Hearing draws mixed reaction on TransCanada's wind power petition

CARRABASSETT VALLEY – TransCanada's petition to add 156 acres to the state's accelerated, wind power development permitting process drew mixed reaction during a public hearing Wednesday.

FARtranscanada2P031810
Donna M. Perry/Sun Journal

TransCanada Maine Wind Development Inc. wants to expand its 44-wind turbine Kibby Wind Power Project in northern Franklin County by 15 turbines to encompass portions of Sisk Mountain in Chain of Ponds Township. At the top center of the map is a crooked gray line with dots that represent the additional turbines near the Canadian border.

FARtranscanadaP1031810
Donna M. Perry/Sun Journal

Eustis Selectman Jay Wyman testified Wednesday in front of the Maine Land Use Regulation Commission in favor of TransCanada's petition to include an additional 156 acres in the state's fast-track wind permitting area. He also spoke highly of the company and the benefits the area has seen since the original 44 wind turbine project began being developed in 2008 in northern Franklin County. He urged approval of the proposed expansion.

TransCanada Maine Wind Development Inc., a subsidiary of Canadian-based energy, TransCanada Corp., initially submitted a petition to add 631 acres to the state's approved fast-track permitting area. However, TransCanada submitted a revised petition on March 10 with the smaller acreage and excluding the southern peak of Sisk Mountain in Chain of Ponds Township.

The company proposes to add 15 turbines to the 44 already permitted in 2008 for the Kibby Wind Power Project in northern Franklin County. It has enough property in the state's approved expedited permitting area to fit all of the 15 turbines, but company representative Terry Bennett said it would be a tight fit.

Sections of Mount Pisgah and the peak of Sisk Mountain will screen views of the turbines from most areas in the Chain of Ponds, Jean Vissering, a visual assessment expert for TransCanada, testified at the rule-making hearing.

TransCanada is the first to ask the state to add land, not already in an approved area, to the fast-track process for a wind development permit. The state established the expedited permitting area for wind energy development in 2008.

Eustis Selectman Jay Wyman testified for company's request and presented the commission with a petition with nearly 100 signatures. He said the approved project has benefited the town, rejuvenating businesses throught the influx of people connected to the project spending money. The $100,000 to $200,000 the company plans to give to the town annually would offset property taxes, Wyman said.

Jody Jones, a wildlife ecologist with Maine Audubon Society, said that group would oppose TransCanada's petition because it would not meet all of the goals of LURC's Land Use Comprehensive Plan.

Dylan Voorhees, clean energy director for the Natural Resource Council of Maine, said the conservation group supports the state's goals to develop 2,000 megawatts of wind power by 2015 to reduce dependence on fossil fuels.

The council “recognizes the balance that must be struck between producing clean energy and protecting mountain and scenic resources. In our final analysis we find part of this project achieves that balance, and part of it does not,” Voorhees said.

In a joint press release, the Maine Audubon Society, the Natural Resources Council of Maine and the Appalachian Mountain Club said  they would support the most northern portion of the proposed expansion for eight turbines, but not the location of the seven turbines proposed for the most southern portion. They said it would harm subalpine habitat and threaten wildlife and scenic and recreational resources.

The Maine Land Use Regulation Commission agreed to expand the written comment period from the end of March to the end of April to allow people to respond to the revised petition. After that, there will be seven days to accept rebuttal.

dperry@sunjournal.com

Stay informed — Get the news delivered for free in your inbox.

I'm interested in ...

In order to make comments, you must verify your account.

In order to comment on SunJournal.com, you must use your real name and include the town in which you live in your profile. A member of our staff will call you to verify this information. To join in, fill out your user profile completely and check the box "please verify my status." We'll get back to you within one business day to verify your account.

Login or create an account here.

Our policy prohibits comments that are:

  • Defamatory, abusive, obscene, racist, or otherwise hateful
  • Excessively foul and/or vulgar
  • Inappropriately sexual
  • Baseless personal attacks or otherwise threatening
  • Contain illegal material, or material that infringes on the rights of others
  • Commercial postings attempting to sell a product/item
If you violate this policy, your comment will be removed and your account may be banned.

Advertisement

Displaying comments, from newest to oldest

Blueyes1119's picture
verified

Envoronmental Groups

Shame on all the leading Maine environmental groups for supporting the desecration of Maine's mountains and other upland areas---don't forget the northeastern part of the state:  "FirstWindiana"!  There are many alternatives to support for world-wide efforts to impact climate change issues than 45 or more sprawling industrial wind sites flung along the majestic mountains and uplands of Maine from Aroostook to the Mahoosucs.  Be NIMBYs about it, damn it!  Stop selling out the natural resources and unique beauty of Maine!  There is not one good reason to support industrial wind power anywhere in this state.

Buzzardbob's picture

Maine Audubon

I was the a county coordinator for Maine Audubon's Loon count for approximately seven years. Over that time I threatened to resign that important and difficult volunteer position because Maine Audubon's politics were often (not always) at odds with my positions and what I thought was good for the environment. They were continually allowing themselves to be used by organizations like SAM and DIF&W as, in my opinion, a shill for anti environmental issues. While I recognize that some of their work in the past has been beneficial and important, I continue to find their political stances very, very, suspect. I finally did resign in anger after they, one more time,  allowed their name to be used as the token environmental group on a panel making lousy decisions about wildlife in Maine. Their stance on wind is not a healthy one for Maine's birds, bats and mountain tops and I continue to be appalled by their and NRCM's position in this extremely important issue.

PenobScot's picture

NRCM

 

NRCM = Not Really Considering Mainers

 

PenobScot's picture

What Does NRCM Stand For These Days?

NRCM = Now Raping and Clearing Mountaintops

NRCM = National Raptor Clipping Machine

NRCM = Nearby Residents Can Move

NRCM = NEVER RENEWING COUNCIL MEMBERSHIP

 

SaveMeMts's picture

No Compromise

The plaintive bleats of these sell-out “enviro” agencies  has grown thin and indefensible. Now they resort to their final salvos – we must do it to save the planet and the mountains of Maine are to be the sacrificial lamb. While they scramble to justify their deals with the devil, Mainers have awoken to the industrial wind sham and are not going to stand by while they attempt to sell the soul of this state in exchange for its destruction. The Kibby project itself, and now its proposed expansion into the Chain of Ponds, is an unthinkable abomination. There is nothing, nothing that justifies it. Compromise on this is cowardly; stop the expansion. 

use less's picture
verified

In a VT Public Radio news

In a VT Public Radio news story on March 12, 2010, regarding Trans Canada asking for a reappraisal of the hydro dams they own on the Connecticut River, Cleve Kapala, of TransCanada said, "I mean the plants are obviously worth less today than they were pre recession and pre-oversupply of electricity.http://vpr.net/news_detail/87443/ )
Why then, if Trans Canada knows there's an oversupply of electricity and is asking for a lower appraisal on their dams, are they simultaneously applying to expand their industrial wind plant on Kibby Mtn in Maine?
 
Due to the recession, conservation and efficiency there is lower demand for electricity. there is currently a glut of power in the New England market. The price of natural gas and wholesale price of electricity are lower than they've been in years and are predicted to remain low for the forseeable future. So the question must be asked,  why do we need to destroy Maine's mountains with inefficient, unreliable industrial scale wind turbines?  
The obvious answer is, to collect subsidies, tax credits, double accelerated depreciation, renewable energy certificates, and now direct grants, paid with our tax dollars, and our grandchilren's tax dollars. This is what industrial wind "development" is really all about. Without these incentives, which we can ill afford, no one would consider building these useless monuments to gullibility, stupidity and greed.

Maine Audubon Society, the Natural Resources Council of Maine and the Appalachian Mountain Club and most so-called environmental organizations are serving the corporate interest from whom they get their funding. Trans Canada probably had no intention of putting turbines on Sisk Mtn but did so only to give MNRC an opportunity to finally oppose some.

 

Queenie's picture
verified

$nvironmental Group$

Environmental groups take big buck from corporate sponsors like Reed & Reed who stand to make big bucks erecting wind turbines.

They have been tainted and I will no longer support them. They have sold out the vision of Gov. Baxter and others who saw the need to protect our environment, not sell it to the highest bidder. Shame on them!

PenobScot's picture

Read Why the So Called Environmental Groups are Dead Wrong

These groups are advocating desecration of places they spent their careers saving - all in the name of avoiding CO2 emissions. At first, some opponents of wind power pointed out that if you rip out trees to build a turbine, you are operating at cross purposes with respect to CO2. To try and refute this, NRCM published figures that show that wind farms are superior to forest with respect to CO2.

Well, we have used these exact figures NRCM has published to show how off base their lynchpin CO2 argument is. We are not debating global warming as part of this discussion. We are simply showing well beyond any reasonable doubt that the mass desecration of Maine they advocate is completely out of scale to the virtually non-existent CO2 reductions from the 1,800 turbines they have strongly pushed for.

In a nutshell it can be summed up as follows:

The CO2 emissions avoided by the planned 360 miles of turbines as well as their roads and massive new statewide costly transmission lines are equivalent to the CO2 captured by a mere 1% of the Maine Woods.

Please read the short presentation on this at the website of the Citizens' Task Force on Wind Power - Maine entitled "Maine's Wind Goals, CO2 and the Forest" at   http://www.windtaskforce.org You can find it by clicking on "Blogs" and scrolling down.

Unlike the so called environmental groups who get paid money to come to work, the Citizens' Task Force on Wind Power - Maine is 100% volunteer and we do this for the land and the people of Maine, not for money.

 

 

 

PenobScot's picture

The So Called Environmental Groups Now Know Better

I used to belong to all three of these groups. None anymore. As I tell people I run into about their endorsement of wind and why I think it is wrong, their support melts away.

Very simply, these so called environmental groups are dead wrong on this issue and at this point they realize this and are backed into a corner that they know they must get out of, but don't know how. May I suggest revisiting the facts and changing their position?

This should be about saving our hallowed state, not saving face.

Advertisement