Tilting at windmills

The rush to wind power: a threat to the Berkshires’ way of life

Eleanor Tillinghast, Advocate, December 9, 2004

______________________________________________________

A year from now, the third highest point in Massachusetts will be turbine 16 of the Hoosac wind power plant in the towns of Florida and Monroe.[1] Only Mount Greylock and Saddle Ball will be higher.[2] Seven of the Hoosac turbines will be among the 10 highest points in the state. Eleven will be above 3,000 feet.

Enxco Inc. will build 20 wind turbines, each 340 feet tall, on two of our most visible mountains. It will cut more than 4 miles of new roads[3] (some 35 feet wide[4]) through forest, crossing more than a dozen streams and wetlands.[5] The contours of both ridgelines will be cleared, blasted and filled to accommodate vehicles 135 feet long and weighing 197,000 pounds.[6]

The mountain range is a major migratory route for hawks, golden eagles and bald eagles.[7] As scientists are discovering at similar sites, bats are also vulnerable to injury and death from turbine blades.[8] Protected plant species are on the property.[9] One stream flows into a pond that has wild brook trout.[10]

Hoosac is just the beginning. Wind turbines are planned for Brodie Mountain[11] and proposed for Berlin[12] and Lenox Mountains[13] and the Hoosac range south of Enxco’s project.[14]

The Appalachian Mountain Club recently did a study showing that 65 sites on 96 miles of ridgeline in Massachusetts have sufficient wind for turbines. The sites range from a quarter-mile to eight miles long. Of the 65 sites, 62 are in the Berkshires.[15]

The state secretary of environmental affairs has approved every inland wind power plant without requiring a full environmental review.[16] She has refused to consider a statewide planning process for siting wind turbines.[17] Now, she is preparing to open public lands for wind-power development.[18]

Why are Berkshire residents being asked to sacrifice our ridgelines, quality of life, and tourism economy for wind power plants?

1. State requires wind power

State law mandates that five years from now 4 percent of our energy use must come from new construction of renewable energy sources.[19] If the Cape Wind power plant is built in Nantucket Sound,[20] then about 200 turbines will have to be erected onshore.[21] If Cape Wind is not built, then 480 turbines will be needed by the end of 2009.[22] These numbers are boggling, but they are based on the state’s own projections.[23]

If you think we’ll never see that many wind turbines here, look to the north and south of us and abroad: Communities all along the Appalachians are under siege. Vermont, with just 3 percent of its land suitable for wind-power development,[24] has eight proposals under consideration.[25] Within a 40-mile radius of the junction of Pennsylvania, West Virginia and Maryland, 18 wind power plants have been built or proposed.[26] Within 20 miles of the now infamous 44-turbine Mountaineer facility in West Virginia,[27] 333 turbines have been approved and 53 more planned.[28]

The United Kingdom has 1,184 turbines at 93 sites[29] that generate the amount of electricity from one mid-sized natural gas plant.[30] Germany, roughly the size of New England, had 15,387 wind turbines at the end of 2003,[31] which accounted for less than 4 percent of the country’s electrical usage.[32]

2. Other people want to feel good

Wind power plants here mean that people elsewhere in Massachusetts can embrace the technology without worrying about its impacts on their local economy or quality of life. There’s not enough open space in Marblehead for turbines, but an official there noted that the town will buy wind power from the Brodie wind power plant in 2005.[33] The mayor of Salem, who threatened to sue to stop the state from requiring new emissions controls in a ‘Filthy Five’ power plant in his city,[34] has announced his support for renewable energy.[35] Every person who signs up for GreenUp, GreenStart and other renewable-energy buying programs increases the pressure for wind power development in the Berkshires.

3. We support worthy goals

We are being asked to sacrifice our wilderness to reduce global warming, pollution, and dependence on foreign oil. These are vital goals that can be achieved much more successfully and at much less cost through proven energy efficiency and conservation programs and enforcement of clean air laws.

One regional environmental group has suggested that electricity savings from efficiency initiatives can be considered a new source of energy, costing less than any alternative supply.[36] As just two examples: Kimberly-Clark Inc. improved its energy efficiency by 11.7 percent and saved enough fuel over three years to provide 700,000 homes with electricity for a year.[37] A day after the Aug. 14, 2003 blackout, the regional grid operator paid 82 businesses in Connecticut to reduce energy consumption and within a 10-hour period saved enough power to supply 89,000 homes.[38]

A Swiss company is poised to build the St. Lawrence cement plant 16 miles west of our border, fueled by 500 million pounds of coal annually.[39] If we really are concerned about air pollution, the more than $45 million in tax breaks, subsidies, incentives, guarantees and grants due to Enxco for Hoosac[40] would be better spent helping polluters to upgrade emissions controls and suing federal and state agencies to crack down on violators.

4. Towns losing state funds

Over the past few years, state payments to towns have dropped drastically. That has meant severe budget shortfalls for communities like Florida and Monroe. It’s no wonder that Florida, which rejected a wind power plant proposal 20 years ago,[41] now welcomes the promised tax and lease revenues.

Enxco is a subsidiary of the EdF Group, [42] 70 percent of which is owned by the French government,[43] and is Europe’s leading supplier of nuclear power,[44] gas, coal and oil.[45] The millions of dollars we will pay for Hoosac will benefit the French government while our local towns will receive a small fraction.[46] We would do far better to use our money to help towns reduce energy consumption and reward their successes.[47]

5. No protest from us

Wind power plants will be sited in the Berkshires because we are not protesting against the onslaught. Elsewhere in the world people are objecting vehemently to the construction of wind power plants.[48] The news media in England, Scotland, Germany, Australia, and New Zealand report frequently on the protests waged by rural communities that have already experienced the desecration caused by wind power plants.[49] Readers of Britain’s Country Life magazine voted wind power plants the number one eyesore.[50] Der Spiegel, Germany’s largest weekly magazine, editorialized, “The dream of environmentally friendly energy has turned into highly subsidized destruction of the countryside.”[51]

People across America,[52] along the Appalachians,[53] in Vermont[54] and Maine,[55] too, are fighting back. Berkshire County stands out in its welcome of wind power plants.

6. We are target of marketing blitz

We are being wooed by a powerful alliance of the Romney Administration, environmental groups[56] and international corporations like General Electric and Enxco. The state has launched a marketing blitz – funded by monthly surcharges on our electric bills - to sway Berkshirites.[57] Gov. Mitt Romney lobbied the White House against the Cape Wind proposal[58] but supports the multiple wind power plants proposed for the Berkshires. Likewise, the secretary of environmental affairs has demanded full environmental reviews and an overall planning process for all offshore wind facilities[59] but is enabling construction here without adequate assessments of impacts and consequences.

In five years, we may have more 34-story structures on our mountains than any city in New England. We are being asked to sacrifice our small part of the world for a symbol that is unlikely to solve any of our regional, national, or global problems.[60]

Eleanor Tillinghast of South County is president of Green Berkshires Inc. This article, with documentation backing the facts presented, can be found at www.GreenBerkshires.org.

[1] The ground elevation numbers given in the site plans accompanying Enxco’s Environmental Notification Form to the state Massachusetts Environmental Policy Act (MEPA) office are slightly different from those on the current plans submitted to the state Department of Environmental Protection (DEP). Using the latter source, here are the ground elevations for the turbines, and the overall heights with the 340’ turbines with their blades at full vertical extension:

[2] Mount Greylock is 3,491 feet high and Saddle Ball Mountain, its neighbor, is 3,238 feet. [Massachusetts Atlas & Gazetteer, Yarmouth ME: DeLorme, 1998.]

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

[4] Letter from Jason A. Krzanowski and Darrin M. Harris, Hill-Engineers, Architects, Planners, Inc. to David Foulis, Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection, Subject: DEP Wetlands #156-10; Florida – Hoosac Wind Project; ITEM #9 – On-project Roadway Design, 9/23/04.

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

[6] Vehicles transporting turbine blades will be 135 feet long; vehicles transporting nacelles and other turbine parts will have maximum weights when fully loaded of 197,000 pounds. [Presentation by Jason A. Krzanowski, Hill-Engineers, Architects, Planners, Inc. before Clearinghouse Review Committee, Berkshire Regional Planning Commission, 12/3/03.]

[7] Ron Rancatti, Hawk Migration Totals at Spruce Hill, North Adams, MA, collected from 1986 – 2000; Letter from E. Heidi Ricci, Senior Environmental Policy Specialist, Massachusetts Audubon Society, to Ellen Roy Herzfelder, Secretary of Environmental Affairs, Commonwealth of Masachusetts,12/16/03.

[8] “Wind Energy and Bats,” Bat Conservation International Newsletter, Vol. 2, No. 9, August 2004, http://www.batcon.org/newsletter/enews-0804/article1.html.

[9] Letter from Christine Vaccaro, Environmental Review Assistant, Massachusetts Division of Fisheries & Wildlife, to Martha Staskus, Vermont Environmental Research Associates, Inc., Re: Potential Wind Power Sites; Florida, Monroe, MA, NHESP File: 01-9215, 7/26/01; Letter from Thomas W. French, Assistant Director, Massachusetts Division of Fisheries & Wildlife, to Ellen Roy Herzfelder, Secretary of Environmental Affairs, Commonwealth of Massachusetts,12/16/03.

[10] The stream starting near turbines #1 and #2 on Hoosac Mountain is a headwater for Dunbar Brook (which has been designated by the state as a coldwater fishery, a so-called ‘critical area’), and flows into a small pond in which wild brook trout were observed on 6/16/04.

[11] http://www.masstech.org/cleanenergy/wind_info/berk.htm.

[12] http://www.BerlinWind.org.

[13] Ellen G. Lahr, “Lenox evaluating turbine proposal,” Berkshire Eagle, 7/26/04, http://www.BerkshireEagle.com.

[14] Glenn Drohan, “Deep proposes windmill project in N. Adams,” Advocate, 1/29/04, http://www.iberkshires.com/advocate/story13363.html; Glenn Drohan, “Windmills blow into the forefront,” Advocate, 2/11/04, http://www.iberkshires.com/advocate/story13496.html.

[15] David Publicover of Appalachian Mountain Club presented a study sponsored by the Renewable Energy Trust of Massachusetts Technology Collaborative (RET is funded by surcharges on our monthly electric bills) of sites suitable for wind power development in Massachusetts. The meeting took place at the Broad Meadow Brook Conservation Center and Wildlife Sanctuary of the Massachusetts Audubon Society on 9/20/04. From the Berkshires, Nancy Nylen of Center for Ecological Technology, Lauren Gaherty of Berkshire Regional Planning Board, and Eleanor Tillinghast of Green Berkshires, Inc. were in attendance. AMC has not made the study public.

[16] The Secretary of Environmental Affairs has reviewed Environmental Notification Forms on wind power proposals from Berkshire Wind Power LLC (EOEA #12532 - Brodie Mountain), Enxco, Inc. (EOEA #13143 - Hoosac Mountain and Crum Hill), and Princeton Municipal Light Department (EOEA #13229 - Mount Wachusett). The Secretary has had three opportunities to review the Brodie project: one ENF and two Notices of Project Change, and has never required an EIR despite the incomplete information provided by the applicant. [http://www.mass.gov/envir/mepa/downloads/13143enfpdfversion.pdf; http://www.mass.gov/envir/mepa/pdffiles/certificates/13229pdfversion.pdf.]

[17] http://www.mass.gov/envir/mepa/pdffiles/certificates/13229pdfversion.pdf.

[18] Here are the Secretary’s words: “For example, it would be appropriate (indeed necessary) for the Commonwealth to develop general standards and policies regarding development of wind energy infrastructure on protected open space prior to undertaking a systematic program of development of WTG arrays on state-owned protected open space. Toward that end, I have directed my policy staff to work with EOEA’s land holding agencies and stakeholders to develop a general guidance document [that] advances the Commonwealth’s Renewable Portfolio Standard goals while upholding the underlying purpose and integrity of constitutionally protected open space.” [Certificate of the Secretary of Environmental Affairs on the Environmental Notification Form, EOEA #13229, MEPA Office, 4/23/04, p. 7, http://www.mass.gov/envir/mepa/pdffiles/certificates/13229pdfversion.pdf.]

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

[20] David Arnold, “Size of wind farm plan reduced,” Boston Globe, 1/22/03, http://www.boston.com/globe/.

[21] 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 of MTC’s Renewable Energy Trust said he expects 80% of that to come from wind, thus 726.4 MW. Subtract Cape Wind’s 420 MW to equal 306.4 MW needed. Assuming 1.5 MW wind turbines, that means 204 turbines will have to be constructed in order for the state to meet its own requirements. [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.]

[22] Using the same basics as shown in the footnote above, if Cape Wind is not built, then 726.4 MW of wind turbine capacity will be needed to comply with the state’s 1997 electricity restructuring act. Assuming 1.5 MW wind turbines, the onshore standard, that means 484 wind turbines must be installed by the end of 2009. [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.]

[23] 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: other than a few turbines in towns that want wind for a small, discrete project (for example, the one turbine in Hull MA), the only feasible locations for wind power plants are Mount Wachusett, Mount Watatic, and Mount Tom, according to the study by Appalachian Mountain Club. Each of those three mountains is problematical for wind power development: Most of Mount Wachusett 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 [see 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. Therefore, if hundreds of wind turbines are not built here in the Berkshires, then the state won’t meet the requirements of Chapter 164 of the Acts of 1997. 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.

[24] The U.S. Department of Energy calculated the amount of land suitable for wind development in each of the New England states: CT 6%, ME 7%, MA 16%, NH 3%, RI 8%, VT 3%. The information was posted in a document on the website of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency [Wind Power in Vermont, May 2002, http://www.epa.gov/ne/eco/energy/renewable_energy.htm], but the link is not active now.

[25] There are eight proposals for wind power plants in Vermont:
East Mountain, East Haven (Mathew Rubin)
East Mountain expansion, East Haven (Mathew Rubin)
Glebe Mountain, Londonderry (Catamount Energy Corporation/CVPS)
Hardscrabble Mountain, Sheffield (UPC Wind Management & UPC Wind Partners)
Little Mount Equinox, Manchester (Catamount Energy Corporation/CVPS)
Lowell Mountain, Eden, Lowell, Irasburg (Enxco, Inc. & Vermont Public Power Supply Authority)
Kirby Mountain, Kirby (Enxco, Inc.)
Searsburg expansion, Readsboro (Green Mountain Power Corporation & Enxco, Inc.)
[Matt Crawford, “Turbines fuel debate across Vt.,” Burlington Free Press, 10/6/03; Associated Press, “Green Mountain Power wants more windmills in Searsburg,” Rutland Herald, 12/11/03; Robin Palmer, “Wrestling with the wind,” Barre Montpelier Times Argus, 12/12/03.]

[26] http://www.magicalliance.org/Windfarms/Wind%20Charts/WindProjectApr04.htm.

[27] “Wind Energy and Bats,” Bat Conservation International Newsletter, Vol. 2, No. 9, August 2004, http://www.batcon.org/newsletter/enews-0804/article1.html.

[28] http://www.magicalliance.org/Windfarms/Wind%20Charts/WindProjectApr04.htm.

[29] http://www.bwea.org/map/index.html.

[30] The article on this website titled "Wind turbines don't make good neighbors" notes that as of 5/14/04, Britain had 1,101 turbines, for a total of 712.4 MW, the production level of one large combined-cycle natural-gas plant. That 712.4 MW total is the aggregated nameplate rating of all the turbines, i.e., the amount of power the turbines could generate if they operated at full capacity all the time. However, wind turbines typically operate at a 20% to 30% capacity factor, meaning the average actual electricity generated as a percentage of the nameplate rating. A large combined-cycle natural-gas plant might have a 1,000 MW nameplate rating; if it had a 71% capacity factor, that would be 710 MW (i.e. around 712.4 MW.)

This article looks at the numbers in a slightly different way: Instead of comparing the turbines' nameplate rating with the production level of one combined-cycle natural-gas plant, it compares the turbines' capacity factor with the gas plant's production level. As of 12/8/04, all the wind turbines in the United Kingdom had a combined nameplate rating of 885.2 MW. Using a very generous capacity factor of 30% (the capacity factor of Searsburg, New England’s only commercial-scale wind power plant, has been dropping since the plant was commissioned in 1997, and in 2003 was 20.43%), that means all the U.K. turbines together produce at a level of about 266 MW, which is the equivalent level of a modest combined-cycle natural-gas plant, http://www.bwea.org/map/index.html.

[31] Wind Energy Use in Germany - Status 31.12.2003, Deutsches Windenergie-Institut, http://www.dewi.de/.

[32] Wind Report 2004, E.ON Netz GmbH, p. 4, http://www.nowhinashwindfarm.co.uk/EON_Netz_Windreport_e_eng.pdf.

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

[34] Steven Rosenberg, “Power Plant Tax Breaks Called Unfair,” Boston Globe, 2/23/03, http://www.boston.com/globe/.

[35] Press Release, “Mayor Usovicz Takes the Lead on Home Energy Efficiency Campaign,” Salem Alliance for the Environment, 11/18/04, http://www.salemsafe.org/.

[36] Armond Cohen, Staff Attorney, Conservation Law Foundation of New England, Power to Spare: A Plan for Increasing New England’s Competitiveness Through Energy Efficiency, New England Energy Policy Council, July 1987, page 1 of Executive Summary.

[37] Ron Scherer, “Turn off the lights when you leave…and arrive,” Christian Science Monitor, 7/10/03, http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0710/p02s01-usgn.html.

[38] “August 15, 2003 – The Day After: Connecticut Businesses Respond!”, ISO New England 2004 Demand Response Programs, ISO New England, Inc., 4/8/04, http://www.iso-ne.com/Load_Response/ Demand_Response_Program_Brochure_and_Customer_Tools/ISO_New_England_2004_Demand_Response_Programs.pdf.

[39] Marie Szaniszlo, “Activists slap ‘dirty’ label on company’s planned plant,” Boston Herald, 12/1/04, http://news.bostonherald.com/localRegional/view.bg?articleid=56650; http://www.friendsofhudson.com/; http://www.scenichudson.org/stcp/coalition.htm.

[40] A few of the costs to taxpayers and electricity ratepayers include: $17,000,000 price support contract with Massachusetts Technology Collaborative; $14,000,000 tax avoidance on Enxco’s $40 million investment (based on the IRS’s double-declining accelerated depreciation schedule for wind power plants); $17 federal production tax credit for every megawatt hour generated ((84,000 MWh/year x $17 = $1,428,000) x 10 years = $14,280,000.) Those add up to $45,280,000, which is an extremely conservative number because it doesn’t take into account the inflation-indexed increases in the federal production tax credit or all the other tax breaks, subsidies, incentives, guarantees, and grants to be tapped by Enxco.

[41] In 1984, TDEnergy proposed wind turbines on Hoosac Mountain in Florida, leasing both private and public land in the same area as Enxco's current plans. Neighbors were concerned about noise and visual impacts. Residents and officials from Clarksburg were opposed. The Florida selectmen granted a special permit, which expired in 1987. Townspeople then voted 68-64 against asking the selectmen to make any further efforts in support of TDEnergy's proposal. ["Neighbors wary of Florida wind farm," Berkshire Eagle, 6/19/84; Dianne Cutillo, "Possible noise of windmill farm objected to again in Clarksburg," Berkshire Eagle, 1/12/85; Dianne Cutillo, "Windmills plan in Florida draws Clarksburg protest," Berkshire Eagle, 3/7/85; Wendy Fox, “Edison Signs Deal for Windmill Power,” Boston Globe, 6/21/85; John Milne, “A Struggle Over Power Debate, Now in N.H., Over Use of Windmills Likely to Spread,” Boston Globe, 6/23/85; "Plan for windmill farm killed for lack of funding," Berkshire Eagle, 5/19/87; "Florida windmill issue returns in Calif. letter," Berkshire Eagle, 7/7/87.]

[42] “SIIF Energies Takes Over American Group Enxco,” European Report, 6/5/02, p. 600; Key Figures 2003, EdF Group, p. 3, http://www.edf.com/index.php4?coe_i_id=33048.

[43] Press release, “EDF becomes a limited liability company,” Office of Corporate Communications and Public Affairs, Electricité de France, 11/19/04, http://www.edf.fr/index.php4?coe_i_id=20411.

[44] “French energy workers blackout airport, Expatica.com, 6/29/04, http://www.expatica.com/source/site_article.asp?channel_id=5&story_id=8989.

[45] Annual Report 2003, EdF Group, p. 21, http://www.edf.fr/html/ra_2003/uk/pdf/edf_ra2003_full_va.pdf.

[46] According to a recent article in the North Adams Transcript, Enxco has promised that Hoosac will bring $320,000 in annual tax revenues to Florida and Monroe together, as well as $120,000 in annual lease payments. [Christopher Marcisz, “Wind farm nearly over final obstacle,” North Adams Transcript, 11/15/04, http://www.thetranscript.com.]

[47] Since its 2001 energy crisis, California has cut overall energy consumption by 10%, in part by rewarding consumers who reduce energy use. [Timothy Egan, "Suddenly, It's Hip to Conserve Energy," New York Times, 6/20/04.] In New England, the regional electricity grid operator, ISO-NE, manages what are known as “demand response” programs, which pay businesses to reduce energy consumption during periods of exceptionally high demand on the grid. The $17 million and $8.7 million of price supports to be paid to Enxco and DisGen (for the Brodie project) respectively by Massachusetts Technology Collaborative could be used, instead, to fund individual and community demand response programs. Towns would have a lucrative alternative to trading irreplaceable quality of life for tax revenue, and electricity ratepayers would have the benefits of energy use reductions at a far lower cost than building new power plants.

[48] The Country Guardian website in Britain is an excellent source of information and links to other groups. http://www.countryguardian.net/links.htm; http://www.saveourhills.org; http://www.viewsofscotland.org; http://www.promcoastguardians.org; http://www.naboertilvindmoller.dk.

[49] Here are some sample articles: N. Young, “How a Green Dream Turned Into a Rural Nightmare,” Western Morning News, 12/2/04, http://www.thisisdevon.co.uk/displayNode.jsp?nodeId=143632&command=displayContent&sourceNode=142719&contentPK=11420100; Geoff Strong, “Wind farm plan creates anger,” The Age, 4/22/03, http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/04/21/1050777212046.html?oneclick=true; “Turbine plan divides town, The Advertiser, 12/8/04, http://bendigo.yourguide.com.au/detail.asp?class=news&subclass=local&category=general%20news&story_id=356041&m=12&y=2004.

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

[51] Renee Mickelburgh, Tony Paterson and Kim Willsher, “Huge protests by voters force the continent's governments to rethink so-called green energy,” Daily Telegraph, 4/5/04, http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=%2Fnews%2F2004%2F04%2F04%2Fwwind04.xml&secureRefresh=true&_requestid=1493.

[52] Websites of a few groups are as follows: http://www.saveoursound.org; http://www.protecttheflinthills.org; http://www.savesardinia.com; http://www.prattsburgh.org.

[53] http://www.saveblackwater.org; http://www.responsiblewind.org; http://www.potomacstewards.org/; http://www.friendsofthealleghenyfront.org/.

[54] http://www.kingdomcommonsgroup.org/; http://www.glebemountaingroup.org/; http://www.kirbymountain.com/rosenlake/wind/index.html.

[55] Beth Daley, “Wind farms find unlikely foe in environmentalists,” Boston Globe, 8/1/04, http://www.boston.com/globe/.

[56] The Center for Ecological Technology and the Conservation Law Foundation are two groups that been particularly active in trying to line up support for wind power in the Berkshires.

[57] Among other activities, the Massachusetts Technology Collaborative has sponsored events and exhibits at MassMOCA, underwritten public radio station WMAC, and supported programs of such groups as Center for Ecological Technology and Conservation Law Foundation.

[58] On 12/7/04, Governor Romney told a public forum on the proposed Cape Wind project, "I've seen wind farms, and they are not pretty. If we want them in Massachusetts, we'll build them, but not here on Nantucket Sound." He also said, "Nantucket Sound is a national treasure, and as such, should not be a factory for wind. Public interest must trump private profit." He then warned of plummeting waterfront property values if the wind farm is built. [John Leaning, "People pack wind farm forum in Yarmouth," Cape Cod Times, 12/8/04, http://www.capecodonline.com/cctimes/peoplepack8.htm]; Beth Daley, “New report refuels debate on wind farm in Nantucket Sound,” Boston Globe, 11/9/04, http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2004/11/09/new_report_refuels_debate_on_wind_farm_in_nantucket_sound?pg=full; Stephanie Ebbert, “Romney boosts wind farm opposition,” Boston Globe, 11/11/04, http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2004/11/11/romney_boosts_wind_farm_opposition/.

[59] http://www.mass.gov/envir/mepa/pdffiles/certificates/12992enf.pdf; http://www.mass.gov/envir/mepa/pdffiles/certificates/12993enf.pdf; http://www.mass.gov/envir/mepa/pdffiles/certificates/12994enf.pdf; http://www.mass.gov/envir/mepa/pdffiles/certificates/12995enf.pdf; http://www.mass.gov/envir/mepa/pdffiles/certificates/12996enf.pdf

[60] Within Massachusetts, most power-plant emissions are produced in the central and eastern parts of the state, where the bulk of the population resides. (Overall emission levels from those plants have been dropping, in any case.) Air pollution affecting the Berkshires wafts here from midwest power plants. [Ian Bishop, "New England environment at stake before science panel," North Adams Transcript, 5/27/04.] Air pollution from the coal that fuels Asia's growing economy also flows this way. [Jasper Becker, "Wrenching environmental problems are plaguing the world's newest industrial powerhouse," National Geographic Magazine, 3/04; Andrew C. Revkin, "A Far-Reaching Fire Makes a Point About Pollution, New York Times, 7/27/04.] Building wind power plants on Berkshire mountains won't have any impact on faraway pollution sources. Ruining our environment to save it is a desperate, and ineffective, choice.