I just got this in from Justin Turco in Vermont. It seems that Iberdrola is not content to simply steal our subsidy money and destroy businesses and lives by developing strictly private land. Now they are trying to steal our National Forests as well.
It’s time we were all outraged! This sort of thing can not be allowed to continue indefinetly!
The following information from Justin is important for all of us. Please take the time to read it, and if you can, attend one of the meetings, or send written comments. If projects like this are allowed to be built in our National Forests, then we really must conclude that nothing is sacred anymore.
DC
Next Thursday night in Rutland (6 p.m.) and the following Tuesday night in Readsboro (6 p.m.), the USFS is holding open houses to accept public input on the proposed expansion of the Searsburg wind project. Instead of 200 foot tall turbines, the new ones would be 400 feet tall, in critical bear habitat, acknowledged to contribute to bird and bat deaths, and requiring restricting access to land set aside in perpetuity for public and wildlife, not a large Spanish corporation, Iberdrola.
The SDEIS contains two maps in the appendices showing possible other locations to build wind turbines on USFS land in Vermont. Here is a link to one of the maps.
This is a link to the explanation. Note that all the sites are referred to at “Iberdrola #_”
http://a123.g.akamai.net/7/123/11558/abc123/forestservic.download.akamai.com/11558/www/nepa/9046_FSPLT2_031126.pdfIf this project goes forward, it sets a precedent that will be hard to overcome. Please come to the meetings and spread the word to get others to come. Because of its location and area interest, I suspect the Rutland meeting will be better attended than the Readsboro one, so if you are in Southern Vermont, please do everything you can to get people to attend that meeting. [note that as of the time of this email going out, the forest service website is down so none of the materials are currently available. Check back later.]
Written public comment is not due until Feb. 18. There is no need to provide written comment right now, and we hope to get you some specific information in time for the written public comment period. Right now is the time to show up in person, and ask the USFS to deny the permit. This is our land, it is the home of wild creatures who need it.
<http://www.benningtonbanner.com/local/ci_17090845>
Justin Turco
867 Cross Road,
Ira, Vermont
05777
January 15, 2011
Dear Ms. Madrid,
Thank You for the opportunity to comment on the proposed “Deerfield Wind” project on our National Forest Lands in Searsberg and Readsboro.
Before a project proposal reaches your desk for approval of a “special use permit” two things must be shown to the Public Service Board (PSB) of Vermont:
1) The project is in the interest of the “public good”.
2) That there is a need for the power. These two goals were not met in the issuance of “Docket 7250: Certificate of Public Good” to Deerfield Wind by the PSB
1) Being in the “good of the public” requires more than a statement full of empty buzzwords that the project: “Will produce clean, renewable energy.” It would require a project that isn’t 30% paid for by the taxpayer, doesn’t “cash in” on the production tax credit, doesn’t allow the devloper to depreciate the project in 5 years, sell and the next guy depreciate the project in 5 years, sell and the next guy…., it would also require that the developer doesn’t sell the renewable energy credits, which drive up the costs of other goods and services. Wind doesn’t produce the power that the industry repeatedly touts it is “capable” of producing. It produces 25 to 30% of that number. Most importantly it would require a project that actually makes power which a grid manager can count on to be available when needed. Wind never does that. The developer claims 9 jobs will be created. History indicates that this number will be about 2. Each of these jobs have been shown to destroy 2.4 jobs in other sectors due to money being shifted away from other industrys. Per Paul Johnson, the NFS Energy Coordinator, the NF second level of screening, Criteria 2 says: is it in the public interest? On June 29-30, 2010 at a conference in Boston, Paul said, “The answer depends on the position at the LOCAL level.” I interpret that to mean our local Forest Supervisor under the direction of people at a local level. As a local, and for the many reasons above, I respectfully submit that the Deerfield Wind project is not in the public interest.
2) Do we need this energy? No. We’ve got 32,000 MW of capacity in New England. Our daily load is 22,000. Vermont, with a daily load of 1200 MW only uses 1/18 of the energy used in New England. I feel no responsibility to destroy parts of our Green Mountain National Forest to solve somebody’s “perceived” energy shortage in the city. (As a side note: Vermont Yankee, which only produces 620 stable MW, is also not needed. Point 133 in PSB Docket 7250 incorrectly identifies why it is that the Deerfield Wind project will NOT displace baseload hydro or nuclear power on the grid. The correct answer: Wind, being so variable, can’t.)
In your issuance of a special use permit, I would think it must be shown that the benefit to the public must outweigh the environmental impact of a project. As you know, one of the 3 deciding board members at the PSB (John Burke) didn’t feel that this project met that requirement. He did not want to issue the Cert. of Public Good. His dissenting comments are at the end of Docket 7250.
I carefully read in it’s entirety, the history of the creation of our National Forests in the US, from a document on the Forest Service Website. I was repeatedly struck by the clear message that our National Forests are here to “De-Develop” ,“take areas back in history”, “regenerate forests”, “protect the land and wildlife”, “Help LOCAL economies and people” (This Spanish Energy Developer isn’t going to do that.), and accomplish a fundamental goal of “restoring lost forests of the entire nation“. The Deerfield Wind project goes against each one of the historical purposes of the National Forest.
With good reason. Our Agency of Natural Resources is strongly against this project. Not just the Western array, but also the Eastern array. Point 155 of docket 7250. The entire project is in a headwaters area above 1500 feet. 11 streams will be affected . There will be 18 storm water discharge points, 10 of which are above 2,500 feet msl. Clean water comes from up high, not from the beaver flows below. Destroying this habitat with 28,000 bear scarred beech in the vicinity of the project area isn’t made right by the developer conserving some ALSO “critical” bear habitat somewhere else. In todays world we need both parcels of “critical” bear habitat. The National Geographic Magazine just released a photo showing the 32 bats, 4 song birds and one raptor killed by a single average turbine over the course of a year in Pennsylvania. Adding the (15) 400 foot turbines from this project, to the existing 200 foot turbines on private land in Searsberg to the wind turbines in the nearby proposed Hoosac Wind Farm makes for a significant cumulative environmental impact. Page 86 of docket 7250 says this area is also home to: moles, voles, mice, shrews and weasel. “Extensive” beaver wetlands near the western array are habitat for mink, river otter, and beaver. Eastern Cottontail, snowshoe hare, E. Chipmunk, gray squirrel, red squirrel and flying squirrel (and who doesn‘t love those things!), fisher, bobcat, coyote, red and gray fox. My conclusion: this is not a sterile stand of rock maple.
Pg 21 of PSB Docket 7250 says that the project “must” comply with the visual qualities of the NF Plan, and then on page 62 it says that the PSB determined the project “is out of character and incompatable to existing landscape. Ms. Madrid, as an average person I submit to you, the Deerfield Wind project will offend my sensibilities. It is offensive and shocking because it IS out of character with its surroundings and significantly diminishes the scenic qualities of the area.
From the “initial screening criteria” for projects on NF lands:
Criteria 3: Addresses public health or safety concerns.
This project treads very close to the line. It has been calculated that Searsberg resident, Thomas Shea will experience noise levels of 42 db (averaged out over a one hour period of time) at his home as a cumulative result of this project. The maximum is 45db at the exterior and 35 db in the bedroom. Does it take one hour of noise to wake you up at night? Intermittent spikes in the noise level due to 180 mph blade tip speeds, the twump of the blades passing the tower, and the intermittent phasing or synching of individual turbines with turbines nearby will penetrate and vibrate his house like a drum. As it has in other communities, this will ruin his good nights sleep and change his life. Ice throw, structural failure (one of the existing turbines in searsberg has already come crashing down and a year ago one fell in Fenner, NY.), and shadow flicker as well as a host of other health concerns follow with the activation of an industrial wind facility. This are reasons in part why they will gate the roads and “post” the area.
Gating the roads and posting the area, creates an “exclusive use” situation. Per Paul Johnson the FS’s Agency Energy Cordinator, Criteria 4 of the initial level screening says a project can’t create an exclusive right of use. I have documented photos of the gated road of a back entrance to Iberdrola’s Lempster facility. They would take even a sailors breath away. Vermonters don’t appreciate being shut out of our land.
FSH 2709.11, Chapter 10, Section 12.32a states: the proponent must explain the selection of the location of the proposed use and why use of National forest System lands is necessary and why lands under other ownership cannot be used, Forest Service policy goes on to state “Deny proposals for use of National Forest System lands when the request is based solely on affording the proponent with a lower cost or less restrictive location than can be obtained on non-Federal lands.”
The developer is concerned about costs and in documented testimony has claimed the project isn’t economically viable without both the east and west portions of the project being built. That is not our problem. There are other private lands available that could be pursued.
This project sets a precedent for wind development in the Green Mountain National Forest that will ricochet across the nation. Right now 37 viable wind development sites have been identified in the GMNF. The Deerfield Project comprises site 31, an 8,000 foot long ridge, and 33, a 6,800 foot long ridge, but per FS documents, Site 35 is nearly identical in many ways. What is to keep another developer from coming along and saying, “I‘ll take site 35, a 20,447 foot long ridge. You did it for Iberdrola, do it for me.”
And finally, I would like to speak to something that I have personally witnessed on more than one occasion from Iberdrola. Iberdrola publicly decries the “process”. My response to that, sorry but your trying to destroy my Yellowstone National Park. This is where I recreate. This is where my great grandkids will recreate someday when everything else is used up. It’s where they will go to catch a string of dark bellied native brook trout. And like many Vermonters have done in the past, where they will creep back into this “land of plenty” to fill their freezer with venison. Iberdrola’s Sr. Permitting Manager, has got to the point where she no longer see the difference between a place like our National Forest and a field next to an interstate in Kansas, on private land. The sense that they know what is right for us, that John Q. Public can’t think for himself and an oozing attitude of self entitlement (no doubt from the billion dollars in free money they got from our government last year) makes me sick.
The Deerfield Wind Project is just a small part of the impending useless destruction of Vermont’s Green Mountains, but it is in part, mine, and part of the National Treasure of the United States. So I will fight the squandering and sacrifice of it first, and with every ounce of energy I can find.
Ms Madrid, leave your mark on our part of the National Forest in a way future generations will thank you for. It’s time to get “mean“. Your forest users are standing with you.
Take “No Action” on the Deerfield wind proposal.
Respectfully Submitted,
Justin Turco
Ira, Vermont
802-235-2747
send iberola back to where he come from ,these people dont give a dam what they destory let him go back to his own country and put them up there , the trouble with usa have got so many greedy ass hole that dont give a dam about there own state and country as long as they can get the all mighty dollar , all of those that are for wind mills would sell there own souls just to make a buck , no regards for other people or land , they will kill the whole state just to line their pockets ,because only a few will get anything from wind farms which dont make enough elec. and will never stop sny thing they will drive all the trade that the state gets tourist hunter and fishermen , the state shoud go with more relable whys to get elec. like dams , tidel and atomic , they allready got a plant built, why did king and baldassi tear down the dams ? so they could push wind power and line their pockets jailbird
Och, Justin is a man after my own heart.
Thanks for posting this, Corrigan. I shall make a point of writing a letter to the Forest Service about the GMNF development plan. This isn’t just a battle which must be won in Maine; it’s a battle with global implications. From Britain to mainland Europe, from Australia to New Zealand to Canada and right back here at home, industrial wind is proving itself to be one of the biggest scams in history. A scam funded by hard-working tax-payers, no less! Expect to see the wind lobby step up efforts to try to influence the public as the heat is turned up. The winds are changing and Americans are becoming knowledgable about the FACTS regarding industrial wind.
Good for Justin, for standing up and making his voice heard.
Good for you, for giving him a forum!
xoxo
Kaz
Yes David, Thank You!
Our pols passed some stupid renewable energy law in 2005 to allow windsprawl on public lands. We should hammer the USFS and our congresspeople too. What a waste of our resources. Who would have believed this could happen in this “enlightened” age?
I find it hard to believe that the people of our country can not see that the money hungry wind turbine promoters are in this to make money from our contributions because of our taxes being given to them to promote a plan that has been proven faulty in many ways. If we, the people of the USA, cannot be “gutsy ” enough to prevent this, then we might as well kiss goodbye to our beautiful countryside that God has given us and let the thieves take over. I am not willing to give in to their greed and I hope that others will soon recognize the problems that we face in fighting their greedy money hungry promotions of a faulty plan.
How’s that for balls. The giant stomps right into National Parks telling the federal government to get out of their way. Justin, you are a brave soul. I commend you for recognizing the ruthless,crooked and sneaky approach of Iberdrola. They ruined Spain and they are out to do the same here.
Update: I had a good talk with Colleen Madrid. She assures me this project is NOT a done deal. There is no “word” or pressure from high up that this project IS going to happen. Not only do I want that to be true, I believe her.
Ms. Madrid tells me that it is important that comments aren’t strictly emotionally based. If we want to be affective we need to take that advice to heart. The reasons not to approve the Special Use Permit are there. I’ve studied this issue hard, but I don’t have all the answers and I probably have not found the silver bullet needed to kill this project. Either way, my letter above is a start. If you haven’t read it, please do.
Also, if you’re reading this and you have information that we as a group of concerned forest users should be putting out there, let us know.
Ms. Madrid made it clear, this is not a vote. IE: We need to make a good case! I suspect one well written and supported letter is all it will take. As of today, we have exactly one month for you and I to submit our letters of comment. Yours might be the one.
Please don’t wait until projects are hitting the ground to start caring. By then it will be too late.
Get your questions answered in person on the 20th or 25th. Give comments verbally if you’ve got them. Then be sure to write a letter as to why a ridgetop wind buildout on our national forests is not a policy or road we want to follow.
Thanks Justin Turco
802-235-2747
This link will allow you to view the material being reviewed in considering the issuance of a “special use permit” to Iberdrola to build a wind farm on National Forest Lands in Vermont.
Here is how I see it: If we’ve got information not included at the above link, we need to make sure Ms. Madrid has it…to assist in making her decision. Back up what you say.
http://data.ecosystem-management.org/nepaweb/nepa_content.php?project=7838
Thanks for the update Justin. It is going to take dedicated Citizens speaking up and spreading the facts to shut down projects like this. If everyone will just do a little, we WILL beat these developments; and save our Mountains, forests, homes, and way of life!
Keep up the good work Justin. We’re all with you!
DC
Pingback: nuclear power stations
TWELVE THINGS WIND POWER COMPANIES DO
NOT WANT THE PUBLIC TO KNOW
By ClydeMacDonald
DISTRIBUTED AT LURC HEARING, BANGOR, MAINE.01/05/11
IN THIS PAPER DETAILING THE SHORTCOMINGS OF WIND POWER, I WILL SCARCELY MENTION ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS SUCH AS NOISE, EFFECTS ON VIEWS AND WILDLIFE, OR STREAM AND LAKE POLLUTION. MY TWO MAIN POINTS ARE THE UNSUITABILITY OF WIND AS AN ENERGY FORCE AND THE HIGH COSTS OF PRODUCING SUCH AN UNRELIABLE SOURCE OF ELECTRICITY.
1. DANGERS. FOREST FIRES. CAITHNESS WIND FARMS HAS SEVERAL SITES FROM OREGON TO THE GREAT PLAINS STATES. Its Information Forum reports that this one firm has experienced 110 turbine fires. What equipment does Maine have that enables crews to fight fires before they spread to the forests? The turbines are so tall they would extend from one end of a football field to the other. Quite a task for fire trucks.
2. OFF SHORE SITES. Salt build-up reduces output by 20 to 30 percent and is responsible for premature equipment failures.
3. NO ONE KNOWS HOW EFFICIENT A TURBINE IS BECAUSE THERE ARE NO AUTHORITATIVE, INDEPENDENT STUDIES OF TURBINE LIFE SPANS. Industry usually claims 20 years but the American Wind Power Association says turbines have to be “overhauled” every five years. What does this mean? At what cost? A Danish source claims refitting costs between 15 % and 20% of the cost of the initial investment. Some claim realistic life spans are between 10 and 15 years. A 15 year span would, of course, raise costs by 25%.
4. MASSACHUSETTS has agreed to buy one half of Cape wind’s offshore production beginning at double the cost of today’s rate for electricity from conventional sources with annual increases of 3.5 % over the life of the contract. No wonder the Associated Industries of Massachusetts organization has asked that state’s supreme court to void the deal as industries will become less competitive with such high power rates. Yet, Maine, like Massachusetts, has been committed by politics to buying a percentage of power to be produced by its wind farms without regard to costs.
5. MAINE RATE PAYERS WILL HAVE TO PAY 8% OF THE COST OF ACQUIRING NEW TRANSMISSION LINES IN MAINE AND THROUGHOUT NEW ENGLAND. Maine has been exporting electricity to the NE grid for years and did not need new “upgraded” power lines. But wind companies needed larger capacity lines to handle surges in power and Maine’s PUC dutifully gave them what they wanted. Total cost of “upgraded” and new lines in the NE grid could reach $30 billion or more with land acquisitions. Maine’s share will be 8%. Rate payers, of course, will bear the costs in their electric bills.
a. Look at the difference between Maine’s handling of transmission lines costs and that of Idaho. True, Idaho politicians had the advantage of looking to the experiences of other states that had approved wind sites. Idaho’s PUC is requiring new wind farms to pay for most of the costs of the new transmission lines, charging Sawtooth Wind Farm 75 % of the cost of upgrades. After 10 years, if the firm does produce what it has promised, Idaho will refund one half of the 75%. But no wind farm we know of has delivered what it promised.
6. REDUCED PROPERTY VALUES. The town council of Hammond, New York has informed Iberdrola (owner of Central Maine Power and off shore sites world wide) that if the council approves their site, the firm must agree to compensate property owners for any drops in land values, and it must buy the homes of any landowner near a turbine who objects to the presence of turbines. Iberdrola has said it will abandon seeking approval if the town council approves such requirements. Again, how different from the way Maine has treated applications.
7. ABANDONED TURBINES AND SITES. There are thousands of aging rusting turbines in Hawaii, California, Italy, and elsewhere, as wind companies were unable to sell their power at profitable rates. There will be thousands more as the price of natural gas continues to fall so that wind cannot compete. The Maine PUC and LURC have not required firms to show how they will deal with abandonment if the situation arises. Which state agency will be assigned the task of dealing with abandonments?
8. DECEMBER 2010. T.Boone Pickens has finally admitted that investing in wind turbines was a mistake because it cannot compete with natural gas. He has cost investors more than $2 billion. He no longer promotes wind on television.
9. ALASKA’S ROAD TO NOWHERE WAS A BETTER
USE OFFEDERAL TAX DOLLARS THAN ARE ITS BILLIONS
AWARDED TO WIND POWER FIRMS. Wind proponents are
ballyhooing employment and investments in Maine wind
farms as did the Alaskans with their road. But the road was a one
shot deal, while Maine and New England will be paying the costs
of wind for years to come. The reason? Costly wind usage is
mandated by law, thereby making our industries less competitive
with other states and nations.
a. On employment, a prestigious Spanish University stated
that each permanent job created by its subsidized wind industry cost the economy $811,000 while eliminating jobs elsewhere. Robert Bryce, energy writer for the Wall Street Journal, has written that each job created in the US cost our economy $1.6 million. The Obama Administration tried to counter William Buckley’s article on the cost of Spanish employment. Spain, by emergency decree, has eliminated its subsidies for wind power.
10. WIND TURBINES BENEFIT THE ECONOMY AND THE ENVIRONEMENT WHEN THEY REMAIN IDLE AND PRODUCE NO POWER. English and American sources have noted that the amount of spinning reserves has to be equal to the amount of wind powered electricity that will be used in each grid. In Europe, by the year 2,000, a single grid system served an area from Portugal to the Balkans. Most of the nations were committed by law to buy a fixed percentage of “renewables”, mostly wind. But their gas, nuclear, and other systems had not been expanded to match the size of the growing wind component. In 2005, there were brown outs and black outs caused by a cold spell and low amounts of blowing wind. People suffered. Since that time, the grid has been broken into 3 parts and they have been racing to install more gas fired plants in order to match the required wind component.
a. This brings me to the most complicated aspects. Instead of a thinking of a fixed gas fired plant to produce power, imagine that several dozen tractor rigs were linked together to supply the grid. These trucks would have to be running 24 hours a day to supply electricity, using diesel fuel and emitting CO2. Then imagine that one day the grid had been contracted to receive X amounts of wind based power. The trucks would still have to be running, but they would be on stand-by as back up, the so-called “spinning reserve.” They would be using diesel fuel and emitting CO2 without producing any electricity. Sheer waste. Waste caused solely by the introduction of wind power into the system. Then imagine further that the wind unexpectedly stopped blowing. The trucks then would have to rev up their engines to near full blast in order to supply power to the grid. When this happens, very large amounts of CO2 are emitted into the air. THESE ARE AMONG THE REASONS WHY USING WIND POWER DOES NOT RESULT IN SIGNIFICANTLY REDUCED CO2 EMISSIONS. ONE HAS TO LOOK AT THE TOTAL PRODUCTION PICTURE, NOT MERELY INNOCENT BLADES TURNING IN THE WIND. And these are the reasons why Denmark, the most heavily wind turbined state in the world, still imports the same tonnage of coal today as it did before introducing wind. Coal provides part of the spinning reserve.
Maine wind power entrepreneur and former governor, Angus King, recently said on TV that it is “absurd” for opponents of wind power to claim wind turbines are not responsible for reducing CO2 emissions. But surely, he knows the role of spinning reserves in that regard.
11. THE ABOVE REVEALS WHY SEVERAL SOURCES CLAIM THAT BUILDING WIND TURBINES IS A PURE WASTE OF RESOURCES. They claim it is more efficient
to have gas fired, or water powered, or nuclear spinning reserve plants, operate as required each day without the imposition of the wind power component. There would be fewer CO2 emissions and fewer costs , especially since the expensive turbines are not needed.
12. FINALLY, THE MAINE LEGISLATURE PASSED JUST ABOUT ALL OF ITS ON-SHORE AND OFF-SHORE WIND LAWS WITHOUT DEBATE AND UNANIMOUSLY. SURELY, ONE WOULD THINK THAT ANY COMPLEX, DISRUPTIVE, AND EXPENSIVE ISSUE INVOLVING NEW LAWS WOULD HAVE AT LEAST SOME FLAWS. BUT MAINE MEDIA SOURCES WERE SILENT WHEN THE LEGISLATURE AND PUC ACTED, and they, along with MPBN, continue to extol the benefits of wind power and how wind must become an important part of Maine’s energy future. I say this even though our major newspapers have been generous in printing anti-wind power letters and columns that contradict the odd positions taken by some owners and editorial writers. We are thankful for that coverage.
ClydeMacDonald
310 Main Road North
Hampden, ME 04444
Tel 862-6757 portavi@tds.net
Excellent work.
Don’t do it. There is no payback and it will destroy Vt.