Mr. Nadeau, I’d like to thank you for the civil tone and sincerity of your letter (The Irregular May 12, 2010, Page 3). I’ll respond to your points; largely ones our group deals with regularly.

We use the term industrial wind to reflect the scale of the machinery and development and differentiate it from community or home scale wind installations which tend to be much smaller. I believe the term “industrial” is appropriately descriptive.

You are correct that choices

need to be made —smart choices based on proven data and predictable results. Decisions with potentially enormous implications –-such as effectively rezoning over two-thirds of Maine-– should be made in the bright light of day. They should not be labeled emergency bills and hurried through the legislature with little or no public scrutiny as was Maine’s current wind power siting law.

I agree that any energy facility has locally negative effects on the environment. However, just one Seabrook, N.H.-size nuclear plant OR two Veazie, Maine-size gas generators would produce electricity exceeding the entirety of Governor Baldacci’s 2,700 megawatt goal for land-based wind power in Maine. Each would have a small fraction of the land footprint of the sprawling wind turbine complexes and the added benefits of predictability and reliability.

The word “scar” does not effectively describe the land changes that will occur. Over 1.6 million cubic yards of blasted and bulldozed mountaintop surely amounts to more than a scar. As for the quick reestablishment of wildlife, I will have to side with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service which has stated: “As more facilities are built, the cumulative effects of this rapidly growing industry may initiate or contribute to the decline of some wildlife populations.” Truthfully, we don’t know what will be the effects on all wildlife. This is a living experiment.

You acknowledge the turbines would produce noise, but dismiss it due to the site’s relatively remote location. This is little comfort to many of the people who live among these mountains. In fact it’s quite disturbing to the lodge owners and guides, who make their living by providing visitors with a quality Maine outdoor experience, complete with a quiet and remarkably scenic landscape.

I’m not as sanguine as you in the assessment that Maine has enough hills that no one will miss the 300 or so miles of ridgeline that will be required to

fulfill the Governor’s wind power goals. The Highland proposal represents only about 5 percent of that goal. I don’t believe that the visual impact will be limited. The Kibby Mt. wind project is visible from Highland, 25 miles away. A quick calculation reveals that the potential impacted area is over 1,900 square miles in size. If the sight of the mountaintop turbines is “impressive” to you, certainly you are entitled to that opinion. In my opinion, Maine’s mountains will not be enhanced by the addition of 40-story steel and composite machinery to their ridges. I believe that I enjoy the majority view here. More text was devoted to one topic than any other in Maine’s wind power siting law –-the disassembly of the state’s historic scenic protections of its landscape for the single purpose of siting wind turbines. So significant were Mainers’ objections to the visual impact that they had to be statutorily suppressed.

Of course, we’ve heard the “not in my backyard” charge more times than we can count –-and you’re absolutely right. The NIMBY designation is a badge I and many others wear with honor. I will always stand up against bad policy in my backyard, front yard, side yard, dooryard or barnyard. Protection of one’s property, family and community has a long tradition in the United States. My government has made no effort to show conclusively that the development of Maine’s mountains with wind turbines has any real chance of achieving its stated clean energy goals; and Maine’s wind siting law explicitly relieves developers of any burden to prove that the touted benefits are realistic. I find it odd that you, and others with whom I have spoken, admit you wouldn’t want it in your backyard, but are quite content to put it in ours.

I hope all supporters of this bold move into Maine’s mountains will demand proof of wind projects’ efficacy and capacity to produce the cleaner environment that we all want. I hope they will learn more about this topic before allowing unfettered access to our remarkable landscape by this industry. Many have shown too little curiosity about the documented shortcomings of industrial wind power and been too easily satisfied with the marketing hype that surrounds this dubious electricity supply.

Alan Michka of Lexington is a member of Friends of

the Highland Mountains, www.highlandmts.org.