Department of Environmental Conservation Commissioner David Mears. Photo courtesy of Vermont Law School.
A state agency has removed the biggest remaining obstacle to the construction of a controversial wind project in the Northeast Kingdom. The Vermont Agency of Natural Resources granted five water quality permits to Green Mountain Power on Friday afternoon, largely clearing the way for the 21 wind turbine project known as Kingdom Community Wind.
The electric utility, which is owned by Montreal-based company Gaz Metro, has the go-ahead to begin construction, pending a decision from the Public Service Board, which has a final say in the matter.
The stormwater and wetlands permits allow Green Mountain Power to install an access road and 459-foot-tall Vestas turbines on the ridgeline of Lowell Mountain in Lowell.
The Lowell Mountain wind farm proposal is the second industrial wind project slated for the Northeast Kingdom. The 16-turbine FirstWind project in Sheffield is under construction, and the Kingdom Community Wind proposal was set for an Aug. 1 start date, but unapproved pre-construction activities delayed the permitting process and the project start.
Green Mountain Power sought a plan to ensure the least amount of damage to the wetlands, according to company’s director of communications, Dotty Schnure.
Schnure said that some wetlands would be affected by the construction of the turbines. Green Mountain Power has agreed to mitigate that harm by setting aside 1,000 acres of Lowell Mountain into conservation. The electric utility also voluntarily collected biological information to create baseline data for the wetlands and water quality monitoring process.
David Mears, commissioner of the Department of Environmental Conservation, said it was one of the more significant permits he had authorized since he became commissioner and, perhaps, that the ANR had ever permitted. Mears said the long and complicated documents were put together by different teams of people, and the agency took it “very seriously.”
Former Commissioner Fish and Wildlife Commissioner Steve Wright was staggered by the ANR’s decision to grant all of the permits. Wright, a resident of Craftsbury and an opponent of the Kingdom Community Wind project, said, “They blew it.”
“When I saw the ANR’s decision, I had to take a little bit of time to breathe,” Write said. “I’ve watched that agency grow, and this is its darkest day in the 43 years I’ve known the agency.”
Lowell Mountain hydrology has developed over 12,000 years, Wright said. He fears that the project, which will create new impervious surfaces and clearcuts, will cause the water from rainstorms to rush off the mountain very quickly and contribute to sedimentation of streams that feed into the Mississquoi River.
“You cannot put something like that on ridges like this mountain and not expect a disaster,” Wright said. “Now we’re going to build a road that will be as wide as the interstate in places.”
According to Wright, the wind project will bring on a slew of new problems associated with the heavy spring rainfalls that are predicted as a side effect of climate change, including sediments washing off the ridges.
“There is no climate change value, wind does nothing,” Wright said. “This is a terrible mistake for the environment for some electricity that isn’t cheap and going to a Canadian corporation.”
The permits issued by the ANR were similar to those issued to ski resorts. The monitoring program imposed on Green Mountain Power to protect streams and wetlands on the mountain is more restrictive than that of any ski area, however, according to a press release from the agency.
The permits included:
- Two stormwater permits for the access road, the wind farm and the associated transmission line;
- A state stormwater operational permit for control of discharges “from impervious surfaces constructed at the site”;
- A state wetlands permit, “including required mitigation activities”;
- A water quality certification pursuant to Section 401 of the federal Clean Water Act.
The ANR decision requires that Vermont Water Quality Standards are to be met, and overall mountain hydrology must be maintained.
For Green Mountain Power to take the next step in construction, the permits need to be approved by the Vermont Public Service Board. According to Susan Hudson, the clerk for the board, there are still motions pending, along with other issues, and so the timeline for the board’s decision is up in the air.
CORRECTION: The number of turbines for the FirstWind project at Sheffield is 16, not 50 as originally reported.
How Do ANR and GMP (now partners) Propose to Maintain and Protect Water Quality on the Lowell Mountains?
An evaluation of the draft permits was provided at ANR’s Public Hearing on GMP Lowell Wind Project 401 Water Quality Certification, 7/13/11
Video Presentation by Geoffrey Goll and Mark Gallagher of Princeton Hydro http://vimeo.com/26478996
Expert Comments filed with ANR (essentially ignored):
http://www.vce.org/Draft401_Comments_WCA_Final.pdf
http://www.vce.org/KCW%20401%20Comments%20FINAL.pdf
http://www.vce.org/401_Comments_Final_201107019.pdf
ANR no longer needs staff. ANR now defers to GMP’s “expert” VHB to write the permits.
Flyover of the Lowell Mountains on July 23, 2011: http://vimeo.com/26838043
This is no longer possible. GMP has placed a no fly order over the mountain extending into next year, an 8000 foot ceiling is now in place.
Photos of the Sheffield wind site construction from Sept. through July: http://vimeo.com/26936501
Annette
The supposed GMP no-fly order needs to be documented.
Can you do that?
Since when does GMP have authority over the skies?
Sure. Here is the FAA notice:
http://tfr.faa.gov/save_pages/detail_1_8760.html
Someone who called the number got Maine Drilling and Blasting, and reported “The restriction will be in place from August to December 2011 and again from April to June 2012. Blasting will vary throughout the day. Normally that is 7am to 7 pm.”
No similar notice was put in place for the Sheffield site, which several pilots have flown over including for the Barton Chronicle. Maine Drilling and Blasting has held public meetings recently on the Lowell project and said they will be using 700,000 pounds of explosives. They say that they can blast within 40 feet of something safely. Except overhead, they need 8000 feet? Blasting has not begun but the NOTAM is in effect. It is obviously an effort to restrict the public’s ability to document the progress of the development of the mountain top.
Here are more photos taken on the July 23, 2011 flyover documenting the habitat fragmentation through land that was intended to mitigate damage to the ridgeline above: https://picasaweb.google.com/114098560210816181304/LowellFlyoverJuly232011?authkey=Gv1sRgCNqMrKDN5PGdGA
On the ground photos show the width of the clearing, one of the many big trees cut by GMP’s surveyors (GMP originally reported to the PSB far fewer trees, and smaller trees than were actually cut), the wetland area that was filled, and some of the beauty of the rock outcroppings and features on top of the mountains
https://picasaweb.google.com/114098560210816181304/August62011LowellVermont?authkey=Gv1sRgCMu-sNGO3o7ESA#
Make no mistake. People LOVE these mountains. They do not hate wind energy. They love the mountains, which have provided extraordinary experiences for a thousand Sterling College students, hunters, hikers. The grief over their pending loss is beyond words.
Yes, GMP controls the town of Lowell, the Lowell mountains, and the air all around it. It is typical of what happens with wind development. It’s now a company town, controlled by a corporation. Read Shirley Nelson’s Open Letter to the PSB: Her family owns 1 1/2 miles that adjoin the Lowell wind project site, and the PSB has approved putting 460 foot tall wind turbines 196 feet from their property line. http://vermontersforacleanenvironment.wordpress.com/2011/08/20/open-letter-to-the-psb…/
Unless I missed something, the notice referred to restrictions from August to September; not August to December.
Second, do you know whether the Sheffield project required blasting of this nature? If not, there would have been no need for such restrictions.
Moreover, has anyone asked the FAA if this type of thing has occurred before in New England or elsewhere? If it has, it’s not unique to this site and your assertions about GMP are without foundation.
I don’t know the answers to these questions but your statements assume a great deal.
“It is obviously an effort to restrict the public’s ability to document the progress of the development of the mountain top.”
Whatever we may think of it, the blasting has been approved. Thus, the “progress” of the blasting is not something worthy of hiding, especially since the final results will be viewed after September (and, presumably, ANR will monitor the activities).
“Yes, GMP controls the town of Lowell, the Lowell mountains, and the air all around it. It is typical of what happens with wind development. It’s now a company town, controlled by a corporation.”
Unless I’m mistaken, the people of Lowell had a vote and exercised their rights. You don’t like the outcome. That doesn’t make it a “company town.”
You can (and should) express your views and build a case. But there’s really no need to disrespect all of the residents of the town.
Finally, approving a turbine 196 feet from a property line sounds ominous but tells us nothing about how far it will be from a residence.
As I indicated in my previous post, a resident called the number posted on the FAA site and learned that while the notice says one specific time, it will in fact go out through the end of this year and then again next year.
Yes, as you can see in the photos I posted, blasting was done at the Sheffield site, likely in similar or greater amounts. No FAA NOTAM was in place. The PSB and ANR have NO information about the amount of explosives or type of explosives used on the Sheffield site. ANR told me in writing they do not regulate blasting. ANR does not monitor the site daily, ANR relies on people hired by GMP to provide that monitoring. ANR has not done a single unscheduled site visit at the Sheffield site according to public records.
Doug, I am not making assumptions. I go into the communities, I meet with the people, I file public records requests, I know what is happening not only to the regulatory process (now a complete joke), the natural resources (these big wind projects require destruction on a scale never seen before in Vermont — ask Eric Sorenson who testified to that at the PSB hearings –) and the people who live in the area. Did you read Shirley Nelson’s piece that I posted. She attests to the fear, ugliness, and distrust that now permeate the area.
I try very hard not to get personal in these comments. I don’t appreciate being told that I am making assumptions when I have spent more than two years learning about the complexity of the issues surrounding big wind turbine development on top of mountains in Vermont. What have you done, Doug, to learn about the issues? Have you visited any of the mountains proposed for big wind turbines? Have you been to the homes of the people affected? Have you attended DOE conferences where the wind industry has been told they need to do it differently? (there have been two of them about the problems with public acceptance, both of which I have attended). Have you attended any conferences or read any literature on the health problems people experience because of the noise? Yes, I’ve attended several seminars and conferences on that issue.
You seem to be expressing blind faith in a technology that will change Vermont, and are arguing for the sake of arguing. I am sure you are strong on economic calculations, but before you challenge the hard work of people who have experience on issues you haven’t spent time learning about, I recommend that you get out to the Sheffield site and the Lowell mountains and talk to people and see what these beautiful natural resources contain, and what this corporate energy development is doing to the fabric of our society, natural resources, and landscape. I happen to think wind turbines are beautiful in the right settings. But their development on Vermont mountains is one ugly business.
Annette,
Nice collection of horrible photos.
IS GMP-Canada allowed to place a fly-over limit of 8,000 ft?
What are they trying to hide?
This became OUR country (after we took it from the Indians), the people’s country. It is not the ruling oligarchs’ country.
Annette
I happen to think you’re doing a great job pursuing this issue. But I don’t think exageration & hyperbole help.
I asked if FAA NOTAM’s had been requested elsewhere (not just Sheffield). If so, it has nothing to do with hiding the blasting but (presumably) to protect planes and passengers. You have not answered that question.
I assumed ANR will monitor the blasting. You said, “ANR does not monitor the site daily [and] ANR has not done a single unscheduled site visit at the Sheffield site.”
It would appear that ANR DOES monitor the site but not daily and not without advance notice. This may not be ideal but it is not what you implied (no oversight).
You said, “these big wind projects require destruction on a scale never seen before in Vermont.” I disagree. The interstate highway system is many many times larger and more destructive than the wind projects. And the electric transmission rights of way are also of enormous size. That doesn’t mean the impacts of wind development aren’t important; only that the case can be made without exagerated claims.
You also chose not to respond to my comment about the claim that “a turbine [will be] 196 feet from a property line” while not providing information about the distance to a residence.
As for my assertion that you made assumptions, I think you did. You have not researched the FAA NOTAM issue. There are two pieces of relevant information: the restriction at Lowell and the lack of one at Sheffield. Are the two situations actually comparable (I’m certainly no blasting expert)? Could it be that the Lowell NOTAM is a prudent safety precaution and that Sheffield should have had one? Are there other examples of NOTAM’s for blasting throughout New England? If so, it would be a stretch to say (as you did) that “It is obviously an effort to restrict the public’s ability to document the progress of the development of the mountain top.”
And finally, I’m sorry if my post upset you but this blog is about a free exchange. That means we get to ask each other questions. I’m sorry if you consider that “arguing for the sake of arguing.”
I am happy to answer your questions. Once, as I did about the length of time the NOTAM is in effect. So let’s move on and I’ll answer yours and any other questions in a respectful way and hope that is returned.
I have a fair amount of experience with quarries and blasting, and have worked on numerous quarry cases throughout Vermont. I have never heard of a no fly zone over any quarry site that blasts, nor for any highway blasting or other construction sites. This NOTAM is unusual, and since one was not in place for the only other similar site in Vermont (Sheffield wind), the only logical conclusion is that it was done after two pilots flew over and took photos that show the degradation of the area that has already taken place.
I say degradation specifically because the area where the landowner did work was on parcels designated to mitigate damage to wildlife habitat from the wind turbine development. To date the only evidence ANR has supplied to the PSB has been via GMP’s expert. This is troubling to those of us concerned about public process. ANR has expertise on habitat fragmentation, but has deferred to GMP’s water quality expert to provide his opinion (the filings are laced with “in my opinion” while providing very little evidence) about the impacts of habitat fragmentation. The issue now before the PSB, which is the final step before GMP can unleash its teams of bulldozers, excavators and blasting subcontractors, is to rule on whether the damage done to the proposed mitigation parcels means they can no longer serve the function for which they were being set aside.
In terms of public process, what we would normally see is that experts would come before the Board and there would be the opportunity for cross-examination. What we have seen lately in the PSB proceedings regarding the work done on the Lowell site is that ANR is letting GMP speak for the Agency, without provide any information from its qualified staff, GMP is presenting the opinion of a water quality expert on the specific issue of habitat fragmentation, and virtually everything brought before the PSB by anyone other than GMP has been denied. If you were a lawyer practicing in this or other wind cases before the PSB, you would 1) decide you would never do it again because there is no point or 2) consider giving up the practice of law. Yes, I’ve heard that from several lawyers who have represented non-developers in wind cases (remember there have been 5 of them, there is plenty of experience now). The PSB is a captured board, and I’m not the only one saying it. Neighbors, towns, people who have particularized interests might as well pour their money down the drain as bother hiring lawyers and experts to present credible evidence before them. No matter how you feel about wind energy or what you believe about its role in our energy future, the PSB process as it relates to wind energy development (and also towers, where the PSB also rubber stamps everything that comes before them) should be of concern.
Wind energy development on top of mountains is more destructive than the Interstate highway system construction, and also ski area development. ANR’s experts testified to those issues in several wind cases and that is their expert opinion. The reasons are: we humans now live in the valleys, so the wildlife are relegated to the mountains. The road building and destruction — yes I will keep using that word because when you have dozens of bulldozers and excavators on a site, along with hundreds of thousands of pounds of explosives, they are there to destroy what is there — eliminate critical wildlife habitat, and the idea of “mitigating” it by conserving land in the area, or in some cases not contiguous, in no way makes up for the fact that bear, moose, songbird, and other wildlife habitat will be eliminated. I can hear people saying “yes, but it will grow back.” Yes, about the time the interstates would grow back, too, if left to grow up. The roads being build on the mountain in Sheffield are impervious road surfaces, trees just don’t grow back in them, and the idea of scarifying them after the turbines are removed is a joke. Remember, these mountains are primarily made up of rock and water, and so what they’re proposing to scarify in most places on tops of the mountains is bedrock. These are alpine environments that have taken centuries and more to grow what is there. The army of bulldozers GMP has idling at the base of the mountains will destroy all that within a few months, and no, it will not come back. Ever.
The piece that most people have missed in all this is the water. That is another critical difference between construction of the Interstates and the construction of wind turbines on top of mountains. I have been collecting maps showing 1) bear scarred trees 2) bear wetlands and 3) water resources. These mountains, yes our mountains in Vermont, are full of water. They act as sponges, they are three dimensional reservoirs that collect the water from the clouds and rain and through groundwater infiltration they recharge our groundwater and feed our streams in drought, and supply the water for rivers and lakes. The Lowell project involves filling hundreds of feet of at least 9 headwater streams. The Sheffield site has dozens of wetlands critical to bear and wildlife in addition to the functions they perform. No doubt most Vermonters do not think about the mountains and their importance to our water resources. I had to learn about the role mountains play in recharging our groundwater when Omya tried to open a new mine high up on a mountain in Danby. It took me 4 years to understand. We are now, as a planet, in a global water crisis where we should be placing an extraordinarily high value on the pure, high quality water that originates on our mountains. By setting the precedents ANR is by issuing these permits, they have sent the message that we do not value or respect these water resources.
If you want me to get into the details of what is so wrong with the permits that are the subject of this article, I would be glad to. But this is already long enough. Ben Luce and I are giving talks around Vermont, hoping to have exactly these kinds of conversations with people who want to learn more about wind development in Vermont. Our next talk will be Wednesday in Waterbury at 7 p.m. at the Waterbury Congregational Church at 8 Main St. These are not anti-wind forums, and we do not want to preach to the choir. We want Vermonters to engage on this issue, something we have so far failed to do. No legislative hearings, no state planning, just a helter skelter approach, with “believers” and “opponents” taking sides. We can and must do better.
Thanks
The NOTAM is from 7 AM to 7 PM. Since we have daylight before and after those times, the NOTAM cannot really be considered “an effort to restrict the public’s ability to document the progress of the development of the mountain top.”
As for the process, I share your concern with any agency relying exclusively on data from regulated entities. We see something similar in Act 250 proceedings where in most cases the only information is from developers (few opponents have the resources to hire experts).
“I have never heard of a no fly zone over any quarry site that blasts.”
Gee, could that be because the blasting occurs at sea level or below sea level, as opposed to 2-3,000 feet above sea level, where small planes actually fly?
Conspiracy theory, much?
You oppose everything, and propose nothing.
VCE is working to bring people together to solve problems. We have worked with Omya in a collaborative process, we have worked in stakeholder processes with state agencies and water system operators. We are not opposing things, we are trying to find paths forward. Big wind is a loser for our state and we know that firsthand from our work in communities.
Solar energy is the most plentiful and realistic renewable energy resource for Vermont to pursue, one that does not generate the divisiveness and hostilities that permeate wind development. I have lived off grid with solar for more than 20 years in Vermont, have solar hot water for heating and the technology works great. I hand milk a cow, grow most of my own food, work out of my home office, and live a positive life. VCE’s work with Vermonters is respected and appreciated. We are not conspiracy theorists, we are realists.
We fight for the rights of Vermonters to have a say in what goes on in their communities, to have a seat at the table and a voice in the process. Wind development takes the cake for being imbalanced, grossly unfair to communities in which these projects are proposed, and is a technology that is not in Vermont’s best interests.
We have invited three wind developers to participate in a community-based stakeholder process for big wind projects. So far they have all chosen to bully their way through rather than work with the people who are going to be most affected.
Annette,
You are a gem of a person trying to do what is best for Vermont.
A small group of multi-millionaire, Vermont oligarchs are enriching themselves with subsidy money on renewables projects that would not be built without the subsidies, and all at the expense of other Vermonters.
If any other company proposed a project that would do as much damage to the environment as the wind projects do, it would be laughed out of the state.
The short thrift regarding water is just on aspect; what about noise?
The 21 wind turbines of the Lowell Mountain facility emit noise from machinery and irregular, pulsating, whoosh-type noise from the rotors. The noises are emitted 24/7/365, for 20 or more years.
Infrasound vibrations are below 20 cps; dB measured with G-scale weighed value.
Low frequency noises, LFN, are in the range of 20 – 200 cps; dB measured with C-scale weighed value.
Most audible noises are in the range of 200 – 20,000 cps; dB measured with A-scale weighted value.
Below 20 cps (infrasound) and above 20,000 cps (ultrasound) most people do not “hear” noise, but a person’s ears are sensitive to infrasound vibrations which cause, in SOME people, nausea, headaches, sleeplessness, elevated blood pressure, etc. The vibrations often are worse indoors than outdoors due to resonating of house walls. The symptoms usually disappear after people move away and reappear after they move back. It is somewhat similar to sea sickness induced by the ship’s vibrations and motion. Some people are more susceptible than others. Soon after they are ashore, the symptoms disappear.
The symptoms studied typically are from exposure to the LFN from smaller, say 2 MW, wind turbines, with 290 ft diameter rotors, as on Lempster Mountain, New Hampshire. The 3 MW Lowell Mountain wind turbines, with 373 ft diameter rotors, on 280 ft masts, on 2,000 ft high ridge lines, will have greater impacts over larger areas.
During the day ambient noise in rural areas is much greater than at night, whereas the wind turbine noise is greater at night than during the day, because of greater wind speeds. The result is that people notice wind turbine noise much more at night than during the day.
Because there were relatively few wind turbines in the past, complaints were less. As wind turbines became more numerous and larger, complaints became more numerous.
Dismissing the effects as mostly psychological and say the physical effects are due to something else is not an option; there are just too many people near large wind turbines with complaints. It is better to
deal with the problem.
People living in flat terrain with wind turbines should be at least 1.25 miles (2 km) from any wind turbine. People living in mountainous terrain with turbines on ridge lines should be at least 2 miles (3.2 km) from any wind turbine.
http://saveourseashore.org/?tag=problems&paged=5
http://www.amherstislandwindinfo.com/pierpontpaper1.pdf
http://www.windturbinesyndrome.com/news/2011/we-experienced-nausea-headache-vertigo-inability-to-concentrate-testifies-acoustician-maine/
http://www.savewesternny.org/docs/pierpont_testimony.htmlhttp://www.windaction.org/documents/21436
http://stopturbinesincushnie.com/Letters/WTS.pdf
http://www.governing.com/topics/energy-env/Are-Wind-Farms-a.html
Decision makers in Montpelier are far away from it all. They will likely not heed the complaints from those who live near the facility. They will certainly not heed the complaints from the fauna and flora currently inhabiting this pristine ridge line. Because of them, Vermonters are in danger of loosing an international reputation of being preservers of their environment and in danger of loosing a part of their soul.
@ Smith:
Responding to your 11:17 am post. I have been following your activities for many, many years. Your organization should not be called VCE, but BANANA, for “Build Absolutely Nothing Anywhere Near Annette.”
You say you bring people together. That’s not true. You intervene, disrupt, and attempt to stop anything you don’t like. Which is everything.
You say you have collaborated with OMYA. They would not think of you as a collaborator but as someone who has opposed them at every turn and attempted to drive them out of the state.
You may have formed the opinion that solar energy is the right solution for everyone, but that is your opinion and you have no right to foist it on everyone else. Solar panels are full of toxic chemicals. Some people find solar panels and solar farms as unsighlty as you find wind turbines. And lastly, we cannot generate all of Vermont’s electricity from solar panels alone.
You say, “We fight for the rights of Vermonters to have a say in what goes on in their communities.” Some people would view it differently. You go into places and try to stop projects that people want. A majority of the people in Lowell want these wind turbines. You live in Bennington County, but you’ve decided you know better than the people who will live near the turbines and you are interfering ion THEIR faraway community.
You label the wind developers bullies. Some would say it is you who is the bully.
Mr.Foerster: The fact that a supposed majority wants something shouldn’t necessarily guarantee the okay for something happening. We know countless examples of human and environmental tragedies throughout history that have occurred while the majority either looked the other way or actually approved of the action. People with money are very capable of swaying, influencing, and propagandizing. How well were the people of Lowell informed of the facts when they voted? Who presented all the facts to them? I don’t even think that just because a precious resource lies within a geographic town boundary, that town can do whatever it wants with the land. There is something so precious about the ridgeline ecosystems, they should belong to all Vermonters. Act 250 was created to mitigate the influence of people doing whatever they want or think they need, in order to protect aspects of our environment that nobody would otherwise stand up for. These projects could never pass Act 250 if it were properly applied. Marek Pyka
Below is the URL of an article that shows wind energy does little to reduce CO2.
The article is based on analysis of real-time, 1/4-hour data of the Irish grid, posted by EirGrid on its website.
http://www.clepair.net/IerlandUdo.html
Note: Paste this URL in the left field of your browser window to access the site.
More info of the above article is in this URL
http://theenergycollective.com/willem-post/64492/wind-energy-reduces-co2-emissions-few-percent
As a 30-year pioneer in healthy, sustainable, energy and resource efficient residential construction, as an educator in sustainable design and construction (including embodied and operating energy and global warming issues), as a life-long activist against oligarchic and corporate manipulation of the commons and of our democracy, and as a one-time media coordinator for the Clamshell Alliance and co-organizer of the First National No Nukes Strategy Conference back in 1979 (which was ultimately successful on stopping nuclear power plant construction in the US for 30 years)…
I have to say that I find Vermonters for Clean Energy and all it’s spokespeople, including Annette Smith, to be highly biased and to consistently use exaggeration, hyperbole and emotionally-laden language to attempt to make their case against utility-scale wind development in Vermont.
I would, also, prefer no high-elevation development of any kind, including ski resorts, homes, powerlines and microwave towers. But, among the options for electrical power generation that are available to help Vermont achieve its sustainability goals, commercial wind is one we must include in the mix and development must occur where the wind resources are found.
It is our job as ecologically-minded Vermonters to assure that such development proceed with due regard for all human and environmental impacts. This requires community education and dissemination of objective assessments of costs and benefits, but should not tolerate the kind of prejudicial advocacy that is the common language of both proponents and opponents.
Solar resources are just as scarce in Vermont as wind resources. Rooftop solar and backyard wind turbines cannot supply our electrical needs, and any utility-scale solar energy development would have the same kind of dedicated opposition as mountaintop wind.
However, it’s clear from surveys and votes that Vermonters favor utility-scale wind development (in spite of protestations to the contrary by those who won’t let facts get in the way of their opinions). So let’s proceed as mindfully as possible and leave the propaganda out of the discussion.
Here you go Robert, no propaganda,hyperbole, exaggeration or emotionally-laden language, just the facts.
1. I was one of the 90% of Vermonters who participated in the deliberative polling of 2008 and pushed the button saying I supported wind energy even on ridgelines near my house. I knew nothing about the impacts, I was uneducated.
2. When Vermonters have voted after becoming educated, this is how they have voted. 9 town votes, 6 against, 1 to continue to study further, 2 in favor:
Londonderry voted 425-213 to oppose wind turbines on Glebe Mountain
Sheffield: 120-93 to continue to explore the wind project
Barton: 160-0 to oppose the Sheffield project
Sutton: 120-23 to oppose the Sheffield project
Manchester: 62 to 60 not to support wind turbines on Little Equinox
Readsboro: 191 to 31 to allow the Searsburg expansion in 2006, expecting 300 ft. tall turbines
Wilmington: 51-15 to oppose the Searsburg expansion
Lowell: 342-114 in favor. Irasburg, Albany, Eden, Craftsbury did not vote
Ira: 80 to 29 to support town plan that says no wind turbines on ridgelines
Now where is your evidence to support your statement that “it’s clear from surveys and votes that Vermonters favor utility-scale wind development”?
Annette and Robert,
People who major in communications in college, learn that a message must be repeated many time before it sinks in and becomes part of people’s mind set.
Plus the message must be consistent, concise, have sound bites; it must become an easily repeated mantra.
Robert is repeating the mantra, Annette is presenting the facts.
A big storm may come that blows some of the wind turbines off the ridges, then SOME people may change their minds.
Or people could have peaceful occupation of the site by the thousands, as on Wall Street, etc.
Ah, yes. Ms. Smith reverts to the age-old standard of those who have lost elections: the people who voted against me or my position weren’t educated.
Maybe there’s another explanation for Ms. Smith’s own change of heart on industrial wind power: now she’s getting paid to oppose the Lowell Wind project.
Follow the money.