Dear Mr. Cotter:

With the Tuesday [Nov. 6] vote in Wiscasset on the required height ordinance change - effectively a referendum on the TRE coal plant proposal, the residents have soundly expressed their disapproval.  The price to the community was judged just too high.  Tempting as the suggested tax benefits might have been, Wiscasset residents valued retaining the character of their community, the health of their families, the environment and their maritime heritage and industries more.  They just didn't feel comfortable with an ill conceived coal fired power plant in their residential coastal village.

Regrettably, National RE/sources suffers a lack of credibility as a result.  That is unfortunate, because Wiscasset needs National RE/- sources to succeed in their Maritime Village and i-park projects.  Unlike the coal plant, these projects enjoy broad support in the community and are viewed as a good match to the town's Comprehensive Plan.  I would urge you to direct your staff in Wiscasset to redouble their efforts on the marketing and development of both of these projects.  Delivering on the new light industries and the residential resort you and your team promised a few years ago is essential to Wiscasset's future.  I would also urge you to direct them to shut down efforts now on the coal plant idea. 

Heavy industry and environmentally damaging processes are just not compatible with Wiscasset's heritage and it's Comprehensive Plan.  Continuing to focus your team's attention on the coal plant will take away attention needed far more on the Maritime Village and i-park.

As you well know, it is up to senior management to know when to redirect focus.  You and your officers can appreciate that a time comes when you stop throwing good money after bad. That time has come on the Wiscasset coal gasification power plant and refinery.  Here's why:

• Public support is just not there in Wiscasset, as evident by the 55% to 45% loss on the height ordinance vote, and opposition is very strong in surrounding communities. About 2,000 voters in the immediate region have signed petitions opposing the plant.

• Legislative and State government support is low and eroding.

• Maine's recent efforts on the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative make CO2 reduction a key State objective. Maine sees itself as a leader in this.

• Legislation is being introduced in Maine to mandate 90% CO2 capture and sequestration for new large coal plants built here. (LD 3033)

• The proposed plant is just not capable of capturing and sequestering CO2, as was made evident in the recent Chewonki symposium. The cost to add that capability is unaffordable and Maine's geology is incompatible.

• Integrated gasification combined cycle (IGCC) projects have lost support from investors.  At least 10 proposals have been cancelled or delayed in the US this year due to soaring costs, technological uncertainties and growing concerns about carbon emissions.

• Xcel Energy in Colorado delayed their plans just this month

• Tampa Electric canceled their Polk 630 MW plant last month

• Southwestern Power Group cancelled their Bowie Arizona plant

• Ohio's AEP is expected to delay plans for an IGCC plant

• Kansas denied permits to two proposed 700 MW plants due to CO2 emissions (a first in the nation)

• Finally, the Nuon Magnum plant in Buggenum, the new full scale 1200 MW IGCC plant and refinery project, used as a model for the TRE plant, has been set aside, being replaced by a natural gas fired plant. Cost and environmental issues were too high a hurdle.

• Cost estimates made by TRE ($1.5 billion) are just not credible given the actual costs and recent projections for similar plants. Costs for similar plants have soared by 100% since 2004 - and 30% to 50% just since 2006.  Capital cost per kilowatt hour is now over $3,300 (according to Emerging Energy Research, LLC).  That brings the TRE proposed plant cost to over $2.3 billion for the power plant alone.  Adding in the diesel refinery elements, you are at $3 billion.  When carbon capture is required, the cost will increase by another $1 billion.  Then there is cost of sequestration, which cannot even be estimated.  No investors will find this a viable project, (see attachment)

• Carrying the very large $3 Billion-plus debt makes coal gasification non-competitive, even in today's high-priced energy markets. Other coal gasification projects in the United States are coming in at 8 to 10 cents per kWh - 400 percent above what Twin River Energy claims and 150 percent above Maine's current energy prices.

The sad truth is that this project will never be built.  It would be tragic for Wiscasset to have the i-park and the Maritime Village held hostage to an ill-fated coal plant.  We fear it may take too long for the reality of pursuing a futile project to be realized by the advocates on your staff.  I know you and your family care about the community of Wiscasset, and want the best for them.  It's time to reflect on the path ahead and make the hard call.

Senior management is tasked with the sometimes difficult decisions of when to change directions. 

The time to accept Wiscasset's decision is now.  National RE/sources and the town of Wiscasset will all benefit from redoubling efforts to market and develop the Maritime Village and i-park as you envisioned and proposed them just a few years ago. I urge you to direct you staff in Wiscasset to focus intently now on those worthy and achievable goals and to deliver on the promises made.

With Best Regards

Dennis Dunbar

Westport Island

Dear Editor:

My tenure as Woolwich selectmen will end on December 31. I would like to thank all the board members, both past and present, that I have had the pleasure to serve with.

Also I congratulate Lloyd Coombs on his victory and wish him well.

It has been an honor and a privilege to serve the last 12 years. I will always have many fond memories of the interaction with the Woolwich citizens.

The staff at the town hall has always been a great help and the town is fortunate to have the dedicated and professional people they have.

Lastly I thank my wife and family for their support and it will be great to have more time to spend with the grandkids

Thank you,

David King, Sr.

Woolwich

Dear Editor:

I was angry and disappointed to hear Scott Houldin describe Wiscasset's vote on the coal plant as "input." On November 6, we had an election, not a focus group.

Time after time at public hearings Mr. Houldin said that what was most important to his company was whether or not the people of Wiscasset wanted the coal plant built.  He said that they would not proceed with the plan if voters rejected the ordinance change.

Last week the voters clearly rejected a coal gasification plant, but Twin River Energy says they will continue to move ahead with their proposal anyway.

Maybe that's the way things work in Greenwich, Connecticut, but it's not the way we do business in Maine. 

When we say we'll do something, we do it.

Sam Selby

Wiscasset

Dear Editor:

Now that the vote on the ordinance changes "to allow the developer to build the plant" (Goud) is over, we are getting a lesson in math from our Greenwich real estate developers: 55 percent of a vote is apparently not a mandate to not proceed. Let us put a 55 percent vote into historical perspective:

According to Wikipedia, the following presidential elections qualify as "landslides:"

Andrew Jackson, 1832. 54.2 percent of the vote.

Teddy Roosevelt. 1904. 56.4 percent of the vote.

Note: The highest percentage of the vote that any winning candidate has received is Lyndon Johnson in 1964, with 61.1 percent of the vote. Over 90 percent of our Presidents have been elected with less than 55 percent of the popular vote.

Over 60 percent of the members of the current Maine legislature were elected with less than 55 percent of the vote in the 2006 election.

Three votes to keep Maine Yankee open (with less than 60 percent of the vote) were considered "strong mandates" by the Wiscasset Selectmen at the time of those votes.

We have had numerous people elected Selectmen who received less than 55 percent of the vote; 868 people voted against the ordinance changes; 609 people voted for Duane Goud in 2006.

"We did not have detailed answers because we didn't do the impact studies yet:" (Scott Houldin, Stamford Advocate, Connecticut newspaper, November 8, 2007). 

The reason for the "misinformation," Duane, is there has been almost no information from the developers.

The Selectmen, who have the leverage to force answers before ordinances are changed at a developer's request, have not exercised their right and duty to get answers, and the Board of Selectmen is where the problem now lies.

The people have spoken.

Karl Tarbox

Wiscasset

Dear Editor:

Wiscasset deserves to be proud of its November 6 vote against an ordinance change that not only would have opened the way for a coal-gasification plant but also would have set a precedent for accepting other toxic heavy industries that would threaten the town and the region. 

Twin River's comments about the townspeople needing more information and about the project moving ahead are insulting to Wiscasset voters.

Energy experts say that the plant could never be built - the economics  and the technology don't make sense here.  Furthermore, a polluting industry does not fit with Wiscasset's goals of expanding the tax base in ways that protect the town's assets: its character and natural resources that support lobstermen, wormers, and  many forms of outdoor recreation.

The Wiscasset voters made a courageous statement. Why should they  have to endure the strain of continuing to fight this beast because  an out-of-state developer doesn't hear "no"? 

A continuing debate will undermine the town's efforts to move forward with appropriate economic development.

It would be wiser for the developers to avoid further loss and turn  their efforts back toward their original proposal, Point East.  That concept continues to enjoy broad local support and honors the qualities that make Wiscasset unique and beautiful.

Anne Leslie

Wiscasset

Dear Editor and Citizen Volunteers:

"Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has." Margaret Mead (1901-1978)

I am so proud of all of the folks who stepped up to the plate! So many of you were so strongly opposed to a coal gasification plant that you had the courage to do what you thought was right. There are far too many people to name. But I know there were folks who stood at the post office, Shaw's, transfer station, and Common Ground Fair to get petition signatures.

There were people who made phone calls and posters, who wrote letters to the editor and commentaries, who put up signs in the community and in their yards (even lit!).

The lobstermen organized a rally, and people showed up to cheer them on. People donated many hours of their time going door to door, attending strategy meetings, doing research, and talking to their neighbors. People donated money to help support the cost of mailings, and some used their own funds and created their own flyers. People attended hearings to learn about and comment on the issues.

People stepped out of their comfort zones to be part of a press conference or show up at the Community Center. People braved the rain to keep signs posted and to get out the vote. I am thrilled I could be part of this group in a small way. Good job, everyone!

Pat Smith

Westport Island

Dear Editor:

I hope Mr. Houldin and company got the message that the majority of the people in Wiscasset will NOT relinquish control of their future in exchange for a tax cut. Nice try, but no thanks.

If they're not going to "pack it in," they better be prepared to provide specific written answers to key questions. Verbal promises won't to it the next time around. We've been there twice already on their other projects in town.

We want the facts put in writing - this time in such a way that they are binding on whoever ends up owning the plant which, by the way, is one of the key questions -- who will we be dealing with, or should I say living with after National RE/sources pulls out?

If they're not up to this type of commitment they should pack up the gasification project and concentrate on the i-Park and the Mason Station, which are in need of lots of attention.

The message is simple: give us the no bull facts and be prepared to sign on to them before you ask us to vote again.

Dick Grondin

Wiscasset

Dear Editor,

It is natural to spin a disappointing election result. But give us a break! The citizens of Wiscasset are not as stupid as Joe Cotter thinks.

An election result of 55 percent to 45 percent is not "close." Joe had his chance to explain the water and coal transportation details of the coal plant, and he failed. He had his chance to explain their carbon capture and storage plan, and he failed. Relying on a faulty belief that enough of the people could be fooled by half truths, distortions and promises of something for nothing, Joe got the election he asked for. He just got the wrong result.

Head Wiscasset selectman Duane Goud is quoted as saying, "There was a lot of false information put out that may have persuaded people to vote against it." Duane, what are you thinking? It wasn't the opposition that didn't disclose details about water supply, coal or whatever they plan to burn. It wasn't the opposition that stated that approval of the Point East development closed the door on heavy industry. It wasn't the opposition apologizing for (now get this) a "typing error" when they misrepresented the results of the Chewonki Seminar.

And Duane, look at the Twin Rivers artistic rendition of the plant. Notice anything missing? See any 230-foot tall smoke stacks? Those darn smoke stacks that required the ordinance changes to start with seem to be missing. If Twin Rivers intended to build the plant represented in their drawing, they probably wouldn't have needed an ordinance change. Duane, there was a lot of false information, but it wasn't put out there by the opponents of the plant.

The citizens of Wiscasset sent Joe Cotter a clear and unambiguous message: "Joe, take your coal barges and unload them somewhere else."

Ron Carey

Edgecomb

Dear Editor:

Coal burning power plants produce bad emissions. A lesser emitting alternative is to gasify. The plant needs CO2 capture and storage systems, making it too expensive for the plant to comply with emissions laws.

Enter the Cap and Trade System. A coal gasification plant that will capture little, if any of the bad emissions is proposed for Wiscasset. Coal burning plants elsewhere install emissions scrubbers, earning marketable credits that could be sold to the Wiscasset plant, resulting in a net reduction in bad emissions.

With a height ordinance change, Wiscasset could go from having no power plant, to having the largest polluter in Maine. Wiscasset residents, against the spirit of Cap and Trade (and against the intoxicating influence of an offer of real estate tax relief), voted down the ordinance change on Nov. 6. They refused to feel guilty, nor to volunteer to become sacrificial lambs of the Cap and Trade system. They courageously refused to accept damage to their local environment, nor to their health.

Undaunted by the NO vote, the energy company has assumed they can eventually get the height ordinance changed. Now how can Maine and Wiscasset get further protection? Perhaps a state or local emissions tax, such as a steeply graduated mercury tax, that cannot be trumped by any federal Cap and Trade system, is needed.

In the overall picture, Cap and Trade reduces emissions. But, as you can see, the devil is in the details.

Jim Simonetti

Wiscasset

Dear Editor:

For the last couple of months I had heard a lot of discussion about voting to change Wiscasset's ordinance. Having some knowledge on this subject, what with being the son of a U.S. Army artillery captain, I decided to look into this debate.

So off I trudged down to the town offices. As usual, when I need factual information, I went to Sue Varney, our kind and understanding tax assessor, for information about our town ordinance.

Here fellow citizens are the facts. The official Wiscasset ordinance is a Civil War era 6-pounder cannon manufactured in 1861 by the Cyrus Algers Foundry of Boston, Mass. and is stamped with the number 246 on the end of the muzzle.

I checked on this myself to make sure it was authentic.

Our cannon is the type suitable for coastal defense to protect Wiscasset from hostile landing craft and armed forces as well as petty pirates from Westport Island. We should all be proud of this fine piece of ordinance that graces the lawn in front of the town office.

I am pleased that the unscrupulous efforts by some misguided citizens and others from away to change our beloved ordinance failed. In the future I suggest that I be contacted to check things like this out before we go through another voting fiasco.

Skip Taylor

Wiscasset