Rumford residents have a unique opportunity to protect themselves from intrusive noise, environmental damage, loss of property value, tourist dollars and quality of life. It’s easier to loosen restrictions on a zoning ordinance "after the fact" than it is to tighten them once a development is built.
What if the residents vote down the zoning ordinance, wind turbines come and people can't abide them?
What if they do cause health problems? What if residents learn this is not as much about clean, renewable energy as it is about huge government subsidies? What if people discovered they had lost their iconic ridges for a false promise?
Rumford voters have the opportunity to take control of what happens to their mountains and to keep their quality of life. Many Mainers don't have the same freedoms.
In Maine’s unorganized territories, residents can’t determine siting for wind developments. We cannot ban them. We’re at the mercy of an overworked Land Use Regulation Commission, inundated regularly by proposals for wind turbine developments all across Maine.
Wind developers are in this for public tax dollars. Science and economics prove that these are not the panacea the industry and Maine's administration claim.
Rumford must keep its sense of community. Don't get angry at those who are doing what they believe is right. Be proud that there are people who will stand in the face of big money and power, protecting others against all odds.
I wish I had the same opportunity to protect everything that's special about Maine.
Karen Bessey Pease, Lexington Township
Report a correction
Highly Recommended Reading for Taxpayers and Ratepayers
I read this great post today at the website of the Citizens Task Force on Wind Power in Maine. If you a re a taxpayer or ratepayer, this is highly recommended reading.
Feel great about what you are doing to help others...
TEN RATEPAYER AND TAXPAYER SUBSIDIES
The total cost of wind turbines and transmission upgrades, as envisioned by recently enacted Maine law, will be $7 billion. Via electric rates and taxes, Mainers will pay for this, but it will produce less than 700 megawatts of electricity.
Policymakers in the federal government have determined that certain energy sources are more desirable and less viable than others, so government incentives are granted to various energies. Here are the federal taxpayer subsidies paid by energy source in dollars per MW/Hour:
Natural Gas and Oil $.25
Geothermal $.92
Hydroelectric $.67
Coal $.44
Nuclear $1.59
Wind $23.37
1. Wind projects can take the “cash in lieu of investment tax credit” or the 1.9 cent production tax credit. For example, in 2009, First Wind, Maine’s most active wind developer, took over $100 million of federal taxpayer “cash in lieu” monies. In 2009 $849 million (or 84%) of US subsidies went to overseas companies.
Iberdrola of Spain took $545 million through its American subsidiary. Almost all of the billions of taxpayer dollars spent on US wind projects was for wind turbines, blades, and nacelles which were manufactured in foreign countries.
2. Wind developers also take a federal subsidy of 2.1 cents in renewable energy credit per kilowatt produced. Taxpayers bear this cost.
3. Despite creating imperceptible numbers of jobs, wind projects in Maine routinely get Tax Increment Financing and Community Benefit Arrangements which reduce their property tax obligations, thereby passing on tax burdens to other taxpayers.
4. Wind power is unpredictable, intermittent, and cannot be stored. So it must be used or lost as it is generated. The nature of this electricity requires an overbuilt grid that can handle these wild fluctuations and thermal stresses. Additionally, wind power is sited remotely, far from load (end users) so transmission costs are exacerbated even while electrons are lost in the distance traveled. Utilities build these unnecessary power lines and charge their ratepayers for the cost.
5. The only way that wind power can grow and still preserve system reliability is with grid expansion, like CMP’s $1.4 billion transmission upgrade (MPRP). Ratepayers will pay for this upgrade – as well as similar upgrades in the other New England states – through their electric bills.
6. In order to meet New England’s anticipated 12,000 MW of wind power buildup, the New England ISO forecasts building 4,320 new miles of transmission infrastructure with midrange costs between $19 and $25 billion. Ratepayers will get the bill.
7. Utilities are under pressure to acquire renewable energy (or credits) from wind farms in order to comply with the state Renewable Portfolio Standards. For each missing megawatt hour of renewable energy where the mandated percentages are not met, nearly every state in New England imposes a fee that is collected by each State's Public Utility Commission (PUC). The cost for either the renewable energy credit or the compliance fee is passed on to ratepayers in the form of higher electricity bills.
8. Current requirements mandate penalty payments for not meeting minimum renewable generating capacity levels. Penalties are currently 6 cents per Kw/Hr, escalating with inflation. Maine’s CMP & Bangor Hydro are presented with the incentive to sign with Maine wind generators to expensive long term contracts, or risk paying penalties with nothing to show for it. Maine ratepayers get the bill either way.
9. In the Pacific Northwest the Bonneville Power Authority overbuilt wind power for export to California, a state that mandated more renewable consumption. This critical mass of wind power is so difficult for the grid’s ISO to manage, it necessitated initiation of a surcharge on wind power which will be passed on to ratepayers. Maine’s buildup for Southern New England users could result in the same outcome.
10. Since Maine’s statutory wind generation goal will be intermittent and will largely produce off-peak and off-season, the ISO-NE will have to procure quick-start generation to back-up wind and to balance the grid. Not only does this require maintaining excess capacity in traditional generating plants like natural gas, it renders such traditional plants inefficient as they constantly start and stop, like city versus highway driving. Aside from increasing emissions, these combined capitol generation costs and inefficiency costs are shared among grid participants (socialized). They are not paid by the renewable generators, but by ratepayers.
http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/10-ways-today-you-will-both
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Kudos AwardedDisagree (1) Agree (1)
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.Insights from a similar town
Karen Pease has written a thoughtful letter. Here's some insight from a community not all that different than Rumford: Watertown, in upstate New York is a mill town, in a tourism region, in an area where industrial wind sites are proliferating and causing controversy. Here is an excerpt from the Watertown Daily Times:
The town's wind economics committee. . .which released its report Oct. 7, saw risks to property values, school district aid and tourism. On the other hand, wind power projects would have payments for landowners and for taxing jurisdictions through payment-in-lieu-of-taxes agreements.
The report also briefly pointed to other financial risks, including the failure of the developer to pay agreed payments, the owner terminating operation and the owner not saving enough money for decommissioning costs. The town and residents could incur legal fees from disagreements or disputes.
To limit the possibility of economic harm, the committee recommended that the town:
--Adopt a zoning law that considers all effects of wind power development.
--Create a planned development district in the town for turbines.
--Negotiate PILOT agreements that "fairly and fully compensate" the town.
--Require compensation to individuals for effects that can't be mitigated.
--Require property value protection assurance.
--Require a buyout plan for properties negatively affected.
--Require bonding to ensure compliance.
--Establish a reserve fund to cover any town-incurred project costs.
--Establish a decommissioning plan.
Rumford is on the right track in creating an ordinance and kudos to the town officials and citizens who have raised so many pertinent questions to First Wind. I hope the residents of Rumford approve the ordinance; they will never regret it.
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Kudos AwardedAgree (2) Disagree (1)
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.Civic Duty and Property Rights
And for those landowners appalled at anyone opposing these wind mills as an infringement on their rights, let's understand your neighbor's rights and the visual and sound impact these turbines will create. These turbines will also impact anyone who purchases electricity from the grid. As President Obama said, " Electrical prices will skyrocket " with the programs in place and programs contemplated to be put in place to get this renewable energy established. Are not civic duties in play here ? Ask yourself where you stand in relationship to your neighbors and the community. Money given by Government is not the same as money earned.
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Kudos AwardedDisagree (2) Agree (3)
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.Ordinance them OUT before Your life is Ruined!
Wind Lobbying and Expedited DEP “process” have been used to site projects. Now real world science shows the LIES of Big Wind Liars! Only industry generated computer modeling propaganda for siting projects up until now, then poof, THEY ARE FRIGGIN NOISY!.
NOW INDEPENDENT REALTIME STUDIES OF REAL WORLD TURBINE NOISE ISSUES have been done !
Why no real world analysis to date, in a state with several fully functional projects, all causing noise issues for Maine residents? Mars Hill would be a great test ground of real world science,( but residents there have to sue to protect their rights and health!).
Big Wind liars use no science, just wind propaganda to site projects!
Their computer noise models are bogus, designed to site as many turbines they can in a piece of given real estate for economic means only. They want the subsidy credits, and don't give one damn about the public health, property damage or environmental damage they create, other than to get the things up. Even their SEC filing confirms this; they need not make power at all to get federal subsidy credits!
(See First Wind SEC IPO s1-a filings)
For these reasons alone this insanity must be stopped and NOW!
GET REALTIME SCIENCE DATA ON SETBACKS!
Rumford is being lied to, Lincoln was lied to .Freedom was lied to . Danforth was lied to .Vinalhaven was lied to . THE BIG LIES OF BIG WIND , from scammers like FIRST WIND! If allowed ,Maine will suffer increased electricity rates, noise pollution, no CO2 reductions, life style deterioration and highland destruction, for a scam.
"THE BIG LIE”, called Big Wind, Maine!
STOP THIS IDIOCY NOW, WITH REASON, Economic Cost/benefit analysis and real world, real time noise data .
THEY DON’T WORK W/O Abutter Noise Damage.
The science is now flowing in!
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Kudos AwardedDisagree (2) Agree (8)
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.Are these real time science
Are these real time science studies done by the same people who brought us their warnings about Climate Change? If so, I would take anything they claim with a HUGE dose of salt!
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Kudos AwardedDisagree (1) Agree (1)
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.Bill, Karen Pease, qwenky,
Bill, Karen Pease, qwenky, blueyes to name a few would fit in your catagory of Climate Change nuts who strongly believe to this day that Climate Change is for real. Also they are NOT from Rumford or live in Rumford. They would impose their agenda on we who are however. They also fail to disclose their connections as required by FTC Rules. Karen Pease is a realtor who would have developers of any kind forced to guarantee property values exclusive of any other factor so she doesn't have to do her job but would be guaranteed her commission at highest value.
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Kudos AwardedDisagree (5) Agree (2)
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.Libelous
"Karen Pease is a realtor who would have developers of any kind forced to guarantee property values exclusive of any other factor so she doesn't have to do her job but would be guaranteed her commission at highest value".
That is libelous.
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Kudos AwardedDisagree (1) Agree (1)
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.I'm impressed by what a good
I'm impressed by what a good job Rumford has done to try and craft a zoning ordinance that protects its citizens from the negative impacts of industrial wind. I wish the town of Carthage had been as respectful to its own citizens. A petition for a one mile set back was presented to the selectmen over fifty days ago but has not been acted upon. Once those industrial turbines go up, there's no going back. We've got to get this right the first time because we'll be living with these huge rusting metal towers for the rest of our lives.
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Kudos AwardedDisagree (2) Agree (6)
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.