redington wind plant - lurc hearing

vftt.org

Help Support vftt.org:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.

g o

New member
Joined
Sep 4, 2003
Messages
94
Reaction score
23
Location
maine
just back from the lurc hearing concerning the redington wind project. the lurc commissioners voted 6 - 1 to have staff write a position paper denying the permit to endless energy to build a "wind farm" on redington and black nubble. once drafted, the commissioners will have another public vote to officially deny the permit. might take another month or two for this to happen.

a special thanks to those of you who signed the friends of the western mountains petition opposing the project.
go
 
That's a change. I saw a staff draft that supported it.

AMC has identified a considerable potential of ridgelines suitable for such development without the potential adverse effects presented by this site. I like that ... just don't oppose something ... come up with some constructive suggestions for alternatives. ... I may be getting my numbers wrong but I think the list approaches a couple hundred miles of ridgelines that meet a reasonable set of siting criteria. Oh! the glories of GIS.

Here's a link to the AMC policy under which a considerable length of ridgeline was identified as suitable:

AMC wind power siting policy
 
Last edited:
g o that is great news. Thanks for the update. I am sure you are a very happy man.
 
So everybody hates wind towers. Perhaps you prefer nuke plants.
 
Pig Pen said:
So everybody hates wind towers. Perhaps you prefer nuke plants.


It's not the wind towers, it's where they wanted to build them that's the issue.
 
"So everybody hates wind towers." Um, no.

Pig Pen said:
So everybody hates wind towers.

Out of the seven proposed wind power projects in New England near the AT, the ATC only opposed this one.
Since Maine already exports it's surplus of electrical power, this project would in no way help Maine's power needs.
The project was in clear violation of LURC rules from the start, and only by appealing that those rules be ignored could California's Endless Energy go forward.
EE's orignal proposal was not honest. They ended up asking more many more even taller turbines that would leave a larger footprint.
This was a foot-in-the-door move by EE. Once they got a start on the already protected Reddington, where would they want to go next?
Reddington is a natural resource that should be further protected, not destroyed by developement.
I'm not against wind projects. Put them on already developed ski-resort mountains, or in Casco Bay, or nearer cities, or up and down the turnpike, or along the coast on Rte 1.
 
dms said:
It's not the wind towers, it's where they wanted to build them that's the issue.

I see. Just as long as they ruin someone else's favorite spot it's ok.

Sorry to be a contrarian, Dennis. :rolleyes:
 
Pig Pen said:
I see. Just as long as they ruin someone else's favorite spot it's ok.

Sorry to be a contrarian, Dennis. :rolleyes:

Not at all Phil, I think they all belong in VT! They already have a few anyway and you folks who like them can have some more!! ;)
 
Pig Pen said:
Just as long as they ruin someone else's favorite spot it's ok.

They'd "ruin" the spot they'd be built on?
Then we should be careful in where we locate them, don'tcha think? :D
 
Pig Pen said:
I see. Just as long as they ruin someone else's favorite spot it's ok.

Sorry to be a contrarian, Dennis. :rolleyes:

There are plenty of already ruined spots out there suitable for wind industry. Redington is certainly not one of them.
 
Last edited:
“It’s in our vital interest to diversify America’s energy supply – the way forward is through technology. We must continue changing the way America generates electric power, by even greater use of clean coal technology, solar and wind energy, safe nuclear power.”
- President George W.Bush, State of the Union, Jan.23​


“No.”
- Maine Land Use Regulation Commission, Jan. 24​


Onestep

Lewiston Sun Journal Editorial 01-25-07
 
onestep said:
“It’s in our vital interest to diversify America’s energy supply – the way forward is through technology. We must continue changing the way America generates electric power, by even greater use of clean coal technology, solar and wind energy, safe nuclear power.”
- President George W.Bush, State of the Union, Jan.23​


“No.”
- Maine Land Use Regulation Commission, Jan. 24​

Wow, you totally convinced me. Lets put a nuke plant on top of Reddington instead! And I heard that there is coal under Katahdin. We should start a strip mine at Chimney Pond.
 
Last edited:
I have a really, really good snide comment but since this site isn't about politics, I'll refrain.

Way to go, LURC!

Now, let's focus on finding good places to build the turbines - [insert deity here] knows we need them. Kibby, here we come...

onestep said:
...afe nuclear power.”
- President George W.Bush, State of the Union, Jan.23​

oh, and by the way, I think it's supposed to be "nucular" ;)

Spencer
 
Last edited:
dms said:
Not at all Phil, I think they all belong in VT! They already have a few anyway and you folks who like them can have some more!! ;)

They've been trying to replace the junkyard... err... abandoned radar base on top of East Mountain with wind towers for about 5 years now (You know where I'm talking about you 3K bagger). We're taking it slow here in Vermont.
 
Last edited:
Pig Pen said:
They've been trying to replace the junkyard... err... abandoned radar base on top of East Mountain with wind towers for about 5 years now (You know where I'm talking about you 3K bagger). We're taking it slow here in Vermont.

Phil, what is interesting about East Mountain, is that I understand that it was local opposition that helped do it in. I have been to the summit twice there and I agree that it is a dump. However, "cemetary peak" in southern VT was not a dump, it was a very pleasant open woods ridge walk, but it isn't that anymore.
 
Top