[ exact phrase in "" • results by date ]

[ Google-powered • results by relevance ]


Add NWW headlines to your site (click here)

when your community is targeted

Get weekly updates

RSS feeds and more

Keep Wind Watch online and independent!

Donate via Stripe

Donate via Paypal

Selected Documents

All Documents

Research Links


Press Releases


Campaign Material

Photos & Graphics


Allied Groups

Wind Watch is a registered educational charity, founded in 2005.

News Watch Home

Planners deliberate further about turbines 

A proposal to erect three electricity generating wind turbines on Beaver Ridge came as close to being scrapped last night as it had during several hours of planning board deliberation.

The board, which deliberated for about three hours last week and resumed its review Thursday night, talked seriously about limiting the company that hopes to install the turbines, Portland-based Competitive Energy Solutions, to a specific model. Such a limitation would have sent the company packing.

“If that’s where you are going, we might as well call it quits,” said Richard Silkman, a partner at competitive energy.

Though the board had spent nearly five hours examining the application to ensure it matched very specific parts of the town ordinance, the application had met all but one of the ordinance specification, relating to sound, by unanimous approval.

When it came to a performance review, however, the board scuffled with competitive energy’s inability to give specific specifications for the turbines it will install.

Anthony Rogers, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology professor who conducted a sound study for the competitive energy, had based his findings on two specific turbine models. When examining if the proposed project would meet the town’s performance standards, town attorney Bill Kelley suggested the board limit its decision to the two models in Ropers’ report.

Kelley suggested that if competitive energy wished to use a different model it should be required to amend the application.

Silkman argued that it was the board’s job to set parameters and then leave it to the company to match those parameters. Limiting the company to two models of turbines would drive up the costs and make the project unaffordable, he said.

The board ultimately agreed with Silkman’s argument, meaning the company will be free to use any equipment that falls within the ordinance’s standards.

By Craig Crosby
Staff Writer
Kennebec Journal & Morning Sentinel


This article is the work of the source indicated. Any opinions expressed in it are not necessarily those of National Wind Watch.

The copyright of this article resides with the author or publisher indicated. As part of its noncommercial educational effort to present the environmental, social, scientific, and economic issues of large-scale wind power development to a global audience seeking such information, National Wind Watch endeavors to observe “fair use” as provided for in section 107 of U.S. Copyright Law and similar “fair dealing” provisions of the copyright laws of other nations. Send requests to excerpt, general inquiries, and comments via e-mail.

Wind Watch relies entirely
on User Contributions
   Donate via Stripe
(via Stripe)
Donate via Paypal
(via Paypal)


e-mail X FB LI M TG TS G Share

News Watch Home

Get the Facts
© National Wind Watch, Inc.
Use of copyrighted material adheres to Fair Use.
"Wind Watch" is a registered trademark.


Wind Watch on X Wind Watch on Facebook Wind Watch on Linked In

Wind Watch on Mastodon Wind Watch on Truth Social

Wind Watch on Gab Wind Watch on Bluesky