The second rejection of a wind power project in the mountains of western Maine highlighted the need for better, clearer criteria for weighing the positives and negatives of such projects, which will likely become more numerous in the near future. Having objective standards for where turbines are acceptable and where they are not will benefit both developers, who will know what standards they must meet, and the public, which will gain from a more diverse, cleaner energy supply that protects the truly special landscapes.

Earlier this week, the Land Use Regulation Commission rejected a scaled-back proposal to put 18 turbines on Black Nubble Mountain. A year earlier, the commission rejected a larger project that included the turbines on Black Nubble as well as 12 on Redington Pond Range, saying it would harm the mountaintop ecology and mar the view. Because of LURC’s concerns, the project was scaled back and the Natural Resources Council of Maine negotiated a permanent preservation agreement for Redington Pond Range.

This was not enough and the project was rejected by a 4-2 vote based on concerns about the project’s financial viability and aesthetics. LURC did approve a 44-turbine project on Kibby Mountain, which faced less opposition from environmental and preservation groups.

Sean Mahoney of the Conservation Law Foundation summed up the LURC action this way: “The commission sends a mixed message and has unfortunately elevated subjective aesthetic interests above the impending catastrophe of climate change.”

He’s right, and Maine must be more sophisticated in dealing with this difficult balancing act. A report, expected this month, from the governor’s task force on wind energy, could be helpful. To move forward with the $4 billion worth of wind projects in place, under development or soon to be proposed, the state must clarify siting guidelines and streamline regulation.

Maine and the nation have powered themselves into a polluted corner, and the question is whether, for a relatively short period of time, it can endure the use of low-polluting but unsightly wind turbines.

While it is true that wind power doesn’t belong everywhere, aesthetics may become less important as the costs – financial, environmental and otherwise – of our current energy sources increase. Often those costs are borne elsewhere – in West Virginia, for example, where mountaintops are removed for the coal underneath. Or those costs will be borne in the future – when pollution is so thick that mountain views are obscured and habitats destroyed.

State regulators can help not by deciding where wind turbines don’t belong but by identifying more places where they do and easing the regulatory burden for developers who chose these areas.