BOWERS WIND APPLICATION UPDATES

DEC 7, 2011

On Wednesday, December 7th, the LURC Commissioners met in Lincoln. Originally the agenda was to hold the final vote, once and for all, on the First Wind/Champlain Wind Bowers Mountain Wind Project. Had they voted, it is all but certain that the Commissioners would have confirmed the straw vote they took in October: to deny the permit. The December meeting was supposed to be little more than formality.

But this case is different... never before has First Wind faced a denial. And they were prepared to pull any trick they can to avoid a denial. First Wind decided that they would have to change the rules, the very rules that their own attorney (Juliet Browne) with input from three First Wind executives (Kurt Adams, Josh D'Agnato & Matt Kearns) had helped to write.

Three weeks after LURC's straw vote, on November 8th, First Wind sent LURC a letter asking that they be allowed to withdraw their application without prejudice so they could make some changes and resubmit it at a later date. By withdrawing the application before the final vote they would avoid having a "DENY" on their record that would tarnish their reputation and hurt their ability to raise money. The LURC Commissioners, trying to be fair, said that they would consider that request and deliver a ruling on it at the December 7 meeting. The final vote on the project's denial was postponed.

The December 7th meeting was really something! When we arrived, the parking lot was overflowing with the pickups belonging to First Wind's subcontractors. When we got inside, every seat in the place was taken by these construction workers, all of them wearing pins that promoted wind energy. Fortunately, several of our diehard members had arrived early enough to save us a few seats up front. Most of our supporters had to stand in the back (including several who walk with canes and one who is recovering from a stroke... none of the First Wind people offered them their seats). We overheard the workers comment that they had all been ordered to be there at 8am and that their employers were paying them for an eight hour day regardless of when the meeting ended.

When the meeting began, First Wind argued that they had been taken by surprise by how much importance LURC placed on the project's scenic impact. They also complained that they hadn't been given enough guidance by LURC as to how to evaluate the project's scenic impact. They were asking for an indefinite amount of time to reconfigure the project so that its scenic impact is reduced to a level acceptable to LURC. After a great deal of discussion, the Commissioners decided to keep the permit application open for three months. First Wind argued that they would need to do MAJOR re-engineering, and that they could not possibly have a revised application that quickly—that the best they could hope to have was a ‘plan’—a ‘plan’ showing that they ‘thought’ that they could fix the problems, within a ‘reasonable amount of time.’

LURC decided to give First Wind until March to do their homework. In March 2012 First Wind is expected to provide a report that, while not a complete construction plan, will be enough to convince the Commissioners that it will be possible to reduce the project's unreasonable scenic impact on the Downeast Lakes Watershed. Commissioner Ed Laverty said that he didn’t see any way that the visual impact could be fixed, short of making changes that would really be more like a completely new application. He also made a point of saying for the record "I don’t think anyone can say that we haven’t bent over backwards to accommodate the applicant.”

We agree with him. LURC has certainly done everything in its power to help First Wind. Unfortunately, that's not enough for First Wind. What First Wind has yet to understand is that in the expedited wind permitting zone wind projects are allowed and encouraged, but they are not guaranteed!

So, First Wind has until March to present its modified case to LURC. Not solid plans to actually fix things—just an outline showing that 'they think they can'. Opponents of the project will then have a very brief 10-day period to digest the report and provide written comment. The Commissioners will then take it up again at their April meeting. Stay tuned!

NOV 29, 2011

Gwen Hilton, LURC Chairman, issued Procedural Order #14 (click here to see a copy). She has decided that the decision whether to allow Champlain Wind to withdraw the application is "...more appropriately addressed by the Commission as a whole, not the Chair..."

This means that the December 7th meeting in Lincoln will now be devoted to deciding whether to allow Champlain to withdraw the application.

If the LURC grants the request, then the Bowers application will be withdrawn, the denial vote will be cancelled and Champlain will wait until they have a reconfigured, more agreeable LURC, or DEP making the decision and then resubmit the same application.

If LURC denies the request, they will presumably vote at their January meeting to approve the denial document, effectively cancelling this Bowers wind project.

In either case, First Wind has stated through its attorney that they do not plan to give up. In fact, they have stated that denial or not they plan to submit a new permit application. They also expect that all testimony so far will still apply to the new application so that they will not be starting over from scratch! That suggests they do not plan on allowing another public hearing. Of course we will fight that vigorously. Any resubmittal is technically a new application for a different project and every issue must be revisited

WE NEED YOUR HELP URGENTLY! LURC is accepting public comment on Champlain's request in the form of emails and letters. The more they hear from the public the more likely they will be to deal deny this request as the desperate, last-minute trick that it is. Please write to tell LURC why they must not grant Champlain's request. Enough is enough! Get your family and friends to write too! Mail or email your letters to:

Frederick W. Todd, Project Planner
Land Use Regulation Commission
22 State House Station
Augusta, Maine 04333

fred.todd@maine.gov

Please limit your comments to Champlain's request to withdraw the application.

NOV 8, 2011

Facing near certain denial of the Bowers Wind permit at the upcoming December 7th meeting, Champlain Wind LLC today filed a request with LURC to pause the processing of the Bowers permit application to allow them time to reconfigure the project. They would like to devote the December 7th meeting not to voting on the permit, instead they would like their attorney, Juliet Browne, to address the Commission to make the case for allowing them to withdraw the application, reconfigure it and resubmit it at a later date. Click here to read the request.

Ms. Browne maintains that they should be allowed to resubmit the application because:

1) in the course of the application process LURC changed the way it interprets and applies the visual impact standard.

2) due to the expiration of the terms of several Commissioners, the commission is put in the uncomfortable position of having to get a unanimous decision to take any action on the permit.

PPDLW has opposed the request. We see this as a very desperate attempt to negotiate an approval by a company that is not accustomed to being denied. We must now wait for Chair Gwen Hilton to rule on the request.

OCT 19, 2011

LURC voted unanimously to have their staff draw up a "Denial Document" for Champlain Wind LLC's (First Wind's) Bowers Wind Project!

The Land Use Regulation Commission held a meeting October 19th at the Waterfront Event Center in Lincoln. The sole item on the agenda was a final deliberation session for the Bowers Mountain Wind project. While the proposed project site is in the Expedited Permitting Area defined by the Wind Law, it would negatively affect the scenic value of many of the lakes that make up the Downeast Lakes Watershed. Following a brief discussion the Commissioners voted unanimously (5 to 0) to have the LURC staff draw up a denial document for their final vote on December 7th.

The 200+ members of the Partnership for the Preservation of the Downeast Lakes Watershed are extremely gratified that the LURC Commissioners have determined that First Wind and their attorney, Juliet Browne of Verill Dana, failed to prove that the Bowers Wind project would not have an unreasonably adverse scenic impact on this large and historic watershed.

The property owners and recreational users of these lakes, along with the Lodges, Sporting Camps, and Guides who depend on the area's recreational tourism for their livelihood, will not rest until this development application meets its final defeat on Dec.7th. By denying this permit LURC will send a strong message to wind developers that while former Governor Baldacci's flawed Wind Law provides them with an expedited permitting process, it does not guarantee approval. There are many sites within the expedited wind permitting area that are simply not appropriate for industrial wind development and the Downeast Lakes region is one of them. As a state, we should be looking for ways to enhance our tourism business while preserving the State's natural beauty and 'Quality of Place' for residents and visitors alike.

*            *            *            *            *

An Encouraging Word

Here's what Governor LePage said at a Town Hall Meeting in Rockport 6/17/11:

"(Wind projects) are doing an awful lot of damage to our quality of life, our mountains," he said. "I don't think it's going to lower the cost of energy. I think in 10 years we're going to be like Sweden and Denmark and we're going to be swearing at ourselves."

We agree with the Governor but we don't think it'll take 10 years to see our mistake!

The Latest Poll Figures

On July 6th Bangor Daily News asked its
readers how they feel about the
Bowers Wind Project specifically.

Here is a screen-shot of the poll question
with the actual results.

Ignoring polls like this one and the one
conducted by WABI-TV which showed 84%
of respondents oppose land-based turbines
in Maine, First Wind's Attorney Neil Kiely
continues to quote a years old poll in which
Mainers were asked if they favored wind.
At every opportunity he says "a recent poll
shows that 80% of Mainers favor wind
development".

A Few Falsehoods and Absurd Statements from First Wind

The following quotes are taken from the Bowers Wind application Exhibit 17, Visual Impact Assessment (VIA) and First Wind's Sworn Testimony. Those of us who are familiar with this unique region should be outraged at their arrogance. Do they think the LURC Commissioners and the people of Maine are this stupid? Apparently so!

“Due to the limited vertical beam spread, the visual impact from these lights is reduced - typically viewers do not see these lights directly and they do not produce glare”   (page 15)

“As compared with other recreational areas in Maine, these lakes in general do not see a lot of use, and the area is not considered a tourism center.”   (page 51)

“Scraggly Lake can also be accessed by Junior Lake, although this narrow passage is shallow and rocky and thus most suitable for small watercraft such as kayaks and canoes.”   (page 30)
(Note: in fact, the channel connecting Junior Lake and Scraggly Lake is 150'’ wide and 30’ deep)

“This region of Maine has very low population, vast woodlands, and plentiful lakes. It is not recognized as a tourism center and there are primitive recreational opportunities... the Project, as proposed, will not result in an unreasonable adverse effect on the scenic values and existing uses.”   (page 2)

“If we were on these lakes and there was no escape from the view, if everywhere you looked there were turbines, that would be too many.”   (David Raphael of Landworks, First Wind's Scenic Impact Analyst. When asked at what point would he consider there are too many turbines. Testimony before LURC, June 28, 2011, transcript page 72)

“The height of the Project ridges are sufficient in relation to turbine height to prevent the turbines from visually dominating the land forms.”  (page 54)
(Note: Turbine #14 will be 428 feet tall and will be mounted on a hill that rises only 388 feet above the water level of the surrounding lakes. The turbine will be 110% of the visual height of the hill it sits on! But First Wind doesn't think 428 feet will dominate 388 feet. Right.)

“To the extent that a particular user group is more sensitive to changes in the landscape and objects to visibility of turbines, they may choose to fish or recreate in any of the many other lakes in the region.”   (David Raphael of Landworks, First Wind's Scenic Impact Analyst, to LURC, July 25, 2011)

“The impact of visibility on residential camps and lodges is not directly relevant to the applicable review criteria.”   (Memo from David Raphael of Landworks to Neil Kiely of First Wind, July 20, 2011)

“Fishermen can orient their boats away from the turbines or situate themselves in one of the many coves if views of the turbines become undesirable. They may also recreate at other nearby and comparable lakes with fewer or no views of turbines, if preferred.”   (page 44)

“Snow fishermen often utilize temporary structures that provide visual obstruction.” 
(page 44)

“All the lakes... share the same similar characteristics of low-lying hills, mixed forest cover, and rocky shorelines. Several shoals, coves and low islands can be found dispersed throughout. While the scenery is pleasing, it is not unique or distinct – there are no special, defining features -- other than isolation and solitude.”   (page 43)

“...many viewers see wind turbines as representative of technological innovation and beautiful examples of modern design that are representative of the well established design ethic of “form follows function.” When considered in this context, wind turbines, with their towers and rotors, are simple, unadorned and elegant elements in the landscape...”   
(page 42)

“The Project area has 'everyday' scenic attributes that are of higher value than the more developed areas of New England and the northeast, but are commonplace in northern New England and the Adirondack region of New York State. Thus the relative scenic values within the area must be considered and not be compared to locations outside the region.”   
(page 35)

“This is an area that does not include any high value natural resources or landscape features that are identified or celebrated for their special qualities. No distinctive geological or topographic formations, or unique large-scale eco-system or natural communities have been identified....Although this area is recognized for its vast forests and remote qualities, these qualities are compromised or qualified by the fact that extensive timber harvesting has occurred in and around the Project area.”   (page 50)

“In addition, the research, interviews and field review conducted yield the sense that local anglers and private camp owners occasionally visit these lakes, but they do not draw visitor-ship extensively from out of state - there is relatively little tourism infrastructure in the area in the form of lodging, restaurants and other amenities for visitors.”   (page 51)

“(On Junior Lake) the islands in fact represent perhaps the most striking feature of the lake, and the visual appreciation of this foreground feature would be unaffected by middleground or background views of turbines.”   (page 27)

*         *         *         *         *         *