[ exact phrase in "" • ~10 sec • results by date ]

[ Google-powered • results by relevance ]

LOCATION/TYPE

News Home
Archive
RSS

Subscribe to RSS feed

Add NWW headlines to your site (click here)

Sign up for daily updates

Keep Wind Watch online and independent!

Donate $10

Donate $5

Selected Documents

All Documents

Research Links

Alerts

Press Releases

FAQs

Publications & Products

Photos & Graphics

Videos

Allied Groups

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

morningsentinel.mainetoday.com

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

Wind Watch relies entirely
on User Funding
Donate $5 PayPal Donate

Share:


News Watch Home

Get the Facts Follow Wind Watch on Twitter

Wind Watch on Facebook

Share

CONTACT DONATE PRIVACY ABOUT SEARCH
© National Wind Watch, Inc.
Use of copyrighted material adheres to Fair Use.
"Wind Watch" is a registered trademark.
Share

Wind Watch on Facebook

Follow Wind Watch on Twitter