Moratorium bill may affect plans for local wind energy project
by Jack Deming
Jan 24, 2013 | 5727 views | 11 11 comments | 20 20 recommendations | email to a friend | print
READSBORO- A new bill introduced in the Senate this month could hold up the Deerfield Wind Project slated for Readsboro and Searsburg.

On Thursday, January 3, Sen. Joe Benning (R-Caledonia) and Sen. Bob Hartwell (D-Bennington) announced they would introduce a bill this legislative session that would place a moratorium on the construction of wind energy projects with a production capacity of 500 kilowatts or more. The moratorium seeks to prevent construction of wind projects until the siting process can be reviewed and changed. The bill also seeks to change the amount of control the Public Service Board (PSB) has over siting these projects, as well as a review and overhaul of the current process by which environmental impacts are reviewed, to ensure the preservation of Vermont’s ridgelines and natural habitats.

The 40-page bill states, “No statewide analysis and planning is performed to address the environmental and land use impacts of siting wind generation projects in Vermont. Instead, the Department of Public Service’s comprehensive energy plan, which recommends pursuing development of in-state renewable energy generation, touches on the potential land use impacts of this development, but does not contain a statewide analysis that assesses those impacts, and balances them against the potential benefits of such generation.”

Sen. Hartwell believes that the criteria under Act 250 must be put into the siting process, and towns need to have more say. Hartwell says the current “quasi-judicial” process by which PSB operates is broken, and as he bluntly states, is undemocratic. “The people don’t get a chance to participate,” said Hartwell. “It’s too expensive to participate, and it really has knocked a lot of people out of meaningful participation and knocked most towns out of participation. We want to transfer the process from the PSB to district commissions overseen by the Natural Resources Board. The district commission would hear the cases and give abutting property owners and towns the say they should have, and the status they don’t have.”

The bill also calls for the Agency of Natural Resources (ANR) to take a major role in the process of developing a statewide policy for siting wind generation plants and wind meteorological stations. The bill states, “The necessary regulation for energy generation projects is to set minimum environmental and land use standards that each generation project must meet. This area of regulation is not the primary expertise of the PSB. It is the area of the district environmental commissions and local land use authorities.”

Lukas Snelling, executive director of Energize Vermont and a supporter of the moratorium, agrees with the environmental protection aim of the bill, though his organization is not against the use of wind energy. “Our concern is that windmills have to be placed very specifically to be economically viable, and those locations can disrupt habitats in areas such as ridgelines where headwater streams begin.”

While Sens. Benning and Hartwell cited multiple projects in northern Vermont, no mention of the Deerfield Wind project was made during the bill’s unveiling.

But Sen. Hartwell says that the Deerfield Wind project raises some of the questions in the moratorium bill, though he was not aware the project is entirely in his district. “The original Searsburg project is in my district. There is this other proposal to build more in the Aiken Forest and I think that’s actually across the border in Windham County, but they’re close and they seem to have attracted attention in Wilmington, so certainly it’s close enough and raises some of the same issues.”

The Deerfield Wind project plan would allow Deerfield Wind LLC, a subsidiary of Iberdrola Renewables, the second largest wind operator in the United States, to erect 15 windmills along the ridges to the east and west of Route 8 in Searsburg and Readsboro, (both in Hartwell’s district) on National Forest land, and two miles from the George Aiken Wilderness. The project is currently tied up in US District Court where a motion for summary judgment filed by Vermonters for a Clean Environment will be heard on Monday, January 28.

The bill states, “During the moratorium, a person may complete construction of a wind generation plant or if the plant or station has received all required land use, siting, and environmental permits, certificates, and approvals, and, in the case of wind generation, the person has commenced construction on the plant.” Since construction has not begun on the Deerfield Wind project, the bill could block it.

Readsboro would see seven new wind turbines, each operating at two-megawatts, and Deerfield Wind would pay the town $11,000 per megawatt annually, totaling $154,000 per year. According to selectboard member Teddy Hopkins, changing the current process and instituting a moratorium would be detrimental to individual towns. “It would take decades to get anything done, and those who oppose wind power are trying to kill it through a long-term committee process,” said Hopkins. Hopkins believes that a town has the right to choose if they want windmills without every surrounding town’s permission.

“In my opinion Sen. Hartwell represents all the towns in Bennington County. Why is he not down here talking to the representatives of the town of Readsboro before he submits a Senate bill for approval? He must know the (Deerfield Wind) project is going on and I can only take from it myself that he’s turning a deaf ear to his constituents in Readsboro by not contacting the people here. I think he’s forgotten where Readsboro is, and maybe Readsboro may forget where Sen. Hartwell is come voting time.”

Brian Shupe, executive director of the Vermont Natural Resources Council, believes that the bill is unnecessary because Gov. Peter Shumlin already created the Vermont Energy Generation Siting Commission.

According to the state’s website, the commission, established October 3, 2012, is charged with “surveying the best practices for siting approval of electric generation and for public participation and representation in the siting process, and to report to the Governor and to the Vermont Legislature on their findings by April 30, 2013.”

“Our preference is that the Legislature waits and sees what the siting committee comes up with for recommendations, and give them the consideration they are due instead of instituting a moratorium that sends a message that Vermont is not supportive of renewable energy and addressing climate change,” said Shupe.

But Sen. Hartwell says the siting commission has no authority to fight projects, but is instead gathering information he intends to use.

Rep. Tony Klein, chair of both the House Natural Resources & Energy Committee and the Joint House & Senate Energy Oversight Committee, says a moratorium would serve as a statement by the Legislature saying “no” to a particular private industry. He also thinks the moratorium is a poor business message for Vermont to send. Instead, Klein plans to introduce a land- use planning bill.

The approach will be to encourage all towns to adopt town plans and zoning for such projects and work with regional planning commissions and the Natural Resources Board to come up with statewide plans for where projects are allowed. “The simple way of looking at it is you identify the areas where you want development,” said Klein, “and where we all agree we don’t want development, which could include our ridgelines, and developers ahead of time will know where it’s OK to propose projects.”
Comments-icon Post a Comment
Tony Lopez
January 31, 2013
Wind mill power in vermont is not dependable, Power has to be generated on a stable platform, much of the generated power goes nowhere yet when demand is high, there is no wind. Every part of this country has its alternative power recourses Southern states is Voltaic & Condensed solar, The midsection Wind and the northeast

Hydro. Updating existing outdated hydro plants will generate far more power and most important, a steady power.
John Stephens
May 18, 2013
2002fan: You are right on! The only reason Readsboro wanted the windmills is because of the glorious tax incentives! I am sorry but as long as "certain individuals" (T.H.) continue to be allowed on the Selectboard they will only worry about what they want rather than what is best for the Town of Readsboro.
Wayne Andrews
January 28, 2013
Wiegand: Your blowing hot air with your alleged bird crisis, however jah627 does make a good point about the turbines being obsolete in 10 years. The PSB is in charge of the decommissioning factor and the dollars to make it so.

As far as the windmills being constructed far away from the users you will find there is a method to where the developers wish to erect these units. First you need a site where there is wind (imagine that!) Second you need a feasible transmission line nearby that is capable of transmitting the desire voltage (that why Searburg was chosen originally)Finally one needs access roads nearby to transport the very large items.

Strange it is I have a good friend who fishes the overflow from the glory hole to Readsboro. He tells me he has seen more bald eagles along that route in the last 10 years than he has ever seen in his life.
Amber Holland
January 28, 2013
I find it amazing that everyone wants to turn on all their lights and run all thier power sucking electronics but we aren't allowed to generate any power to make them run....what's the answer to that??? No wind, No Nuclear, No Hydro, that means....NO POWER!!!
Jim Wiegand
January 28, 2013
Everyone in the Northeast and on up into Ontario needs to pay very close attention to what I am about to disclose. For me it is the single biggest reason for a moratorium on wind projects in Vermont as well as the rest of North America. In my opinion the millions of bird deaths that have been deliberately under reported by the wind industry is criminal and here is something else that is just as sinister.

The industry has been sitting on a bird safe wind turbine design that produces far more energy. They have kept their mouths shut about it so they could keep on selling their eagle killing turbines to America.

Here is their reasoning. This planned obsolescence keeps the profits rolling in and

stimulates demand by encouraging purchasers to buy sooner if they still want a functioning product. In this case it is the ignorant saps that are still putting in 25 year bird killing projects. This postponement is why we still have dead eagles 28 years later after Altamont. Anyone that wants to present this information to Legislators can contact me for more information. What I have said is true and I can prove it.
jon hill
January 28, 2013
I think you have truly hit the nail on the head. These behemoths are obsolete before they're even assembled. The windmill industry is in its infancy -- in ten years the current models won't be worth their weight in scrap metal. The entire concept -- installing what amounts to huge factories hundreds of miles away from demand centers -- makes no sense.
Wayne Andrews
January 28, 2013
These are the same trucks that bring long I beams to bridge reconstruction sites and other transportation projects.

Nothing really new here in jaj627 preaching. So a windmill company delivers 14 or so long tubes and the rest of Vermont's future development is based upon a few waiting periods and longer traffic lines?

By the way its not trading off but rather living in a unity community.I also see what you mean by a good long look... the longer the looksy the longer the project gets stalled.
jon hill
January 28, 2013
That's right -- those are the same trucks. Picture I91 rerouted through the ridgelines. But "the rest of Vermont's future development" does not depend on ripping up the National Forest -- just the opposite, in fact. Much of southern Vermont relies on tourism and recreation. I don't see too many "leafers" falling all over themselves to see the pretty windmills turning. After Iberdrola is done with their town by town "divide and conquer" strategy, they'll be visible from virtually every spot in the county, and the last bits of old Vermont will be gone for good.
jon hill
January 27, 2013
The "process" is broken. Trading away ridgelines in the Green Mountain National Forest for a small annual bribe makes no sense.

The current proposals mock the very concept of "green" power. These installations require miles of roads capable of handling 40-ton trucks, clear-cutting a huge staging area to put the things together -- they're far too large to be transported whole, and in fact must be specially routed in pieces because they don't fit on some state highways -- and are blatantly disruptive in every environmental sense. It is past time to take a good hard look at this issue. Kudos to Sens. Benning and Hartwell.
Wayne Andrews
January 24, 2013
I have participated in both Act 248 and Act 250 hearings and I dont know what these two senators are talking about changing the process to be heard.

They both should be made aware of VSA Title 10 section 6086 concerning a PSB Act 248 hearing for power generation.

The standards in section 6086 mirror those same Act 250 critera.

Does anyone see whats going on here? These same legislators are following the same path as those trying to shut down Vermont Yankee. They dont like the PSB decisions so they are trying to change the law to meet their own selfish needs. Someone should ask these bozo's whether or a PSB commission would know more about power issues or some Act 250 commissioner which deals with glorified zoning permits.

Tom G
January 25, 2013
I will remeber Sen. Hartwell He has my vote! $154000? the Boss Hogs of Readsboro will just blow it anyways. Did I hit the Nail on the Head?

Comment Policy

In an effort to promote reasoned discussion, transparency, and integrity in online commenting, The Deerfield Valley News requires anyone posting comments to identify themselves using their real name. Anonymous commenting will not be allowed. All comments will be subject to approval before posting, and may take up to 24 hours for approval to be granted.

We encourage civil discourse among readers, and ask that they be willing to stand behind their identities and their comments. No personal harassment or hate speech will be tolerated. Please be succinct and to the point. For longer comments, please consider submitting a letter to the editor instead. It will appear in both the print and online editions.

All comments will be reviewed, and we reserve the right to reject, edit or remove any comment for any reason. For questions or to express concerns feel free to contact our office at (802) 464-3388.