Connecticut blocks windmills

This would be funny were it not so pathetic and duplicitous.

Yesterday, the Connecticut Siting Council blocked the construction of a wind farm proposed by BNE Energy.

The Connecticut Siting Council, which is responsible for ruling on sites for power facilities, transmission lines and hazardous waste facilities, rejected a proposal Thursday to build a wind turbine in Prospect. In a 6-2 vote, the council cited the project’s visual impact.

Hopefully, you remember a post we did last month about a law suit brought by the State of Connecticut against the five largest power companies in the country.  The post was prompted by the fact that Connecticut was about to argue its case before the United States Supreme Court.

The heart of the state’s claim was that ,

the companies’ additions to world-wide carbon dioxide levels have “contributed” to the process of global climate change. [emphasis supplied]

So, Connecticut, just how do you propose to meet the power demands of your citizens?

Posted in ,


The Sound Off Sister was an Assistant United States Attorney for the Southern District of Florida, and special trial attorney for the Department of Justice, Criminal Division; a partner in the Florida law firm of Shutts & Bowen, and an adjunct professor at the University of Miami, School of Law. The Sound Off Sister offers frequent commentary concerning legislation making its way through Congress, including the health reform legislation passed in early 2010.


  1. GdavidH on May 13, 2011 at 10:41 am

    “So, Connecticut, just how do you propose to meet the power demands of your citizens?”
    Answer : They don’t!

  2. PatRiot on May 13, 2011 at 11:52 am

    We shall meet the power demands with human powered treadmills.
    And the most experienced and qualified individual is the?CT taxpayer.??
    Don’t forget the appropriate loop holes for big business and credits for those who don’t pay taxes.

  3. Murphy on May 13, 2011 at 12:10 pm

    Sorry no treadmills that will just increase the CARBON FOOTPRINT!
    “On average, a human will breath 16 times per minute. Each breath will contain, on average, 0.037 grams of CO2”

  4. RJH825 on May 13, 2011 at 2:58 pm

    This is a prime example of?? ” I’m all for it as long as it isn’t in my back yard “? We have become a society of hypocrites.

  5. Dimsdale on May 13, 2011 at 5:01 pm

    There is a demonstrable trend of “let the other guy do it” in liberal thought.? You see it in charitable donations, local power generation (of any stripe), paying for your own health care, even personal responsibility.? Wind power is great (somewhere else); oil drilling is great (in other countries).
    This “do as I say, not as I do” mentality seems kind of selfish to me.

  6. sammy22 on May 13, 2011 at 10:34 pm

    I don’t believe that Colebrook is a hot-bed of liberalism, but then I could be wrong.

  7. ricbee on May 13, 2011 at 10:52 pm

    I guess all the windmills will have to be in the slums of Hartford. Where the windmill lovers can’t see them.

  8. Plainvillian on May 14, 2011 at 8:38 am

    Wind turbines are not about power generation, but are all about tax shelters and crony capitalism.? Like most “green” schemes, they rely on a docile suspension of rationality to justify.
    The Citing Council made the right decision.? I think wind turbines are ugly too.? I? think working oil wells are attractive, but that’s just me.

  9. GdavidH on May 14, 2011 at 11:22 am

    Sammy, this was Prospect. The Colebrook issue was/is about existing zoning and land use rules, i.e. a turbine on private property, I believe. It’s also much a do about a private company?that would not exist without tax payer subsidies.

  10. johnboy111 on May 14, 2011 at 2:14 pm

    just move into your tent[made of recycled plastic] and shut-up already

  11. David R on May 14, 2011 at 8:39 pm

    NIMBY is bi-partisan, or should I say omni-partisan. I hope there are some towns, including my own, ?that are ready and willing to give wind turbines a go. Clean energy has to come from some place. Why not from the places that are going to use it? How about locally/municipally owned wind generation to keep dollars in our communities and help keep CT clean and green?
    Of course, wind generation has to be situated where it will do the least damage to property values. I for one would be in favor of compensating homeowners for any loss of value that might result.

  12. pauldow on May 14, 2011 at 8:44 pm

    Here’s the US DOE wind energy map for Connecticut. Notice that only some Litchfield hills and a few areas along the shore line are shown as viable for commercial wind power. Good luck getting those installed in the scenic areas. Connecticut has the 4th most dense population in the country at 738 people per square mile, so there’s going to be a lot of noise complaints where ever they would be planned for. ( I’ll skip trying to get the ranking of how dense Conn. voters are.)
    What we need is some low cost, domestically produced, low carbon liquid natural gas facility nearby to serve the state.
    Oh ya, right…I forgot.
    Here’s some photos of some windmills having a bad day.

  13. David R on May 15, 2011 at 10:08 am

    Pauldow: I agree with having a LNG facility, not just nearby but within our borders.? I also would like to see renewables developed. In addition to environmental advantages, renewables can be locally owned..keeping dollars in CT..and locally controlled. Centralized control of energy by multi-nationals is not necessary. As with many things, taking responsibility for meeting our own needs is a good thing, and renewables help us do that.

  14. Lynn on May 15, 2011 at 4:01 pm

    Johnboy III- C’mon give my son’s business a break how about a shack made out of waxed Corrugated Cardboard. It’s cheaper and quieter.

  15. sammy22 on May 15, 2011 at 7:53 pm

    With windmills in every nook and cranny of this country they’re liable to have? a bad day once in a while. Good thing we do not intend to use them to grind corn!!


The website's content and articles were migrated to a new framework in October 2023. You may see [shortcodes in brackets] that do not make any sense. Please ignore that stuff. We may fix it at some point, but we do not have the time now.

You'll also note comments migrated over may have misplaced question marks and missing spaces. All comments were migrated, but trackbacks may not show.

The site is not broken.