Dear Editor:

It is encouraging to see our town leaders gathering together in Edgecomb tonight (Thursday, October 11 at 6 p.m. at Bintliff's) to discuss the local impacts should the proposed coal plant and refinery be built in Wiscasset.

I would urge the Boards of Selectmen to establish, as a basic principal, that no economic harm will come to our property owners, or to our towns, as a direct result of the Twin Rivers Energy plant. With this basic principal agreed to, the mitigation actions for the two factors discussed here should become clear.

The impact on property owners caused by the decrease in property values. This impact will be most pronounced on the homes which will have a direct view of the plant and possible noise, light and odors from the plant. Local realtors have estimated a 20 percent to 50 percent reduction in values depending on proximity to and view of the plant.

The impact on school populations as a result of the 750 new workers building the plant and the 200 new workers when the plant is in operation. Some percent of these workers, most of whom will have young families, will choose to settle in adjacent towns and their children will add to our school population. A 20 percent to 40 percent increase is expected in the Town of Westport Island based on our Maine Yankee history.

Both of these impacts will cause financial loss for our residents unless mitigations are negotiated into any agreement with Wiscasset and Twin Rivers Energy (TRE). The first item will erode home values and equity. Residents who may have been counting on the equity in their home as part of their retirement planning, will be hurt directly.

Both the first and second factors will impact the mill rates in adjacent towns by simultaneously reducing the tax base (due to lower valuations) and by adding to the cost for education. These two effects will have a double impact on our future mill rates. To determine the exact amount of the impact will require careful study of our past history with the construction, operation and phase down of Maine Yankee, and detailed study of our real estate market. I would urge the Boards of Selectmen to form a task force to study these impacts to our surrounding towns and quantify the economic impact.

Upon completion of such a study, it would be incumbent on the Board of Selectmen to enter into discussions with Twin Rivers Energy on mitigating the loss of property values with affected homeowners. Those whose home values decline should be given some financial consideration. The Boards of Selectmen should also enter into negotiations with the town of Wiscasset on the impact on mill rates due to lower assessment values and higher education costs. This can be done thru "Tax Basis Sharing." Below is a brief summary of the features of "Tax Basis Sharing" agreements:

In order to provide an incentive for coordinated, multi-community economic development projects, 30-A MRSA 5752 allows communities to share their tax base. Municipalities may vote to enter into a tax base sharing agreement for all, or a specific portion of the commercial, industrial or residential assessed valuation located within their respective boundaries. Their shared valuation is assessed in the municipality in which the property is located at the municipal tax rate.

Our town leaders have a great opportunity to combine interests and talent to develop and plan a strategy for working with Wiscasset and TRE.  It is only reasonable to expect Wiscasset and TRE to recognize the fairness of the principle that no economic harm will come to our property owners, or to our towns, as a direct result of the Twin Rivers Energy plant. This is especially true given the windfall they have been promised.  TRE declined to make that pledge when asked in August.  It's time to ask again, and demand a fair response.

Dennis Dunbar

Westport Island

Dear Editor:

I am writing you to voice my support for the proposed Twin River Energy project in Wiscasset. I lived in Wiscasset while working at Maine Yankee during its construction 36 years ago. I still visit Wiscasset and stay in touch with a few friends in the local area.

My Maine friends asked me to write you about Twin River because of my many years of employment in the power generation industry. They like the whole project concept, especially reducing our dependence on foreign oil and LNG. Even more importantly, they like the fact that the project will produce lower cost power, and domestic diesel fuel plus restore many lost jobs and the property tax base.

I have read various read negative articles that remind me of my time at Maine Yankee. Project opponents are obviously trying to scare people into believing that there are some things that will harm them after the plant is built. Maine Yankee lived with the same negative attitude for most of the years that it operated. I recall reading about all the "unanswered questions" about radioactivity, nuclear accidents, fish contamination and more. We heard all about how many people living next to the plant could contract more cancer as a result, or otherwise be harmed by some vague things that the company "doesn't talk about," or was hiding.

Unfortunately, that same approach is being used today to try to stop a very good project by creating a fear of the unknown, probably by some of the same people or groups that opposed Maine Yankee! All it takes is for someone who is against the project to start spreading fear about things that are not easy to see, touch taste, smell or measure.

Mercury emissions from Twin River are an example. Does anyone really think that a permit would be granted in today's world that would allow the release of mercury in any amount that could harm anyone or anything? If they do, why would the DEP and EPA allow such a thing? Those agencies have teams of technical and health experts that have developed allowable limits based on facts, not emotion. It's their job to enforce Maine's very stringent mercury regulation.

The applicant for a permit must meet those limits by design and then operate the plant demonstrating that it is in compliance with the permit. No permit - no financing, no construction, no operation!

I ask that the citizens of Wiscasset, Westport and all the other communities around the former Maine Yankee site answer some questions themselves. Did really bad things ever happen as a result of Maine Yankee operating all those years? Did cancer rates in Lincoln County increase over the state and federal norms? I rest my case.

My conclusion is that the locals are lucky to have such a great opportunity to regain much of what was lost and help start reversing the need to import more oil and gas every day.

Sincerely,

Carlos Bing-Zaremba

Folly Beach, S.C.

Dear Editor:

In last week's issue of the Wiscasset Newspaper, the commentary from the Back River Alliance had an error in the editing of the article. The table was to have a footnote under it as follows:

*Scaled-up from the Stanton Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) by a factor of 2.45 for 700 KW plant.

This line must have been dropped when the article was edited as it was on the submitted text that I provided.

It is a very important footnote. Without it, readers might misinterpret the table to state what the actual TRE plant will emit. That, of course, is unknown until a design is set and operator selected. The table is meant to show what the TRE 700 KW plant would emit if it were scaled-up from the Stanton plant, where firm data is actually available from an Environmental Impact Statement.

Thanks,

Dennis Dunbar

Back River Alliance

Dear Editor:

Aside from food, water and a roof over your head, one of the most valued things in life are family and good caring friends. And these friends are surprisingly easy to come by because, when you think of it, every stranger could be the friend you just haven't met yet.

Let's face it. Originally we were all "from away" except for the Native Americans. But now we have those native Mainers born and bred here for generations. Next, the resident Mainers who moved here "from away" many years ago so consider themselves pretty much Mainers.

Then there are those recently "from away" who have found that life in Maine - including the pace, the sometimes harsh weather and other good and bad things that occur here - is just where they want to be living.

Along with all this comes an interchange of traditional thinking mixed with the experiences and thoughts of those "from away" who have seen what can and has happened and don't want to see happen in the place they too have come to love. It's a fine line the "old" and "new" folks must walk together, listening carefully to each other's points of view as we work to bring operations into the twenty-first century without such radical changes and which will benefit the majority of our area people. So here in the chatter is the chance to get to know that stranger who might just become a good friend, whether you agree to the Nth degree or not on the discussion at hand.

It is "senior moments" like this when I am becoming increasingly aware of how many really good friends I have made unknowingly in the relatively few years since becoming a full time resident. I want to take this opportunity to thank the Wiscasset Senior Center and Community Center and all the friends in and outside of town who supported me during six years of caring for my husband.

Now these same people at the Senior Center - plus so many more - continue to support me and my children with their letters, cards of thoughts and prayers, flowers, phone calls and visits, as are many others both in town and out of town.

It is humbling indeed to realize the number of known and unknown people who have found me worth knowing. Everyone should be so blessed and I really do feel blessed and grateful and can't thank you all enough.

Jo Bryer

Wiscasset

Dear Editor,

It seems that many believe that it is mainly a "small" group mostly "from away" that oppose the gasification plant. My family has lived in Wiscasset since 1918 after moving here from far away places like Boothbay, Edgecomb and Westport Island.

I was able to attend two of the informational meetings because I wanted more information to be able to make an informed decision. The presentation sounded great. Who wouldn't want lower property taxes, more jobs, and cleaner fuel! Property taxes are a concern for most of us; I'm with people every day who are worried about being able to stay in their homes. I also understand the need for good jobs in the area…

I have to drive three hours in each direction to visit my 25-year-old son. But my son has a two-and-a-half- year-old daughter, and I would not want my granddaughter living anywhere near this proposed plant. In my process of becoming informed, I have learned about the carbon emissions increasing Maine's global warming pollution, the mercury emissions, the unknown effects on Wiscasset's air and water quality… I'm concerned about the transportation of the coal… the huge quantities of water required… my concerns go on and on.

We can find other ways to lower the property taxes. We can find other ways to create jobs; we must make decisions that protect the health of our children and grandchildren and work to protect our environment.

I plan to vote "no" on the proposed ordinance change in November, and I hope and pray there are many more like me, quietly getting the facts, who will come to the same decision.

Nancy Sherman Roby

Wiscasset

Dear Editor:

The coal gasification plant at Wabash River, West Terre Haute, Indiana, is consistently described as "the world's cleanest coal powered plant" or "one of the cleanest coal-fired plants in the world."

Wabash River is certainly cleaner than traditional coal-fired powerplants. However, this plant generated and shipped 470 tons of hazardous waste during 2005 (940,000 pounds, slightly more than 2,500 pounds per day), according to the EPA. During 2003, this plant generated 427 tons of hazardous waste.

Twin River Energy would be 2 times larger than Wabash River (Twin River Energy: 6,000-7,000 tons of coal per day used; Wabash River: 2,500 tons per day of a coal and/or petroleum coke used).

As residents of Wiscasset, we have a right to know:

• How much hazardous waste would be generated by Twin River Energy?

• What is it composed of?

• How toxic is it?

• How would it be stored?

• Where would it be shipped?

• How would it be shipped?

• What route would it follow as it travels through our town on its way to a hazardous waste treatment facility?

• What are the consequences of a spill?

• What additional training and certification would be required for Wiscasset emergency personnel to handle a spill?

• What additional emergency equipment would Wiscasset have to purchase in order to handle a spill?

Given the large quantities involved, we need these questions answered before we vote in November.

Dan Sortwell

Wiscasset

Dear Editor:

We often hear how our children are not active enough, or how they don't get outside to enjoy the natural beauty. There are many active outdoor opportunities available.

This month you'll find a large group of our children active and outdoors while participating in a program that had its origins 100 years ago off the coast of England. The Pine Tree Council, Boy Scouts of America (BSA) will be holding a Jamboree at the Oxford County Fairgrounds to celebrate the 100th Anniversary of Scouting. From Oct. 19-21 upwards of 2,500 scouts and scouters will be camping and an additional 2,000 day visitors are expected on Saturday to participate in a variety of scouting activities.

Since the founding of the Boy Scouts of America, Scouting programs have instilled in youth the values found in the Scout Oath and Law. Today, these values are just as relevant in helping youth grow to their full potential as in the beginning. Scouting helps youth develop academic skills, self-confidence, ethics, leadership skills and citizenship skills that influence their adult lives.

Many of the activities and much of the learning in the Scouting program happens outdoors. Be it a major event like "Maine Jam 2007" or a local Boy Scout troop's overnight camping trip, you'll find many youth outdoors, learning and developing.

I'd invite anyone interested in Scouting to join us at "Maine Jam 2007" to experience a Scouting event and learn more about Scouting and Scout skills. You can't spell Scouting without "Outing" and Outings happen outdoors.

James M. Lesser, Volunteer

Pine Tree Council, BSA

Marketing Chair, Maine Jam 2007

Dear Editor:

Last week, Mr. Willy Ritch - President of the Back River Alliance wrote, "The proposed coal plant in Wiscasset would release, according to the developers, National RE/sources, 22 pounds of mercury a year into the atmosphere. That's more than the combined mercury emission of the incinerators in Biddeford, Orrington and Minot. What do you think that would do to the mercury levels of fish in the area?"

Here are the facts and my sources…

Mercury: "Maine is a leader in protecting its citizens from the dangers of mercury in its air and water. In Maine, overall mercury emissions to the air have dropped by more than 75% from their peak in 1991, with reductions by municipal waste incinerators leading the way." Source: www.maine.gov/dep/air/toxics/mercury.htm

Mr. Ritch cleverly cites the combined mercury emissions of three of the four incinerators in Maine. Let's add the fourth, the incinerator located in Portland Maine. The numbers are listed in the chart above; the source is "2006 State Report - Maine Air Toxics Initiative," prepared pursuant to PL CL84, "resolve, directing the air toxic advisory committee to review the status of toxic emissions from waste to energy facilities in the state and recommend actions aimed at reducing and monitoring these emissions, June 3, 2005."

Interesting, that a 700 Megawatt coal gasification facility proposed in Wiscasset, Maine is said to only produce 22 pounds of mercury annually. How is that possible? How can one facility, with 10 times the generating capacity of all four incinerators in the state of Maine combined, produce 38 percent less mercury? The answer is technology. The trash burner in Portland uses mitigation technology today to significantly reduce mercury emissions. Activated carbon is injected in the flue gas stream to adsorb the mercury.

But, "Hey, we've been deceived by National RE/sources before!"

"After the height restriction is removed, they can do anything they want and we can't stop them." Before we buy into the environmental scare tactics of Mr. Ritch and the Back River Alliance surrounding mercury emissions, let us ask, "What environmental laws are in place today, in Maine, to protect us from mercury emissions?"

Here is a subsection of the Maine law, Title 38, Chapter 4, Section 585-B Hazardous air pollution standards, ( 5.) Standards for mercury: "An air emission source may not emit mercury in excess of 45.4 kilograms, or 100 pounds, per year after January 1, 2000; 22.7 kilograms, or 50 pounds, per year after January 1, 2004; 15.9 kilograms, or 35 pounds, after January 1, 2007; and 11.4 kilograms, or 25 pounds, after January 1, 2010."

It seems that our tax dollars spent in Augusta are providing us with some good. Anyone wishing to build anything in Maine will have to adhere to this law. As Maine tightens its mercury emissions standard, it protects Maine and any other territory potentially exposed. In doing my research for this letter, I came across a most interesting fact.

In Maine, the Toxicity-Weighted Emissions from Industrial Fuel Combustion shows that the majority of airborne toxins are derived from wood and wood waste (64 percent); next is foreign residual oil (25 percent), followed by natural gas (6 percent). Bituminous coal accounts for one percent in Maine today. Maine's four incinerators accounted for .056 percent of all statewide toxicity weighted emissions.

I grew up near the Androscoggin River. At one time the Androscoggin River was considered by the Federal EPA as one of the top 10 dirtiest rivers in the country. Today, I can swim and fish in the river and, yes, I can even eat the fish. What is Mr. Ritch and the Back River Alliance's position on airborne toxins derived from wood and residual oil burning? Perhaps their time would be better spent chasing windmills. I understand that bats and birds are being slain needlessly.

Mark Ramsey

Wiscasset

Dear Editor:

Let me say from the outset that I am from "away," a farm in Minnesota originally. But when I moved to New England twenty-three years ago, I fell in love with Maine after my first visit to Acadia. Since then, I have been lucky enough to enjoy its beauty through boats, bikes, skis, and ropes. It is only in the last four years that my husband and I have been able to contemplate living here full time. I realize I am a very lucky person to be able to wake up every day and watch "The Nature Channel" right outside of my window.

Recently I saw a jumping school of tiny silvery fish that were being closely monitored by three loons, two seals, and a flock of excited gulls. Such is the cycle of life.

I admit that I have much to learn about living in Maine. I also think I have some things to offer. Growing up on a dairy farm taught me lots about working with nature. My father practiced soil conservation practices such as crop rotation and leaving land fallow at times so that the earth would continue to produce for the future. We cared for a hundred Holstein cows as well as assorted dogs, cats, chickens, and ducks over the years. Occasionally a cow would get sick and need antibiotics. At those times we had to dispose of her milk, so that it would not contaminate what we sold. It was a very sad day for my father if a cow got milk fever and had to be put down. The animals were a huge responsibility, but we cared about them and did our best to help them have a good life.

Every person needs to do what she or he thinks is right. Although coal gasification may be a much better technology than what was available a generation ago, it does not seem to be the right industry to put here. We all breathe the air, drink the water, and contend with the traffic on Route 1.

Ten million gallons of water a day would have to come from somewhere. Transporting coal, diesel fuel, and the resulting byproducts by water, rail, or truck is inherently risky to us and the environment. We do not have an empty mine, oil well, or appropriate geologic formation here into which the carbon dioxide can be pumped. We now know how harmful even a tiny bit of mercury is to children and pregnant women in particular, affecting the senses, brain, spinal cord, kidneys, and liver, often causing birth defects. We are only on this earth a short time. Optimally it is our responsibility to make it a better place, but at a minimum we should not spoil this gift from God. Please think carefully and look into your heart before you vote November 6.

Pat Smith

Westport Island

Dear Editor:

The easiest and most economical use of coal is to burn it directly.  This of course would require the development of advanced treatment processes to sequester sulfur and nitrogen oxides, carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide, etc. generated during processing. 

The extremely complex processes proposed - by a real estate developer - for Wiscasset, for Maine and for the global environment will never be economic and will require the infusion of massive subsidies from both federal and state agencies (which means increased taxes for all of us).  In the short term, projects such as that proposed for Wiscasset may be funded but will rapidly be discarded as the real costs of such follies are understood by the public.

Beyond even the lack of economic feasibility, the environmental benefits trumpeted for the proposed gasification and Fisher-Tropsch steps are grossly overstated and are rightfully being attacked by a growing number of environmental groups. I haven't seen any description of the process.

The production of synthetic diesel and gasoline products have been around since the 1930s.  The Germans successfully applied processes of (1) gasification (generation of CO and H2 production by reacting coal with steam), followed by (2) water gas shift which adjusts the H2/CO ratio to a value approaching 3-4 which optimizes (3) the Fischer-Tropsch synthesis chemistry which yields a wide range of paraffinic hydrocarbons with carbon contents ranging from 1 to 100 and even higher.  Diesel-range straight chain molecules have from 12 to 30 carbon atoms per molecule, thus to increase the amount of diesel produced the molecules containing more than about 30 carbon atoms must be (4) back cracked  to smaller carbon containing molecules in the normal diesel range.

The bottom line is that synthetic diesel (and gasoline) could only be made through massive federal and state subsidies.  Such complex processing schemes are doomed for failure and would never survive in a competitive economic environment. 

Plants such as that proposed for Wiscasset will be short lived.

A growing cadre of scientists believe nuclear generation of electricity and high-capacity batteries will certainly surface to power our homes and automobiles within the next 20 years or so.

Respectfully submitted,

Robert K. Sturtz

Albany Twp, Maine

Dear Editor:

The town of Wiscasset is much like other small towns. One difference however, is that we have one of the most beautiful pristine rivers in the state. This river is in jeopardy in which a vote on November 6 could change it forever.  About 800 people or more make their living from the river. This includes lobstermen, clam diggers, worm diggers, charter groups, and many others. 

Do not forget the recreation activities that go on as well.  Indirectly these jobs contribute to the economy as well through the purchases of supplies, not to mention by providing highly valued food products, one of Maine's greatest treasures.

So you ask, how will the energy facility affect the river?  Coal needed to fuel the plant will be transported by large barges up the channel.  This will not allow the channel to be used for commercial fishing. The pollutants, which the plant will produce, will affect everything, water, mud flats and land in which it comes in contact with.  Mercury levels alone have seriously caused major negative effects in other rivers.

We need to think about the future of our river. Will our children be able to enjoy the very thing that we have enjoyed for years?  We are told that this very plant will lower our taxes. 

Haven't we been promised this once already and not received a dime? Certainly there is something in the future that can work, but do not be hasty to vote for something that will create so much harm to the work force and the environment.  Do not give up the very things that we cherish.

Steven Peaslee

Wiscasset

Dear Editor:

In response to the letter from the far away state of Washington, I feel badly that Mr. Kasper can't have a coal gasification/refinery in his backyard on his little island paradise - because the state of Washington has enough sense not to risk their agricultural, fishing and tourism industries to such a fanciful scheme just so a few can be enriched while many are put at risk. 

I would almost guarantee that the folks up in the San Juan Island area of Washington would resist such a scheme, as would those in Tacoma, Olympia and other areas.  If he wants to have one in his backyard, he can pack up and move right in, next door and downwind of the Terre Haute, Indiana coal gasification plant. 

If he likes the scenery of 230 foot buildings and smokestacks towering above the tree line and blocking the skyline, big barges crowding out fishing and recreational boats, the possibility of toxic releases, the chance of chemical spills contaminating wells and rivers, 24/7 noise and lights, heavy truck and train traffic, then leave the mountains, clean rivers and coastlines and your little island in Washington and move to some other heavily industrialized and polluted city.  Why are you living in such a pristine environment when there are so many other dirty and polluted places to live?

I am further amazed that someone from thousands of miles away is so knowledgeable and concerned about our welfare; everything from our taxes, jobs, waterways, permitting processes and viability of the project.  Apparently Mr. Kasper never really lived here - he just visited - but yet he can speak to "the character of the place" - especially from so far away.  Does he really understand?  No!  He is ignoring every possible damaging trade-off to this haphazard scheme. 

Does he even have a simple grasp of how much we stand to lose for some exaggerated claim of how this project is going to save the world?  There are many other places that have far greater energy needs than we 1.3 million Mainers.  Also, we Mainers don't have much pollution, but we would have if this scheme gets going and they can buy carbon credits from somewhere else - this is the process of buying the right to pollute more in one place from someone who doesn't pollute as much somewhere else - pollute heavier here, cleaner somewhere else - great idea!

His overall support rests with the "it will all work out in the end" approach.  Just trust the promoters of the scheme, and all your questions and worries will be addressed AFTER you vote to approve the ordinance changes. The citizens of Wiscasset must put their worries aside and trust outside regulatory agencies to give a damn about our small town.  It hasn't worked so well before, so why will it now?  Mr. Kasper is just "spinning" information, dodging the truths, and glamorizing a disgusting idea for the promoters of the scheme.  Our land, water, air, traditions and people are at risk for contrived reasons.

In his Letter to the Editor, he uses the words "concept" and "conceived" as though they are the final word, the signed contract, the sworn testimony - when in actuality "concept" is a general idea or derived notion; and "conceived" is to form in the mind, as in "to imagine something" (to think it, is to believe it). 

The "well conceived project" then, is imagined in someone's mind and is put forth as a notion - not very convincing!

Your wish may come true Mr. Kasper - my house will be for sale if the scheme gets approved.

Larry Lomison

Wiscasset

Dear Editor:

I have been following the Twin River Energy proposal in Wiscasset as reported in the local papers and there seems to be some misunderstandings that I thought I might be able to clarify or, at least, provide some perspective to my friends and neighbors in Lincoln County based on many years of air quality engineering experience. My time in various consulting roles has now exceeded my 18 years of service with the Maine Department of Environmental Protection's Bureau of Air Quality.

I fully understand the concern of residents living near the project site. I have found that good political decisions depend on good science to objectively weigh the protection of local environmental quality against the public benefit of development of a new, reliable, domestic energy source.

One issue that seems to have been blown out of proportion lately is that of mercury emissions.

Maine certainly has an issue with mercury in fish and sediments in lakes and rivers. Much of the existing mercury can be traced to air emissions from coal fired power plants in the midwest before they were required to install emissions control; the mercury remains an issue because of its environmental persistence and ability to bioaccumulate in fish and wildlife. From what I understand about the Twin River Energy project, mercury emissions will be reduced by at least 95 percent (far better than now required for coal fired power plants) and will result in less than 22 lbs/year.

For the past three years I have had the opportunity to represent Maine's business community on the DEP's Air Toxics Advisory Committee. The DEP's air toxics initiative has resulted in one of the most comprehensive evaluations of air toxic emissions ever prepared for a state. Mercury ranks only 27th on the Maine Air Toxics Priority List and it has earned that rank not based on its toxicity but rather based on its environmental persistence and bioaccumulation potential.

Mercury emissions in Maine are estimated to be 900 lbs/year of which more than half is from diesel fuel used in cars and trucks and combustion of fuel oil. The ultra-clean diesel produced at Twin River Energy will contain significantly less mercury than traditional diesel oils and will thereby help to reduce mercury emissions from these important source categories.

But while we all want to see this benefit, we have to be concerned that it is not attained at the expense of those living near the proposed facility, and I do not believe that this will be the case. In the air pollution field, mercury emissions from properly designed stacks are considered more of a potential long-range transport (hundreds to thousands of miles downwind) issue than a potential local issue. This has been shown to be the case in Maine with past mercury deposition from uncontrolled midwestern power plants.

Contrary to this, impacts from cars and trucks burning diesel fuel are more of a local issue because these emissions are released at low levels and do not disperse well, accumulating in the local area. Any mercury reduction from these sources in Lincoln County is beneficial locally.

I urge you to have faith in the permitting process to bring out all the relevant facts so that permitting decisions objectively protect and preserve the environmental quality and standard of living for the residents of Wiscasset.

The appropriate stack height, the specific air pollution controls and operating requirements for the Twin River Energy project will all be determined through this permitting process and you can rest assured that no permit will be issued until the applicant meets his burden of proof that emissions are receiving best available control technology and that impacts will be protective of public health and welfare by being less than Maine's ambient air quality standards and guidelines.

David Dixon, P.E.

Whitefield

To the Editor and the residents of Wiscasset:

Joe Cotter, president of the company proposing both the Point East Maritime Village and the Twin River Coal Gasification plant, recently wrote to this newspaper criticizing the Conservation Law Foundation for raising questions about his proposed new coal plant.

If the shrill tone of that "letter" is any indication, Mr. Cotter understands that he and his company are in deep trouble.

Point East's grandiose Maritime Village is dead in the water. Despite the fancy advertising still on their website, few or no houses have been sold, the marina operator has backed out, the waterfront is idle, and millions of dollars of asbestos and toxic waste remediation remains to be done before anyone can even go inside the old power plant.

Rather than find investors to restart the Maritime Village, Cotter and Point East have come up with a new scheme - the Twin River Energy Center. Once again, to get town approval for their plans, Cotter and Point East are romancing Wiscasset with the lure of jobs and tax relief.

Judging by the turnout at recent public meetings, the residents of Wiscasset are skeptical. They should be. The Twin River proposal is beyond "pie in the sky." It's simply not financially or technically possible. Wiscasset will never see the promised jobs and tax benefits.

On the other hand, if the proposed zoning amendments are approved by voters in November, Wiscasset will almost certainly experience significant and immediate negative impacts. A yes vote would tie up the town's best development opportunities in a hopeless project and permanently halt redevelopment of Mason Station. The possibility of a massive coal plant and diesel refinery at the iPark would devastate property values on the south end of town, correspondingly driving up taxes on the north end. The looming uncertainty would drive away new home buyers, hurt existing businesses, and keep out new and realistic development proposals.

In other words, Wiscasset has almost nothing to gain from this proposal and a lot to lose.

Here's why, looking just at the economics, the Twin River Energy Center is pie in the sky:

It's Too Expensive : Based on published costs for similar proposals in the Midwest, this is about a $3 billion project - double what Point East claims.

High Priced Power : Coal gasification is proving to be non-competitive, even in today's high-priced energy markets. The real reason Point East can't find investors or an energy partner is because the power from this project would cost too much - about 8 to 10 cents per kWh or about 400% more than Point East claims.

No investors : Around the country, banks and big utilities are cancelling contracts for this technology. Tampa Bay Electric just dropped plans for a new 632 MW coal gasification plant because of costs and excess CO2 pollution. The Minnesota Public Utilities Commission recently vetoed power contract for a proposed 600 MW coal gasification plant because the price of power (9 to 11 cents/kWh) was far higher than other, cleaner sources. Both of these projects died even though they were promised massive federal subsidies.

Cotter and Point East have additional problems with this site, which will make construction of the Twin River scheme even more unlikely. One of the biggest is the Bailey Point location. The Back River is the only possible source of the 8.5 million gallons of water needed daily; but to use it Point East would have to build a desalinization plant, which would drive project costs even higher.

Similarly, no seagoing coal barge can negotiate the "Snake Trail" on the Back River or pass under the Westport Island Bridge. Nor can the Mid-Coast's aging rail lines handle daily coal trains of a mile long or more. That leaves only one option: the coal barges will come up the Sheepscot River, dock at Mason Station and ship the coal to the iPark by rail along Route 144. In other words, this would kill the Maritime Village (and every other waterfront business). Mason Station would become a two million ton-per-year coal storage pile and loading zone instead of a world class resort.

But the problems actually get worse from there. This massive 23-story, sprawling energy complex would overwhelm the town of Wiscasset. The coal loading equipment, conveyor system, coal pulverizer, gasifier, refinery and multiple gas turbines (which are modified jet engines) will almost certainly all run 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, flooding the community with constant noise, lights, odors, gas flares and pollution.

The coal barges would drive the Sheepscot lobster fishery out of business and reduce the acreage of mudflats open to worming. The giant wake from the daily 7,000-ton coal barge traffic would pound any and all docks, boats and gear on the river. Train and truck traffic would inundate the town and surrounding areas.

All that activity would send the coal dust flying. Despite Point East's claims to the contrary, the reality is that coal remains our dirtiest and most toxic fossil fuel. Coal handling facilities - especially in a facility like this one that is projected to handle 2 million tons of coal per year - pollute groundwater and surrounding streams and estuaries with a toxic soup of chemicals, including cyanide, arsenic, selenium, ammonia and nitrates. Coal dust would coat the town on windy days. The gasification system would produce large amounts of mercury (a neurotoxin) and sulfuric and hydrochloric acid (which are extremely corrosive and explosive).

Finally, if built this plant would emit about 5.4 million tons of carbon dioxide a year and would instantly become Maine's single largest source of global warming pollution. Nothing in the state's air pollution laws would prevent that - not even the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI). And, despite Mr. Cotter's rhetoric, RGGI does not cap Maine's CO2 emissions. Rather it caps emissions from a 12-state region. This project is the worst case scenario: Point East could buy surplus pollution credits from another state and use them to double CO2 emissions from Maine's electrical sector.

This list of problems should make clear the danger of approving the zoning ordinance amendment for Point East and Twin Rivers. Keeping alive false hopes for this project can only hurt Wiscasset. No business looking to relocate to Maine will want to be anywhere near this plant. Nor will homebuyers. Growth and prosperity will bypass Wiscasset again, and look elsewhere along the Mid-Coast.

That's a lot to risk for the sake of a highly speculative energy venture. Coal gasification, with carbon capture and sequestration, may indeed one day become an important part of the global solution to beat climate change. That technology isn't economically or technically viable yet, and even when it does become possible the industry will build in the Midwestern coal states - not a thousand miles away in Maine.

In the meantime, Wiscasset and its neighboring Mid-Coast towns can do far better. Everyone wants better paying jobs and tax revenue, but Point East has failed to deliver on such promises before. Their promises this time are even more unrealistic. Wiscasset should reject this proposal.

Steve Hinchman,

Staff Attorney

Conservation Law Foundation

Maine Advocacy Center