveloped land and those who do not care or are among the few who will benefit financially from turbines.

Permitting the placement of windmills in state forests and parks would be an abomination -- an outrage against the very concept of public lands set aside to permit the enjoyment of nature, preserve habitat for wild animals and plants, and protect watersheds.

We have a fiduciary duty to our customers and our local governing bodies who also went on record as opposing Wind turbine development in the watershed. We cannot take any chance what so ever that would endanger the future water supply, which has always been of exceptional quality.

So I have to question how "green" are efforts that clear forested acreage when these industrial wind turbines could be placed on marginal lands. The industry tells us it's too expensive, but considering how many subsidies the wind industry is receiving in Pennsylvania, I believe they should do this right the first time. If we can put a man on the moon, surely we can put an industrial windmill on an abandoned strip mine.

On Feb. 16, Commonwealth Court issued a unanimous ruling that reversed Judge Conahan on the township’s decision to reject plans for the bulk of the project. This will significantly delay wind park construction and ensure that new submissions will have to conform to a wind park ordinance recently enacted by Bear Creek Township. This decision also makes us optimistic about the zoning appeal’s outcome. It remains a mystery why county officials would spend $4 million of taxpayer funds on a valuable property only to step aside and allow it to be appropriated by others. We hope that Judge Conahan will have the decency to recuse himself from further rulings on this issue. We also hope that county commissioners will wake up and begin to protect this valuable land resource. In the meantime, we will continue to defend our watershed.

Let us not forget that we are sacrificing precious forest, rural areas and adjoining home values for an industry that cannot make a profit without huge tax subsidies, is 30 percent efficient in Pennsylvania and will not decrease our dependence on foreign oil or provide significant amount of steady electricity at a reasonable price (without subsidies and tax breaks). Once these areas are desecrated, it will be many years before any semblance of our natural areas and scenic vistas are restored.

Another announcement of plans to build a large wind farm along a Pennsylvania ridgetop brings additional emphasis to the urgent need for the state to enact a windmill-siting protocol. Failure to do so threatens to dramatically alter Pennsylvania’s ridge and valley landscape to a degree not seen since the 19th-century lumber barons denuded Penn’s Woods.

The basic problem with the 1836 law in the modern era is that it unfairly imposes the consequences of one person’s actions on others who had no role in them. Greene and Wolfe didn’t cause Noblit’s problem, and they should not have to pay for his decision back in 1972 to buy a landlocked parcel without first securing a right-of-way to the property. And while he may be planning to take timber, the fact that he is seeking a right of way large enough for a two-lane road suggests he may be looking beyond that to putting something of greater and more enduring impact on the mountaintop.

Renewable energy sources are a great hope for the future. But there is a time and place for everything. The time for the construction of wind power facilities is after environmental impact studies. The place is anywhere away from people and off of ridge-tops.

Like everything else, common sense and a decent respect for the other important elements in the equation must be part of windmill siting. While we understand that owners of windmills are looking for optimal wind conditions, if this energy source is to succeed on any scale it is going to have to apply more sophisticated approaches to deploy them under less than ideal but workable conditions, such as in urban settings and industrial parks. Unless the state adopts windmill-siting standards, it can only mean trouble for an alternative form of energy the Rendell administration is heavily promoting. That is not an approach that can make serious headway in moving the state away from its overreliance on fossil fuels.