Wind Power News: Massachusetts
These news and opinion items are gathered by National Wind Watch to help keep readers informed about developments related to industrial wind energy. They are the products of the organizations or individuals noted and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of National Wind Watch.
Voters soundly rejected a question on Tuesday’s ballot that would have funded the removal of two town-owned wind turbines. Forty-one percent of registered voters — 9,873 out of 24,158 — turned out to cast ballots on 18 questions, including Question 2, which would have authorized the decommissioning, dismantling and removal of the turbines and the repayment of grants, prepaid renewable energy credits and other costs associated with removal. The question was rejected 6,001 to 2,940, with 67 percent voting against . . .
Falmouth town voters have spoken and, for now, it looks as though Wind 1 and Wind 2 will keep turning at the Falmouth Wastewater Treatment Facility. With 100% of all 9 precinct results in, the May 21 Annual Town Election summary report states that 6,001 people (67.12%) voted NO and 2,940 (32.88%) voted YES on Question 2 – the ballot question on whether the town should fund removal of the industrial-sized turbines that have divided the communtiy since they were . . .
Voted a substitute motion for Article 17, which originally sought to rename the Wind Power Study Committee formed in 2007 as the Alternative Energy Committee and to charge the committee “to study and report on all forms of alternative energy except for wind power. Said committee will not be authorized to recommend vendors, studies, apply for permits or seek grants that will result in the placement of wind turbines on town property or within the Area of Critical Environmental Concern.”
The substitute motion crafted by Manoogian and Town Meeting member Tim Hawkes reads as follows, “The SAEC will study and gather information on all forms of alternative energy and to consider their uses in Saugus with full consideration for public safety, public health and the environment. Said committee shall also consider and recommend energy conservation measures for residential, commercial and public facilities. The SAEC will not seek, study or advocate for the placement of wind turbines within the Area of Critical Environmental Concern at the Rumney Marsh. Furthermore the SAEC will not seek the placement of industrial size wind turbines anywhere else in Saugus unless or until it is determined that newer technologies of such turbines will produce wind power that is not detrimental to public health and safety or to the environment.”
With the two 400-foot-tall turbines slowly spinning in the background, Falmouth resident Rob Laird talked about climate change, and how he first thought the machines would be part of the solution. “‘This is great,’” he remembered thinking. “‘This is going to solve lots of problems. And look, it’s right in my backyard. And that’s kind of neat because it’s this new cool thing coming along.’ And then they turned it on. And it wasn’t 20 minutes after that I called . . .
KINGSTON- Only an hour after the Kingston Board of Health (BOH) recessed their April 22 public hearing on shadow-flicker—the BOH was back in session at a Kingston bar, with a quorum, dining next to the top executives of the LLC managing three of Kingston’s four skyscraping wind turbines. An ethics complaint, filed with Attorney General Martha Coakley by KJ.com News Editor Bradford Randall, formally alleges that the Kingston BOH violated the Open Meeting Law (G.L. c.30A~18-25) on the night of . . .
KINGSTON — Tomorrow night, selectmen are expected to finalize a letter to the state Department of Environmental Protection asking for assistance with compliance testing for the Independence wind turbine in the aftermath of its owners’ refusing to participate in a long-awaited acoustic monitoring study. At their meeting tonight, members of the Board of Health agreed to approve the letter and intend to sign it after selectmen approve it. Chairman Joe Casna said he’s in disbelief that KWI would wait until . . .
With an eye toward lowering energy costs for Bay Staters, Attorney General Martha Coakley wants to thresh out why bills are high, and what could be done to lower them. Ahead of an energy summit in Norwood Monday morning, Coakley told the News Service that she wants to see how the state could better carry out environmentally friendly energy policies with an eye on the bottom line. “I would like to start the conversation on Monday about where we are . . .
Linda Davis supported building and paying for two town-owned wind turbines when the project came before voters at town meetings between 2007 and 2009. But as the complaints from neighbors living near the turbines grew since the first one started spinning in 2010, Davis had second thoughts and began poring over her notes and reviewing videos of those meetings. “Clearly, very few people asked questions, and everyone was on board,” Davis said. “It became clear this year to me and . . .
Transcript STEVE INSKEEP, HOST: Next week, voters in Falmouth, Massachusetts decide whether to spend $14 million to tear down two wind turbines – or turbines if you prefer. The Cape Cod town installed these turbines just three years ago in an effort to produce renewable energy and cut costs. Nearby residents says the turbines are a health hazard and that the only cure is to take them down. Sean Corcoran of member station WCAI has more. (SOUNDBITE OF WIND TURBINES) . . .
Since the controversy started over the wind turbines more than three years ago, property values in the surrounding area have been a major concern for residents. But whether there is actually cause for concern is an open question. Patricia Favulli, acting assessor for the Town of Falmouth, has seen no evidence that home values have been affected. In the years following the installation of Wind 1 at the Falmouth Wastewater Treatment Facility, she said, homes have sold for close to . . .