If Pennsylvania had a scientifically sound and open windmill-siting process, possible conflicts such as this would be independently researched and decided. Without a legal framework to properly evaluate and make a determination, no one is well served -- not the public, not the wind industry, not those who want to take advantage of this technology, and certainly not the environment. We need a sound windmill-siting process in Pennsylvania -- and need it soon ...

Mr. Irons, your "spin" is nothing more than personal greed, the "Almighty Dollar", when it comes to Shaffer Mountain! ...I believe in leaving something "unspoiled" for future generation. My legacy is not $5,000 per wind turbine, per year, as is yours. My legacy is to protect the natural beauty of Shaffer Mountain from hypocrites such as you. With you Mr. Irons - It's all about money and nothing more.

Our area, in particular, does not seem to possess an accurate spot for windmills. Somerset County seems to be a target area for the windmill companies, which is fine, but no one seems to consider all parties involved. In my opinion, money has blinded many eyes and covered many ears. Is everyone taking into consideration the wildlife and trees that are abandoned and lost? What about the constant noises that can affect the nearby homeowners and their families? Somerset is a rural area. Many people retreat to our town to get away from life in the city and the sight of windmills seems to disturb the country scene that everyone has grown to know and love. ...I’m not anti-energy, but if proper locations are not located in Somerset, then windmills should be situated somewhere else, preferably a place where they seem more fitting and they will have less of an impact on people and nature.

But the fact is that while wind power is being promoted as an essential part of any credible response to climate change, it is increasingly being challenged and questioned, as indeed is the case with other so-called "renewable" forms of energy, such as corn-based ethanol. ...a National Research Council study released this year entitled "Environmental Effects of Wind Energy Projects," concluded that based on the expected maximum number of windmills to be built, wind would offset total expected higher carbon emissions by no more that 2.25 percent. Is that a difference worth allowing the ridge tops of Pennsylvania to be dotted with giant industrial-sized windmills?

On June 29, 2006, I sent a two-page letter to Mr. Vought in regards to his and Gamesa's offer. This is a "quote" from that letter. "You stated (Tim Vought) that the first phase of wind-power development would consist of 30 wind-powered turbines, the first year (2007). Also, 30 more to follow in the second phase, which would be approximately two years, with other phases being considered." You stated this would be a definite because of the vast land holdings of Berwind Corporation (7,935 + acres) which were leased to Gamesa. Berwind-Gamesa lease of Nov. 22, 2005, in effect Gamesa leases the Windber Area Authority Watershed! Mr. Vought, John Kott was definitely 100 percent right in his statement! ...In closing, your letter to the editor, "Some simple facts" turns out to be another Gamesa "smoke-screen" containing nothing more than spin, half-truths, and in some cases such as the Windber Area Authorities cutting of timber - totally false and untrue statements!

Clean energy, no greenhouse gases, less dependence on foreign oil, guaranteed revenue for Tyrone - what's the catch? Well, there are many definite and possible catches. Gamesa promises no negative impacts to Tyrone's drinking water, but I wonder if they can really build all of those giant wind turbines without erosion taking place. There is always the possibility of an accident as well. According to Stan Kotala, spokesperson for the Juniata Valley Audubon Society, the small environmental gain from building the windmills would be offset by a huge ecological cost. Sandy Ridge has been identified as an Important Bird Area and a greenway. The wind turbines threaten birds and building them causes forest fragmentation. Mayor Kilmartin points out in his analysis, "... the structures will take up the ridge tops that people so tremendously love about this community." And these are big structures, too. One can't really comprehend their 450-foot height until you get close.

Recent articles, stated the project will enhance the water quality at this site. Also, Gamesa states that protecting natural resources and wildlife is a "shared priority" with the community. If this is so, then why was there a rattlesnake study of the area done in November (when snakes are hibernating)? Why did Gamesa do a study on bird migration in July, when bird migration doesn't start until late August, September and October? How does bringing in large equipment to clear-cut the forest and building new roads improve water quality of streams that are already of the highest quality in the state?

I made a trip up to Blue Knob today, in response to a constituent complaint to hear and see the new wind turbines located along the mountain top. ...It was a windy day and the blades were really moving. The complaint we received was about how disruptive the noise was. I agree after going to the site myself that the noise is disturbing and certainly carried to the home of the people who contacted me. I was also surprised at the ground area needed to facilitate the turbines, which includes a wide road cut into the woods. There needs to be more discussion on the placement of these structures and their effect not only on the environment but on the people who live close by.

The business community by and large opposes Rendell's plan saying it smacks too much of government mandate and letting public officials pick which businesses will be "winners" in the race to build new green technology, Barr said [an official with the Pennsylvania Chamber of Business and Industry]. "I think we have to be cautious about government betting on a technology that may not be viable in 10 to 15 years," he added.

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.

It's time for the public to be heard. If we remain silent, we could open the door for exploitation: constant noise, day and night; irreparable damage to our groundwater resources and disruption of surface landscape; human health and safety risks - and the list goes on. We owe it to future generations not to sit idly by as the wind energy companies target Potter County. We can act today, or we can spend decades wishing that we would have.

The commercial wind industry must respect the people who reside in targeted development regions, and honor their right to healthy lives and peaceful enjoyment of their homes, by adopting meaningful setbacks -- measured in miles, not in feet. Continued installation of wind turbines throughout our rural and mountainous landscapes without scientific, impartial review of the impacts of this industrialization, will have devastating effects on some of the most precious ecosystems in the world.

... because wind energy development has associated environmental costs, wind energy development should only be instituted on state lands if the environmental benefits can be demonstrated to exceed the environmental costs. ... The environmental benefits of wind energy development, in the mid-Atlantic area in general and on Pennsylvania state lands in particular, are small relative to the negative consequences, which include habitat fragmentation and mortality to birds and bats.

Why don't we just admit that there is an energy crisis in the world and set about finding real solutions to our problems? Many of those opposed to wind energy development in Pennsylvania would drop their opposition, if wind energy were a serious approach to global warming and energy deficits. ...Unregulated wind turbine placement will lead us to massive deforestation and environmental damage, with energy benefits so small as to make a mockery of the entire approach.

Wind needs to be part of that solution. But a critical question is this: How far do you go in trying to save the planet by destroying it? We appreciate the urgency, but ravaging the planet in the name of saving it doesn't constitute an alternative-energy strategy as much as an alternative environmental calamity. There are many places where windmills would work fine without impact, but the entire effort is wasting valuable time trying to develop the optimum wind sites at the expense of every other consideration. That's an impediment to rigorously confronting climate change, not a solution.

The National Academy of Sciences concluded that long-term research is needed on the ecological impacts of wind turbines prior to their establishment on mid-Atlantic ridges. The academy recommended a minimum of three years for impact studies and that the results be made available for public and scientific scrutiny. Full results of industry-funded research at the Shaffer Mountain site are kept under lock and key and are therefore of dubious scientific value. ... The most reasonable compromise for the state Department of Environmental Protection and the state game commission is to place a moratorium on wind-turbine development in biologically important sites until the environmental impacts are fully understood.

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.

...the expected generating capacity of wind farms during heat waves -- when ozone alerts are more likely to occur and would be most serious -- is probably going to be far lower than their summertime average. AN OFTEN-POSED rhetorical question asks if "smokestacks" are preferable to wind farms -- a false choice. Thousands more wind turbines are coming, yet smokestacks will persist and likely increase in number. Wind turbines will not qualify as credible substitutes for building future power plants since they cannot be counted on to produce electricity when needed. They also will not result in the retirement of any existing power plant given the ever-increasing growth in demand for electricity in our region.

An objective analysis of windmills as even a partial solution to our energy needs just isn't cutting it. The numbers just don't add up. It maybe time to use the old adage, "Liars can figure, but figures don't lie". Obviously, the American Wind Energy Association is a powerful lobby taking us in a direction that will only result in that warm and fuzzy feeling, but our lights may not come on. From the Rocky Mountains to Texas to Maine people are finally beginning to question the logic and effectiveness of wind energy.

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.