Agency of Natural Resources Secretary Deb Markowitz. VTD/Josh Larkin
A proposal in Vermont’s Draft Comprehensive Energy Plan to consider rescinding a 2004 wind project moratorium on state land slipped through without consideration from the Agency of Natural Resources, according to ANR Secretary Deb Markowitz.
Due to an oversight in the drafting process, ANR never weighed in on the proposal to consider lifting the moratorium that ended up in the draft plan, Markowitz said. The current policy is appropriate, she said.
Markowitz said the “moratorium,” which prohibits large scale wind projects on ANR land is appropriate and consistent with land use practices the department supports.
“We think that the policy in place now works and is consistent with the goals of the energy policy,” Markowitz said.
To be clear, the “moratorium” on large-scale renewable energy development on state lands is not really a moratorium. In fact, the policy statement, which emerged during the Douglas administration, states: “The Agency shall actively encourage and promote development of small-scale, renewable energy applications in appropriate locations on ANR lands. (This includes ANR lands under long term lease to ski areas).” “Large-scale renewable energy projects” on such land are not permitted under the policy.
In fact, there already are turbines on state land. The agency recently held a ribbon-cutting ceremony for a wind turbine on Burke Mountain, for example, which is located on state land.
“My understanding is the final version of the plan will have taken the lifting of the moratorium out and in fact will reflect the reality that what we have is not a complete moratorium but allows the kind of flexibility that I think is appropriate to engage in renewable energy projects that is consistent with the land ownership,” she said.
Sarah Hofmann, deputy commissioner for the Department of Public Service, said the department was not giving any sneak peaks as to what would be included in the final plan, which should come out some time in mid-December.
The draft plan recommends that ANR consider lifting the moratorium. It does not rescind the policy outright.
Even if the policy did go away, Hofmann said, new projects would still have to go through the certificate of public good process, which requires the public service board to consider adverse effects on aesthetics, historic sites, air and water purity, the natural environment and the public health and safety that new electricity generation projects would cause.
The idea of rescinding the policy drew mixed reactions from environmental groups and lawmakers.
The Green Mountain Club, which works to preserve the Long Trail, wrote in its comments that it opposed the state lifting the moratorium “as long as the state continues to lack clear policy and guidelines for wind energy development projects.”
Will Wiquist, executive director of the Green Mountain Club, said his group had voiced concerns with lifting the moratorium early on. Wiquist said the club has been working for 20 years to purchase land in operation with the state and preserve it so people can enjoy the trail, which travels the length of the state from south to north. The comments filed by the club propose an evaluation of the cumulative impacts of wind project development on the landscape, considering the utility-scale wind projects on ridges at Georgia, Sheffield, and Lowell, as well as the Deerfield Expansion already in progress.
In comments to the Department of Public Service regarding the policy, the Vermont Natural Resources Council said rescinding the policy would be premature until the state completes its natural resource inventory and mapping project to determine whether state lands are
appropriate for wind development.
On the other hand, the Vermont Public Interest Research Group supported lifting the policy. Their comments state: “The current ban on wind turbines on state lands is not only unnecessary but also sends the message that wind power is somehow worse than other development that benefits the state.”
Paul Burns, executive director of VPIRG, said if the state is serious about renewable energy it needs to consider wind projects on state land, including those with more than one turbine. Like state buildings are an appropriate place to demonstrate a commitment to renewable solar energy, Burns said, land could be a demonstration of commitment to wind, subject to all environmental regulations.
“As one of the most benign forms of generating electricity, it should not be treated more harshly from a regulatory standpoint than anything else,” Burns said.
The proposal to lift the policy drew even more criticism from Sen. Peter Galbraith, D-Windham, who issued a press release last week proposing legislation that would make a prohibition of wind projects on state land a law rather than just a policy. Galbraith’s proposal would also require consent of all towns in the “viewshed” of a proposed project for an industrial-scale wind project.
Galbraith said his proposal would prohibit projects on private conservation land as well as ANR-managed land.
“If we protect land for its pristine qualities and we allow projects there, we’re defeating the purpose for which it was protected,” Galbraith said.
He said the consent of surrounding towns is only fair considering that their view may be affected more than that of a town that hosts a project.
Tony Klein, chair of the House Committee on Natural Resources and Energy, initially criticized the supposed “viewshed veto” Galbraith’s legislation would allow. Klein said approval of projects should be up to the state Public Service Board.
Klein said his concerns involve the proposal that surrounding towns have an effective veto more than the moratorium in general. He said it is more of a “feel-good” moratorium anyway, since there is really no appropriate siting for large-scale projects on state lands that anyone is currently aware of.
Permalink |
Paul Burns’ characterization as of “wind projects” as “one of the most benign forms” illustrates either his unwittingly revealed ignorance of the devastating consequences of industrial-scale wind or, worse, a calculated denial of the truth.
Burns’ simplistic explanation would have the public believe “wind” in Vermont is as harmless as breezes caught in the sails of a schooner. In fact, corporate industrial-scale wind development, as GMP’s Sheffield and Lowell project prove, are massively and irrevocably destructive to all forms of mountain wildnerness and wildlife. One might easily call this desecration malignant.
Not only has Burns not visited the National Renewable Energy Laboratory website (www.nrel.org), from his armchair, he has not bothered to climb Lowell Mountain to see for himself the current dismantling at the hands of corporate wind. Were he to walk the walk, he’d learn that corporate industrial-scale is by definition, not in the least “benign”.
As VPIRG’s executive director is, I believe, Burns doing immeasurable harm to VPIRG’s long-standing dedication to advocacy and education on behalf of Vermonters. Finally, as one who recently had the unpleasant experience of attempting a conversation with Burns’ at the recent Forum on “corporate personhood”, I received his wrathful response to those of us who spoke that night in opposition to corporate industrial-scale wind projects. He called us “immoral” for having exercised our constitutionally guaranteed right to Free Speech, as if the Forum belonged to VPIRG.
We The People know better and will not tolerate such arrogance.
Permalink |
Would someone please explain to me and other Vermont citizens how three political appointees – the Public Service Board – have the combined knowledge with regard to experience and professional education to effectively, and without prejudice, “consider adverse effects on aesthetics, historic sites, air and water purity, the natural environment and the public health and safety” of industrial wind turbine sites? Have these political appointees taken the time to visit any of the proposed sites, or go atop Mount Mansfield to get a sense of the magnitude of the destruction of our natural resources that they endorse in the name of industrial wind projects? Have they listened, without prejudice, to any national experts who believe that developing industrial wind projects in Vermont is not a prudent approach to solving Vermont’s electrical energy needs?
Permalink |
The Board has a substantial professional staff. It is not just three lone appointees.
That they approved the project does not make them prejudiced. They just came to a different conclusion.
Permalink |
Thank you Senator Galbraith for your wise legislative initiative. We in the NEK, whose natural landscape beauty is being daily violated, hope you’re successful.
Permalink |
If you have not been up to view the Lowell wind site, I uge you to do so, because these projects are coming to a ridge line near you. GMP has been checking out over 200 miles of potential ridge lines in our state. I say stop them and figure out why we are wasting so much energy on useless things like Jay Peak’s new water park. We have GOT to stop inventing new ways of wasting energy.
Permalink |
The destruction of Vermont ridge lines of state lands to have 3,000 kW, mostly foreign, wind turbines on them that are 459 feet tall (taller than a 45-story building), and have 373 diameter rotors (longer than a 300-ft football field), and emit health-damaging infrasound and low frequency noise 24/7/365, to produce variable and intermittent energy with subsidies equivalent to about 50% of the capital cost at about 9 to 10 cent per kWh (unsubsidized it would be about 15 c/kWh) is a waste of scarce resources Vermont can ill afford.
Wind energy does not reduce CO2 nearly as much as claimed by wind promotors.
See URLs.
http://theenergycollective.com/willem-post/64492/wind-energy-reduces-co2-emissions-few-percent
http://www.clepair.net/IerlandUdo.html
http://docs.wind-watch.org/BENTEK-How-Less-Became-More.pdf
http://www.clepair.net/windSchiphol.html
Such projects mostly exist to enable limited liability corporations, LLCs, to shelter the high incomes of their partners from taxes.
It would be much wiser, and more economical, to shift subsidies away from expensive renewables, that produce just a little of expensive, variable, intermittent energy, towards increased EE. Those renewables would not be needed, if we use those funds for increased EE.
EE is the low-hanging fruit, has not scratched the surface, is by far the best approach, because it provides the quickest and biggest “bang for the buck”, AND it is invisible, AND it does not make noise, AND it does not destroy pristine ridge lines/upset mountain water runoffs, AND it would reduce CO2, NOx, SOx and particulates more effectively than renewables, AND it would not require expensive, highly visible build-outs of transmission systems, AND it would slow electric rate increases, AND it would slow fuel cost increases, AND it would slow depletion of fuel resources, AND it would create 3 times the jobs and reduce 3-5 times the Btus and CO2 per invested dollar than renewables, AND all the technologies are fully developed, AND it would end the subsidizing of renewables tax-shelters benefitting mostly the top 1% at the expense of the other 99%, AND it would be more democratic/equitable, AND it would do all this without public resistance and controversy.
http://theenergycollective.com/willem-post/46652/reducing-energy-use-houses
http://theenergycollective.com/willem-post/61774/wind-energy-expensive
http://theenergycollective.com/willem-post/71771/energy-efficiency-first-renewables-later
Permalink |
I am inclined to believe that corporations focusing on profits are not the entities that I would like making decisions about the natural environment. I agree that being wary of such “persons” is wise. I would prefer small scale work that is less likely to lose sight of the neighbors.
Permalink |
Doug,
It is reasonable to think most members of the professional staff of the PSB would likely have mindsets similar to the 3 members of the board.
If not, they might find themselves too much at odds and too stressed and might wish to work elsewhere.
That so many people, including professionals testifying before the board claim to have been ignored, claim to feel as if speaking to a wall, leads one to question the objectivity and political orientation of the board.