By Eileen M. Adams, Staff Writer
Published: Oct 12, 2009 12:00 am
RUMFORD – Several representatives from First Wind LLC plan to attend a public forum on a proposed wind farm for three Rumford mountains.
Karl Aromaa, a member of the Wind Farm Development Committee, said Matt Kearn of First Wind and several others will make a presentation on the proposal at 6 p.m. Oct. 13 at Mountain Valley High School.
Travis Small, a spokesman for First Wind, said tentative plans call for building between 14 and 15 turbines that would generate a total of about 40 megawatts of electricity.
Along with Kearn several contractors familiar with wind turbine construction as well as other associates of First Wind will also be in attendance.
Aromaa announced the forum recently. At that time, a panel of people largely opposed to local wind farm development were the sole participants. He had said that the community knew very little about the proposal and that he had hoped that both sides of the issue would be represented.
Among the other participants are Albert Aniel, Tom Powell, Steve Thurston, Lisa Linowes and J. Dwight.
First Wind LLC, located in Newton, Mass., has dozens of wind farm projects in various stages of planning or construction in the Northeast and West.
The Rumford project is tentatively planned for Black, North Twin and South Twin mountains.
eadams@sunjournal.com
Monday, October 12, 2009
Friday, October 09, 2009
Our Three Bombs
NY Times
OP-ED COLUMNIST
By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN
Published: October 6, 2009
I am a 56-year-old baby boomer, and looking around today it’s very clear that my generation had it easy: We grew up in the shadow of just one bomb — the nuclear bomb. That is, in our day, it seemed as if there was just one big threat that could trigger a nonlinear, 180-degree change in the trajectory of our lives: the Soviets hitting us with a nuke. My girls are not so lucky.
Today’s youth are growing up in the shadow of three bombs — any one of which could go off at any time and set in motion a truly nonlinear, radical change in the trajectory of their lives.
The first, of course, is still the nuclear threat, which, for my generation, basically came from just one seemingly rational enemy, the Soviet Union, with which we shared a doctrine of mutual assured destruction. Today, the nuclear threat can be delivered by all kinds of states or terrorists, including suicidal jihadists for whom mutual assured destruction is a delight, not a deterrent.
But there are now two other bombs our children have hanging over them: the debt bomb and the climate bomb.
As we continue to build up carbon in the atmosphere to unprecedented levels, we never know when the next emitted carbon molecule will tip over some ecosystem and trigger a nonlinear climate event — like melting the Siberian tundra and releasing all of its methane, or drying up the Amazon or melting all the sea ice in the North Pole in summer. And when one ecosystem collapses, it can trigger unpredictable changes in others that could alter our whole world.
The same is true with America’s debt bomb. To recover from the Great Recession, we’ve had to go even deeper into debt. One need only look at today’s record-setting price of gold, in a period of deflation, to know that a lot of people are worried that our next dollar of debt — unbalanced by spending cuts or new tax revenues — will trigger a nonlinear move out of the dollar and torpedo the U.S. currency.
If people lose confidence in the dollar, we could enter a feedback loop, as with the climate, whereby the sinking dollar forces up interest rates, which raises the long-term cost of servicing our already massive debt, which adds to the deficit projections, which further undermines the dollar. If the world is unwilling to finance our deficits, except at much higher rates of interest, it would surely diminish our government’s ability to make public investments and just as surely diminish our children’s standard of living.
Unfortunately, too many conservatives, who would never risk emitting so much debt that it would tank the dollar, will blithely tell you on carbon: “Emit all you want. Don’t worry. It’s all a hoax.” And too many liberals, who would never risk emitting too much carbon, will tell you on emitting more debt: “Spend away. We’ve got plenty of room to stimulate without risking the dollar.”
Because of this divide, our government has not been able to put in place the long-term policies needed to guard against detonating our mounting debt bomb and climate bomb. As such, we’re in effect putting our kids’ future in the hands of the two most merciless forces on the planet: the Market and Mother Nature.
As the environmentalist Rob Watson likes to say, “Mother Nature is just chemistry, biology and physics.” That’s all she is. You can’t spin her; you can’t sweet-talk her. You can’t say, “Hey, Mother Nature, we’re having a bad recession, could you take a year off?” No, she’s going to do whatever chemistry, biology and physics dictate, based on the amount of carbon we put in the atmosphere, and as Watson likes to add: “Mother Nature always bats last, and she always bats a thousand.”
Ditto the market. The market is just a second-by-second snapshot of the balance between greed and fear. You can’t spin it or sweet-talk it. And you never know when that balance between greed and fear on the dollar is going to tip over into fear in a nonlinear way.
That is why I was heartened to see the liberal Center for American Progress stating last week that, while the stimulus is vital to rescuing our economy, the size of projected budget deficits demand that we also start thinking about broad-based tax increases and reductions in some spending and entitlement programs supported by liberals. I am equally heartened when I see Republicans like Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger urging his party to start taking climate change seriously.
But we also need to act. If we don’t, we will be leaving our children to the tender mercies of the Market and Mother Nature alone to shape their futures.
This moment reminds me of an image John Holdren, the president’s science adviser, uses when discussing the threat of climate change, but it also applies to the dollar: “We’re driving in a car with bad brakes in a fog and heading for a cliff. We know for sure that cliff is out there. We just don’t know exactly where it is. Prudence would suggest that we should start putting on the brakes.”
OP-ED COLUMNIST
By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN
Published: October 6, 2009
I am a 56-year-old baby boomer, and looking around today it’s very clear that my generation had it easy: We grew up in the shadow of just one bomb — the nuclear bomb. That is, in our day, it seemed as if there was just one big threat that could trigger a nonlinear, 180-degree change in the trajectory of our lives: the Soviets hitting us with a nuke. My girls are not so lucky.
Today’s youth are growing up in the shadow of three bombs — any one of which could go off at any time and set in motion a truly nonlinear, radical change in the trajectory of their lives.
The first, of course, is still the nuclear threat, which, for my generation, basically came from just one seemingly rational enemy, the Soviet Union, with which we shared a doctrine of mutual assured destruction. Today, the nuclear threat can be delivered by all kinds of states or terrorists, including suicidal jihadists for whom mutual assured destruction is a delight, not a deterrent.
But there are now two other bombs our children have hanging over them: the debt bomb and the climate bomb.
As we continue to build up carbon in the atmosphere to unprecedented levels, we never know when the next emitted carbon molecule will tip over some ecosystem and trigger a nonlinear climate event — like melting the Siberian tundra and releasing all of its methane, or drying up the Amazon or melting all the sea ice in the North Pole in summer. And when one ecosystem collapses, it can trigger unpredictable changes in others that could alter our whole world.
The same is true with America’s debt bomb. To recover from the Great Recession, we’ve had to go even deeper into debt. One need only look at today’s record-setting price of gold, in a period of deflation, to know that a lot of people are worried that our next dollar of debt — unbalanced by spending cuts or new tax revenues — will trigger a nonlinear move out of the dollar and torpedo the U.S. currency.
If people lose confidence in the dollar, we could enter a feedback loop, as with the climate, whereby the sinking dollar forces up interest rates, which raises the long-term cost of servicing our already massive debt, which adds to the deficit projections, which further undermines the dollar. If the world is unwilling to finance our deficits, except at much higher rates of interest, it would surely diminish our government’s ability to make public investments and just as surely diminish our children’s standard of living.
Unfortunately, too many conservatives, who would never risk emitting so much debt that it would tank the dollar, will blithely tell you on carbon: “Emit all you want. Don’t worry. It’s all a hoax.” And too many liberals, who would never risk emitting too much carbon, will tell you on emitting more debt: “Spend away. We’ve got plenty of room to stimulate without risking the dollar.”
Because of this divide, our government has not been able to put in place the long-term policies needed to guard against detonating our mounting debt bomb and climate bomb. As such, we’re in effect putting our kids’ future in the hands of the two most merciless forces on the planet: the Market and Mother Nature.
As the environmentalist Rob Watson likes to say, “Mother Nature is just chemistry, biology and physics.” That’s all she is. You can’t spin her; you can’t sweet-talk her. You can’t say, “Hey, Mother Nature, we’re having a bad recession, could you take a year off?” No, she’s going to do whatever chemistry, biology and physics dictate, based on the amount of carbon we put in the atmosphere, and as Watson likes to add: “Mother Nature always bats last, and she always bats a thousand.”
Ditto the market. The market is just a second-by-second snapshot of the balance between greed and fear. You can’t spin it or sweet-talk it. And you never know when that balance between greed and fear on the dollar is going to tip over into fear in a nonlinear way.
That is why I was heartened to see the liberal Center for American Progress stating last week that, while the stimulus is vital to rescuing our economy, the size of projected budget deficits demand that we also start thinking about broad-based tax increases and reductions in some spending and entitlement programs supported by liberals. I am equally heartened when I see Republicans like Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger urging his party to start taking climate change seriously.
But we also need to act. If we don’t, we will be leaving our children to the tender mercies of the Market and Mother Nature alone to shape their futures.
This moment reminds me of an image John Holdren, the president’s science adviser, uses when discussing the threat of climate change, but it also applies to the dollar: “We’re driving in a car with bad brakes in a fog and heading for a cliff. We know for sure that cliff is out there. We just don’t know exactly where it is. Prudence would suggest that we should start putting on the brakes.”
Baldacci touts wind potential
By Kevin Miller
BDN Staff
AUGUSTA, Maine — Gov. John Baldacci and a national energy expert on Tuesday touted Maine’s capacity to become a major producer of wind power and manufacturing jobs as the nation shifts to greener sources of energy.
But just outside the wind energy conference where the two men spoke, several dozen protesters accused the Baldacci administration and wind power companies of ignoring the impacts that the enormous turbines can have on the health and property values of nearby residents as well as on wildlife.
The Maine Wind Energy Conference brought together about 300 representatives of government agencies, nonprofits and energy-related businesses at the Augusta Civic Center. The event was sponsored by the Maine Small Wind Working Group and about a dozen other partners.
During his opening remarks, Baldacci said he and other participants on a recent wind power-related trade mission to Europe came back energized after seeing examples and hearing ideas that could be replicated in Maine.
In addition to expanding green energy production, Maine is well positioned to tap into its manufacturing know-how, such as in the ship-building industry, to construct turbines, blades and other components locally, Baldacci said. Maine is also working to be a national leader in the development of floating offshore wind turbines that can be deployed in the deep waters of the Gulf of Maine, where the vast majority of the state’s best wind resources are located.
“This opportunity isn’t going to come along very often,” Baldacci said. “We have got to work together, and that means the people who don’t like what we are doing and the people who criticize what is being done. Everybody needs to be heard from and to be able to have participatory debate and discussion. But we need to take action.”
Wind power facilities in Maine have the capacity to generate about 100 megawatts of electricity, although actual production is often much less due to the inconsistency of winds. While a leader in New England, Maine is well behind states like Minnesota and Iowa that can already generate up to 10 percent of their power from wind.
State officials have set a goal of generating at least 2,000 megawatts of wind energy from inland and offshore sources in Maine by 2015. If all of the wind projects under construction and in development were actually built, Maine would be nearly 43 percent of the way toward that goal, according to figures supplied by the Governor’s Office of Energy Independence and Security.
Larry Flowers, principal project leader at the federal government’s National Renewable Energy Laboratory’s Wind Powering America Program, said 26 states currently have more than 100 megawatts of wind energy installed and nine states have more than 1,000 megawatts.
The most successful states have the policies, economics, political leadership and transmission infrastructure in place. As the nation prepares to address climate change — potentially through a cap-and-trade system that forces industries to pay for each ton of the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide that is emitted — wind energy could become the cheapest form of energy.
Flowers said wind energy is now economically competitive with other new energy sources being installed due to the cost of pollution controls and future uncertainty over the price of fossil fuels. “Wind is fully competitive with most markets of new generation of traditional sources,” he said. Conference attendees didn’t have to travel far to hear from critics of where some of the wind farms have been built and proposed in Maine.
Among the protesters gathered outside the Civic Center was Steve Bennett, who lives 2,900 feet from one of three turbines built by Beaver Ridge Wind LLC in Freedom.
Bennett said the sun causes a “flicker” from the spinning blades that, in turn, creates a strobe effect inside the kitchen of his 200-year-old home. The strobe effect and appearance of movement is strong enough to make some people feel ill, he said.
Neighbors living even closer to the turbines, some of whom have young children, are reporting problems sleeping at night due to the noise and vibrations from the blades, he said.
He and other protesters accused wind energy companies of reaping large profits by taking advantage of small towns unprepared to deal with the large projects. They also accused the Baldacci administration of pushing wind power projects through a regulatory review process that they claim is steeply tilted in the industry’s favor.
“I am here today because what has happened to us is wrong, and I don’t want to see it happen to other towns,” Bennett said.
Jonathan Carter with the Forest Ecology Network said all of the protesters are “absolutely supportive” of wind power.
“We recognize it is critical to dealing with the catastrophic impacts of climate change,” Carter said. “The problem is they are not being driven by ecological sense. It is being driven by greed.”
BDN Staff
AUGUSTA, Maine — Gov. John Baldacci and a national energy expert on Tuesday touted Maine’s capacity to become a major producer of wind power and manufacturing jobs as the nation shifts to greener sources of energy.
But just outside the wind energy conference where the two men spoke, several dozen protesters accused the Baldacci administration and wind power companies of ignoring the impacts that the enormous turbines can have on the health and property values of nearby residents as well as on wildlife.
The Maine Wind Energy Conference brought together about 300 representatives of government agencies, nonprofits and energy-related businesses at the Augusta Civic Center. The event was sponsored by the Maine Small Wind Working Group and about a dozen other partners.
During his opening remarks, Baldacci said he and other participants on a recent wind power-related trade mission to Europe came back energized after seeing examples and hearing ideas that could be replicated in Maine.
In addition to expanding green energy production, Maine is well positioned to tap into its manufacturing know-how, such as in the ship-building industry, to construct turbines, blades and other components locally, Baldacci said. Maine is also working to be a national leader in the development of floating offshore wind turbines that can be deployed in the deep waters of the Gulf of Maine, where the vast majority of the state’s best wind resources are located.
“This opportunity isn’t going to come along very often,” Baldacci said. “We have got to work together, and that means the people who don’t like what we are doing and the people who criticize what is being done. Everybody needs to be heard from and to be able to have participatory debate and discussion. But we need to take action.”
Wind power facilities in Maine have the capacity to generate about 100 megawatts of electricity, although actual production is often much less due to the inconsistency of winds. While a leader in New England, Maine is well behind states like Minnesota and Iowa that can already generate up to 10 percent of their power from wind.
State officials have set a goal of generating at least 2,000 megawatts of wind energy from inland and offshore sources in Maine by 2015. If all of the wind projects under construction and in development were actually built, Maine would be nearly 43 percent of the way toward that goal, according to figures supplied by the Governor’s Office of Energy Independence and Security.
Larry Flowers, principal project leader at the federal government’s National Renewable Energy Laboratory’s Wind Powering America Program, said 26 states currently have more than 100 megawatts of wind energy installed and nine states have more than 1,000 megawatts.
The most successful states have the policies, economics, political leadership and transmission infrastructure in place. As the nation prepares to address climate change — potentially through a cap-and-trade system that forces industries to pay for each ton of the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide that is emitted — wind energy could become the cheapest form of energy.
Flowers said wind energy is now economically competitive with other new energy sources being installed due to the cost of pollution controls and future uncertainty over the price of fossil fuels. “Wind is fully competitive with most markets of new generation of traditional sources,” he said. Conference attendees didn’t have to travel far to hear from critics of where some of the wind farms have been built and proposed in Maine.
Among the protesters gathered outside the Civic Center was Steve Bennett, who lives 2,900 feet from one of three turbines built by Beaver Ridge Wind LLC in Freedom.
Bennett said the sun causes a “flicker” from the spinning blades that, in turn, creates a strobe effect inside the kitchen of his 200-year-old home. The strobe effect and appearance of movement is strong enough to make some people feel ill, he said.
Neighbors living even closer to the turbines, some of whom have young children, are reporting problems sleeping at night due to the noise and vibrations from the blades, he said.
He and other protesters accused wind energy companies of reaping large profits by taking advantage of small towns unprepared to deal with the large projects. They also accused the Baldacci administration of pushing wind power projects through a regulatory review process that they claim is steeply tilted in the industry’s favor.
“I am here today because what has happened to us is wrong, and I don’t want to see it happen to other towns,” Bennett said.
Jonathan Carter with the Forest Ecology Network said all of the protesters are “absolutely supportive” of wind power.
“We recognize it is critical to dealing with the catastrophic impacts of climate change,” Carter said. “The problem is they are not being driven by ecological sense. It is being driven by greed.”
Wind meeting draws planners, marchers
The 300 attendees at the first statewide wind power conference get a national perspective on the trend.
By MATT WICKENHEISER, Staff Writer
October 7, 2009
Andy Molloy/Kennebec Journal
AUGUSTA — The nation is increasingly looking to wind for new power generation and Maine has a role to play, an official with the U.S. Department of Energy's National Wind Technology Center said Tuesday.
Larry Flowers, national technical director of Wind Power America at the center, spoke to about 300 people at Maine's first statewide wind power conference, at the Augusta Civic Center.
Flowers, Gov. John Baldacci and others addressed the group at the beginning of the day, laying out national trends and where Maine fits in. In the afternoon, attendees sat in on sessions ranging from wind power generation for cities and towns to energy transmission issues in Maine.
Outside, about 40 people protested Maine's wind power projects and the current regulatory process.
Flowers said that in 1999, four states were using wind power on a "serious" level: Minnesota, Iowa, Texas and California. This year, 26 states have more than 100 megawatts of generation installed, Flowers said, and nine have more than 1,000 megawatts installed.
In the next few days, when the Kibby Mountain project's turbines start turning, Maine will have 170 megawatts installed. The state has a goal of producing 2,000 megawatts from wind by 2015, and 3,000 megawatts by 2020.
Flowers said that, nationally, 28,000 megawatts of wind power generation has been installed. Two states produce at least 10 percent of their power from wind, he said – Iowa at 13.3 percent, and Minnesota at 10.4 percent.
Nationally, 1.8 percent of the country's power comes from wind. The national goal, said Flowers, is to hit 20 percent by 2030.
Baldacci returned recently from a wind power trade mission to Spain, Germany and Norway. He talked about his visit to the world's first deep-water offshore wind turbine, which was installed this summer in the North Sea about six miles off the coast of Norway.
"It was an engineering marvel, but we can do that here," Baldacci said. "We're going to be part of the national energy solution."
Maine people and businesses are starting to look at producing wind turbines in the state, and generating power here instead of importing it, Baldacci said.
He spoke about the importance of energy independence, as well. "We've been through too many contrived (oil) shortages, real or imagined, that are outside of our control," Baldacci said.
He acknowledged the protesters who began to gather outside the civic center about 10 a.m.
"Everybody needs to be heard from," he said, "but we need to take action."
Outside, Steve Bennett of Freedom displayed a picture of his 200-year-old home with a year-old wind turbine looming in the background. There are three 400-foot turbines around his home, part of the Beaver Ridge wind project.
The one in the picture is 2,900 feet from his home, Bennett said. He said he is unhappy with the project and thinks wind technology isn't worth the expense to the government in the form of credits, tax breaks, grants and other subsidies.
Asked for other options for power, he said, "Nuclear – we know it works, and we know it's safe. Hydro, if we want green."
He said there are 12 other homes around the Beaver Ridge project, and 15 young children who are bothered by the turbines. From October to February, the angle of the sun contributes to a strobe effect from the turbine blades, he said, with quick shadows passing over his house.
"If I were susceptible to those types of things, I think I'd freak out," Bennett said.
Other protesters carried signs decrying big business, such as "Big Wind Equals Big Corruption."
Former Green Party gubernatorial candidate Jonathan Carter, executive director of the Forest Ecology Network, said the protesters aren't against wind power per se, but are unhappy with the state process used to locate wind farms to date.
The welfare of people and the environment hasn't been considered, Carter said, and decision-makers, including some environmental groups, are willing to sacrifice "ecological integrity" for wind development.
"I would strongly disagree with that," said Dylan Voorhees, energy project director for the Natural Resources Council of Maine, when asked later about Carter's comments.
Voorhees, one of the main presenters of the conference, pointed to reliance on fossil fuels, and particularly the practice of mountaintop mining for coal in the United States, and said, "We need better choices."
The presence of environmental protesters outside, and environmental supporters inside, demonstrated the intricacy of the wind power debate.
While there's broad agreement in the environmental community about the perils of fossil fuels, wind as a renewable resource doesn't enjoy full support.
The National Resources Council of Maine has actively supported each of the current sites for wind power in the state, said Voorhees. That includes the sites being protested Tuesday.
"We don't want to see wind power developed on the Allagash," he said. "What that means is, we need to put wind power where there's development."
Staff Writer Matt Wickenheiser can be contacted at 791-6316 or at: mwickenheiser@pressherald.com
By MATT WICKENHEISER, Staff Writer
October 7, 2009
Andy Molloy/Kennebec Journal
AUGUSTA — The nation is increasingly looking to wind for new power generation and Maine has a role to play, an official with the U.S. Department of Energy's National Wind Technology Center said Tuesday.
Larry Flowers, national technical director of Wind Power America at the center, spoke to about 300 people at Maine's first statewide wind power conference, at the Augusta Civic Center.
Flowers, Gov. John Baldacci and others addressed the group at the beginning of the day, laying out national trends and where Maine fits in. In the afternoon, attendees sat in on sessions ranging from wind power generation for cities and towns to energy transmission issues in Maine.
Outside, about 40 people protested Maine's wind power projects and the current regulatory process.
Flowers said that in 1999, four states were using wind power on a "serious" level: Minnesota, Iowa, Texas and California. This year, 26 states have more than 100 megawatts of generation installed, Flowers said, and nine have more than 1,000 megawatts installed.
In the next few days, when the Kibby Mountain project's turbines start turning, Maine will have 170 megawatts installed. The state has a goal of producing 2,000 megawatts from wind by 2015, and 3,000 megawatts by 2020.
Flowers said that, nationally, 28,000 megawatts of wind power generation has been installed. Two states produce at least 10 percent of their power from wind, he said – Iowa at 13.3 percent, and Minnesota at 10.4 percent.
Nationally, 1.8 percent of the country's power comes from wind. The national goal, said Flowers, is to hit 20 percent by 2030.
Baldacci returned recently from a wind power trade mission to Spain, Germany and Norway. He talked about his visit to the world's first deep-water offshore wind turbine, which was installed this summer in the North Sea about six miles off the coast of Norway.
"It was an engineering marvel, but we can do that here," Baldacci said. "We're going to be part of the national energy solution."
Maine people and businesses are starting to look at producing wind turbines in the state, and generating power here instead of importing it, Baldacci said.
He spoke about the importance of energy independence, as well. "We've been through too many contrived (oil) shortages, real or imagined, that are outside of our control," Baldacci said.
He acknowledged the protesters who began to gather outside the civic center about 10 a.m.
"Everybody needs to be heard from," he said, "but we need to take action."
Outside, Steve Bennett of Freedom displayed a picture of his 200-year-old home with a year-old wind turbine looming in the background. There are three 400-foot turbines around his home, part of the Beaver Ridge wind project.
The one in the picture is 2,900 feet from his home, Bennett said. He said he is unhappy with the project and thinks wind technology isn't worth the expense to the government in the form of credits, tax breaks, grants and other subsidies.
Asked for other options for power, he said, "Nuclear – we know it works, and we know it's safe. Hydro, if we want green."
He said there are 12 other homes around the Beaver Ridge project, and 15 young children who are bothered by the turbines. From October to February, the angle of the sun contributes to a strobe effect from the turbine blades, he said, with quick shadows passing over his house.
"If I were susceptible to those types of things, I think I'd freak out," Bennett said.
Other protesters carried signs decrying big business, such as "Big Wind Equals Big Corruption."
Former Green Party gubernatorial candidate Jonathan Carter, executive director of the Forest Ecology Network, said the protesters aren't against wind power per se, but are unhappy with the state process used to locate wind farms to date.
The welfare of people and the environment hasn't been considered, Carter said, and decision-makers, including some environmental groups, are willing to sacrifice "ecological integrity" for wind development.
"I would strongly disagree with that," said Dylan Voorhees, energy project director for the Natural Resources Council of Maine, when asked later about Carter's comments.
Voorhees, one of the main presenters of the conference, pointed to reliance on fossil fuels, and particularly the practice of mountaintop mining for coal in the United States, and said, "We need better choices."
The presence of environmental protesters outside, and environmental supporters inside, demonstrated the intricacy of the wind power debate.
While there's broad agreement in the environmental community about the perils of fossil fuels, wind as a renewable resource doesn't enjoy full support.
The National Resources Council of Maine has actively supported each of the current sites for wind power in the state, said Voorhees. That includes the sites being protested Tuesday.
"We don't want to see wind power developed on the Allagash," he said. "What that means is, we need to put wind power where there's development."
Staff Writer Matt Wickenheiser can be contacted at 791-6316 or at: mwickenheiser@pressherald.com
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
