An ill wind blows

Eleanor Tillinghast, Berkshire Eagle, January 22, 2005

[Reprinted with permission from the author; the Berkshire Eagle editor elided a few key points that have been restored in this version.]

______________________________________________________

Governor Mitt Romney has said he will do everything in his power to scuttle the Cape Wind proposal for Nantucket Sound.[1] Attorney General Tom Reilly[2] and Joe Kennedy,[3] his likely challengers in 2006, oppose it, too. So do many other politicians.[4] It’s unlikely that wind power plant will be built.

The only other realistic place in Massachusetts for wind power plants is the Berkshires. Of the state’s 65 upland sites with enough wind, 62 are here.[5] If Cape Wind is not built, then, to meet state law,[6] 480 wind turbines must be erected onshore in the next five years (see www.GreenBerkshires.org for details.)[7] Wind turbines in other states could count toward that total, but those states couldn’t then use those turbines for their own renewable energy quotas,[8] and their residents are unlikely to endure wind power plants for our benefit.

South of us along the Appalachians, 855 wind turbines have been built, approved, or proposed in a 70-mile radius,[9] and communities are reacting in alarm.[10] Likewise, in Europe, wind turbine proliferation has become a flash point. In Germany, the largest weekly magazine editorialized recently: "The dream of environmentally friendly energy has turned into highly subsidized destruction of the countryside.”[11] In England, readers of a national magazine rated wind turbines the number one eyesore.[12] Prime Minister Tony Blair, a wind power booster, just quashed a proposal in his home district (by the parent company of Enxco, proponent of the Hoosac project in Florida and Monroe.)[13] We here in the Berkshires are exceptional for our welcome of wind power plants.

Perhaps this is because we are the target of concerted marketing campaigns. You may have seen General Electric’s ads showcasing its turbines and extolling the wonders of wind. The Massachusetts Technology Collaborative (MTC), a state agency funded by surcharges on our electricity bills,[14] has been underwriting museum events,[15] radio programming.[16] school materials,[17] and contracts with environmental groups[18] to build support. ‘Green Up’[19] promotions increase pressure for wind development here. So, too, do people elsewhere in the state who opt to reject wind turbines in their towns and buy wind power from our mountains.[20] Governor Romney supports wind power in the Berkshires and so does his hometown of Belmont which just announced that it will purchase electricity from the Brodie wind power facility planned in Hancock.[21]

Those campaigns exploit our concern for the environment and our hope that wind turbines on our mountains can help solve national and regional energy problems. The confluence of political agendas, corporate opportunity, and our good intentions is potent. In fact, wind power plants produce very little electricity but many costs.

The financial toll is huge. Using Enxco’s estimate for its Hoosac proposal of $2 million in construction costs per turbine,[22] 480 turbines will cost $960 million,[23] yet represent just 3.2% of our state’s energy use. This sum will be factored into our cost of electricity. It doesn’t include the millions in subsidies, grants, incentives, and other deals at our expense available to wind developers. According to a prominent wind-industry attorney, tax benefits alone comprise two-thirds of the value of wind power plants.[24]

Tourism is jeopardized. Elsewhere, tourism officials and real-estate agents[25] are fighting wind power proposals to protect their local economies. In a few years, our mountains could have more 34-story structures than any city in New England.[26] Sixteen of the Hoosac turbines will be among the 20 tallest spots in Massachusetts.[27] Their flashing lights will be visible for miles.

The irony of wind power plants is that they destroy the environment, ostensibly, to save it: miles of roads cut through forests,[28] pristine streams degraded, wetlands filled, wide swaths of mountaintops cleared and leveled.[29] At a 44-turbine facility in West Virginia, scientists estimate that up to 4,000 bats were killed last year.[30] In northern Vermont, during a month-long study of migrating birds, more than 500,000 passed over one mountain, many flying near the blade-tip height of turbines.[31] We know very little about how our mountains are used, and the Romney administration, MTC, and wind developers don’t want us to find out before construction begins.[32]

Humans suffer, too. Pastor Kathleen Danley, who lives near a wind power plant in New York – with the same-sized GE turbines as will be used at Hoosac - wrote recently: “We were told that the windmills have been redesigned so as not to be noisy, but the grinding noise goes on 24 hours a day (when they are operating). In the middle of the summer we cannot enjoy our yard or have the windows open because these machines constantly grind and have a negative effect on one’s nerves. The lights flash directly into our bedroom and living room windows all through the night necessitating the closing of the blinds and robbing us of the view of our own backyard and God’s gift of nature.”[33]

Are there alternatives to 480 turbines for 3.2% of our electricity use? Yes, improving energy efficiency and reducing energy use. As Representative Peter Larkin has said, energy efficiency is the cheapest, fastest, cleanest way to solve our energy problems. New efficiency standards for everyday devices would save about $1.5 billion by 2020, and enough energy for about 230,000 homes.[34]

Since its 2001 energy crisis, California has paid people and businesses to reduce energy use, and consumption has fallen 10%.[35] After the 2003 blackout, our regional grid operator paid 82 businesses to reduce demand on the system, and over a 10-hour period saved enough energy for about 89,000 homes.[36]

Instead of subsidizing a few corporations (and, in the case of Enxco, the French government), let’s use our money at MTC to reward towns where residents and businesses cut electricity use. The electricity savings would be, in effect, a new source of energy – one that costs less than any alternative supply.[37] We would save money, reduce fossil-fuel consumption, cut pollution, improve our climate’s health, preserve our local environment and the tourism it supports, and provide revenue to our Berkshire communities.

[1] ``’This report does nothing to change (Gov. Mitt Romney's) opposition to the proposed wind farm,’ said Romney spokeswoman Shawn Feddeman, reacting to yesterday's long-delayed release of the Corps' draft environmental impact study, seen as largely favorable toward the project. ‘(Romney) will continue to do everything in his power to prevent this project from happening, and we are exploring our options,’ said Feddeman.” [Jay Fitzgerald, “Critics hit corps’ Cape mill report,” Boston Herald, 11/9/04, http://business.bostonherald.com/businessNews/view.bg?articleid=53188]

At a December 2004 Army Corps public hearing on Cape Wind, the Governor spoke eloquently against the proposal for 130 turbines. “Nantucket Sound is a national treasure,” he said. “This national treasure should not be a factory for wind.” He added: “I’ve seen wind farms. Not just one, many. They’re not pretty. If we need them for renewable energy, and we do, we’ll build them in Massachusetts, but not at this place, which is a national treasure.” He spoke about how Cape Wind would hurt the area’s tourist economy, home values, and local taxes. He concluded by saying: “This is not a decision about money, it’s not even a decision about power, it is a decision about our environment, about the legacy we leave our children. It is a heritage given to us by God. We may not, we cannot trash this extraordinary resource.” [U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, New England District, Cape Wind Energy Project Meeting Transcripts, West Yarmouth MA, 12/7/04, pp. 26 – 31, http://www.nae.usace.army.mil/projects/ma/ccwf/transcript120704.pdf]

Later, Governor Romney’s spokesperson confirmed his support for wind factories in the Berkshires, and explained his opposition to Cape Wind as a concern over the lack of ocean zoning. [Betsy Calvert, “Wind farm gets support from Romney,” The Republican, 12/10/04, http://www.masslive.com/metrowest/republican/index.ssf?/base/news-8/1102668760122800.xml]

Despite his staff’s spin, a few days afterward, the Governor told the Boston Globe editorial board that he would oppose Cape Wind even if there were ocean zoning in place. [Editorial, “Wind Break,” Boston Globe, 12/21/04, http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2005/01/11/whats_the_matter_with_massachusetts/]

[2] In 2003, Attorney General Tom Reilly said of the Cape Wind project: “The wool is being pulled over everyone’s eyes. This is about money, huge tax breaks, and massive giveaways.” [Cynthia Roy, “Unions, fishermen back wind farm for Nantucket Sound,” Boston Globe, 4/25/03.]

At a December 2004 public hearing on Cape Wind, Attorney General Reilly called on the Army Corps “to stop this project right now before permanent damage is caused to this national treasure of Nantucket Sound.” [U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, New England District, Cape Wind Energy Project Meeting Transcripts, West Yarmouth MA, 12/7/04, p 44, http://www.nae.usace.army.mil/projects/ma/ccwf/transcript120704.pdf]

[3] “While [Joe] Kennedy opposes Cape Wind, he does not oppose wind farms. The entrepreneurial Kennedy has spent the past 18 months or so looking for ways to get into the wind business in New England and around the world. ‘We are aggressively trying to find good sites for development,’ he says.” [Steve Bailey, “Boston Sampler,” Boston Globe, 12/17/04, http://www.boston.com/business/globe/articles/2004/12/17/boston_sampler/]

[4] U.S. Senator Edward M. Kennedy, U.S. Congressman William Delahunt, and State Senator Robert O’Leary (chairman, Senate Energy Committee) are among the politicians who have spoken out against the Cape Wind project. [Kevin Dennehy, “The wind farm: a cleaner energy alternative?” Cape Cod Times, 1/16/05, http://www.capecodonline.com/cctimes/thewind16.htm; U.S. Army Corps, Hearing in Martha’s Vineyard, 12/6/04, Testimony of Senator Robert O’Leary in Cape Wind Energy Project Meeting Transcripts, pp. 47-50, http://www.nae.usace.army.mil/projects/ma/ccwf/transcript120604.pdf; Andrew Miga, “Kerry not ready to tilt at Cape windmills,” Boston Herald, 12/23/04, http://news.bostonherald.com/localRegional/view.bg?articleid=60205; Beth Daley, “Legislation could block Cape wind farm,” Boston Globe, 10/7/04, http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2004/10/07/legislation_could_block_cape_wind_farm/]

[5] 62 upland sites totaling 93 miles with Class 4 winds and above were identified in the Berkshires. The sites range from 0.1 to 5.5 miles in length. The other three upland sites with enough wind in the state are Wachusett Mountain, Mount Watatic, and Mount Tom, according to the study by Appalachian Mountain Club. [Presentation by David Publicover, Appalachian Mountain Club, at Broad Meadow Brook Conservation Center and Wildlife Sanctuary, Massachusetts Audubon Society, 9/20/04; David Publicover, A Methodology for Assessing Conflicts Between Windpower Development and Other Land Uses, AMC Technical Report 04-2, Research Department, Appalachian Mountain Club, May 2004, pp. i, 3.]

Each of the three mountains outside the Berkshires is problematical for wind power development: Much of Wachusett Mountain is owned by the state, and a wind facility on abutting land is the subject of lawsuits from neighbors; Mount Watatic was purchased recently by the state to protect it from development [http://www.nwtf.org/nwtf_newsroom/press_releases.php?id=10097]; and Mount Tom is owned partly by the state and partly by private interests, but has had an unsuccessful history with wind turbines.

[6] Section 11F, Chapter 164, Acts of 1997, http://www.mass.gov/legis/laws/seslaw97/sl970164.htm

[7] Here is the math: According to the Massachusetts RPS Scenarios, produced by the state’s Massachusetts Technology Collaborative, if all new generating capacity by the end of 2009 were wind turbines, then 908 MW would be needed; however, Rob Pratt, director of MTC’s Renewable Energy Trust, said he expects 80% of that to come from wind, thus 726.4 MW. Assuming 1.5 MW wind turbines (the current onshore standard), that means 484.27 turbines will have to be constructed onshore in order for the state to meet its own requirements.

A few turbines may be built in a few towns here and there around the Commonwealth, but the only place for commercial-scale wind power plants is the Berkshires or offshore. If the Cape Wind project is not built, it's unlikely any other offshore wind power plants will be permitted and built before the end of 2009 because the chairman of the Massachusetts senate energy committee and numerous other state lawmakers have called for a moratorium on offshore wind energy projects.

Last summer, the executive director of the Massachusetts Energy Consumers Alliance said, ‘‘I don't believe that we're putting together enough projects to comply with the law over the next two years.'' He's right. When confronted with the numbers of wind turbines necessary in the Berkshires to meet the state’s mandate, wind power advocates in state agencies and environmental groups typically respond, oh, that will never happen here. It will have to happen here if Chapter 164 of the Acts of 1997 is to be upheld. If state officials believe the requirements won't be met, then why are they rushing to locate wind power plants in the Berkshires without thorough pre-construction review? Officials at Massachusetts Technology Collaborative should be more forthcoming publicly about any inconsistencies between the statute and its implementation.

[Nils Bolgen, “Massachusetts RPS Scenarios,” Massachusetts Technology Collaborative, 9/10/02, http://www.mtpc.org/RenewableEnergy/green_power/rps_scenarios.pdf; Statement of Robert L. Pratt, Director, Renewable Energy Trust, Massachusetts Technology Collaborative, in response to a question from Eleanor Tillinghast at the Community Wind Collaborative kick-off meeting, North Adams MA, 9/19/03; Jason Graziedei, "Wind Farm Moratorium proposed by O'Leary, Turkington," Inquirer and Mirror, 1/21/05, http://www.ack.net/1557imstory.html; Julie Jette, "Beyond the Horizon: Relatively modest renewable energy goals might be tough to reach anytime soon," Patriot Ledger, 7/31/04, http://ledger.southofboston.com/articles/2004/07/31/news/news05.txt]

[8] The electricity and the RECs (renewable energy credits) generated from wind power plants outside of Massachusetts may be used toward the quotas set by the Massachusetts legislature. However, electricity generated from wind power plants in other states and sold here can't be counted toward the quotas of those states. And, the RECs purchased from wind power plant operators in other states by Massachusetts electricity retailers can't be used to satisfy obligations in jurisdictions other than Massachusetts. This means that other states would have to be willing to build enough wind power plants to meet some of our quota and to satisfy their quotas. Given the strong resistance of most communities to the onslaught of wind power plants, and the fact that resistance is growing as more information becomes available, it's unlikely other states will permit many wind power plants for the benefit of Massachusetts residents. The one exception is the Fenner wind power plant, and its neighbors may be unaware that it has been qualified as a Massachusetts source.

Here are some regulations on the matter:

The regulations do not restrict where the eligible units can be located. Plants can be located anywhere in New England, states outside the region and Canada. [Division of Energy Resources, Background Document on the Proposed Regulation for the Renewable Energy Portfolio Standard 225 CMR 14.00, October 3, 2001, p. 2, http://www.mass.gov/doer/rps/backgrnd.pdf]

14.05: Eligibility Criteria for New Renewable Generation Units. (5) Special Provisions for a Generation Unit Located Outside of the ISO-NE Control Area. A Generation Unit located outside of the ISO-NE Control Area may qualify as a New Renewable Generation Unit provided that the Generation Unit meets the eligibility requirements of 225 CMR 14.05. The portion of the total electrical energy output that qualifies as New Renewable Generation in a given time period shall meet requirements that include, but are not limited to, the following: (b) The Generator Unit Owner or Operator shall provide documentation, satisfactory to the Division, that: 4. the New Renewable Generation Attributes have not otherwise been, nor will be, sold, retired, claimed or represented as part of electrical energy output or sales, or used to satisfy obligations in jurisdictions other than Massachusetts. [225 CMR 14.00 Renewable Energy Portfolio Standard, 14.05(5)(b)4., http://www.mass.gov/doer/rps/225cmr.pdf]

14.08: Compliance Procedures for Retail Electricity Suppliers. (1) Standard Compliance. Each Retail Electricity Supplier shall be deemed to be in compliance with 225 CMR 14.00 if the information provided in the Compliance Filing submitted pursuant to 225 CMR 14.09 (1) is true and accurate and demonstrates compliance with 225 CMR 14.07. A Retail Electricity Supplier shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Division that New Renewable Generation Attributes used for compliance have not otherwise been, nor will be, sold, retired, claimed or represented as part of electrical energy output or sales, or used to satisfy obligations in jurisdictions other than Massachusetts. [225 CMR 14.00 Renewable Energy Portfolio Standard, 14.08(1), http://www.mass.gov/doer/rps/225cmr.pdf]

Here is a list of projects approved for the Massachusetts Renewable Portfolio Stanadard (RPS): http://www.mass.gov/doer/rps/approved.htm

[9] http://johnrsweet.com/Personal/Wind/PDF/windplants-boone-20041227.pdf

[10] Editorial, “Blowing in the wind,” News Leader, 1/20/05, http://www.newsleader.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050120/OPINION01/501200315/1014/; Associated Press, “Garrett County draws a line on wind power,” Centre Daily Times, 1/5/05, http://www.centredaily.com/mld/centredaily/news/politics/10573804.htm

[11] Renee Mickelburgh, Tony Paterson and Kim Willsher, “Huge protests by voters force the continent's governments to rethink so-called green energy,” Telegraph, 4/4/04, http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/04/04/wwind04.xml&secureRefresh=true&_requestid=1493

[12] Mary Miers, “The 10 Most Hated Eyesores Voted by County Life Readers,” Country Life, 11/13/03, http://www.countrylife.co.uk/countrysideconcerns/news/eyesore_results.php

[13] “Tony Blair’s press conference,” Guardian, 1/6/05, http://politics.guardian.co.uk/commons/story/0,,1384315,00.html;
“‘NIMBY’ Blair Fights Wind Farm,” Western Morning News, 12/17/04, http://www.westernmorningnews.co.uk/displayNode.jsp?nodeId=141529&command=displayContent&sourceNode=
141513&contentPK=11511063&moduleName=InternalSearch&keyword=blair%20wind%20turbine&formname=sidebarsearch;
Editorial, “Hypocrisy of Blair Exposed,” Western Morning News, 12/18/04, http://www.westernmorningnews.co.uk/displayNode.jsp?nodeId=141529&command=displayContent&sourceNode=
141513&contentPK=11516877&moduleName=InternalSearch&keyword=blair%20wind%20turbine&formname=sidebarsearch

[14] Massachusetts Technology Collaborative holds the Renewable Energy Trust, which is funded by surcharges on our monthly electricity bills, about $25 million a year. http://www.reeep.org/index.cfm?articleid=877&ros=1

[15] http://www.masstech.org/renewableenergy/education.htm, http://www.massmoca.org/kidspace/windspirations.html

[16] WAMC Northeast Public Radio, http://www.wamc.org/uAssociations.html

[17] http://www.masstech.org/renewableenergy/k12.htm; http://www.massmoca.org/kidspace/

[18] Massachusetts Technology Collaborative, Harnessing the Power of Innovation: Annual Report Fiscal Year 2003, http://www.masstech.org/AgencyOverview/annual_2003.pdf; MTC’s website describes a recent award to Center for Ecological Technology thusly: “Through ‘Connect for Clean Energy Success,’ CET will strengthen the foundation of public support for renewable energy in the Berkshires. CET will work closely with the Berkshire Renewable Energy Collaborative and other project partners to provide an effective strategy for public education and action that will lead to a region-wide increase in the use of renewable energy. This work will culminate in a Berkshire clean energy summit for stakeholders, where participants will articulate goals and commit to action steps to attain those goals. Important outcomes will be increased understanding among community leaders about the problems associated with our current energy situation and commitments to support the opportunities for local solutions.” [http://www.masstech.org/renewableenergy/ed_grants.htm]

[19] http://www.mass.gov/dte/restruct/competition/renewables.htm

[20] Bette Keva, “Wind still in their sails,” Marblehead Reporter, 11/24/04, http://www2.townonline.com/marblehead/localRegional/view.bg?articleid=133960

[21] Melody Hanatani, “Wind power to lower electric rates,” Belmont Citizen Herald, 12/10/04, http://www2.townonline.com/belmont/localRegional/view.bg?articleid=141848; http://www.mmwec.org/0412PPNews.pdf, http://www.mmwec.org/news/041206.pdf

[22] MEPA Project Tracking System – Detail, EOEA #13143, Hoosac Wind Project, http://mepadata.env.state.ma.us/pls/portal30/MEPA_WEB.MEPA_QUERY_DETAIL.SHOW?p_arg_names=
eoea_nbr&p_arg_values=13143

[23] By contrast, the estimated cost for the 750 MW combined cycle natural gas plant at Dracut (Nickel Hill Energy) was $300 million. The estimated cost for the 580 MW ANP-Bellingham Power Plant was $300 million.[http://mepadata.env.state.ma.us/pls/portal30/MEPA_WEB.MEPA_QUERY.SHOW_PARMS]

[24] Ed Feo, Financing Challenges and Structures of Renewable Projects Based on Available Incentives, presented at American Bar Association, Renewable Energy Resources Committee, Multi-Site Brown Bag/Teleconference, "Renewable Energy: What Kinds of Incentives are Needed and How do the Currently Available Incentives Work?," 12/15/04, p. 4, http://www.abanet.org/environ/committees/renewableenergy/teleconarchives/121504/feoppt.pdf

[25] Ross Clark, “An ill wind blowing?” The Telegraph, 2/14/04, http://www.telegraph.co.uk/property/main.jhtml?xml=/property/2004/02/14/pfarm14.xml;
Mike Johnston, “Will turbines hurt land value?” Daily Record, 1/21/04, http://www.kvnews.com/articles/2004/01/21/news/news01.txt;
Justin Hawkins, “Precedent fuels windfarm flight,” Westmorland Gazette, 1/14/04, http://www.thisisthelakedistrict.co.uk/search/display.var.448830.0.precedent_fuels_windfarm_flight.php;
Justin Hawkins, “Park Authority raises objection to wind farm,” Westmorland Gazette, 1/9/04, http://www.thisisthelakedistrict.co.uk/search/display.var.447629.0.park_authority_raises_objection_to_wind_farm.php;
“'Glaring error' in windfarm document,” Westmorland Gazette, 12/10/03, http://www.thisisthelakedistrict.co.uk/search/display.var.440421.0.glaring_error_in_windfarm_document.php;
Jennie Dennett, “Windpower battle shifts to new front,” Westmorland Gazette, 10/29/03, http://www.thisisthelakedistrict.co.uk/search/display.var.427243.0.windpower_battle_shifts_to_new_front.php;
John Hatt Firbank, “Wind Farm: Keep Cumbria beautiful,” Westmorland Gazette, 10/17/03, http://www.thisisthelakedistrict.co.uk/search/display.var.424044.0.wind_farm_keep_cumbria_beautiful.php;
Steve Blake, “Public discussion begins on Lowell wind project,” The Chronicle, 9/24/03, http://www.LowellWind.com/images/photos/lowell/Chronicle_092403.pdf;
Mike Johnston, “Study of land value draws reactions,” Daily Record, 7/1/03, http://www.kvnews.com/articles/2003/07/01/news/news02.txt
Geoff Strong, “Wind farm plan creates anger,” The Age, 4/22/03, http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/04/21/1050777212046.html;
Krista Hamblin, “Ocean road tourism under threat: Grant,” Warrnambool Standard, 4/21/03, http://www.hotkey.net.au/~rayw1/pages/npa-standard.html#21-04-03d;
Krista Hamblin, “Windfarm deterrent,” Warrnambool Standard, 4/10/03, http://www.hotkey.net.au/~rayw1/pages/npa-standard.html#10-04-03;
Paul Sellars, “Turbines cast shadow over land values,” Weekly Times, 4/6/03, http://www.hotkey.net.au/%7Erayw1/pages/npa-weekly-times.html#06-04-03a;
Jaclyn Densley, “Windfarms slammed by tourist head,” Warrnambool Standard, 2/4/03, http://www.hotkey.net.au/~rayw1/pages/npa-standard.html#04-02-03; “Tourism fears over wind farm plan,” BBC News, 2/14/02, http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/northern_ireland/1819985.stm;

[26] Wind power plant proposals are under review in Florida and Monroe (the Hoosac project proposed by Enxco) and Hancock (the Brodie project proposed by DisGen.) Williams College is considering erecting wind turbines on the Berlin Pass between New York and Massachusetts. Michael Deep has made preliminary gestures toward constructing a wind power plant along the Hoosac range overlooking North Adams. The towns of Lenox and Savoy, among others, will see the installation of wind measuring towers in anticipation of installing wind turbines. The Massachusetts Technology Collaborative is working with other Berkshire towns on the prospect of building wind turbines. In five years, more than 480 turbines must be built onshore (if no offshore facilities are constructed), so more turbines should be expected in the Berkshires. In the meantime, here’s a list of buildings 400’ and taller in Boston MA and Hartford CT, taken from the 2005 World Almanac and Book of Facts:

John Hancock Tower, 200 Clarendon Street, Boston MA (790’)
Prudential Tower, 800 Boylston Street, Boston MA (750’)
Federal Reserve Building, 600 Atlantic Avenue, Boston MA (604’)
Boston Company Building, 1 Boston Place, Boston MA (601’)
One International Place, 100 Oliver Street, Boston MA (600’)
First National Bank of Boston, 100 Federal Street, Boston MA (591’)
One Financial Center, 10 Dewey Square, Boston MA (590’)
111 Huntington Avenue, Boston MA (564’)
Two International Place, Boston MA (538’)
City Place, 185 Asylum Street, Hartford CT (535’)
CitiGroup Building, 25 Grove Street, Hartford CT (527’)
One Post Office Square, Boston MA (525’)
Goodwin Square, 225 Asylum Street, Hartford CT (522’)
1 Federal Street, Boston MA (520’)
Exchange Place, 53 State Street, Boston MA (510’)
Sixty State Street, Boston MA (509’)
1 Beacon Street, Boston MA (507’)
1 Lincoln Place, Boston MA (503’)
28 State Street, Boston MA (500’)
Mariott’s Custom House, 3 McKinley Square, Boston MA (496’)
John Hancock Building, 175 Berkeley Street, Boston MA (495’)
33 Arch Street, Boston MA (489’)
State Street Bank, 225 Franklin Street, Boston MA (477’)
Millennium Place 1, Ritz Carlton Hotel, Boston MA (475’)
125 High Street, Boston MA (452’)
100 Summer Street, Boston MA (450’)
Millennium Place 2, 3 Avery Street, Boston MA (445’)
Hartford 21, Hartford CT (440’)
McCormack Building, 1 Ashburton Place, Boston MA (401’)
Harbor Towers 1, 85 East India, Boston MA (400’)
Keystone Building, Boston MA (400’)

[27] Based on plans submitted by Enxco, Inc. to the state Department of Environmental Protection (DEP), here are the ground elevations for the turbines, and the overall heights with the 340’ turbines with their blades at full vertical extension:

Once the Hoosac project is built, these will be the tallest twenty spots in Massachusetts:

1.) Mount Greylock - 3,491’
2.) Saddle Ball Mountain - 3,238’
3.) Turbine 16, Crum Hill - 3,173’
4.) Turbine 13, Crum Hill – 3,162’
5.) Turbine 15, Crum Hill – 3,156’
6.) Turbine 17, Crum Hill – 3, 156’
7.) Turbine 14, Crum Hill – 3,115’
8.) Mount Fitch – 3,110’
9.) Turbine 4, Hoosac Mountain – 3,102’
10.) Turbine 5, Hoosac Mountain – 3,095’
11.) Turbine 12, Crum Hill – 3,085’
12.) Turbine 6, Hoosac Mountain – 3,034’
13.) Turbine 3, Hoosac Mountain – 3,018’
14.) Turbine 7, Hoosac Mountain – 3,002’
15.) Turbine 8, Hoosac Mountain – 2,988’
16.) Mount Williams – 2,951’
17.) Turbine 2, Hoosac Mountain – 2,951’
18.) Turbine 9, Hoosac Mountain – 2,944’
19.) Turbine 10, Hoosac Mountain – 2,914’
20.) Turbine 18, Crum Hill – 2,914’

[Massachusetts Atlas & Gazetteer, Yarmouth ME: DeLorme, 1998.]

[28] Enxco Inc., “Environmental Notification Form, EOEA #13143,” p. 11, noticed in Environmental Monitor, Massachusetts Environmental Policy Act office, 11/26/03.

[29] See sheet plans of Hill-Engineers, Architects, Planners, Inc. for the Hoosac project, submitted to DEP.

[30] Justin Blum, “Researchers Alarmed by Bat Deaths From Turbines,” Washington Post, 1/1/05; “Wind Energy and Bats,” Bat Conservation International Newsletter, Vol. 2, No. 9, August 2004, http://www.batcon.org/newsletter/enews-0804/article1.html

[31] John Dillon, “Study finds wind turbines in path of bird migration,” Vermont Public Radio, 1/5/05, http://www.publicbroadcasting.net/vpr/news.newsmain?action=article&ARTICLE_ID=724239

[32] At a 7/23/04 meeting on the Hoosac wind project, held by the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (DEP), Enxco s lawyer promised a pre-construction study of bird and bat migration over the site. The study was to be a collaboration of Enxco, MTC, and EOEA (Executive Office of Environmental Affairs.) A few days before the study was to begin, it was halted. The reason given was that the equipment can't be hauled to the ridgelines. The problems of topography and access had been known throughout the contractor selection process: both Hoosac Mountain and Crum Hill have old pathways to the summits that are used by snowmobiles and off-road vehicles. In addition, Enxco cleared paths along the summits, in order to install wind measuring towers. Similar circumstances had been surmounted at study sites elsewhere. Page 10 of the presentation connected to this link shows a truck used for radar research, one that could manage the ascent to both ridgelines. [http://www.nationalwind.org/events/wildlife/2004-2/presentations/Tuttle_Bats_Conclusions.pdf]

[33] Letter to the editor from Pastor Kathleen Danley, “Against the wind: In Fenner, wind farm developers made and broke many promises,” Naples Record, 11/3/04, http://www.greenberkshires.org/wind_power_postings/aganst_the_wind.html

[34] Peter J. Larkin and Janet Domenitz, “Energy efficiency,” Berkshire Eagle, 7/29/04, http://www.BerkshireEagle.com

[35] Timothy Egan, “Suddenly, It’s Hip to Conserve Energy,” New York Times, 6/20/04, http://www.nytimes.com

[36] August 15, 2003 – The Day After: Connecticut Businesses Respond!”, ISO New England 2004 Demand Response Programs, ISO New England, Inc., p. 11, http://www.iso-ne.com/Load_Response/Demand_Response_Program_
Brochure_and_Customer_Tools/ISO_New_England_2004_Demand_Response_Programs.pdf

[37] Power To Spare: A Plan for Increasing New England’s Competitiveness Through Energy Efficiency, New England Energy Policy Council, July 1987, Executive Summary, pp. 1, 3.