As members of the Wind Power Task Force, we appreciate the support in your Feb. 20 editorial (“Wind report a blow for Redington”), but note that it fails to address the task force’s commitment to the governor’s directive to guide development to appropriate areas.

The expedited permitting recommended by the task force would apply to organized towns and the lower-value fringe of the unorganized territory – places that already have some level of development and infrastructure. However, the task force agreed that encouraging development in the more remote, undeveloped core of the unorganized territories, or in the state’s higher-value mountain areas, was not appropriate.

The take-home message is that the task force does recommend an easier permitting path, but only for projects that are well sited in areas of lower conflict with significant natural resource values.

We disagree with your statements that the task force “artfully dodged” the Redington issue, or that it represents “the lone dose of politics” in the report. The Land Use Regulation Commission twice determined that this was not an appropriate site for development. The task force merely affirmed this decision.

You have it backwards – it would have been “politics” only if the task force had sought to overturn an existing permitting decision.

While it is not possible to eliminate all controversy in siting projects of this scale, we believe the recommendations will help narrow the range of conflict and move the state toward the dual goals of renewable energy development and natural resource conservation.

David Publicover, Gorham, N.H.

Senior staff scientist, Appalachian Mountain Club

Jody Jones, Falmouth

Wildlife ecologist, Maine Audubon

Only subscribers are eligible to post comments. Please subscribe or to participate in the conversation. Here’s why.

Use the form below to reset your password. When you've submitted your account email, we will send an email with a reset code.