Letter to the Editor, Rutland (Vt.) Herald
September 25, 2006

To the Editor:

Close readers of Eric Rosenbloom's anti-wind letter of Sept. 24 will have noted that it was long on rhetoric but remarkably short on substance.

I had cited a study prepared for the company that operates New York's electric transmission system, looking at the effect of adding thousands of wind turbines to the system. The study found that substantial fuel savings and pollution reduction would result. In response, Mr. Rosenbloom criticizes me for not providing sources from European countries on the actual experience with wind energy there.

While such information does exist, there is no need to look so far from home. Just last week (Sept. 21), Green Mountain Power Co. issued a news release on the 10th anniversary of the installation of the first wind turbine at its wind farm in Searsburg, Vt. The release said in part: "The 11 turbines at GMP’s Searsburg plant have generated 110,000 megawatt-hours [110 million kilowatt-hours] since they began operation in 1997, which is the equivalent of approximately 14,000 homes being powered by wind for a full year. Every kilowatt-hour generated by wind avoids a kilowatt-hour generated by another source, which on the New England grid is generally natural gas or oil fired during the peak periods when wind generation is at its height."

Vermont wind turbines would increase our state's energy security and make us less dependent on energy imports. They would generate electricity indefinitely, with no mining, drilling, or water use, and no air pollution, no water pollution, and no global warming pollution. Wind energy makes sense for Vermont.

Thomas O. Gray
Deputy Executive Director
American Wind Energy Association